Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
Hi Brent, On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/7/2013 5:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. Nazism was not Fascism. It borrowed from Fascism but it added mystic racism, Hitler cult, and genocide. Brent Didn't imply that. Much less I'd say... if someone's wearing a Mussolini corporate state control merger fascism-pin, as implied by your quote of Mussolini, then it doesn't matter to me which other pins, mystical or belief (what was that difference again?) based, that person wears: It would make a difference to me. A fascist just has a bad idea about the relation of the state, the corporation and the individual. A nazi is a racist who believes that there is a superior Aryan race which should rule over all other people and that there are inferior races that should be exterminated. Sure, but then you miss bidirectional implication between the two, which you don't, when you comment on extremism in the other thread. Not a simple matter of keeping ideologies seperate, as it's clear Italy and Japan were constitutionally racist at the period in question because you simply always need to pin your extreme state-corporate merger idea to some ideal: nationalist, religious etc. Consequently, you need to construct out-group narratives as inferior, impure, degenerate foes to rid ourselves off + messianic party leaders, games, sports heroes and such since antique. To some weaker or stronger extent, take your pick, like the drug war, terror, Russians in cold war and so on. Extremism taken literally and held over periods of time in any large scale political package, be it left, right, religious, mystical, green carries the same fundamentalist idiocy in its wake that leads to a lot of pain for power's sake. Put simply, it doesn't matter what it clothes itself in. In fact, falling prey to the different guises, in the sense you emphasize differentiation is perhaps even harmful: we should always recognize each other and the world around us when extremely reductionist statements are made by uhm... highly enthusiastic agents/interest. Differentiation leaves place for people to argue: Yeah well, this time is different... extraordinary measures justify etc. Result is always... and difference is more a matter of degree, more than narrative or beliefs masking power grabs. Difference lies more in how many people had to die and suffer this time; rather than taking the ideological bs seriously outside of gauging historically how they framed problems we face and will be facing. they are
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. Nazism was not Fascism. It borrowed from Fascism but it added mystic racism, Hitler cult, and genocide. Brent Didn't imply that. Much less I'd say... if someone's wearing a Mussolini corporate state control merger fascism-pin, as implied by your quote of Mussolini, then it doesn't matter to me which other pins, mystical or belief (what was that difference again?) based, that person wears: they are fascist in that precise sense. They might be Japanese, play scrabble, and be slightly overweight too, which is absolutely, definitely healthy ;) An adherent to Nazism is a fascist via the corporate-state-merger-idea and reasoning, although the reverse is not necessary. Nazism did not merely borrow this: the whole economic upswing in the early Nazi years can be traced to the merger idea, and Germany took this as far as it could. If corporations didn't play ball: leave or die. They were facist or corporatist in this precise sense, and the cult/mysticism (difference to belief, I ask again? Isn't any belief system viewed externally just 'mysticism' in pejorative sense?) didn't change this: it enforced it. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/7/2013 5:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. Nazism was not Fascism. It borrowed from Fascism but it added mystic racism, Hitler cult, and genocide. Brent Didn't imply that. Much less I'd say... if someone's wearing a Mussolini corporate state control merger fascism-pin, as implied by your quote of Mussolini, then it doesn't matter to me which other pins, mystical or belief (what was that difference again?) based, that person wears: It would make a difference to me. A fascist just has a bad idea about the relation of the state, the corporation and the individual. A nazi is a racist who believes that there is a superior Aryan race which should rule over all other people and that there are inferior races that should be exterminated. they are fascist in that precise sense. They might be Japanese, play scrabble, and be slightly overweight too, which is absolutely, definitely healthy ;) An adherent to Nazism is a fascist via the corporate-state-merger-idea and reasoning, although the reverse is not necessary. Nazism did not merely borrow this: the whole economic upswing in the early Nazi years can be traced to the merger idea, and Germany took this as far as it could. If corporations didn't play ball: leave or die. They were facist or corporatist in this precise sense, and the cult/mysticism (difference to belief, I ask again? Isn't any belief system viewed externally just 'mysticism' in pejorative sense?) didn't change this: it enforced it. No, the arguments made for fascism and communism were mostly rational. The argument for the superiority of an Aryan race and the significance of Blud und Volk was purely an emotional appeal to the German ego (corruption as Alberto would say). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.
Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the ?tate took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.? So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. How so? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the ?tate took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.? So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-06, 14:08:54 *Subject:* Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so. On 1/6/2013 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. How so? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. PGC -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. That's like saying Hitler's Germany was just one form of Nazism, or China 1945 to 1976 was just one form of Maoism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
