"If you sincerely desire a truly well-rounded education, you must study the extremists, the obscure and "nutty". You need the balance! Your poor brain is already being impregnated with middle-of-the-road crap, twenty-four hours a day, no matter what. Network TV, newspapers, radio, magazines at the supermarket...even if you never watch, read, listen, or leave your house, even if you are deaf and blind, the telepathic pressure alone of the uncountable normals surrounding you will insure that you are automatically well-grounded in consensus reality."
Rev. Ivan Stang (b.1949) High Weirdness By Mail, 1988
So, dear readers, who are the extremists who would be good to read today in order to escape the consensus?
The Impermissible Thoughts of ________ JAMES P.HOGAN _________ ____KICKING THE SACRED COW___ Questioning the Unquestionable and thinking the Impermissible
******** 2004 $24 US *********
Great read. Mildly put James P. is unconventional. No! James P. hates convention.
James P. defends Velikovsky. Finds Global warming a bandwagon plot. Laughs at the evidence for the Big Bang. Poo-poos Evoloution. Makes a case against any AIDS/virus connection. Declares the Theory of Relativity irrelevant.
And believe it or not, he makes a convincing case for each!
Faldage: Well, you've convinced me I ain' spending no $24 on this book.
Etaoin: JAMES P.HOGAN? I allus thought he was a science-fiction writer...
Milum: Ah, you two. Do you two not realize that your banal clichés are serving the interests of the self-interest consensus?
James P. Hogan: " This book is not concerned with cranks and simple die-hards, who are entitled to their foibles and come as part of life's pattern. Rather, it looks at instances of present day orthodoxies tenaciously defending beliefs in the face of what would appear to be verified fact and plain logic, or doggedly closing eyes and minds to ideas whose time has surely come. In short, where scientific authority seems to be functioning more in the role of religion protecting doctrine and putting down heresy than championing the spirit of free inquiry that science should be."
Faldage, you are much the spendthrift, when James P.'s book achieves paperback status I'll send you a copy. Free.
>I allus thought he was a science-fiction writer...
...and not a very good one, at that.
edit: Though most of [his readers] either share or accept his right-wing politics, and tolerate his editorial intrusions about personal bette noires like the ecology movement, JPH's extreme awkwardness as a stylist and creator of character has made his [SF] books difficult, at times, actually to read. - John Clute, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
instances of present day orthodoxies tenaciously defending beliefs in the face of what would appear to be verified fact
Science is all about overturning received knowledge. If a theory is accepted by the main body of science you best know what you're talking about if you're thinking of overturning it. For someone to be so knowlegeable as to challenge the establishment in so many fields as your Mr. Hogan appears to claim to be, he must be far beyond polymath.
Dang. I always thought he was a great writer. I loved his Gentle Giants series and his Code of the Lifemaker is among my all time favorites.
Unfortunately, it now appears he is a crank. In the case of evolution at least, I think the problem isn't with scientists defending orthodoxy, so much as creationists passing around incorrect information about evolution as if THAT were established fact.
I'm not aware of any facts that disprove evolution. But I know of dozens of false statements that are promoted as facts which claim to disprove it.
Einstein was unorthodox, but while there are cranks who believe he was a fraud, his harshest intellectual critics acknowledged he was brilliant. Two luminaries of QM were discussing the subject of Einstein's criticisms and one asked the other (I believe it was Paul Dirac asking Erwin Schroedinger) whether it was possible that Einstein just didn't understand the theory. Schroedinger's response was immediate and was something along the lines of "There aren't two dozen people on the planet who understand this theory and I'm quite sure Einstein is among them."
Unorthodox, but not a crank. Einstein had demonstrated mastery of the subject matter. He didn't stumble across some QM papers and suddenly proclaim everyone elses work to be stupid.
Richard Feynman was unorthodox, but few people who worked with him doubted his genius (despite his unremarkable score of 125 on a HS IQ test). Even people who hated him thought he was brilliant.
Just because someone is smart, doesn't mean he isn't a crank. A key factor, imo, is whether the person makes absolutely pronouncements, usually denouncements in an area in which he has demonstrated no particular competence.
Contrast these with the creationist cranks. William Dembski is among the new crowd of creationists, called IDers. ID = Intelligent design. These guys spread around misinformation continually as if it were fact - and then don't bother to check up on it. It's mind-boggling really. Dembski is particularly sly. He picks an area of scientific inquiry that is especially opaque to the outsider and supports his theses with legitimate, though obscure, mathematical theorems. Now, these mathematical theorems - called the NFL theorems (NFL = No Free Lunch) are the legitimate product of certified geniuses. Dembski starts out as if he's going to give a mathematical analysis and deduction from the NFLs. Unfortunately, he never gets around to actually proving his case. If he had any sense he'd be embarrassed. David Wolpert, one of the developers of NFL has said that Dembski's theories are "written in Jello." ( check out http:// www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm )
The fact is that Dembski is a moonie who took up science in the first place for the sole purpose not of discovering the truth, but of disproving evolution. Yes, these creatonists are certainly an open-minded lot.
Hey Posters. How about before we proceed with our replies to Wordwind's opening question....
So, dear readers, who are the extremists who would be good to read today in order to escape the consensus?
...let us together review the responses she has received both germane and otherwise thus far.
Germane Otherwise
of troy responded with an obsevation that the problem was related to chaos theory. Themilum kindly suggested a book by a writer who people peopled in consensus reality might think extreme. Jackie then said that she loved the wit of of troy.
Then Faldage said that he weren't spending no $24 for that book.
Etaoin: Right-on. Besides that guy is a science fiction writer.
And not a very good one. said tsuwm
Faldage: If a theory is accepted by the main body of science you best know what you're talking about if you're thinking of overturning it.
The FallibleFiend said Dang. I always thought he was a great writer. Unfortunately, it now appears he is a crank.
Hmm, it seems that the lynch pin mob here guards diligently against heresy...tell you what, Awaders, below is a summary of a news release put out today by the United Nation's World Health Organization on AIDs which is bunk. Read it. I'll be back to debunk it, using only James P. Hogan's words from his book.
Report: Nearly Half of Adults with HIV Are Women
* (Note: My personal comments are in red the green wording is verbatim from Hogan's book.)
Nov 23, 7:38 AM (ET) By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Women make up nearly half of the 37.2 million adults living with HIV and in sub-Saharan Africa the proportion rises to almost 60 percent, according to a UN report released Tuesday.
What blatant spin! Quick - how many women in sub-Saharan Africa have tested positive for HIV?
"Increasingly the face of AIDS is young and female," said Dr Kathleen Cravero, deputy executive director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).
Science By Press Conference:"A concerted campaign across the schools and campuses was doing its part to terrorize young people over the ravages of teenage AIDS. Again, figures tell a different story. The number of cases in New York City reported by the CDC for ages 13-19 from 1981 to the end of 1992 were 872. When homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and hemophiliacs are eliminated, the number left not involving these risks (or admitting to them) reduces to a grand total of 16 in an eleven year period. (Yes, 16. You did read that right.)
In every region of the globe, the number of women infected with the deadly virus has risen during the past two years. East Asia had the highest jump with 56 percent, followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia with 48 percent.
" A simular deception was practiced in Canada, whose population is around 40 million. In 1995, a total of 1,410 adult AIDS cases were reported, 1,295 (91.8%) and 115 (8.2%) females. The next year showed a startling decrease in new cases to 792, consisting of 707 males (89.8 %) and 85 females (10.8%). So the number of female cases actually decreased by 26% from 1995 to 1996. Yet, even though the actual number decreased, because the percentage increased from 8.2% to 10.8% the Bureau of HIV/AIDS issued the ominous warning that AIDS cases among Canadian women in 1996 had dramatically increased."
In sub-Saharan Africa, three-quarters of all 15-24 year olds living with HIV are female.
In sub-Sahara Africa most 15-24 year olds are females because of the genocidal wars that have decimated the young male population. The young females, those lucky enough to reach the 15-24 age bracket that WHO wants to resist sex or to ask politely their husband or their partner-of-choice for him or her to please use a condom, are starving, drinking contaminated water, or are victimized by tzetze flies; all of which crashes the immune system and will there-by ping positive on the WHO test for HIV. What a travesty and waste.
"Young women are almost an endangered species in southern Africa from AIDS for several reasons," Cravero told Reuters.
Many women have no access to education or jobs. They are often economically dependent on men and may not have the power to resist sex or ask their husband or partner to use a condom.
"In some places, the main HIV risk factor for a woman is the fact that she is faithful to a husband with previous or current sex partners," the report said.
What? Is "the report" advocating unfaithfulness? In SOME places? What about other places? God help us.
Teenage girls are acquiring the virus at a younger age and from older men. Violence against women also makes them more vulnerable to infection.
What? Is WHO saying that old African men are savages. What a Victorian thought. But yes I agree, violence against women might also be a bad thing if it causes AIDS. Geez!
CHANGING EPIDEMICS
The annual report by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO), released ahead of World AIDS Day on December 1, shows the number of adults and children living with HIV reached its highest level ever in 2004 with an estimated 39.4 million, compared to about 36.6 million two years ago.
Over 3 million people died of the illness this year.
New infections climbed by nearly 50 percent since 2002 in East Asia, mainly because of growing epidemics in China, Indonesia and Vietnam.
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, there has been a 40 percent jump in the past two years, fueled by the growing number of infections in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. But in sub-Saharan Africa, where 25.4 million people are infected with the virus, is the worst affected region of the world. The epidemic appears to have stabilized in the region, which means an equal number of people are being newly infected with and dying of AIDS.
"According to Dr. Harvey Bialy, an American with long experience in Africa, because of the international funds poured into AIDS and HIV work, 'It has become a joke in Uganda that you are not allowed to die of anything but AIDS....A friend has just been run over by a truck; doctors put it down as a AIDS related suicide.".
Unlike the cases in New York and San Francisco, the conditions that are reported as AIDS in Africa affect both sexes equally, which should be an immediate indicator that we are not talking about the same thing. This is hardly surprising, since "AIDS" in Africa is accorded a different definition. The unifying factor that makes all of the 30-odd disparate indicator diseases "AIDS" in the West is testing positive for antibodies claimed to be specific to HIV. But in Africa no such test is neccessary."
"When UNAIDS annouces that 14 million Africans are AID victims that doesn't mean that there are 14 million bodies that have been counted, but that the computers in Geneva have run a model between positive test results and AIDS and extrapolated the results to the entire continent. Thus in 1984 the WHO reported 1 million cases of "HIV disease" in Uganda. Yet ten years later the cumulative number of AID cases actually reported was 55,000. No one knew what had happened to the other 945,000."
"In the countries of southern Africa, overall, there is a 25 percent prevalence rate," said Cravero.
Sixty-four percent of all HIV positive people worldwide and 76 percent of all women with the virus are in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Caribbean, with an average adult HIV prevalence rate of 2.3 percent, is the second most affected region in the world.
"The epidemic is obviously still ahead of us because we are seeing 39.4 million people (living with HIV)," Cravero said.
"For example, statistics for new AIDS cases were always quoted as culmative figures that could only get bigger, contrasting with the normal practice with other diseases reporting annual figures, where any decline is clear at a glance. And ddespite the media's ongoing stridency about an epidemic out of control, the actual figures from the Centers for Disease Control for every category, were declining, and had been since a peak in 1988. This was masked by repeated redefinitions to cover more diseases, so that what wasn't AIDS one day became AIDS the next, causing more cases to be diagnosed. This happened five times from 1982 to 1993, with the result that the first nine months of 1993 showed as an overall rise of 5 percent what would otherwise - i.e., by the 1992 definition - have been a 33 percent drop."
Although spending to battle HIV/AIDS has almost tripled from $2.1 billion in 2001 to $6.1 billion this year, less than one in five people in low and middle-income countries has access to HIV prevention services.
As many as 6 million people need HIV treatment.
"Universal access to treatment for everyone who needs it is a goal and it is a legitimate goal that everyone can push for," Cravero added.
The WHO has launched a "3 by 5" program to get three million people on treatment by the end of 2005. An estimated 440,000 people in the developing world had access to life-prolonging antiretroviral drugs by June 2004.
"We are working with the WHO to go for that goal with as much gusto as we can possibly get," she added.
Yeah, Cravero, you do that - take the gusto and let the cash go. Those caught in the impetus of the 10 billion bucks HIV/AIDS industry may continue to rationalize, even celebrate, their role and involvement in a worldwide urban myth. But as for most of the rest of us their phoney crusade of paternalistic do-gooding is a crime against nature, reality, and truth and science and God.
Docs Worry AIDS Drug Use May Be Halted Saturday, December 18, 2004
"It's an issue affecting people's lives. A lot of damage has already been done and we need to do damage control," Onyango said.
Dr. Francis Miiro, a key researcher, dismissed concerns about the testing as discrimination against African scientists and insisted the drug works safely.
In South Africa, the Treatment Action Campaign, which lobbied for access to anti-retroviral drugs in that country, warned that reopening debate about the Uganda study could frighten patients off their treatment, even though subsequent research has confirmed nevirapine is safe and effective.
"I don't see a problem with nevirapine at all," said the group's leader, Zackie Achmat, who found out he was HIV-positive in 1990. "I use it twice daily."
Doctors working in the public health system, which serves the vast majority of South Africans, have privately expressed fears they will be pressured to stop using single-dose nevirapine for pregnant women before alternatives are available.
"I'm of the view that we should use nevirapine till a better situation can be created," said Dr. Ashraf Coovadia, head of the pediatric HIV clinic at Johannesburg's Coronation Mother and Child Hospital. "To halt the program would cause damage to what we have already achieved."
Comment on radio talks shows in South Africa following publication of the AP stories in the local press have included worries that authorities will pull the drug.
President Thabo Mbeki's government has been criticized for its sluggish response to the AIDS crisis. Until this year, it refused to provide anti-retrovirals through the public health system, citing safety and cost concerns.
In July, a South African regulator recommended a halt to the single-dose nevirapine regime for pregnant women, saying a "cocktail" of drugs should be used instead even though such drugs are expensive and available mostly in the United States and other wealthy nations.
On Wednesday, the Health Department said U.S. concerns about the quality of nevirapine research in Uganda supported its cautious attitude to the drug and it was reviewing its guidelines on mother-to-child HIV transmission.
A spokesman, Sibani Mngadi, said the drug is still distributed by hospitals for now.
"It is part of a public health program which cannot be stopped just because this research is continuing," Mngadi said.
Studies show that a single dose of nevirapine to an infected woman during labor and another dose to her newborn baby can reduce the chances of HIV transmission by up to 50 percent.
Nevirapine can cause rashes, liver toxicity and even death in some patients who use the drug on a daily basis to treat HIV, but no serious reactions have been reported after a single dose.
But a South African study found that 39 percent of HIV-infected women who get a single dose of nevirapine go on to harbor virus that is resistant to the drug.
In Uganda, the official in charge of community health services said the issue had become a political one in the country, often praised for its efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.
"The issue is highly contentious, that's why some people don't want to be quoted," Dr. Sam Okware said. "It's been going on for two and a half years."
In a letter obtained by AP, U.S. health officials told Uganda's government in July 2002 that the research had violated federal patient safety rules. The memos show U.S. officials knew about the problems as early as January 2002, but chose not to tell President Bush before he authorized shipping the drug to Africa later as part of a $500 million initiative.
Excellent! On topic large, Faldage! I just knew that you could be nudged in the right direction no matter your motive. Here...let me blow you a little ~~~~~~~~~< (kiss). Thanks.
I am not among them. I was directly responding to a statement by someone else to the effect that Hogan was not a very good writer.
While I can't judge whether he is a good writer, I don't know of any better judge than myself of whether I enjoy his writing, which I do immensely regardless of whether he is a crank.
I know lots of people who are brilliant in some thing, but hold completely idiotic views in other areas.
My best friend where I work is a fellow who despises dogs. He can't stand them and will kick them if they jump on him or lick him. This puts us a little at odds , because I've always been a dog lover and recently got a Jack Russell for the kids. It turns out that it was my friend's grandfathers JR who turned him against all dogs. Now I also know that he is a really, REALLY smart guy - at least as far as programming is concerned. I don't view him this way myself, but in the small community in which he known, he is concerned to be something of a programming god by other people many of whom themselves are considered exceptionally intelligent and godlike in their programming abilities. He also has many other fine qualities, BUT he HATES reading. Can't stand it. Makes his eyes and head hurt. It's boring. Refers to bookstores as 'places of evil.' He has a number of other strange qualities that I won't go into.
Now, he's a smart guy and I admire him for his virtues, but he has some really strange weirdness goin' on. He'll be at my house tomorrow with his girlfriend for thanksgiving and it will be one long argument between him and my oldest daughter about the wickedness of reading.
Being intelligent is unfortunately insufficient for preventing one from believing in very foolish things.
I swore I wouldn't get pulled into this, but I, as everybody else on board, have no impulse control. I don't think anybody can prove a connection between one's politics / ideology / bêtes noires and one's ability to write: e.g., Hitler and Celine were both right-wing whackjobs, the former couldn't write and the latter couldn't do much else. (To allay anybody's fears that I'm picking on right-wing bottom feeders, the same can be said for say Joe Stalin and Dashiell Hammett.) Also, while a nicely written book is a joy to read, sometimes I plow through a book because of its content / subject matter / theme.
Standard disclaimer: I tried to read a Hogan novel a decade or so back but never finished it because I wasn't enjoying reading it. At this point I can't even remember its title, but it had a bluish cover.
Lynch Mob? Sorry Fallible, sometimes I can't resist a little play on words even if it distorts what I was saying. Forgive me, I didn't mean to demean anyone on this board...see what I mean?
lynchpin: noun, a central cohesive source of support and stability.
See Annastrophic, the above is what these posting have to do with words. (Come to think of it everything written has to do with words.)
I was only saying that I wasn't aware that he dabbled in non-fiction... like a good boy, I will spend some time perusing his site, and his arguments...
Very interesting site. Lotta stuff there that's new to me.
I think, yes, this is the kind of inquiry that ought to have been made a long time ago. Although I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable in the area, it does seem curious (but unsurprising) that some of what we assume to be historical fact is questionable.
I quoted Clute's take on JPH because when I looked in the EoSF to see what they said about Hogan, Clute captured exactly my reaction to him: his characters are approximately one-dimentional and his stories lack any spark. I don't fault the science in his SF, but that alone doesn't do it for me.
tsuwm: his characters are approximately one-dimentional and his stories lack any spark.
Yeah, tsuwm, I checked out the book MARTIAN KNIGHTLIFE from the library partly because of the scantily clad female on the cover and partly because I was curious to see what James P. Hogan's science fiction was like. Now due to jheem and your pans I can't bring myself to read it. Thanks.
But I feel a kinship with this man, particularly with the thoughts behind this quote...
" Every human society possesses its own cultural myths that help hold it together. Darwinian fixations on competitions notwithstanding, humans are at heart a cooperative animal, and a commonly shared structure of beliefs in fundamental truths provides the social glue that binds a culture. The beliefs don't have to be true to be effective. Every culture believes itself to be unique in that its own beliefs are true, of course, and it appears that ours is little different. Well, yes, we do claim to be different in that we attempt to check out what we believe against reality. But as we have seen, [In his book] it turns out to be all-too-easy to proclaim the verdict as being what we "know" it ought to be, or would have it be, rather than what reality actually says, laying the idealized scientific paradigm open to the charge that some cynics have made of Christianity and socialism: A good idea: somebody should try it sometime." ______________________JAMES P HOGAN
Now Faldage, tsuwm, jheem, Fallable, of troy, etaoin, WW, AnnaStrop, Jackie, and anyone else interested in the subject; if you have any disagreement with Hogan's statement above , please let us try to resolve it now so that we can then proceed in concert with this important discussion.
Not so sure I would disagree with anything he said in the quoted statement. Was it supposed to be a declaration of the irrelevancy of evolution?
As for tsuwm or jheem turning you off from reading Hogan sci-fi, I should think you'd relish the opportunity to prove them wrong, at least to your own satisfaction.
It'd also be nice if whoever widened out this thread would figure it out and do whatever is necessary to narrow it back down.
" Every human society possesses its own cultural myths that help hold it together. This assumes that *culture is something that one can or even should measure or define. It also seems to imply that myth is stronger than reality... I'm not sure I agree... but let us continue... Darwinian fixations on competitions notwithstanding, humans are at heart a cooperative animal, and a commonly shared structure of beliefs in fundamental truths provides the social glue that binds a culture. It gives rise to a definition of "a culture", it doesn't necessarilly "bind" people together. Those "notwithstanding competitions" are said to have the same effect. It's quite self serving, in this case, to leave them standing outside... all alone. The beliefs don't have to be true to be effective. Yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Every culture believes itself to be unique in that its own beliefs are true, of course, and it appears that ours is little different. Different? Yes. But not unique and certainly not bound by beliefs. Well, yes, we do claim to be different in that we attempt to check out what we believe against reality. Even if this were true, it certainly wouldn't make us different. But as we have seen, [In his book] it turns out to be all-too-easy to proclaim the verdict as being what we "know" it ought to be, or would have it be, rather than what reality actually says, laying the idealized scientific paradigm open to the charge that some cynics have made of Christianity and socialism: A good idea: somebody should try it sometime." I'd thought Gandhi said that about "civilization", not those specific forms.
For an author list of poets and writers of an alternative kind: Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Jack Kerouac, Richard Brautigan, Ken Kesey, Jerzy Kosinski, Ishmail Kadare, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, Rebecca West (travel author), Kahlil Gilbran, Hunter S. Thompson, J D Saliger, Carl Sandburg, Basho, Saki, Mark Twain. These authors are not necessarily writing today, but their ideas are still relevant to our lives as history repeats itself. Choosing an author from another culture is usually a breath of fresh air as well - quite far away from the mainstream/globalized culture one is exposed to daily in countries like the United States. Hope this helps.
Drat,Faldage, it was I that made the screen go wwwwwwwwwwwiiiiiiiiiddddddddddddeeeeeeeee I think. I never could get those ]pre[ tags to work right. Once I wrote a sentence seventeen yards long on a single line trying to get recognized in the Guiness Book of World Records. They laughed. Some computer geek had programed his computer to write a sentence that could reach to the moon.
But no, James P. Hogan didn't write that paragraph with regard to evolution, rather, it was more or less his overview of the state of things. And oh yeah, if you see tsuwm tell him I took his advice and will borrow "Inherit the Stars" from the Library whether it has a scantily-clad human female on the cover or not. I certainly don't want to read anything written by anyone who is "cranky", except those occasional posts sometimes written by you Faldage and they are usually short.
Now I go to fix the wideness of my posts so to fit even the most narrow of minds.
Welcome, Anonymous, I must say that's quite an array of authors that you offer this morn; and let it be known that any friend of Nicholas Nickleby is a friend of mine. But I must admit to some concern...no...some fear that you are either an astute hacker or a ghost.
Personally I think you are Mark Twain. He is just the sort who would shamelessly promote his own books after his own death.
Uh, Musick I'm having a strange computer problem - my internet connection to Awad is somehow chopping up my posts. (?) I will respond to your well made points after I get this little technicality cleared up. - Milum.
To hell with logic and reasoning, Musick, let's me and you play a mind game. Fine, I suspected that you would cooperate if I put my words into your mouth, so let's begin...
Indian tribes are neat little units of culture. Most American indian tribes are kinda like the Jews in that their name for themselves is "the chosen ones" or, simply, "the people". As we would expect, each tribe of "chosen ones" has evolved distinctive traits, skills, and customs that serve to re-enforce the idea of their own uniqueness among mankind, sometimes to extent of denying manhood to all other tribes and considering them as we consider dangerous animals - sometimes killing them for sport and food.
Now here is the thought experiment: consider the individual indians in a tribe as individuals cells in a human body, each a part of a organized whole working towards the continuation of the larger unit, i.e., the tribal body. The social machineries in place either allow or disallow the tribe to continue to exist through time by virtue of the aptness of their particular construction.
A single indian, like a single cell, can not continue through time. So why not consider each tribe an entity within itself, after all that is what we do when we consider the "I" in a collection of cells that is ourselves.
After intergrating this collection of thoughts and after some practice at referring to indian tribes as, for example, Mister Cherokee and Mister Choctaw, you will then find the answer to your own questions.
I generally resist the temptation to ascribe a single character or impulse to humanity to the exclusion of the contrary character which we also possess. Humans are social and individualistic, rational and irrational, wise as well as foolish.
...and I looked that up meself. Gandhi's comment was about the "Western" form.
To hell with logic and reasoning.
As FF seemed to clarify (thank you), an individual establishes their *cultural uniqueness if you consider the whole *person. Tis only when some parts are ignored or others put under a "magnifying glass" does one focus on how he is the same. A big enough magnifying glass, and we find we are all the same.
So why not consider each tribe an entity within itself, after all that is what we do when we consider the "I" in a collection of cells that is ourselves.
Well I guess I have no doubt that "cultural myths" help hold *societies together... a bit like it's saying "it's good that they all speak *that* language so we can call them the "that language speakers".
That magnifying glass is too large...
... or, is it too small?
No need to answer that... unless you bring logic and reasoning back.
Humans are social and individualistic, rational and irrational, wise as well as foolish.
Ah yes, Fallible, all too true. But I would think it a breach of protocol to insinuate that the people of this board needed to be reminded of the bad side of mankind each time I mentioned the good.
No need to answer that... unless you bring logic and reasoning back.
When pigs fly, Musick! Tools - that is the sum of logic and reasoning - only one thing matters and it matters absolute; Truth. If you were of a different mind-set at the moment I would expose logic and reasoning for what they really are... (Oh what the hell, I'll do so anyway, what do I care if I preach to a void.)
People accept or reject new ideas based on how close the new ideas are to the system of beliefs that they currently hold.
Race doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, nothing matters much but the congruence of beliefs.
But for an epiphany you'll need an authority figure to bring about your transformation.
And if your authority figure is logic and reason, then Musick - good music - your fate is a circle.
Independence and interdependence may be primary forces which drive culture, but even if they are working at opposite sides of the globe they both focus on the *roots of dependence.
As the individual's survival drives one to seek social acceptance and the individual's actions drive the definitions of society, chaos (creativities) and structure (theories) are only at odds when an individual chooses to focus on them seperately.
The question may not be "was it the chicken or the egg which came first" but, possibly "what do you want to eat"... yet I still feel, ocassionally, enough *nourishment comes from the sounds of silence.
"... yet I still feel, ocassionally, enough *nourishment comes from the sounds of silence"
Right on, soul bro, far out.
Uh, say Musick, I was just wondering...by all things sacred to Peter, Paul, and Mary, just what the garfunkel does "nourishment comes from the sounds of silence" mean?
Peace.
And why are you peppering your posts with those little ( * ) that denote footnotes when you don't have any footnotes?
Who says? (lESS ABRUPT) WHO MADE UP THIS RULE AND DIDN'T TELL ME. IT IS A SILLY CONVENTION. AND WHY ARE WE WHISPERING? _____________________________________ MILUM.
Uh, say Musick, I was just wondering...by all things sacred to Peter, Paul, and Mary, just what the garfunkel does "nourishment comes from the sounds of silence" mean?
*Nothing is sacred.
OK, since you asked. It means: "Chaos can be blissful if you just “let it be”, man."
And why are you peppering your posts with those little ( * ) that denote footnotes when you don't have any footnotes?
See, this is the whole *issue, ain't it? I thought it was salting them... melting the ice hard form of specific meanings *certain words have. The use I intend (Sorry, Faldage) is to point out... oh, this is much easier...
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
The beliefs don't have to be true to be effective. Yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Every culture believes itself to be unique in that its own beliefs are true, of course, and it appears that ours is little different. Different? Yes. But not unique and certainly not bound by beliefs. Well, yes, we do claim to be different in that we attempt to check out what we believe against reality. Even if this were true, it certainly wouldn't make us different. But as we have seen, [In his book] it turns out to be all-too-easy to proclaim the verdict as being what we "know" it ought to be, or would have it be, rather than what reality actually says, laying the idealized scientific paradigm open to the charge that some cynics have made of Christianity and socialism: A good idea: somebody should try it sometime." I'd thought Gandhi said that about "civilization", not those specific forms.
I thought it was salting them... melting the ice hard form of specific meanings *certain words have. The use I intend (Sorry, Faldage) is to point out... oh, this is much easier...
