If it isn't pain he is in, what word would you suggest to describe his inner state?
Hang on a minute.
I know I used "He" but I was only kidding."Detached" is anthropomorphic.
I merely pointed out that there's a possibility of faith in not believing this last half-hour idea.It is incapable of disproof.
The whole thing is unknowable.
What is knowable is the cultural effect of the many variants humans have invented to cover their distaste at the idea of the unknowable.These are in the service of power and money as any shaman will tell you if you get him in a corner.
Is ID of utility to communities embracing it or just to those exploiting it.Are the preachers of it behaving responsibly and altruistically or otherwise.
Are peoples better off in certain types of situations with ID and other peoples better off with scientific principles both from the individual point of view and the communal point of view.And can "better off" be knowable before the result is apparent.
dunno Spendius, think you operate on a higher plane than I do. But I've just written this elsewhere:-
"The problem as I see it is that whilst we all have an emotional need for Something which gives meaning and purpose to our pathetic little lives, everyone's something is as valid as anyone else's. And that's how it should be imo.
But organised religions have grown up to exploit this gap in man's psyche, offering a bespoke product... which ends up benefitting a Priesthood who in reality know nothing more about the Unknowable than anyone else."
Steve...
...I would caution against characterizing "the unknown" as "the unknowable."
We can be sure it is unknown...but we really don't know if it is unknowable.
"Perhaps unknowable" works...but "the unknown" has a certain elegance.
The two words have separate and distinct meanings in my book. I wasnt characterising one as the other.
There is an implied assumption with the word unknown
that it is unknown now
unknowable has a different implied assumption that is there are limits on knowledge itself.
I would put the unknowable in the same category as beyond time and space, which does indeed have limits.
Steve-
I'm on a lower plane truth to tell.I don't feel the need for any explanations.
I agree that everybody is entitled to their own view but in groups,or gangs,there can be profound cultural effects.There are such things as marriage and job markets within these movements as well as other social utilities.It isn't necessarily emotional.
Communists used to practice what is called "entryism" to take over a union.
A rural farming community has different needs to those in city slicker situations.Geography plays a part too.Polyandry,I gather,is linked to elevation above sea level.
The Americans seem to have a problem unifying these disparate belief patterns under one jurisdiction as we have had with fox hunting.One side eventually grinds the other down.What has been said about Mormons is just such a messy,sliding compromise.Taking sides is not very intellectual.
Anyway-God is a woman.
(they went a little OTT with the celebrations don't you think?)
spendie
Well, now you are heading somewhere recognizable...god is clearly a woman and even if she isn't there at all, nor ever has been, gender would still be clearly assignable, women being most acutely real when absent.
But it is the other end of your post where we seem to agree most profitably - consideration as to how faith 'functions' is where we get answers (definition two) as opposed to answers (definiton one). I don't much like the definition one crowd regardless of their relationship to sea level or dairy cows.
There was a wonderful English witticism I heard a few years back where a Brit politico described Thatcher as follows; "She can't look at an institution without wanting to hit it with her purse." I feel rather the same way about 'the sacred'...flags, gods, books, words, priests, politicians, Cliff Richards - any of those ususal candidates. I doubt there is any more predictable pairing than 'sacred' and 'stupid'. Unless it is "I'm sacred and you are not so give me your money and daughters and your proxy on all matters social immediately and shut the fukk up" along with folks happy to do so.
One particularly fruitful year at university I had assigned a wonderful text for a religious studies course (can't recall title, and it's in an attic now many miles away) which introduced me to 'functionalism' - the setting aside of any questions regarding god and taking up the study of how faith functions in the dynamics of social organization. The Campus Crusade for Christ classmates were not impressed, but I feasted on god's bones.
Was it Talcott Parsons?
The altitude bias towards polyandry was chosen simply because it is striking.It is just one example from many where geographical conditions influence thought.Spengler contrasts the music of woodland settings (Europe) with that of flat desert regions and the vast Russian plains.And not just the music.
And Marx brings in the different methods of economy such as fishing or agriculture or hunter/gatherer or money transactions.
From such considerations ID may very well be important to some states and counterproductive in places like Manhattan where the only relation to food is to eat it.If one is not careful one can end up as partisan as football supporters.
But as Gingrich hints the shape will be "city" because media centres are located there.For money reasons presumably.And for better or for worse.
blatham-
Are you familiar with Cecil Rhodes's remark to a fellow European when contemplating a tribal gathering in Africa."**** 'em white" he said.And if that gets censored there's a little knife into Rhodes Scholarships which are I believe the highest prize American education has on offer.Mr Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.
spendie
No, not that fellow. You are right though, of course, geography can produce the most curious consequences in how folks act, organize and think. One lifetime is not enough for learnin'.
I'm not sure what 'important' might mean in your paragraph two above. If it means something like 'understandable need/phenomenon', then fine, but there's a good case to be made for the advantages of rape.
Well-he didn't say "make love to them white" and I wouldn't dream of misquoting Mr Rhodes.
spendius wrote:blatham-
Are you familiar with Cecil Rhodes's remark to a fellow European when contemplating a tribal gathering in Africa."**** 'em white" he said.And if that gets censored there's a little knife into Rhodes Scholarships which are I believe the highest prize American education has on offer.Mr Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.
LOL...no, I'd never heard that quote from Rhodes. As strategy, it's as lousy as "bomb 'em christian" but surely more agreeable in the attempt.
blatham-
Yes I know there's a good case to be made for rape.It might actually be unanswerable.One lifetime won't be enough for a determination.Judges here used to halve sentences if the guilty man wore a condom or coitus interrupted.And convictions were quite difficult too.
There's been a shift lately which is interesting.
I did mean "important" in the way you took it as "fine".
How are you these days?
Quote:I did mean "important" in the way you took it as "fine".
How are you these days?
Well, that's the problem. Where their prescriptions/proscriptions attempt to roll over me and mine, that's when I start loading up on dynamite.
I'm mostly fine. For a time, I was thinking/writing with little zest or imaginativeness. Not sure if that was some consequence of the coronary, the meds or lack of smoke - I suspect the latter. Slow improvement in this area. I'm holding myself back from leaping up consecutive staircases in the gazelle-like manner of a month ago while pretending that I've merely gained dignity. I confess that being so proximate to termination had psychic consequences for which I thought I had prepared myself more effectively than I really had. That dude in the long black coat ain't ever tapped his foot to a jaunty melody. Serious bastard.
blatham,
I hope you continue to make progress with your recovery. My younger brother stopped smoking one year ago. He said it was the most difficult thing he has ever attempted.
spendius,
You seem to be saying that intelligent design can be accommodated under geographic jurisdictions. For me the only relevant jurisdictions are academic ones. I am one of the many parents who want science to be taught as science and religion to be taught as religion.
blatham-
I'll refrain from comment on the cigarette issue,unless prompted in a specific form.I think it is a much more complex issue than it is presented as.
There are value contradictions involved both at the personal and societal levels.Ken Tynan resolved it in his own way.
On the Rhodes thing I have seen predictions that the human race will eventually settle into a universal light brown colour.I see early signs of it happening too.I'm not actually in favour as I have a penchant,possibly a necessity,for snow white.It looks so decadent and sensitive and fragile and contrasts so deliciously with my moral purity,my coarseness and my rough hewn toughness.
Wande-I need to travel a few miles.I'll take you up later on the "academic approach", ineluctable modalities allowing.
Frank Apisa wrote:Steve...
...I would caution against characterizing "the unknown" as "the unknowable."
We can be sure it is unknown...but we really don't know if it is unknowable.
"Perhaps unknowable" works...but "the unknown" has a certain elegance.
Yes, but Frank, do we know we don't know........are we sure? If we can't know, or don't, how do we know we don't know? It's unknown or so you say in your authoritative way. Or are we conflating the "unknowing" and the "unknown?"
Personally, I don't care who believes or needs to believe or not to believe in ID as long as it's not taught as science in any state supported science classroom. ID is religion, not science. Everybody but the unknowing knows that.
