zaelu Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 (editat) Cred ca dramatizezi putin cam mult si oarecum eronat Bec. Adica... dracu nu e asa de negru. Ce rost are sa repeti informatii care sint universal valabile/accesibile pe gugle/iutub? Daca unu (gen qualiasoup) face o prezentare absolut bestiala la un subiect... ce rost are sa te kachi pe tine sa faci o alta prezentare la acelasi subiect incercind sa spui fix acelasi lucru? Nu mai bine dai un link? la fel cum dadeai pe vremuri o carte. Apoi problema adevarului... foooarte exagerata zilele astea dar cred ca deja e in scadere... oamenii vad de multe ori ce jumatate a paharului vor... wikipedia sau net-ul in genere e "rau" pentru cei care vor sa se arunce in tristetzuri cu totul se duce de ripa si e rau. In realitate... nu e chiar asa. In loc sa ai 100 de oameni de stiinta care sa se bata pe adevar... acum ai 100 de milioane de oameni care sa se bata pe adevar... algoritmul e cit se poate de "evolutionist" si prin puterea masiva a parallel processing-ului coroborata cu aceasta contrintuitiva dar usor explicabila capacitate de autocorectie... NET-ul devine o sursa enorma de adevar. As opposed to gossip... care este mult mai dificila. parerea mea. Editat Decembrie 15, 2012 de zaelu Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
B.B. Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 Recunoaste ca ti-e lene sa te uiti la filmulete. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
zaelu Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 15, 2012 pai printre quote-uri si linkuri e si mica mea opinie despre subiect... doar nu te astepti sa creem cite o noua stiinta sau sa revolutionam o stiinta de fiecare data cind abordam un subiect... small steps... si mai ales la o discutie forumistica... e mai mult o gimnastica mentala. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xtf15l3-U8 Mai multe pe pagina lui Strassler. Un fizician care vorbeste limba noastra Nush ce limba vorbeste... dar sigur nu a mea. In partea 2a mi se pare ca o arde mistic la greu. Incearca niste glume dar... e jenant ce spune acolo IMHO. mioni... anti miuoni... plm... adica... sa nu crezi ca are ceva in mina... nu are nimic... doar un modele de a+b=c si zice el ca ia doi protoni (pe care nu ii are) si ii ciocneste si presupune ca ar iesi mioni si anti mioni care se ciocnesc... deja SFul e maxim si dau particula Z... plm... aproape o poveste despre rai... sau sfinti... Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 "An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.According to William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations. Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence. Some studies state that in developed countries, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies." ................. "Robert Wright has argued that some New Atheists discourage looking for deeper root causes of conflicts when they assume that religion is the sole root of the problem. Wright argues that this can discourage people from working to change the circumstances that actually give rise to those conflicts. Mark Chaves has said that the New Atheists, amongst others who comment on religions, have committed the religious congruence fallacy in their writings, by assuming that beliefs and practices remain static and coherent through time. He believes that the late Christopher Hitchens committed this error by assuming that the drive for congruence is a defining feature of religion, and that Dennett has done it by overlooking the fact that religious actions are dependent on the situation, just like other actions." .................. "Professor of Anthropology and Sociology Jack David Eller believes that the four principal New Atheist authors (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris) do not offer anything new in terms of arguments to disprove the existence of gods. He also criticizes them for their focus on the dangers of theism, as opposed to the falsifying of theism, which results in mischaracterizing religions; taking local theisms as the essence of religion itself, and for focusing on the negative aspects of religion in the form of an "argument from benefit" in the reverse." .................. "Professors of philosophy and religion, Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey, take issue with "the evangelical nature of the new atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible." They find similarities between the new atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities.Sociologist William Stahl notes "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists." He discusses where both have "structural and epistemological parallels" and argues that "both the New Atheism and fundamentalism are attempts to recreate authority in the face of crises of meaning in late modernity." .............. The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a proverb used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, all people will believe in or hope for a higher power. ............. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17V7-LVHaxk Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 "...atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations. Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.... Te ..... pe tine de ras cand vezi cat de retardati sunt "religious scientists & journalists" astia. Tot in corelatii de astea gratuite o sa observi cum marea majoritatea a criminalilor sunt credinciosi, mai ales in tarile din lumea a 3a Dupa cateva zile de cautari febrile, asta e tot ce poti sa pui pe masa, Napoleon? O adunatura de credinciosi care cauta justificari in corelatii fara nicio baza? Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 (editat) Te ..... pe tine de ras cand vezi cat de retardati sunt "religious scientists & journalists" astia. Tot in corelatii de astea gratuite o sa observi cum marea majoritatea a criminalilor sunt credinciosi, mai ales in tarile din lumea a 3a Dupa cateva zile de cautari febrile, asta e tot ce poti sa pui pe masa, Napoleon? O adunatura de credinciosi care cauta justificari in corelatii fara nicio baza? Macar la documentar puteai sa te uiti, inainte sa faci pe tine de fericire... macar un amarat de documentar, daca carti nu citesti... Aceleasi nulitati, postandu-si ignoranta pe toate topicurile pe care ajung. Interesant ca nulitatile sunt aproape exclusiv de sex masculin. Foarte interesant... Cei cu vag mai multa minte, decat nulitatile astea, stim cam de unde provine un asemenea comportament. Trist e ca nimeni nu struneste nulitatile din a polua mediul. Al naibii si democratia asta, cu fetishu-i pt. submediocritate! Mai mult nu am de zis/scris... see you on the road... Editat Decembrie 16, 2012 de Gromovnik Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Dar sa va pun si eu o intrebare tuturor, deopotriva atei sau credinciosi agnostici sau pagani (daca nu cumva s-a suparat reprezentatul paganilor si s-a dus sa dea apa la soricei dupa usa de la debara). Raspundeti ce credeti. Cu ce anume ne ajuta daca stim de unde a aparut universul si cum? Cum ne poate schimba si cu ce traiul nostru zilnic? In afara de a ne satisface curiozitatea si a rade (in barba, cum ar face paganul nostru) ca stim, la ce ajuta? Nici macar curiozitatea nu cred ca ar fi prea satisfacuta. Solutiile pt astfel de intrebari ar fi formulate si argumentate intr-un limbaj accesibil doar catorva minti. Ideea generala avand insa o forma destul de banala. (Era si o cugetare "Cele mai mari secrete sunt acelea pe care poti sa le strigi in gura mare, in mijlocul strazii, si nimeni n-o sa bage de seama") Dar sa-ti bati capul cu asa zisele intrebari "fundamentale", cand tu habar nu ai de realizarile stiintei/cercetarii moderne, mi se pare un simptom. Unul foarte popular, din nefericire. Un fel de snobism al generatiei "discovery" si documentarelor cu 90% din durata animatii HD ori care reconstituie viata de zi cu zi a neanderthalienilor. Pt cine are o curiozitate sanatoasa, stiinta ofera un meniu extraordinar de bogat, unul care ar satisface cei mai pretentiosi gurmanzi. Sunt atatea de inteles si urmarit ca intr-un puzzle gigantic, pana sa ajungi sa te "saturi", ca mi se pare din cale-afara de stupid sa sari direct la capat... ... Si daca nu te bucuri de calatorie, finalul nu poate sa fie decat o dezamagire. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Cesar Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Viata pe pamant cum a aparut? Din aminoacizii adusi de comete si asteroizi? Din aminoacizii deveniti din substantele anorganice pe Pamantul primordial? Cum au devenit substantele astea viata? De aici ar trebui sa porneasca toata discutia si aici sunt marile intrebari. De ce nu se poate recrea nici macar cea mai inapoitata forma de viata prin experiment, folosind in laborator diverse conditii care sa replice atmosfera primordiala, inceputul? Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 @ Cesar, ca sa evitam orice trolling de 3 lei. Spune din start ce intelegi tu prin aparitia vietii, aparitia a ce anume? Care sunt caracteristile care tii se par definitorii, a caror aparitie vrei sa-ti fie explicata. Ca daca umbli iar dupa substante spirituale... Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Cesar Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Ignoră replică de mai sus. Nu e pt tine. Mulţumesc pt.înţelegere! Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Budd Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Recunoaste ca ti-e lene sa te uiti la filmulete. Iote cine l-a filmat imediat. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 (editat) Ignoră replică de mai sus. Nu e pt tine. Mulţumesc pt.înţelegere! Mi-e greu sa ignor ignoranta. Dar replica asta nu face decat sa indice ca ai un motiv ascuns, altul decat cel aparent, pt care pui intrebarea. Nu vrei sa o clarifici pt ca atunci n-ai mai putea sa vorbesti in doi peri, sa eviti evidenta explicatiilor stiintifice. E marca binecunoscuta a celor care pun intrebari doar pt a-si justifica niste convingeri... Editat Decembrie 16, 2012 de 9fingers Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Cesar Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Du-te si vorbeste despre motociclete de curse. Succes! Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Du-te si vorbeste despre motociclete de curse. Succes! ce mai insulta......Suntem pe un forum al unei comunitati moto. Ce spuneam acum mai bine de 2 ani in categoria motogp, s-a adeverit. In ciuda fanteziei si credintelor galeriei galbene. Daca te bagi in vorba aici, intr-o discutie deschisa, atunci comporta-te matur. Nu ca un mucos de 17 ani, care nu vrea decat sa se dea interesant. Daca vroiai sa intelegi ceva, nu avea nicio importanta de unde veneau explicatiile. Daca vroiai doar sa pacalesti pe cineva, atunci ai evita orice confruntare cu cineva care stie despre ce vorbeste. Ai evita orice clarificare ori afirmatii concrete. Cum altfel ai mai fi in stare sa-ti pastrezi concluziile (intr-un domeniu despre care habar nu ai), in lipsa unui limbaj confuz in care orice echivocare devine posibila. Relaxeaza-te, esti un exemplu tipic de aparator al credintei irationale. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Cesar Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 (editat) Mai baiatule, ce n-ai inteles din "Nu e pt tine."? Hai... vezi de treaba ta si discuta cu gomorvnik. Multumesc inca o data pentru intelegere. P.S. Despre cat intelegi despre motorete de curse si cat de mult vorbesti despre asta, m-am lamurit deja. Pt mine e suficient. Spor la discutii cu ceilalti la fel de cunoscatori dar cu gura bogata. Mai e o dicutie proaspata si foarte aprinsa despre campionatele de viteza pe circuit, pe topicul de R1. Prezzinta-te si acolo sa inveti cum sta treaba. spor la treaba! Mai usor cu insultele ca nu ne cunoastem si nu avem texte dintr-astea unul cu altul. Editat Decembrie 16, 2012 de Cesar Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Mai baiatule, ce n-ai inteles din "Nu e pt tine."? ..................................................................................................... Mai usor cu insultele ca nu ne cunoastem si nu avem texte dintr-astea unul cu altul. Macar reusesti sa te pacalesti singur, cu altii nu ai acelasi succes. Nu doar ca te-ai bagat in seama complet aiurea, m-ai si injurat de multe ori inainte, fara nici o retinere. Dupa ce ca nu contribui niciodata cu ceva inteligent la discutie, mai ai si un mod de a interveni care e ori de o gresivitate vulgara ori te tii doar de comentarii libidinoase. Nu trebuie sa-ti clarifici intrebarile pt mine, ci pt oricine s-ar obosi sa educe un troll. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Cesar Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 (editat) Mai baiete, tu cam bati campii... iar folosesti cuvinte al caror sens nu-l cunosti. Auzi la el... libidinos )) Mai ia la rasfoit dictionarul si nu te mai opri doar la definitii pe care le alegi dupa cum iti place. Din fericire pt tine, de data asta ai sa dai peste un singur sens al termenului. Bafta cu limba in care scrii! O sa ai nevoie. Inteleg ca iti place sa ai ultimul cuvant. Ok, foarte frumos... Intelege acum, nu ti-am pus tie intrebari. Mergi cu Dumnezeu, discuta cu altcineva. Multumesc anticipat ca nu te bagi cachilotii'ncur in discutii. Sa te mangaie Maica Domnului! Editat Decembrie 16, 2012 de Cesar Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator 9fingers Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 16, 2012 Mai baiete, tu cam bati campii... iar folosesti cuvinte al caror sens nu-l cunosti. Auzi la el... libidinos )) Iar am facut vreun sofim, ia zi. Ai o maniera de a insulta.... libidinoasa, da. Cuvintele mai pot fi folosite si la figurat (FIGURÁT, -Ă, figurați, -te, adj. (Despre cuvinte, expresii sau despre sensul lor) Întrebuințat cu alt înțeles decât cel obișnuit, propriu, de obicei pentru obținerea unor efecte stilistice.), mai ales cand incerci sa caracterizezi pe cineva. Cum spuneam, orice topic reprezinta o dicutie deschisa. Daca vrei sa-ti etalezi ignoranta in public, suporta comentariile. Daca vrei sa pui intrebari sterile ori sa intinzi capcane, muta-te pe forumul ala crestin ortodox. Succes Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Altair Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 .............. The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a proverb used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, all people will believe in or hope for a higher power. ............. What one can understand from the above is that believers are all in a situation of stress and fear, desperate in need for hope or belief in a higher power. Instead of driving more people in foxholes to get them to believe we should eliminate stress and fear and therefore making the need for hope and belief in a higher power redundant. Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 (editat) Hahahahh... ce imposibil de becile sunt stereotipurile astea despre atei. Sunt exact sunt ca cele folosite de musulmani pentru a descrie "the infidels"!!!! Numai o minte redusa si multumita in a se mintii pe sine insasi, poate sa le accepte. Observatii disparate fara nici un dumnezo'~! Sunt bancu ala cu "daca nu ai acvariu esti homalau"... hehehehhhe... Hai sa iti mai povestesc ceva din clasa a 10-a a unui liceu serios Gromojlok: din oricate propozitii particulare nu poti ajunge la o concluzie generala. Dar pentru astazi doi de patru treci la banca(impreuna cu toti ceacanaii citati)! Da la "congruence fallacy" (recte congruence bias) dece ai mai pus link din wiki daca folosesti un citat al unui fatalau care in mod clar foloseste termenul aiurea? Engleza bat-o vina.... Doi, deci e o greseala sa crezi ca "...that beliefs and practices remain static and coherent through time..." in cazul dogmei crestine. Hmmmm ... asta nu contrazice etern-valabilitatea dogmei? Sa inteleg ca schimbarile in societatea umana schimba de-a lungul timpului dogma? Deci ea nu este in forma corecta nici in ziua de azi? Pana unde poate merge schimbarea ... sa zicem in 2000 de ani si dece sa mai "credem" in forma actuala atunci? Aici deschizi o cutie a Pandorei cu muuuuuuult mai mare decat intentionezi!!! Apropos, dece simtiti nevoia de a minti si exagera pentru a va argumenta pozitia? Iar cu aparitia vietii e ca si cum ai intreba si ce este in genom? Cum functioneaza galaxiile? Cum se transmite informatia genetica? Asta pe un forum de motociclism... Sti dece? pentru ca nu urmaresti un raspuns elocvent. Urmaresti o explicatie sumara si simplista, pe care sa-ti folosesti tu straw man-ul... Commo' people, smarten the fuck up! 90% din logical fallacies sunt cel mai elocvent exemplificate prin discursul teistic! Si nu va e rusine sa le folositi, ba chiar continuati fara pic de respect pentru sine. Asta spune multe!!!! Daca lasam intepaturile si alte cele la o parte, ma intreb daca tu ai o problema cu mine/altii, sau cu tine insuti? Nu ma intelege gresit, n-am chef de masurat pasarici cu tine, ci ma intrebam la modul serios. De cand te stiu pe forumul asta, nu incape lumea de tine, in nici o discutie in care te bagi, ca sa nu pomenesc ca nu te incape pe tine lumea. Ori asta-i dovada de ceva bolnavicios, in atitudinea ta. Stii singur (hai ca nu esti chiar tolomac) ca este imposibil ca TU sa ai intotdeauna dreptate. Nici Mnezo nu are, dovada Creatia-i defectuoasa. Asadar, foloseste-ti putin inteligenta si autoanalizeaza-te. Sa nu crezi ca nu inteleg, pana la un punct, de unde pornirile astea, pe care le afisezi p-aici. Nu-s lupul moralist. Pana la un punct, nici eu nu sunt mai breaz decat tine, dar, dupa o vreme, realizez cand o mai iau pe aratura (ceea ce-i omenesc), dar la tine se pare ca aceasta capacitate de a realiza ca nu mai esti on the road lipseste. Repet: nu pare prea sanatos. Ce incerci sa dovedesti? Realizezi, macar, ca incerci sa-ti dovedesti TIE anumite chestii? Sper. Bine, dom'le, esti cel mai tare din parcare. E bine acum? Daca esti acel geniu, cum crezi c-ai fi, nu te intrebi de ce-ti petreci viata pe amaratul asta de forum? De ce, geniule, nu ai realizat mai multe-n viata? De ce, geniule, nu te-a "descoperit" nimeni pana acum? De ce... you name it? Stiu ca viata internauta are asemenea influenta asupra user-ului care exagereaza: pe net esti cine vrei, vorba aia. Numai ca sunt prea multi, tu inclusiv, care nu mai fac diferenta intre viata reala si cea virtuala, sau care cred ca dupa un avatar virtual nu sta, totusi, un om (mai exista si faze d-alea "ce-i pe forum e pe forum, ce-i in viata reala...", ca sa n-o ia-n mufa, la modul real, pt. forumeala). Te credeam, sincer, mai inteligent de atat. Ar trebui sa stii cate spune despre tine luatul asta la mistocareala, a oricarui subiect care contravine convingerilor tale. Ne intelegem oarecum? Sper. Sper, pt. ca nu te cred tolomac, cum sunt majoritatea forumistilor. Poti mai mult decat ei, dar apare aspectul asta bolnav al atitudinii tale. De aia si efortul de a-ti scrie, fara sa fie nevoie de un raspuns din partea ta. Traieste-ti viata, omule, pt. ca-i singurul lucru cert pe care il ai. Da, mai forumim, mai ne balacarim, mai exageram, mai una, mai alta, dar, totusi, sa nu uitam esentialul. Salut, Dan. Editat Decembrie 17, 2012 de Gromovnik Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Budd Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 (editat) Nush ce limba vorbeste... dar sigur nu a mea. In partea 2a mi se pare ca o arde mistic la greu. Incearca niste glume dar... e jenant ce spune acolo IMHO. mioni... anti miuoni... plm... adica... sa nu crezi ca are ceva in mina... nu are nimic... doar un modele de a+b=c si zice el ca ia doi protoni (pe care nu ii are) si ii ciocneste si presupune ca ar iesi mioni si anti mioni care se ciocnesc... deja SFul e maxim si dau particula Z... plm... aproape o poveste despre rai... sau sfinti... Eu am convingerea ca tu o arzi mistic la greu. Jenant? Poate ne spui si noua ce este atat de jenant? Model? Daca ar exista un model nu am puna la indoiala "big bangul" sau pe mnezo. SF? Unde? A, gata, am inteles. Credinciosii pun eticheta "mnezo" pe ceea ce nu inteleg. Ailalti scriu "SF". Haidam, baga placa cu improscatu', maro si "you pipal ar ignorants". PS: m-a distrat faza cu "doi protoni pe care nu-i are". PPS: ia -dacilea. Asta chiar coboara nivelul atat de mult incat fac pariu ca si maicamea s-ar prinde ce zice. De fapt si asta ar putea sa ia "doua unde pe care nu le are". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QboBGoAuf8A Editat Decembrie 17, 2012 de Budd Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 (editat) Science vs Wisdom - Julius Evola As power, depersonalised and socialised, has become gold or capital, so likewise has wisdom, depersonalised and socialised, become “concept” or “rationality”. And this is the second root of the European sickness. Both philosophy and Western positive science are, in their essence, fundamentally socialistic, democratic, and anti-hierarchical. They propose as “true” only that which must be universally recognised, which anyone can assent to, whatever life he allows himself to live, provided only that he has a certain education. And so, as in the criterion of the “majority” of political democratism, they presuppose equality, and, under the criterion of quantity, they dominate everything in this field that could be quality, the irreducibility of quality, or the distinction of quality. And it is useless to proclaim individualistic, or even relativistic, doctrines, if the very manner in which one does so, which is the conceptual manner of secular philosophy, shows that one has adhered to the democratic, impersonal, collectivist presuppositions which lie at the base of that very philosophy. The way is altogether different—it would be necessary to begin by contesting those very presuppositions, if we do not want to fall again into the foolishness of an imperialism which, instead of imposing itself through that hierarchy from above, as has been said, appeals to popular recognition for its own justification. And here one will begin to realise the nature of one's enemy, and how frighteningly “culture” itself, not only the “society” of our contemporaries, is a democratism in act—and one begins to see what renunciation will be necessary in order to regain health. Just as gold is a reality which has become indifferent to the nature of the individuals who own it, so is the “knowledge” of contemporary men. Let us put it better: following a will to equality, an anti-hierarchical intolerance, and, therefore, a socialistic prejudice, the knowledge of Europeans had necessarily to come to something, on which the effect of individual differences and of the condition—through knowledge—of an active individual differentiation, is reduced to a minimum; thus, it referred, either to physical experience, more or less equal for all men insofar as they are animals (positive science), or to the world of abstraction and of verbal conventions (philosophy and rationalism). The need for the socialisation of knowledge has led fatally to its abstraction, and therefore created an insuperable hiatus between knowledge itself and life, between knowledge and being, beyond that with which it can be the quality of phenomena and “metaphysical reality”. Thus, in the West, thought, when it is not reduced to a tool for the more or less conventional transcription of the most exterior, fully quantitative, and uniform aspect of material things, is the creator only of unreality, “reified” words, and empty logical schematisms, or becomes an intellectual sport, all the more ridiculous for the good faith in which it is practiced. Hence the whole unreality of the modern spirit: split off from life, man today is almost a shadow that bustles about among schemes and programs and intellectual superstructures, powerless to dominate reality and life itself, while making himself more and more dependent upon a science which piles abstractions onto abstractions, slave as it is to phenomenal laws ascertained but not understood by it, and exhausting himself in mechanical exteriority, without any possibilities for the inner being of man. We certainly cannot get to the heart of this question here, due to the limits of the present exposition. It should not be thought, however, that it is unrelated to the problem of Empire: for us the problem of Empire is the problem par excellence, with respect to which more specialised problems cannot be separated and made into domains of their own. Particularism, the common indifference of the various forms of human activity—here politics, there science, here practice, there religion, and so on—is, as we have already stated, itself an aspect of European decline, and an unequivocal symptom of Europe's inorganicity. The foundation of the imperial hierarchy must be based on knowledge: "The wise should govern", Plato already said—and this is a central, absolute, definitive point in every rational order of things. But nothing would be more ridiculous than to associate this knowledge to some technical competence, positive science, or philosophising speculation: instead, it coincides with what, from the outset, we have called Wisdom, a traditional expression used by both the classical West and the East. Wisdom is as much aristocratic, individual, real, substantial, organic, and qualitative, as the knowledge of the “civilised” is democratic, social, universalistic, abstract, levelling, and quantitative. Here again, there are two worlds, two eyes, two different visions to pose one against the other without any reduction. To know, according to Wisdom, does not mean “to think”, but to be the thing known: to live it, to realise it inwardly. One does not really know a thing unless one can actively transform one's consciousness into it. Therefore, only what ensues from direct individual experience will count as knowledge. And, this is just the opposite of the modern mentality, for which, whatever appears immediately to the individual is called “phenomenon”, or “subjective”, and so it posits some other thing behind it as “true reality”, which is simply imagined or presumed (the “thing in itself” of the philosophers, the “Absolute” of vulgar religion, “matter”, “ether”, or “energy” of science). Wisdom is an absolute positivism which regards only what can be grasped by direct experience as real, and everything else as unreal, abstract, and illusory. It will be objected that, from this point of view, all knowledge would be reduced to the finite and contingent things presented by the physical senses—and, indeed, this is the way things are, and how they must remain, for the great mass of men, who can only truly claim to know this finiteness and contingency, which remains such even after all the scientific pseudo-explanations. However, beyond this, we maintain the possibility of forms of experience different from the sensory forms of the common man, not “given”, not “normal”, which can be reached by means of certain active processes of inner transformation. The peculiarity of such transcendent experiences (of which the “supraworld”, the “field of the beings”, the seven heavens, the spheres of fire, and so on, were only different representations of humanity linked to Tradition) is to be direct, concrete, and individual, as much as sensory experience itself, and yet to see reality, beyond the contingent, spatio-temporal aspect characteristic of everything that is sensory. Aspects that science also tries to transcend, on condition of even transcending everything which is truly knowledge—vision, individual and living evidence—in favour of mere probabilities, incomprehensible “uniformities”, and abstract explanatory principles. This would be the sense in which we speak of “metaphysical” reality. It must be borne in mind, however, that we speak of experience, and only of experience; that, from the traditional point of view, there is not a finite reality and an absolute reality, but a finite manner and an absolute manner of experiencing reality, a finite eye and an absolute eye; that the whole so-called “problem of knowledge” is enclosed within the interiority of every being, and does not depend on “culture”, but on his capacity for freeing himself from the human, i.e., from the sensory, the rational, and the emotional, and of identifying himself with one or another form of “metaphysical” experience, along with a hierarchy which, at its limit, culminates in a state of perfect identity, spiritual vision, full suprasensual and suprarational accomplishment of the thing in the I and of the I in the thing, which realises a state of power and, simultaneously, a state of absolute evidence with respect to the thing itself, in which one no longer asks oneself anything, and one discovers that it is just as unnecessary to reason as it is to speak. This, in broad outline, is the meaning of that Wisdom which constitutes the foundation of “metaphysical” teaching and of spiritual science, whose rite of initiation originally produced the transformation of consciousness necessary for “knowledge” and metaphysical “vision”, and whose tradition has maintained itself in the West, in subterranean form, even after the Semiticisation and decline of its ancient civilisation. The point to be borne in mind is that sacred and sapiential science, since it is, unlike secular science, not a “knowing”, but a being, cannot be taught by books or universities or transmitted by words: to gain it, it is necessary to be transformed, to transcend common life for a superior life. It measures exactly the quality and reality of individual life, of which it becomes an inviolable privilege and an organic part, rather than being a concept, or a notion, which can be put into one's head like something into a sack, without at the same time having to be transformed or to budge in the slightest in regard to what one is. Hence the natural aristocracy of Wisdom; hence its resolute non-popularisation, non-communicability. Another taboo of Europeans is precisely communicability: they think, more or less, that intelligible being and speakable being are the same thing. They do not realise that, although this may make sense with respect to intellectual abstractions and conventions at the basis of experiences—those characteristic of the physical senses—presumed to be roughly the same for everybody, nevertheless, where this uniformity ceases, where a qualitative differentiation is reasserted, discursive communicativity can no longer be a criterion. Since it is based precisely on the evidence of actual experiences beyond the experience of common men, Wisdom leaves open just one road: to try to bring oneself to the same level, by means of a free and creative act, as the one who sets out the teaching, so as by knowing from experience what the other knows, or says with one word, what otherwise will remain only words. To the socialisation, depersonalisation and conceptualisation of knowledge, to the democratic inclination to “popularise”, to weaken the superior for the purposes of the inferior, so that the majority can participate in knowledge without a change of mind or ceasing to be inferior—we oppose, without compromise, the opposite aristocratic attitude. There must exist hierarchies in knowledge itself; there must exist many truths separated from each other by deep, immense, impassable gulfs, corresponding exactly to the many qualities of life and power, to the many distinct individualities: there must exist an aristocracy of knowledge, and “universality”, understood in a communicative, democratic, and uniform manner, must cease to be a criterion. We must not descend to them; they are obliged to raise themselves to us, by dignifying themselves, by ascending for real—according to their possibilities, along the hierarchy of beings—if they want to partake of higher and metaphysical forms, which are the points of reference to themselves and to the lower and physical forms. From this, freedom also ensues, the open field, the spirit which gives Wisdom. In socialised knowledge there is always instead a hidden "you must", a hidden, intolerant, moralistic constraint: “scientific” or “philosophical” truth demands to be recognised by everyone as “the truth”; in the face of it, one is not allowed to take a different stand. The expression of a collective despotism, it aims to reign despotically over all, making all equal with respect to it—and it is precisely on the basis of this will that it has organised, built its arms, its ordeals, its method, its violence. In Wisdom, on the contrary, the individual is dissolved, restored, returned to himself: he has his truth, which expresses his life exactly and profoundly, which is a special way of experiencing and expressing reality, which does not contradict or exclude other, different ways, which are equally possible in the differentiation on which the hierarchy of Wisdom is based. This discussion will suffice as far as the second root of the European sickness and its corrective are concerned; already, in this brief outline, the principle that "the wise must govern" is justified. In the order of Wisdom, the hierarchy of knowledge is coextensive with the hierarchy of strength and superiority of individuals. Knowledge is being, and being is ability and power, so that it attracts spontaneously to itself the dignity of Imperium. The true foundation of the primordial concept, rooted in the Tradition of “divine royalty”, was nothing other than this. Opposed to this, let us repeat, there is the whole of Europe, with its age-old inheritance and organisation: there is, as we said, the reign of professors, “intellectuals", glasses without eyes, the “cultured”, academic, university world, which, in claiming for itself the privilege of knowledge and spirit, testifies only to the extent which they have been able to push the decline and abstraction of modern man. Editat Decembrie 17, 2012 de Gromovnik Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Budd Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Nimic nu e sigur : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/two-higgs-bosons_n_2302897.html Or fi gemene? Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 (editat) "An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident." ~ Francis Thompson "A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything." ~ Arthur Lynch Astea-s de fun, ca sa aiba Guzganu' ce sa faca cioburi... dar ia fii atent aici, cine ce zicea: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." ~ Sir Isaac Newton "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein Doi stalpi ai stiintei, as zice eu... Nu sunt credincios, dar de dragul sportului... Si inca una buna, din sursa necunoscuta: "How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." Cum zicea Guzganu'? Sac de box "mental"... baga mare! Sa nu zici, Guzgane, ca n-am grija de fitness-u' tau "mental". Daca ma intrebi pe mine, Guzagnu-i Mnezo insusi: atotputernic ai atotstiutor. LOL Gata cu bascalia. Editat Decembrie 17, 2012 de Gromovnik Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Vizitator Gromovnik Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 Share Postat Decembrie 17, 2012 (editat) You're not staying fit, Guzgane... How about we all join hands and go to istead of talkin' shit around here? Adevarul e ca habar n-avem care-i adevarul, ci doar avem pozitii vis-a-vis de un prezumtiv adevar, care nu sunt nici macar alea noastre, ci le-am adunat unele din internet, altele din carti. Hai sa fim seriosi, macar o secunda. Se poate? Editat Decembrie 17, 2012 de Gromovnik Citează Link spre comentariu Distribuie pe alte site-uri More sharing options...
Postări Recomandate
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.