1
   

Internet Forum: a catalyst for change

 
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 10:27 am
coberst wrote:
The concept of disinterested knowledge seems to be a very difficult concept for people to comprehend. It is a simple idea but apparently so alien to our culture that few people can grasp its meaning quickly.


I'm not disputing the simplicity of difficulty of the concept (at least not in this post). Pointing to the simplicty of the concept, or to "our culture's" inability to grasp it, won't help you solve the contradiction between the two claims you're making here. The only way to tackle that, Coberst, is to answer the question. So I'll ask a third time: how do you reconcile the contradiction between your call for self-learners to apply their knowledge to stem cell research, global warming and globalization, on one hand, with your call for a kind of knowledge independent of specific applications, on the other hand?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 11:04 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Hollis Ray Mathis differs from Coberst in that Hollis would drop off his rant, and almost never respond to other people posting in his threads (he would, very rarely, deign to tell someone quoting scripture just how stupid they were and how their scriptural ignorance would damn them).


I must have missed those comments from Hollis. Darn, those must have been really funny. I don't remember Hollis ever responding to anyone, all I remember was his preachy posts.


They were pretty rare, and i suspect he only responded a few times, in the beginning, before deciding that he had gotten his message across (for as well as he could ever hope to do) by just posting his rant. Even without responses from him, his threads, not unlike Coberst's, were usually a source of mild hilarity.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 01:14 pm
Setanta,

You will get no sense out of coberst. He is like a the woodwork teacher who is covering for the physics teacher by reading his notes.

To reiterate a point I raised above....the irony is that coberst does not and maybe cannot understand Bohm's concept of "disinterested knowledge" himself. Bohm is advocating a group meditational mode (after Krishnamurti) where an attempt is made to dissipate individual "selves" with their idiosyncratic cultural and personal conditioning in favour of a holistic/empathic/unified group of mutual "wise"observers. I therefore say "cannot" because the chief characteristic coberst displays and indeed expounds is "self-assertion". If he (coberst) really wants to learn from Bohm he must be prepared to suspend his addiction to "doing book learning" and critically examine "himself".

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/K/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 08:52:01