Updates from June, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 7:47 am on June 27, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Reality is Infinity is Love is Infinite 

    Real Love reality is.
    Self is Love, is Self
    Love is I, I Love
    Look in myself, Love is within
    Love thou, Thou Art Love
    Thou art other, you are love
    love each other, We are Love
    look for Love, Love is Without.
    Know love, Know each other
    See Love See Each Other
    Love is We ,We are Love
    Love each other, Each is Love
    Love is Everything, Everything is Love
    All is everything, Everything is Love
    Love everything, Love Everyone
    Love Everything, Everyone is love
    Love is Real, Real is Love
    Love Reality, Reality is Real
    Reality is Love, Love is Reality
    Reality is everywhere, Everywhere is Love
    Love is the centre
    Love has no Circumfrence
    Everywhere is the centre
    The centre is soul, Soul is Love
    The purpose is Love is The Purpose.
    Love is the Heart infinite reality is Love.
    Infinity is Reality is Infinity
    Love is Infinite, Infinity is Love
    Be Love,be infinite
    Love is infinity
    Love is
    The purpose of Love is .
    Love is
    We are
    it is
    all is
    Love
    Roger G Lewis 2013.
    Just like me, this person is seeking some happiness for his/her life. Just like me, this person has known sadness, loneliness and despair. Just like me, this person is seeking to fulfill his her needs. And just like me, this person is learning about life.” – a compassion meditation
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
    -Mahatma Gandhi
    A Love Supreme
    I will do all I can to be worthy of Thee, O Love. It all has to do with it. Thank You Love. 
    Peace. There is none other. Love is. It is so beautiful. Thank You Love. 

Love is all.Help us to resolve our fears and weaknesses.In you all things are possible.Thank you Love.
We know. Love made us so.Keep your eye on Love.Love is. Love always was. Love always will be.
No matter what… it is Love.Love is gracious and merciful.It is most important that I know Thee.
Words, sounds, speech, men,women, memory, thoughts,fears and emotions–time–all related…all made from one… all made in one.
Blessed be Loves name.Thought waves–heat waves–all vibrations–all paths lead to Love. Thank you Love.
your way… it is so lovely… it is gracious.It is merciful–Thank you Love.One thought can produce millions of vibrations and they all go back to Love… everything does.
Thank you Love.Have no fear… believe… Thank you love.The universe has many wonders. Love is all.
Love’s way… it is so wonderful.Thoughts–deeds–vibrations,all go back to Love and Love cleanses all.
Love is gracious and merciful… Thank you Love.Glory to Love… Love is so alive.Love is Everything, Everything is love.
May I be acceptable in Thy sight.
We are all one in Loves grace.The fact that we do exist is acknowledgement of Love , O Love .Thank you Love.
Love will wash away all our tears…Love always has…Love always will.
Seek Love everyday. In all ways seek Love everyday.Let us sing all songs to Love.To whom all praise is due… praise Love.
No road is an easy one, but they all go back to Love.
With all we share Love.It is all with Love.It is all with Thee.
Know the Love.Blessed is Love.
We are all from one thing… the will of Love…Thank you Love.
–I have been unLoving–none can be greater–none can compare Thank you Love.
Love will remake… Love always has and Love always will.It’s true–blessed be Loves name–Thank you Love.
Love breathes through us so completely…so gently we hardly feel it… yet,it is our everything.
Thank you Love.
ELATION–ELEGANCE–EXALTATION–All from Love.
Thank you Love. Peace.
                                                   John William Coltrane (1923-1967)


    In 1893, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirceused the word “agapism” for the view that creative love is operative in the cosmos.[2]Drawing from the Swedenborgianideas of Henry James, Sr.which he had absorbed long before,[3]Peirce held that it involves a love which expresses itself in a devotion to cherishing and tending to people or things other than oneself, as parent may do for offspring, and as God, as Love, does even and especially for the unloving, whereby the loved ones may learn. Peirce regarded this process as a mode of evolution of the cosmos and its parts, and he called the process “agapasm”, such that: “The good result is here brought to pass, first, by the bestowal of spontaneous energy by the parent upon the offspring, and, second, by the disposition of the latter to catch the general idea of those about it and thus to subserve the general purpose.”[2]Peirce held that there are three such principles and three associated modes of evolution:
    “Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychasticevolution, or tychasm, anancasticevolution, or anancasm, and agapasticevolution, or agapasm. The doctrines which represent these as severally of principal importance we may term tychasticism, anancasticism, and agapasticism. On the other hand the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism.” — C. S. Peirce, 1893[2]
    And that real center is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it.
          It is nameless, so all names are good.
          You can give it any name of your own liking.
         From Beyond the Frontier of the Mindby OshoOSHO

    http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm
    Panta rhei, “everything flows”
    Standin’ at the crossroads
    Tryin’ to read the signs
    To tell me which way I should go to find the answer
    And all the time I know
    Plant your love and let it grow
    Let it grow, let it grow
    Let it blossom, let it flow
    In the sun, the rain, the snow
    Love is lovely, let it grow
    Lookin’ for a reason
    To check out on my mind
    It’s so hard to get a friend I can count on
    There’s nothin’ left to show
    Plant your love and let it grow
    Let it grow, let it grow
    Let it blossom, let it flow
    In the sun, the rain, the snow
    Love is lovely, so let it grow
    Let it grow
    Time is gettin’ shorter
    There’s much for you to do
    Only ask and you will get what you are needin’
    The rest is up to you
    Plant your love and let it grow
    Let it grow, let it grow
    Let it blossom, let it flow
    In the sun, the rain, the snow
    Love is lovely, let it
    Let it grow, let it grow
    Let it blossom, let it flow
    In the sun, the rain, the snow
    Love is lovely, so let it grow
    Songwriter(s): Eric Patrick Clapton
    Lyrics from http://www.elyrics.net“>eLyrics.net
    All You Need is Love
    The Beatles
    Lennon/McCartney
    Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It’s easy.
There’s nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time – It’s easy.
    All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

    • There is a reality that proves the truth of a fact. Because our memory and our senses are too insecure, too partial. We can even say that it is often impossible to discern to what extent a fact that we perceive is real and from what point we only believe that it is. So to preserve reality as such, we need another reality-a reality-that relativize adjoining. But, in turn, this reality requires a base adjacent to relativize itself. That is, there is another fact demonstrating adjacent turn, that this is true. And this chain extends indefinitely into our consciousness and in a certain sense, one can say that it is through this succession, through the conservation of this chain, as we become aware of our existence. But if this chain casually breaks, were baffled. Does the reality is the other side of the link broken? Are you on this side?

      Hay una realidad que demuestra la verdad de un hecho. Porque nuestra memoria y nuestros sentidos son demasiado inseguros, demasiado parciales. Incluso podemos afirmar que muchas veces es imposible discernir hasta qué punto un hecho que creemos percibir es real y a partir de qué punto sólo creemos que lo es. Así que para preservar la realidad como tal, necesitamos otra realidad -una realidad colindante- que la relativice. Pero, a su vez, esta realidad colindante necesita una base para relativizarse a sí misma. Es decir, que hay otra realidad colindante que demuestra, a su vez, que ésta es real. Y esta cadena se extiende indefinidamente dentro de nuestra conciencia y, en un cierto sentido, puede afirmarse que es a través de esta sucesión, a través de la conservación de esta cadena, como adquirimos conciencia de nuestra existencia misma. Pero si esta cadena, casualmente, se rompe, quedamos desconcertados. ¿La realidad está al otro lado del eslabón roto? ¿Está a este lado?”
      Some people walk through a hallway with covered mirrors– the hallway is lined with mirrors but there are blankets covering each of them. They go through life believing in an image of themselves that isn’t real, and an image of themselves standing in the world and relative to the world, that isn’t real. If you happen to be in that hallway and pull the blankets off the mirrors, they’re going to think that you’re hurting them; but they’re actually just seeing their reflection for the first time. Sometimes the most horrendous thing a person can see, is all the hidden things inside them, the things they’ve covered, the things they choose not look at. And you’re not hurting them, you’re setting them free.”
      Reality is far more vicious than Russian roulette. First, it delivers the fatal bullet rather infrequently, like a revolver that would have hundreds, even thousands of chambers instead of six. After a few dozen tries, one forgets about the existence of a bullet, under a numbing false sense of security. Second, unlike a well-defined precise game like Russian roulette, where the risks are visible to anyone capable of multiplying and dividing by six, one does not observe the barrel of reality. One is capable of unwittingly playing Russian roulette – and calling it by some alternative “low risk” game.”
      [J]ust the sight of this book, even though it was of no authority, made me wonder how it happened that so many different men – and learned men among them – have been and are so inclined to express both in speaking and in their treatises and writings so many wicked insults about women and their behaviour. Not only one or two … but, more generally, from the treatises of all philosophers and poets and from all the orators – it would take too long to mention their names – it seems that they all speak from one and the same mouth. Thinking deeply about these matters, I began to examine my character and conduct as a natural woman and, similarly, I considered other women whose company I frequently kept, princesses, great ladies, women of the middle and lower classes, who had graciously told me of their most private and intimate thoughts, hoping that I could judge impartially and in good conscience whether the testimony of so many notable men could be true. To the best of my knowledge, no matter how long I confronted or dissected the problem, I could not see or realise how their claims could be true when compared to the natural behaviour and character of women.”
      Hip – Someone who knows the score. Someone who understands “jive talk.” Someone who is “with it.” The expression is not subject to definition because, if you don’t “dig” what it means, no one can ever tell you.”
      Presque tous les malheurs de la vie viennent des fausses idées que nous avons sur ce qui nous arrive. Connaître à fond les hommes, juger sainement des événements, est donc un grand pas vers le bonheur.”
      (“Almost all our misfortunes in life come from the wrong notions we have about the things that happen to us. To know men thoroughly, to judge events sanely, is, therefore, a great step towards happiness.”)
      [Journal entry, 10 December 1801]”
      Nothing so ageing as giving into preconceived perceptions; the youth within one would not have given in to such stodginess.”
      allison malm
      “the truth in the world” (alethic) and “the truth in an individual’s mind” (epistemic)
      Apodicticity‬
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      Look up apodictic in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
      Part of the series on:
      Logic (Organon):
      Physics or Natural philosophy:
      Metaphysics:
      Ethics and Politics:
      Rhetoric and Poetics:
      Spurious Works:
      This box: view talk edit
      Apodictic” or “apodeictic” (Ancient Greek: “ἀποδεικτικός”, “capable of demonstration”) is an adjectivalexpression from Aristotelean logicthat refers to propositionsthat are demonstrable, that are necessarily or self-evidentlythe case or that, conversely, are impossible.[1]Apodicticityor apodixisis the corresponding abstract noun, referring to logical certainty.
      Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoricpropositions, which merely assert that something is (or is not) the case, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the possibility of something being true. Franz Brentanowrites in The True and the Evident, “judgments may be either assertoric or apodictic. Assertoric judgments are judgments which are possibly true but are unproven.” Apodictic judgments are judgments which are clearly provable and logically certain. For instance, “Two plus two equals four” is apodictic. “Chicago is larger than Omaha” is assertoric. “A corporation could be wealthier than a country” is problematic. In Aristotelianlogic, “apodictic” is opposed to “dialectic,” as scientific proofis opposed to probable reasoning. Kantcontrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95.
      The expression “apodictic” is also sometimes applied to a style of argumentation in which a person presents his reasoning as being categorically true, even if it is not necessarily so. An example of such a usage might be: “Demonstrate less apodicticity! You haven’t considered several facets of the question.”
      Alethic modality‬
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      For the concept in modal logic, see Subjunctive possibility.
      Alethic modalityis a linguistic modalitywhich indicates logical necessity, possibility or impossibility.[1]
      Alethic modality is often associated with epistemic modalityin research. However, it has been questioned whether this modality should be considered distinct from epistemic modality which denotes the speaker’s evaluation or judgment of the truth. The criticism states that there is no real difference between “the truth in the world” (alethic) and “the truth in an individual’s mind” (epistemic).[2]An investigation has not found a single language in which alethic and epistemic modalities are formally distinguished, as by the means of a grammatical mood.[3]In such a language, “A circle can’t be square”, “can’t be” would be expressed by an alethic mood, whereas for “He can’t be that wealthy”, “can’t be” would be expressed by an epistemic mood. As we can see, this is not a distinction drawn in English grammar.
      “You can’t give these plants too much water.” is a well-known play on the distinction between this so-called alethic modality and (perhaps hortatory or injunctive) modality. The dilemma is fairly easily resolved when listening through paralinguistic cues and particularly suprasegmental cues (intonation). So while there may not be a morphologically based alethic mood, this does not seem to preclude the usefulness of distinguishing between these two types of modes. Alethic modality might then concern what are considered to be apodicticstatements.
      The Metaphysical Deduction[edit]
      Here Kant aims to derive the twelve pure concepts of the understanding (which he also calls “categories“) from the logical formsof judgment. Kant arranges the forms of judgment in a table of judgments, which he uses to guide the derivation of the table of categories.[24]
      He creates a list of categories by first enumerating the forms of possible objective judgment, which are endowed with their objectivity by virtue of their inherent a prioriconcepts. Kant claims that if we can identify all of the possible forms of objective judgment, we can then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in any cognition of objects.[24]
      Now, the logicians have concerned themselves to ascertain and classify the various possible logical forms of judgments. Kant, accepts and adopts, with one or two modifications, their work as correct and complete, and lays before his reader, accordingly, the following table of the different logical forms of judgment, reduced under four heads:
      1. Quantity of Judgements
      2. Quality
      3. Relation
      4. Modality
      In each of these ‘moments’ of judgment, there are three alternative classifications;(A70/B95).
      1. Quantity of Judgements
      Universal
      Particular
      Singular
      2. Quality
      Affirmative
      Negative
      Infinite
      3. Relation
      Categorical
      Hypothetical
      Disjunctive
      4. Modality
      Problematic
      Assertoric
      Apodeictic
      These Aristotelianways of classifying judgments are the basis for his discerning the twelve correlated concepts of the understanding. Kant ultimately distinguishes twelve pure concepts of the understanding divided into four classes of three (A80/B106):
      1. Categories of Quantity
      Unity
      Plurality
      Totality
      2. Categories of Quality
      Reality
      Negation
      Limitation
      3. Categories of Relation
      Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident)
      Causality and Dependence (cause and effect)
      Community (reciprocity between agent and patient)
      4. Categories of Modality
      Possibility—Impossibility
      Existence—Non-existence
      Necessity—Contingency
      These categories, then, are the fundamental, primary, or native conceptions of the understanding, which flow from, or constitute the mechanism of, its nature, are inseparable from its activity, and are therefore, for human thought, universal and necessary, or a priori. They are not contingent states or images of sensuous consciousness, and hence not to be thence derived, but they are not known to us independently of such consciousness or of sensible experience. On the one hand, they are exclusively involved in, and hence come to our knowledge exclusively through, the spontaneous activity of the understanding, but, on the other hand, the understanding is never active, until sensible data are furnished as material for it to act upon, and so it may truly be said that they become known to us “only on the occasion of sensible experience.” For Kant, in opposition to Christian Wolffand Hobbes, the categories exist only in the mind.[25]
      These categories are “pure” conceptions of the understanding, in as much as they are independent of all that is contingent in sense. They are not derived from what is called the matterof sense, or from particular, variable sensations. However, they are not independent of the universal and necessary form of sense. Again, Kant, in the “Transcendental Logic,” is professedly engaged with the search for an answer to the second main question of the Critique, How is pure physical science, or sensible knowledge, possible? Kant, now, has said, and, with reference to the kind of knowledge mentioned in the foregoing question, has said truly, that thoughts, without the content which perception supplies, are empty.This is not less true of purethoughts, than of any others. The content which the pure conceptions, as categories of pure physical science or sensible knowledge, cannot derive from the matter of sense, they must and do derive from its pure form. And in this relation between the pure conceptions of the understanding and their pure content there is involved, as we shall see, the most intimate community of nature and origin between sense, on its formal side (space and time), and the understanding itself. For Kant, space and time are a priori intuitions. Out of a total of six arguments in favor of space as a prioriintuition, Kant presents four of them in the Metaphysical Exposition of space: two argue for space a prioriand two for space as intuition.[18]:75
      Subjunctive possibility and other modalities[edit]
      Subjunctive possibility is contrasted with (among other things) epistemic possibility(which deals with how the world maybe, for all we know) and deontic possibility(which deals with how the world oughtto be).
      Deontic possibility[edit]
      There is some overlap in language between subjunctive possibilities and deontic possibilities: for example, we sometimes use the statement “You can/cannot do that” to express (i) what it is or is not subjunctively possible for you to do, and we sometimes use it to express (ii) what it would or would not be right for you to do. The two are less likely to be confused in ordinary language than subjunctive and epistemic possibility as there are some important differences in the logic of subjunctive modalities and deontic modalities. In particular, subjunctive necessity entails truth: if people logically must such and such, then you can infer that they actually do it. But in this non-ideal world, a deontic ‘must’ does not carry the moral certitude that people morally must do such and such.
      Jørgensen’s Dilemma[edit]
      This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
      Deontic logic faces Jørgensen’s Dilemma.[4]Normscannot be true or false, but truth and truth valuesseem essential to logic. There are two possible answers:
      Deontic logic handles norm propositions, not norms;
      There might be alternative concepts to truth, e.g.validityor success, as it is defined in speech acttheory.
      Normsare concepts (sentences) of practical import, oriented to effecting an action, rather than conceptual abstractions that describe, explain, and express. Normative sentences imply “ought-to” types of statements and assertions, in distinction to sentences that provide “is” types of statements and assertions. Common normative sentences include commands, permissions, and prohibitions; common normative abstract concepts include sincerity, justification, and honesty. A popular account of norms describes them as reasonsto take action, to believe, and to feel.
      Physical Metaphysics. Peirce held the view, which he called objective idealism, that “matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws”.[158]Peirce asserted the reality of (1) absolute chance (his tychistview), (2) mechanical necessity (anancist view), and (3) that which he called the law of love (agapistview), echoing his categoriesFirstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, respectively. He held that fortuitous variation (which he also called “sporting”), mechanical necessity, and creative love are the three modes of evolution (modes called “tychasm”, “anancasm”, and “agapasm”)[159]of the cosmos and its parts. He found his conception of agapasm embodied in Lamarckian evolution; the overall idea in any case is that of evolution tending toward an end or goal, and it could also be the evolution of a mind or a society; it is the kind of evolution which manifests workings of mind in some general sense. He said that overall he was a synechist, holding with reality of continuity,[160]especially of space, time, and law.[161]
      Agapismis belief in selfless, charitable, non-erotic (brotherly) love, spiritual love, love of the soul. It can mean belief that such love (or “agape“) should be the sole ultimate value and that all other values are derived from it, or that the sole moral imperative is to love. Theological agapism holds that our love of God is expressed by loving each other. As the ethicsof love, agapism indicates that we should do the most loving thing in each situation, letting love determine our obligation rather than rules. Alternatively, given a set of rules, agapism indicates to follow those rules which produce the most love.

      In 1851, the English journalist and social researcher Henry Mayhew, discussing means to “a more general and equal division of the wealth of the country”, characterized agapism as “the voluntary sharing of individual possessions with the less fortunate or successful members of the community” and as the alternative to communism (“the abolition of all rights to individual property”).[1]
      In 1893, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce used the word “agapism” for the view that creative love is operative in the cosmos.[2]Drawing from the Swedenborgianideas of Henry James, Sr. which he had absorbed long before,[3]Peirce held that it involves a love which expresses itself in a devotion to cherishing and tending to people or things other than oneself, as parent may do for offspring, and as God, as Love, does even and especially for the unloving, whereby the loved ones may learn. Peirce regarded this process as a mode of evolution of the cosmos and its parts, and he called the process “agapasm”, such that: “The good result is here brought to pass, first, by the bestowal of spontaneous energy by the parent upon the offspring, and, second, by the disposition of the latter to catch the general idea of those about it and thus to subserve the general purpose.”[2]Peirce held that there are three such principles and three associated modes of evolution:

      “Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychastic evolution, or tychasm, anancastic evolution, or anancasm, and agapastic evolution, or agapasm. The doctrines which represent these as severally of principal importance we may term tychasticism, anancasticism, and agapasticism. On the other hand the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism.” — C. S. Peirce, 1893[2]

      Colorless green ideas sleep furiously‬
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search

      Approximate X-Barrepresentation of “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” See phrase structure rules.
      “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”is a sentence composed by Noam Chomskyin his 1957 Syntactic Structuresas an example of a sentencethat is grammaticallycorrect, but semanticallynonsensical. The term was originally used in his 1955 thesis “Logical Structures of Linguistic Theory”. Although the sentence is grammatically correct, no obvious understandablemeaning can be derived from it, and thus it demonstrates the distinction between syntaxand semantics. As an example of a category mistake, it was used to show inadequacy of the then-popular probabilistic models of grammar, and the need for more structured models.
      This ‘purposive rationalaction‘ is steered by the “media” of the state, which substitute for oral language as the medium of the coordination of social action. An antagonism arises between these two principles of societal integration—language, which is oriented to understanding and collective well being, and “media”, which are systems of success-oriented action.
      Following Weber, Habermas sees specialisation as the key historical development, which leads to the alienatingeffects of modernity, which ‘permeate and fragment everyday consciousness’.
      Habermas points out that the “sociopsychological costs” of this limited version of rationality are ultimately borne by individuals, which is what György Lukácshad in mind when he developed Marx’s concept, reification, in his History and Class Consciousness. They surface as widespread neurotic illnesses, addictions, psychosomatic disorders, and behavioural and emotional difficulties; or they find more conscious expression in criminal actions, protest groups and religious cults.[22]Lukács thought that reification, although it runs deep, is constrained by the potential of rational argument to be self-reflexive and transcend its occupational use by oppressive agencies.[citation needed]Habermas agrees with this optimistic analysis, in contrast to Adorno and Horkheimer, and thinks that freedom and ideals of reconciliation are ingrained in the mechanisms of the linguistically mediated sociationof humanity.
      Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2[edit]
      Habermas finds in the work of George Herbert Mead(1863–1931) and Émile Durkheim(1858–1917) concepts which can be used to free Weber’s theory of rationalisation from the aporiasof the philosophy of consciousness. Mead’s most productive concept[citation needed]is his theoretical base of communication and Durkheim’s[citation needed]is his idea of social integration. Mead also stressed the social character of perception: our first encounters are social.[23]
      From these bases, Habermas develops his concept of communicative action: communicative action serves to transmit and renew cultural knowledge, in a process of achieving mutual understandings. It then coordinates action towards social integration and solidarity. Finally, communicative action is the process through which people form their identities.[24]
      Society is integrated socially both through the actions of its members and systemically by the requirements of the economic/hierarchical/oppressive system in a way that tends to interpenetrate and overwhelm autonomous action orientations.[who?]This gives rise to a dual concept of modern society; the internal subjective viewpoint of the “lifeworld” and the external viewpoint of the “system”.
      Following Weber again, an increasing complexity arises from the structural and institutional differentiation of the lifeworld, which follows the closed logic of the systemic rationalisation of our communications. There is a transfer of action co-ordination from ‘language’ over to ‘steering media’, such as money and power, which bypass consensus-oriented communication with a ‘symbolic generalisation of rewards and punishments’. After this process the lifeworld “is no longer needed for the coordination of action”. This results in humans (‘lifeworld actors’) losing a sense of responsibility with a chain of negative social consequences. Lifeworld communications lose their purpose becoming irrelevant for the coordination of central life processes. This has the effect of ripping the heart out of social discourse, allowing complex differentiation to occur but at the cost of social pathologies. [25]
      “In the end, systemic mechanisms suppress forms of social integration even in those areas where a consensus dependent co-ordination of action cannot be replaced, that is, where the symbolic reproduction of the lifeworld is at stake. In these areas, the mediatization of the lifeworld assumes the form of colonisation”.[26]Habermas argues that Horkheimer and Adorno, like Weber before them, confused system rationality with action rationality. This prevented them from dissecting the effects of the intrusion of steering media into a differentiated lifeworld, and the rationalisation of action orientations that follows. They could then only identify spontaneous communicative actions within areas of apparently ‘non-rational’ action, art and love on the one hand or the charisma of the leader on the other, as having any value.
      According to Habermas, lifeworldsbecome colonised by steering media when four things happen:[27]
      1. Traditional forms of life are dismantled.
      2. Social roles are sufficiently differentiated.
      3. There are adequate rewards of leisure and money for the alienated labour.
      1. Hopes and dreams become individuated by state canalization of welfare and culture.
      All You Need is Love
      The Beatles
      Lennon/McCartney
      Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It’s easy.
There’s nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time – It’s easy.
      All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

    Advertisements
     
  • rogerglewis 4:56 am on June 20, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Posthumous Guest Post. Jud Evans (RIP).Jud Lays out His epistemological Position in all its glory. 

    Jud Evans • PART ONE

     MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION

     Jan Writes:
    As we can not seem to open you on the subject of ethics, as Harvey lately tried, though calling it metaphysics.

     Jud: Man is supposed to realise that the reifications “morals” and “ethics” are basically an illusion. The reification “morals” is simply an abstract umbrella-word denoting the societal downward imposition of opinions regarding behaviour favourable to the dominant classes upon the general masses at a particular period of history.

     However, it is true that I did promise you a piece on ethics and here it is.

     Morality as an Illusion.
    “Is morality no more than a collective illusion fobbed off on us by our genes for reproductive ends?” [1] (Ruse1986)

     The meta-ethical question Ruse raises imparts a new vitality and energy to the ethical discourse and introduces exciting possibilities of a socio-biological nature that may underlie Mary Midgley’s version of the origin of ethics. Midgley identifies morality as a group response to the conflict-ridden primal clashes and natural disasters associated by the traditional religious myths describing the origin of the universe and the early days of humankind. The chaos can only be overcome if human beings live by moral rules which curb and frustrate some of their desires. [2] (Midgely. 1993. p. 3.) So what is the nature of these rules?

     People look at the rules, compare them, and eventually question the point of morality itself.

     Doris Schroeder (my old professor) has characterised evolutionary ethics as arguing that natural selection has instilled human beings with a moral sense and a disposition to be good. On this basis morality could be understood as a phenomenon that arises automatically during the evolution of sociable, intelligent beings and not, as theologians or philosophers might argue, as the result of divine revelation or the application of our rational faculties. [3] (Schroeder)

     Combining Ruse’s question and Schroeder’s outline I have structured my piece in the following way:

     I. GENES AS A TELEOLOGICAL AGENCY?

     II. GENETICAL TELEOLOGY OR TELEONOMY?

     III. THE DYNAMIC OF APPOSITIVE TENDENCIES .

     IV. WHY DOES NATURE FAVOUR GOODNESS?

     I. GENES AS A TELEOLOGICAL AGENCY?

     Is humanity’s moral nature manifested as a mere practical result or consequence of some species specific inherent disposition towards morality, as posited by Midgley’s traditionalist approach, or does mankind’s ethical nature operate as a feature of a hidden telic agenda with our genes acting as covert agential enforcers which further the cosmic program of some deity or unknown force?

     Is the personification of DNA fragments known as *The Selfish Gene* a viable theory? The abstraction “selfish”, certainly sounds scientifically louche when applied to uncomprehending cellular material wherein no psychic activity takes place. But as Andrew Brown writes in “The Science of Selfishness” for Dawkins the word means: ‘The quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process.’ ‘Evolutionary preferentiality’ perhaps No, ‘The Selfish Gene’ is a brilliant title for a best seller. The title is a marketing device which instantiates the core idea. Dawkins is aware of the implicature. It is very doubtful if a book with the title: *The Genetic Quality Of Being Copied By A Darwinian Selection Process.” would have sold half so many copies. ‘You don’t see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it.’
    (Shaw, ‘echoing Thomas S. Kuhn’ in Gleick, 1988.) [4] (Brown. 1998 )

     References.

     [1] Ruse Michael. Taking Darwin Seriously. Oxford: Blackwell; 1986.

     [2] Midgley. Mary. ‘The origin of ethics’ 1993. p. 3. A Companion to Ethics. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy.

    [3] Schroeder. Doris. Evolutionary Ethics.2006. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evol- eth.htm

    [4] Brown,. Andrew. 1998. “The Science of Selfishness.” Salon 21st.
    7 months ago
    • Like
    1
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • PART TWO
    Can it be that what we refer to as *morality* is really a feature of an evolutionary stabilising stratagem based upon opinion-forming genes? Do the articulations of our selfish replicators contain the DNA scripts of more just the obvious physical characteristics of our forebears, and encode the scripts for our behavioural relations with our fellow men too?

     I believe they do, but not in the crude format of animal instinct-bearing genes with hard-wired scripts for nest-building, web-spinning, dam construction. Human genetic scripts respond to the unique catenulate history of the individual and provide subtle experientially tweaked behavioural preferences, rather than strict directions which can be thought of as set-in-stone pre-dispositional inclinations to interpret situations in a particular way as in many animals

    GENETICAL TELEOLOGY OR TELEONOMY?

    Descriptions of the phenomena of teleology use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena. Belief in the perception of purposeful development toward an end. Theologically it is the doctrine that all things are designed by God.

     Biologically it is the theory or study of organic development as caused by the ‘purposes’ which things serve. And what are these ‘purposes’ we may ask? Surely, to rely on some unspecified concept like ‘purposes’ is not to answer the question at all, but to leave it open-ended?

     If God is excluded teleologically it applies to ends that are planned by some natural agent which can preview with intention, purpose and foresight possible evolutionary improvable models of various human biological and ethical futures? Surely this abstract representation of a quality or idea as a person is not what genetical bioethics had in mind?

     As a theory the teleonomical explanation is an improvement which goes halfway to answering the question of a supposed developmental anticipated outcome. Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history and adaptation for reproductive success. Well, at least this cuts out the personification of teleology but it too seems to be ducking the question by offering evolutionary functionalism to explain the evolutionary function?

     Theoretical descriptions of the possible processes that initiated the teleonomical process have recently been advanced. An interesting one is: ‘On the Chemical Nature and Origin of Teleonomy’ by Addy Pross of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in Israel. [5] Pross. 2005)

     The paper addresses the nature the physico-chemical of teleonomic events and the processes by which teleonomic systems could emerge from non- teleonomic systems. He speculates that teleonomic (purposeful) chemical events are those whose primary directive is discerned to be non-thermodynamic, while regular (non- teleonomic – non-purposeful events) are those whose primary directive is the traditional thermodynamic one, involving the conversion of different forms of energy.

    For the archetypal teleonomic event which is cell multiplication, the non- thermodynamic directive can be identified as being a kinetic directive. It is

    concluded, therefore, that the process of emergence, whereby non-teleonomic replicating chemical systems were transformed into teleonomic ones, involves a switch in the primacy of thermodynamic and kinetic directives.

     He proposes that the step where that transformation took place was the one in which some pre-metabolic replicating system acquired an energy-gathering capability, thereby becoming metabolic. The analysis builds on previous work that considers living systems to be a kinetic state of matter as opposed to the traditional thermodynamic states that dominate the inanimate world.

    7 months ago
    • Like
    1
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • PART THREE

     Ontologically my own theory of non- teleological change can be explicated thus.

     The cosmos is an unbounded infinite complexity of interacting matter. The total cosmos is indestructible matter. The idea of a vacuum is a myth. All matter is in constant change – No change equals – no existence. Material is self-regulatory. (many self-regulatory material processes involve huge time spans by human standards. The spontaneous interaction of matter is a existential factor of its presence.

     A teleonomic process, such as evolution, produces complex products without guiding foresight. Evolution gradually accumulates hindsight, as variations unwittingly make “predictions” about structures and functions which could successfully cope with the future, and participate in an audition which culls the also- rans, leaving winners for the next generation. Information accumulates about functions and structures that are successful, exploiting feedback from the environment via the selection of fitter coalitions of structures and functions. Teleonomy is related to past effects instead of present purpose.

     For (Lorenz, 1996) Life is characterised by “a special structure which is moulded by evolution to make probable the gain of energy and to exploit highly specific sources of energy”. Information in common parlance means relevant, teleonomically organised information that has a meaning for the organism receiving or possessing it”.

     WHY DOES NATURE FAVOUR GOODNESS?

     I share the view that ‘morality’ incorporates a group’s evolutionarily engendered strategic attitudes or pragmatic opinions selected or sanctioned by nature as being beneficial for stable species-specific biological development. On this basis ‘ethics’ belongs to the domain of science not philosophy.

     A feature of the diachronic nature of philosophy is the gradual reduction of its corpus, as various subjects of study, like mathematics, geography, chemistry, history, medicine, politics and sociology etc., have established and constituted themselves into independent domains of science and the humanities and hived off as independent disciplines.

     As my old Prof Schroeder points out, this is certainly the view of Edward O. Wilson, the ‘father’ of the new science of sociobiology, who believes that “scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and bio-logicised” (Wilson, 1975: 27).

     The challenge for evolutionary biologists such as is to define “goodness” with reference to evolutionary theory and then explain why human beings ought to be good.

    Descriptively (rather than analytically) speaking, for the average human singleton who does not give much thought to these matters, the term ‘ethics’ characterises the individual’s acceptance, rejection or acquiescence towards a group’s prescriptive, ethically generalist opinions, regarding a set of accepted principles of right conduct.

    For the human individual, actions and attitudes considered ‘moral’ are those opinions or principles conforming to standards of what is right within the social group or society with which he identifies himself. Such a correlation of opinion also includes personal beliefs or judgments regarding how we should treat the environment within which the individual and the group exist. 7 months ago • Like
    1
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • PART FOUR

     THE DYNAMIC OF APPOSITIVE TENDENCIES

     Inherent within such a ‘one to many – many to one ‘relationship are two dynamical appositive tendencies. Mankind’s primitive instincts often militate against the good of the group. The ethical memory-tissue is pulled in two diametrical directions – the individual good – as opposed to the *other* or ‘group good.’ If an equilibria of appositive precepts is experienced for any prolonged period angst and frustration may occur.

     The material universe exists and must exist in a fashion which complies with the physical realities of how of matter exists- that is kinetically. To be kinetic involves change – change presupposes modes of change – modes of change presuppose ordered rather than chaotic change. If chaotic change was materially possible we would not exist and the cosmos would be a chaotic mess. The cosmos is not a chaotic mess and we exist – therefore only ordered change is possible. Ordered change is what humans mean when the refer to *nature* or ‘the laws of physics.’ Therefore ‘ordered change’ or ‘nature’ is simply the way the universe exists

     ANIMAL INSTINCT AND HUMAN PREDISPOSITIONAL WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

     There is a conflictual tension produced between the individual’s egoistical desires, and his/her perceived obligation to comply with the evolutionary stabilising strategies of his fellows which are designed to promote group equilibria. This tendency to impel the individual towards adopting strategies considered more beneficial to the person rather than the group operates via adaptive dynamics. Such responses often take the form of pretence or covert immoral behaviour. Lying (including self-deception and ‘white lies’.) are quite common. In the extreme there is sometimes a complete and overt rejection of the particular moral constraints involved.

     In order for a moral strategy to be considered sequentially sensible a belief is required, but the belief in a moral systematic plan of action is most often conditional. It is expected to maximize a reciprocatory engendered pay off in terms of personal, sexual, group or societal stability. In the absence of a constancy of benefits individuals and the state institute a tit-for-tat policy or an equivalent given in return agenda is often instituted, which in personal relationships can lead to displacement activity or the dissolution of the moral contract and an end of the relationship. In societal terms such a lack of a reciprocatory generated pay-off often ends in society withdrawing from the moral contract and excluding the individual by imprisonment or taking other punitive action.

    Though contemporary societies have moved on from the biblical style ‘eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth’ models, our current administration of moral justice is based upon the idea that a moral agent who breaks the moral codes and courses suffering to others is made to suffer too via the moral agency of the justice system.

     Perhaps the close connection between morality and religion, the equilibrious effect of an authoritative control mechanism is thus revealed? Perhaps this explains inter- religious rivalries and hatreds to a large extent? If ethical hegemony is a function of natural selection, any other moral system perceived as an alternative or threat to that to group cohesion would be identified as an adversary.

    It is important to qualify exactly what genetical encoding actually implies, and whether the implication present in the question of an deceiving genome bent upon foisting on to us a teleologically contrived biological agenda holds any water? Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, teaches us that a instinctual trait, which favours survival will be selected via competition. To be considered instinctual a behaviour must be: Automatic b) Irresistible c) Occurrent d) Unmodifiable e) Event-actuated

     The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behaviour is not fully instinctual. 7 months ago • Like

    1
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • PART FIVE
    If these criteria are used in a rigorous scientific manner, then strictly speaking the application of the term “instinct” cannot be used in reference to human behaviour. When terms, such as mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, and so on, are used to denote human behaviour they are seen to not meet the severe criteria listed above. In comparison to animal behaviour such as hibernation, migration, nest building, mating and so on that are clearly instinctual, no human behaviour meets the necessary criteria. In other words, under this definition, there are no human instincts but rather pre-dispositional preferences.

     That there exists an inborn hard-wired pattern of behaviour often responsive to specific stimuli resulting in predictable behaviour in animals is an accepted fact. Key stimuli initiate innate releasing mechanisms. Neurological imprinting causes geese to follow around the first moving object that they encounter, as it tends to be their mother. A firefly travels miles to home in on the female pheromones carried by the wind – you see a juicy veggie-burgher – your mouth waters etc.

    But that alone is not enough to say that there is any evidence that moral strategies are genetically encoded.

     It is arguable that we are born with predispositional traits which equip us to recognise, learn and inaugurate so-called ‘moral’ strategies considered to be biologically advantageous during the course of our lives. It is also true that instinctual behaviours which are in fact biologically self-serving behaviours calculated to realise biologically advantageous opportunities could be mistaken for ‘moral behaviours.’

    The man who assists the blind person across the road and drops a five- pound note in the beggar’s cap might act in such a way as to impress his female companion in order to insinuate himself into her bed. All organisms have constitutional dispositions towards particular behaviours.

    The obvious ones are courtship behaviour, nest building and protection strategies. Those who have been harried by gulls when walking near their nests will have personal experience of this, as will any game- warden who has approached a
    female elephant who has recently calved. Instincts are inherited patterned, fixed action responses to certain kinds of stimuli they are almost certainly reinforced by repetition. 7 months ago
    • Like
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • PART SIX
    Human emotional responses form a basis for arousal to outside stimuli but they can be countervailed by cognitive processes based upon moral strategies based upon considerations of delayed satisfaction, fear or a desire to preserve a group or societal stability.

    I do hold that predispositional, instinctual behaviour such as the care and protection of one’s young ( the couriers of one’s patrimonial genetic endowment) is hard- wired into the human animal and that our genes have developed in the way that they have through naturally selected for the promotion of reproductive ends.

    In the limited sense that morality is an illusion of course I agree with Ruse’s comments.

     Where I disagree strongly with Ruse regards his suggestion that our genes fob us off with our concept of ‘morality’ in order to conceal an underlying carnal agenda or sexual dimension of good behaviour. I do not believe that our genes have developed stratagems designed to falsely present human reproduction as morals.

     Evolution is an unconscious, incognisant, uncaring, unplanned process. If it were true, that genes used morals as a cloak for sex then ironically it would position the very advocates and organisations which urge decent moral behaviour upon us as the very ones promoting strategies leading to sexual behaviour – that such sexual intercourse should remain within the parameters of couplings sanctioned by the church makes little difference to the incongruity of such a situation for the Rusean message:

    ‘Be nice to others and you will get more nookie,’ has the same message whichever way you look at it.

     A phenotype describes any observed quality of an organism, such as its morphology, development, or behaviour. In my view ethical particularism is a form of punctuated equilibria or human phenotypic plasticity.

    I believe that all humans are phenotypically plastic. By this I mean that just as an organism has the ability to adjust to its physical environment during the course of its lifetime, this ability also includes the aptitude to learn to modify its behaviour towards other individuals and the group. So what if any is the difference between phenotypic plasticity and moral self-education?

    What account can I as a particularist give of our propensity to learn from our ‘moral’ experience? Tact rather than rudeness and crude sexual innuendo is a behaviour that can be rewarded greater compliance and by the delivery more benefits. My reply is that such a learning curve and change of behaviour is not morality triumphing over morally objectionable behaviour in any way, but rather egoistically engendered behavioural modification.

    There may be apparent extrinsic change, but inwardly the ‘immoral agent’ may continue to be as contemptuous of the addressee as he was prior to the pretended respect.

     ‘Moral self-education’ is a myth. The ego learns what behaviour is likely to deliver acceptance and the desired benefits, as opposed to behaviour which is likely to invite chastisement or rejection. It is purposeful behavioural opinion-response compliance – not ‘moral concurrence.’

    Michael Ruse is correct regarding subjectivist Darwinian metaethics, and the non objectivist requirement of moral theory, but wrong in relation to his so-called genetical illusional ploys. If he is (as I believe) correct in his non objectivism and the hoi polloi of humankind were to become convinced of the truth of what he claims regarding covert genetical re-productionism then the motivation on the part of humanity to continue following such moral obligations would evaporate.

    Nobody wishes to be conned – particularly by their own genes. In view of that, my advice to Ruse is to raise a finger to his lips and murmur ‘Shhhhush!’

     Best wishes,

    Jud Evans. 7 months ago

    • Like
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • RESPONSE ONE
    Gary Writes: My fault – I meant “eliminate” in the sense of stripping unnecessary concepts from any concept (or words from a word). “Unnecessary” in the sense of anything that can literally be divorced from anything even if it leads to a dividing down to void and atoms as in Democritus.

    Jud: I have absolutely no interest in stripping down words? I am not BTW suggesting we should turn our backs on etymology, which is a great interest of mine . In fact every since my boys were old enough I have taught them three new words every day as I have driven them to school. We tear the words apart, examine their semantic components (Greek, Latin, etc) – a vital part of building a vocabulary.

     The confusions of trannie abstractionists does not lie in the morpho-semantic construction of such signs, but in their imagined LOCATION as being ex-carapacial (outside the skull) “things” out in the world like hermeneutic hover-flies, waiting to dart down and fill-out some pseudo-scientific sentence with usefully fictive stuffing. Such logical or illogical objects are then graced by the religious and elevated by other metaphysically challenged with a similar ontological status to real (concrete) objects, rather than existing embedded deep in the brain-meat of humans as forms networked electrochemical intagliated intelligence or glyphic glia.

     Gary: This is dependent on the brain’s power to divide “something,” let’s say “being” into “being” and “non-being” in order to have verbal distinctions in the first place, i. e., this is not that or “this is” and “not that” or positive being versus negative being if you like.

     Ask a question like “What is Jud Evans?,” taking away his meat from his bones, putting his parts in several different places, and then verbalizing “Where, then, is Jud?”

     Jud: The subject you introduce is mereological of which I have written volumes (all out on the internet.) Lots of my stuff is variations of the original “Ship of Theseus” theme.

     One of my pieces is a deconstruction of a pigeon – the other of a car sold by a notorious old greasy-bearded second-hand car-salesman called Plato – a knavish rogue, and an untrustworthy fantasist, an ousia- freak and thoroughly unreliable transcendentalist wretch.

    http://evans- experientialism.freewebspace.com/platosgarage.htm

     Gary: But then you say, “Wait. We can divide even further!” and you bring out your atom smasher and cyclotron and electron microscope. No, at that point you have made matter meaningless because you are dealing with electrons, neutrons, protons which are already very shaky to call them “things” at all,

     Jud: They are all objects and have mass – consult any physics book.

     Gary: and then you break down those already questionable things into quarks and

    mesons and strange particles and photons that still to some mathematical extent can have identity or rather be identified when you then say, “Guys! We haven’t gone anywhere far enough yet. We have to break down those q-things into theoretical/mythical gravitons, the ‘particles’ of gravity which hold these things together as identifiable mesons and quarks and make electrons seem to have orbits around a nucleus divisible into protons and neutrons that are in turn divisible further.

     Jud: Mathematical extent? Identity? No object “has” “identity” Objects are identified by human or animal identifiers. Do you honestly believe Gary that if you keep mereologically dividing objects one could do that for infinity?

     Everybody knows that the metaphysics baloney is on the slippery slide to the reificative rubbish dumps – clutching at a theory of never-ending Russian Dolls is not going to save it. I am (like you) not a physicists, but soon the white-coated ones hit quantum bases-level and you will have run out of metaphysical goal-posts to move backward as science moves forward. 7 months ago • Like

    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • RESPONSE TWO

     Gary: The point being a] this is material reality. Democritus knew it as such simply by the possibility to divide anything infinitely and modern science has simply demonstrated that with experiments. So Democritus fundamentals of ‘atom’ and void, or being and non-being, where division provides intellectual distinction as such, and therefore grounds logic itself in its procedural technique dividing man into generic man (what any man is) as thesis, material man (Socrates) as antithesis, and the consequence of this in synthesis as a conclusion gives a ‘mortal idea’ already imbued with self-division and therefore terminal disintegration. You could say the same thing of “mankind,” then “Great Britons” then people of Sussex, the town of Middlesex, then Tom Jones, then Tom Jone’s finger, then Tom Jones atoms, then Tom Jone’s quarks – which seems silly until you realize the quarks are what are basic, and Gary Moore a mere cloud of atoms and collection of verbal attributes all in turn divisible from him till he is what he is fundamentally – nothing at all.

     Jud: I am afraid you are just falling back on the stale cheese of the so-called Platonic “heteron” (opposite) We had all this out with Dr. Michael Eldred 9 or 10 years ago.

     A human organism can be regarded as a whole (a holism) or multi-levelled two-way [up-down] deterministic pecking order of semi-autonomous sub-wholes, forking into sub-wholes of a lower [usually smaller] order.

     Arthur Koestler’s “The Ghost in the Machine” (1967) was presented again at the Alpbach Symposium (1968) in a paper titled: “Beyond Atomism and Holism – the concept of the holon”. The “holon” represents a way to overcome the dichotomy between parts and wholes and to account for both the self-assertive and the integrative tendencies of an organism. [3]

     I have written elsewhere of our perceptive ‘toggling’ or ‘sensorial switching’ between two modes of seeing the starry sky above. We see but a fraction of our ‘home’ galaxy – a giant revolving gaseous disc which consists of about 200 billion stars, and in one observational sweep of our eyes take in the heavens as comprising of an uncountable glittering myriad of individual stars.

     Then, suddenly, spontaneously, even as our eyes wander from one bright glint to another, a stochastic event occurs which is difficult to control (although some

    degree of constraint over the random variability of the sequence can be acquired.)

     The complexity of ‘multiples of singular individuation’ blurs. Suddenly we see the apparent immensity as the huge, crowded silver integration we call the Milky Way, the four spiral arms of predominantly blue, reasonably young stars between a million and ten billion years old.

    Parmenides realised what we now understand is the obvious – that the cosmos can be thought of in two ways – as a collection of individual items, or as a whole. That a football crowd can be seen as a mass of conglomerate humanity, or as each man picked out as singular individual face in the crowd.

    What Plato failed to grasp was this. From a mereological point of view the Milky Way or a rain-cloud can qualify as an ‘object. ‘

     Not to allow this perceptual modality as Plato did is to demand that each individual be given a name and a roll-call of individuals enumerated to describe a crowd. Human bodies are composed of trillions of single cells which (relativistically) are separated at similar yawning distances from each other as the stars in the sky.

     So what was Plato up to after rejecting Parmenides assertion of *the One?*

    Why, he set about trying to prove that *nothing* exists! The Platonic attempt at an instantiation of the non-existent heteron (‘the other’) can be seen to be initiated in the following dialogue: 7 months ago
    • Like
    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • RESPONSE THREE
    Eleatic Stranger: Strange! I should think so. See how, by his reciprocation of opposites, the many-headed Sophist has compelled us, quite against our will, to admit the existence of not-being.’

     Theaetetus: Yes, indeed, I see.

    Interpreted this means: the negation of the one being does not lead to nothing, i. e. no being at all, but to the other. The ‘other’ as opposite is the ‘to mae on’ of the one. Rendered into modern language this means:

     ‘If there is not ‘something’ in the fridge – there must be ‘nothing’ in the fridge,’ so that means there is something else in there called ‘nothing.’

    There is ALWAYS something in the fridge – oxygen gas.

     Michael Eldred:

     This is ‘one of Plato’s most important discoveries — how otherness enables a non- being to ‘be’ in a certain way, namely, as the opposite (‘antithesis’) of something else (e. g. ’the ugly’ as the non-being of the beautiful).’(Eldred. 2007)

    But NO, we do NOT see! This is an ontological red herring. If as Heidegger rightly claims; ‘Being’ does not exist’ it disposes of the Platonic notion of the reciprocation and instantiation of opposites, for if ‘being’ does not exist – its opposite ‘heteron’ or ‘other’ of *to mae on* or non-being cannot either.

     Plato shows via the idea of ‘heteron’, i. e. of the ‘other’ and ‘otherness,’ that ’otherness’ is a FACET OF BEING which allows the one being to be different from the other non-being and automatically enables the ‘to mae on’ to exist. ‘Plato therefore sets out to analyse the ‘logos’ to show how otherness and therefore falsehood is possible within it. Thus it seems the logos can be both truth and lies – every ‘logos’ is a ‘logos ‘ ti peri tinos’
    — every speaking is saying something about something even if it is a lie, blasphemy or a foolish error. [5] (Eldred. 2007)

     (1) Can the three dimensional cellular objects that make up our human bodies be thought of as true objects? Yes, of course they can.

     (2) Can our human bodies, composed as they are of countless smaller objects, be

    counted as objects? Yes, of course they can.

     (3) Are our visual experiences of *holons* different to our perception of ‘raindrops on a car windscreen,’ or paint spilled on a pavement – that is as patterns of light and dark or the re-bounded light-waves of colour as they impact the retina and are decoded by the brain? No – they are different.

     One HAS to draw the ontological line in the sand somewhere which is exactly what Parmenides did

     If the Milky Way (like the human body, or a heap of sand) is classed as a macro- holeronic object made up of 200 billion smaller stellar objects and their countless planets and satellites, to say nothing of the multitudinous other similarly dispersed smaller denizens of the cosmic plenum, then the Milky Way can be usefully defined as a ‘integrative entity,’ the ontic opposite of the reificational instantiation – the ‘fictionally useful linguistic entity’ – the notorious ‘universals’ like *love* and *freedom* posing as objects, but in reality being nothing more than the result of the self-referential perceptual conventions of human ideation?

     Gary: Democritus even went a step further. He needed “void” as the “nothing” in which matter as atoms could move about in and have place. 7 months ago • Like

    • Reply privately • Flag as inappropriate
    Jud Unfollow
    Jud Evans • RESPONSE FOUR

     Jud: The eliminativist does not simply wish to destroy the mythic domain of metaphysics, but to help folk understand that the metaphysical Post Code or Zone Number and its actual mapping address is NOT some great Platonist emporium of heavenly forms and useful lie-signs signs which hovers like some air-borne Noah’s Arc in the sky.

     Metaphysical signs and other fictive coding maps to the thinking brain-meat of every man woman and child on the planet who deals in such useful fiction depending upon the local metaphysical menu and religious frenzies in favour at the time.

     The conceptualizations of metaphysics form part of the archival electrochemical printery of all human brains.

     In the metaphorical meaty-movable-type system each of us acts as his own printer’s devil. How emotively hard we thump the data into its fleshy entablature controls whether the memory-data will be a short-term flyer or a long-term archived datergic document.

     But enough of metaphor, as such imprintation exists in physical electrochemical format – a semiotic format that as yet (in spite having the ability to view the brain- tissue in great detail) science has not yet managed to crack the code. But the neurophysiological Rosetta Stone will be discovered.

     So transfer the whole mess of Metaphysics lock, stock and falderal to the domain where it truly belongs and has resided before mankind lived caves, or even before our homo forebears sheltered in the African savannah sheltered by the blessed branches of baobab trees.

    Best wishes,

    Jud

     
  • rogerglewis 5:56 am on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    In Memory of Jud Evans 


    Jud( George) Evans 1935-2013 RIP I learned a lot from Jud in our discussions here. I do not want to be mushy in memory and respect for Juds´ elliminatavism

    . http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/brieflifehistory.

    htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WixwdK-heiI

    http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm

    I was thinking of Jud this morning and felt I should get in touch I had noticed his absence from discussion. Heres Jud on eliminativism. Metaphysics, epistemology and logic. – part II RESPONSE FOUR Jud: The eliminativist does not simply wish to destroy the mythic domain of metaphysics, but to help folk understand that the metaphysical Post Code or Zone Number and its actual mapping address is NOT some great Plantonist emporeum of heavenly forms and signs which hovers like some air-borne Noah’s Arc in the sky. Metaphysical signs and other fictive coding maps to the thinking brain-meat of every man woman and child on the planet who deals in such useful fiction depending upon the local metaphysical menu and religious frenzies in favour at the time. The conceptualizations of metaphysics form part of the archival electrochemical printery of all human brains. In the metaphorical meaty-movable-type system each of us acts as his own printer’s devil. How emotively hard we thump the data into its fleshy entablature controls whether the memory-data will be a short-term flyer or a long-term archived datergic document. But enough of metaphor, as such imprintation exists in physical electrochemical format – a semiotic format that as yet (in spite having the ability to view the brain-tissue in great detail) science has not yet managed to crack the code. But the neurophysiological Rosetta Stone will be discovered. So transfer the whole mess of Metaphysics lock, stock and falderal to the domain where it truly belongs and has resided before mankind lived caves, or even before our homo forebears sheltered in the African savannah sheltered by the blessed branches of baobab trees. Best wishes, Jud Posted by Jud Evans

    youtube.com

    I am sad to hear this news. I discussed philosophy with Jud through Linked in and had been missing his contributions I feared the worse this morning and posted in his memory today. Jud was a great guy we never met but his warmth and humanity were evident from our brief correspondence and in discussion and he had a wonderful turn of phrase. Cheers Jud I will miss you.In memory of Jud. Jud (George) Evans Tribute 1935 – 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WixwdK-heiI youtube.com

     
    • stannoria 4:43 pm on November 2, 2014 Permalink | Reply

      evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
      has been discontinued. This is quite unfortunate as the work was of significance…
      Stanislas Noria

    • Peter 7:28 am on January 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Hello, forgive this late comment but by reading this I have only just discovered that Jud Evans had died. I had begun to suspect so because of the “site disabled” notice at his “Athenaeum” site. Does anyone know if all the wonderful material there has been preserved?

      • rogerglewis 9:32 am on January 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Sadly Peter I think Juds collection of philosophical writings has not had the domain re newed. Juds Nephew had put a memorial video on You Tube but that has also disappeared. I often think of Jud and the long discussions and witty contributions Jud made at the Linked In Philosophy Group. Thanks for posting,
        All the Best
        Roger

      • rogerglewis 9:40 am on January 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWpNHZ0ppOw heres Juds nephew’s video .

    • Peter 10:01 pm on January 22, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you Roger. It’s a shame the material has gone as well. (I never had the chance to interact with Jud himself.) I’m still coming across many links to the site.

      • rogerglewis 12:52 pm on January 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Peter the information is still on the web host servers, without Juds Passowrd it is not piossible to just pay for web hosting and put the material back up.

        I will send an e mail to the Web host company explaining the situation and see what the potions are for getting the site back up, It wouldbe possibel to host it on OWrdpress or Wix or Weebly for free I will let you know how it turns out, I had not relaised before or thought of this but it is possible so All yet may not be lost.

        All the best
        Roger

    • Roger Lewis 8:42 pm on August 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Hi here is an archived version of juds site courtesy of something called the Wayback web crawler.https://web.archive.org/web/20030929213248/http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm

    • Roger Lewis 8:55 pm on August 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply

  • rogerglewis 7:04 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. What are Transnational Global Corporations in not Totalitarian Centrally Planned Tyrannies? 



    The Road to Serfdom is a wonderfully written book, the ethical values of the book are commendable; nevertheless the thesis that government intervention leads to the loss of political and individual freedoms is not confirmed by any empirical evidence. Remember that the War Economy driven by central planning was not only the economic governance model of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but also of the United Kingdom during WWII. The argument that comprehensive central planning inevitably leads to ‘totalitarism’ is questionable for a range of reasons: first, because comprehensive central economic planning was never implemented in practice, not even by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, though the intent of the Soviet and Nazi leaders was there. Therefore the correspondence between ‘totalitarianism’ and central economic planning cannot be confirmed empirically. To counter this argument one may claim that all surrogate of central plans that were implemented in both these countries failed miserably and on this basis advance the proposition that the two governments despotism was a response to these failures. This would be a credible scenario if the reality wasn’t that the two despotic ideologies reached power and started to deny political and individual freedoms well before the first central plan was even launched. It is therefore still open to debate, to say the least, that liberty is somehow significantly linked to the degree of intervention of the state in the economy, and even more doubtful the argument that correlation implies causation.

    Emilio on Central planning consider these facts.
    “The other discrepancy between free enterprise in its real and ideal states is the undue concentration of wealthamong a few individuals ans corporations. This imbalance makes a mockery of claims that capitalism rewards the efforts of all enterprising individuals.”
    Concentration of Coprorate Wealth.
    “Wealth in the business community is centralized in a relatively few major corporations, and this concentration is increasing. In 2008, for example, the U.S. corporation with the most assets ($2.175 trillion) was JPMorgan Chase; the top corporation in sales-Wal-Mart- had $405.6 billion in revenues; and the greatest producer of profits was Exxon-mobil at $45.22 billion (Forbes 2009a:128-133). The following examples show just how concentrated wealth is among the major U.S. corporations:
    – Less than 1% of all corporations account for over 80 percent of the total output of the private sector.
    – Of the 15,000 commercial U.S. banks, the largest 50 hold more than 1/3 of all asets.
    – 1% of all food corporations control 80% of all the industry’s assets and about 9-% of the profits.
    – 6 transnational corporations ship 90% of the grain in the world market.
    Chomsky made early efforts to critically analyze globalization. He summarized the process with the phrase “old wine, new bottles,” maintaining that the motive of the élites is the same as always: they seek to isolate the general population from important decision-making processes, the difference being that the centers of power are now transnational corporations and supranational banks. Chomsky argues that transnational corporate power is “developing its own governing institutions” reflective of their global reach.[23]
    Details are leaking of a top-secret, global corporate power grab of breathtaking scope— attacking everything from a free Internet to health and environmental regulations. It’s up to us to stop it.
    Big business has a new plan to fatten their pockets: a giant global pact, with an international tribunal to enforce it, that is kept top secret for years (even from our lawmakers!) and then brought down like a Death Star on our democracies. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Walmart and almost 600 other corporate lobbyists are all in on the final draft— including limits on smoking laws, affordable medicines and free speech on the Net.
    Information about the corporate Death Star has been leaking, and now outcries in each of our countries could shake the confidence of negotiators and scuttle the talks forever. Let’s get to a million against the global corporate takeover. Sign the petition on the right, then forward this campaign to help us reach one million!
    *The deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is a pact that the United States is negotiating with 8 other countries including Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Labelled as a “free trade” agreement, much of it is written to protect investors from government regulation, even if that regulation is passed in the public interest.You can read more about it here: https://en.avaaz.org/760/tpp-secret-talks-free-trade-agreement
     
  • rogerglewis 9:48 am on June 18, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Devils Dictionary A brief Graze through. 

    ARISTOCRACY, n. Government by the best men. (In this sense the word is obsolete; so is that kind of government.) Fellows that wear downy hats and clean shirts—guilty of education and suspected of bank accounts.


    ARREST, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.

    God made the world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.

    —The Unauthorized Version

    BARRACK, n. A house in which soldiers enjoy a portion of that of which it is their business to deprive others.


    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

    I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
    The godly multitudes walked to and fro
    Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
    With pious mien, appropriately sad,
    While all the church bells made a solemn din—
    A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
    Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
    With tranquil face, upon that holy show
    A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
    Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
    “God keep you, strange,” I exclaimed. “You are
    No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
    And yet I entertain the hope that you,
    Like these good people, are a Christian too.”
    He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
    It made me with a thousand blushes burn
    Replied— his manner with disdain was spiced:
    “What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I’m Christ.”

    G.J.

    CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.


    DEBT, n. An ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slave-driver.

    As, pent in an aquarium, the troutlet
    Swims round and round his tank to find an outlet,
    Pressing his nose against the glass that holds him,
    Nor ever sees the prison that enfolds him;
    So the poor debtor, seeing naught around him,
    Yet feels the narrow limits that impound him,
    Grieves at his debt and studies to evade it,
    And finds at last he might as well have paid it.

    Barlow S. Vode

    DISOBEDIENCE, n. The silver lining to the cloud of servitude.

    DISOBEY, v.t. To celebrate with an appropriate ceremony the maturity of a command.

    His right to govern me is clear as day,
    My duty manifest to disobey;
    And if that fit observance e’er I shut
    May I and duty be alike undone.

    FINANCE, n. The art or science of managing revenues and resources for the best advantage of the manager. The pronunciation of this word with the i long and the accent on the first syllable is one of America’s most precious discoveries and possessions.

    GOOSE, n. A bird that supplies quills for writing. These, by some occult process of nature, are penetrated and suffused with various degrees of the bird’s intellectual energies and emotional character, so that when inked and drawn mechanically across paper by a person called an “author,” there results a very fair and accurate transcript of the fowl’s thought and feeling. The difference in geese, as discovered by this ingenious method, is considerable: many are found to have only trivial and insignificant powers, but some are seen to be very great geese indeed.



    HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

    Of Roman history, great Niebuhr’s shown
    ‘Tis nine-tenths lying. Faith, I wish ’twere known,
    Ere we accept great Niebuhr as a guide,
    Wherein he blundered and how much he lied.

    Salder Bupp



    LAW, n.

    Once Law was sitting on the bench,
         And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
    “Clear out!” he cried, “disordered wench!
         Nor come before me creeping.
    Upon your knees if you appear,
    ‘Tis plain your have no standing here.”

    Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
         “Your status?— devil seize you!”
    Amica curiae,” she replied—
         “Friend of the court, so please you.”
    “Begone!” he shouted— “there’s the door—
    I never saw your face before!”

    G.J.

    LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
    LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.

    Israfel Brown

    LEARNING, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.



    LIBERTY, n. One of Imagination’s most precious possessions.

    The rising People, hot and out of breath,
    Roared around the palace: “Liberty or death!”
    “If death will do,” the King said, “let me reign;
    You’ll have, I’m sure, no reason to complain.”

    Martha Braymance

    LYRE, n. An ancient instrument of torture. The word is now used in a figurative sense to denote the poetic faculty, as in the following fiery lines of our great poet, Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

    I sit astride Parnassus with my lyre,
    And pick with care the disobedient wire.
    That stupid shepherd lolling on his crook
    With deaf attention scarcely deigns to look.
    I bide my time, and it shall come at length,
    When, with a Titan’s energy and strength,
    I’ll grab a fistful of the strings, and O,
    The word shall suffer when I let them go!

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/bierce/bierce.html

    Farquharson Harris

     
  • rogerglewis 8:18 am on June 16, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    On Camel Toes and Camels Noses. 

    I decided to do some research on the Thin end of the Wedge, The Slippery Slope, The Camels nose ( not toe). Anyway its the Camel toes in power that have surely got their foot well and truly in the door.

     “Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to.´´ 

    They Thought They Were Free
    The Germans, 1933-45
    Milton Mayer http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html 


    Another illuminating Article from this period in history is the subjkect of a blog I wrote or rather a para phrase I blogged here.
    The Narcissism of Small Differences. In Group Bias.
    http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2012/11/the-narcissism-of-small-differences-in.html


    For Want of a Nail

    For want of a nail the shoe was lost.For want of a shoe the horse was lost.For want of a horse the rider was lost.For want of a rider the message was lost.For want of a message the battle was lost.For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.



    Camel Toes and poltitician Hoes
    Hold your Nose, corruption Grows!


    Maybe theres a song in here somewhere.
     
  • rogerglewis 8:26 am on June 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    ´´A cottage in the Country and Roses round the door´´ 

    http://ianchadwick.com/blog/not-a-john-lennon-quote-just-another-bad-meme/

    What I am trying to figure out is why this apparently mis attributed quote causes some people such anquish.
    I decided to google the Term ´´A cotttage in the Country and Roses around the door´´which incidentally will see me learning a version of Willie Nelsons Country Willie today, I have always loved that song.

    Back to the Not Joh Lennon quote, A quote which I think He or indeed most of the people I know would be proud of and relate too.
    “When I was five years old, my Mom told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wrote down “happy”. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment and I told them they didn’t understand life.”

    And Now For Country Willie
    You called me Country Willie
    The night you walked away
    With the one who promised you a life of joy
    You thought my life too simple
    And your was much too gay
    To spend it living with a country boy
    I’m writing you this letter
    I write you every day
    I hope that you’ve received the ones before
    But I’ve heard not one word from you
    And every day I pray
    That you will not forget your country boy
    While you’re living in the city
    With riches round your door
    Is this your love
    Is this your kind of joy
    Or do you find
    There’s something missing
    Does your heart cry out for more
    And do you sometimes miss your country boy
    [ steel ]
    A cottage in the country
    With roses round the door
    Could not compete
    With flashing city lights
    But it’s all I have to offer
    Except for one thing more
    A heart so filled with love
    That it could die
    Well it’s time to end this letter
    The light of dawn is near
    A lonely night has passed
    But there’ll be more
    Just one more thing in closing
    For all the world to hear
    Come home I love you
    Signed your country boy

    More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/w/willie_nelson/

     
  • rogerglewis 7:50 am on June 14, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Reflection. 

    Time was, a sober Englishman would knock
    His servants up, and rise by five o’clock,
    Instruct his family in every rule,
    And send his wife to church, his son to school.
    To worship like his fathers, was his care;
    To teach their frugal virtues to his heir;
    To prove, that luxury could never hold;
    And place, on good security, his gold.
    Now times are changed, and one poetic itch
    Has seized the court and city, poor and rich:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2428/2428-h/2428-h.htm

    When I sat down at my computer today to recap I looked at Facebook and realised that discussions disappear very quickly they recede into mists of ones ´´Wall´´and I wondered if it was a sort of metaphor for a lack of Reflection, an obstacle to re capping assessing ones bearings and taking time to Smell The Roses, or perhaps the Sewer.

    I looked at a page of quotes on reflection and was struck by this one from Alexander Pope
    ´´Remembrance and reflection how allied. What thin partitions divides sense from thought´´.

    Consequently I will be studying Popes Essay on Man Today.
    In the introduction to the linked edition it says this which also struck me as very wise cousel.

    ”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.
    Henry Morley.

    Another striking quote from my reading, I started at about 6 am it is now 9.07am was this.

    ´´Authors, like coins, grow dear as they grow old; it is the rust we value, not the gold”

    Which lead me to this lovely poem by Mary Le Mer, its called the White Widow.
    If Pope doesn’t float your boat this may well get your day off to a reflective start.
    http://deepinherwaves.blogspot.se/2012/01/authors-like-coins-grow-dear-as-they.html

     
  • rogerglewis 3:43 am on June 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Studies show that rich men not only have more sex than poor men, but their sexual partners are way hotter. What should we make of these findings? 

    “Love is a temporary madness, it erupts like volcanoes and then subsides. And when it subsides, you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion, it is not the desire to mate every second minute of the day, it is not lying awake at night imagining that he is kissing every cranny of your body. No, don’t blush, I am telling you some truths. That is just being “in love”, which any fool can do. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident.” 
― Louis de Bernières, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin 

The ability to nurture and provide the other with security and peace of mind is not merely a function of Monetary wealth. Monetary wealth in many respects may well denote an absence of the required qualities to be a participating and contributing partner to a relationship both sexual and platonic. I agree with you that the OP was rather thin on offering any sort of evidence offering perhaps a memetic banality of the Pea Cock variety ( Pea Cocks get a mention elsewhere in the thread). 
My personal experiences are not modern and worrying about whether or not I am going to ´´get laid´´ passed in my long since passed teenaged years. In Sweden there is a saying. 
´´Big Car Small Dick´´My Father In Law once ryely intimated this folk wisdom to me at the Local Gas Station as a Sunglassed paragon of Stockholm style was donning the little plastic gloves to charge the Tank of a very shiny and very large motor car. It was very dark and around midnight, the moon was not shining bright enough for the sunglasses to have any practical effect. I think my Father in law assessing the scene felt sufficient evidence existed that in the case of this Rakish Gent the small humorous generalisation was warranted. 
I do not recall the occupancy of the passenger seat at the Scene and can not attest to the prowess, regularity or indeed quality of the ´Other´´said Rake may or may not have been enjoying with that nights or any other partner or indeed of what sex they may have been. 

To be crude, If it is true that Birds of Feather Fuck as well as fly together. I might venture that the idea of attracting opposites is not operating in the studies that Donald had in mind with his indexed Meme. I might add my Father in law may have been having a little dig at me at the time a Rolls Royce and Bentley were snuggled in the Garage of my English Estate amongst other automotive ego props acquired following my divorce. This Kinks Classic is a great song, As the first person narrating the song is sat there with his Ice Cold Beer Sans Yacht and Car perhaps, Ray Davis is describing a form of State contraception enforced through her majesties revenue and customs.

     
  • rogerglewis 2:24 pm on June 11, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Illusions and impossible dreams. 

    Eschers hands draw each other and the discussion that is allowed is to argue which of the two hands is to be Cutting the cake and which one choosing all the while only offering the crumbs to the useless eaters who are basically the rest of us our Hamster wheel existences based upon Eschers Staircase..


     photo 250px-DrawingHands.jpg  photo Eschers_Relativity.jpg

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel