Welcome to the:
and part time band counseling and orientation room
Home of the unique, incredible, undefeated, yet to be challenged:
elevating blogging to a contact sport
WARNING - WARNING - WARNING
Musicians and Band members here for counseling, please: do not encourage, feed, or otherwise enrage the bloggers or their fans. Until your performances generate enough income, we must share our facilities with winners. If you are cornered by a blog demanding to know your position, tossed about by zealous fans looking for the blogpit, or simply caught up in a shakedown for your lunch money - avert your eyes, try not to cry irrelevantly, and when free use any handy nearby courtesy ATM to replenish your wallet with the necessary counseling and arena exit fees you owe.
BLOGGERS and BLOGFANS:
(what it is only fair to tell you)
MIGUELITO
a REAL musician and part time state bar-fly Miguelito's clever wit and eloquence all too often leaves his opponent far behind, mouth agape
lawyer
SEAN
best know as lead guitarist extraordinaire of streetdog fame SEAN will pummel non-believers until they beg for mercy
catholic
KEISLAR
if streetdogs are lost souls, Bob is their Shepard. His reconciliatory magic can end brutal meat scrap squabbles and his analytical powers can slice and dice any average blogger's offering
atmospheric physicist
BUHROW
He has a wisdom that turns jibber into jabber. Does he have the Yak to topple Sean?
deadhead
RICHIE
product of the streets of New York he's seen it all - but, did he take pictures?
ZIPHLER
tall, gritty, mysterious, a powerful presence, usually given a wide berth by those all too familiar with his erratic and often dangerous behaviors, nonetheless he is loved by all
incredibly handsome
CURRENT TOPIC
IS SCIENCE A RELIGION OR RELIGION A SCIENCE?
We ask that you remain quiet after entering the match.
Loud expressions of approval for ZIPHLER of course excepted
From Miguelito
Unfortunately, I remain for the indefinite present stuck in the stoneage of internet phone modems that doesn't let me download stuff quicker than a week, which means I don't download stuff at the moment, which means I haven't opened up Z's attachments. Does anyone have a recommendation for a DSL or high speed internet service that doesn't suck? Which is the best/cheapest etc.?
Cluelessly,--Miguelito
From Ziphler
There was no attachment. If you have Comcast cable in your area there is no comparison, both in speed and price. They will give you cable TV, phone, and internet for $33 each. Extras however will run you into the thousands. Probably who ever your cable guys are would be your best bet. After that would be direcway (now hughes) satellite. DSL is relatively slow by comparison.
From Sean
Cable is a good all in one solution, but DSL is not necessarily slower. Cable purports to be faster but you share "network ring resources" with the other users. With DSL, you don't have that problem but do have the problem with how far away your connection is from the transmitter. DSL connection is also subject/prone (or complicated I should say) by transmission parameters, i.e., signal has to be optimized to the receiver, and the phone company is a pain in the ass to deal with, technically and administratively. However, so is the monopoly cable provider. All in all, I would agree and say go with cable. I pay 30 bucks for 2500 bps for download and 428 bps fop upload speed, tested. I also have a static IP address. It’s quite fast for all applications.
Dan, what are your upload and download speeds?
From Miguelito
Pee Wee and his humble servant Miguelito stand by to make the pilgrimage to SF at a moment's notice. The Pope has his Pope mobile; Pee Wee and I have the tandem bike with cards in the spokes. Just tell us where and when and wee will set off for our Big Adventure.
--Miguelito
Thanks Dan.
Hmm, no attachments . . . . . very Zen. I had Comcast and just cancelled it because it didn't work after over an hour and a half working with Comcast’s telephone techie, who finally gave up. When it worked, it worked OK, but was expensive. A friend recommended DSL possibly because even though it's a little slower, it has fewer problems than cable??? As for TV, although I would probably enjoy a lot of stuff available on cable like Comedy Central (and hate the rest), I have so far refused to get hooked up. My TV menu is extremely simple and FREE: through the air, received by rabbit ears, at least until they outlaw that, which I'm sure is soon. Cable TV would distract me from music, channeling Pee Wee and contemplating my next email response to the Dogs.
--Miguelito
From Miguelito
Thanks Sean, but I'm confused. Do you have DSL or cable? BTW I was paying what I thought was a ridiculous $60/month for Comcast (internet only).
--M
From Sean
Dan, what are your upload and download speeds?
From Ziphler
I think about a gazillion and a gazillion and a half
DSL SUCKS!
Listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Your experience surprised me until I remembered the first day I got Comcast. You definitely don’t want to use their software. I never could get anything to work using their software. Make sure you uninstall it too. Just plug the cable modem into your computer and let windows do the rest. Our connection is lightning fast and never gives us a problem - we have four computers and God knows how many hitchhiking neighbors on our wireless network. We also have on demand so we can pull up any movie, any TV show, and any time. You are definitely right to avoid that and it costs hundreds. Their internet here is $49.
DSL SUCKS!
Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Gravity Sucks!
Mike-
DON"T LISTEN TO EXPERTS! They lie, cheat, and steal and have their own agenda! They can't help it, its what HUMAN BEINGS DO! They have faith, bad or good! There is not one that is better. To break it down for you Mike, its like a Karma thing, if you have good Karma, anyone will do.
Cable is supposed to be faster, has more bandwidth, 30 Mbps vs 10 Mbps, but it isn't necessarily faster, because those resources are shared. The administrators don't care how much bandwidth they give you, so they cram more users on the ring and guess what, you get a small slice of what you should be getting. Dan, that's why I say do a test and tell me what you are getting. Its simple and facts are then facts. In reality both DSL and Cable arbitrarily cap speed limits, so, it depends on what speed you are buying from them.
See this site: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/dslvscablemodem/a/dslcablecompare.htm
Your story about the techie not being able to get the modem up is amusing. I always thought there were less problems with cable from that end, but I guess I was wrong! Just another advantage to DSL. DSL is supposedly more secure also, but nowadays, if you have an adequate fire wall and good modem, and a router in front, probably no big deal. Listen to me. Although Dan may be technically more adept, my judgment is better by about a gazillion times. If you want an all in one solution, go with cable. If not, go with DSL. It really doesn't matter. Choose your poison.
Come on Dan, what are your download and upload speeds! Chicken? Another good site for the advantages of DSL vs. Cable with speed testing: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/129
Don't listen to an expert just read em and weep
From Ziphler
Using
java: 14,617
Kb/s / 362 (Kbps)
Using flash: 22,288 Kb/s / 354 (Kbps)
I am da man.
Mike, don’t listen to him. That story about sharing bandwidth with everyone on the block is a bunch of malarkey - yesterday’s news This is the age of optical cable dude!
Re:
Don't listen to an expert just read em and weep
From Sean
That is a fast download time-I'll bet you're in an area that just got built out. Its actually probably overkill-for most applications probably talking milli-seconds in terms of relative speed compared to mine. You can download an MP3 6 times faster than me. Takes me about 3-5 seconds. If we could actually discriminate a milli-second that would be great. But I beat you on upload speed! DSL is supposed to give marginally better upload speed. I still don't trust the cable guys-how long will you maintain that speed when everybody goes to cable? They will maximize their profit at your expense. Something to think about.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
Thanx you guys, but sheesh! You guys can't agree on anything. I fear like I've started yet another religious war between Ziphler and Sean-dog!
--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
No Mike, its like this. Dan makes me sharper. He's like my own personal mind sharpening tool. I'm wearing him down as I get sharper! Mike-I actually agree with Dan-I think you should go with cable. That's because I have a feeling the setup might be a little easier than DSL. If your computer's not working on the cable, there must be a problem with the setup. Sometimes moisture around lines also can cause problems. It could also be your house wiring is not properly shielded or sometimes RF
(radio-frequency) can interfere with signals where your computer is located. Do you have light dimmers in your house or motors like garage openers or other transmitters in your area that might interfere with internet signal (fire station transmitters, etc.)? I've talked to techies and they say sometimes these interfere. In the meantime, got any more songs you're working on?
Lay em on me. You obviously have some internet capability by email. Test your speed using this internet site:
look for speed test and other diagnostic tests
Sean
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
As usual Sean, you've got deep reserves of hidden wisdom. I should have known. You and Dan are like an old married couple. What looks like bickering to the outside world is really just pure love and affection.
Yes, off course I have light dimmers, radios, garage openers, transmitters etc. in my home. And I plan to keep them. They were here first. Plus I don't want to have to become Amish. Comcast can go screw itself!
Comcast worked for a couple years, it only recently developed the insurmountable problem. The account is cancelled and I returned the equipment. But only after a heroic effort to save it by their best techie. I don't plant on going back to Comcast.
I'm sending you this on my ancient first generation Pentium with antique telephone modem drip connection. It's abysmally slow, slower than I have the patience to wait for it to download a picture or a song, if that is even possible.
Basically, it's only good for simple email with small attachments. Don't ask me the "speed", I'd be too embarrassed to look it up and tell you.
Actually, I feel only slightly inconvenienced by the lack of cable. My main complaint is not being able to download any of Dan's and your fine music!
It would be ever so much appreciated if someone would do the heavy thinking and just tell me what specific company to sign up with (other than Comcast) for simple internet connection with no frills, just maximum speed, reliability and cheapness. Oh, and maximum Dog-friendly transmission capabilities.
--with love from Miguelito!
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Mike, I also agree with Dan - you should go with cable. Don't listen to Sean though. He's been sharpening his head so much that it’s pointed. The Comcast cable is a high performance version of the traditional TV cable that even the old splitters can't be used on because of the interactive TV features and the combination services (phone internet and TV with phone and internet being the same thing since it's just an internet phone). The internet part of the whole thing actually will carry on the traditional cable lines but since interactive TV won't they have definitely upgraded the line considerably making Sean’s theory that there is a hardware problem very unlikely. The problem is in the Comcast software! Just bring the cable back and a cable modem, don't let anybody install anything on your computer itself, plug the modem into your computer using Ethernet cable (the fat phone connector) and turn it on. Windows will find the internet immediately or I'll make the journey to Sacto pronto and make it work.
ziphler
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
All this hostility toward one of America's finest corporations! Heavens. Yes, Comcast is a particularly insidious monopolizing infiltration of complete wide pipe, data flow into and out of our homes. Do they care however if Miguelito is displeased or for that matter, loves them to death? If you must tilt against windmills I would be happy to come assist you in a guerilla tap on your neighbor's cable, however, I hope you noticed the key piece of data in the pissing match that transpired yesterday - that being that my Comcast connection is FIVE TO TEN TIMES FASTER than Sean's DSL and for that matter faster than even I thought it was. My satellite service was usually about what Sean's is. "For simple internet connection with no frills, just maximum speed, reliability and cheapness" they are the only player.
Regarding cheapness - because they couldn't fix you before you ought to be able to bring them back without the install charge. I will say that a Comcast guy we had out here to fix one of our cable boxes was INCREDIBLY stupid. I kept telling him it was the box but he re-wired my house and came back the next day to install a signal booster only to discover that the problem was in my cable box. Something else to consider is that the cable companies have always had a requirement that they provide basic cable to your house for a fixed (by the feds) fee. They never want you to know that and the people who sell the TV packages often don't know about it but if you insist they'll do it. As recently as 1998 it was still only $9 (or maybe $12) so it's probably still less than $20. The thing of it is that even though they are not required to give you internet by that law all you have to do is hook a cable modem to their cable and you got internet - the same one they7 charge you 49.50/month for.
You can also usually hop on a neighbor's wireless system pretty easily and a neighborhood like yours probably has several you could access.
P.S. to sean what's with the bridge in ghostown? Could you play it for me?
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
Fuck Comcast.
--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Miguelito, you seem troubled my son. Take a few breaths or go shoot something. You'll probably feel much better, or worse. Truly the way to put it to the cast at comcast would be to force them to provide basic cable at the federally mandated el cheapo price. Then they'll at least know you exist while you fuck them
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Succinct, expressive, forceful, not particularly eloquent, but a well written essay!
>Fuck Comcast.
>--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Dan-Are you absolutely sure that even if you have the basic cable the internet signal is present? What about extended basic? If so, what type of modem do you need-is it a special cable modem? Any other equipment?
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
All
I know is that when we moved in the basic cable was on and Comcast just brought
out a bunch of TV boxes and one dinky cable modem and started charging us
150/month. The internet was definitely working. I don't think they can block it
but they can control your TV box from afar. It seems pretty obvious that they
don't care that much about the internet anyway. Especially since SF is going
free access wireless citywide. I'm told any cable modem will do but have only
used theirs which is real simple. They do make a point of only giving you one
and telling you if you have multiple computers that you must set up a home
network. I'm thinking of getting another modem cause it sounds like that’s where
they bottleneck the bandwidth.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
If that's true I can get internet up at the cabin cause I have the basic cable, and then I can test it here to see if I can get those blazing fast cable speeds. With DSL its easier to set up a peer to peer network.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Look out. If it’s the old fashioned cable they may not even have internet and nevertheless may do things different than Comcast who is real big on interactive TV making the internet child's play for them.
RE: Brevity
From Bob
Dear Sean,
Sorry I missed you and Mike. It was short notice for Dan as well, but it was fun seeing Dan Wed night and interesting to see his beautiful living conditions Thurs morning. Sean, I don't think I'm a chameleon. Rather, I think I'm a weak agnostic . . . the most intellectually honest position I can attain in my search for truth. The Catholic darling, G.K. Chesterton, called agnostic people like me cowards. As a strong Catholic, you probably feel the same way about me, hence your "chameleon" comment. But I actually think I'm being more honest, more humble with what I do and don't know . . . But please, don't confuse humbleness with a lack of conviction. George Bush ordered the cluster bombing of targets that he knew would take out approximately 5000 completely innocent Iraqis. Even a weak agnostic like me knows that that's just plain old MORALLY wrong. Period. It was wrong BECAUSE it wasn't the last resort for our self-defense, a basic tenet in the Catholic (and Islamic, and Rosicrucian, and Buddhist - keep thinking independently, Danny!) Just War doctrine! Now I wonder, was the pattern bombing of Cambodia, ordered by Richard Nixon in 1972, MORE morally wrong than the cluster bombing of Iraq ordered by Dubya in 2003? Hmm . . . A vigorous debate ensued amongst the famous quartet of the cyber-religious club!
I know that you may think that cripples me, that I miss out on 'real' enlightenment, or, as Mike has suggested, that I am limited by the thoughts of my own 'inner voice' instead of experiencing my own more pure 'un-thinking' soul. I take Mike's point under advisement, but so far in life, I let my soul express itself in other ways; music is one of them. I admit that music, and even the consciousness that writes, creates and enjoys it, could all just be waltzing chemicals. I can still hear my Methodist minister Dad retort, "But who wrote the waltz, Son"? Maybe nobody, Dad. I don't know.
I appreciate people who also ADMIT that they don't know, or, who, at the very least, admit that they can't PROVE whatever it is that they think they absolutely know. I appreciate people who display that kind of humbleness in the face of all that accumulated wisdom, be it scientific or Mike's good point about 2000 more years of collective spiritual wisdom melded together into a "new all-inclusive modern spirituality.." The Upanishads have some amazing stuff that makes more sense to me than the Bible! That's the best I can assert. In fact, on vacation I've been reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam" by Imam Yahiya Emerick. The Qur'an has another 600 years of wisdom than the Bible and it shows in some ways.
All four of us, Sean, Dan, Mike, and Bob are to some extent those humble people, people who admit that they don't know or that, at the very least, they can't PROVE their religious convictions taken on faith. But I think Mike makes a good point that some people limit themselves. Maybe I limit myself with my over-thought 'intellectual honesty.' Maybe you limit yourself, Sean, when you wave around a picked-through and groomed collection of sometimes peaceful and sometimes genocidal myths and stories, written by agrarian eastern Mediterraneans some 2000 years ago, even with mutually supporting 'gospels' (because the other ones were thrown away?). Maybe the people who act like they know the ultimate truth, BECAUSE it's in the Bible, well, maybe they'll be the ones who will miss out on the real truth when it slaps them upside their consciousness, as I believe it one day will when the universal consciousness of the Ionian Enchantment arrives!
But Mike gets some real credit here:
Bob
From Miguelito
Hey Bob,
Welcome back to the fray! Insightful as always. I agree with you that ultimately, we're all agnostics. It's the human condition. Now if I could just get you to appreciate, I mean really appreciate, that there are other valid and effective ways of "knowing" reality in addition to logic and the scientific method, then we'd really be getting somewhere.
On a more profound subject than reality, thanks for your "one word" recommendation on cable. That recommendation easily wins the week's Miguelito award for brevity. Impressive! However, no one to my knowledge has answered my essential question, which is the only question I need help with, to wit: what is the next best alternative to Comcast, with speed and price being the main criteria? If anyone knows the answer or thinks they have the answer, or has an opinion about the answer, please follow Bob's laudable example of brevity and fill in the blank below with the specific name of the specific company that you recommend. Thank you!
"Until Humanity learns to see God here on Earth, to see God in each others' eyes, there will be no end to war." Forgive me for pointing out that I believe Jesus said this. "The kingdom of God is at hand!", meaning, it is here and now. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". (Hopefully I got that quote right. I'm not a good fundamentalist-I know the bible inside and out but I can't quote verbatim-I just know what it says.)
I think you have many good points and insights. It’s funny how we often agree with the 85% of what each other says and then just focus on and dispute the 15%. The difference sometimes is qualitative or lies in subtlety of the issues, and not in the main concept. But here I go again, just discussing the finer, subtler differences.
Chesterton (GK): you may interpret him too harshly when he calls agnostics cowards. He means that only in an "intellectual sense", which is odd because you call it "intellectual honesty", i.e., the agnostic position that is.
Or perhaps GK is saying that you can't really live an intellectual concept. You can hold that concept, but at some point the rubber has to meet the road. I think he is saying that there is a contradiction with the concept of agnosticism and how we try to live our lives, the implementation. At a certain level I agree with him, but it’s one man's opinion. He might be saying that we have to choose, whichever way is chosen is ok because as more data is developed, even that decision can be changed. But, if we suspend that decision (by choosing the agnostic position), then we are postponing making a decision which maybe should be made. We then have "stunted" moving on and are suspended between the two ideas, never to really resolve the issue.
Regardless of what GK says, I say, if you can, make that decision. Become an atheist, the best one you can become. Or, become the best theist you can be. I sincerely believe God would want that. God wants us to use the free will he gave-that is how absolutely marvelous his love is. He loves unconditionally and gives us total freedom. Then, see how it works, feels, fits in with your life. Is it true? Does it have the ring of truth? If it does, viola or eureka! If it doesn't, choose the other and try it. By far the most important thing I agree on with Dan and you and Mike is that that we follow the truth, anything less is unworthy, and if there is a God (and here I speak from the point of view of an agnostic or atheist), it would be against his will.
Its true though there is a component to your position that resembles humbleness, and that is good. We never really know when our decisions are sound and that's the uncertainty of existence; of having been, being, and becoming. That usually takes the test of time. But humbleness encompasses much more and is not necessarily just not being dogmatic or not sure of your position. Humbleness also encompasses allowing people to express themselves and be who they are or want to be, supporting them in their humanity, including but not limited to, even if they are wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with everything they say or even coming to the conclusion, "yes, their/that way is valid too". Their humanity is valid and their right to choose is valid, and we are united with them in their angst-ridden search for the truth, but their "way" may or may not be valid. It can also be an invalid position, and for logic to stand, the possibility of the invalid position, that has to be a real/true, otherwise any behavior will do and all behaviors are equally valid and should be pursued. Presumably, we all know this can't be correct and that every way can't be valid.
Anyway, Bob, as far as being a "chameleon", that can be a good thing. You're just harder to peg because you think in more shades than me and maybe Dan and Mike. I have to disagree with you that I am humble. I am working on being humble, and it’s the hardest damn thing I have ever attempted in my life. Maybe that's the beginning of my humbleness? One step at a time.
The answer to life: DSL
Sean
More Lack of Brevity
From Bob
Dear Mike,
A quote from your last correspondence:
“Now if I could just get you (Bob) to appreciate, I mean really appreciate, that there are other valid and effective ways of “ knowing" reality in addition to logic and the scientific method, then we'd really be getting somewhere.”
It is interesting to me that you put "knowing" in quotes, Mike. Can you show what you "know" to another human, of any other culture, despite his or her race, religion, and/or sexual orientation? Can you really show that these "other ways" to knowledge are "valid and effective," for EVERYBODY? Are they universal, a quality I believe that true knowledge has?
If you and I apparently have such trouble communicating with each other, that there are these other valid and effective ways of "knowing," how can all humans sit down at an international banquet of knowledge? You and I are both relatively open-minded, same culture, same country, same college friends, and here I stand, unable to appreciate what is so easy for you!
I'm trying to get all humans to ask themselves: "What do I know . . . and what do I take on faith? What are my beliefs that I hold without evidence? Even though my faith works for me, what other faiths are held equally valid by others with a similar lack of evidence? Is my faith really better, truer, more grounded in reality? Why or why not? How can I prove my hypothesis (es) about my faith? Am I willing to admit that I can't prove my hypothesis (es) about my faith? What is reality? How can we humans, we conscious beings, agree on a reality that works, a reality that gets us to peace and prosperity on this earth, here, now?"
To appreciate knowledge, I mean to really APPRECIATE knowledge; I admit that I need it to be repeatable, verifiable, and independently testable by anyone of any gender, sexual orientation, culture, faith, or religion. In short, I appreciate knowledge that can be appreciated by any conscious person or being! I want knowledge that is UNIVERSAL. That's my form of fundamentalism if you will. To me, FUNDAMENTALLY inter-cultural and inter-faith knowledge is the best knowledge, highest quality knowledge, truest knowledge, universal knowledge, knowledge that works.
Your "knowing," Mike, that "knowing" in the quote above of which I believe you speak, well, I freely admit that I don't appreciate it as much as you want me to because I consider that "knowing" to be faith, not knowledge. It's your faith, which I bet I share with you more than you may realize . . . but one difference may be, that I admit to myself that it's ONLY faith, not necessarily the universal knowledge that is so vitally needed right here, right now. I'm sure that you feel that your "knowing" is universal and more vitally needed right now. That's where we disagree . . . and it's okay to disagree. I respect you immensely, Mike. And Sean. Both of you are deists. I just don't know about the God hypothesis. I'm not sure it's universal knowledge . . . And I know that will sound preposterous to you and Sean, whereas Dan is probably going "Yeah, go Bob!" But I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that I don't know the "validity and effectiveness" of these "other ways" that include god. You probably think that displays a lack of spiritual honesty, or spiritual ignorance for which I've already stood accused, or some combination of the two. Okay, I'll take that.
But for me, where the cultures and religions and interpretations meet, that's the WATERING HOLE of knowledge. That's the place to get knowledge that everybody, every culture, every nation; every religion has to drink, regardless of faith and belief in "other ways", other ways to which they often don't agree, other ways for which they will even kill each other! Sean finds my advocated level of knowledge to be mundane; he finds knowledge about the physical universe to be spiritually unsatisfying, etc. But what if that's all there really is? And I can make a good case that it is this verifiable knowledge that is needed MORE than any other. It might just be the only knowledge that is real . . . You may not be able to prove or disprove the god hypothesis, now or for the foreseeable future. I believe that you may just be taking these "other ways" on faith, Mike . . . which is okay . . . I don't know if you're more KNOWLEDGEABLE than me or not . . .
I'm not trying to talk past you, Mike. I'm trying to take the discussion into a verbal, hands-on level, where I think knowledge needs to be, to get this damn world on track to peace and prosperity.
That's my soul in a nutshell, as sad and unenlightened and cacophonous as you may consider it. Sorry for being so literal, so limited, so human, so secular humanist, as I guess I can hear Sean saying right now.
Humbly, Bob K.
Teach
yourselves to War
From Ziphler
Gentlemen, a fascinating flurry today. I like that we are talking about knowing, faith, and rational skepticism but I must get to the beach so I'll only say at this juncture that Miguelito needs broadband musical nourishment, his thinking is getting muddled like SEAN’s: If Comcast is the only cable and you refuse to use them (remember at the federally mandated minimum you can fuck them back, still the best idea and just have them bring the cable to the mountain and I’ll do the rest) then I got to disagree with Sean again and say, go with satellite or have a serious discussion with any one of your adjacent neighbors to split their internet costs and buy a wireless router/hub (one time cost of 60 bucks) definitely the next best idea.
Satellite will probably cost more than DSL but of that I am not sure.
BE IT EHHHHHE-VER SO HUMBLE THERE’S NO-OO PLACE LIKE HOME‼!
Go Teach Yourselves
From Sean
"Mired in confusion
you just have to choose
between a life to live
and cable, DSL, or satellite"
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon. - Alexander Pope
That means you shouldn't peak too soon.
It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Bob
Dear Sean,
I like Mike's statement better. It is more succinct and conveys a specific meaning (that I love) much more clearly than the Biblical passages you are stretching to try to match (unsuccessfully, in my opinion). I know that you have stated in the past that very few new ideas are around that are not in the Bible, but I just don't agree with that. I think Mike's point about 2000 years of progress in spiritual thought is a good one. In my opinion, the Bible falls short in so many ways, I can't even begin to enumerate them. Huston Smith said it better:
"When I read the Upanishads, which are part of Vedanta, I found a profundity of worldview that made my Christianity seem like third grade."
Of course, as Smith goes on to say, these same truths can be found in Christian thought but they are about eight centuries later, yet less clearly stated than the Upanishads. Progress should be forward, not back.
Good point about the 85% agreement and 15% argument. But there is a fundamental difference between deists, agnostics, and atheists. And we got one or more from each category in our Spiritual Chat Quartet (SCQ). That's what keeps it interesting!
I know you want to smooth over the fact that Chesterton considers agnostics cowards, but there's no smoothing it over, Sean. I can't recall his exact words and I don't feel like looking them up, but when I read his assessment of agnostics, it was very clear what he meant. Chesterton is very articulate and we don't need to stretch his meaning to try and be conciliatory. I'm sure my Catholic sister considers me to be a misled coward as well, unable to face the "abundantly clear ultimate truth" that she believes Christianity presents.
But my rejection of many spiritual tenets of Christianity is not based on a lack of knowledge of them, so you needn't waste time trying to explain them. I know Christianity fairly well.
I could never be an atheist. An atheist denies others their spiritual dimension. It may be that man invented god. It may be well be that the homogeneity of religious thought within one social group is favored by natural selection, and thus our brains ironically became wired for religious fervor as a result of evolution. It may be that the universe (waltzing
chemicals) has no inherent purpose or meaning, so that we are all free to choose our own meaning, free to paint the blank canvas any colors or shapes we choose, and that is why so many different forms of spirituality exist today. These hypotheses are consistent with the data . . .
But I don't KNOW these things. I honestly do not know. And I don't think you do either. I think you have faith instead. I would say that you are much more humble a Catholic than someone like my sister, Sean. You have that kernel of doubt that is the essence of faith. I know you have that, because you show it to us in intelligent, searching ways. Don't worry so much. And you have what it takes to be humble.
I keep waltzing chemicals as one possibility among the many I consider. I few the whole thing as a giant probability function. I consider that the odds are best for science leading to the Ionian enchantment, but Christianity could. Mike's could. Hell, devil worshippers could lead to complete enlightenment for all I know, but that is probably the least likely! It might be that all these philosophies, pulling together, could lead us their faster. Ultimately, universal truths prevail.
Bob K.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Yes, after reading Mike's statement I agree with you Bob that I glossed over it without showing it its due.
Its wisdom is undeniable.
I will disagree with Smith on Hinduism vs Christianity. In fact, C. S. Lewis make the converse argument, that the pantheistic view appeals more to the modern day thinker precisely because its simplistic worldview was one of the first in the evolution of spiritual thought and resonates with the more primitive times and aspects of our consciousnesses.
Don't get me wrong; I think many elements of Hinduism and Buddhism it are incredibly attractive and I myself was infatuated with them for a period and to this day I think they contain great truths and wisdom.
Everything else you said I agree and understand where you are coming from.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Miguelito
Bob,
I, for one, don't think that being an agnostic is cowardly. In fact, I think it takes quite a bit of courage to admit one's doubt and to admit the possibility that when you're dead, you're dead. In fact, the more cowardly position is arguably the religious/spiritual viewpoint, since it offers easy comfort that there is life after death. We all naturally want to believe that, so it takes courage to admit that it might not be true.
We all know people who have turned off their independent, critical thinking for the comfort of the fundamentalist viewpoint that promises pie in the sky. That is probably the single biggest reason I resisted the spiritual viewpoint most of my life. If felt like an easy cop out, and a betrayal of my intellectual capability and independent thinking, just to join a bunch of group thinkers. I have never been a joiner or a group thinker, but have prided myself on my independent thought.
But then, I realized it's also an easy copy out to just automatically take the opposite of a popular viewpoint just to be stubbornly different. It took me most of life, balancing these two different outlooks, to arrive at my own independent conclusions.
I get your frustration with my comments and the sincerity of your search for knowledge. However, I cannot impart my "knowledge" to you. The essential nature of the search for truth of which I speak is profoundly personal and unique to each individual. You have to find your own personal truth in this world.
"It interesting to me that you put "knowing" in quotes, Mike. Can you show what you s "know" to another human, of any other culture, despite his or her race, religion, and/or sexual orientation? Can you really show that these "other ways" to knowledge are "valid and effective," for EVERYBODY? Are they universal, a quality I believe that true knowledge has?"
The quotes I placed around the word "knowing" were not accidental, they were directed at you. That is because there are truly many different ways of "knowing" the world, and your way just happens to be the one that requires evidence and objective proof.
So I ask you: what if there are truths that can only be known subjectively, i.e., not proven to others, in the scientific sense of the term "proof"? Truths that are not "repeatable, verifiable, and independently testable by anyone"?
If you are a true agnostic, you will have to admit that there might be such things that cannot be "known" solely through the scientific process, that can't be proven to others by objective scientific evidence. To insist otherwise is merely to profess your faith or belief, since I do not believe you can prove to me that all knowledge is subject to scientific proof and objective consensus.
You keep reiterating your viewpoint as if I or we don't understand it. There is nothing about your viewpoint I feel I don’t understand. Your viewpoint is the one 99% of our generation was raised with. It is the viewpoint I was raised with and had most of my life. I therefore feel I am intimately familiar with it. Despite its undeniable validity, it left me incomplete, empty. Your repeated explanations of the scientific search for knowledge and truth add nothing to this discussion, from my viewpoint. I already know and accept the scientific method as a valid way of gathering objective knowledge about the outside world. But it is the internal world of which I speak. As a psych major, I studied the work of the famous behaviorist B.F. Skinner. His purely scientific approach to human psychology was to completely ignore the subjective inner human world of feelings, emotions, inner truths, etc., since they are difficult or impossible to scientifically quantify, and to focus solely on human behavior as the only relevant variable. Thus, humans are analyzed like rats in a Skinner box, and are defined solely by their behavior. This
was a valiant attempt to apply pure scientific principles to a naggingly nonscientific topic, the human. Ultimately, I concluded that behaviorism is of some limited value in predicting human behavior in extremely limited circumstances, and no value whatsoever in understanding the human "soul," whatever that is. It was an almost laughably insufficient attempt to turn human psychology into a more respected science that be respected by real scientists such as chemists and physicists.
Our Siritual Chat Quartet (SCQ) is not alone in discussing the intersection of science and religion/spirituality. Rather, this seems to me to be the topic of our times, and is on the cutting edge of humanity's current philosophical/psychological/spiritual evolution. There are lots of books on it. The other night, there was a PBS program dedicated to it. They interviewed a number of scientists who later became priests, rabbis, and whatever you call a Hindu shaman. They were quite eloquent at describing how they are able to accept science and religion at the same time, seeing no inconsistency whatsoever. I agree. They describe science as approaching knowledge from the viewpoint of the external (objective) world, and religion/spirituality as approaching knowledge from the viewpoint of the internal (subjective) world. Both worlds undeniably exist, and different tools are needed to understand each. So there is no real conflict between science and religion; they both seek knowledge and truth. The trouble is that the type of "logic", "knowing" and "evidence" you insist on using exclusively are only applicable to the external world, where they are admittedly brilliantly successful, and undoubtedly are the best tools for understanding that world.
Those tools have much less utility in the internal (subjective) world, which is not amenable to such measurement. However, just because the internal world is not amenable to scientific measurement and objective verification, is not an intellectually honest reason to ignore it, or to insist that it doesn't exist, or that it is irrelevant. In my view, the subjective, internal world is
exactly as important as the external objective world. Clearly, our society does not agree, since it elevates the objective world to
a level of far greater importance and relevance than the subjective internal world. In America, people who focus on the subjective, un-provable internal world are typically viewed as kooks. There is this desperate need for objective consensus. It is not that way in India. I have concluded that this is a cultural bias that I do not have to accept.
So, no, I cannot show that the other ways of "knowing" are valid and effective for everybody; I only know that they are valid and effective for me. That is the nature of subjective truth; it cannot be given or "proven" to another. That is why, ultimately, I can not argue with Sean, because he has arrived at his own subjective truth about the internal world. It is not quite my truth,
but no amount of arguing on my part is going to change his mind.
It might surprise you to know that I consider myself an agnostic. Because, like you, there are things I cannot be sure of in the external objective world. However, the things I feel I have come to "know" in my own subjective internal world, I feel as secure in believing as you can be sure of anything in this world. Therefore, I have arrived at a form of peace, imperfect as it is. It
is perfect in its imperfection; I don't think it gets any clearer than that.
Finally, let me suggest we not get into a humbleness match. "My humbleness is smaller than yours!" "No it's not, MY humbleness is smaller!!!" There's something just a little unseemly about that.
Thank you Bob for your courage, your intellectual honesty and, yes, your humility.
--Miguelito the agnostic
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Ziphler
KEISLAR - - >"Hell, devil worshippers could lead to complete enlightenment for all I know, but that is probably the least likely!"
Hey hey, the devil, amongst all the permutations of the occult, of which religion is only a subset, is the ONLY being who never judges anyone and does not have anger or hostility issues
Bob I could understand why someone would interpret agnostic as cowards, I might have used the words chicken shit but honestly, if anything I'd have to identify them not as cowards but lazy thinkers, the very quality that religions and fervent atheists all thrive on. I hope you understand how ethereal the meanings of these words are. They are downright fast moving targets. For instance:
Jethro - a hypothetical evangelistic streetdog who believes that God literally lives on a fluffy cloud with saint peter at his pearly gate
Miguelito - an educated progressive free thinking former catholic streetdog who still claims to believe in God but views God as equivalent to life force, or molecular motion, rather than a male Caucasian with a beard.
Sean - a devout catholic streetdog who nevertheless tries to exercise free thought so must rationalize much of his belief system by viewing the mystical and unrealistic descriptions and parables in the bible as metaphors.
Ziphler – a self-centered overeducated hedonistic streetdog, hooked on the idea that love is everything in a discussion like this one because he entered puberty during the summer of love, a great liberal social experiment, foisted upon ziph’s “born in 54” generation by his older siblings and their peers.
Keislar – a doubt driven self-described agnostic streetdog braniac who has nothing but enthusiasm for knowledge
Jethro would say that the whole lot of you were atheists because he can only conceive of God as a discreet physical being. Keislar says Sean and Mike are deists. Sean, on the other hand would call Miguelito, Jethro, and himself theists. I would have to tell Jethro that I am an atheist and perhaps begin to explain the concept of an agnostic to him, but I would say to you guys that all of these ists depend first on how YOU (my current captive audience) define GOD and thus discard these labels as too inexact to be useful.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
PROBABLY TRUE
RE:
It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Remind me again, who is Jethro?
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Ziphler
Man, What a bunch of windbags! You are all so accommodating and Miguelito, the true chameleon here, is as balanced as one of the shuttle's gyroscopes as he agnoatheistically defines his belief in GOD! The good lawyer has also been off the streets for too long with statements like this one:
“Clearly, our society does not agree, since it elevates the objective world to a level of far greater importance and relevance than the subjective internal world.”
OMG Miguelito, have you not seen Jay Leno interview average 20 somethings on the street with questions like “Does the sun rotate around the earth or the other way around?” , or “Who is vice president? Americans are getting dumber by the second and as such are far more prone to interpreting everything from a subjective viewpoint. And what about this horrendous political movement fed by the increasing percentage of evangelical Christians?
Am I the only one of us who will not accept as valid, the squishy state of denial that passes itself off as a viewpoint that I should respect and its owner is entitled to?
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
LET HIM WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE
(ahh, that would not be you Dan!)
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Ok, I really am the more humble. I was just trying to show how humble I am! Very eloquently said and the logic is impeccable.
Nice Mike.
And let me be more clear that although I understand Chesterton's position, I don't hold that view that agnostics are cowards (in fact I'd be surprised if he actually used that word, but I could be wrong).
Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Sean
Indulge me-I identify heavily with this guy. Walker Percy: Diagnostician of the Modern Malaise by CARL E. OLSON. I was first introduced to the writing of Walker Percy (1916-1990) several years ago and have been hooked ever since. The Moviegoer was the first book by Percy I read. It was also his first novel, the winner of the National Book Award in 1961.
Walker Percy
(1916-1990)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew little about Percy, except that he was Southern and Catholic, and that a good friend of mine believed he was "required reading." As I read The Moviegoer two things immediately impressed me: the beauty of his writing and the spiritual longing which permeates the book. Soon afterward I began reading Signposts in a Strange Land, a collection of his essays, with topics ranging from "Bourbon" to "Novel-Writing in an Apocalyptic Time" to "A 'Cranky Novelist' Reflects on the Church." That was quickly followed by a side-splitting read of Lost In The Cosmos, subtitled "The Last Self-Help Book" and filled with an ingenious mixture of cutting satire, pop culture, and philosophical reflection, all aimed at questions such as: Why is modern man, master of technology and information, such a mystery to himself? And why is he in so much misery most of the time?
Percy was a seeker in the truest sense of the word. Orphaned as a young boy — his father committed suicide and his mother died under mysterious circumstances — he, along with his two brothers, was raised by his eccentric and literary Uncle Will. While attending medical school he contracted tuberculosis and spent the better part of three years bedridden. During that time he read extensively from the writings of existentialists such as Camus, Sartre, and Kierkegaard, and also works by Catholic thinkers, especially St. Thomas Aquinas. Shortly thereafter, in his mid-thirties, he made three major decisions: to become a full-time writer, to marry, and to become Catholic. The quest taken up in his writing would be to "diagnose" the "modern malaise," the emptiness of spirit and darkness of heart so prevalent in the 20th century, especially reflected in the fact that modern man is a stranger to himself. This would be accomplished through characters who were on "the search" for the Other, even while they didn't know who or what that "other" might be. Binx Bolling, the main character in The Moviegoer, reflects upon this search:
What do you seek — God? you ask with a smile. I hesitate to answer, since all other Americans have settled the matter for themselves and to give such an answer would amount to setting myself a goal which everyone else has reached — and therefore raising a question in which no one has the slightest interest…. For, as everyone knows, the polls report that 98% of Americans believe in God and the remaining 2% are atheists and agnostics — which leaves not a single percentage point for a seeker…. Have 98% of Americans already found what I seek or are they so sunk in everydayness that not even the possibility of a search has occurred to them?
It was a happy coincidence that at the same time I was reading Percy, I was also reading G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man. Although very different in style, Percy and Chesterton are linked in many ways. They were both converts to the Catholic faith who were raised in agnostic homes and who claimed no formal theological or philosophical training. More importantly, they both had a high regard for Aquinas and had a view of humanity which was at once modern and orthodox. They understood the times they lived in and saw how far removed those times had become from the life-giving, intellectually sound sources of Western civilization. Both used satire to expose the stupidities and evils of their age — Chesterton with gentleness, Percy with a dark humor. Chesterton saw the evils of communism and Nazism on the horizon, even as Percy witnessed their reality and saw the practical implications of their philosophical underpinnings being worked out in the West in the forms of abortion and euthanasia. Both recognized that mankind, as it destroyed history and tradition, was "freeing" itself to wander the wastelands of despair, alienation and nihilism. They each pointed out that scientism, consumerism, behaviorism, and secular humanism were of no avail — they could not answer the questions of the human heart even while they promised to fulfill the deepest human desires. In a real way, Chesterton's What Wrong with the World and Percy's Lost in the Cosmos are fitting companions, as divergent in style as the authors were in personality — Chesterton ever optimistic and joyful, Percy somber and often caustic.
Much is made of Percy's reliance upon Kierkegaard, Camus and Sartre. But his debt to Aquinas is either ignored or passed over by most people, although Percy himself noted that Aquinas had more impact on the creation of his characters and their analytic methods than did Kierkegaard. And while the "malaise" which Percy writes about is distinctly modern, it is inherently ancient at its core, the cry of man for transcendent truth and meaning. As Percy said in more than one interview, his books are about rootless, despairing, sinful, messed up people looking for Other, for God. In his novels this is sometimes shown by the discovery of the human "other" — a human love, symbolizing the supernatural love which animates all love. Hence the title of one his novels: Love in the Ruins.
Percy talked of his novels as being "diagnostic." In this regard he turned to Aquinas and drew a distinction between art and morality. In an interview, he explained that "art is making; morality is doing…. This is not to say that art, fiction, is not moral in the most radical sense — if it is made right. But if you write a novel with the goal of trying to make somebody do right, you're writing a tract — which may be an admirable enterprise, but it is not literature." He goes on to say that what interests him as a novelist is the "loonyness" of modern man, "the normal denizen of the Western world who, I think it is fair to say, doesn't know who he is, what he believes, or what he is doing. This unprecedented state of affairs is, I suggest, the domain of the 'diagnostic' novelist."
For those who are seeking truth and for all those who love truth and great literature, Walker Percy is their writer, a challenging guide to the "signposts in a strange land."
RE: Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Bob
Dear Sean,
It's unclear to me. With whom do you identify heavily, Carl Olsen or Walker Percy?
From Olson's text:
“Chesterton saw the evils of communism and Nazism on the horizon, even as Percy witnessed their reality and saw the practical implications of their philosophical underpinnings being worked out in the West in the forms of abortion and euthanasia. Both recognized that mankind, as it destroyed history and tradition, was "freeing" itself to wander the wastelands of despair, alienation and nihilism. They each pointed out that scientism, consumerism, behaviorism, and secular humanism were of no avail - they could not answer the questions of the human heart even while they promised to fulfill the deepest human desires.”
Naturally I'm going to take issue with "scientism," but to keep my promise to Mike I can't discuss it. You know what I'm going to say anyway.
Also, why did mankind destroy history?!? I'm your basic "scientism"scientist, and I love history. I don't get Olson's point. How much is he just trying to shock us into a response? Science loves recorded history!
Finally linking abortion and euthanasia to evil is of course a religious perspective, particularly a Catholic perspective. Olsen is obviously a Catholic, probably a heavy one if you love him so much. But abortion is a woman's decision, not the government's, and not one particular religion's decision to be made for any other non-practicing, non-believing human being.
And euthanasia should be a personal decision for terminally ill patients. To me, abortion and euthanasia are advances in human thought and deed . . . not despair, alienation and nihilism. Not that everyone should use abortion for birth control! It's too damn expensive!!
Consumerism is obviously hollow. Mike went after behaviorism with his discussion of B.F. Skinner. I'll leave it at that. And secular humanism, well, I agree that it can't answer the questions of the human heart any better than religion can, AND vice versa! The human spirit is powered by the human heart, maybe not a Catholic God, maybe not god at all. Olson leaves the impression that religion (read Catholocism) can answer the questions of the human heart. It obviously answered some questions for you. But in general, I say . . . Bullshit. It answers them no better than Mike's independent search can answer them. And I don't feel that the basic truth(s) of Christianity are universal. Many of them are too absurd to be universal.
No offense.
Bob K.
RE:
Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Sean
Bob-I was talking of Percy. I thought that brief passage where it stated that he and Chesterton had grown up in families of agnostics was a key piece of information to understand how they might view other agnostics, perhaps in an over-reaction.
Couple that with the fact I absolutely love Kierkegaard's stuff and the existentialists and Aquinas....well, this is the stuff that rings true for me. These guys lived a while ago too. I mean I totally understand and identify with them. Can't help it-I see the world like them. They are my brothers, from my spiritual fold.
“Olson leaves the impression that religion (read Catholocism) can answer the questions of the human heart."
I didn't think he meant Catholicism. I think he was talking about what Mike was trying to say (who I must say was right on) that the modern man way of looking at things (scientism, consumerism,.....etc.,) is spiritually empty, that you can't inspect the human soul or heart with a microscope or spectrometer, it would not provide any answers to the human heart. He's not knocking science Bob. What he's knocking is using science to provide answers it was never intended to be used for.
That's my take at least.
RE: Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Ziphler
“ . . . that the modern man way of looking at things (scientism, consumerism,.....etc.,) is spiritually empty, that you can't inspect the human soul or heart with a microscope or spectrometer, it would not provide any answers to the human heart.”
Perhaps as the in-house biologist of this group I have neglected to carry my weight. However, I fear Miguelito and Sean may be in for some rude awakenings in the near future if they choose to remain open to the utter and complete dismantling of religion as some sort of bridge to unseen consciousness. While I do not share Bob’s view that science will deliver virtual immortality any time soon, there is currently an explosion of new information in the area of neuroscience. Perhaps you won’t see the connection but for me, an excellent example is a discovery published in the papers two weeks ago on dexterity. It has always been assumed that practicing repetitive movement brings about some degree of hard wired memory for the exact motion. What they have found is that this is never the case and that in reality the brain approaches every motion with an entirely new plan based on current data. You may have thrown that pitch or played that scale 10,000 times but when you set out to do it the 10,001th time the brain starts from scratch and re-plots every part of the sequence (as opposed to modifying a learned pattern to adapt to a slightly different set of parameters [i.e. changes in height of the pitcher’s mound or a 1 inch longer guitar strap]). This helps explain the worn out revelation we’ve heard since birth; that humans only use 10% of their brain. Such a concept of inefficiency contradicts the miracle of biology, which is all about efficiency. What this study shows, is that our brain processes far more data than we ever thought – and it doesn’t ever overheat.
More to the point, they are starting to zero in on some of the whys and wherefores of emotion, imagination, and yes, behaviors by examining what’s inside skinners black box, and every new discovery in this realm blows apart assumptions man has carried since language began. The same assumptions proffered by both spiritual gurus and idiots like skinner.
By the way, this word; scientism really is a new low in theology. It reeks of a cynicism heretofore reserved for republicans in their use of the word liberalism. Science is not a belief system . And “belief system” itself is an oxymoron invented by theologists and psychologists.
RE: Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Sean
"the utter and complete dismantling of religion as some sort of bridge to unseen consciousness."
Methinks someone has an axe to grind!
"While I do not share Bob’s view that science will deliver virtual immortality any time soon, there is currently an explosion of new information in the area of neuroscience."
Yes and you go on to say we will map and find the mechanism of these areas of the brain, yada, yada, yada, etc, etc ...and presumably so on until we have reduce man to a robot that will be conditioned by those in power or if man so desires can self-induce permanent orgasm thereby reducing his life to the seeking of pure pleasure.
The only problem Dan is this fantasy world holds absolutely no love whatsoever, the thing you pride yourself on looking into your heart and reveling in, exploring your own independent ideas, and to craft what type of life??? Seems like a HELL to me! What type of being? A lost, alienated soul-less non-entity. No, that is NO being at all, one that is controlled by nothing more than its own incestuous desires, an automaton with absolutely no free will, a slave to the GREAT SAVIOR SCIENCE-
THERE COULD BE NO MORE HORRIFIC HELL IMAGINABLE! and if you can't see this, YOU ARE BLIND! No matter how far science advances it will never reach God's mind. Take that to the bank baby!
(Wow, how was that for drama)
RE:
Diversion and some discussed concepts
From Ziphler
WHOA!
Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Bob
Dear Sean, (don't read this Mike! Boring old 20th century scientism . . . ) I'm asking you to accept the POSSIBILITY, and it's only a possibility, that the ONLY valid answers come from science. I know that's tough for you and Mike. But the jury is way out there on this one . . . way, way out there . . . despite your faith otherwise . . .
All the rest of the so-called 'answers' from Catholicism, Yoga, Devil Worship, etc., might just be neurons masturbating (sophisticated form of chemicals waltzing!) inside your own head, heart, and soul (or whatever that combination of conscious neurons and scared scrolls may comprise what you think is your "soul"). That neuronal electrical activity, fueled by sunlight in the food you eat, might just make you, Sean Kennedy, feel good and get meaning and answers to your own self-imposed questions! So you follow it, loving the 'meaning.' It has a profound feedback loop, with your own thoughts, and with your parents as you were raised. As long as the people around you think like you and obey the same traditions as you, it provides a self-perpetuating evolutionary advantage! Wow! Viola! Hard-wired religiosity! A scientific explanation for all that yearning that can't be answered by measly old science!
What I'm asking you to consider as possible is that if all people died, the god that they invented might die too. Consciousness in other parts of the universe might continue, but that would form a similarly distributed (not main-frame) architecture of consciousness. I know that's against your dogma, where god is omnipresent and eternal. But I don't know that you can prove your dogma to other people, as Mike told us in his "personal spirituality" email.
It's a bleak possibility for religious types; you call it "scientism" and ascribe all sorts of other evils to it (consumerism, abortion, etc.). I understand that, but so far, this single bleak idea is A) unifying, and B) fits the data . . . that's power right there!!
Now I don't know if it's true or not, but I consider scientism's 'soul-freeing' implications to be REAL existential freedom. Science and rational thought, founded on UNIVERSAL axioms to which we can all agree, is going to be a big part of a healthy future. As Dan picked out, I wouldn't go out on a limb and say:
" . . . that the modern man way of looking at things (scientism, consumerism,.....etc.,) is spiritually empty, that you can't inspect the human soul or heart with a microscope or spectrometer, it would not provide any answers to the human heart."
I don't know that that is true. I'll say that consumerism is environmentally unsound, but I won't say that scientism is spiritually empty in general; maybe it's only empty for you. Rather, I would say that we just don't know yet. We've just mapped the human genome, and the dynamic, numerically unstable solutions to all possible feedback loops in 6 or 7 billion human brains interacting with an entire planet of other beings and feedback loops is beyond computational capabilities, even if we knew all the neurological and biochemical pathways, which we certainly don't. But also, I would not count scientism out, not just yet . . .
Mark my words, Sean, cause this is gonna happen soon. What will you say when the "power of life and death," ascribed to god by most religions, becomes routine human endeavor? What will you say when we "cure" death, a genetically preprogrammed disease that is the baggage of evolution, where the next generation used to be all that mattered? Some day we will have the capability to build "consciousness centers," eternally conscious beings . . . or networks of them . . . (Scary, huh!?!)
These are huge, profound ideas, on a level with religious thought. I don't think you can cast "scientism" aside with a wave of the old-fashioned religious hand, and say "Oh, science doesn't apply here, here, and here." I don't know that . . . and I don't think you really know it either . . . despite your bravado to Dan to "take that to the bank, baby") It's just your faith talking, Sean. It's a free country and Dan and I won't deny you your faith . . . You go, girl . . . but someday, our great grandchildren may well explain your faith in a neurology class.
But, I'm glad that you like Chesterton and Percy. If they make you happy, I want my friend to be happy. I read one Chesterton book four or five years ago, and liked it, liked what he said about tradition. But I disagreed with much, including profoundly with the whole Catholic premise, and, after introspection, with his calling me a coward. The fact that he and Percy went from agnostic families to deeply Catholic faith is no more surprising than the agnostics (me) who came out of good Christian homes (my parents'). Maybe my hard-on for blindly religious types is the same as his for cowardly agnostics, but I am not a lazy thinker! Never was . . . I like to think and think hard. In fact, according to Mike, I think too much! "Turn off your mind, relax, and float down-stream . . .”
Thank God, we are free to pick our own meaning in life . . . And it's guaranteed in the first amendment to a great document! Now let's live up to that promise while making this planet peaceful and healthy, regardless of your religious affiliation! That's JFK's inaugural challenge, to do god's work here, now, all on or own, without her help. Scientific understanding is gonna be a big part of that . . . get ready, religions of the world and Christian Right in the US. We scientists must assert ourselves now to get some important shit done!!
Bob K.
Strike
a blow for consumerism
From Ziphler
Sean,
. . . . . or if man so desires can self-induce permanent orgasm thereby reducing his life to the seeking of pure pleasure. The only problem Dan is this fantasy world holds absolutely no love whatsoever . . .
DUDE! . . Definitely reserve one of them contraptions for me cause I don’t know about you, but I feel nothing but love when in the midst of an orgasm! Yeah baby!
Now, regarding more serious matters: do not think that I have backed off my assertion that religion is at the heart of all the evil that man justifies – why? Same reason: It provides an avenue that allows someone else to do the heavy cerebral lifting that all beings naturally had to do before language. And people of “faith” are far lazier thinkers and more cowardly than agnostics by a long shot. It’s understandable; we all want to fit in. . . But it is wrong! What I like about you Sean is that you do think for yourself and you think with your heart. But somebody convinced you long ago that this bible and this guy named Jesus had something you don’t . . and whoever did that to you did you a profound disservice. You continue to struggle to contain the obvious with a word weave of greater and greater intricacy but I think your spirit is too great. One day you will cast humpty dumpty and the pope off the wall, not in a revelatory euphoria but with a clarity of mind and body as you assume a position of personal power that few have ever known.
Yes, man has used technology for nothing good since he first sharpened a stick and we can thank religion for organizing the destructive uses of technology. But face it dude, the earth is paved now, and there’s only two ways out: extinction or clarity of thought. Love is there either way for those open to it and that’s what can make either path OK.
“and to craft what type of life??? Seems like a HELL to me! What type of being? A lost, alienated soul-less non-entity. No, that is NO being at all, one that is controlled by nothing more that (sic) its own incestuous desires, an automaton with absolutely no free will, a slave to the GREAT SAVIOR Palo Alto . . . . “
Praise be, I love you Jesus! Does this mean you are ready to cast aside the ball and chain and join the greatest band San Francisco has ever seen? Rehearsals start in two weeks.
Halleluiah!
Re: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Sean
Bob-
I am adjusting your email in a word processor so I can better read it. In addition, I am also working on a essay that might be interesting. It is called: "An Analysis and Discussion (with some yelling) of the Creation and Fall Myth as it Relates to the the Postmodern Concept of Scientism" by Sean Kennedy. It will be very provocative. However, before you Dan and Mike have a possibility to rip it up and down, here's a very interesting paper I found. It might be mildly interesting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383da9cb77dd.htm
Cheers all
RE:
It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Miguelito
Hey Gnarly Dudes,
This responds to the recent vivacious offerings from Bob and Dan (not including Bob's latest email since I took his advice in the first paragraph and didn't read it!) Bob, you ask a really excellent question:
"Secondly, your answer to my last email outlines your thoughts about an apparent duality of "internal" versus "external" knowledge that contradicts your previous observation that "it is all one". I just wondered if you might comment on this."
Bob, the sound of you licking your chops is almost deafening.
"Aha! I'vefinally caught Miguelito in a contradiction! Let's see him get out of this one!"
But It is not my contradiction. It is the contradiction inherent in the material world, which since time immemorial has been the primary topic of the Vedanta and the Upanishads. It has taken me an entire lifetime of spiritual seeking and an inestimable amount of reading to understand this most basic and central riddle of the ages. To say this is difficult to quickly summarize in an email, let alone meaningfully impart to another person in words, is a considerable understatement. If I could do that, I would write a book that would make millions. So this will probably not adequately respond to your request for instant enlightenment by email, but here goes (reader's digest version).
The Vedanta and Upanishads say that the duality to which you refer is not restricted merely to the one polarity you mention (internal vs. external), but is found in literally every aspect of our material world. Indeed, as a scientist would observe, duality defines the material world: e.g., hot vs. cold; male vs. female; up vs. down; good vs. evil; love vs. hate; rich vs. poor; big vs. small; gay vs. straight; light vs. dark; loud vs. quiet; cops vs. hippies; dead vs. alive; science vs. religion; etc. ad infinitum.
The Hindu religion looks at the undeniable duality of this material world, and then looks behind it and sees an underlying unity. Logically, the proposition is that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and the source of all creation, then by definition there is nothing that is not God. Ergo unity.
Hindism posits that in the beginning, God was lonely and had no frame of reference to know or experience herself!. So she decided to split herself into an infinite universe of myriad forms. She thereby created this dualistic, relativistic universe in order to experience and know herself.
You cannot know yourself unless you know what you are not. If you look at evil and know that that is not you, then you know you are good. If you look at straights and know that is not you, then you know you are gay. In an infinite universe, with infinite time, God eventually gets to experience herself as all permutations and possibilities. This would even include the experience of being Hitler. By being Hitler, you learn the law of karma, and in your next reincarnated lifetime as an aspect of God, you will likely choose not to make the same choices Hitler did.
Good story, eh? I know it probably won't make a dent in your scientific thinking, but you asked. If you delve into the Hindu texts, you will find there is some pretty profound stuff hidden in this quaint little story. Stories like this (and like the Bible) are great for illustrating a deeper point. To go deeper than this, you will need to do the hard work yourself and read the books on the topic that do an infinitely better job than I can explaining how this story explains everything in the universe so elegantly. AND consistently with science I might add.
With regard to Dan, well I don't know what to say. As usual, I'm not quite tuned to his special unique frequency, which in one moment seems quite meaty, then in another seemed to turn into some kind of subversive private sarcasto-smirk that only he (and maybe Sean) can understand. It's a Dog vibe thing I guess.
I may be speechless, but Dan and Bob's comment that I am out of touch with current realty and the younger generation only reveals that they enjoy taking my comments out of context and seeing what they want to see in my words. If you read the entire email again, you will see that I started out talking in the context of OUR GENERATION not the current generation, and I was not talking about current politics. I admit that if you read the one section in isolation, I can see how it appeared otherwise. Sorry, I'll try to be more clear in the future and spend more time proofreading!
That said, I just want to make it clear that I share Dan and Bob's deep concerns about modern politics and the devolution of society and the world into fragmented superstitious fundamentalist camps. I also really got a big dose of understanding Bob's real concern about the decline of the power of science, and I agree with that. These are huge scary concerns.
Miggy out for now.
--Miguelito
BTW, unlike Catholicism and most other religions, Hinduism is not evangelical. It doesn't give a shit whether you believe it or not.
From Bob <<Hey Mike,
Good analysis. Good points. No humbleness wars, I promise. And I'll never again repeat my typical views with which you are so familiar. Sorry to bore you again.
Three points I wish to make though . . . Unfortunately, Dan's right. You do seem to have been out of circulation with the younger generation. I understand how you could think that my view is so 20th century, popular among the college Profs who taught you, etc. And, duh, I was a Prof as well at the end of the 20th century! But this here 21st century is different. Your figure of 99% on the scientific materialism is way, way off. It does not command nearly as much popularity and respect as you suggest or seem to believe. Remember, in this country, 95% of people believe in a god. 85% of US citizens describe themselves as Christians. 68% do not believe in the theory of evolution (That's huge, Mike!). 27% are out and out born-again, evangelical Christians. And Dubya was RE-ELECTED on a Christian agenda, by a majority of voters, the first such majority since his Dad won in 1988, as idiotic as that may sound. My ninth grade students (13-15 year olds) disrespect and are often outright hostile to science and scientific ideas. They are heavily Catholic, but not in the tradition of a Sean Kennedy or the Jesuit pursuit of knowledge. Rather, they talk more like evangelicals in their attitudes toward questions like 'Why is the sky blue?' "Because God made it that way!" It's a different country now. Science is out, religion is in. And we are slipping way behind the other industrialized democracies in science education and comprehension. Only in America do we find school boards advocating creationism (last night's NPR Faith and Science show, broad cast 9:00-10:00 pm), nowhere in Europe.
Secondly, your answer to my last email outlines your thoughts about an apparent duality of "internal" versus "external" knowledge that contradicts your previous observation that "it is all one". I just wondered if you might comment on this.
Third, agnostics, or more precisely weak agnostics, understand your point about the uniqueness of each person's spiritual dimension, or spiritual knowledge that you feel is personal. That's why I'm an agnostic. Why should I know any better than you, or Sean, or Dan? Truth is, I don't.
Bob K.
Re: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Miguelito
Sean,
I don't care what they say, I love your style! HA!
--Miguelito
FOUL!
Bob! or Miguelito or maybe ziphler is just paranoid
From Ziphler
First up, a little housekeeping. Ever since I became a party to this fray I have from time to time been troubled and confused by some apparent back channel maneuvering. Then, in this e-mail from Miguelito I am accused of all sorts of nefarious fraternizing with Bob. All vicious rumors! But wait. Here at the end of Miguelito’s fiery parry and thrust is a complete composition by Bob in which he and I join hands in our touting of Miguelito's generational ignorance. Bottom line: I didn't get the memo; specifically the memo that follows. So, is it shame on Bob for excluding myself, and perhaps Sean from this message or is it shame on Miguelito for disclosing Bob’s back channel communiqué. Obviously it is probably neither. Bob most likely inadvertently clicked reply instead of reply to all and Miguelito didn’t notice:
From Bob <<Hey Mike,
Good analysis. Good points. No humbleness wars, I promise. And I'll never again repeat my typical views with which you are so familiar. Sorry to bore you again.
Three points I wish to make though . . .Unfortunately, Dan's right. You do seem to have been out of circulation with the younger generation. I understand how you could think that my view is so 20th century, popular among the college Profs who taught you, etc. And, duh, I was a Prof as well at the end of the 20th century! But this here 21st century is different. Your figure of 99% on the scientific materialism is way, way off. It does not command nearly as much popularity and respect as you suggest or seem to believe. Remember, in this country, 95% of people believe in a god. 85% of US citizens describe themselves as Christians. 68% do not believe in the theory of evolution (That's huge, Mike!). 27% are out and out born-again, evangelical Christians. And Dubya was RE-ELECTED on a Christian agenda, by a majority of voters, the first such majority since his Dad won in 1988, as idiotic as that may sound. My ninth grade students (13-15 year olds) disrespect and are often outright hostile to science and scientific ideas. They are heavily Catholic, but not in the tradition of a Sean Kennedy or the Jesuit pursuit of knowledge. Rather, they talk more like evangelicals in their attitudes toward questions like 'Why is the sky blue?' "Because God made it that way!" It's a different country now. Science is out, religion is in. And we are slipping way behind the other industrialized democracies in science education and comprehension. Only in America do we find school boards advocating creationism (last night's NPR Faith and Science show, broad cast 9:00-10:00 pm), nowhere in Europe.
Secondly, your answer to my last email outlines your thoughts about an apparent duality of "internal" versus "external" knowledge that contradicts your previous observation that "it is all one". I just wondered if you might comment on this.
Third, agnostics, or more precisely weak agnostics, understand your point about the uniqueness of each person's spiritual dimension, or spiritual knowledge that you feel is personal. That's why I'm an agnostic. Why should I know any better than you, or Sean, or Dan? Truth is, I don't. - Bob K.
Yeah, what I said. Now that I read Bob’s comments I am pleased . . . mostly. I love having Bob around to back up my off hand comments with a litany of supportive data. However, he always ties it up with a question like: Why should I know any better than you, or Sean, or Dan? Truth is, I don't. Here Bob is where agnostics drop the ball. I suppose you feel it is politically correct or the humble way to ask why one should know something someone else doesn’t. Well, the answer is plain. Fair or not, most people are clueless (not for political correctness but simply for the sake of diplomacy I insert here: present company excepted).
Now on to the Earl. First:
“With regard to Dan, well I don't know what to say. As usual, I'm not quite tuned to his special unique frequency, which in one moment seems quite meaty, then in another seemed to turn into some kind of subversive private sarcasto-smirk that only he (and maybe Sean) can understand”
That’s weird Mike cause I have thought the same of you. However, in your case I think perhaps you don’t appreciate the depth of my ignorance in matters of human history and literature.
And now the good bit:
duality defines the material world: e.g., hot vs. cold; male vs. female; up vs. down; good vs. evil; love vs. hate; rich vs. poor; big vs. small; gay vs. straight; light vs. dark; loud vs. quiet; cops vs. hippies; dead vs. alive; science vs. religion; etc. ad infinitum.
I thought we covered this (in my own mind). Let’s try again. This is simply a language exercise in the art of befuddlement. There is NO duality here. In every single example there is only one entity. All the language-less beings on the planet know this because no one ever tried to trip them up with this parlor game.
Ironically it was science that clarified your one example that kept the ruse alive. Thanks to some clever guys who came up with the laws of thermodynamics we now know there is only heat, which if removed, makes it cold. Remove testosterone and we are female, remove good, and things seem evil, without love, we feel hostility, without wealth, we are poor, without mass or dimension it looks small, gay and straight are nuances, not opposites, without light, it is dark, no sound, is silence, without humanity, we become cops, when the life drains away, it is dead, without knowledge, superstition reins, without something, you have nothing. In every single case you cannot state the opposite. Adding nothing does not remove something. Surrounding gold with coal does not make it worthless, silence doesn’t remove sound, etc. Your Buddhist/Hindu/whatever God is that part that IS, and is not concerned with where she is not.
I’d love to keep chatting but there is an impatient drummer downstairs that I must appease.
P.S. I left out up and down because space has three dimensions, x y and z, which is a triality.
Re:
FOUL! Bob! or Miguelito or maybe ziphler is just paranoid
From Miguelito
Dear Zippy, You are correct! No paranoia necessary.
--Miguelito
An Analysis and Discussion of the Creation Myth as it Relates to the Scientism by Sean Kennedy
Reprint of essay in more readable format
From Sean
Last email I rushed and there was some glitches in the essay, duplication of paragraphs. Here's a more readable version attached as word document.
Preface
Few men dare to go where I will travel. For I will go step by step up the cavernous and empty valley of self-sufficient modern man who has been transformed into his own god. And while I take this arduous journey I must brave the gauntlet of Dan's, Bobs' and Mike's searing minds. I know they don't want to hear it and will have fasers set to kill. No argument is unworthy, no insult off limits, no humiliation unchecked. Yea, through the dry desert of athi-agno-pan-theism do I travel, and my only light is the wisdom of the ages. I must though, because I had a great and marvelous epiphany. It hit me like a ton of bricks, true beyond any truth that I have seen so clearly. Here goes:
Synopsis of the Creation and Fall Myth
The Bible creation and fall myth is different from other earlier Mesopotamian creation myths contrary to what Joseph Campbell might say. Yes, it is somewhat patterned after the Mesopotamian myth about Gildamesh. One significant difference: The one God alluded to in the Herbrew myth is a loving God and actually forgives. In earlier creation myths the god is vengeful and very fickle, and man is doomed and subjected to injustices and forces of nature that have no compassion. His miserable fate lies before him as he is a play thing of the gods (Note that primitive man thought spirit resided in everything, which is a partial truth in that God is omnipresent [yet transcendent], but he (primitive man) thought everything had a god associated with it.).
Genesis is Greek for a Hebrew word "bereshit" (please, no jokes) which means "in the beginning". In the beginning there was God (God is-the Hebrews have his first statement as "I AM"-think about it) and God created the world and man and woman in his image. (I won't go into the rib part.) So man and woman were living comfortably in a garden, a paradise. They were told they could eat of the fruit of any tree except for the one in the middle of the garden, the tree of knowledge of good and bad. One day the woman was approached by a serpent who said, "Why don't you eat from that tree?" The woman said, God told us not to eat its fruit." The serpent said, "Ah, that's because God does not want you to be as powerful as him". The woman said, "Really, ....no kidding." The woman went to her mate and said, "Guess what, the serpent told me that the reason God didn't want us to eat that fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden is because if we did we would become powerful like him!" The man said, "Wow, no kidding, imagine that." So the serpent gave a piece of the forbidden fruit to the woman and the woman gave it to the man and they both ate it. Immediately they realized they were naked. God came along as he usually did during the day (the windy part of the day when the cool breeze blows from the sea in Palestine) and they hid from him. He said, "What up dudes? How come you have fig leaves on and why are you hiding from me?" The man said, "I was afraid and naked." God said, "Oh man, who told you that you were naked? Oh, oh, I'll bet you ate from the tree I told you not to. Bummer."
So, to make a long story short, the man tried to put the blame on the woman and the woman tried to pass the buck to the serpent, but God wasn't having any of it. He said, "That's it dudes, your actions have consequences. You've really disappointed me. Go out and find another place to live."
So, the man and woman had to leave the garden, and from that day forth they had to toil in the world to survive.
Analysis
Do I have to draw a picture? Here's the psychology of this myth. Its obvious that the thing that got mankind into trouble (and continues to) was wanting to be like God; wanting to be their own God. It was envy and pride and the drive to install themselves as God and their actions that created the consequences of their downfall, which was being throw out of the garden. We can't be God. Did you make youself??? No fricking way! A god is totally independent. Did you breast-feed yourself? Did you change your own diapers? When you were sick, who took care of you? We are creatures, caused indirectly, THEREFORE CONTINGENT beings. Will your scientific mastery make you any less contingent? I think not my comrades.
This psychology of this myth, which has been alive since the beginning of mankind, is alive and well today and perhaps the latest incarnation is the idea that eventually science, scientism, or to use the less pejorative term, positivism, will be able to provide man so much knowledge that he will become God, become immortal, know everything, be able to fix anything. I have never heard so much rubbish in my entire life, that somehow, man would launch forward into godhood after this accumulation of knowledge, when we know that time and time again, the only thing man knows how to do with knowledge, is become the cruelest animal in all the universe and that there is every possibility that he will eventually destroy himself and his species and take many more species down with him. The seeds of self-destruction are so visible that they are invisible. The logic is so undeniable that it appears as if it is "muddled" to the modern mind, to the point where scientism is seen as clarity in logic. Incomprehensible! If they could but see past the noses on their faces!
GIVE ME A BREAK. WHAT TYPE OF KOOLAID ARE YOU GUYS DRINKING!!!!
The fall myth is the story of mankind, how so fricking self-destructive he is as he searches for a way to be God instead of searching for the truth! People (fundamentalists) will try to tell you that the fall is about sex because they are so fixated on sex, the least of the mistakes (sins) that mankind falls prey to. Most of these types of people think the world is bad. IT IS NOT! The world is fricking perfect and good as it should be!! And sex is probably the closest thing to God we have on earth! But, even this is not God! Any god that supplants the true God is idolatrous and the consequences of that idolatry is alienation and separation from the source of life.
God is not some bearded grandfather in the clouds! That’s the concept of third graders. And I’m afraid if my Christian fundamentalist brothers really believe this concept, they are in for a rude awakening. Nonetheless, He is the fricking source, the creative entity and identity that sustains the universe. It lunacy to follow anything else. To follow lesser gods, like scientism, is how modern man drives himself insane with wars, perversions, and compulsions. Yes, the modern viewpoint has turned reality on its head to arrive at the statement that religions are what cause wars? No, no, no my friends. Its only man serving the idolatrous gods that compels him to become a murder. Jesus said to the Jews who wanted to kill him as they said to him, “Our father is Abraham. Jesus replied, ”You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar, and the father of lies. “
Who is telling the truth my friends, scientism that will ultimately strip you of your humanity and soul if you follow it to it logical conclusion or the living God who cares deeply about his children?
I don't know if there is a heaven or hell, but one thing I do know is that hell is not retribution as some fundamentalists like to think. I'm quite sure that hell is the consequence of us trying to be our own god. Hell is the decision we make using our free will to reject the truth, and the resulting consequence. We determine all results by the action of our free will. The fall was based totally on the action and the subsequent ramifications.
I guess you guys cannot recognize the contradiction that lives in the argument for scientism or any other idolatry. The free will of man; it is the hope of man that allows love to operate in the cosmos. If there is no free will, there is no love. With scientism, there is no free will, hence there is no love since there is only scientific determination and reduction, only process, no substance. That is the contradiction; that scientism, as well as other idolatrous pursuits, only leads to the tyranny and alienation of the human soul.
RE: An Analysis and Discuss ziphler fires the first shot across the bow
From Ziphler
The word is PHASER. Captain Kirk RULES!
Re: Reprint of essay in more readable format
From Miguelito
I liked the less readable version with the glitches better. The glitches were the best part.
--Miguelito
Re:
FOUL! Bob! or Miguelito or maybe ziphler is just paranoid
Dear Zippy,
You are correct! No paranoia necessary.
--Miguelito
Re: FOUL! Bob! or Miguelito or maybe ziphler is just paranoid
From Sean
Exactly Dan-I noticed that too-I also actually had a twinge of paranoia, but then, I sometimes do try to put myself in the crosshairs.
FW: Andy Griffith for Attorney General!
From Ziphler
From: EFFector Vol. 20, No. 5 January 30, 2007 editor@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
This YouTube clip from the Andy Griffith Show is the sort of civics lesson that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would do well to study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CvoC551i2E
Guilherme Roschke from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has some background (via BoingBoing.net):
"I shared the video with my colleagues here at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. With some digging, one of my colleagues figured out that this show aired on October 30, 1967. That's two weeks after the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in Katz vs. United States. The FBI had tapped a phone booth without a warrant, and convicted a gambler based on that. The Katz court overturned the conviction, stating that the 4th amendment prohibits this sort of a wiretap without a warrant."
Re: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Sean
Bob-
Here was your request:
Bob's statement #1
"I'm asking you to accept the POSSIBILITY, and it's only a possibility, that the ONLY valid answers come from science. I know that's tough for you and Mike." -excerpt from Bob's email
Sean answer:
Its not that it’s tough for me (or Mike if I am allowed to speak for Mike) to understand or conceive of your idea. It’s a matter of the difference in viewing reality. The positivist (scientism), the one who believes only in the physical world and that the scientific method is the only valid one to define all human experience, no other experience of consciousness, inner thought, or transcendental experience, is a radical departure from how reality has been viewed throughout human history and is only a fairly recent development. It has certain assumptions contained in it.
Basically, as a starting point, your reality leaves out or precludes portions of my reality.
Would you agree with the definition of your view below?
"Scientism is an ideology grounded on the assumption that facts can be distinguished from values. Facts, it is claimed, are derived from the scientific method, whereas values are the products of uncritical human constructions (opinions) such as religion, tradition, or prejudice. The fact/value distinction assumes that reality can be known by fragmenting its parts from the universal whole. Once separated from the whole and viewed as objects, facts are classified as empirical knowledge. According to the tenets of scientism, if human reason is liberated from the constraints of values and properly grounded in scientific method, it is capable of discovering empirical truths instrumental not only to material progress, but to political and social advancement. Such progress is therefore predicated on the belief that the scientific method provides a universal standard for the discovery of truth. Scientifically derived truth, then, provides a body of knowledge that forms the foundation of political and social consensus. All humans are assumed to be rational and equally capable of both employing the scientific method and understanding the knowledge that results from its use."
"...a study of reality could qualify as scientific only if it used the methods of the natural sciences, that problems couched in other terms were illusionary problems, that in particular metaphysical questions which do not admit of answers by the methods of the sciences of phenomena should not be asked, that realms of being which are not accessible to exploration by the model methods were irrelevant, and, in the extreme, that such realms of being did not exist."
"While scientism is open to truth and the existence of an objective material reality, it is closed to the spiritual reality of the inner life as experienced through participation in transcendence and expressed symbolically through myth, revelation, history, or philosophy."
Bob's Statement #2
"Now I don't know if it's true or not, but I consider scientism's 'soul-freeing' implications to be REAL existential freedom."
To me that's a contradiction or a language divergence. Existential freedom to me presupposes an inner consciousness that that would not exist in the world of the positivist. Existing as a human has inner thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and experiences of a individual being called Sean in time and space that are contained in reality yet not open to scientific quantification or reduction.
Put it this way; could you create a mechanical robot, android, that could experience human consciousness?
And even if you thought you could, how could you verify that using science?
I don't think its possible. Sorry man, that's the way I experience reality.
Re: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Miguelito
Well, this is possibly the most articulate and impressive email yet from the Seanster. Oi vay!
Sean fully redeems himself after tanking with that opaque yet zealous rant about Adam & Eve.
Sean speaks for me on this one, except I am not judgmental or biased against science. Science and the human intellect are valid and fully validated God-given tools for understanding the universe. They're just not the only valid tools. People need to get a lot more comfortable with the great multiplicity of wonderful tools available to us, and cease being so superstitious believing that their particular dogma is the ONLY valid way to interpret reality. As a Hindi might say, all paths inevitably lead to God.
Which reminds me, what this dialog has lacked all along is a smart devout Jew!. Which of you will rise to this challenge?
--Miguelito
p.s. If Bob is a positivist, does that make Sean a negativist?
RE: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Ziphler
“It’s a matter of the difference in viewing reality.”
Duh
“The positivist (scientism), the one who believes only in the physical world and that the scientific method is the only valid one to define all human experience, no other experience of consciousness, inner thought, or transcendental experience,”
I reiterate: these terms (which I will not repeat because then I would have to spit) mark an all time new low and I guarantee you that NO true scientist would accept the labels. SCIENCE IS NOT A BELIEF, IT IS A TOOL. It can be utilized by any IST in your book, even a bull-headed catholist.
“a radical departure from how reality has been viewed throughout human history and is only a fairly recent development.”
I hate to burst your bubble but there have always been scientists and in the days of old they were almost universally members of the religious/spiritual sects of society
your reality leaves out or precludes portions of my reality
a scientist, I believe Bob included, could not leave any piece out and hope to accomplish his goal
Would you agree with the definition of your view below?
Absolutely not (and I bet speak for Bob too)
Scientism is an ideology grounded on the assumption that facts can be distinguished from values
The existence of values IS a fact. The operative definition of “values” as you are using the term is (from Encarta): “the accepted principles or standards of an individual or a group” Sean, no one has a more carefully thought out and delineated values than true scientists.
Facts, it is claimed, are derived from the scientific method, whereas values are the products of uncritical human constructions (opinions) such as religion, tradition , or prejudice.
I would say it the other way around: Religion, tradition, and prejudice all derive from ignorance which fosters uncritical and superstitious thought
The fact/value distinction assumes that reality can be known by fragmenting its parts from the universal whole
A scientist must always consider the whole. In fact Sean, in the medical sciences this is vital and why when I hear you try to define a process in your back as discreet from something in your chest I cringe and tell you to get to a doctor. (and yes I still have to respond to your last medical update)
Once separated from the whole and viewed as objects, facts are classified as empirical knowledge.
Me thinks you misuse the word empiricism. In medicine anyway, it has a very specific meaning and refers to treatments not derived from scientific derivation but from anecdotal experience
According to the tenets of scientism
From Encarta: Tenets – “any of a set of established and fundamental beliefs, especially one relating to religion or politics”. The church of scientism may have such a rule book but SCIENCE, not being a set of BELIEFS, could not have “tenets”.
human reason is liberated from the constraints of values and properly grounded in scientific method, it is capable of discovering empirical truths instrumental not only to material progress, but to political and social advancement
OK, here are the three Encarta definitions for empirical:
1. based on or characterized by observation and experiment rather than theory
2. philosophy derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, rather than from the application of logic
3. medicine based on practical experience in the medical treatment of real cases rather than on applied theory or scientific proof
Such progress is therefore predicated on the belief that the scientific method provides a universal standard for the discovery of truth.
Science does set out to liberate us from the constraints of prejudice (pre-judgment, making up one’s mind without the facts) and superstition (assuming supernatural causes of things we do not understand), not from our values. Sciences’ only concern with empirical information is to determine the mechanism or underlying reason why it appears to be so.
Scientifically derived truth, then, provides a body of knowledge that forms the foundation of political and social consensus.
Science has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in consensus opinion
All humans are
assumed to be rational and equally capable of both employing the scientific
method and understanding the knowledge that results from its use.
You have GOT to be kidding me!
"...a study of reality could qualify as scientific only if it used the methods of the natural sciences, that problems couched in other terms were illusionary problems, that in particular metaphysical questions which do not admit of answers by the methods of the sciences of phenomena should not be asked, that realms of being which are not accessible to exploration by the model methods were irrelevant”
No question lies outside of the interest of science and a scientist is never concerned with what “should” be, only what is
that such realms of being did not exist
Again, science is concerned with understanding why something seems to be so rather than accepting superstitious explanations
While scientism is open to truth and the existence of an objective material reality, it is closed to the spiritual reality of the inner life as experienced through participation in transcendence and expressed symbolically through myth, revelation, history, or philosophy."
Sean, why do you persist in this notion that science rejects the spiritual dimension. It most certainly does not.
Existential freedom to me presupposes an inner consciousness that that would not exist in the world of the positivist
Whatever?! I have to go with Miguelito on this one. Are you a negativist?
Existing as a human has inner thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and experiences of a individual being called Sean in time and space that are contained in reality yet not open to scientific quantification or reduction
The operative word in your statement is “yet”
Put it this way; could you create a mechanical robot, android, that could experience human consciousness?
No. By definition, to experience human consciousness it must be human. Can a mechanical thing have consciousness? I suspect yes. Is there something unique about human consciousness compared to other mammals? NO WAY!
And even if you thought you could, how could you verify that using science?
I’d ask it.
Sorry man, that's the way I experience reality.
No Sean, it isn’t. It’s how you intellectualize; nay rationalize the social/family/community dynamic you have immersed yourself in. In the words of one of the rappers Sammy favors “where is the love?” Why do you continue to equate religion with love and spirituality? It has nothing to do with either one and cynically uses Jesus’ “resurrection” to rationalize his murder. Religion is the politics of exclusion. Its tools are fear, ignorance, and the concept of hierarchy. Jesus is with the crackheads.
Re: Strike a blow for consumerism
From Sean
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. [Albert Einstein]
Well, I haven't read one great atheist thinker. (See this list http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Category:Atheist
Any great thinkers on there? I think not) All the great thinkers are religious men. Haven't you noticed that? Freud wasn't particularly great. Nietche committed suicide. I'd call Einstein skeptical yet believing in some form. Maybe that's the problem. If you know one, let me know.
What's this mean? "Rehearsals start in two weeks"
Fwd: Three Good Arguments
From Miguelito
My theory is that Jesus was a white Cajun:
1. He liked to serve fish to his friends.
2. He could make his own wine.
3. And he wasn't afraid of water.
A black friend of mine had 3 good arguments that Jesus was black:
1. He called everyone "brother".
2. He liked gospel.
3. He couldn't get a fair trial.
A Jewish friend had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into his father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 30.
3. He was sure his mother was a virgin, and his mother was sure he was God.
An Italian friend gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands.
2. He had wine with every meal.
3. He used olive oil.
My California friends also had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut his hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.
A good Irish friend then gave his 3 arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.
But my wife had the most compelling evidence of all that Jesus was really a Woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn’t get it.
3. And even when he was dead, He had to get up because there was more work to do
Re: Oh no, Mike will get bored then mad at me . . .
From Miguelito
OKAY EVERYONE LET'S CALM DOWN AND SHUT UP. GO TO YOUR CORNERS AND COUNT TO 11,111,111,111,111 IN BASE 9.
Love,
Miguelito, not mad
Nine points from Bob to Sean
From Bob
Dear Sean,
1) The Bible is a compilation of syncretic myths and carefully selected and possibly groomed 'gospels' written by many people who were better religious zealots than you. Get used to it, get over it, and get on with it.
2) Jesus was probably a real person, but there are so many natural and very human explanations for what came down between 6 B.C. and 33 A.D. that you don't really need to cling to the supernatural ones. You can if you want to.
You're FREE to pick your own meaning. THAT'S existential freedom! You EXIST, and that 'EXISTence' comes first; it's the one true reality. That's why they call it 'EXISTentialism.'
3) New definition: "Religious Macho Dudism" (RMD). Yep it's true, if you can invent a term and pigeon-hole people, you have a much better chance of putting their beliefs down within your own mind, thereby elevating your own beliefs within your own mind, making them far more relevant, true, and logical. Good work, Religious Macho Dudes (RMDs)of history!
4) You've made it pretty clear that you consider agnostics to be mediocre, lazy thinkers. Chesterton was equally unsubtle about it. I profoundly disagree with both of you. We just start with different axioms . . .
5) True, positivism, or scientism, as you define it, is relatively new.
That's why there are less established thinkers. But I predict that many atheist scientists will be acknowledged centuries from now, when G.K.
Chesterton is long forgotten. In a short glance at Sean's "Non-Religious Wimpy Thinkers" list, it is obvious that the complier was a Religious Macho Dude (RMD) who neglected some of the greatest thinkers of today, like Edward O. Wilson. And where is Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre? Really, I think that the compiler was probably too dumb to understand Issac Asimov and Douglas Hofstadter, who are standouts in my cursory glance at this somewhat eclectic and absurd RMD concoction.
6) I could answer you point by point, Sean. There are so many times that you fall back on religious assumptions/axioms in order to ply your logic against the evils of scientism, that I would have a 10- or 20-page email response to all that you just sent. (I still haven't read the full "Scientism" piece, but I'll get to it this weekend.) However, as we've seen, the dueling point-by-point refutation format makes for some long emails that don't really get us any closer to the truth, since there does not yet exist, and may never be, any 'right' or 'universal' answer to the 'truth' question.
This entire thread has left me feeling overwhelmed at the extremely difficult task of getting reasonable people together to save this planet based on simple human reason and common sense compassion. As I've said before, I have my work cut out for me.
7) It seems to me that it makes you feel good when you 'experience' some 'inner' truth or 'value' that's beyond objective reason or 'fact'; you feel good that the 'value' must have come directly from God! But you're really just playing into the hands of scientism, Sean. You are the poster-boy of the positivist, positive-feedback-looped, evolution-based view of the rise of religious thought! Only you forgot to have eight or ten kids! Get busy, RMD! Convert to Islam and 'multi-pregnate' each of three new wives!
8) It seems closer to the truth to me to say that you don't really know shit, and neither does anyone else, including me. Now what do we do? Elect a Christian? Or wait and let Mike sort it out for us?
9) Einstein was a good deist. But he was rooted enough in reality to admit the amazing accuracy of quantum mechanics while simultaneously appreciating its PROFOUND implications for such 'values' as the inherent BEAUTY, MYSTERY and WONDER in the UNIVERSE, all without ever needing the HYPOTHESIS of GOD! Stop it already with this "Oh, that's just the material plane" view of science! Quantum mechanics accurately predicts probabilities on the material plane, yes, but it has implications that go to heart of theological arguments. It is PROFOUND! As is relativity, the study of black holes, and sub-atomic physics. This is mind-boggling stuff!! The real question I want you to consider is: "With a Universe this fantastic, who needs God?" It's just one POSSIBILITY that hangs out there in a universe of many unknown realities . . . and you don't know them any better than I do . . . and vice versa . . .
Bob K, The Mush-Brained Agnostic Coward
RE: FOUL! Bob! or Miguelito or maybe ziphler is just paranoid
From Bob
Dan,
You were right. I forgot to hit "reply to all." Sorry. My fault. No back channel or deliberate exclusion was intended.
Bob K.
Re: Nine points from Bob to Sean
From Sean
Yes, I will say that argument I used re great atheists was irrelevant Bob and of course there are brilliant atheist thinkers, Camus and Sartre certainly as well as many others.
I don't know where you got this idea that I think anything about agnostics. It really is not my issue. I merely said I can understand Chesterton's point intellectually. I am neutral to the position.
On point 6 I acknowledge that my positions also have assumptions.
In closing, watch out, your start to wear your agnostic label like I wear the Catholic label. Its fun, isn't it?
Boberino-have a good weekend!
Confidence limits . . .
From Bob
Panel Says Warming Caused by Humans
(New York Times)
PARIS, Feb. 2 - The world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas from the atmospheric buildup of gases that trap heat, but the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, an international network of climate experts said today.
The report released here represented the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, of the causes and consequences of climate change. But for the first time the group asserted with near certainty - more than 90 percent confidence - that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-
climate.html
(Advanced thinkers from Dr. Bob's "How to think like a scientist" class will note the oxymoron phrase "near certainty - more than 90% confidence" And this is from one of the top 5 newspapers in the country! Shame, shame.)
RE: Nine points from Bob to Sean
From Bob
Dear Sean,
You back up Chesterton, you send me a RMD list of supposedly mediocre atheist thinkers (some of whom never even purport to be thinkers, e.g., Rodney Dangerfield?!?), and then you ask me where I think I got the idea that you think agnostics are cowards and/or lazy thinkers!?! Hmm . . . RMDs unite!
What do you really know, Sean?
List all the things you think you really and truly 'know,' things that are universal and eternal, be they 'facts' or 'values'. Wait. Don't bother.
Look at an example from my list:
Agnostic Bob thinks: "Gravity, a fundamental force of nature (fundamental= it just is), is universal glue that keeps shit like planets, and solar systems, and galaxies together."
Now the spiritually-centered person will say "Oh, that's just the material universe. How boring and spiritually devoid of meaning! You're obviously a positivist. You don't know God. You don't really know anything!"
And the pioneering positivist will say: "Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's General Relativity which does not reinforce, supersede, or even reconcile with quantum mechanics and does not explain or reconcile the supposed phenomena of dark matter, dark energy and the accelerating pace of universal expansion in any way more compelling than an ad hoc cosmological constant which Einstein himself called his greatest blunder! You can't prove your statement about gravity. You don't really know anything!"
Somebody, from some perspective or another, religious, positivist, or Satanist, will always be able to shoot holes in any 'fact' or 'value' you list . . . You should see how this Muslim guy I'm reading shoots holes in Christianity. And he's right (!), except that they're both bullshit dogmatic religions anyway!
If you've got a job to do, like save the fucking planet from the overpopulating, wasteful, greedy, unthinking, knee-jerk religious, small-minded masses, that obviously evolved from ANIMALS, what are you going to do that reconciles with EVERYBODY else's knowledge ('facts') AND spirituality ('values')?
You want to argue, Sean. You're a combative person. So am I, apparently. So we continue on this useless path that is not getting us closer to the truth. Let's get back to the search for the truth. And obviously, the only 'truth' we can discuss is a 'truth' that we have in common, so that it at least has a shot a being 'universal'. If we disagree, then it isn't a universal 'truth', unless one of us is mistaken, or blind, or stupid, or cowardly!
I got a job to do . . . the oceans are dying, American kids are getting dumber in science, hydrocarbon compounds that are desperately needed for synthetics are instead being oxidized just for daily energy which is overly increasing atmospheric infrared absorption, and our Christian president kills innocent people for fictitious reasons. I gotta get to work . . .
I'm still going to slay ignorance wherever it rears it's ugly head, even in my friend Sean's brain. And yeah, I'm judge, jury, and executioner where and when I've got to get things done . . .
Your friend,
Bob K.
that's a little over 3,486,784,401 in base 10
From Ziphler
Bob,
I think you will find that most references to lazy thinkers came from me because I fail to appreciate any difference between agnostics, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, deists, monotheists, pantheists, RM Dudists, dualists, secularists, existentialists, nilists, fatalists, or any others I've left out. However, I do not believe you are agnostic for inherent in agnosticism is an inability to stand up for what one believes because of a refusal to have confidence in a belief. I offer two examples of why this isn’t you:
1. At dinner the other night when you made some statement regarding how you must respect the Christian God because you can’t say for certain it does not exist outside of a Christian’s imagination I asked you “But why does it have to be that particular fairy tale?”. You had a sudden brilliant gleam in your eyes and in a conspiratorial kind of whisper you said “exactly!” Perhaps you do not wish to admit such political incorrectness so if I am exposing a confidence, I apologize but to me, that said it all.
2. Then there is this most recent Keislar quote: “I'm still going to slay ignorance wherever it rears its ugly head, even in my friend Sean's brain. And yeah, I'm judge, jury, and executioner where and when I've got to get things done . . .” I have detected this growing confidence in you now for over a year. That ain’t an agnostic.
When Sean and Miguelito are on the ropes they insert quotes or whole essays from other people into the discussion thus demonstrating to me the whole fallacy of religion. Finally, Sean, aren’t you a trained scientist?
All of you have a tendency to defensiveness when the encroachment upon your personal dogma strikes close to home because if it sounds like we are not viewed as we view ourselves then we return to the identity crisis of adolescence. I did not expect you to be mad Miguelito unless you meant as in “mad as a hatter” then I might have to question your denial. God’s honest truth – I think we are all extremely close in our feelings toward the human race, the workings of the universe, our political orientation, and the like. I do believe that I sustained far less programming as a child and much of what I did get I cast aside when I realized I was Gay and came to distrust most of society’s accepted truths. This of course has a huge downside. I am extremely irresponsible in comparison to the three of you, was spoiled by relative wealth and to this day can only intellectualize about the value of a dollar. I was also always so protected that I have an unnatural fearlessness and lack any even reasonable paranoia reflexes. But I like what I get in return which is a fairly unfiltered look at this very topic. My ignorance of religion, philosophy, and history allow me to feel all of it without prejudice or pre-designated expectations and labels.
I do think that Bob was unquestioningly the most controlled by his conditioning dogma 30 years ago but ironically his dogma proved to be the most enduring and continuously relevant so that even as he explored other belief systems, there was much continued compilation of an evolving, and rapidly growing body of new knowledge in his dogma, which long ago broke through its own constraints. And then there was this nagging distraction called the Street Dogs.
I think Sean’s programmed dogma being the oldest and most tradition steeped, has provided him with much to read and ponder in his old age but unlike Bob, Sean, was unrestrained by his dogma when he was young. I don’t know why but Sean had about as much interest in tradition and history as I did 30 years ago. He also had a gift, a profound musical gift and an un-abandoned enthusiasm for exploring that gift which to this day he cannot shake. What possessed Sean to so intensely endeavor to reconcile with early programming is a mystery to me as I believe his desire to do so began between the family of his parents and his current nuclear family – although, no doubt, both have happily reinforced it heavily since.
Miguelito is an enigma. In one sense he has the greatest of freedom because he has remained unattached and while I can relate to having no children (clearly the most profound modifier in Sean and Bob’s lives) I have always been very attached to a family whether, the dogs at the doghouse, the family of my parents, or others whom none of you know. Miguelito is a word wizard and the only true history and humanities man among us. He has the best excuse for scientific bigotry because he understands it less than even Sean who understands it perfectly well despite his seemingly preacher-man damnations. Yet Miguelito is a thoughtful one, and appreciates the seeming miracle of science. He is also an attorney, whose prime directive (I believe) is the just reconciliation of all party’s positions.
I think we all understand that there is a lot of love here and none of us has ill-intent or retaliatory vengeance as our motives. We , none of us, want to hurt or offend but offense is something taken, not given, and I, for one am genuinely interested in some of those deep seated , often unconscious, motivations that make you three tick and being shameless and fearless, I can embarrass sometimes. I don’t do it for its own sake and I don’t even know when I am being that way although over time I have found some common indicators.
Whoops, gotta get to the beach – don’t ask me why I wrote this and the secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions. I don’t there is one complete thought anywhere in this anyway.
Later dudes
From Sean
Even though Dan, you are an atheist and I am a theist, you are an atheist "in whom there is no guile" and because of that I find your writing refreshing.
RE: Nine points from Bob to Sean
From Sean
I like your ideas Bob as always. Some I actually agree with you!
I have operated in a technical capacity but have never been a true "scientist".
But here's an interesting story. For a brief period of a year I was a research technician when I worked for Raychem in their R & D polymer operation while I was finishing up my chemistry degree. I worked on blending and testing polymers and helped develop three early formulations: 1) an MX missile ablative covering, 2) an encapsulating polymer for a towed array submarine sensing device, and 3) a high temperature and chemically resistant spark plug covering for the Bradley fighting vehicle. They offered me a job as a polymer engineer and the Research leader, a PHD brit named Tom Lally, called me in and told me our section was changing to the Military Land Vehicle Section and I could have a job at $50K a year (1981?). I told him I would think about it. I went home and realized that this kick-ass job-----I couldn't do-----my conscience wouldn't let me.
I went back a couple days later and told him I didn't want to work in military applications and asked if he had a job developing for non-military applications.
Needless to say my Raychem career was over. I didn't care and I never looked back.
Dan holds the same view as I with regard to science (I think). Science is a tool, a method among many methods to find out about our world. As I said I don't believe it is the only valid method.
Here's a statement: Reason came before science. Science grew out of reason, not the other way around.
Philosophy really was the first science, and then came the natural sciences. This has profound implications.
I didn't mean this to be long so I’ll stop here.
Four points from Mike to All
From Miguelito
1. Aw shucks! From the caption, I thought Bob was awarding Sean 9 points for brilliance.
2. Bob's Point 8 rocks! From now on, I'm just going to say "Point 8!" whenever someone pontificates at someone else.
3. Dan, it's rude to say "duh" to Sean, or anyone for that matter. Point 8!
4. 4. Bob, I agree that quantum physics, relativity, and the latest thinking in modern physics are all spiritually profound. But they're not new. The funny thing is, if you read the Upanishads from antiquity, it sounds like pretty much the same thing.
--Mig
Re: Confidence limits . . .
From Miguelito
As an employee of the California Energy Commission, in the great state of California, which has become the first state in the nation to enact greenhouse gas (ghg) limits, which the California Energy Commission is involved in implementing, I will just say that I have a deep, abiding, supernatural, intuitive, unshakeable, psychic, inner faith that what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, Bob, and Arnold say about global warming is the absolute gospel truth. Amen!
--Miguelito
[for Dan it may have been, but Dan never got it. This copy scavenged from the bottom of the email that follows from Sean,
From Miguelito
This one's for Dan. Okay the email below qualifies as one of Ziphler's most thoughtful, coherent and articulate yet. Much better than "duh". And thank you for reminding us of the most important thing--the love that underlies all of this. Now, to the more challenging, difficult stuff.
MIGUELITO'S LECTURE, Chapter 1 (Or, "9 More Pontificatingly Perfect Points to Ponder). (To be read in a strident, condescending yet patient tone of compassion for the poignant uninformed stupidity of the audience)
A conversation does not consist solely of words (foreground). What is unspoken (background) is just as important, sometimes more. A conversation is a space. Tone is important. As is context. Body language during in-person communication is important. The words are just a fraction of what is actually communicated, both on a conscious and unconscious level.
Ideally, communication should serve to reveal to us our blind spots. Seeing our own blind spots (which, by definition, we are blind to) is impossible on our own. It requires us to LISTEN to each other. Instead, what I have seen in these discussions (with occasional brilliant and wonderful exceptions) is mostly lecturing at each other.
All lecturing accomplishes is to make the target of the lecture more stubbornly determined and entrenched. Witness Sean. It is amusing to see two gifted intellects such as Dan and Bob try to argue Sean out of his position. The better their arguments, the more stubborn, determined and entrenched is Sean, and the more frustrated are Bob and Dan. They are determined to "win", but with every perceived verbal "victory" over Sean, real victory becomes ever more elusive. I predict with reasonable certainty that Sean will never submit to your views. At least not through the email debates I’ve seen.
I ask: isn't it better to listen to and accept with love each others' wisdom? For we all are undeniably wise. Insisting that our own personal wisdom prevail over all others' is childish. Point 8!
What I am suggesting is not that we all become wishy-washy, but that we allow ourselves the possibility that maybe, just maybe, in some way, we're all correct. That in my opinion is the only space in which learning and true growth can occur.
For me, these conversations are an interesting and fun intellectual challenge with respected friends. But I don't need to win (although I'd sure like to!) I'm comfortable with everyone's different world views. It would have been a boring legacy of emails if all of us had completely shared Dan's viewpoint, wouldn't it? Or Bob's? Or Sean's? Or, heaven forbid, mine? I prefer to savor the intellects, hearts, minds and unique viewpoints that we are all so blessed to have.
Now to some specifics.
1. Ziphler, do you seriously believe that just because you prefer not to include quoted material in your emails, your thoughts and arguments are somehow more original and better than ours? You frequently quote the dictionary to make a point, as if a reference book can fix the meaning of words. Your resort to the dictionary suggests a profound lack of original thinking and a slavish unquestioned adherence to conservative precedent. Lewis Carrol demonstrated a long time ago that words can mean whatever you want.
2. You quote medical texts, yes? You probably have read medical texts. Shame on you. Did you also insist in medical school that you learn how to be a doctor without reading or quoting any other doctors that preceded you?
If not, how unoriginal and conservative of you. Did you learn to perform surgery by simply grabbing some sharp instruments and poking and slicing into people without first learning from other doctors about surgical techniques? It is delusional to think that any human as utterly original and perfectly free thinking as you apparently believe you are. Just existing in this society or any society guarantees that you have innumerable profound subconscious unoriginal influences driving you at all times. And don't give me that "I may not be oringinal, but I'm more original and free thinking than you because the special set of circumstances that I grew up with uniquely qualifies me to be more objective than you" bull. That's the first and last refuge of every flim-flam fundamentalist ever born.
3. What is this superiority thing you have? Am I to understand that you really believe that because you are Gay, you are the only one amongst us who can be objective? I am Bi (no surprise, as in most things, I am in the middle); I think you're gayness makes you every bit as biased as all those straight people you dis, only the opposite. Being Gay has not caused you to objectively question everything, it's apparently caused you to uncritically reject everything and thereby believe in your own unique superiority. That's just as robotic as uncritically accepting everything, only more subtle. The irony is that you ARE superior. We are ALL superior. Take off your blinders and chew on that, Grasshopper!
4. By purportedly denying all "isms", you have become a "non-ism-ist". You are in denial of your own inherently human ist-ness. That's your dogma.
5. Like me, you are blind to your own blindness.
6. Your impression of my "scientific bigotry" and lack of scientific understanding is interesting. I was a tenaciously serious undergrad pre-med major. As you know, that means I took a lot of physics, chemistry and mathematics classes. Before that, I was always a science fiction nerd as a kid, very science focused and geeky in my early life. And later I read a pretty fair amount about the frontiers of advanced physics, a topic that has always been of enormous fascination to me. I only choose to talk about my more esoteric spiritual studies in these emails because you guys already know all that science stuff, and the spiritual dimension is where the rubber meets the road in this conversation.
7. On the subject of woefully inadequate and misleading stereotypes, my so-called "prime directive to reconcile all party's positions" long preceded my tenure as an attorney. As I recall, it started at birth.
Offhand, I can't think of any attorneys whose prime directive is to reconcile all parties'positions. Most of the ones I know have only one directive: to win.
8. I'm not mad. Except I am mad as a hatter. And occasionally outspoken.
9. Z, despite (or because of) all the above, you ROCK!
Love,
--Miguelito
p.s. I don't recall ever being on the ropes. Point 8!
Re: that's a little over 3,486,784,401 in base 10
From Sean
I am in awe that is one brilliant exegesis.
Holy crap, I was so in agreement that I laughed so hard it brought tears to my eyes.
Point 8 forever baby!!!!!!
Let me add one thing, please, one thing. There are good arguments put back and forth, but these are debates. Along Mike's train of thought, how can an argument produce a "win" when we're talking about these types of issues, i.e., the truth that someone decides to live their life by? There are arguments and counter-arguments but they won't change someone's point of view; maybe modify it a little, incorporate it as another data point in their world view, but a real departure from their fundamental view point is unlikely at this point. I mean, like Mike said, I've had 35-40 years to make up my mind. Do you think I have't heard all these arguments before? I've not only heard people say them, I've read them easily 10 times before. Yes, Dan the original thinking/ideas that you espouse, I've read at least ten times before! (You happen to be quite close to Frank Zappa of all people!) I am open to ideas and other people expressions, but drastic change probably won't happen.
Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow.
Re: that's a little over 3,486,784,401 in base 10
From Miguelito
Sean,
Even though it didn't change anybody's mind, based on your response I'll count MIGUELITO'S LECTURE as a "win". Many thanks for your tears!
Love, --Miggy
Re: that's a little over 3,486,784,401 in base 10
From Bob,
Hey Dan, I look at this whole world view thing like “what are the odds of World View X being the best (most true) big picture.” The more specific and arbitrary a religion’s dogma, the less chance I consider it to have of being true. That was my point “exactly.” You used the words “that specific fairy tale” and I agreed that Christianity, with all the specific points in the enormous, self-conflicting Bible, has very little chance of being true. Ockham’s razor may apply. A religion that just celebrates “consciousness” has a much greater chance of being true in my opinion, since that is the real miracle of life. It goes right to the heart of it without Holy Trinities, or Satan, or sons of god, or the like.
In my last email to Sean, where I took on what I believe is his incorrect statement “philosophy is the first science,” the real issue is, did the material world (science) come first and then consciousness, or the other way around? Maybe it doesn’t matter to Mike . . . maybe both came first and both came last, and other oxymoronic
In most religious thought, God came first and God is conscious, therefore consciousness came first. But there is this other natural science perspective, that the material world came first, and consciousness evolved from it, locally and, yes, maybe even by dumb luck!
As for slaying ignorance, just come to Hollywood High on any weekend and sit in on a ninth grade science class. You’ll see! But Mike is the guys who needs to come see. He is most out of touch with how out of vogue the 20th century ‘science uber alles’ view is. The new 21st century person celebrates religion first and puts reason second. It appears to be the way of the young Americans today.
Bob
K.
RE: Nine points from Bob to Sean
From Bob
Dear Sean,
I quote from you:
> Here's a statement: Reason came before science.
> Science grew out of reason, not the other way around.
> Philosophy really was the first science, and then came the natural
> sciences. This has profound implications.
Aristotle is often credited as the first scientist. To my knowledge, Aristotle is the first recorded "naturalist," or biologist, using observations to study and classify organisms, some of which still bear the names and taxonomy that he gave them. And reasoning people certainly pre-dated Aristotle, e.g., Socrates and Plato. Therefore, I agree with your statement; reason preceded science.
However, the next assertion, that "Philosophy was the first science" is harder for me to swallow. In fact, I would say that you are mistaken, Sean. This is currently a hot Catholic dogma point. Here's an example of what I mean. Take Aristotle again. His writings clearly show that he incorrectly thought that heavier objects fall faster. In fact, he thought that an object weighing ten pounds would fall ten times faster than an object weighing one pound, which is way wrong of course. The interesting thing is this, Sean:
Aristotle never did the experiment! (He never recorded it at least, and from what we know of his intellectual honesty, his incorrect reasoning also shows that he never did the experiment, otherwise he wouldn't have made such a preposterous claim!)
Aristotle used observation and reason, which was enough to get him "biologist" credits, but he did not use experimentation! In Greek culture, it was enough to be a smart guy sitting in a room, thinking, or walking around thinking. This could at least make you a "philosopher." Many of the great thinkers you so admire do/did just this, sit in a room and think, then write about it, after reading the Bible and praying, of course.
But science is different, and I would say, profoundly different. The axioms in science can be agreed upon by everybody (mass, length, time, charge, spin). Then reason flows from there, informed by observations, hypotheses, and trial and error experiments, usually followed by conclusions and/or more educated guesses and more observations and experiments. Philosophy doesn't use this method.
Wrong axioms? I don't care how good your reasoning is, or how reasonable you are . . . if you start with incorrect axioms, you can end up with unverifiable or even incorrect conclusions, despite impeccable logic.
History is full of these examples, from heavenly bodies that "must circle the earth" to any of the many incorrect conclusions coming straight from the Bible (take any of the first verses of Genesis for example). So is Catholic dogma of old. It had to be modified . . .
What you have said in the starting quote is more incorrect dogma from the Catholic church, Sean. I see it all the time from my Catholic kids, from the EWTN channel (Catholic cable channel, when I have a chance to watch it), and, worst of all, from my own nephew, a good Catholic, who attends Thomas Aquinas College, a Catholic college in southern California. He reasons as
you: "Philosophy came first; therefore science is a subset of philosophy." I think it is a matter of record that philosophy was not the first science, although philosophy came first. Science is based on observation AND experiment; philosophy is not. In the words of the world renown physicist (another great atheist thinker, who should have been on that dumb list you sent me but wasn't):
"If you can test it in a lab or observe it directly in nature, it's science; otherwise, it's philosophy . . . "
- Physicist Steven Weinberg (from the 2003 PBS Nova presentation of the book by Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe.)
Catholics cling to the old belief that science is a subset of philosophy, which is a subset of metaphysics, which is subordinate to religious 'knowledge'. Sean, I have to tell ya man, fairy tale time is over. In the classification of modern knowledge, you have philosophy, of which religion is a subset, and you have science. It's a big shift for you, but get used to it. Trust me, it's hear to stay, and it's a good way to go. It is more intellectually honest to distinguish between what we know by observation and experiment, science, from what we know by thinking (philosophy) and its subset (religion), that which we take on faith, with different faiths for different cultures and individuals. You say that there are several ways of knowing things. There might just be two ways, and one is not as universal as the other. I think these are the profound implications, not what you seem to be suggesting.
Watch out, Sean. I see too much of this kind of dogma, coming nearly simultaneously from too many of my "Catholic" sources, my older sister, my nephew, my friend Ray and his wife Brigid, my Latino/a kids (70% Catholic), and the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). There must be a deliberate campaign afoot to try and pull the debate back to 13th century thinking about the classification of knowledge. I know that you want this because you feel modern man is supposedly so spiritually empty. But it's always healthy to step back from dogma and see a different view. Go ahead, be a 21st century scientist AND a 21st century Catholic.
Your friend,
Bob K.
RE: Four points from Mike to All
From Bob
Mike,
I disagree with your point 4, Mike. These revelations are not only new, they are useful. They are consistent with some teaching from the Upanishads (or, as I would say, some teachings of the Upanishads are consistent with them) but they also predict the spectrum given off by the hydrogen atom, reconcile the constancy of the speed of light, and estimate the age of the universe. The Upanishads missed that. Unimportant details? The devil is in the details!
By the way, I'm a professor. Sometimes I lecture. But only when you guys need it! Otherwise, free study!
Bob K.
How timely that just when professor Bob puffs his phud pheathers, the professor here and now-Bob conspicuously chooses channel insertion
From Hsueh:
Re: Bob Doesn't Know Shit
From Miguelito
The title of this essay is "Bob Doesn't Know Shit". It was written by Bob. It goes something like this:
"8) It seems closer to the truth to me to say that you don't really know shit, and neither does anyone else, including me. . . . "
Now, because Bob doesn't know shit, and we know that Bob doesn't know shit, and Bob knows he doesn't know shit, we begin this inquiry with the following body of knowledge: that Bob doesn't know shit.
Issue: Even though Bob doesn't know shit, and knows he doesn't know shit, he keeps on relentlessly--one might say obsessively--lecturing Sean, repeating the same points over and over again, email after email, as if he knows shit.
Why?
Discussion: This is apparently because of all the shit that Bob doesn't know, is included the shit that Sean has already told him at least 1,000 times over many years that Sean already understands the scientific empirical principles and methods Bob keeps explaining and citing, email after email, like scripture.
Why does Bob keep repeating this shit? Apparently because included in the shit that Bob doesn't know, is the fact that persistence causes resistance, and vice versa. So Bob doesn’t know that his continuing relentlessly desperate efforts to convert Sean are obviously at this point self defeating and Sean if anything is getting farther and farther away from Bob's viewpoint with every new email from Bob. I can see that. Why can't Bob? Because Bob doesn't know shit.
Another shit that Bob apparently doesn't know is that Miguelito does not always think or write linearly. Bob confuses "linear" with "logic". Strictly linear thinking is inadequate to encompass reality in an infinite universe.
Moreover, it is boring. So, Bob mistakenly thinks that when Miguelito says that the concepts on the frontiers of moderns physics are not new because the Upanishads already reached many of the same conclusions millennia ago, Bob absurdly yet correctly points out that Upanishads does not specify the spectrum given off by the hydrogen atom, reconcile the constancy of the speed of light, or estimate the age of the universe.
Bob, not knowing shit, apparently lost track of the fact that this conversation is about The Big Picture, so Bob cannot see the forest for the trees because, and I quote, Bob doesn't know shit.
Obviously, Upanishads is not about scientific measurements and calculations; it's about ultimate existential reality. And the ultimate existential reality described by Upanishads is eerily close to the ultimate existential reality described by modern physics, irrespective of the speed of light or the spectrum of hydrogen. Upanishads arrived at that Big Picture conclusion through spiritual introspection, while modern physics arrives [at] that nearly the same conclusion through the opposite method of observation and measurement of the physical universe and application of mathematical equations and theoretical physics.
But Bob must focus on the fact that the folks who wrote the Upanishads couldn't calculate the speed of light, even though they did quite amazingly understand the concept of relativity, which is the whole point of this conversation.
Because Bob doesn't know shit, he for example would probably debate for years the "issue" of which is "better": art of science. Bob's rigid, linear thinking won't allow him to see that it's a phony question; that they are both valid ways of looking at the world, and that both are necessary for a full understanding of the world.
This is like the phony debate of "which is true: religion or science?" Bob's rigid linear thinking (probably the single biggest reason why Bob doesn't know shit) won't allow him to see that there is good and bad in both, flaws in both, perfections in both, that they need not be mutually exclusive, and that therefore there is room to some extent for both viewpoints in this world.
Bob's linear thinking insists that only one can be "right".
That is why Bob, not knowing shit, told Dan that "I look at the whole world view thing like 'what are the odds of World View X being the best (most true) big picture'." Bob's rigid, linear mind can't grasp the fact that there may be an quantum of truth, however small or large, in ALL world views, as if a subject as infinitely complex as reality and metaphysics can be reduced to a simple linear science equation. Talk about dumbing down!
That is why Bob is so up in arms about science being the only valid world view. To Bob, the 21st century will be about a big battle where only one world view can emerge victorious. And Bob is a true believer that science must be the only winner. Because Bob doesn't know shit, he cannot conceive of a future where all the wisdom of the past is culled and reconciled, with the junk thrown out (including junk science and junk religion). Bob is going to pound science into everyone's head whether they want it or not, because it is the truth. Bob, not knowing shit, can't see that that sounds exactly like the rabid fundamentalists who pound their particular religion into everyone's head because it is the truth.
Even if it turns out that Bob does know shit and is right that science is the only valid world view, he still doesn't know shit because as a practical matter you can't force your world view onto others by coercion, as Bob cluelessly persists in trying to do with Sean. But then, Bob doesn't know shit.
Among all the vast, infinite shit that Bob doesn't know, there is at least one shit that Bob does know. As a teacher, he has extensive firsthand experience with current 9th graders, and that places him in a position of greater knowledge about that upcoming generation. However, that does not establish that Miguelito is "out of touch", as uncharitably suggested by Bob, only that Bob is more in touch. After all, we live in a relative universe.
Conclusion: Bob's exclusive use of his brilliant but highly limited linear thinking is why he doesn't know shit. His linear mind confuses linear thinking with logic, and jumps to the ridiculous conclusion that Miguelito is anti-logic, as if Miguelito could have been the successful attorney he is without a steel trap of a mind when it comes to logic. Logic is an excellent linear tool, just as Newton's physics continues to be an excellent tool for predicting the movement of macroscopic objects near Earth.
What does modern theoretical physics tell us what happens when you shine an infinitely powerful (linear) laser beam out into the universe? As I recall, it tells us that that "straight" beam of light somehow impossibly bends and ultimately comes back around to burn us in the ass. That's what happens in an infinite universe. Starts to sounds like one of those oxymoronic koans that Bob ridicules. However, because Bob doesn't know shit, and therefore believes that linear thinking will always lead "straight" to the "right" conclusion, he keeps sending his laser-beam straight linear thoughts out in emails and disavowing the possibility of any bending whatsoever of his beam, because that would be like "floating your soul with god" where "logic is useless" (or to paraphrase Bob, he would lose his mind, like Miguelito). Another shit that Bob doesn't know is that losing a little of his tyrannical mind might be a good thing.
Bob also doesn't know that logic, in addition to being a supremely valuable tool, can also be a prison. Bob's linear thinking won't allow such an oxymoronic condition to exist, where something can be both good and bad at the same time. But if Bob had paid more attention to the Upanishads, perhaps he would know that.
So Miguelito is checking out of this "conversation" (which has really become just a series of lectures) for a while until something that looks more like a dialog shows up.
Your favorite ignoramus,
--Miguelito
RE: Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow
From Ziphler
Housekeeping intervention #2 – I am only aware of Miguelito’s diatribe to the extent and thanks to its inclusion at the end of Sean’s message. Although it ends with “message truncated” I assume Miguelito had little else to say beyond the usual “love and kisses”
Sean says:
“There are arguments and counter-arguments but they won't change someone's point of view; maybe modify it a little, incorporate it as another data point in their world view, but a real departure from their fundamental view point is unlikely at this point. I mean, like Mike said, I've had 35-40 years to make up my mind. Do you think I haven’t heard all these arguments before? I've not only heard people say them, I've read them easily 10 times before. Yes, Dan the original thinking/ideas that you espouse, I've read at least ten times before!”
When a goddamn shrub catches fire and starts telling me that a dude named God wrote a rulebook, this old dog will be transformed instantly, even if I’m 85. Since we are one big happy family and three sides of the same tetrahedron can you likewise promise me that the moment your brain actually wakes up from its slumber, and sees what you already know, that you will abandon this illusory quest to make a triangular fantasy fit into a quadrasphere’s hole in time-space.
P.S. to Miguelito – prepare thyself for you have exposed two flanks. Do you prefer your meat rare or well done?
P.P.S. OOOHHHH, that’s right. It isn’t up to the meat; is it?
[an evil Vincent Price style, power inebriating, gloating cackle is heard emanating from Ziphler’s extensive underground labyrinth]
Make that “power inebriated”
RE: Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow
From Sean
Forgive me for starting with a Jesus quote, but He did say the meek will inherit the earth.
It is usually because the strong, the powerful, lack the capacity to change their course or the necessity to see the world in a different light. The weak are able to see that that power does not accrue to them from within, but resides with them from without, and therefore are able to use that power more humbly and will eventually exceed the strong. Case in point, following the nuclear holocaust, insects will likely dominate the earth. Or another example, even in the face of greater odds, Ghandi succeeded.
But I must say, your version of Bush's "bring it on"'
i.e., that Mike has "opened up two flanks" has got me in all a titter! This should be good. Please, let me get my popcorn, soda and comfy chair before you start.
Although, based on Mike's latest emails, you would have to open up about 17 fronts to bring him down and even then I wouldn't give it good odds!
Your meek and humble servant Sean
RE: Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow
Sean, are you afraid to answer the question, are you simply giving up and admitting that we can’t teach old Sean new tricks as Miguelito seems to think, or are you also saying ‘bring it on’? Did I shy from your broadband challenge? I’ll repeat the question.
Sean says
“There are arguments and counter-arguments but they won't change someone's point of view; maybe modify it a little, incorporate it as another data point in their world view, but a real departure from their fundamental view point is unlikely at this point. I mean, like Mike said, I've had 35-40 years to make up my mind. Do you think I haven’t heard all these arguments before? I've not only heard people say them, I've read them easily 10 times before. Yes, Dan the original thinking/ideas that you espouse, I've read at least ten times before!”
When a goddamn shrub catches fire and starts telling me that a dude named God wrote a rulebook, this old dog will be transformed instantly, even if I’m 85. Since we are one big happy family and three sides of the same tetrahedron; can you likewise promise me that the moment your brain actually wakes up from its slumber, and sees what you already know, that you will abandon this illusory quest to make a triangular fantasy fit into a quadrasphere’s hole in time-space?
P.S. that comfy seat better have belts and air bags.
RE: Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow
From Ziphler
Err . . . ahhh. Miguelito,
Sean ‘s a tittering again and I hate to keep him tittering; it’s embarrassing. However, in your first diatribe, [by the way, both “essays” are about the equivalent of “saying duh” on steroids] [oh and, by the way Bob said “duh” to you without getting in trouble] [oh and by the way, Sean always says “duh” to me when I’m being dense, but only in person] [oh, and by the way, I knew it was rude but I was just leaving it as a place holder until I got back to the statement it was referring to but when I did get back there it suddenly made sense. Call it a judgment call] [oh and by the way, I’m being neither childish, or defensive, just annoying] you refer to my email as the “most thoughtful, coherent and articulate yet”. Since all my emails [which, by the way, I always send to the masters with humility and grace] are thoughtful, coherent, and articulate; what email are you referring to? It was not printed below but rather rudely truncated in the version I was able to salvage.
central ziphler
Mike doesn't know shit either . . .
From Bob
Bullshit, Mike!
You know I'm right about philosophy not being the first science, but you're too busy lecturing me to just admit it, and let it go from there. End of discussion, Meathead. Your friend,
Bob Keislar
Ultimate reality
From Bob
I quote Mike:
“And the ultimate existential reality described by Upanishads is eerily close to the ultimate existential reality described by modern physics, >irrespective of the speed of light or the spectrum of hydrogen.”
Mike, we all read Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav in the 1970s, man. Why do YOU keep repeating this shit? Have you read Amit Goswami yet? It’s better than the Tao of Physics and Dancing Wu-Lee Masters put together!
And it’s not the speed of light, Mike, it’s the CONSTANCY of the speed of light, REGARDLESS OF YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE! That’s what’s profound. Now I’m starting to wonder if you even appreciate that! Maybe that’s why you’re so hard on me; maybe you’re trying to hide your own deficiencies in knowledge?
And while I’m at it . . . Maybe the Upanishads were a lucky guess, shallow knowledge, accompanied by all kinds of bullshit Hindu gods and goddesses that have no effect on life. Quantum mechanics is derived from first principles and is deep knowledge, accompanied by useful things that have a direct effect on YOUR life. Get used to it, man. Wake up and smell what you so liberally espouse . . .
“All is one” etc.
Knowledge, Mike. One foundation of universal knowledge, that is independent of yours, or mine, or Sean’s faith(s). And you have to be conscious to appreciate it. So stop bashing me, wake up, and get conscious, now . . . join the universal consciousness instead of accusing me of missing it. By the way, my example of Aristotle was a good answer to Sean’s statement. It answered the mail, EXACTLY, and you’re too fuckin’ proud to admit it. Still your friend,
Bob K.
RE: Mike, Mike, Mike...Wow
From Sean
You want me to answer a rhetorical question? Ok, all in good time....all in good time.
The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Sean
Dan asks: "Sean, are you afraid to answer the question?"
Sean Replies No way Jose-I just have to find it first in the Dan language!
OK. Got it, here it is
QUESTION:
Since we are one big happy family and three sides of the same tetrahedron; can you likewise promise me that the moment your brain actually wakes up from its slumber, and sees what you already know, that you will abandon this illusory quest to make a triangular fantasy fit into a quadrasphere’s hole in time-space?
So, First, I will try to decipher it. (A task in itself-but I can even interpreted Martin Buber, the philosopher, one of the most difficult to understand.)
The tetrahedran family I presume represents Dan, Mike, Bob, and Sean.
The illusory quest I presume to be my faith?
Now here is a difficult part. I think the triangular fantasy refers to the Trintity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? I'm not sure if that's what Dan is referring to, but can't think of what else it would be.
And then the crux is "awaking from my slumber" as in when will I, that I am a lazy thinker, abandoned all originality in my heart, have succumbed to a faith, a belief that makes it so that I am asleep or not in possessions of my faculties.
Fit into a quadrashpere's space-time hole
And Dan wants me to answer this question, sort of like saying, "Sean, did you stop beating your wife? If I say yes, then I have admitted to beating my wife. If I say no, then I must be a wife-beater.
The funny thing is I have been saying this answer to this question for the last 30 years. Would you hear it now? Come on.
I don't agree with the premises contained within the question. However, irregardless of that fact and in spite of the self-aggrandizing and arrogant tone in which the question was asked, I will try to be sincere in my answer. My only one stipulation is that Dan must be satified with this answer and not ask me any more on the subject.
ANSWER:
My answer is I have awaken. I was basically on your, Bob's and most other people's (even though they may call themselves Christians!) path who believe they can find the truth within themselves by seeking their own self-interest. In my mind, I existentially experienced the conclusive endpoint of that path, end result of that path which was one of total emptiness. It was an existential extrapolation. I awoke from this illusion that this path of self-gratification will give me happiness. It didn't, it doesn't, and it never will.
After this "awakening", this "turning", things started to become very clear to me.
Now, the question for me is, do I think you are asleep? No, I just don't think you are capable of making the same extrapolation that I made. That's not a necessarily a bad thing. It just is, and its how God wants it.
There satisfied?
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Ziphler
Sean,
This bit was brilliant. I’m still laughing. It’s much better than your official answer.
“And Dan wants me to answer this question, sort of like saying, "Sean, did you stop beating your wife? If I say yes, then I have admitted to beating my wife. If I say no, then I must be a wife-beater.”
However I accept the other answer also. The triangle was a rectangle until I had a small TIA and thought there were actually only three members of the tetrahedron family (you are correct, the four of us), and to show you how brain damaged I was, it had nothing to do with the tetrahedron family and could have been any shape since it was just a take on square peg in a round hole. However, your interpretation of triangular fantasy as trinity was also brilliant. I still want to know why the burning bush won’t talk to you or me. Now as for not asking any more on the subject, I only respond to your written volleys, and that I will continue to do.
And, I am NOT a goddamned atheist!
It is interesting to me that you identify both a path of self-gratification, and a path to self contained truth through the seeking of self interest. You claim to have been on this latter path as are Bob and I still. Whoa there horsey. I have never believed the truth lies down a path of self interest, and one is a fool to accuse Bob of excessive self-gratification.
There is much to ponder here as I prepare for the battle to end all battles [only to have them replaced by skirmishes] with the evil Miguelito, for I must save the good Miguelito as I fear that the PEE WEE aberration, now occupying his house has weaved a dastardly spell, and I could be responsible. So, I’ll leave it at that for now.
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Bob
Dear Dan,
I think Sean is better at interpreting Dan-speak then I am! In fact, Sean, you're damn good at it. I didn't get all that from Dan's email. I gave up.
Danny, could you please speak more plainly, at least for my linearly limited benefit? But then you'd have less fun!?! And I admit, you deserve to have as much fun with these dialogs as I do, even if we occasionally get mad at each other. (Mike'll forgive me in a month or two . . . )
And Sean, I'm not seeking my own self-interest (the path you said Dan and I were on). I'd never have become a high-school teacher if that were the case.
I'm seeking global interest. Children are 25% of the population and 100% of the future. As father and teacher, I'm on the front lines of the culture war in America, and scared of it widening to engulf the world. I'm scared that reason is losing to religion, which is going to take the world down, as Islam meets Judeo-Christianity on a new field of battle. I told Mike this 18 years ago . . . I'm scared of the Middle East!
I think that the important thing for "QUESTION?!!#%@&" is that Sean is a truth seeker from way back. I have known that for 30 years. And thank God (or Evolution and the Age of Enlightenment) that it's a free country.
Sean just knows that "God wants it." Who are we, Bob and Dan, to say he's fooling himself? I might think that all religious people are fooling themselves. But I can't show it; therefore, I don't know it. Agnosticism is born! I might take it on faith that Sean is fooling himself, but why would my faith be any more valid than his faith, at least at this point in human knowledge? And even if the evolution-based rise of a rather common, neural 'god-center' fits enough scientific data to be called "The Theory of the Evolution of Religion", or "The God Gene" or some such, well, it's probably not going to be sufficiently developed in my lifetime. Meanwhile, we're all conscious . . . even Mike. (Sorry, Mike.)
So relax, enjoy the party, and here's tomorrow's debate topic (whoops, it's already tomorrow):
Is consciousness the whole story of spirituality? Does the phenomenon of consciousness explain all religions? Is consciousness a gift from God or just a lucky gift from antiquity? How would humankind know either way? How would linear, limited, lecturing, and ludicrous Dr. Bob know either way?
By the way, I started working on a song for the album last Thursday (coincidentally Feb 1st!). It's a mellow I-VII-IV chord progression with the continuing mantra "You really don't know . . . You really don't know . . ."
chant-sung in harmony in the back ground, while each of five verses spouts the dogma of the top three monotheisms (in historical order), then secular humanism dogma (scientism), and finally new age unification themes of peace, love, and understanding (Yoga?). I want to put in an audio sample of George Bush in each verse relevant to his understanding of each idea . . . For example, for the Jewish verse, we put in his quote about his favorite book of the Bible is the Book of Job (Jews suffer a lot, don't they? Holocaust, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, half a century of suicide bombers, etc.) For the Christian verse we put in the famous line "My favorite philosopher is Jesus because he changed my heart . . . " For the Islam verse, we put in "Islam is a peaceful religion." coupled with " . . . but the Islamic facists . . ." and " . . . Islamic fundamentalism . . . " For the science verse we put in ("The jury's still out on evolution", even though it's really not!
Did you guys here about the new book "Monkey Girl"? I've gotta read it!) And for the New Age verse we put in all the Iraq bloopers "Mission accomplished!", "Bring it on!", etc, and maybe the Cheney quote on "dead-enders" and a couple of Rumsfeld quotes, ending with the last State of the Union " . . . troop surge of 21,500 . . . ".
It's just a start. I've really only got the chords and a humming melody. But it's only Feb 6, well, Feb 7 now. What is happening President's Day at your place, Dan?
Bob K.
FW: The peaceful majority
From Bob
Forwarded from Uncle Bob. Scary, and basically pro-Bush.
-----Original Message-----
From: michael brokaw [mailto:mbro@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:51 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Fw: the peaceful majority
All I can say about the article below is wow. I don't know
how old it is, or if it's been published anyhwere, but the
author's e-mail address is listed under his name if you wish
to contact him and find out. To me, it is a timeless piece
of wisdom.
Mr. Haynes, you are a wise man in a world of fools.
The Peaceful Majority
by William Haynes
I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy
prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large
industries and estates. I asked him how many German people
were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me
and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed
the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to
care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a
bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it
all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we
had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My
family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp
and the Allies destroyed my factories."
We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads"
that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast
majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make
us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of
fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in
history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage
any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics
who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb,
behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take
over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously
spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the
"peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed
and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live
in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for
the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful
majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was
peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not
a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered
its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that
included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese
civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And,
who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could
it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace
loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet
for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic
and uncomplicated of
points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't
speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will
awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the
end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans,
Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians,
Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful
majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to
the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our
way of life.
Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who
rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying
heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets
quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons
which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war
against terror. They are trying to protect the interests
and well being of the world and it's citizens. Best we
support them.
William Haynes
FW: SOME WHALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Bob
The Whale
If you read the front page story of the SF Chronicle,
you would have read about a female humpback whale
who had become entangled in a spider web of crab traps
and lines.
She was weighted down by hundreds of pounds of traps that caused her to
struggle to stay afloat. She also had hundreds of yards of line rope wrapped
around her body, her tail, her torso, a line tugging in her mouth.
A fisherman spotted her just east of the Farrallon Islands
(outside the Golden Gate ) and radioed an environmental group for help.
Within a few hours, the rescue team arrived and determined that she was so bad
off, the only way to save her was to dive in and untangle her ...
a very dangerous proposition.
One slap of the tail could kill a rescuer. They worked for hours with curved
knives and eventually freed her.
When she was free, the divers say she swam in what seemed like joyous circles.
She then came back to each and every diver, one at a time, and nudged them,
pushed gently around---she thanked them. Some said it was the most incredibly
beautiful experience of their lives.
The guy who cut the rope out of her mouth says her eye was following him the
whole time, and he will never be the same.
Re: FW: The peaceful majority
From Miguelito
I believe it was Mother Teresa who said that if anyone ever asked her to join a demonstration against war, she would refuse. But if she were asked to join a demonstration for peace, she would join.
The war is in our hearts. Fear is an illusion. We are all fanatics.
Including Haynes.
Peace,
--Miguelito
Re: Mike doesn't know shit either . . .
From Miguelito
Bob,
Your response is to declare yourself winner. Okay. Miguelito concedes BOB IS THE WINNER. As you said: end of discussion.
Now that you have won the "debate" and I've graduated from your class, you can focus on lecturing your 9th graders, a rapt and captive audience.
The test of our friendship will be whether we can find something else to talk about.
Congratulations,
--Mike
RE: SOME WHALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Ziphler
I’d like to read what the whales had to say about the whole thing.
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Sean
Yes, in my hasty reply (you'll remember people were demanding answers), I projected my own subjective case on the general and subjected the atheistic position to this interpretation.
Ah, but Dan never really questioned my premise, that altruism could exist with any set of beliefs (remember I view all positions as belief, and that every human therefore holds a set of beliefs). (My premise that only self-interest exists in non-theist belief systems-this is not true-I could explain this apparent inconsistency-but I won't.)
Please accept my humble apology.
The real reason I believe in God is that either through capacity or necessity I am able to believe in a reality that is beyond sensual apprehension(supernatural), arrived at through a combination of self-exploration, human interaction, and logic, and either through capacity or necessity, those who do not believe in God cannot.
As I said, this is a good thing, because it means that every one can hold a position commensurate with their understanding of reality (free will).
Re: Mike doesn't know shit either . . .
From Bob
Jesus, Mike,
I didn't know our friendship was so fragile that it could be shaken by the last email exchanges. You left that impression with your last email. Wow! I don't know how Dan and Sean weigh-in, but I guess it isn't good either.
I am not the winner, and if you try and crown me as such, I refuse the mantle. What I said was, "you don't know shit either." That doesn't mean I'm the winner. It just means we're both firing off of "faith", one in science and the other in Yoga. That's all it means . . .
I express myself to the best of my ability, as does Sean, as does Dan. Just because you're the most verbally gifted, doesn't mean I won't stick up for what I think I said, and the importance of saying it, in our free-wheeling email discussion that is the "religion quartet." You took offense. It happens. Hell, I've taken offense sometimes as well, as has Sean. I'm sorry that you took offense. It's just the way it came down. I felt you weren't acknowledging a good point that I made, and then rather than respond to the good point, you criticized me pretty heavily. So I just defended myself.
I understand that I frustrate you, that you feel I'm repeating my limited, small-minded, linear lecture, treating you like a 9th-grader, etc. But I also feel I contribute to what is essentially a truth-seeking forum.
As my Catholic brother-in-law says, "Gentlemen don't discuss politics or religion." I guess I will add " . . . or science" and try to be a gentlemen.
It could be that you've come to find that you just don't like me. That happens in life. Personally, I don't want to lose your friendship, Mike, but if I can't be myself, if I have to walk around on eggshells for fear of boring or upsetting you, well . . . I that's just sad to me.
Sincerely, and with abiding friendship,
Bob Keislar
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Bob
Thanks for the explanation, Sean.
But is there a set of UNIVERSAL beliefs? That EVERYONE can hold?
I guess the answer is "no" . . .
Bob K.
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Sean
Yes, Bob, there is a universal set of beliefs and I would say that is the natural law as I have described it in previous emails.
I know you will make the case for science. Science is a universal mehtod but not a belief system, at least as I view it, a tool to gain knowledge about the physical and natural processes of the world. As a belief system I would say the science is ineffective because it is a method.
Oh-oh-Now here we go again.............. I'm sure you could make an air tight argument for it being a belief system, but I really didn't want to start another discussion. Too much work to do right now. Maybe some other time?
PLAYING THRU
From Ziphler
I’m having a couple of the chariots re-chromed before battle so while procrastinating on the miquelito front I couldn’t help noticing another zinger from the twitterer
“I am able to believe in a reality that is beyond sensual apprehension(supernatural), arrived at through a combination of self-exploration, human interaction, and logic, and either through capacity or necessity, those who do not believe in God cannot”
Sean, the reason you get us all riled up even while pacifying Mike is not exemplified any better than right here. You start out with a very reasonable statement which begins trailing off with something kind of loosey goosey like when you throw logic into the mix (i.e. miguelito’S dissertation on the topic distilled it well; his steel trap works on the gullible but you can proceed logically from any random point in the universe and still not know where you are).
Then, WOW, I can usually just barely get my face out of the way of Sean’s blindside punch in red.
1. Do you really believe an old acid-head like me isn’t aware of realities beyond the conventional senses? I can’t believe it takes you so much grunting and groaning, self-exploration, human interaction, and . . . .Sounds like way too much work for this grasshopper.
2. And more odacious than that you imply one have to believe in God before acquiring the ability to understand what I dare say even poor abused Keislar is aware of, that there are realities beyond touch, feel, sight, sound, smell, and conciousness? I’d almost take the bet that one futher is true, that keislar has a better appreciation of the existence of these places than perhaps you do since you can only conceive of this one God thing out there in the netherlands.
I know I’ve brought it up before but Bob says a lot with his remark about constancy of c: and that tells us that simple layering as a conceptual model doesn’t work. Miguelito seems to think he’ll be hit in the ass with his own laserbeam and that Bob wouldn’t understand bending light. What neither of you seem to want to think about is that while we contain many universes within our own time and space, making us the outer layer, they also contain us, making them the outer layer [AND MAKING US JUST THE BLIP OF A PHOTON OCCUPYINY NO TIME IN THEIR 100 BILLION YEAR LIFE CYCLE BUT THEIR BLIP IN OUR UNIVERS JUST HAPPENED LAST TUEDAY]. Sean you talk as if your conceptual model has yourself at the core of a golf ball from which you are able to blindly reach just outside of its surface and feel this light wispy stuff we call air and you think its profound. Well it is my son. FFFOOOORRRE!!!! Smack! Do you mind if my dog plays thru also?
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Ziphler
Sean Kennedy today at 09:22:
(remember I view all positions as belief, and that every human therefore holds a set of beliefs).
Sean Kennedy today at 13:45:
I know you will make the case for science. Science is a universal method but not a belief system, at least as I view it, a tool to gain knowledge about the physical and natural processes of the world. As a belief system I would say the science is ineffective because it is a method.
Now I could swear I just said that last week when you ‘all kept harping about scientism and lumping it in as just another world view/belief system/whatever
Oh-oh-Now here we go again.............. I'm sure you could make an air tight argument for it being a belief system,
But, but, .. . sputter didn’t you just say [looks back while pointing forward, trying to catch one of those Sean glimpses]
Ah, but Dan never really questioned my premise, that altruism could exist with any set of beliefs
I’m in complete agreement with the statement, why question it. Hell I’m very altruistic and most catholics think I’m the devil
Yes, Bob, there is a universal set of beliefs and I would say that is the natural law as I have described it in previous emails.
Yeeeeaaahhh, about that. I’m still waiting to hear an explanation or definition of such a blatant oxymoron. And, no! you have not described it.
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Sean
Quick Miguelito. My attacks to the flank on Dan and Bob were a brilliant tactic.
I've got them just where you want em. I know for a fact that Dan's chariot needs more than re-chroming!
RE: The answer to the QUESTION?!!#%@&
From Sean
Yes, I admit I was playing both sides of the argument.
Send me the bill for your chariot re-chroming.
Re: Mike doesn't know shit either . . .
From Miguelito
Bob,
The truth is, our friendship does feel a little fragile. Not the love, the friendship. The love is not negotiable.
When a friend says "end of discussion", it's hard to be friends if there's no discussion. I accepted your statement "end of discussion" at face value, I expect you to accept mine. Now we need to find something else to talk about or else not talk.
This email debate has become a childish, pointless exercise in mind chatter and ego gratitfication and I no longer want to support that. I have always said that ultimately none of us knows shit, but we keep arguing anyway as if we do. We all fully understand each others' positions, and they haven't changed one iota, nor will they. I'm not interested in converting anyone to my position. So I declare everyone else the winner whether you like it or not.
I kept trying to divert the discussion to something more real, about tolerance and respecting each others' beliefs, but that's not what the discussion was
ever about. So count me out.
I don't enjoy the attacks on Sean. Even if Sean is OK with it, it bothers me. Not because I agree with Sean's particular beliefs (I don't), but because he has more than justified his position (not that he ever had to) and is entitled to his beliefs without getting repeatedly bashed for them over and over again by the same old broken records. For chrissake, why don't you guys just
leave him alone? He's an impressive guy with a good heart and right or wrong he
has found his peace. That's enough for me.
This discussion has no heart, it's just useless mind chatter, so I will no
longer be participating in it. Other discussions, yes, but this one no. I
feel is not furthering my understanding of anything, and it is not deepening our friendship. At this point, it is really just a superficial game and I'm not interested in playing it any more. I'm happy to let everyone believe they are right, believe I am wrong, believe I'm a new age idiot or whatever.
We are still friends and I love you, but I don't want to waste any more time on this topic. Let it go. The fun was over some time ago. If you want me, I'll be playing my guitar.
--Mike
RE: What is Hip?
From Ziphler
Bob, these guys web site is hilarious
We all know shit
From Sean
Once again it hard to disagree with Mike's level-headed take on the discussions.
I love to discuss things with you guys but it does get a little frustrating. I feel the same way sometimes that we are just going over the same ground. For some it may be trying to "win" or "convert", and I must admit that I at times entertained the illusion that my arguments would do just that.
I now recognize the folly in that.
Not one of the tetrahedran's argument has led me to even minimally doubt any of my convictions or the way I view things. And, I know that even my strongest arguments have not phased anybody.
So, I hereby claim that Mike knows shit, Bob knows shit, and Dan, hmmmm.... yeah, Dan knows a little shit too, and therefore, I withdraw.
Why don't we concentrate on the music?
From Miguelito
RE: We all know shit
From Bob
Well said, Mike and Sean.
Apologies all around, gentlemen.
Bob K.
And All Was Well in Dogville
From Miguelito
Bob,
Thanks for the call last night. You're a Dog-gone good friend.
--Mike
P.S. Now, if I could just find a good translator. (I don't speak Ziphler).
ALL BLOGGED OUT? Lookin for a new way? Even when I'm high there's always something below.
From Ziphler
Tryin to find a lady yeah a real pretty baby just REARLANWTG . . . I said GO!
Oh no you don’t you big baby! You started this so you are in it. It will be over before you know it and your other band wont find out! Man you are a walking (you can still walk can’t you?) hit parade. We’ll slap the snot out of this baby before the first chips and guacamole dip. You just leave the heavy lifting to the pros and plan on 2 or three good ½ days or evenings putting down rhythm tracks and vocals. Add another three hours for some rip-snorting lead work. Hell if we only get two songs down we’ll make one of ‘em 30 minutes long (or just send them a Tisket a Taskit, arguably our best work 2nd to she isn’t crying). TOO HARD my ass! Cooperate or I spill everything to the Dads.
ziphler
First contribution Here's a new song Dan. I don't think we'll be able to complete this task. Too hard.
-Sean
THE THREAD STARTS HERE FOR ANYONE PLAYING CATCHUP
The RPM challenge.
Go to http://www. rpmchallenge.com if you want all the details, but here's the short version... Try and record a full CD worth of material, 10 songs, in the month of February. That's it. Thought you guys might be interested. Check it out.
Sean,
Amazing!, I was gonna tell you that I wanted to rehearse by eight tracking a set of material and the name of the band was already the rapid response band so I already signed us up. When can you come over for an afternoon or evening to see what we got cooking?
Greetings streetdogs rapid response band, Thank you for applying for registration with us. We have received your request and we will process it as soon as you confirm your email address. Once your email address is confirmed our moderators will be notified to continue the activation process. You will be notified by email of the progress of the process.
Email : ziphler@streetdogs.com User Name : ziphler
Kind Regards, Website Administration Team
David, check it out http://www.rpmchallenge.com
Welcome streetdogs rapid reponse band,You've signed up to record an album in 28 days! Your account with the following details:
Email : ziphler@streetdogs.com
User Name : ziphler
has been activated. Log in, update your profile picture, put yourself on the map, visit the discussion board, and have fun!
Kind Regards,
The RPM Secret Moon Base
I'd like to try to do this time permitting but how do we? What are the mechanics of this? We need a plan. I wrote one song last night. I think the rule is they have to be written in February, right? Or can you take song from a previous body of work that has never been recorded? I figure we need 9 songs, give or take one or two.
Sean
We are ready to go up here with a full eight track digital system. Mark Phillips is available to drum anytime and he is better than he ever was. The only drawback is that he’s playing with one of them fancy electronic sampled sets but for these purposes that’s ok. Anything we actually put to tape, especially if we pull off nine songs by mar 1 would be a milestone. They may look at this as a writing exercise but I look at it as a recording thing. I bet half the entrants sneek songs on recorded earlier – some have probably been working on it all year! I figure 3 or 4 of yours, 3 or 4 of david z’s one or two of our greatest hits, hell even a cover song would be great. You gotta let me sing ghostown or illusions or both though. We also never recorded I wanna know you better. Lets figure out at least ½ the set list and I’ll send out copies of versions for people to learn and maybe by this or next Friday or sat we can start. Depends mostly on your schedule. David which of your tunes should we do?
Dan,
What's the login? I went to rpmchallenge.com and tried ziphler@streetdogs.com as the user name and ziphler as the password. That's wrong, huh.
Bob K.
YO,
www.rpmchallenge.com-Welcome This link threw me also. If you remove “–Welcome” from the URL it takes you to the same place without having to log in. You can log in there using “ziphler” and “dustbin” as user and password but that just allows you to edit info which now that I think of it you are welcome to enhance since I mostly left it blank. To simply check it out use:
Here's a new song Dan. I don't think we'll be able to complete this task. Too hard.
Sean
Sean,
Oh no you don’t you big baby! You started this so you are in it. It will be over before you know it and your other band finds out! Man you are a walking (you can still walk can’t you?) hit parade. We’ll slap the snot out of this baby before the first chips and guacamole dip. You just leave the heavy lifting to the pros and plan on 2 or three good ½ days or evenings putting down rhythm tracks and vocals. And another three hours for some rip-snorting lead work. Hell if we only get two songs down we’ll make one of ‘em 30 minutes long (or just send them a Tisket a Taskit, arguably our best work 2nd to she isn’t crying)
ziphler
Back in Your Arms Again Sean Kennedy
V1 D A Bm F#m G Bm G A
You know this job is getting me down
Having to go from town to town
Taking me far away from you
Breaking down my attitude
In a dream eyes open wide
In a vision as I lay beside you
Look at me, I touch you then
Back in your arms again
V2
I get up at the crack of dawn
And travel like a chessboard pawn
Across the board I sally forth
A broken compass points me north
Somehow I can find my way
As I wander through the endless days
The thought of you will end the pain
Back in your arms again
Chorus Bm F#m Em Bm G Bm Em F#m
Back in your arms again
Let me stay forever
Help me find the time that never was
Within your love
V3
Watch out the years will steal your time
You think your life can turn on a dime?
A quantity your fingers can’t quite hold
A fourth dimension loss, it turns to mold
I want the precious time to be with you
Forget the world and let ourselves renew
Tell me honestly and hold the blame
I find myself back in your arms again
By the way, I started working on a song for the album last Thursday (coincidentally Feb 1st!). It's a mellow I-VII-IV chord progression with the continuing mantra "You really don't know . . . You really don't know . . ." chant-sung in harmony in the back ground, while each of five verses spouts the dogma of the top three monotheisms (in historical order), then secular humanism dogma (scientism), and finally new age unification themes of peace, love, and understanding (Yoga?). I want to put in an audio sample of George Bush in each verse relevant to his understanding of each idea . . . For example, for the Jewish verse, we put in his quote about his favorite book of the Bible is the Book of Job (Jews suffer a lot, don't they? Holocaust, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, half a century of suicide bombers, etc.) For the Christian verse we put in the famous line "My favorite philosopher is Jesus because he changed my heart . . . " For the Islam verse, we put in "Islam is a peaceful religion." coupled with " . . . but the Islamic facists . . ." and " . . . Islamic fundamentalism . . . " For the science verse we put in ("The jury's still out on evolution", even though it's really not!
Did you guys here about the new book "Monkey Girl"? I've gotta read it!) And for the New Age verse we put in all the Iraq bloopers "Mission accomplished!", "Bring it on!", etc, and maybe the Cheney quote on "dead-enders" and a couple of Rumsfeld quotes, ending with the last State of the Union " . . . troop surge of 21,500 . . . ".
It's just a start. I've really only got the chords and a humming melody. But it's only Feb 6, well, Feb 7 now. What is happening President's Day at your place, Dan?
Bob K.
From Ziphler
In the summer of 1985 I received a letter from Hahnemann University in Philadelphia inviting me to join their entering class for a Masters in Applied Human Physiology which was commencing 5 days later. We had bailed out of the Doghouse, Bill was at UC Davis, and the Dogs, except Sean and Hsueh, had all flown the coop. I had just started a very hot little trio with Frenchy and Mark. The three of us were good players but had always been song writing wallflowers. As unpromising as this appeared at first, when the three flowers were against their walls we started gushing material on the spot – every song a collaboration, every one energetic and melodic. We practiced in these large ancient Meat refrigerators in a building in Hayward. We had two rehearsals between when I got the letter and I had to leave so I waited until after the 2nd rehearsal was over before I told those guys I was going to Philly the next day. It was the first band I ever busted up so I felt like a heel.
The program was a big weed out deal for oddball doctor wannabees. There were 40 of us thrown into the first year medical school class of 250 with the expectation that we would rise to the top of the curve. No medical school would take me five years out from a 9 year undergraduate stretch in which I almost had a B average. Having spent those 5 years living in a rock and roll studio probably didn’t add much either but I guess they couldn’t get around my MCAT scores –[99.9%ile in physics 98.6%ile in chemistry, 98.4%ile in general science, 94%ile in biology, and 88.9%ile in reading writing something-or-other] but they probably should have. I’m the white boy standardized tests were designed for and Stanley Kaplan gave me all the answers for a small fee.
Every doctor I knew including my Dad said don’t do it, everybody else became Jewish grandmothers. I knew I’d be forty two years old and $200,000 in debt when it was over yet the grannies retorted “Oh, but you’ll be a doctor!” (turned out to be more like 48 and 300,000 in debt) and the fact was, I’d taken that test a year and a half before, hadn’t gotten in to any schools, and had made peace with that. It was never a consuming ambition, just something I had a knack for that satisfied a lot of the nagging issues floating around me at the time.
Then I began to ponder the concept of being very far away and independent, no family, no Bill, a college kid again – this time around I knew how to get laid – and suddenly that was all I could think about. I moved into a 1 room cubby hole on the 18th floor with solid window on one wall in a round highrise located in the dead center of Philadelphia. The two landmarks that I passed each day walking the two blocks over and two blocks up to classes were the original 300 year old Quaker meeting house and the YMCA. For a year I was a living breathing routine and discipline machine. Go to class at 8am, write down every word I heard whether I could read it or not, draw all the diagrams, get out around 2 or 3, go run around this cool indoor running track above the gym at the Y, go home and start copying over my notes in detail with multi-colored pens, stare out the window thinking about what trouble I could get into down on the streets, roll a joint of killer bud supplied via US mail from Richie, and then get lost in the details of my multi-colored drawings for hours, forgetting all about the streets.
It was effective. My lowest ranking score on any test all year was 3rd out of 290. 8 or ten in our group got into med schools the following year, 25 dropped out and 5 of us remained the 2nd year. In which we were to do research and take advanced physiology courses with some sort of specialization. Mine was biometrics or biostatistics and medical computing. This time I applied to 17 medical schools and was accepted to every one based on my performance from the first year; which was a remarkable year that allowed me to proverbially rest on laurels for several more years. It was a very lonely year however. Philly was an extreme culture shock for a California beach boy. I would put on my best suit for these cocktail and shrimp parties the school threw very Friday and be totally underdressed. I’m sure those people have never even heard of being naked.
But all of the preceding is irrelevant. What I wanted to tell you about is that Quaker meeting house, the original one. Bill was raised a Quaker and in my lonely routine, back and forth between my cubicle and the classrooms there would be this amazing simple little red brick building that was really appealing. I don’t know about you guys but I had always thought of the Quakers as being like the Amish; archaic throwbacks to enforced bible thumping repression. Bill had told me different however and one day I popped in and got a book about what’s his name, their founder. I’d never gone to church, was lonely, and even missing Bill, so one Sunday I went to one of their meetings and then kept going every week. Frankly Sean, if you are gonna run a church this is how to do it.
When you walk in to the meeting house you note elegant austerity. The floors are wooden and the only furniture consists of wooden benches arrange in triangular circle fashion. There is nothing on the walls, no idols, dead guys on crosses, pulpits or podium, no hierarchical accoutrements attached to people or their perches, no costumes, and NO ministers. This is because everyone is expected to minister to each other. Their founder was Christian but, like the Unitarians, you can believe whatever you want. Unlike the Unitarians however, the Quaker meeting is definitely a spiritual event. Their founder describes a light that arises within in response to meditative silence. Here’s how the meetings work.
· People all file in, without talking, and sit anywhere.
· The benches are arranged so that all are facing each other
· At the designated meeting time somebody closes the doors and returns to their seat
· The doors are not locked and you can come late if you wish but it kind of loses its punch for you that way
· Everyone sits in silence in a quasi meditative state and waits for the light
· Usually about 20 minutes in to it someone stands up and speaks
· The topic is wide open but it’s supposed to be inspired by the light that wells within
· Sometimes someone sings, tells a poem, a story, or even a joke
· This is followed by usually another 10 minutes or so of silence and then someone else stands up and speaks
· Generally a topic thread is established by the first person and followed sometimes loosely, sometimes not at all but, as the hour progresses, there are shorter periods between speakers and the collective voice hones in profoundly on a theme becoming quite insightful on the topic.
· In other words it’s one big improvisational jam
· At the one hour point everyone shakes the hands of everyone adjacent to them and its over
·
The Quakers as a group are very liberal, well educated and proactive. By the middle of the 19th century they held something like 80% of the political offices in the United States. Then, somewhere mid 19th century, they all resigned en mass after much soul searching. This was probably an unfortunate decision.
Coincidentally, the year I was there this particular meeting decided to take up the issue of gay marriages. It seemed a slam dunk for this group but, like the abandonment of American political office, all major issues must be determined unanimously. On this topic there was one old black guy, out of some 400 total members, who would not budge, He was kind of an elder in the church which gave him more clout. Every Sunday for 6 weeks, after meeting, we’d break into groups and every week, a whole new group would work this guy but he held his ground and at six weeks the topic was shelved. He was a very nice man.
Every one of those meetings was a demonstration of communal power and showed communication between people via a transmission media not yet identified by our hard working scientists but clearly it was there. I kind of doubt it has a gender or calls itself God. In fact, just a stab in the dark here, but I bet it is no more self aware than the air we breathe which transmits the sounds we make.
Bob, I remember reading in the SF chronicle about a year ago, that some physicists on the Rhine River (?Is that Germany maybe?) were able to split a pair of tiny somethings that occur in such pairs commonly in nature, and somehow transport one of the little buggers across the river. As a pair they enjoy synchronicity in some kind of mutually shared spin. Supposedly these clever physicists had a way to continue observing our spinning twins after they were separated and the startling result was that whatever twin A did on the north bank, twin B also did on the south bank, at the same time. Every flip, spin, and orientation occurred simultaneously despite their distance from each other. Does that ring any bells? I’m probably confabulating on a discovery that was interesting but nowhere near as repercussive as my embellished recollection would make it.
So what now? Here’s Ziphler agreeing there’s something there, Keislar thinks that molecules can dance, Sean concedes that the big book is just a load of parables, and that he himself advocates for the devil, and Miguelito’s pointing fingers saying we’re all talking past each other.
We’ve all four uniquely alluded to, acknowledged and pontificated upon, the semantics conundrum at one point or another, yet continue to fall victim to it. Sean has taken, in any given case, to qualifying or prefacing his retorts by offering the possibility that we merely differ due to “language divergence” Well there must be a divergence point for that to occur and as our friends, the biochemists know, you can’t unravel a protein without knowing your amino acids. This is why when I detect the empirical use of the word “empiricism”, or simply don’t have a solid understanding of a word thrown out there, I right click and ask Microsoft to look it up. It is so simple, and I almost always learn something, So when it appears from what I learned that perhaps the use of that word has created a divergence point, I offer the definition back to the author. Sure words can evoke imagery previously unimagined when restrung with artistic intent, but when we are trying to transmit boring old data, as soon as there is a single error, you got problems. Compile 2 or three and while headed for St Louis, you wind up in Cheyenne. When Sean synthesizes concepts like:
· uncritical human constructions
· fact/value distinction
· social consensus
· empirical truths
· universal whole
· methods of the sciences of phenomena
· exploration by the model methods
· realms of being
· objective material reality
· open to truth
· spiritual reality of the inner life
· participation in transcendence
· expressed symbolically
· contradiction or a language divergence
· existential freedom (actually Bob’s)
· world of the positivist
· scientific quantification or reduction
· Sorry man
all in one blistering thought process or uses the words:
· contingent
· scientism
· pejorative
· positivism
· godhood
· fundamentalists
· empirical
· idolatrous
· perversions
· compulsions
· devil
· epiphany
· athi-agno-pan-theism
· cosmos
in one paragraph about how great sex is, I really start to tremble. When Sean sallies forth in his muse and evokes visions of Sally Forth the comic; now that’s art. When a single amino acid is substituted in a protein, it creates mayhem, not art, in biological systems. When we diverge by single words, we don’t communicate. To be bored by this methodical process of establishing fundamental building blocks of the tetrahedron is a risky arrogance. Sure, my eyes glaze over sometimes reading Bob’s carefully crafted technical analyses but the scientist in him does not allow him to be vague in his intended meaning and upon re-reading more carefully what he says is actually fascinating. When I’m pedantic you may assume that I am a little slow, and when it comes to all these guys you all quote, I plead total ignorance, but I love to fix the meanings intended. I look up a lot more than I throw back and these discussions do not really have to be pointless if we are willing to identify language divergence nodes in our freewheeling interactions.
You guys never ask any questions. I love questions. I always try to ask questions so you can imagine my excitement when Sean answered one recently. I am totally baffled by this latest revelation that no one understands how to speak ziphler. While my paranoia deficiency promotes the assumption that you are being tongue and cheek, the other possibilities are that either I’m a moron and beyond assistance, or that I have insights you haven’t considered and thus should be studied like you study your ancient philosophers. So thank God Sean attempted to decipher the question for he exposed the small flaw in my logic and shattered my delusionary thought. I used to be able to count on my Dad for that stuff. Oh. And how apropos this quote from one of Sean’s popes:
“Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon.”
So, enough of this babbling. Here’s what I think!
Bob Keislar listening to your lonely rallying cries to save the earth and our children, evoke memories of your struggle against the economic chaos of the doghouse. You were a tenacious money manager against overwhelming odds (me) and yet we survived long enough to actually create a body of work. Believe me, if a stiff like Al Gore can rally the interest he has in this critical endeavor, I have no doubt that you will inspire action at every turn. But you are a bit of a concrete thinker; the medical term for the 5th stage of psychological development best illustrated by ten year olds who believe that what you see is what you get. As we enter adolescence we develop abstract thought, the concept that everything is not as it appears. I liken it to the difference between algebra and calculus. By doing a lot of heavy lifting and using a lot of CPU time you can solve any problem with algebra but you sure save a lot of time with calculus. Not to say that you didn’t develop normally or without ever appreciating abstraction but you seem to favor and have the energy for concrete explanations which makes you ever so useful when making a case if you happen to be on my side.
Miguelito, methinks you doth protest loudly. You spent easily more airtime on the topic of sexual orientation in one rant than I have combined in these email exchanges for the last 5 years. But since you have I will be frank. I don’t understand what bisexual means. Call me thick headed, or wimpy, but if I was actually attracted to or could have found a way to be attracted to women, I would never have bothered with the excruciating process involved for an 18 to 24 year old gay male to have a healthy sex life and healthy relationships without becoming affected, dysfunctional, and/or miserable. It also takes some luck in the form of a family that can deal with it.
Don’t get me wrong. Now that I’ve dealt with it and have emerged from that tunnel I honestly feel sorry for straight guys. Somehow, evolution didn’t design them for the long haul, Survive to breed is all it ever took, and the strong could continue breeding till the upper limit of their life expectancy range at 35. Women withhold sex to control men, disallow alternatives, and face it, they just don’t want it as bad as they get older. I believe that bisexual behavior was probably rampant in earlier times because naturally hornier, and without religious and societal prejudice there would have been no embarrassment for men to get off together, maybe like modern American men watch the super bowl they would ogle pretty women while beating off together, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that most men are attracted to women. In modern times there doesn’t seem to be a place for the ancient innocence simply because we have identified a difference. There literally was no word for homosexuality until very recently in history. It wasn’t considered sex.
Since 10% of all males (and that number is probably too high) are truly gay (meaning they get a woody when they see an attractive male and not from a female) then 90% of males who were molested by another male before puberty (the point when your own body tells you what you are) are straight but this subset mostly identify themselves as bisexual and sometimes even gay. There’s another kind of animal out there now that is a relatively new phenomenon, kids who have been exposed to all sorts of sex (whether they were ever molested or not) before puberty, and not a lot of parenting. Those kids elevate love above gender or sexual attraction and when they find it, will do anything for it.
Yes, I am rebellious, and sometimes strictly for its own sake but I will not back up one inch from my assertion that being gay in America provides a crash course in understanding the American religious lie. That doesn’t mean that everyone avails themselves of the course or that others don’t figure it out but without the internal physiologic contradiction, a straight male can get a lot further before he even has a reason to question.
Sean, you are the chameleon. You are also the devil’s advocate and you love it. While I no longer believe you have any more respect for mother church than I do you still want there to be a creator. Which of course implies something outside of our space in a time outside of our time and since relativity shows us that what’s inside is also out and what’s contained also contains, I guess I still don’t see why. I’m sure that what I experienced in Quaker meetings was real and was exactly what some call God. I also believe it emanated from us, these biological creatures that have evolved a high degree of complexity. In fact, Bob, I would submit to you that quantum mechanics and the world of subatomic particles is simplicity itself compared to the Rube Goldberg style complexity raised to a complex power that can be seen in biological systems. Don’t hold your breath for immortality. However there is every reason to believe from early on, life forms have abilities for communication on yet to be discovered “wavelengths” for lack of a better term.
Oh and Bob, about the consciousness thing. Ever since the end of my concrete thinking days I have always entertained the notion that where-ever there is molecular motion, there is, however rudimentary, probably consciousness. I doubt it begins and ends with biological systems. Oh and here’s a question for Sean. Is God alive? If it is, is it biological? Do you think anything could kill it? My guess is your answers are Yes, No, and not to be dignified with an answer but who can read sean kennedy’s mind?
Oh, and let me add about the Quakers, I checked them out in Ohio and Phoenix both, and the small groups in both those places were very different and unappealing, maybe because they were so small and without that incredible meeting house – who knows. I didn’t stick with the group in philly after that first year either, I sort of got bored with it and then I met Andy . . . .
Finally, I have no real clue as to the source of last week’s mood swing but I hope Miguelito’s wit returns because without it the three of us sound like a bunch of saps. Oh yes, on to the music!
