Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Socialist or Conservative?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Freedom from - or freedom to?

    Touching freedom not to lose

    I hope 'we' can get this right

    To make a happy child this nite.

    When the world has more philosophers, artists and poet-terrorists (Bairds) and fewer militarists and priests; I propose there will be hope. That Hope will reign over nature and society with a beneficence beyond the imagination and intuition of those who insist they know they are conservative or liberal, green or groupie. Pet Projects get in each other's way and resources of every sort sit idly by waiting for traction and the motivation of the masses.

    As long as it is 'cool' to go along with buzz words or clichéd nomenclatured jargon appearing to have a professional attitude rather than questing and questioning or interrogating as the first stage of communication (Per Socrates) we are engaging in mental masturbation and nothing changes. How can one learn through puking up answers rather than designing integrated questions?

    As Bucky Fuller said - "Whenever I find myself complacent in knowing, I bite my tongue." It hurts to learn and as a society we have lost the joy of learning due to politically correct idioms of caring. Kurt Vonnegut coined the word 'carass' to capture the 'need' people have to appear to care for each other in a morass. Real caring is anything but the words you hear being thrown or bandied about as people hug and proclaim they are BFFs and admirers or insist they know what empathy and love means.

    Teilhard de Chardin said we need a "Conspiracy of Love". Sounds awesome eh?!

    To actually conspire requires knowing what other people think and feel. To make his one perfect thought or Template might take seven people with each of Howard Gardner's separate learning styles. Each one of us has all seven styles of learning I think, but we lose our ability to even use the strongest one when we do not use the others and instead we are forced to educate ourselves in institutions focused upon re-gurgitating tired and often false axioms. We aren't teaching people to learn if we are not teaching poet-terrorists who embrace the "waves of the marvellous" that V. Hugo said reading (Really reading) Shakespeare (a great poet terrorist or Bard) could enable.

    Hakim Bey has spiritual Sufism and ecumenical intellectual ability we all could aspire to. His Ontological Anarchy has implications beyond truth and KNOWingnesses. He and I might agree we cannot know for certain yet, if we made a perfect thought or Template I am pretty sure we would say we had truth in that one area.

    "In other words, if it is “true” it can not be the “whole truth”. It remains incomplete. It remains uncertain. Gödel’s theorem is a mathematical proof of the assertions of philosophers like Pyrrho and Hegel that there are no self-evident truths because everything must be proven by everything else and can not be completely proven. Gödel’s theorem stunned the field of mathematics and has huge implications in all fields. Being an abstract science, mathematics was supposed to be free of the uncertainty of the physical sciences. That 1 + 1 = 2 is supposed to be true, no matter how fallible our knowledge and perception is. But Gödel comes along and proves that nothing can be proven in mathematics!

    So there you have it. In philosophy, the physical sciences and pure mathematics, nothing is certain and you are free!"

    Lucius Seneca has some dots to offer in a history no witness can aver or testify about. You can call it pumpkinification is there is truly such a word.

    "One must be born either a Pharaoh or a fool. If I choose to answer, I will say whatever trips off my tongue. Who has ever made the historian produce witness to swear for him? But if an authority must be produced, ask of the man who saw Drusilla translated to heaven: the same man will aver he saw Claudius on the road, dot and carry one. [Sidenote: Virg. Aen. ii, 724] Will he nill he, all that happens in heaven he needs must see. He is the custodian of the Appian Way; by that route, you know, both Tiberius and Augustus went up to the gods. Question him, he will tell you the tale when you are alone; before company he is dumb. You see he swore in the Senate that he beheld Drusilla mounting heavenwards, and all he got for his good news was that everybody gave him the lie: since when he solemnly swears he will never bear witness again to what he has seen, not even if he had seen a man murdered in open market. What he told me I report plain and clear, as I hope for his health and happiness."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 12:46 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    In the following excerpt we see a true democracy described that academics refuse to admit existed. Lord Renfrew who I often quote saying history is now being disproven or worse is one of the naysayers. Well, even if I am wrong about the Brotherhood of Iesa which the Great Pyramid is named after, we should start acting as if it was the truth and end what James Joyce called a 5,000 year NIGHTMARE!

    I have been quoting a defense of Gimbutas across various relevant threads but in truth there are a hundred threads it is relevant to which I will not be repeating it upon. This is a portion which including gifting of axes and I want to note Potlatch ceremonies were only ended in Canada in the 20th Century by force of law (To get more taxes and to destroy communal respect.). In Central and South America small copper axes (Of Tutuepec) served as coin of the realm. Yes, Thule and ogygia are in other places of the world as well as the Northern or Hyperborean.

    "The Destruction of “Old Europe”

    This culture was slowly destroyed, according to Gimbutas during a period that stretches from about 4200 B.V until the end of the third millennium B.C. Rests of the culture survives on in parts of the Mediterranean world, particularly in Minoan Crete. When the Minoan society was destroyed through the Mycenean invasion in about 1450 B.C., Old Europe has in principle completely disappeared.

    That great and dramatic changes happened towards the end of the Neolithic is a fact that Gimutas was not the only one to establish…But while the general opinion during the last few years has been that these changes happened as a result of inner social, economical and demographic processes, Gimbutas believes that the major reason for the changes is the expansion…of patriarchal, socially stratified nomad tribes…

    An Egalitarian Culture?

    Gimbutas´ views on the society of “Old Europe” are obviously controversial... One who rejects all of the points made by Gimbutas, is Brian Hayden….[who believes that Neolithic society was] “certainly rich, undoubtedly hierarchical, aggressive and competitive…there is no evidence that society was dominated by the mother…it is erroneous to assume that the cultures of Old Europe were social utopias for anyone but the elites…” (Hayden, 1986).

    However, Hayden completely fails to deliver any evidence whatsoever for the actual existence of “elites” in these societies.

    There are pitfalls that one should avoid falling into when one is treating signs of social stratification. One is to see any least sigh of difference – in for example the size of houses or burial finds as evidence of social hierarchy. To, for example, decide that “at Lepenski Vir a couple of houses are larger than the rest” is an argument in the discussion about early social stratification (Bender, 1978) is a strange argument, since it assumes that egalitarian societies must be equal to the millimeter, that all houses must to the square meter be exactly equal and that all graves must contain the exact number of grave goods…such a society would imply an incredible totalitarian control…

    That some human beings have somewhat more grave goods than others and that a few houses are slightly bigger than others can mean anything. If, however, a grave monument has required the immense efforts of a large number of people while burying only a few individuals, this cannot point to anything but social stratification. {The Great Pyramid had immense social benefit and was not a burial sepulchre. No human remains are ever found in it.}

    [The critique of Gimbutas employs] an erroneous starting point…it is sadly a quite common method to employ the scheme “band-tribe-chiefdom-state” and later try to decide which of these categories a culture belongs to! Thus one assumes a priori that all societies that have ever existed must have belonged to some of these existing categories.

    The “classical” standpoint among many archaeologists has been to regard most of the cultures in “Old Europe” as egalitarian…in Europe during the entire time period, there is a complete lack of any signs of social hierarchy…

    Differences in house sizes within each settlement seem to vary very little…there are a few exceptions…but these can usually be explained as buildings for communal activities, temples and suchlike.

    Even megalith monuments may be explained without assuming political centralization; the big ones could be the result of cooperation between various settlement groups and tribes…this image is not unique to England…with greater and lesser variations influencing the entire continent….

    Regarding graves, the dominating impression is that they do not mirror any noticeable social divisions…During long periods of time, collective graves dominate…as we have seen, Megalith graves…have been used as arguments for the existence of chiefdoms…these are pure, unproven speculation…as marked differences in grave goods between individuals [in Megalith graves] is in fact a very marginal phenomenon.

    As a general summary, there are no strong or obvious signs of social stratification [in Old Europe, not even in the Megalith parts]… In the cultures we are now treating, as said, there seems to be very hard to argue for the existence of big social differences or an authoritarian organization of society, based on the evidence.

    In Southeastern Europe, there exists a variety of richly endowed temples from this period…From this one may, if one wants to, assume inequality…groups of priestesses and their close ones could assume a significant social surplus…. [but ] the cultic activities were surely connected to temple and cult and not to particular individuals. Otherwise we ought to have found the graves where the “queen-priestesses” were buried with a surplus of luxurious grave goods…such graves have not been found.

    There is, though, a group of monuments that demanded enormous working efforts to build and that could be used to argue the existence of privileged groups in “Old Europe” – and that would naturally be the Megalith graves and monuments (in Malta, Megalith temples)…The question is whether these efforts regarding the graves served the purpose of building collective graveyards for the entire group or whether they were made to construe exclusive burials…

    What stands out most clearly is that the overwhelming majority of all Megalith graves and without exception all the greatest grave monuments…are collective mass graves. As an exception, there are certain old Megalith graves in Scandinavia that seem to have been reserved for a single person (Hodder 1990). But this does not change the general picture. Besides, these early graves just mentioned were relatively small and not impossibly built by a small group of people.

    Now of course, collective graves do not per se mean that everybody had access to these graves. It is of course possible to claim that, for example, “the leading clan” used the Megalith graves. But this remains as speculations as long as no actual material evidence for the existence of such “leading clans” can be presented, and there are in fact a number of other thinkable options…

    Of an entirely different character are the Megalith temples of Malta. They were usually not employed as graves, but seem to be the centers of a cult worshipping one or more female deities…the only grave in connection to the temples was a mass grave for thousands of people…

    Regarding most of the Megalith graves many scientists…can accept that they are possibly built by egalitarian societies. It is when monuments that demand enormous collective working efforts such as Newgrange, or the Megalith temples of Malta, that many assume that the society must have developed a strong stratification…”chiefdoms” (Renfrew, 1973). The problem is among other things that this model implies a patrilinear clan system (Sahlins, 1968) that has never been compatible with a goddess cult of the intensity that obviously existed on Malta. The architectonic differences between the Maltese buildings and those that usually signify male-dominated, hierarchical chiefdoms seem also to be great. (Lobell, 1986).

    The reason for Renfrew´s and others quest for “chiefdoms” or other kinds of stratified societal models when trying to explain cultures that build monuments that demand huge working efforts seem to be a total inability to imagine that the planning of huge working efforts could happen in a “democratic” manner without a hierarchic structure of decision making in the hands of a privileged group. But that this should be impossible is in itself nothing but an unproven hypothesis.

    If the Megalith monuments is the only thing that could be employed as an example of how the collective was forced into working efforts in service of an elite, the claim is in my opinion very dubitable…It could be true, but in the light of the other material evidence about these cultures, it is not very likely.

    The total lack of clear signs of a stratified society in “Old Europe” drives the archaeologists who doubt the egalitarian character of these societies into talking about “masked differences”…an egalitarian impression is used to “hide” social differences and conflicts…That serious spokesmen for a hierarchic society during these time periods are forced to employ such a ridiculous argumentation is one of the strongest reasons to assume that the egalitarian model, despite all attempts to explain it otherwise, is the most likely model.

    A Peaceful Society?

    Social anthropologists and “ethno-archaeologists” usually assume that the Neolithic societies had a tribally based societal organization, similar to that which many agricultural tribal cultures have today."


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Bucky Fuller is regarded as the father of sustainability for his great work in architecture and arguments of an economic and historical perspective. If you found a person saying they were against sustainability in the present day - that person would have grave difficulties getting into politics - yes/no?

    Sustainability is a buzz word and ideal, in the following link you will find a mix of history since Homer and many green scientists of the present time. A lot of it is Greek (to me - lol) but there is a lot in English if you scroll down.

    There are many valuable excerpts on language and Homer, Plato's ancestors, and myth making as well as science in the above link. I choose just this one to illustrate it is no simple analysis.

    1. Introduction

    Many analysts have entirely rejected Timaeos and Critias as a possible source of any useful historical information. These experts did not really take into account that Plato defined science in his dialogue Phaedros (Phaedros 277.b.5 - 277.c.3) and mythology in his dialogue Timaeos (Criti 110.a.3-110.a.4.). Besides, he has divided the myths in genuine (Tim 26.e.4-26.e.5) and in fabricated ones (Resp 377.b.5377.b.6.). He made great use of the latter in all his dialogues sending messages to his readers for morality, philosophy, politics and sometimes he encrypted, for his own reasons, mathematical theorems or relations within paramythical (fabricated myths) stories. A good example is what Vardulakis and Pugh (2008) found in the Laws in connection with the prime numbers.

    2. Plato and Science Plato initially defined science for first time in the world in Phaedros as follows: Phaedr 277.b.5-277.c.3 {ΣΩ} Πρὶν ἄν τις τό τε ἀληθὲς ἑκάστων εἰδῇ πέρι ὧν λέγει ἢ γράφει, κατ᾽ αὐτό τε πᾶν ὁρίζεσθαι δυνατὸς γένηται, ὁρισάμενὸς τε πάλιν κατ᾽ είδη μέχρι τοῦ ἀτμήτου τέμνειν ἐπιστηθῆ, περί τε ψυχῆς φύσεως διιδὼν κατὰ ταὐτά, τὸ προσαρμόττον ἑκάστῃ φύσει εἶδος ἀνευρίσκων, οὕτω τιθῇ καὶ διακοσμῇ τὸν λόγον, ποκίλῃ μὲν ποικίλους ψυχῇ καὶ παναρμονίους διδοὺς λόγους, ἁπλοῦς δὲ ἁπλῆ,

    Socrates: “First you must know the truth about the subject that you speak or write about, that is to say, you must be able to isolate it in definition, and having so defined it you must next understand how to divide it into kinds, until you reach the limit of division, secondly, you must have a corresponding discernment of the nature of the soul, discover the type of speech appropriate to each nature, and order and arrange your discourse accordingly, express the nature of the complex and simple soul with panarmonic and simple analogies

    There be code in them thar words - especially panarmonic.

    I wanted to present Paine so I looked some more and found this book which addresses Jeffersonian agrarian virtuosity as a dream shared by the likes of Montesquieu. I think Seneca inspired these Roman ideals in Jefferson, and also Seneca's Cynic philosophy shows in the Jefferson Bible. The critics or Sophists say Jesus and Seneca were Cynics but I think Yeshua and both of the Senecas studied more than one intellectual system just as Pythagoras (Essenes derived from him) before him.

    If a rich man like Seneca was enamoured by Cynic philosophy you can be sure he was a great thinker rather than a dogma lapping dog which Cynics used to make fun of reality. It is a system of thinking which reveres nature over the deceit of man, as I see it. It became a large part of Rousseau's 'Naturel Ordre' and abused by Physiocrats because of it's simple clichés - but it is not anything like what the Physiocrats portrayed in my opinion. When you see the phrase New World Order you are seeing what Paine and Jefferson created but it was not new and unfortunately it still has not achieved the needed confluence desired by Jefferson or Paine.

    "Cynicism was conceived as a mode of living that purposefully refused to adhere to social conventions or political correctness; instead, one was to live one's life "according to nature." Founded by Diogenes of Sinope over 300 years before Christ, the philosophy concluded that nature is the opposite of all we consider conventional in society. The posturing and preening at social events so as to climb the social ladder would be viewed by the Cynics as shallow and absurd—something nature would never require of us.

    In contrast, a good life for the Cynic is one based on self-sufficiency and living unfettered by the expectations and presumptions of society.

    Was Jesus following the philosophy of Cynicism when he tells us, Blessed be ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God? And how dare he overturn the tables of the moneychangers?

    Cynics were noted for their bold speech and ‘shameless' behavior. Supposedly, some of Diogenes' successors were even earthier than Diogenes, defecating and urinating in public to demonstrate the hollowness of convention.

    But let us not forget the modern definition of cynicism: "An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." This is what most of us think of when we refer to someone as a cynic. We do not automatically think of the forthright rebels of Diogenes' day. Instead we picture the debating candidate saying one thing for this audience and another for that audience—as he knows that's what the electorate wants: a man for all seasons who does not want to burden us with facts.

    This season of Jesus' birth reminds me of the Jaded Jesus, whose perspicacity exceeded simple distrust of the integrity of man, and resulted in a complete understanding of—with concomitant resignation to—the lack of integrity in those subjects who comprised his kingdom, and his inner circle.

    In "The Fall" Albert Camus captures the wonderful humor of the Savior we should all appreciate this wondrous time of year: "He simply wanted to be loved, nothing more. Of course, there are those who love him, even among Christians. But they are not numerous. He had foreseen that too; he had a sense of humor. Peter, you know, the coward, Peter denied him: ‘I know not the man...I know not what thou sayest...etc." Really, he went too far! And my friend makes a play on words: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.' Irony could go no further, don't you think?"

    What is that you say, Tiny Tim? Oh yes, "God bless us, every one!"

    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 10:35 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I am promoting the use of Generation DUH because I see little evidence of people actually questioning the questions they raise. Does that sound like I am retarded? It seems some people think it is enough to mimic questions raised by completely disingenuous people in many areas of media (Pulpit pounders, alien theorists, anti-history and more) and I feel a little bad because I have promoted questions about what these people call Illuminati and powers that be for decades. In arguing for these questions I also raised other questions about the reasons behind the acts and saw that the elite were not so bad, so I was also called an elitist. One thing for sure the questions I raised and research I laid out has been made into a veritable crackpot nest of money grubbing or ego derived bashing and little real thinking.

    Every thought or idea has to be questioned and if you are going to whine about how things are you should have a plan which has assets and resources to back it up - step by step. Somehow the people who have a plan are the ones who get raked over the coals and the whiners are still engaged in abuses galore. Support for political agendas which appeal to "base human urges" (Machiavelli) are at an all time high. What follows is correct about Obama not making changes he promised when he was running for office - and which I made clear was total BS to begin with. Even if he had wanted to - it would have required some massive changes he (nor any President) could not have done. He had already been a Senate Banking Committee member and Harvard Student President - he was as they say - "a Made man".

    "A new survey from the Pew Internet Center confirms every suspicion I harbor about people my age: Despite unprecedented access to information, technology, wealth, and food, we are basically retarded.

    That young people voted for Obama en masse in 2008 is excusable; he was young and charismatic while John McCain was (and still is) repulsively old and cranky. (Insert obligatory Churchill paraphrase here.)

    Everything else on that chart is an indictment of our right to vote. If only 50 percent of young Obama voters (between the ages of 18-29) believe Obama has not changed “the way Washington works,” it stands to reason the other 50 percent believe he has. This means half of young Obama voters either do not know “how Washington works,” or they are stupid."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-08-2016 at 03:38 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts