What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

LK: Whatever the translation, the idea of zarathustra and N themes, is a progress of sorts that is not of the overt progress of things and ideas of technology, but rather a condition, an 'evolutionary' step, if you will, of humans that is not human as we now know, but beyond what we know. Beyond good and evil; as we now live as humans in the 'twilight' of the idols, beyond idols, beyond the idols of contradictorily ethics, which is rooted in an idea of a progress of knowledge of things and how to ethically deal with them and us. It is a beyond - not a same but more or better.
This is just just my deriving his ideas in correspondance to our discussion of evolution and truth - not necessarily my views.

CHAZ:Do you not think that N had a more clear understanding of 'evolution' and that he was not talking about the biological evolution but about the evolution of society?

Is there a difference? If there is a difference, I think my point eariler, which led to my N point, is made. That humans are 'unto our own', subject not to some 'natural' law, but exactly 'our' laws. Then my point to N, which is similar to Zizek, is that we are confined as humanity is subject to nature, whereas we have no absolute indicator to know what nature may be except our own reckonning of it, which is to say that if we were to 'realize' this, we might be freeed from the dualistic form of existance by which we know our 'fearful' humanity. Thus my N allusion.

Yes there is a massive difference. One depends on the death (unselected) individuals failing; the other benefits from the conscious actions of individuals and the reproduction of culture, science, arts ed infinitem.
And here I think that the distinction between culture and nature is of most use.

[lancek4]

LK: Whatever the translation, the idea of zarathustra and N themes, is a progress of sorts that is not of the overt progress of things and ideas of technology, but rather a condition, an 'evolutionary' step, if you will, of humans that is not human as we now know, but beyond what we know. Beyond good and evil; as we now live as humans in the 'twilight' of the idols, beyond idols, beyond the idols of contradictorily ethics, which is rooted in an idea of a progress of knowledge of things and how to ethically deal with them and us. It is a beyond - not a same but more or better.
This is just just my deriving his ideas in correspondance to our discussion of evolution and truth - not necessarily my views.

CHAZ:Do you not think that N had a more clear understanding of 'evolution' and that he was not talking about the biological evolution but about the evolution of society?

LK:
Is there a difference? If there is a difference, I think my point eariler, which led to my N point, is made. That humans are 'unto our own', subject not to some 'natural' law, but exactly 'our' laws. Then my point to N, which is similar to Zizek, is that we are confined as humanity is subject to nature, whereas we have no absolute indicator to know what nature may be except our own reckonning of it, which is to say that if we were to 'realize' this, we might be freeed from the dualistic form of existance by which we know our 'fearful' humanity. Thus my N allusion.


CHAZ:
Yes there is a massive difference. One depends on the death (unselected) individuals failing; the other benefits from the conscious actions of individuals and the reproduction of culture, science, arts ed infinitem.
And here I think that the distinction between culture and nature is of most use.

LK:
So, you concur that we are not subject to any 'laws of nature' but rather it is our own 'laws' which have determined what the 'laws of nature' are ?

How else could we have such a 'real' separation of culture and nature ? Is it not that we deem it so?

[lancek4]

.








.................................................................................








Organized Labor Agreements; The World's First Meta-religion...






Organized Labor is good for everyone.



The legal, recognized agreement between labor, capital, and property in the independent spirit of the Organized Labor contract is good for everyone.



This holy trilogy of Labor, Capital, and Material/Objects is so important to individuals and to society in general, free, independent, recognized Organized Labor contracts deserve the title of the world’s first meta-religion.


Organized Labor agreements transcend time, culture, and language and provide the framework for humanistic answers that thrive in a liberal democracy.



The angels, saints, and Gods of our time are the men and women who are a part of or who support the concepts and the contracts of Organized Labor. The world is begging for the voices of Organized Labor, the believers of miracles; the harborers of the coming good and the visions of hope.




The two major problems that face individual men today and reside in every nation are;

• Religions have become meaningless.

• There is a world wide race to an economic bottom producing lower wages for Labor, disrespect for the science of Material/Objects and a momentarily misappropriated profit for Capital. None of these results are good for any of the three components of the Organized Labor contract. These results are devastating to each community and every nation as a whole.




The existing structure of existing successful Organized Labor Agreements directly addresses both problems simultaneously.

Organized Labor contracts do not replace religious beliefs or teachings they encompass them, thus the word meta-religion.


Organized Labor agreements spell out humanistic business relationships that recognize and address the best interest of the holy trinity of Organized Labor; Capital, Labor and Material/Objects.



Free, independent, legally recognized Organized Labor Agreements are successfully negotiated thousands of times world wide to the benefit of all three parties and to their immediate community.



Organized Labor supports and compliments government, especially liberal democracies. Organized Labor assists all governments and cultures in promoting a rich, stable society that is able to support higher education, the arts and moral purpose in freedom of religious beliefs.



Organized Labor Agreements are extremely responsive to economic changes and represent one of the purest forms of liberal democracy and humanistic approach to problem solving as they enrich all individuals, their community, and individual liberty in a continually rising level of world wide economic and humanistic evolution.



.

So what about those who don't subscribe to this ideal? Sounds like Marx.

Are we going to establish a new regime against the old? Or do we just suppose it should be common sense to everyone?

[chaz wyman]

LK:
Is there a difference? If there is a difference, I think my point eariler, which led to my N point, is made. That humans are 'unto our own', subject not to some 'natural' law, but exactly 'our' laws. Then my point to N, which is similar to Zizek, is that we are confined as humanity is subject to nature, whereas we have no absolute indicator to know what nature may be except our own reckonning of it, which is to say that if we were to 'realize' this, we might be freeed from the dualistic form of existance by which we know our 'fearful' humanity. Thus my N allusion.


CHAZ:
Yes there is a massive difference. One depends on the death (unselected) individuals failing; the other benefits from the conscious actions of individuals and the reproduction of culture, science, arts ed infinitem.
And here I think that the distinction between culture and nature is of most use.

LK:
So, you concur that we are not subject to any 'laws of nature' but rather it is our own 'laws' which have determined what the 'laws of nature' are ?

How else could we have such a 'real' separation of culture and nature ? Is it not that we deem it so?

No we are completely subject to the laws of nature - whatever they may be.
But 'evolution' does not exhaust the concept of what determines us. And whilst ultimately culture is the consequence of trillions of neurones firing in billions of people it is not possible to reduce our understanding of culture to that unavoidable fact.
We are best placed to understand culture and what we might call cultural evolution through the phenomenon as we understand it through our experience of it. As the understanding of love is lost by describing it as 'hormones', our understanding of culture is reduce to asinine and meaningless reductionism by the study of memes or the firing of neurones.

[Arising_uk]

And yet Bill you would promote the closed-shop, import tariffs and a nationalistic-based buying policy? Hardly the basis for a world-wide brotherhood.

[Arising_uk]

Interesting definition of a philosopher, auk.

Thank you. Is it right? Don't know, but seems to be pretty much what most of those we've called the great philosophers have done.

Even bill probably has an agenda, like us all.

What do you mean by "probably"!!

I for one have a truth in me somewhere, and I propose things or offfer things, see what response I get, if they have unnderstood my prop, attempt to clarify, so then, if I see we are on an equal definitional basis, then I can put their ideas against mine and see if my proposition was true to begin with.

This well may be a correct philosophical method but is it a philosophy?

[Godfree]

I have noticed a tactic ,
religion is often pushing it's way into organizations ,
trying to establish it'self in a variety of roles ,
like an ambulance service , or feed the children ,
feel good ideas to try and score browny points for themselves and ultimately their religion , sort of acceptance by stelth ,
and I have noticed the same tactic here , Bill often refers to feel good concepts ,
not always about god but trying to gain credibility for those who do believe in god , by expressing their other skills and concepts , like scientists ,
who believe in god , or charity workers , etc ,
I don't have any problem seeing these people as caring and helpful ,
but it doesn't change reality ,if those who believe in nonsense ,
think that by being a good citizen they will gain credibility for their religion,
I would suggest people like me can separate the two ,
and no amount of goody goody work ,
will make religion any more believable ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

I have noticed a tactic ,
religion is often pushing it's way into organizations ,
trying to establish it'self in a variety of roles ,
like an ambulance service , or feed the children ,
feel good ideas to try and score browny points for themselves and ultimately their religion , sort of acceptance by stelth ,
and I have noticed the same tactic here , Bill often refers to feel good concepts ,
not always about god but trying to gain credibility for those who do believe in god , by expressing their other skills and concepts , like scientists ,
who believe in god , or charity workers , etc ,
I don't have any problem seeing these people as caring and helpful ,
but it doesn't change reality ,if those who believe in nonsense ,
think that by being a good citizen they will gain credibility for their religion,
I would suggest people like me can separate the two ,
and no amount of goody goody work ,
will make religion any more believable ,,!!!

I think you have it backwards. Christian notions of love and charity, especially in the unitarian faith, motivated Christians to create charities in Britain where none existed in the World. Victorian do-gooders were first in the field for providing corporate responsibility, raising the living standards of the poor and bring socialism to the world.
Examples range form Rowntree, Clarkes, Barnardos, Octavia Hill, Bourneville, Quaker friendly societies....

[lancek4]

LK:
Is there a difference? If there is a difference, I think my point eariler, which led to my N point, is made. That humans are 'unto our own', subject not to some 'natural' law, but exactly 'our' laws. Then my point to N, which is similar to Zizek, is that we are confined as humanity is subject to nature, whereas we have no absolute indicator to know what nature may be except our own reckonning of it, which is to say that if we were to 'realize' this, we might be freeed from the dualistic form of existance by which we know our 'fearful' humanity. Thus my N allusion.


CHAZ:
Yes there is a massive difference. One depends on the death (unselected) individuals failing; the other benefits from the conscious actions of individuals and the reproduction of culture, science, arts ed infinitem.
And here I think that the distinction between culture and nature is of most use.

LK:
So, you concur that we are not subject to any 'laws of nature' but rather it is our own 'laws' which have determined what the 'laws of nature' are ?

How else could we have such a 'real' separation of culture and nature ? Is it not that we deem it so?

No we are completely subject to the laws of nature - whatever they may be.
But 'evolution' does not exhaust the concept of what determines us. And whilst ultimately culture is the consequence of trillions of neurones firing in billions of people it is not possible to reduce our understanding of culture to that unavoidable fact.
We are best placed to understand culture and what we might call cultural evolution through the phenomenon as we understand it through our experience of it. As the understanding of love is lost by describing it as 'hormones', our understanding of culture is reduce to asinine and meaningless reductionism by the study of memes or the firing of neurones.

As we are best placed, yet have no absolute knowledge of what this placement is, whether really true or not, are we not then in the position that what may be actually true of the universe is really our reckonning of it, that if there is an actually initself Truth of he universe then it doesn't matter? I would call this as humans being effectivly segregated from any natural law, except as much as we have deemed some of our experience 'of nature' and some of it 'knowledge'.
No? Perhaps I am missing something of what you are conveying.

In what way hormones are different than love is a situating of experience in knowledge, or maybe knowledge in experience? They are both true (h and l) yet neither escapes our knowledge. Is this symmetry thus actually or more true?

[Godfree]

I have noticed a tactic ,
religion is often pushing it's way into organizations ,
trying to establish it'self in a variety of roles ,
like an ambulance service , or feed the children ,
feel good ideas to try and score browny points for themselves and ultimately their religion , sort of acceptance by stelth ,
and I have noticed the same tactic here , Bill often refers to feel good concepts ,
not always about god but trying to gain credibility for those who do believe in god , by expressing their other skills and concepts , like scientists ,
who believe in god , or charity workers , etc ,
I don't have any problem seeing these people as caring and helpful ,
but it doesn't change reality ,if those who believe in nonsense ,
think that by being a good citizen they will gain credibility for their religion,
I would suggest people like me can separate the two ,
and no amount of goody goody work ,
will make religion any more believable ,,!!!

I think you have it backwards. Christian notions of love and charity, especially in the unitarian faith, motivated Christians to create charities in Britain where none existed in the World. Victorian do-gooders were first in the field for providing corporate responsibility, raising the living standards of the poor and bring socialism to the world.
Examples range form Rowntree, Clarkes, Barnardos, Octavia Hill, Bourneville, Quaker friendly societies....

I am basing my opinion on NZs situation ,
Salys army has places for drunks to crash ,but they don't get out of there without a bit of religious brain washing ,
feed the children always comes with a religious lesson ,
it's the thin edge of the wedge ,it's religions way of getting a foot in the door ,
if we start to rely on the service they provide ,
sooner or later we need them , to help mange society ,
we have become so used to them doing these jobs ,
we don't have much set up to do it when their gone ,
if it's not going to be an Atheist organization ,
it will have to be government , or we are back at religion ,
you don't like Atheist organizations it seems ,
so who's going to pick up the slack Chaz

[lancek4]

I have noticed a tactic ,
religion is often pushing it's way into organizations ,
trying to establish it'self in a variety of roles ,
like an ambulance service , or feed the children ,
feel good ideas to try and score browny points for themselves and ultimately their religion , sort of acceptance by stelth ,
and I have noticed the same tactic here , Bill often refers to feel good concepts ,
not always about god but trying to gain credibility for those who do believe in god , by expressing their other skills and concepts , like scientists ,
who believe in god , or charity workers , etc ,
I don't have any problem seeing these people as caring and helpful ,
but it doesn't change reality ,if those who believe in nonsense ,
think that by being a good citizen they will gain credibility for their religion,
I would suggest people like me can separate the two ,
and no amount of goody goody work ,
will make religion any more believable ,,!!!

I think you have it backwards. Christian notions of love and charity, especially in the unitarian faith, motivated Christians to create charities in Britain where none existed in the World. Victorian do-gooders were first in the field for providing corporate responsibility, raising the living standards of the poor and bring socialism to the world.
Examples range form Rowntree, Clarkes, Barnardos, Octavia Hill, Bourneville, Quaker friendly societies....

I am basing my opinion on NZs situation ,
Salys army has places for drunks to crash ,but they don't get out of there without a bit of religious brain washing ,
feed the children always comes with a religious lesson ,
it's the thin edge of the wedge ,it's religions way of getting a foot in the door ,
if we start to rely on the service they provide ,
sooner or later we need them , to help mange society ,
we have become so used to them doing these jobs ,
we don't have much set up to do it when their gone ,
if it's not going to be an Atheist organization ,
it will have to be government , or we are back at religion ,
you don't like Atheist organizations it seems ,
so who's going to pick up the slack Chaz

How about Weber's analysis of Protestantism? the mind set that those who are doing well are obviously the ones whom God has blessed.

And perhpas those who have not excelled in our society have not been 'blessed'. Or is it that our society only favor those of a particular 'make', those who's life has placed them such that they cannot but help adhereing to such a Protestant sensibility - and then those who have nothing but to recourse to such an ideology. What is 'the good'?
Could atheists grant such a repreieve for a lifetime of individual inability to 'succeed'?

[chaz wyman]

I have noticed a tactic ,
religion is often pushing it's way into organizations ,
trying to establish it'self in a variety of roles ,
like an ambulance service , or feed the children ,
feel good ideas to try and score browny points for themselves and ultimately their religion , sort of acceptance by stelth ,
and I have noticed the same tactic here , Bill often refers to feel good concepts ,
not always about god but trying to gain credibility for those who do believe in god , by expressing their other skills and concepts , like scientists ,
who believe in god , or charity workers , etc ,
I don't have any problem seeing these people as caring and helpful ,
but it doesn't change reality ,if those who believe in nonsense ,
think that by being a good citizen they will gain credibility for their religion,
I would suggest people like me can separate the two ,
and no amount of goody goody work ,
will make religion any more believable ,,!!!

I think you have it backwards. Christian notions of love and charity, especially in the unitarian faith, motivated Christians to create charities in Britain where none existed in the World. Victorian do-gooders were first in the field for providing corporate responsibility, raising the living standards of the poor and bring socialism to the world.
Examples range form Rowntree, Clarkes, Barnardos, Octavia Hill, Bourneville, Quaker friendly societies....

I am basing my opinion on NZs situation ,
Salys army has places for drunks to crash ,but they don't get out of there without a bit of religious brain washing ,
feed the children always comes with a religious lesson ,
it's the thin edge of the wedge ,it's religions way of getting a foot in the door ,
if we start to rely on the service they provide ,
sooner or later we need them , to help mange society ,
we have become so used to them doing these jobs ,
we don't have much set up to do it when their gone ,
if it's not going to be an Atheist organization ,
it will have to be government , or we are back at religion ,
you don't like Atheist organizations it seems ,
so who's going to pick up the slack Chaz

All we seem to see in your marvellous solution based on your system of belief, is to deny any useful charitable organisation from being able to contribute if it has the slightest mention of religion.
The fact is that Christian Aid, for example does not have any religion agenda at all. I know this because my partner has worked for them at the highest levels of policy making. It seems you would expel them from NZ.
Oh - and last time I looked I have NEVER seen ANY "Atheist" organisation queuing up to do charitable works - NOT ONE.
Maybe you could make a list of all these "Atheist organisations" that you are talking about ready to replace the religious ones that you will have thrown on the scrap heap in your move to a "Godfree Utopia"?

[Arising_uk]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

[Godfree]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Cheers Arising , I just joined squido , no surprise there was no Atheist Charities, I have not noticed many Atheist Charities anywhere in the world,
there was a long list of charities most of which were not religious , but no charities for Atheism , the charitable trust scam was set up for religion, so the last thing they want is Atheism cashing in on it,
when I applied here in NZ I was told by the NZ government "unlawful"
they do not see Atheism as good for the people or educational ,
we really do live in a religious dictatorship disguised as a democracy ,

[chaz wyman]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

None of which are based on a system, of belief that relies on the proof of the nonexistence of god.
They all support my view that you don't need to god to provide help and do charitable works.
For them Atheism is simply a marker which says that they are not bound to any sect.
What Godfree offers is a new sect based on a "system of belief" that demands that he can prove a negative.