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" <mollyb363@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.);
> > > > > > 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> > > > > > cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> > > > > > 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> > > > > > rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> > > > > > 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> > > > > > arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> > > > > > Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> > > > > > Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> > > > > > What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> > > > > > as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> > > > > > coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> > > > > > want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> > > > > > dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> > > > > > "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> > > > > > In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> > > > > > fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> > > > > > under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> > > > > > question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> > > > > > a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> > > > > > moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> > > > > > with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> > > > > > for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> > > > > > of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> > > > > > spirituality.
>
> > > > > > It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> > > > > > appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> > > > > > talking about yet!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário