like Amma says:
anyone who has a mind/ego is mad/insane because the mind/ego is
madness/insanity
that's the nature of the egoic mind !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Angela,
I think Laws of Form and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
are about all one needs to see how challenging it is to be a knower of
reality.
First of all, no one with less than, say, 140 I.Q. can even understand
the math of Laws let alone apply those truths to the soft
disciplines, and secondly, no one can overcome the problem of waiting
for old farts to die without having extraordinary charisma or other
rare thingie going for them.
Hawking's disability may have actually helped him have more street
cred since he obviously was virtually possessed with a desire for
truth and, well, he not only didn't have anything better to do, it was
the ONLY thing he could do. (...ignoring his divorces, his love/hate
relationships with his helpers, etc. but of course.)
Einstein et al were brains as rare as lottery wins, and even so, they
took decades to get their ideas out there and being taught to the
masses. If Einstein and Bohr were alive today, they'd still be
hacking at each other's theories by rolling Hawkings' wheelchair
viciously back and forth in a game of pong between them.
And then, of course, no matter the size of the intellect, nukes get
invented and used, death rays get invented and used, and on and on --
high I.Q. seems to have almost no correlation with morality, and hey,
toss in the gifted artists of the world and there's no correlation
with morality there either -- Hitler was not a bad artist, Nero could
play the violin! (ahem.)
I still love Maharishi's saying, Getting a PhD is no guarantee -- one
could still be insane. Indeed, many mad scientists WERE insane --
Cavendish could not stand the presence of a woman -- though he
employed many in his household -- would fire any woman on the spot if
he bumped into one mistakenly in his manse. Yet he weighed the Earth
itself and discovered Hydrogen. And Fritz Haber, a nobel prize
winner, invented a new and wonderful method for Germany to make poison
gas and is rightly called the father of chemical warfare. Later, when
he fled Nazi Germany and landed in England, the welcoming group of
famous scientists refused to shake his hand alone of all the other
scientists who escaped Germany in the same boat as Haber. Issac
Asimov said, Science has known sin now.
And inside this box, right here, is a cat. There's no way to tell if
the cat is alive or dead unless you open the box. And whether or not
we can ever know the answer without opening the box is a problem that
divides physics right down the middle even today.
Sigh.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ wrote:
Having spent my entire adult life in universities, the
fact that there is no academic freedom is more than
obvious to me. I've said this many times before on
this list. It is true in the humanities and it is
true in the sciences. Everyone has heard of Thomas
Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(1962), and the process is exactly the one discussed
in the first video: evidence contrary to the current
paradigm is ignored. And when it gets overwhelming,
it gets suppressed because careers depend on the
current paradigm. Think about it: you'd have to
re-educate your comfortable old self, your
publications and your lecture notes would be obsolete,
and you would be a sorry-ass has-been. So the whole
book about how scientific revolutions occur can be
summed up as follows: old farts die.
The video says that the conspiracy to cover up
evidence to the contrary of the current paradigm isn't
deliberate--well, I don't know enough about what goes
on in the sciences (other than linguistics) to have
much more than a suspicion, but in the humanities
(including and especially in linguistics), I am sure
it is deliberate--in that area I've done my homework.
Contrary to Judy's opinion, however, I am not a
conspiracy theorist. When the evidence is
overwhelming, it's no longer a theory. One piece of
evidence is only a point. Two points, and you can
draw a line. Three points, and you've got a field in
which the points multiply exponentially and yield a
rich and revealing harvest.
--- Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
Why haven't we heard about this evidence before?
Perhaps because the other evidence is so
overwhelming?
--- Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John
jr_esq@ wrote:
To All:
See this show (Forbidden Archeology),
narrated
by Charleton
