will.//Economics was not designed to be sympathetic- it's simply an
attempt to explain the nuts and bolts of materialism.
On Dec 21, 10:49 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "In the context of history, religion has often been concernedwith
> economics and particularly freedom from debt."
>
> At least one particular view of history tends to indicate that the
> Builders ( like Nimrod, whose system is in practice and strongly
> applied today ), institutes religion and politics to mass absolute
> control. Economics is simply a heartless result.
>
> Which is why I advocate establishing a relationship with that creative
> force within us, by what ever terms we recognize it. That energy will
> evolve the human race beyond their needs as long as the individuals
> remain properly charged and teach Men (Humans) to do so. We get to
> this level by two simple Rules or Laws; i.e., Keeping this Energy ever
> before us and insure that our decisions are moral and just, especially
> in those heated and pressured moments. Societies have gotten lost in
> ancient attempts to test or defy these rules, because the language
> was lost, so to speak. Then what Knowledge was found was keep secrete
> from all but the few. The few gives the rest of the world Religion and
> Politics.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:53 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > We can only change ourselves, alas.
>
> > On Dec 20, 9:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I was watching a program on the Mayans and the writings about the
> >> milkyway being on the horizon.
>
> >> What I am seeing is the guilt complex where people know what is going on
> >> is wrong with the waste of resources are looking for a super natural
> >> solution to these problems. It seems they are wanting to say they saw I
> >> coming rather than doing what they can to change it.
> >> Allan
> >> On Dec 20, 2011 2:32 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On second thought, I was thinking of Thomas Mann when I wrote this,
> >> > and it has been a few decades since I read him. It has only been a
> >> > decade since I read the Moore work and his ideas on soul. Refresh my
> >> > memory, I am thinking you meant there is not enough evidence of soul
> >> > in the world, as many are not in touch with it.
>
> >> > On Dec 20, 7:57 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Thomas Moore was an interesting guy. Very poignant writing yet ended
> >> > > up following hitler in the end, and his art fell apart, having lost
> >> > > his soul maybe.
>
> >> > > On Dec 19, 1:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > I could not disagree with that Molly - though something of the
> >> > > > "invisible hand" spooks me in all argument. I'm as sure as Thomas
> >> > > > Moore that we lack soul, but want something that differentiates mad
> >> > > > people like Ayn Rand and reason.
>
> >> > > > On Dec 19, 11:31 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Morals and ethics that are entrenched in right and wrong and exclude
> >> > > > > or separate are human indeed, but have not yet seen the light of
> >> > > > > spirit. Much of religion, the "religion" mentioned in this discussion
> >> > > > > is of this. The individual journey of the heart to the non dual
> >> > > > > experience reaps the knowing that spirit includes and is revealed
> >> > > > > between the opposites, uniting them. Once this becomes the
> >> > individual
> >> > > > > view, the world of the non dual and all who share it is revealed.
> >> > > > > Words can only point the way and always fall short if the reader
> >> > > > > cannot connect the opposites with spirit. It takes a transcendence
> >> > > > > that can then forever be remembered. It makes time and space and
> >> > > > > opposition poignant and irrelevant. They don't disappear, but are
> >> > not
> >> > > > > important (or more automatic to be precise). A different ethics, one
> >> > > > > that is innate but forgotten, emerges. One that is not concerned
> >> > with
> >> > > > > right and wrong as it has been unified in spirit, aspects of the same
> >> > > > > element. One that unites, and sees conflict for what it is, the
> >> > realm
> >> > > > > of death (that is integral to life.) All of this is already present
> >> > > > > everywhere. It is the view that changes our experience, relationship
> >> > > > > and dynamic of it.
>
> >> > > > > On Dec 19, 2:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
> >> > > > > > Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not
> >> > sure
> >> > > > > > the smell is sweet! Academe seems to have entirely failed in
> >> > > > > > providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of
> >> > how
> >> > > > > > the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way. I
> >> > > > > > broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too
> >> > much
> >> > > > > > current influence when we could do better etc. I suspect, though,
> >> > > > > > this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
> >> > > > > > feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something
> >> > wrong
> >> > > > > > with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > rest of the fables. A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
> >> > > > > > years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
> >> > > > > > religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
> >> > > > > > I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one -
> >> > LOL -
> >> > > > > > no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
> >> > > > > > required. The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
> >> > > > > > closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
> >> > > > > > dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they
> >> > claim
> >> > > > > > is a greater good. "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
> >> > > > > > appeal and is full of moral urging.
> >> > > > > > It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
>
> >> > > > > > On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
> >> > > > > > > "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to
> >> > technology. And
> >> > > > > > > I could add many names from history/economic development that
> >> > > > > > > discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
> >> > > > > > > belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an
> >> > alternative
> >> > > > > > > to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy
> >> > medium.
>
> >> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one
> >> > example
> >> > > > > > > > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy.
> >> > More
> >> > > > > > > > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what
> >> > kind of
> >> > > > > > > > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One
> >> > form of
> >> > > > > > > > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep
> >> > divisions. Ad
> >> > > > > > > > hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a
> >> > conference
> >> > > > > > > > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally
> >> > malevolent
> >> > > > > > > > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom -
> >> > that
> >> > > > > > > > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice
> >> > (there
> >> > > > > > > > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as
> >> > atheists
> >> > > > > > > > being immoral).
> >> > > > > > > > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a
> >> > digest
> >> > > > > > > > might be as follows:
>
> >> > > > > > > > Dialogue types:
> >> > > > > > > > Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal
> >> > Goal of Dialogue
> >> > > > > > > > Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party
> >> > Resolve Issue
> >> > > > > > > > Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove
> >> > Hypothesis
> >> > > > > > > > Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis
> >> > Support Hypothesis
> >> > > > > > > > Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests
> >> > Settle Issue
> >> > > > > > > > Information Need Information Acquire Information
> >> > Exchange Information
> >> > > > > > > > Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions
> >> > Decide What to Do
> >> > > > > > > > Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal
> >> > Deep Conflict
>
> >> > > > > > > > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> >> > > > > > > > 1.an account of the principles of communication which
> >> > argumentative
> >> > > > > > > > exchange depends upon;
> >> > > > > > > > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which
> >> > argument
> >> > > > > > > > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > > > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference
> >> > between
> >> > > > > > > > scientific discussion and negotiation);
> >> > > > > > > > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it
> >> > can be
> >> > > > > > > > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude)
> >> > is a
> >> > > > > > > > logical consequence of another;
> >> > > > > > > > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of
> >> > argument and
> >> > > > > > > > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need
> >> > to be
> >> > > > > > > > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the
> >> > simplest
> >> > > > > > > > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally
> >> > different
> >> > > > > > > > kinds of argument);
> >> > > > > > > > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general
> >> > criteria for
> >> > > > > > > > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> >> > > > > > > > definitions of positive argument schema which define good
> >> > patterns of
> >> > > > > > > > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks
> >> > against
> >> > > > > > > > the person; etc.);
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário