Leyla Shen wrote:What about the irony in my knowing who you were despite your being incognito?
I wouldn't call it ironic. Dan knew too, and when I arrived as earnest_seeker, Dave Toast recognised me. And those are just the people who said something to me - probably there were others who picked it and said nothing. I wasn't making any attempt to change my style, and it seems to be a style that some people recognise. No big deal.
Leyla Shen wrote:
As for my motivations and approach, I'm not interested in discussing them publicly.
It's interesting how you seem to get yourself into positions where you need to make such declarations, no?
Not to me. Anyway, I didn't need to make it - I could have just kept silent. I prefer to be explicit though. I simply don't care to get into a big battle over whether what I did was justified or not. It's so much a matter of perspective. Other people have different perspectives. Fine.
Dan Rowden wrote:No it can't, because your understanding (or lack thereof) derives from your own metaphysic. Your belief that you can analyse the internal consistency of our worldview is based on the faulty presumption that you have an understanding of it, when all your really doing is filtering it through your own. That's what we're trying to get you to understand: your arguments don't touch our worldview at all, in reality.
If you're going to keep on laying that charge against me, then I'm going to keep on rejecting it. How is it that you can understand and critique Kant's philosophy as you do in another thread - obviously you don't really have an understanding of it, because you're simply filtering it through your own worldview and thus misunderstanding it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Dan Rowden wrote:No it can't, because your understanding (or lack thereof) derives from your own metaphysic. Your belief that you can analyse the internal consistency of our worldview is based on the faulty presumption that you have an understanding of it, when all your really doing is filtering it through your own. That's what we're trying to get you to understand: your arguments don't touch our worldview at all, in reality.
If you're going to keep on laying that charge against me, then I'm going to keep on rejecting it. How is it that you can understand and critique Kant's philosophy as you do in another thread - obviously you don't really have an understanding of it, because you're simply filtering it through your own worldview and thus misunderstanding it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
No, that argument doesn't work here. This is my worldview we're talking about - here and now. I'm telling you, and multiple others are doing so as well - that you don't have a proper conceptual grasp of it. You'd kinda think we'd know if someone did or not, wouldn't you? You're like a euclidean whose arguing non-euclidean perspectives without having made the conceptual leap to that non-euclidean perspective.
Dan Rowden wrote:No, that argument doesn't work here.
Why not?
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm telling you, and multiple others are doing so as well - that you don't have a proper conceptual grasp of it.
Who are those multiple others? Do you mean David and Kevin?
Dan Rowden wrote:You'd kinda think we'd know if someone did or not, wouldn't you?
Not necessarily. It's possible that it's you who doesn't understand my criticisms.
Dan Rowden wrote:You're like a euclidean whose arguing non-euclidean perspectives without having made the conceptual leap to that non-euclidean perspective.
So let's not waste any more time in this thread, then. Let's get back to the Causality and Consciousness thread, where you can respond to my last long post to you and show me how to take that conceptual leap - or you could start that 101 thread.
So, God is Dead, as the mad German tempts our comfortable notions of self; but then Foucault wagers that "man" will cease to be, "...like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the Sea."
"A failed experiment?" Is a bit too literal phrasing of the question.
Returning to the mad German:
"An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been 'deciphered' when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation."
i think to save our society, there must be some massive reformation and maybe even a little anarchy to get the ball rolling. if your not up in someone's face screaming and probably scaring the truth into them they wont pay you any attention, they will just go on their oblivious way. i think some certain people need to be removed from power, and some certain herbs need to be legalized. i think pigs are pigs and they are good for nothing except as a scare tactic. this is suppose to be a free society, but not a damn thing around here ever is. you got to fight for what you believe in and what you need to survive, or your as good as dead. over medicated and brainwashed children are being brought up. soon i fear there will be a Nazi uprising on American soil, but there will be no annihilation of Jews, it will be the ones who work, and even though they work hard, they still need government assistance to feed their families. over dependence on the government is bs, all they want is your soul. THERE ARE NO JOBS LEFT EXCEPT GOV WORK.they will recruit everyone of you until there are no private owned businesses and we all work for the them. the epidemic has already started, and i got my shotty. im just waiting for the zombies to come out,....
We are only a failed experiment if our humanity as a whole does not raise its level of consciousness. It is up to our scientists in particular start to consider a scientific hypothesis, which is an alternative to that of the theory of evolution. Instead of progressive evolution of design, evidenced by the theory of Evolution, here we have progressive evolution of design by very advanced science. Our scientists are about to create life artificially, (Craig Ventner - GENESIS II). In the course of time it is not unreasonable to see our scientists creating more and more complex organisms. Eventually they may even create man,' in their own image......'. Then the buckle will be closed and they will have become like those our ancestor, mistook for Gods.
Where you may ask is the evidence? Their are traces of evidence in history and all the religious texts, in what science is capable of today and in the future. Also the dangers of potential self-destruct with nuclear weapons remains until we remove these dreadful weapons. It is the predictability of this first use of nuclear technology in weapons of war which is nodal to this hypothesis. In 1945 we entered that scientifically predictable phase of our particular humanity's development- the 'oh my god the kids have found the matches' stage.
Here we have a compromise between on the one the religious perspective, and on the other hand the evolution perspectives. A famous person said of the source of this hypothesis, " if this is science-fiction, it ranks alongside the most breath-taking of it's kind, but if it is earth-shaking". I would add the dangers of nuclear war, in the context of this hypothesis are not science-fiction. On a positive note it is interesting to note that the Bulletin of Atomic scientists have moved the hand of the Doomsday Clock, one minute backwards, and Presidents Obama and Medvedev are discussing missile reduction plans.
This hypothesis presents potentially a sensible and respectful explanation for the ORIGINAL good measure intent behind all the world religions, and in the ever increasing reports, even in the hitherto conservative media on the subject of advanced civilisations in other solar
systems is becoming more on topic.
Ultimately this hypothesis, is about the demystification of the old understandings and the spiritualisation of science.
