rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 17, 2012 18:09:41 GMT -7
But can it not be said that our language still arises within a biological paradigm, and that no matter how fast we warp ahead of our genetic inheritance, we still may find ourselves dealing with the artifacts of that paradigm. Artifacts which are difficult to consider because they are part of the machinery of how we think and therefore partially hidden to our thoughts and words.
I'm thinking about today's science news that babies learn to speak in part by learning to lip read. It is interesting to me because, one, i am in the process of watching my daughter learn how to talk, two, I'm legally deaf (not profoundly deaf though.) I do alot of lip reading, because my loss is all in the mid to high range (from 20-1250 hz is all that I have really) I am more aware of how it feels to speak than how it sounds. I also suffered the loss around puberty (bad genes) so my speech centres developed fine. Hey, I speak publically for a living after all.
But the idiosyncratic nature of the loss means that almost all the consonants are indistinguishable unless I can see your face. I don't hear 'properly' but still hear... somehow
Our language is rooted in a purely physical exercise (the motions of the throat mouth and face) but there is a transfinite value in what _can_ be expressed by these physical (thus finite) aspects. That is entirely aside from the fact that the meanings of the spoken words exist independently of the motions/sounds, because they are recognized by the hearer, not transmitted and reproduced as a radiowave and receiver.
That this can happens for 'normal hearing people' is pretty amazing, the whole development of speech etc is phenomenal. That _I_ can participate in it is somewhat beyond belief. For me, there is in this a very real providence, an intended harmony of consciousness.
As for Newton and Shakespear, I can't say I have heard of them getting threatened with arrest. However, Galileo was arrested, and Dante excommunicated. You'll note that Newton and Shakespear arose in the same country. Today the same can be said for Galileo and Dante (which cannot be said of them in their own time)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 18, 2012 7:04:21 GMT -7
rpm,
Thanks for that information. Whenever I use scientific/materialist terminology, and knowing me to be an immaterialist, to the core, you may be assured that it is with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, and with a large grain of salt. If I don't believe in atoms, what do I make of genes?
Genes have a lot to do with reproduction and metabolism, which are essential features of this Best Possible World. They allow us to be creators, in a very direct and personal way. They are, thereby, our closest link to God, barring Jesus, who also partook of our metabolism..... a point a disagreement that we have with Islam. Genetic 'defects', of which I, too, am not innocent, obviously play an important part in our BPW.
Please excuse me, however, as I turn back to the business of the day......
Two guys walk into a bar........
A: Are you a gambling man?
B: I belong to Gamblers Anonymous.
A: Suppose you were rushing your child to a distant hospital. By mow much might you exceed the speed limit? You would take calculated risks. Yes?
B: Sure.
A: I am taking a calculated risk. I am doing business as Jesus. I have to calculate, and recalculate, the potential costs and benefits, to myself, as well as to others. Some days are in the black, other days are in the red. And so it goes.... and that's what brings me to your office...... we're no longer in the bar......
B: Are you asking me to risk the souls of my flock, in this so-called 'game' of yours?
10:40--------
(Throop had locked his keys in his truck, so I may not get to finish this dialog...... )
What I'm mainly driving at are the opportunity costs..... Can we afford to look Chicken Little in his beak?
I don't think that we beggars can be quite so choosey, not in the dire straights in which humanity now finds itself.
Speaking of gambling...... How about MAD? What did the Christians have to say about that? What about WMD? What are the daily risks? Who is gambling with whom?
What about making babies? Who is gambling with whom? The Lord will provide? Is that what you think, Danny? Maybe you should read your Bible again. In my Bible, it says something very different..... 'Woe be unto them.....' Try google.....
How much am I will to risk on this 11:30 meeting......?
1:30---------
Hey, sports fans, it didn't go real bad. No cops were called, not this time, but we did agree to call in the white coats......
I agreed to have at least one consultation with a Christian psychiatrist of their choice, with the provision that I would be allowed to blog the session.
But now it's pizza time, and then I'll be headed to a debriefing with Sam......
2:55---------
I'm now at Sam's, and we're talking about the Baltimore Green Forum meeting, this Sunday. Sam is the co-chair of the forum, along with Laurie, who is out of town. At lunch on Friday, the presenter Peter, Sam and I will be discussing the structure of the meeting on Sunday, so as to take advantage of the wannabe Jesus. Yes, I do seem to be moving into a full-court press.
I put a call into Ron, from the GFC meeting. He has not responded, nor has Aliyah, to my more recent call. Where were my troops, when I needed them?
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by a99 on Jan 19, 2012 1:25:31 GMT -7
Dan, Here's that pic you sent me of you and Aliyah Pandolfi that you asked me to post here! She's so cute! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by mdonnall2002 on Jan 19, 2012 4:12:16 GMT -7
And she has the same look I get trying to digest some of his musings.  |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 19, 2012 7:54:11 GMT -7
99, Thank you for posting this. The young lady in question is Kashmir Rose. The photographer was her mother, Aliyah. In one of the other forums, MK and Aquila have asked me to comment on Serpo. I have refered them back to this forum, on the proviso that no aspect of phenomenology or of anything else, for that matter, can properly be understood, outside of it's Cosmic Context. This should almost be just a matter of definition, and many philosophers, down through the ages have so taken it. The matter in question is that of 'coherence'. What does it mean for something to be coherent? IMHO, coherence, depending on its context, has two principal connotations...... The primary connotation is to be something that is graspable by the mind. Secondarily, it means that the context in which the item occurs is also so graspable. So, in accord with my preamble, these two definitions are thereby redundant. What I'm referring to is called the Coherence Theory of Truth. The opposing theory is the Correspondence Theory of Truth, q.v. Most of us go through life rather in the manner of the fictional detective, Joe Friday..... just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...! Joe, quite unwittingly, subscribes to the CorTT. Whereas, it is implied that his interlocutor leans toward the CohTT. Yes, there is even a gender related bias, in these matters, allegedly having something to do with the bicameral aspect of our brains. Joe Friday is impatient. He wishes to rush to judgment, to solve his cases in the allotted half hour, the norm for serials, back in his day. I advise more patience, advice which I have, with some notoriety, failed to heed on several notable occasions, including in yesterday's meeting with Danny at GFC. But, see, at some point, we have to stop and ask ourselves, what are these Ebans, Serponauts, etc. up to. What's it all about, Alfie? Who is doing what to whom, and why? Most ufologists follow in the footsteps of Joe Friday. I subscribe to a more 'philosophical' approach. Notice that I have used 'scare' quotes for 'philosophical'. Modern philosophers subscribe to Joe's MO, i.e. to the CorTT, despite the fact that the CorTT, has been discounted for the past half century. They simply are afraid of the only coherent alternative, i.e. the CohTT. Why are they sore afraid? I look forward to analyzing the psychology of the modern, so-called, 'intellectuals'. Once, again, those 'scare' quotes! But in the meantime it is OTL...... I will also be addressing the Core story, upon my return..... 2:30--------- Ecology and cosmology are both coherent. There are both deemed coherent because they presenting us with stories of sequences of causes and effects, which we can trace out with a reasonably consistent logic, both on the macro and micro scales. Should this not suffice, for all practical purposes? It suffices for all scientific and technological purposes. Otherwise, we can escape into art, in its many guises, including many forms of narratives, fictional and documentary. When it comes to managing ourselves, it is a question of politics, governance and economic decision making. On this secular side, there is an overriding or metanarrative. It is the narrative of perpetual progress. Unfortunately, for those who tout progress, the notion of perpetual progress nowhere fits into the rubric or fabric of science. It has a kind of orphan status withinn the secular community. Why? Simply because it is tantamount to teleology, which is a decidedly unscientific, even anti-scientific, notion. Nonetheless, progress plays a very important role in our political and economic calculus. Progress is the only antidote to survivalism. It is the only antidote to social or Malthusian Darwinism, or devil take the hindmost. We have faith that, instead, a rising tide will float all boats. In fact, it is questionable that market capitalism can exist in a steady-state economy. No-growth is not an option. . |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 19, 2012 16:24:58 GMT -7
I trust you won't mind if I keep needling you Dan with regards to your pessimism of man's ability to progress and thrive. End of Progress? I can't resolve how it could be considered coherent, that a child of God wouldn't be able to progress. Like Father, like son? Today I stumbled upon a surprising film and movement. It is headed up by Foster Gamble, a child of the Proctor & Gamble empire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd7zClv5obw |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 19, 2012 16:28:41 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 19, 2012 16:54:05 GMT -7
The link that I had to the original full length movie is no longer good...youtube has a record of making members remove material that the PTB find threatening....alot of that going on these days under the auspices of copyright infringement...stuff having an informed and educated public. That's what the hullabaloo about SOPA and PIPA is all about...legitimizing what they've already been doing under the table.
Shrug. Cy
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 19, 2012 18:55:49 GMT -7
Thank you Cyrellys!
I will pay a respectful contribution for the documentary. But was hopeful I might be able to view it before I determine my "tithe".
Hopefully I'll get a chance to watch it in the next day.
SOPA/PIPA? That is the biggest war I've seen since WW2. I read that the Google Chairman said they would not comply to such a law if passed. I then picked up my eye balls from the floor and inserted them back into their sockets. or something like that
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 19, 2012 20:30:14 GMT -7
lol, Jake. We've been screaming foul on unethical globalism from the rooftops for decades...now they're out in the open and people are experiencing it first hand. And they're realizing that we were right, it really doesn't swallow well. Now maybe something will get done about it. Shrug...the story plays on. Cy Edit to add: link to material of interest - compassmorainn.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=2&post=665 |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 19, 2012 21:46:55 GMT -7
Cy, Thank you for these very thoughtful comments. Well, the notion of the messianic intervention has been around since the beginning, in all traditions, in one form or another, and nowhere more strongly than in the evangelical movement. If I do recall, Cy, you have been a strong proponent of Disclosure. Perhaps you have come to recognize the perils of such an intervention. All I have been suggesting, with the BPWH, is that God and/or the Federation have, indeed, taken your excellent advice concerning non-intervention. Yes I have been and continue to be a strong proponent of Disclosure. But within reason meaning that I am a strong proponent of Disclosure in it's proper time and place. I am first and foremost a proponent of Communication and recognition of Interconnective Relationship and mutual outreach efforts. I have continually made clear distinction between Communication and Disclosure. That Communication is a precurser process that eventually down the line results in Disclosure. I have deep concerns about mankinds hell-bent for leather fast track to development whereby it makes a distinct habit of skipping crucial key milestones and processes. Unlike some ETs I have a sense of humor so I support live and learn activities. I am entirely certain that the Creative Source is entirely and keenly aware of the benefits & drawback differences between intervention, empowerment, and self-discovery. yes I'm aware of this..but I'll also point out that four year olds will scream like ban sidhe's for a peanut butter sandwich and initially refuse the process of learning to make one themselves until you set the ingredients all out for them, hand them the butterknife and the kitchen stool and walk away. Then ingenuity and the veil lift on delightful peanut butter and carrot sandwiches among other taste defying inventions. yes I would agree with her there. I firmly believe in the Pursuit of Excellence in which one takes aim and responsibility for self-improvement. One does not need an interpretation from another if one applies to learning the language and the material thus enabling one's own understanding without the color of another person's ego or politics. Mankind is something of a paradox among social animals with herd instincts in that it has unmitigated ability to exercise free will. This is why I made the suggestion I did, to take into account that a creature who both values and exercises a high degree of free will is more inclined to be receptive if the course of study is via self-discovery in the context of a living mutual participation. not everyone who participates in an environment with a collective mind-set actually subscribes to it. If this were true of mankind then he would still be living in the most rudimentary of circumstances and traveling no farther than to the edge of the proverbial forest rather than as he does naturally delving deep within all recesses of it. To interpret paradigms as being embraced simply because one lives within it or in close proximity to it, is getting lost in the grass despite the wind parting the trees. I use language and communicative material all the time in a manner that is tiered to be both contextual to another's familiar semantical language and to elicit self-realization on beneficial points of view. So I would not entirely agree with your statement: We cannot use language without subscribing to the innumerable paradigms embedded in every word thereof.This last bit I wholly agree with you on. Every human being and every other living creature on this world is interconnected through this world's bio-mind, and additionally connected to the Creative Source. I don't believe people need to be spoke to, so much as they need to be recognized for their own intrinsic value and contribution then invited to explore mutually and discover of their own accord. Much of the last five thousand years has been about individual and collective empowerment and practice in exercise of Free Will...working within that context often brings more effective application to catching attention then all the forced interactions in the world. It was only a suggestion. Cy |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 20, 2012 9:15:05 GMT -7
I trust you won't mind if I keep needling you Dan with regards to your pessimism of man's ability to progress and thrive. End of Progress? I can't resolve how it could be considered coherent, that a child of God wouldn't be able to progress. Like Father, like son? Today I stumbled upon a surprising film and movement. It is headed up by Foster Gamble, a child of the Proctor & Gamble empire. It's fine to believe in perpetual progress, but, in so doing, you swear allegiance paganism. At some point, Jake, you will have to choose between Jesus and Progress, you can't have both. Do you not understand the meaning of Idol and Idolatry? Your idolatry, Jake, is to substitute the idol of Perpetual Progress for the reality of God. Are you afraid to meet your Maker? At some point we are all going to meet our Maker. The whole point of Perpetual Progress is to perpetually avoid the Rendezvous with our Destiny. ----------------- Cy, Thank you for your continuing, thoughtful responses. I'll be pondering them, over lunch....... . |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 20, 2012 11:03:59 GMT -7
It's fine to believe in perpetual progress, but, in so doing, you swear allegiance paganism. At some point, Jake, you will have to choose between Jesus and Progress, you can't have both. 'Jesus" taught "kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven". That is progress. It's written in the stars. The age of Aquarius is only about to begin. Overcoming our human failings is a required course. We have much progress ahead of us. The heavens declare the handiwork of G-d. Lo & behold, it's Perpetual Progress. I've already met my Maker. I see much fear in you, chicken little. True, the Godless are procrastinating reconciliation. This too is part of our progress ahead. We've come a long way, but that STOP sign you think you faintly see on the horizon, is most likely a WARNING CURVE AHEAD sign. We haven't come to the end of the earth just yet. Why are you so afraid of another millennium, that you would will it out of your mind? |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 20, 2012 12:47:17 GMT -7
I have only one question for you, Jake......... How are you going to have the Millennium, without the Second Coming? This is the whole point of the BPWH....... Until we accept the notion of the End of Progress, there can be no MILLENNIUM. Otherwise, it's only ever going to be business as usual...... social Darwinism with Devil take the hindmost. --------------- This latter point relates to the lunch that Sam and I had with Peter May, today...... Peter was reporting back on the seventh international Emergy conference in Florida. The issue I posed to Peter was the growth imperative of capitalism..... Grow or Die! Understand that Howard Odum, the father of Emergy, deliberately played down the incompatibility between Capitalism and Sustainability. Most of his followers, however, are acutely aware of the Grow of Die imperative of any capitalist economy. Look, I've been, and will continue to be, a faithful reader of the Economist magazine. Their reporting is excellent, so long as you can factor out their compulsive Growth Imperative. With the Economist, the growth imperative has never been broached, but every week they dance around it. It is a Danse Macabre. Subconsciously they know they are locked in a death spiral with Sustainability. Kingdom Come vs the Economist.......?? Lots of luck, all you supply-sider freaks........ The words of your 'profits' are written on the subway walls...... -------------- More than one person has referred me to the following article....... www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/ ...... which I am about to read...... (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 20, 2012 15:03:53 GMT -7
I have only one question for you, Jake......... How are you going to have the Millennium, without the Second Coming? I would broach, How can you have a second coming without a millennium? I would say, there can be no Great Tribulation without man inducing an End of Progress. TRIBULATION is the offspring of "social darwinism with Devil take the hindmost" The problem is in the model. Sure, American Style Capitalism can't sustain without perpetual growth. Eventually we can't all own five vacation homes, yacht, plane, private estate and family farm. There simply isn't that much earth. Here's the required paradigm shift. It's a rather progressive model. But heck, anything the mind of man can conceive and believe, he can achieve. Another one of those progressive laws. Funny how the cosmos keeps telling us, there's more, there's more...... American Capitalism is built upon the premise; " I'm not my brother's keeper." Sound familiar? Well after x-thousand years we're figuring out that don't work. How about capitalism built on the premise; " I am my brother's keeper". We're going in that direction already - "takes a village to raise a child" etc. What would that produce? Socialism? Nah, too adolescent. Socialism (in all the forms we've tried) simply passes the buck. It's premise is; I'm not my brothers keeper, that's the Government's job. We need to progress to the point of personalizing the "brother's keeper" premise. A globally embraced social ideal. Then we would end up with "Progressive Sustainability". Consumer Capitalism can continue within that framework, because we all need to consume to survive. People of your generation will have a hard time grasping the feasibility of such a progressive premise. But the net is changing the views of the Young. They are figuring it out on their own. It is becoming blatant, that we need our neighbors to thrive in order to maintain self sustenance. They are locked in their own self produced false matrix. They've been raising their sons up as "Cains", and now that they can see the whole world in a flash, they think they're doomed. And they're so invested in their matrix that they neurotically think it is the only true reality. And come hell or high water (literally) they are forcing it on the rest of the world. If only they'd realize they needed Abel. You mean to say; Kingdom Come vs the Four Horseman. Afterall, the Economist's construct breeds the Horses, and the men to ride them. So it's our choice. I see you've already settled on the Horseman. You've given up, seeing no winnable contest. Rather than focusing on Kingdom Come, you'll turn the blind-eye, let the die-down proceed, and play your Pipers flute; Don't worry folks, the whole world will be destroyed, and it's OK, because its not real anyway, God fooled you. But cheer up, this is the best world possible, God will save you all. Yes! So everyone jump off the edge calmly. Or something like Cain might have said to Abel, while slitting his throat. This is the end of progress. Sorry Abe, nitey-nite. > We are our brother's keeper! |
|
