My preacher told a story from his life last Sunday, and I was struck by it and he said I could repeat it, as long as I didn't name names (except for him, Rev. Bob Peak).
He related how years ago he was working closely with a hispanic preacher to be the hispanic church leader for the province. This Spanish-speaking teacher was from a pentecostal background, and one of the elders in the church hierarchy approached Bob saying "Pentecostals don't do well in our churches."
Bob's response, "Imagine that! The Holy Spirit moving in our churches!"
I thank God for people like Bob, who live what they preach, and are not afraid to remind their bosses who the real boss is. Also, he reminds us all what the attitude of Christians should be. It follows quite beautifully with the Moravian motto In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.
In another story related by him (or another preacher I respect), he was at some church conference where they were deciding on some change. There was a public debate about nominating a committee to study the issue, and it was suggested they have a person representing the various facets of the issue (I do not recall what the issue was). The church leadership nominated this person and that person, and had formed a diverse group of minds, and were almost concluded, and my preacher spoke up: "Are we going to have anyone that represents God's point of view?"
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2015
Monday, August 18, 2014
Preacher's wisdom about Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and God
My preacher (Rev. Bob Peak) told a short little story that struck me as unusually wise. Although a wise man, the wisdom was not his originally. Before he was a pastor, and before seminary, my preacher was simply a churchgoer, and after a Bible study had a question for his own preacher. He had run into the big idea that the God of Abraham is often seen as the God of the Jews, and of the Christians, and of the Muslims. I personally think it depends on how you are looking at the matter. Anthropologically speaking, He is the same God. In the theological sense, I think most people would agree on "No". He asked his pastor about this complicated question, and the old man thought about it. He finally said, "I'd hate to stand before God not having known Jesus."
That strikes me as an excellent answer.
I should not put words into either my preacher's mouth or his preacher before him, but in my thinking I don't dare decide what God would do, and certainly not what He should do. Not only is it not my decision to make, but I am certain I lack both the wisdom and the righteousness to make such a decision. Certainly the Bible provides guidance in such matters, and we can and should study and learn, but it makes me angry (I hope in a righteous way) when people talk as if they can tell God what to do, and when.
My preacher says something else that is meaningful regarding this: "My job is to preach, not judge. That's God's job, not mine."
That strikes me as an excellent answer.
I should not put words into either my preacher's mouth or his preacher before him, but in my thinking I don't dare decide what God would do, and certainly not what He should do. Not only is it not my decision to make, but I am certain I lack both the wisdom and the righteousness to make such a decision. Certainly the Bible provides guidance in such matters, and we can and should study and learn, but it makes me angry (I hope in a righteous way) when people talk as if they can tell God what to do, and when.
My preacher says something else that is meaningful regarding this: "My job is to preach, not judge. That's God's job, not mine."
Monday, September 16, 2013
self-repair YouTubes are amazing
I am back to trying to fix my laptop. What I learned before fixed one problem, but I actually had two problems.
I know a guy who taught himself trigonometry with YouTube instructional videos, and I also new a guy who did a lot of home repairs via YouTube instructions. I am impressed by people who are that resourceful.
The first problem I had was that the laptop screen was fooled into thinking it was closed and therefore dimmed the light to save power, becoming impractical to work on. The direct cause was that a little knob was gummed up and always pressed down into shut-off mode. i had to work it loose, and have to every week or so when the problem reappears.
My new problem is not darkening, or dimming, or blinking per se, but rather a color static of a sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsi6DGkrIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzPe8nhkNag
I am going to try the advice in video #2. Just like he said in the video, I have been told about the inverter, but don't think that is the problem.
I know a guy who taught himself trigonometry with YouTube instructional videos, and I also new a guy who did a lot of home repairs via YouTube instructions. I am impressed by people who are that resourceful.
The first problem I had was that the laptop screen was fooled into thinking it was closed and therefore dimmed the light to save power, becoming impractical to work on. The direct cause was that a little knob was gummed up and always pressed down into shut-off mode. i had to work it loose, and have to every week or so when the problem reappears.
My new problem is not darkening, or dimming, or blinking per se, but rather a color static of a sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPsi6DGkrIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzPe8nhkNag
I am going to try the advice in video #2. Just like he said in the video, I have been told about the inverter, but don't think that is the problem.
Monday, August 19, 2013
De Camp writes about intelligence among races
As stated in my previous blog post, I have been reading "Ancient Ruins and Archeology" by L. Sprague de Camp, published in 1963. Much of the information is outdated, although the many observations about the way science and archeology and speculation are handled, as well as the comments on human nature at large, and admirable. The prose is coherant and readable. The descriptions evokative. The insights into archeology of the time period (the 60s) is very much worth reading. And history is a discipline that doesn't change too much. It does, and should, but his writings are undoubtably relevant to today.
I want to share a few passages with you. I hope using his quotations is in good form.
In his chapter on the ruins of Zimbabwe and the many ideas around its builders, he says:
All prejudices aside, what do we know about the intelligence of the different races of man? Not much. That is why peopole get so heated about the subject; the less they know, the more pugnacious they are.
Intelligence is a vague term meaning mental power, just as "strength" means physical power. We can often say that one man is more intelligent than another, just as we can often say that one man is stronger than another. But it is hard to measure these qualities exactly. You cannot measure a man's over-all "strength" on any one standard scale. You can measure his seperate physical powers, such as his ability to run, jump, or lift weights. A man who is good at one of these may be poor at another. So "strength" is not one ability but many, which can be combined in any of an infinite number of ways.
The same with intelligence. One man may be a precise accountant, another a shrewd lawyer, and a third a creative artist. But there is no way to compare John's success as a chess player with William's success as a politician to tell which is the more intelligent.
Intelligence tests measure single mental powers, such as the ability to handle words and numbers and to solve simple puzzles. Such tests are useful when given to people of the same cultural group. But these tests do not work with people of strikingly different backgrounds. We cannot expect a tribesman, however gifted, who has never seen a pencil or paper to score well on a written test. On the other hand, a child from a hunting tribe can beat civilized children all hollow in a test that calls for knowledge of animal footprints.
Language, work habits, aims in life, manners, diet, tradition, and experience all affect the way one thinks. And, when we try to test people of different races, we cannot eliminate all these factors. No test has been found that ignores the effects of environment and measures only a man's inherent mental qualities.
Some people, wishing to prove the Caucasiod race superior to the Negroid, point out the backwardness of African Negroes before the coming of the whites. As we have seen, this cultural backwardness can be explained on grounds other than intelligence. The Sahara Desert isolated the small, thinly spread Negroid population from the currents of Old World culture, just as the oceans isolated the Pacific Islanders. Having no contact with European ideas and techniques during the many centuries when European civilization was arising, the Africans could not be expected to develope in a European manner.
Some people, on the other hand, assert that all races are exactly equal in intelligence. Although this idea is canonical Marxist dogma and a handy political slogan, it has no scientific basis either.
Few have ever argued that Negroids are inherently more intelligent than Caucasoids. But this concept is just as reasonable as the other two. In fact, one can make a good a priori argument why this might be so: All species are subject to the force of heredity called degenerative mutation pressure. Hence every species tends to deteriorate -- that is, to lose organs and abilities. In a wild state, however, selection naturally eliminates these defectives as they appear.
In civilization, however, people with defects, provided the flaws are not too severe, can live and breed along with the rest. Therefore, civilized races tend to degenerate. Thus the peoples who have been civilized the longest, such as the Near Easterners, the Chinese, and the Europeans, have probably degenerated the most; while those who live the most primitive lives, like Pygmies and Papuans, may prove the soundest of mind and body.
This, too, is mere speculation. If anybody ever devises a test that measures inherent mental powers regardless of culture and environment, it might well uncover mental differences among the races. It is anybody's guess as to which race would score best on which test. Perhaps different races would excel in different mental abilities. From such inconclusive evidence as does exist, our own guess, for whatever it may be worth, is that, while racial differences in intelligence may indeed exist, differences among individuals within any one race are much greater than average differences among races. And, given the right circumstances, men of any living race could have built Zimbabwe.
I want to share a few passages with you. I hope using his quotations is in good form.
In his chapter on the ruins of Zimbabwe and the many ideas around its builders, he says:
All prejudices aside, what do we know about the intelligence of the different races of man? Not much. That is why peopole get so heated about the subject; the less they know, the more pugnacious they are.
Intelligence is a vague term meaning mental power, just as "strength" means physical power. We can often say that one man is more intelligent than another, just as we can often say that one man is stronger than another. But it is hard to measure these qualities exactly. You cannot measure a man's over-all "strength" on any one standard scale. You can measure his seperate physical powers, such as his ability to run, jump, or lift weights. A man who is good at one of these may be poor at another. So "strength" is not one ability but many, which can be combined in any of an infinite number of ways.
The same with intelligence. One man may be a precise accountant, another a shrewd lawyer, and a third a creative artist. But there is no way to compare John's success as a chess player with William's success as a politician to tell which is the more intelligent.
Intelligence tests measure single mental powers, such as the ability to handle words and numbers and to solve simple puzzles. Such tests are useful when given to people of the same cultural group. But these tests do not work with people of strikingly different backgrounds. We cannot expect a tribesman, however gifted, who has never seen a pencil or paper to score well on a written test. On the other hand, a child from a hunting tribe can beat civilized children all hollow in a test that calls for knowledge of animal footprints.
Language, work habits, aims in life, manners, diet, tradition, and experience all affect the way one thinks. And, when we try to test people of different races, we cannot eliminate all these factors. No test has been found that ignores the effects of environment and measures only a man's inherent mental qualities.
Some people, wishing to prove the Caucasiod race superior to the Negroid, point out the backwardness of African Negroes before the coming of the whites. As we have seen, this cultural backwardness can be explained on grounds other than intelligence. The Sahara Desert isolated the small, thinly spread Negroid population from the currents of Old World culture, just as the oceans isolated the Pacific Islanders. Having no contact with European ideas and techniques during the many centuries when European civilization was arising, the Africans could not be expected to develope in a European manner.
Some people, on the other hand, assert that all races are exactly equal in intelligence. Although this idea is canonical Marxist dogma and a handy political slogan, it has no scientific basis either.
Few have ever argued that Negroids are inherently more intelligent than Caucasoids. But this concept is just as reasonable as the other two. In fact, one can make a good a priori argument why this might be so: All species are subject to the force of heredity called degenerative mutation pressure. Hence every species tends to deteriorate -- that is, to lose organs and abilities. In a wild state, however, selection naturally eliminates these defectives as they appear.
In civilization, however, people with defects, provided the flaws are not too severe, can live and breed along with the rest. Therefore, civilized races tend to degenerate. Thus the peoples who have been civilized the longest, such as the Near Easterners, the Chinese, and the Europeans, have probably degenerated the most; while those who live the most primitive lives, like Pygmies and Papuans, may prove the soundest of mind and body.
This, too, is mere speculation. If anybody ever devises a test that measures inherent mental powers regardless of culture and environment, it might well uncover mental differences among the races. It is anybody's guess as to which race would score best on which test. Perhaps different races would excel in different mental abilities. From such inconclusive evidence as does exist, our own guess, for whatever it may be worth, is that, while racial differences in intelligence may indeed exist, differences among individuals within any one race are much greater than average differences among races. And, given the right circumstances, men of any living race could have built Zimbabwe.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Good science a la Hal Clement, 1950s sci-fi
As readers of my blog would know, I am taking an Intro to Biology class via EdX.org and MIT. It is free, and for self-improvement and education (or job-readiness) rather than course credit.
Lately, they have been discussing evolution (a concept I actually agree with) as demonstrated by shared elements of mammalian genomes (human and chimp and lemur and mouse, for instance). It really bothers me that the scientists seem so inperturbably self-assured over the origins of life, which I hope is even a more powerful comment seeing that I respect and agree with their theories. Where is the healthy skepticism?
I was reminded recently of the author Hal Clement and his excellent books (such as Half Life) and short stories (such as "Proof"). I did think a lot of his higher acclaimed books, such as Mission of Gravity, but they made less of an impression on me.
I found this link reviewing Half Life: http://www.sfsite.com/09b/half65.htm
"Clement's references aren't all scientific, and some of them will be quite amusing to Golden Age SF fans. A lot of space is given over to General Order 6 -- an attempt to avoid hastily jumping to conclusions by requiring anyone with a hypothesis to present at least one viable alternative. This is also referred to as the "Aaron Munro instant-certainty syndrome," in reference to John W. Campbell's famous character of the same name."
Here's review of the author:
http://timjonesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-i-like-hal-clement.html
I also found this quote for Hal Clement online: (I'm shocked this is all I can find)
"Speculation is perfectly all right, but if you stay there you've only founded a superstition. If you test it, you've started a science."
Hal Clement
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/hal_clement.html#5XeIdjVB65VY4WAq.99
I need to read his 1993 novel Fossil and his 1950s award-winning short "Uncommon Sense"
Lately, they have been discussing evolution (a concept I actually agree with) as demonstrated by shared elements of mammalian genomes (human and chimp and lemur and mouse, for instance). It really bothers me that the scientists seem so inperturbably self-assured over the origins of life, which I hope is even a more powerful comment seeing that I respect and agree with their theories. Where is the healthy skepticism?
I was reminded recently of the author Hal Clement and his excellent books (such as Half Life) and short stories (such as "Proof"). I did think a lot of his higher acclaimed books, such as Mission of Gravity, but they made less of an impression on me.
I found this link reviewing Half Life: http://www.sfsite.com/09b/half65.htm
"Clement's references aren't all scientific, and some of them will be quite amusing to Golden Age SF fans. A lot of space is given over to General Order 6 -- an attempt to avoid hastily jumping to conclusions by requiring anyone with a hypothesis to present at least one viable alternative. This is also referred to as the "Aaron Munro instant-certainty syndrome," in reference to John W. Campbell's famous character of the same name."
Here's review of the author:
http://timjonesbooks.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-i-like-hal-clement.html
I also found this quote for Hal Clement online: (I'm shocked this is all I can find)
"Speculation is perfectly all right, but if you stay there you've only founded a superstition. If you test it, you've started a science."
Hal Clement
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/hal_clement.html#5XeIdjVB65VY4WAq.99
I need to read his 1993 novel Fossil and his 1950s award-winning short "Uncommon Sense"
Thursday, February 14, 2013
goodies from your friendly neighborhood uber-goober
I had not heard of 'Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal' comics until today. This one is about the revolution debate. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2703 If you watch the Star Trek movies, the series by this author are really good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoWfTq8dYos&noredirect=1 Again, if you watch Star Trek. It seems I was wrong. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35860 Commercials sometimes are really catchy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWWJ3OPCtI Who knew taxes could be such fun? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmynbxyfFjM
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Have you read 'Atlas Shrugged'?
I haven't, but I have heard A LOT about it. The American news landscape is full of Ayn Rind (spelling to come).
I don't know all that much about this ideology directly, but indirectly I have some impressions, and apparantly it preaches about "The Virtue of Selfishness" and the evils of a "Culture of Dependancy" among the needy.
I just want to say I recognize many similarities with Confucianism. Wikipedia calls it a "ethical-sociopolitical teaching" in it's original form, although it is often considered a religion these days. The Confusian inverse Golden Rule ("Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT have done uno you) seems a close analog to Ayn Rind's socio-economic ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism
I've gotta say, the title is amazing, a full of subtle meaning, but I also must say it's extremely confusing to me. I seems to me the idea of the mythical figure of Atlas shrugging (abadoning his responsibilty of holding the earth on his shoulders) says chaos comes from "shrugging" which is quite at odds with what I am given to undertand this is all about.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Science and Religion are Compatible, book says
Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science, Religion, and Naturalism
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY
I heard about this book on NPR. I invite you to listen here.
From what I understand, the book seems to have a very simple point, but one that really needed to be said and it so very basic and yet overlooked. The incompatability of religion and science just simply doesn't exist. They might not agree, but they aren't opposed to each other the way most people seem to think.
The mutual disagreement arises between religion and naturalism (often seen as atheism). Now, many scientific thinkers are indeed beleivers in naturalism, but athiem cannot be "proved" any more than theism can. Specifically, both cannot be observed, and are merely an assumption. Admittedly, certain elements of religion are implausible notions, at best, and are the ones most often thought of, such as fundamentalist creationism. But even there, room for thinking allows plausability.
Your thoughts?
As a book, I have no basis for real recommendation, one way or the other. At first blush, it sounds like the book could have made its case as an article rather than a book, or as an entry in a compilation, perhaps.
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY
I heard about this book on NPR. I invite you to listen here.
From what I understand, the book seems to have a very simple point, but one that really needed to be said and it so very basic and yet overlooked. The incompatability of religion and science just simply doesn't exist. They might not agree, but they aren't opposed to each other the way most people seem to think.
The mutual disagreement arises between religion and naturalism (often seen as atheism). Now, many scientific thinkers are indeed beleivers in naturalism, but athiem cannot be "proved" any more than theism can. Specifically, both cannot be observed, and are merely an assumption. Admittedly, certain elements of religion are implausible notions, at best, and are the ones most often thought of, such as fundamentalist creationism. But even there, room for thinking allows plausability.
Your thoughts?
As a book, I have no basis for real recommendation, one way or the other. At first blush, it sounds like the book could have made its case as an article rather than a book, or as an entry in a compilation, perhaps.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What have you read about Taoism? Winnie-the-Pooh?
I was waiting for the computer at the library about a week ago, and wandered along some book aisles, and stumbled across The Te of Piglet. I was merely curious at first, and then amazed. It was very readable, very interesting, and moreover a subject matter that I knew very little about.
It turns out to be the sequel to The Tao of Pooh, which seems equally as good. And equal is a fitting description, as it is termed a "companion book" rather than a sequal, per se.
Taoism (pronounced, more or less, Dow-ism) is an ancient Chinese-originating religion-philosophy, while Te is a Taoist word meaning (sorta) Virtue in Action.
For an excerpt about the Three Vinegar Tasters go here
http://www.edepot.com/taoism_3-vinegar-tasters.html
and I found this curious: http://dudespaper.com/careful-man-theres-vinegar-here.html/
Monday, November 21, 2011
what have you read by Stephen Hawking?
My tastes in literature vary a lot. In fact, I take pride in the scope of my study, whether fictional or non-fiction. I set down the Poe book of short stories I've been reading (because after dark is not a good time for me to be reading Poe, on the chance I stumbled across one of his more disturing moments) and took up an old used copy of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
I am only a few chapters into it, but I think i can already make some general comments.
This books firstly is seriously outdated (printed in 1988) but I wouldn't know the difference. That's sad, in a way, but nothing that troubles me overmuch. What amazed me was being reminded how old Eistein and his General Theory of Relativity is, about equal with the invention airplanes. There have been many steps since then, but nothing nearly as monumental. I think that the concepts of multiple universes is an up-to-date idea.
This book, A Breif History, succeeds very well I think at popular readability. The author lost me a few times, but that happens. I couldn't help but notice (from it's novelty) the vague considerations made toward a God-centered universe, or at least an Intelligent Design universe. This books was directed towards a opinionated public, so I thought the nods appropriate and becoming. I personally like to see a scientist take a humble stance on his science, and that's not to dinegrate him or her, but simply because I think modesty is prerequisite for an honestly open-mind.
Speaking of modesty and humility, I was pleased I already had a vague understanding of much of what Hawking wrote of. I think it's due to my readings in sci-fi, most notably Asimov, especially his The Billiard Ball.
I'd love to hear some comments.
I am only a few chapters into it, but I think i can already make some general comments.
This books firstly is seriously outdated (printed in 1988) but I wouldn't know the difference. That's sad, in a way, but nothing that troubles me overmuch. What amazed me was being reminded how old Eistein and his General Theory of Relativity is, about equal with the invention airplanes. There have been many steps since then, but nothing nearly as monumental. I think that the concepts of multiple universes is an up-to-date idea.
This book, A Breif History, succeeds very well I think at popular readability. The author lost me a few times, but that happens. I couldn't help but notice (from it's novelty) the vague considerations made toward a God-centered universe, or at least an Intelligent Design universe. This books was directed towards a opinionated public, so I thought the nods appropriate and becoming. I personally like to see a scientist take a humble stance on his science, and that's not to dinegrate him or her, but simply because I think modesty is prerequisite for an honestly open-mind.
Speaking of modesty and humility, I was pleased I already had a vague understanding of much of what Hawking wrote of. I think it's due to my readings in sci-fi, most notably Asimov, especially his The Billiard Ball.
I'd love to hear some comments.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
"Let's play Chicken," said the Congressman
I really hardly have time to blog today, but jeez, this is incredible.
These people (in the national government) are playing with this country's life.
I am not at all shocked, just ultra dismayed.
I remember hearing stolid people over and over assert that "America is the greatest country on Earth" and moreoever that same faith in democracy.
Such gridlock as we are experiencing now should be a wake up call for that kind of thinking, that what we've got is great and wonderful and flawless.
I'm not anacrchist here, not a hater of the tea party or of liberals or of any group, really, except, well, people my ideals of tolerance fail with. It happens. Generally, hateful people are hard to get along with.
On a happier note, I started the post-Iraqi-Freedom book by John LeCarre, Absolute Friends, and I am appaled at how good it is.
These people (in the national government) are playing with this country's life.
I am not at all shocked, just ultra dismayed.
I remember hearing stolid people over and over assert that "America is the greatest country on Earth" and moreoever that same faith in democracy.
Such gridlock as we are experiencing now should be a wake up call for that kind of thinking, that what we've got is great and wonderful and flawless.
I'm not anacrchist here, not a hater of the tea party or of liberals or of any group, really, except, well, people my ideals of tolerance fail with. It happens. Generally, hateful people are hard to get along with.
On a happier note, I started the post-Iraqi-Freedom book by John LeCarre, Absolute Friends, and I am appaled at how good it is.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
'How They Eat in Heaven'
I just finished reading The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver this week. One of the best passages tickled my fancy for human decency and thoughtfulness and intentional living, and now I am going to share the parable with you:
'How They Eat in Heaven' is the title of Chapter 7, wherein is found this story:
Transcribed text found at:
http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/somethingelse/kingsolver.html
Summary found at:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/beantrees/section5.rhtml
'How They Eat in Heaven' is the title of Chapter 7, wherein is found this story:
Transcribed text found at:
http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/somethingelse/kingsolver.html
Turtle, wielding a chopstick in each hand, had managed to pick up a chunk of pineapple. Little by little she moved it upward toward her wide-open mouth, but the sticks were longer than her arms. The pineapple hung in the air over her head and then fell behind her onto the floor. We laughed and cheered her on, but Turtle was so startled she cried. I picked her up and held her on my lap.
"Tortolita, let me tell you a story," Estevan said. "This is a South American, wild Indian story about heaven and hell," Mrs. Parsons made a prudish face, and Estevan went on. "If you go to visit hell, you will see a room like this kitchen. There is a pot of delicious stew on the table, with the most delicate aroma you can imagine. All around, people sit, like us. Only they are dying of starvation. They are jibbering and jabbering," he looked extra hard at Mrs. Parsons,"but they cannot get a bite of this wonderful stew God has made for them. Now, why is that?"
"Because they're choking? For all eternity?" Lou Ann asked. Hell, for Lou Ann, would naturally be a place filled with sharp objects and small round foods.
"No," he said. "Good guess, but no. They are starving because they only have spoons with very long handles. As long as that." He pointed to the mop, which I had forgotten to put away. "With these ridiculous, terrible spoons, the people in hell can reach into the pot but they cannot put the food in their mouths. Oh, how hungry they are! Oh, how they swear and curse each other!" he said, looking again at Virgie. He was enjoying this.
"Now," he went on,"you can go and visit heaven. What? You see a room just like the first one, the same table, the same pot of stew, the same spoons as long as a sponge mop. But these people are all happy and fat."
"Real fat, or do you just mean well-fed?" Lou Ann asked.
"Just well-fed," he said. "Perfectly, magnificently well-fed, and very happy. Why do you think?"
He pinched up a chunk of pineapple in his chopsticks, neat as you please, and reached all the way across the table to offer it to Turtle. She took it like a newborn bird.
Summary found at:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/beantrees/section5.rhtml
Estevan tells a story. He says that in hell, people sit around a big table with plenty of food, starving to death because they must eat with long-handled spoons and cannot manage to get the spoons in their mouths. Heaven, he says, looks just the same: same table, same food, same spoons. But in heaven, the people use the long-handled spoons to feed one another. Estevan demonstrates by feeding Turtle a new piece of pineapple.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
what have you read by Nietzsche?
I am a bit embarrassed to say, nothing yet.
I picked up a copy of Neitzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" when idle waiting at Barnes and Noble. When I say picked up, I did not buy it, but enjoyed reading the "scholarly" foreward while standing there. I learned a few things I hadn't come across before.
By the way, from what I can tell this work is a VERY scandalous account of Zarathustra. It borders on libel (spoken, slander), but since few Western people seem to care I suppose he got away with it. However, I take issue, becuase although I know next to nothing about Zoroaster (Zarathura) I am offended on principle with the blantant disregard for historical facts. Zoroastrianism (and present day Parsi)from what I understand features good and evil quite explicitly, and the consequences they manifest. However, the historical figure is mangled into a podium from which Neitzsche launched his ideas. I don't discredit the author, but I question his methods.
I have been aware of Nietzsche and his centrality to philosophy for a long time, but I have never felt a pressing need to study his works. I'm just not that into his style of thinking. Same with Immanuel Kant.
I did not realize that the term 'nihilist' originates (at least in some form) with Neitszche. The philosophy of Neitzsche's brand might be called "we're all doomed and nothing really matters."
Speaking of Kant, I have gotten the feeling Neizsche and Kant would really butt heads.
From my cursory understanding, Kant rejected all mysticism and founded his thinking on human understanding, while Neitzche rejected absolutism and founded his thinking of the human emotional experience. Neither of the men, as I understand it, liked organized religion very much of at all, and had other areas of agreement, such as the lack of good and evil as traditionally supposed.
In my personal opinion, Kant was a moron. There is so much that we as humans will never and can never grasp. Maybe I am misunderstanding Kant. I am open to listening to his defenders. At least Nietzche wasn't that, he was just ... bleak.
I picked up a copy of Neitzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" when idle waiting at Barnes and Noble. When I say picked up, I did not buy it, but enjoyed reading the "scholarly" foreward while standing there. I learned a few things I hadn't come across before.
By the way, from what I can tell this work is a VERY scandalous account of Zarathustra. It borders on libel (spoken, slander), but since few Western people seem to care I suppose he got away with it. However, I take issue, becuase although I know next to nothing about Zoroaster (Zarathura) I am offended on principle with the blantant disregard for historical facts. Zoroastrianism (and present day Parsi)from what I understand features good and evil quite explicitly, and the consequences they manifest. However, the historical figure is mangled into a podium from which Neitzsche launched his ideas. I don't discredit the author, but I question his methods.
I have been aware of Nietzsche and his centrality to philosophy for a long time, but I have never felt a pressing need to study his works. I'm just not that into his style of thinking. Same with Immanuel Kant.
I did not realize that the term 'nihilist' originates (at least in some form) with Neitszche. The philosophy of Neitzsche's brand might be called "we're all doomed and nothing really matters."
Speaking of Kant, I have gotten the feeling Neizsche and Kant would really butt heads.
From my cursory understanding, Kant rejected all mysticism and founded his thinking on human understanding, while Neitzche rejected absolutism and founded his thinking of the human emotional experience. Neither of the men, as I understand it, liked organized religion very much of at all, and had other areas of agreement, such as the lack of good and evil as traditionally supposed.
In my personal opinion, Kant was a moron. There is so much that we as humans will never and can never grasp. Maybe I am misunderstanding Kant. I am open to listening to his defenders. At least Nietzche wasn't that, he was just ... bleak.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Does Nature have rights?
Quick side note: The Whirlpool of Life blog got me interested in the Bioneers Conference and movement. http://scottsampson.blogspot.com/2010/10/psychology-of-sustainability.html
http://www.bioneers.org/
I have been meaning to post on the topic of what I might call ecosystem rights, the ethical right for a natural space to exist with the least impact possible, including not only animal species, but also plants and even air soil and water.
Whenever I see a natural area despoiled and especially razed unnecessarily for a building project, I feel like I have witnessed a crime. A crime against nature. True, I'm seen as a bleeding-heart complainer by some, but I think this ethical question bears discussion.
We talk about crimes against humanity. But that's a modern idea. In the past, there were no such ideas. In fact, proponents of this concept of nature rights are quick to point out that slavery, including abuse of and murder of, were not so long ago strictly a matter of property.
I have to wonder, is it meaninful to say that an ecosystem "wants" to remain natural? Well, it is certainly meaningful to say that a dog wants something, so sentience is not absolutely required. Bees have instinct, but thats understood to be different. A vine slowly clasps another plant to reach farther sunward. One can easily argue it is foolish to describe that as "wanting" in the sense we understand it, but I'm not so sure.
I am reminded of historical sites also. Before there was protection of such heritage sites, they were often simply plowed over as needed. Disregarded. Destroyed. So, is it enough to merely protection for nature? Or would "rights" be more accurate?
Many of these ideas (well, most) I have gotten from Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" and other associated works published as "Managing the Commons". Although that book has been around since the 70s, I don't hear too much about it.
http://www.bioneers.org/
I have been meaning to post on the topic of what I might call ecosystem rights, the ethical right for a natural space to exist with the least impact possible, including not only animal species, but also plants and even air soil and water.
Whenever I see a natural area despoiled and especially razed unnecessarily for a building project, I feel like I have witnessed a crime. A crime against nature. True, I'm seen as a bleeding-heart complainer by some, but I think this ethical question bears discussion.
We talk about crimes against humanity. But that's a modern idea. In the past, there were no such ideas. In fact, proponents of this concept of nature rights are quick to point out that slavery, including abuse of and murder of, were not so long ago strictly a matter of property.
I have to wonder, is it meaninful to say that an ecosystem "wants" to remain natural? Well, it is certainly meaningful to say that a dog wants something, so sentience is not absolutely required. Bees have instinct, but thats understood to be different. A vine slowly clasps another plant to reach farther sunward. One can easily argue it is foolish to describe that as "wanting" in the sense we understand it, but I'm not so sure.
I am reminded of historical sites also. Before there was protection of such heritage sites, they were often simply plowed over as needed. Disregarded. Destroyed. So, is it enough to merely protection for nature? Or would "rights" be more accurate?
Many of these ideas (well, most) I have gotten from Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" and other associated works published as "Managing the Commons". Although that book has been around since the 70s, I don't hear too much about it.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Have you read 'Tragedy of the Commons'?
Neither have I actually. Yet.
It's a book by Garrett Hardin on ecological issues, and has extremely impressed me. In fact, it may just be the most impressive non-fiction book I have EVER come across, due the sheer density of important ideas that need to be said. I heard about this scholarly work in an environmental health class in college, and finally looked it up.
What I found on Ebay was "Managing the Commons" which is a anthology of collected works dealing with this subject, but includes 'Tragedy of the Commons' and is edited by Hardin and partially written by along with another impressive scholar-editor Baden.
This paperback was a mere 73 cents plus $4 shipping. I am floored by that.
Anyway, I'm only though the introduction and first chapter, and already I have such a terribly high opinion of the book. I feels like ecological issues risen to the level of high philosophy or even theology. In fact, I have decided to apply those labels to this blog, out of respect for the authorship.
As far as I can best explian it, the book is a mediation on the overexploitation of unprotected natural resources and related issues, such a population growth, human nature, and even political systems.
In other news, I finally bought "Hey, That's My Fish" last weekend. I am so happy with it! I played it repeatedly with my family Saturday night, and it was a rousing success. It's described on one website at least as "abstract strategy" which I feel is an appropriate and fun label! Now, onward.
It's a book by Garrett Hardin on ecological issues, and has extremely impressed me. In fact, it may just be the most impressive non-fiction book I have EVER come across, due the sheer density of important ideas that need to be said. I heard about this scholarly work in an environmental health class in college, and finally looked it up.
What I found on Ebay was "Managing the Commons" which is a anthology of collected works dealing with this subject, but includes 'Tragedy of the Commons' and is edited by Hardin and partially written by along with another impressive scholar-editor Baden.
This paperback was a mere 73 cents plus $4 shipping. I am floored by that.
Anyway, I'm only though the introduction and first chapter, and already I have such a terribly high opinion of the book. I feels like ecological issues risen to the level of high philosophy or even theology. In fact, I have decided to apply those labels to this blog, out of respect for the authorship.
As far as I can best explian it, the book is a mediation on the overexploitation of unprotected natural resources and related issues, such a population growth, human nature, and even political systems.
In other news, I finally bought "Hey, That's My Fish" last weekend. I am so happy with it! I played it repeatedly with my family Saturday night, and it was a rousing success. It's described on one website at least as "abstract strategy" which I feel is an appropriate and fun label! Now, onward.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
JHW: Two Weeks' Notice: bullshit!
I started to say "hogwash" instead, but serious scatology calls for serious verbage.
I'm actually in a very positive upward swing right now, because I start a new job tomorrow (yay!) that I am very hopeful about, in large part because I will again be working in the field I want to be in: ecology. Although admittedly on the fringe. But, my foot is in the door.
However, I've had another disturbing experience this week thats entirely related to be previous Job Hunt Woes experiences. I was entirely unsurprised, however, since I have been around the block a few times.
It AMAZES me how dishonorable employers can be. But, it's also expected at this point. What surprises me is when a company does "the right thing" for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
I put in my two weeks' notice like a good little prole. I told my new job I couldn't start as soon as they wanted, but had to keep up my end of my prior work responsibilities. Yesterday, my current job (or, I guess it's a former job, now) told me "I didn't need to come in" for my last two days of work. I thought about somehow protesting, but I hate that job so much, I didn't bother.
Now I realize that this was a low-wage job, but I don't think it's much better up the ladder. I think it has more to do with the company ethics than wage-scale. What do you think? What are your experiences?
But what about families that NEED the income from their 2 weeks' transition period? That's why very few people in low wage jobs run the risk of putting in a notice, because they'll be taken off the work schedule prematurely, maybe even immediately. I understand why an employer does this, of course: it's good business sense. An employee on their way out the door might do a crummy job their last few days, or even sabotage the company or steal things.
I used to work in a restaurant. I knew it wasn't doing so well, but I also knew that if they ever planned to close I wouldn't know about it until the night before. I've heard of other businesses letting their employees all show up for work as normal and the workplace be closed and locked up. Douchebags!
I'm actually in a very positive upward swing right now, because I start a new job tomorrow (yay!) that I am very hopeful about, in large part because I will again be working in the field I want to be in: ecology. Although admittedly on the fringe. But, my foot is in the door.
However, I've had another disturbing experience this week thats entirely related to be previous Job Hunt Woes experiences. I was entirely unsurprised, however, since I have been around the block a few times.
It AMAZES me how dishonorable employers can be. But, it's also expected at this point. What surprises me is when a company does "the right thing" for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
I put in my two weeks' notice like a good little prole. I told my new job I couldn't start as soon as they wanted, but had to keep up my end of my prior work responsibilities. Yesterday, my current job (or, I guess it's a former job, now) told me "I didn't need to come in" for my last two days of work. I thought about somehow protesting, but I hate that job so much, I didn't bother.
Now I realize that this was a low-wage job, but I don't think it's much better up the ladder. I think it has more to do with the company ethics than wage-scale. What do you think? What are your experiences?
But what about families that NEED the income from their 2 weeks' transition period? That's why very few people in low wage jobs run the risk of putting in a notice, because they'll be taken off the work schedule prematurely, maybe even immediately. I understand why an employer does this, of course: it's good business sense. An employee on their way out the door might do a crummy job their last few days, or even sabotage the company or steal things.
I used to work in a restaurant. I knew it wasn't doing so well, but I also knew that if they ever planned to close I wouldn't know about it until the night before. I've heard of other businesses letting their employees all show up for work as normal and the workplace be closed and locked up. Douchebags!
Bedroom scenes on TV
[Warning: soapbox and unpopular opinions]
Its not a popular opinion to have, but I don't think TV and movies should be as explicit as they are. Especially in the case of bedroom scenes, but also in regards to language, violence, and other adult-themes. (I'm a little in doubt about the violence: it has been observed that kids and teens are pretty violent individuals, and this is a nondestructive outlet, comparable to shooting things in video games. With that said, such violent digital slaughter should be directed away from police and human beings when possible. Regarding games for youth.)
Personally, I want to support freedom of choice and expression, in fact I prefer a open society with the least limits on personal choices, but that also includes social responsibility. It comes down to for me to the idea of consent. Rape is by far the most well-known nonconsensual act, but I think the ideas apply to any public intercourse (pun intended) if it has the reasonable chance of affecting others without their being aware that it might happen.
I enjoy watching older movies, such as John Wayne, because they are refreshingly discreet. Of course the audience knows that there is plenty of bedroom antics going on behind the scenes, but there are some things we just don't need to see. I recall hearing my parents talk about the "community standards" for TV when they were kids, no active bedroom scenes, and no ads for tampons, no underwear models, or any of that. It just wasn't done.
UNLESS we, as consenting adults, have specifically chosen to watch a movie with explicit material. And here, I'm not even talking nudity, I'm not even talking about hot and heavy athletics, I'm talking about the average non-nudity "simulated sex" bedroom scene in a broadcast television drama.
But couldn't we all use less "erectile disfunction" and "herpes" ads?
Let me be clear.
I ENJOY UNDERWEAR MODELS. I THINK AN HONEST PORTRAYAL OF SEX IS IMPORTANT. and CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THE ENTERTAINMENT THEY WANT
I just don't think it belongs on the public airwaves, or in PG movies.
Okay, I'm getting off my soapbox now
Its not a popular opinion to have, but I don't think TV and movies should be as explicit as they are. Especially in the case of bedroom scenes, but also in regards to language, violence, and other adult-themes. (I'm a little in doubt about the violence: it has been observed that kids and teens are pretty violent individuals, and this is a nondestructive outlet, comparable to shooting things in video games. With that said, such violent digital slaughter should be directed away from police and human beings when possible. Regarding games for youth.)
Personally, I want to support freedom of choice and expression, in fact I prefer a open society with the least limits on personal choices, but that also includes social responsibility. It comes down to for me to the idea of consent. Rape is by far the most well-known nonconsensual act, but I think the ideas apply to any public intercourse (pun intended) if it has the reasonable chance of affecting others without their being aware that it might happen.
I enjoy watching older movies, such as John Wayne, because they are refreshingly discreet. Of course the audience knows that there is plenty of bedroom antics going on behind the scenes, but there are some things we just don't need to see. I recall hearing my parents talk about the "community standards" for TV when they were kids, no active bedroom scenes, and no ads for tampons, no underwear models, or any of that. It just wasn't done.
UNLESS we, as consenting adults, have specifically chosen to watch a movie with explicit material. And here, I'm not even talking nudity, I'm not even talking about hot and heavy athletics, I'm talking about the average non-nudity "simulated sex" bedroom scene in a broadcast television drama.
But couldn't we all use less "erectile disfunction" and "herpes" ads?
Let me be clear.
I ENJOY UNDERWEAR MODELS. I THINK AN HONEST PORTRAYAL OF SEX IS IMPORTANT. and CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THE ENTERTAINMENT THEY WANT
I just don't think it belongs on the public airwaves, or in PG movies.
Okay, I'm getting off my soapbox now
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
have you read The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin?
The second part of his autobiography is written in 1784.
I hadn't realize how thoroughly some of his ideas have permeated American culture. In many cases, his ideal really is the American ideal. Weird. Sure, I knew Franklin was a patriarch of American culture, but I didn't realize the extent to people who have never thought about him, except for 50 bills.
For instance, Franklin by his old age seemed quite set in his ways and quite dismissive of beliefs that incorporated "dogma" and doctrine.
He seemed to be only interested in religious thought that focused on practical civilized good-behavior.
He didn't much care why someone did something, just how they did it. Their habit. That's quite like American churches today, but also Japanese Shinto and many other world religions.
He had no use apparently for spirituality, or for what was in a person's heart unless it affected their habit.
So as to not slur Franklin, please let me quote his Autobiography:
"Tho' I seldom attended any Public Worship, I had still an opinion of its Propriety, and of its Utility when rightly conducted... [the] Discourses were chiefly either polemic Arguments, or Explications of peculiar Doctrines of our Sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting and unedifying, since not a single moral Principle was inculcated or enforce'd, their Aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good Citizens."
and again
"...these I esteem'd the Essentials of every Religion, and being to be found in all the Religions we had in our Country I respected them all, tho' with different degrees of Respect as I found them more or less mixed with other Articles which without any Tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm Morality, serv'd principally to divide us & make us unfriendly to one another."
He didn't get everything he wanted though. He was very much a humbug, and there would be nightlife in no city in America if he had his way. Alcohol would be much harder to obtain. Live music and theatre wouldn't be so important.
I wonder, though, did he partially succeed? I have heard that America seems very dull compared to many places in Europe. How does it compare with other parts of the world?
I want to say though that I continue to have a deep respect for the man. Much of his philosophy is brilliant. It is so very true that It is hard for an empty Sack to stand upright in reference to morality. Also, when Franklin observes that wise men are usually quiet and don't enter into arguments. And then when he teaches about making it a habit to say things in a less provocative way, to ease communication ("I apprehend this..." or "It seems to me that..."). It's just his ideas feel pretty empty on occasion.
An aside here: I don't know if you've heard of him, but Cotton Mather was just before Franklin's time and wrote a well-known book or two, one titled "Essays to Do Good" which Franklin read as a kid. Sounded worth trying to find online or elsewhere.
I hadn't realize how thoroughly some of his ideas have permeated American culture. In many cases, his ideal really is the American ideal. Weird. Sure, I knew Franklin was a patriarch of American culture, but I didn't realize the extent to people who have never thought about him, except for 50 bills.
For instance, Franklin by his old age seemed quite set in his ways and quite dismissive of beliefs that incorporated "dogma" and doctrine.
He seemed to be only interested in religious thought that focused on practical civilized good-behavior.
He didn't much care why someone did something, just how they did it. Their habit. That's quite like American churches today, but also Japanese Shinto and many other world religions.
He had no use apparently for spirituality, or for what was in a person's heart unless it affected their habit.
So as to not slur Franklin, please let me quote his Autobiography:
"Tho' I seldom attended any Public Worship, I had still an opinion of its Propriety, and of its Utility when rightly conducted... [the] Discourses were chiefly either polemic Arguments, or Explications of peculiar Doctrines of our Sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting and unedifying, since not a single moral Principle was inculcated or enforce'd, their Aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good Citizens."
and again
"...these I esteem'd the Essentials of every Religion, and being to be found in all the Religions we had in our Country I respected them all, tho' with different degrees of Respect as I found them more or less mixed with other Articles which without any Tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm Morality, serv'd principally to divide us & make us unfriendly to one another."
He didn't get everything he wanted though. He was very much a humbug, and there would be nightlife in no city in America if he had his way. Alcohol would be much harder to obtain. Live music and theatre wouldn't be so important.
I wonder, though, did he partially succeed? I have heard that America seems very dull compared to many places in Europe. How does it compare with other parts of the world?
I want to say though that I continue to have a deep respect for the man. Much of his philosophy is brilliant. It is so very true that It is hard for an empty Sack to stand upright in reference to morality. Also, when Franklin observes that wise men are usually quiet and don't enter into arguments. And then when he teaches about making it a habit to say things in a less provocative way, to ease communication ("I apprehend this..." or "It seems to me that..."). It's just his ideas feel pretty empty on occasion.
An aside here: I don't know if you've heard of him, but Cotton Mather was just before Franklin's time and wrote a well-known book or two, one titled "Essays to Do Good" which Franklin read as a kid. Sounded worth trying to find online or elsewhere.
Moral Principles of Subjectivism and Proximity
I have long held the opinion, from a morality point of view, just because there are starving people in Africa, or homeless in Chicago, or even one of my best friends dying from cancer, etc., I don't have to enjoy getting shit on.
Pardon my verbage, but at times like this, I think it is appropriate to call things what they are.
I would call this a principle of Subjectivism, because the circumstances of other's lives do not require me to be pleased with things that are not good. I am not going to be objective and think "oh well, others have it so much worse than I do" and let it go at that. It's not an invalid thought, but it's not a realistic basis for rational concerns. Overall happiness and satisfaction might can be based on objective thinking, but not an immediate complaint.
Another concept: Proximity. This is very similar to above, if not the same. What happens to me matters more to me than other things happening to other people. I don't have to feel selfish or ethically deficient. Just because my neighbor is dying, it doesn't make me any happier my house burned down.
Pardon my verbage, but at times like this, I think it is appropriate to call things what they are.
I would call this a principle of Subjectivism, because the circumstances of other's lives do not require me to be pleased with things that are not good. I am not going to be objective and think "oh well, others have it so much worse than I do" and let it go at that. It's not an invalid thought, but it's not a realistic basis for rational concerns. Overall happiness and satisfaction might can be based on objective thinking, but not an immediate complaint.
Another concept: Proximity. This is very similar to above, if not the same. What happens to me matters more to me than other things happening to other people. I don't have to feel selfish or ethically deficient. Just because my neighbor is dying, it doesn't make me any happier my house burned down.
FACT Critical Thinging "Skeptics" Meetup group
Not too long ago I joined the Forsth Area Critical Thinkers group on Meetup.com, and I've been to a handful of meetings since (they only meet once a month, so they accrue slowly).
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/boards/thread/9037672
This morning, I was responding to a post I made on the group, and since I have made a very nice and well-crafted piece of discussion, for laziness sake I thought I'd repost it here.
My major objection seems to be that the group isn't as much a critical thinking discussion group or even "skeptics" group as a athiests' political group. And that bothers me, although that's not my call to make, except for how I choose to use my time.
Thus,
"I thought this was a critical thinking group?"
Start a new discussion Track this discussion Add a reply
Rich
Posted May 1, 2010 10:02 AM Link to this discussion Edit Quote in reply
user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 8
I am rather displeased by the trend I've seen in my last few visits (a grand total of two; not a real big sampling I admit...haha). The trend is this: less emphasis on critical thinking, and more emphasis on political ideology. I completely agree that the separation of church and state, religious freedom, rights of expression, etc., are very valid topics for discussion and applied critical thinking, but I do not agree that political activism (especially related to personal beliefs) is valid for a critical thinking group. There ARE political activism groups. That's not what I thought this was. Call me spineless, but I have a live and let live take on many such things. I am reminded for a quote from Voltaire (or at least I think it was Voltaire): and since he wrote in French, it is indisputably a paraphrase at best: "I may not agree with anything you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Am I alone in this? I'm not giving up on the worth of the meetup, or topic, or the cheese sticks, or my future interest, but this is just a small objection I wanted to air.
--Rich
***** ******
Posted May 2, 2010 9:38 AM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam
user 10897564
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 1
******* (agreeing with me)
******* *******
Posted May 19, 2010 9:16 PM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam
user 7748278
Group Organizer
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 4
I just saw this thread or I would have replied sooner. Feel free to suggest a topic Rich. What topic specifically did you not approve of?
Rich
Posted May 25, 2010 11:35 AM Link to this reply Edit Delete Quote in reply
user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 11
I really enjoyed the "Myths of Recycling" screening (I know that's not the actual title, but I don't recall). I thought that was going in the direction of where I would like to see this group go, thinking beyond casual socially-accepted "common knowledge." Origins and analysis of misinformation, and so on.
At the moment, I can't really pinpoint a "topic" that I disapproved of (and, of course, my disapproval is a strong word, and is merely my opinion), but it was more about attitudes. And again, attitudes have every right to be divergent from my own and to be expressed and my distaste for them doesn't suggest they don't warrant a Meetup group. Why do I feel like Seinfeld? "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Anyway, instead of chastising ourselves into greater critical thinking, the group seems to be currently more heavily leaning towards criticizing the way other's believe. I know for a fact that I don't think about things the way I used to, and partially from that experience I feel it is important to respect other peoples' beliefs, even when in my view they are in error. That brings to mind again my objections to the whole "Draw Muhammad Day" or however it was termed. I fully acknowledge the persuasive arguments made for the effort, "we will not succumb to intimidation", etc, and I have allowed myself to become undecided on the issue.
Okay, suggestions: "Why Wal-Mart is bad for America?" type documentaries, or Global-Warming documentaries, or Lost Boys of Sudan, or just discussing what we've seen in the news lately. Personally, I remain only loosely in touch with current events, and would appreciate a discussion of news. Or maybe a roundtable discussion of "What's on your mind this week?" and then chat about the subject that comes up.
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/boards/thread/9037672
This morning, I was responding to a post I made on the group, and since I have made a very nice and well-crafted piece of discussion, for laziness sake I thought I'd repost it here.
My major objection seems to be that the group isn't as much a critical thinking discussion group or even "skeptics" group as a athiests' political group. And that bothers me, although that's not my call to make, except for how I choose to use my time.
Thus,
"I thought this was a critical thinking group?"
Start a new discussion Track this discussion Add a reply
Rich
Posted May 1, 2010 10:02 AM Link to this discussion Edit Quote in reply
user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 8
I am rather displeased by the trend I've seen in my last few visits (a grand total of two; not a real big sampling I admit...haha). The trend is this: less emphasis on critical thinking, and more emphasis on political ideology. I completely agree that the separation of church and state, religious freedom, rights of expression, etc., are very valid topics for discussion and applied critical thinking, but I do not agree that political activism (especially related to personal beliefs) is valid for a critical thinking group. There ARE political activism groups. That's not what I thought this was. Call me spineless, but I have a live and let live take on many such things. I am reminded for a quote from Voltaire (or at least I think it was Voltaire): and since he wrote in French, it is indisputably a paraphrase at best: "I may not agree with anything you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Am I alone in this? I'm not giving up on the worth of the meetup, or topic, or the cheese sticks, or my future interest, but this is just a small objection I wanted to air.
--Rich
***** ******
Posted May 2, 2010 9:38 AM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam
user 10897564
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 1
******* (agreeing with me)
******* *******
Posted May 19, 2010 9:16 PM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam
user 7748278
Group Organizer
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 4
I just saw this thread or I would have replied sooner. Feel free to suggest a topic Rich. What topic specifically did you not approve of?
Rich
Posted May 25, 2010 11:35 AM Link to this reply Edit Delete Quote in reply
user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 11
I really enjoyed the "Myths of Recycling" screening (I know that's not the actual title, but I don't recall). I thought that was going in the direction of where I would like to see this group go, thinking beyond casual socially-accepted "common knowledge." Origins and analysis of misinformation, and so on.
At the moment, I can't really pinpoint a "topic" that I disapproved of (and, of course, my disapproval is a strong word, and is merely my opinion), but it was more about attitudes. And again, attitudes have every right to be divergent from my own and to be expressed and my distaste for them doesn't suggest they don't warrant a Meetup group. Why do I feel like Seinfeld? "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Anyway, instead of chastising ourselves into greater critical thinking, the group seems to be currently more heavily leaning towards criticizing the way other's believe. I know for a fact that I don't think about things the way I used to, and partially from that experience I feel it is important to respect other peoples' beliefs, even when in my view they are in error. That brings to mind again my objections to the whole "Draw Muhammad Day" or however it was termed. I fully acknowledge the persuasive arguments made for the effort, "we will not succumb to intimidation", etc, and I have allowed myself to become undecided on the issue.
Okay, suggestions: "Why Wal-Mart is bad for America?" type documentaries, or Global-Warming documentaries, or Lost Boys of Sudan, or just discussing what we've seen in the news lately. Personally, I remain only loosely in touch with current events, and would appreciate a discussion of news. Or maybe a roundtable discussion of "What's on your mind this week?" and then chat about the subject that comes up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
