Skip to comments.
ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
Karl Jaspers Forum ^
| August 21, 2001
| Varadaraja V. Raman
Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 601-619 next last
To: tpaine
Can you actually make a reply in your own words, using your own reasoning, -- on the issue at hand, --- or will we be subjected to more of your cut/paste musings from various obscure 'philosophers'? Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable. I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"
BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."
541
posted on
08/21/2003 4:43:17 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
To: unspun; RightWhale; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; Doctor Stochastic; Right Wing Professor; Physicist; ...
Order is statistical. Order is statistical? Intrinsically??? Or is it that quantum epistemological technique requires us to "sample" nature through the mathematical sciences, preeminently statistics? But what is "really real": Nature -- the universe -- or statistics? Or is the "tool" we use -- statistics -- everything there is, or at least everything that "matters?"
IMHO, you absolutely need this epistemology. But the "complementary" of epistemology -- it seems to me -- is ontology.
542
posted on
08/21/2003 4:52:28 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
To: tpaine; betty boop
tpaine, maybe you should consider not yielding to betty boop's temptations. Just a thought.
Your enemy is right down the road, at that next meeting hall.
You mean "Jehovah's Witnesses?" Oh, no, that's "Kingdom Hall." Let's see... I don't think you mean American Legion, either... Moose Lodge? Oh! The Village Hall?! Sometimes it seems like they're my enemy, all-right.
tp, my/your enemy is conquered, for those regenerate in Christ.
543
posted on
08/21/2003 4:56:46 PM PDT
by
unspun
("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
To: betty boop
Order is statistical? Intrinsically??? Among other characteristics, yes. The opposite end of the axis of being from organic. The statistical mass versus the organism of individuals.
544
posted on
08/21/2003 4:59:06 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: betty boop
Betty, I'm not anti-religious, - I'm anti-zealot, as was Koestler.
You would think that individual freedom would be argued loudest by religious people in their own self interest. I'm afraid the zealots have the floor, -- and the podium.
Do you think I'm a zealot, tpaine?
Not at all betty, but you're giving a excellent impression of being unable to comment on the answers to questions you've asked me, thus leading you to ask yet more questions.
Can you actually make a reply in your own words, using your own reasoning, -- on the issue at hand, --- or will we be subjected to more of your cut/paste musings from various obscure 'philosophers'?
Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable.
How droll. You've been asking me questions, then when I reply you ignore the answer, and ask yet another question. An old, obvious and silly technique to give an illusion of debate. Here's the next one:
I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"
It came from the mind of the men that wrote it, betty. -- Duh.
BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."
Whatever.
545
posted on
08/21/2003 5:10:28 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: unspun
unspun, maybe you should consider not yielding to the temptation that you have something to add to the issue.
Just a thought.
546
posted on
08/21/2003 5:13:55 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: tpaine
One thing's for sure: There can be no moral code in a situation where everybody is "free" to make up his own as he goes along. Directly contradicted by the first two hundred years of our american experiment in a constitutional republic.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "This nation will cease to be great when it ceases to be good?" Part of the recipe for American success isn't just the "freedom" aspect, but the "responsibility" aspect. I and others take the view that the responsibility aspect is linked to a desire to do good, to please God.
I suppose you would argue that the responsibility need can be satisfied if people want to do good for "the society at large," rather than to God. My problem with that is that the flawed human perceptions of "doing good for society" too often roll into totalitarian models of accomplishing it.
I think what makes it all work, in America's case, is humility before God. I think arrogance is the enemy of our great society and believe that, without striving to comport with God's Law, our arrogance goes unchecked, and the wheels come off.
547
posted on
08/21/2003 5:34:26 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: betty boop; RightWhale; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; Doctor Stochastic; Right Wing Professor; Physicist; ..
Order is statistical? Intrinsically??? Or is it that quantum epistemological technique requires us to "sample" nature through the mathematical sciences, preeminently statistics? But what is "really real": Nature -- the universe -- or statistics? Or is the "tool" we use -- statistics -- everything there is, or at least everything that "matters?" IMHO, you absolutely need this epistemology. But the "complementary" of epistemology -- it seems to me -- is ontology.
Very well said, betty Jean. (I was responding to the previous sentence, not really to "Order is statisical.")
I suppose it could be said that mathematics is apt to play a part in describing order, therefore order is mathematical/statistical, somewhat like... geology is apt to play a part in describing a continent, therefore continents are geological. But the *nature* of a continent is much more than that, to humans --and to humans a contenent is most importantly, well, whatever it is to us.
So, I'd say in the same way, order is whatever it is, to those who behold or otherwise are engaged with it. They relate with it thus. Order like "stupid" is as order does and for whomever it does, and order is most, to the person(s) who is most conscious of and engaged with it.
That being the case, order relates most with and is defined most aptly by... (well, you know Who).
548
posted on
08/21/2003 5:35:24 PM PDT
by
unspun
("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
To: tpaine
tpaine, there are times when I'd be happy to subtract from issues in which you play a part. ;-)
549
posted on
08/21/2003 5:36:30 PM PDT
by
unspun
("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
To: XEHRpa
Well, if it wasn't Franklin who said it, it might have been Tocqueville
550
posted on
08/21/2003 5:37:06 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Do you think I'm a zealot, tpaine?You didn't ask me bbJD, but I believe you are, thank God.
zeal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zl)
n.
- Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.
551
posted on
08/21/2003 5:42:11 PM PDT
by
unspun
("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
To: betty boop
Oh, BTW betty you asked:
"-- How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? -- "
You framed the issue back at #410:
What could be the basis of community absent a shared moral law? And what could be the basis of moral law, if it were a purely human construct?
Which is to say, something that "evolves?"
You are correct to observe, I think, that moral systems built on atheist premises/worldviews have,
on the historical record, tended to tyranny and repression, not to human individual and social welfare.
It is only in postmodern times that people have tried to detach morality from its (historically) divine and transcendant Source. The result has produced personal disorder and alienation, and a breakdown in public discourse and civil order. Among other things.
Just some observations.
410 -BB-
552
posted on
08/21/2003 5:46:41 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: XEHRpa
I suppose you would argue that the responsibility need can be satisfied if people want to do good for "the society at large," rather than to God.
-pa-
You suppose wrong.
People are driven to 'do good' by self interest in having their peers do good onto them in return.
The golden rule works in a society ruled by constitutional law.
Your 'Gods law' can compliment our constitutional law, but it cannot be supreme to it.
553
posted on
08/21/2003 6:01:15 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: unspun
I'm looking forward to your self-control by subtraction.
554
posted on
08/21/2003 6:04:13 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: unspun
Thank you so much, Brother A, for your beautiful "last" to me.
555
posted on
08/21/2003 6:12:24 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
To: tpaine
And so what, exactly, was "wrong" with my observation at #410, on your view?
556
posted on
08/21/2003 6:14:44 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
To: tpaine
Your 'Gods law' can compliment our constitutional law, but it cannot be supreme to it. First of all, it's not "my God's law", but I guess that's what an atheist might think (perhaps I'm presumptuous, for which I apologize in advance). Second of all, I do not advocate a theocracy in preference to our form of government. Rather, I believe (and you disagree) that Christian theology undergirds the philosophy on which our Republic was founded and stands, and that if we, as a society, forget that, going through the motions of a constitutional republic won't save us.
But trying to coerce a faith-based response, in order to "save the Republic" is foolish, wouldn't work, and would likely backfire. So, in many ways, I'm fully in your court. But if we blow it, I'm sure you and I would come up with different reasons as to why it happened as such.
557
posted on
08/21/2003 6:16:40 PM PDT
by
XEHRpa
To: RightWhale
The statistical mass versus the organism of individuals. And this means -- ????????? Are individuals obsolete?
558
posted on
08/21/2003 6:16:56 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
To: XEHRpa
I have no idea, and could care less, which sect of Christianity you believe in, -- thus, - 'your' [version of] 'Gods law'.
Your belief that your non-religious peers 'go thru the motions' regarding their freedoms is exactly the type of attitude I see that verges on zealotry. Welcome to an evergrowing FR club.
559
posted on
08/21/2003 6:31:54 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: betty boop
Re-read the thread.
560
posted on
08/21/2003 6:35:27 PM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 601-619 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson