Re: Mind's Eye Re: Aliens, Slavery and Resources

Hey Rigs, how about a future trip at when it's getting warmer again?

Archimedes said - so the legend goes - that a firm resting place was
all he needed to dislodge the world from its axes. As much as this
assertion is based upon mechanical law, it also questions the
conditions of such an ideal position or theoretical perspective in the
first place. Over time, the Archimedean point has come to stand for
the seemingly paradoxical situation of acting both within and
extraneously to a given context. Copernicus' "displacement" of the
earth in favor of a heliocentric system is just one well-known
example. After the Renaissance, literary, philosophical, political and
scientific thinking has conjured the Archimedean point both naively
and with skepticism, but always at those moments when a subject seems
poised to claim an ideal theoretical standpoint. Under what conditions
do we see such thinkers as Descartes, the German and British
Romantics, and, in the twentieth century, Arendt, Blumenberg, Luhmann,
and Latour, summoning the figure of Archimedes and the topos of the
Archimedean point? To what degree does this point have a cultural and
political history? Or, more generally, under what conditions do we see
theories, figures and observations of "the whole" called into question?


They are still calling out for papers
(http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Germanistik&month=1210&week=d&msg=LRMfgVJQt1Vf%2bfxqWZPGcA&user=&pw=)
I am sure they won't mind if you pick different names to compare with.


On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are many "beliefs" that are false and unreasonable. Humans can
> be very gullible.
>
> On Oct 28, 12:20 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well that is true Rigsy, and perhaps your prediction is also true. However
>> religious faith is 'unreasonable' belief. As it is my stance that we all
>> hold to some of these along the way, then perhaps it is a wholly
>> human/sentient being trait and we'll not be rid of it, only time will tell.
>> Just one of the reasons I want to reach at least 400 years old.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:52:50 PM UTC, rigsy03 wrote:
>>
>> > Really? What about the Italian scientists who face prison time for
>> > failing to predict the severity of an earthquake? What harmony under
>> > the mantle of monotheism? Science and technology will make god(s)
>> > obsolete and society can still be managed through various value
>> > systems based on new realities and methods of control. Presently, we
>> > are trying to integrate two oppositional positions which accounts for
>> > a good amount of absurdity and disappointment. As extinct creatures
>> > might have warned us, sentimentality is deadly.
>>
>> > On Oct 28, 2:12 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I really do not see much beyond monotheism atheism holds little but
>> > > wishful madness, and as for polytheism the universes would be totally
>> > > different.. Just doesn't work.. You are right arrogance is a
>> > > tremendous problem which I seriously doubt man will over come.. those
>> > > that are arrogant have little reason to change.. It is the monotheism
>> > > that keeps some what harmony,, the problems I see come from man
>> > > changing the laws of God that have been handed down through the
>> > > generations .. It seems these changes are really designed to benefit
>> > > them and their goals.
>>
>> > > without a singular God there would be no harmony even with in nature
>> > > and the predictability of science would disappear.
>> > > Allan
>>
>> > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:12 AM, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > I agree with S. W. Hawking where this is unknown territory, we have a
>> > > > tendency to being destructive and careless. We must evolve if we wish
>> > to
>> > > > survive, boldly while trying to work out that Achilles heel
>> > (arrogance).
>>
>> > > > Allan I was thinking similarly in part, I am not so sure monotheism is
>> > for
>> > > > everyone though. Where people can devise stories to fit a niche in
>> > nature,
>> > > > then further reconcile from that I think there is much less to say on
>> > God
>> > > > than people might, it may even be sacrilege to do so. In the sense of
>> > > > attempting authority on the nameless, a belligerent act so to speak.
>> > > > Agrarian civilization, centralization of authority, and cultural
>> > homogeneity
>> > > > (dare add monotheism) have allowed us to achieve major advancements
>> > but I
>> > > > question that we are approaching or even on track with a 'destination
>> > > > truth'. It seems we are a hollow shell filled with culture, but
>> > shouldn't it
>> > > > be the other way around?!
>>
>> > > > I keep looking, but I'm just not seeing that 10% innovation in the
>> > > > population, there is some serious parasitic drag somewhere in our
>> > equations.
>> > > > Sorry so subjective tonight Al. :)
>>
>> > > > On 10/26/2012 1:12 PM, Allan H wrote:
>>
>> > > >> The foundations of most of the religions are not that far apart.. it
>> > is
>> > > >> the interpretation of them that gets the idea screwed up.. It seems
>> > > >> though that the creator places people that have a better link and can
>> > > >> help straighten the cultures so there is hope as to maintain the
>> > same
>> > > >> ideas. so I think that there us a very real possibility that common
>> > > >> ground is available.
>>
>> > > >> poking a nd prodding out of curiosity is to be expected it is called
>> > > >> curiosity.
>> > > >> Allan
>>
>> > > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>>
>> > > >> On Oct 26, 2012 3:18 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com
>> > > >> <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> Ohhh I don't know Andrew.
>>
>> > > >> As I have said we can of course speculate on all sorts of things
>> > > >> about alien life, but seeing as we can only ever think about from
>> > > >> our particular species POV, I question how useful such
>> > speculation
>> > > >> would be. I think the most logical deduction we could make is to
>> > > >> say 'Well I really don't know', and that is indeed my line.
>>
>> > > >> Heh of course having said that and in the spirit of pure
>> > > >> speculation, given that our current understanding of universal
>> > > >> principles, and laws of physics etc.. seem to encompass the
>> > totality
>> > > >> of the universe, I do not think it incorrect to draw some
>> > > >> speculative conclusions.
>>
>> > > >> Would alien lifeforms be carbon based as on our planet? I
>> > > >> suspect probably yes, but there are reasons enough to suppose
>> > > >> otherwise also.
>>
>> > > >> Would then non carbon life forms form different morality than
>> > carbon
>> > > >> based life forms? Umm well I'm going with 'I don't know' for
>> > this
>> > > >> one, as I lack an in depth understanding of neurology.
>>
>> > > >> As a theist who believes in a single creator God though I would
>> > have
>> > > >> to agree with Allan.
>>
>> > > >> A large part of my struggle is with the message of God. Trying
>> > to
>> > > >> recompense different religions with this single message is hard.
>> > I
>> > > >> try to imagine that all religions are valid and look for
>> > > >> the similarities, I rather suspect as I grow I will have to claim
>> > > >> that some are wholly false and man made whilst others are
>> > > >> the direct message from God albeit fucked with by mankind for his
>> > > >> own nefarious ends(Christianity for example). So then the job
>> > > >> becomes separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
>>
>> > > >> How would intelligent alien life cope with God's message I
>> > wonder,
>> > > >> and would they be in the boat as we? Perhaps they have no idea of
>> > a
>> > > >> God at all? Or perhaps they may be the only beings who hold to
>> > the
>> > > >> truth? Ahhh once again, I'm forced to say I don't know.
>>
>> > > >> Let us endeavour to understand the other sentient creatures we
>> > share
>> > > >> this planet with first, then just maybe we can make better
>> > educated
>> > > >> guesses.
>>
>> > > >> Heh yes you can assume from that I am in favour of granting
>> > > >> personhood upon those 'higher order' animals, enshrouded in law.
>>
>> > > >> On Friday, 26 October 2012 10:22:52 UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
>>
>> > > >> I agree. Extra terrestrial visitors to earth would not be
>> > > >> comparable to us. They would have different values and
>> > morals.
>> > > >> They would find all life sacred and would respect it, no
>> > matter
>> > > >> how depraved or primitive. Perhaps they were the ones who
>> > seeded
>> > > >> earth in the first place. They would probably recognize our
>> > > >> weaknesses and would let us either survive to our next stage
>> > or
>> > > >> let us destroy ourselves.
>>
>> > > >> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:19:42 PM UTC+2, William L.
>> > > >> Houts William L. Houts Lukaeon William L. Houts wrote:
>>
>> > > >> All right, I just wanted to run this by you guys. I know
>> > it
>> > > >> seems I'm
>> > > >> always rattlling on about aliens, but they're really a
>> > stand
>> > > >> in for,
>> > > >> well, for a lot of things. Anyway, I've been on Facebook
>> > > >> and recently
>> > > >> made a status report commenting on the conversation we
>> > had
>> > > >> going on here
>> > > >> about hypothetical aliens and what they might or might
>> > not
>> > > >> want from
>> > > >> us. And I was making the point that I made here: that
>> > said
>> > > >> aliens will
>> > > >> turn out to be just as befuddled by it all as we are, and
>> > > >> are probably
>> > > >> in no position to give us the goods on life's mysteries,
>> > or
>> > > >> even make a
>> > > >> good cocktail.
>>
>> > > >> Now, my friend Matt, who is very smart but also very
>> > bitchy,
>> > > >> put forth
>> > > >> Professor Hawking's notion: that we'd better keep our
>> > heads
>> > > >> down low,
>> > > >> because history tells us that when a more technologically
>> > > >> advanced
>> > > >> species meets a less developed one, the results are
>> > usually
>> > > >> horrible for
>> > > >> the latter. I replied that yes, this does seem to be the
>> > > >> pattern in
>> > > >> Earth history. But, I went on, races which manage to
>> > break
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> lightspeed barrier are going to have better things to do
>> > > >> than enslave 7
>> > > >> billion people, or even mistreat them very much. Their
>> > > >> energy problems,
>> > > >> I said more or less, will have been solved to such an
>> > extent
>> > > >> that they
>> > > >> won't have to vampirize us. Matt made it clear that he
>> > > >> thought I was
>> > > >> being terrifically naive.
>>
>> > > >> Now, Mat is quickly becoming a sour old queen, but I want
>> > to
>> > > >> know: with
>> > > >> whom would you agree? Or is there a third answer which I
>> > > >> haven't
>> > > >> proposed here?
>>
>> > > >> --Bill
>>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> "I just flew in from the Land of the Dead
>> > > >> and boy are my arms tired."
>>
>> > > >> --
>>
>> > > >> --
>>
>> > > > --
>>
>> > > --
>> > > (
>> > > )
>> > > |_D Allan
>>
>> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>>
>> > > I am a Natural Airgunner -
>>
>> > > Full of Hot Air & Ready To
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>
>
>

--