New Levels of Hubris
This Administration has achieved a new level of hubris. They have the gall to go to a hungry child and tell them they are NOT hungry, just food deprived. That is right, there is NO more hunger in the United States, just a lack of food. Well some might question why this is important, just ask the hungry child if they understand they are food deprived and not really hungry. Get back to me when the child says they are NO longer hungry.
It is one thing when these cretins play word games with grown ups, but to play this kind of unconscionable word game strikes of stooping into OJ territory. There is probably some correlation here, after all both OJ and these assclowns put themselves FIRST at the peril of everyone else including the children. OJ, his children, these cretins, all the rest. First in running a credit card system of funding the federal government which the children will have to figure out some way to pay for when they become adults. But even worse changing the wording they use to describe the child's empty stomach.
Only in an alternate reality could they think changing the words they use do anything to improve the situation. Yes they might not to have to hear about hungry children anymore, so in that meaning it releases their consciouses from having to realize the hungry child is a result of the policies they fought for and support. In the real world, they have not improved the child's situation, but then again they were NEVER about that were they?
One question, did Jesus call them food deprived children, or did Jesus understand their hunger pangs...and call a Pharisee a hypocrite. These people make the pharisee of Jesus's days seem mild by comparison, at least Herod could accept he created the conditions of the Hungry child. These empty hollow people can not even admit that much. They have NO plan to feed the children, just change the way they describe it. So they can dishonestly say we have NO more hungry children, just some families that are food deprived. I hope they choke on their next meal and get to explain it all to Jesus real soon.
posted by clif at 10:25 AM
12 Comments:
Bush is supposed to be a "Compassionate Conservative" but that only applies to election time.
In fact the whole 'Repugnant Republican Party" claim to have higher "values" higher "morals" and they claim they are "more religious" than people of different political views.
Throughout the Bible, we are commanded to take care of the poor, and yet the Bush government refuse to do that.
Bush and his philosophy of being a" Compassionate Conservative" seems to leave out the 35 million people in America, who go to bed hungry everynight.
If Bush would spend the $2 trillion he will waste in Iraq, on taking care of the poor in America, and rebuilding the manufacturing base, much of the problems of the homeless and hungry in America would go away.
Lou Dobbs reports that the Bush administration has classified them as "low food security" instead of the much harsher term hungry.
Does the new Bush phrase "low food security" make the starving in America any less hungry?
Bush claims he is a "Compassionate Conservative" yet he refuses to help 35 million hungry people in America.
George W Bush and the Republican Party, "Conserving Compassion" for the wealthy.
Gary, sometimes you write to people in their own language, not arguing facts, but the fact they fail in keeping the truths of their myths, reread what I wrote thinking NOT of if it is true or not, but are they keeping faith with what they claim is true.
My argument of Jesus words are "HIS" philosophy, not if it is a fact or not, which when accepted as a workable philosophy of life, has worked wonders as both Gandhi and Dr King showed.
All I am arguing with bringing in the image of Jesus, is what does he say to the Christians who claim to believe in him, and do they follow in the footsteps of their beliefs.
Gary the last LINE was hyperbole, not a statement of fact.
It was simply what I would ask a believing Christian to see how Karma would deal with such an aberration of what they believe in.
I am NOT an atheist, and have personal beliefs which include an Idea of a God, but not the fatherly biblical God, and definately not the dominionist fundamentalist god the reichwingers hold dear.
The God I believe in could have NEVER conceived of a place like hell, let alone any of his creations be forced to spend eternity there.
The "historical" Jesus of the writings of the Bible have helped me form better ideas of what a God would want us to be like.
Gary just as we could not exactly agree on what free speech really means and what affects it can have, the same will probably hold sway for the spiritual realm, I do NOT believe in organized religion, but do believe each of us has a spiritual side which must be explored to fully live life to the fullest.
Remember I am writing to am American audience for the most part and commenting on American actions for the most part also.
Gary, I have read Einstein on this and basically agree with HIM...along with other authors I have read.
I have studied Buddhism in college, but never really practiced it.
I see the fact that the vast majority of the human race seeks some sort of spiritual life as a sort of tactic admission that it is part of our being.
I also studied quite a bit of philosophy spending time on Existentialism, which is also part of the formation of my spiritual beliefs.
I guess you could say I was an existential deist who has Christian roots which I probably will never completely escape in my spiritual quest.
Gary, you believe in atheism, I do not.
I believe in spirituality, you do not.
There is NOTHING wrong with this, it just means we simply disagree....
Neither of us could PROVE our individual beliefs are true....
I have a simple approach to disagreements like this, I allow you your beliefs, and ask you to allow me mine.
The ONLY time I get upset about beliefs, is when ONE person or groups of people try to FORCE their personal beliefs upon others, especially when it involves coercion and violence.
Gary you can NOT destroy the belief inside of ME there is a spiritual dimension to life, which could include something which I have thought long and hard about this, and have come to this conclusion about this, and IT involves much more than just a Christian search of "western pro and anti Christian" writings. I choose to call God.
It involves me looking into what spirituality really means, and what that mans to me.
I also know that you DO NOT believe in the Christian myth, or what people who do say is real for them. That is OK, but does nothing to change the fact your opposing their beliefs with YOUR own belief.
But understand any book is simply the beliefs of the author. Especially when they attempt to "prove" that what somebody else believes is NOT true.
I have read Berkeley, Locke and Hume. I can understand what they say, but none of them have proven the negative, as it is impossible to prove the negative. They state the negative..God dos not exist and offer proofs which rests on assumptions they make which can not be proven. I have also read De Cartes, Spinosa and Kant. Each of the proofs of these philosophers rests on a basic assumption of one sort or another, which is their belief system from where they launch into the proof they want to be true. So their entire philosophy rests on some basic belief. Same with the organized religions all around this planet, and the atheistic movement. Everyone has some starting point they can NOT prove, and must accept on faith, the faith that they believe it to be true.
Atheism starts with the belief, that because you can NOT prove God to be true it means he does not exist, however there is NOT reason to accept this assertion as fact. In fact just because something can or can not be proven is NO proof of it’s existence or nonexistence. In fact that argument is a red herring from a strict philosophical standpoint. The idea that you can not prove something , IE the existence of God, is a basis for a philosophical approach to spirituality which is what atheism is, is the very same approach the people who say even though they”can not” prove God exists is no reason NOT to believe.
It still remains to be two different people who can neither prove the positive, he exists, or the negative he does not exist. Thus each side has beliefs neither can prove.
And what passes for “proof” is very suspect. Historical data is scarce for the reliable historical documentation of people that one side says are real. But just because something has not been documented to such a degree does not mean what somebody claims as truths is false, it just means it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...which is BELIEF...not fact.
In fact many things which were thought to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt have later turned out not to be true. And on the flip side, some things which were though not to be true based on reasonable doubt, have in fact turned out to be exactly that...true. That is the reason we have the courts set up the way we have here in America, because truth based on reasonable doubt, are fallible, and many innocent people have been convicted over the years. So the appellate and supreme courts are partly a check on the idea of reasonable doubt being the final arbitrator of truths. Because what we humans think is reasonable is sometimes just not what is in actuality really true. Science if chock full of examples of this...ideas which were mocked at because they defied reasonableness, have trumped the accepted notions of that day. And some things which were held as true above question have fallen to be merely the best thoughts able to explain the physical world as those at the time saw it.
All writings from the Christian era lacks much historical accuracy which people who do not believe want. The gospels were written MANY years after the death of Christ from a historical perspective, but nothing in that argument means they are false. It just means they can not be considered first person historical documentation.
Just as writings seeking to disprove the historical Christ has little real facts to go non, but usually rest on the assumption that because Christ can not be proven a historical fact it means those who promote the idea he was real are all frauds. Which philosophically is unsupportable. Just because somebody thinks something is real, but they can not prove it, it does NOT follow they are a fraud. Just that they must call their beliefs faith, not fact.
So in reality, and person who argues from a spiritual or religious perspective is simply arguing for the affirmative idea that something spiritual exists, where an atheist is arguing from the beliefs that it does not. Both are arguing articles of FAITH even if they want to believe they are not arguing for their particular faith.
Gary all the writing you did to "disprove" the cannons of the christian gospel is OK, but since my idea of proof is Kantian, and all proofs rely on A Priori expierence, all you have for proof is your senses, which can be wrong, thus your "proofs" rest on your senses, which is OK as long as YOU admit that your relying on sensory expierence for proof of one thing and rejecting all other expierence that is NOT sensory.
Thus you WANT to exist in a world limited to sensory expierence, and NOTHING else. That is fine, others wish to believe in more.
But both of us are making choices as to what constitutes reality and what does not. Your..."proofs" would NOT allow quantum mechanics, which deny logical reality and solid proofs. In fact quantum mechanics states there are some things which can only be expierenced incompletely in the physical realm, thus BY extension, something more exists than your logical reliance on sensory expierence allows.
Like I said, existsential deism, not limited to a book compiled out of writings that were sifted for the ones that the leadership of the "church" at the time, felt would justify theior views of christ and solidify their positions in that religion.
One reason I read Einstein, was because he could NOT accept the precepts of Quantum Mechanicse as proposed at the time.
It was too mystical and irrational for him, in fact he was quoted as saying "God does not play dice" and I wonder why he couldn't. Why did God have to follow OUR rules about him or HER, that was where I began the journey, along with courses from a professor of both comparative religions and the philosophical approachs to religious expierence.
I spend as much time looking into modern subatomic physics and astronomy as I do reading something by some religious philosophers, because I think I can learn as much about the creator looking at his greatest work, the Universe, and it's intricate workings at the subatomic level as I can listening to somebody's opinion of that god.
I look at many things, and have NO problem including darwinism and relativity into my religious views because our science is an attempt to understand how the universe works, and as such just trying to find out how he or she made it all work.
See Gary I do not have to defend the bible to you or anybody because to me, it is only one of the ways the creater tried to communicate with us, Buddism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, in the real essence of each of them is an attempt by somebody or group of people to communicate with God, and the problems start in my opinion when a sect of people for political control try to codify that communication and create dognmatic ways to do it.
A heratic in my view is the person who blindly follows a set of rules they have not expierenced themselves and therefore have not REAl connection with. In many ways I probably would agree with the books you cite but for different reasons than the author wrote them. It is not that Jesus NEVER existed that they ever can prove, but the fact that so many people want to take what he said and twist it into a prezil to reset the philosophical underpinnings so that Jesus would agree with what ever they say at the time whether it is slavery, bombing Iraq, burning witches at the stake, or gaining wealth that would make Ceaser seem like a pauper today.
I have reasons for what I believe but KNOW it is a belief, NOT fact that is why, with out somebody asking, I do not expound on it.
Besides part of my heritage is Cherokee Indian so I spent some time looking into their beliefs also, and they held beliefs that would upset most religious philosophers, but did much less damage to this planet with their beliefs than any European based religious or philosophical system ever has, and they had a good set of principles as far as living and comming to peace with this planet.
Gary beliefs, pre-exist knowledge, because you have to accept so much on faith in any attempt to be scientific, the scroll that you wrote about no MORE disproves Jesus in this day and time than the Bible proves him, each side is puttimg faith in the truths of the parchments they use to prove or disprove what ever.
If I want to prove something, I have to find examples of "proofs" which could never be forged or faked. Most scientific tests are open to that horrible 'interpretation' idea. Somebody postulates something and offers their proofs, some accept those proofs some do not. Beliefs, which rest on faith in the proofs or reject those proofs.
Your arguing for proofs based on your beliefs in a certain type of science, but probability theory says everything is possible, however inprobable it may be. That is part of the basis of Quantum Mechanics, and the second part was the uncertainity principle, which states you can only know part of anything for absolute fact, which means everything we can expierence is limited to that which we can measure at the time. The two of these principles are the underpinnings of MODREN PHYSICS, and helped to create the laser, microcircutry, the microwave, among other things. Each of these things are REAL but their exact workings unexplainable in detail so faith is necessary at the level that Quantum Mechanics works even if not totally explainable.
I can accept that untidy explanation as scientific, and can also accept there are other things which are real even if I have no wayto directly expierence them.
BTW Gary, I will never defend any "religious text" as being the revealed truth, just a possible path. A possible line of communication if used properly, too many people do not use it properly, thy want to make their personal favorite supreme, and deny all others. I see it different.
I can accept both the quanta and the beatitudes as religious expierence according to your frame of mind.
You are the claimant "how he or she [god] made it all [the Universe]work." I am the skeptic. So the burden of proof is ON YOU. If you cannot prove god made a Universe THEN GOD DIDN'T.
That statement is NOT logically consistent, just because of MY poor ability to prove something, does NOT mean it does not exist, IT just means I have poor arguments for it. BTW the burden of me proving something DOES not also exist, that is NOT true, it is YOUR bias there is many things I can not prove, but they exist. I REFUSE TO ACCEPT YOUR DEMAND I PROVE SOMETHING YOU LACK THE ABILITY TO DISPROVE. It is not something you have the right do lay at my feet alone, the burden of proving or disproving something always rests equally on BOTH sides.
Such a thing could be A black hole for example, it can NOT be "proven" just all evidence at this time supports their existence. I am willing to accept that evidence and what scientist say it "means" but they have NOT proven there is such a thing as a black hole beyond all scientific doubt forever.
All your argument about Jesus and the Biblical truths about him are nice to read, but your attacking something I never said was the real TRUTH.
And you keep separating ideas of "the natural" from "the supernatural", however in string theory the 26 dimensional Universe, or even the 10 dimensional Universe could be very well considered super natural to many.
You make a sharp distinction in these two concepts where I see they appear different to many, in fact the argument that just because some people believe different than I do invalidates MY beliefs, is not proof, just comparing different beliefs.
And even Christians do not agree on what they believe, as Muslims do not agree, the battles between Shiites and Sunnis are just that disagreements over what they believe is true.
Because a vast majority do not believe something DOES not make it untrue, just not widely accepted.
BTW I am not arguing for eternal life, but the belief there is something that I choose to call God that exists and has attributes the senses can not easily decipher, and all scientific measurement rests directly on the five senses, because while math is metaphysical, scientific measurement exists in the "real" world, which we experience with our senses.
So science is directly rooted in sensory experience because of the requirement for scientific validity which itself rests on experimental observations to verify theory.
It is in a way a self fulfilling prophecy, if YOU accept sensory experience as the final arbitrator of what is real, then your science and Math will be your proofs, if you do not accept sensory experience as the final arbitrator of what is real, then you look outside science for more.
BUT both sets of beliefs rest on what your willing to accept as the final; arbitrator of what is real.
BTW mathematics is a good measurement system and logically consistent, if you accept the axioms of MATH, the axioms are logically consistent just NOT provable with out using math to prove math.
The inability if Euclidean geometry to be the ONLY geometry allowed opened the door mathematically for some of Einstein's theory's which are the basis of MODERN PHYSICS, thus math has two logically consistent systems of geometry which conflict with each other, and rely on axioms which can NOT be proven.
The logical inconsistencies of science and math alway seem to point to the NEW breakthroughs which means neither are the final arbitrator of the full truth just road maps which provide a framework to look at it, but not the thing itself.
I am NOT saying science is NOT real or contains truths, just NOT all of them.
BTW the mathematical matrix is NOT the real, but a abstract of it, which we use to try to understand something far too complex to understand with out reducing it to an abstract concept, which means it is NOT real, but a mental abstract idea of the real.
Math is in a way a religion of numbers, concepts, proofs and axioms , not the real world.
Gary your asking for proofs that physical sciences demand of metaphysical areas, a fooles errand
Science can not prove a thought yet, neither can they prove an emotion, all they can do is record actions and reactions of a body and attempt to correlate those actions or reactions to something we call thought or emotion.
My beliefs are NOT a thesis project to present to some college professors but what I believe.
Therefore you last statement is inoperative here, I am NOT attempting to prove something to YOU, just assert my right to believe it.
That is WHERE we depart and why we will never agree, because you want to use the ideals of science to go where it has no way to operate. Science has NO ability to validate thoughts of beliefs, but you want scientific proofs, which I will state once again, I do NOT need to do for you, that is YOU responsibility.
I reject the requirement to prove anything to you because it is NOT me demanding YOU believe what I say, it is you demanding that I believe what you say, so the burden is still ON YOU
I am not demanding you believe what I believe, just demanding the right to believe it.
Your the one who has attempted to ridicule what I believe, THUS since your first post the burden of proof has always been ON you.
Clif,
Regarding religion. I find it discomforting that so many Americans mix religion with politics. I'm an atheist and for MANY good reasons. Here are a couple of them;
Everything has followed this statement, that YOU do not like what I said, thus YOU attacked my beliefs, and a lot of other beliefs I do not hold, but other people do.
Prove what your saying, or admit your bias, which is you do not like what I wrote.
Just because you do not like the fact that I believe something and attempt to attack the idea of believing something which defies scientific proofs is NOT the final arbitrator of what is true.
If you want to say there is NO God, that is fine because that is YOUR belief, which I can respect, but since I have a different belief, and I posted something as part of that belief, I have no need to scientifically validate my beliefs, only those who attack such a belief as false, has that responsibility.
No where will you find me saying your beliefs are WRONG, just the fact I believe something different.
I can respect your right to believe what ever you choose to believe, why can't you accept my right to believe what I choose to believe especially since I never attacked your beliefs about free speech as you have my beliefs of the metaphysical?
1. Only partly agree, because what is agreed upon to be real from that which is not real is VERY open to debate.
Eastern cultures would never agree with what you think is the real.
They describe an illusionary deception that we all believe in, so your first assumption you want me to agree with is not very solid....
2. My idea of a God does not rely on there being any sort of after life for humans. In fact it is a moot point for a God. The entire earth is a speck in the Universe, and the history of the Human race is a "comma" in comparison the the History of the Universe.
3. My question as to why a God must follow the rules humans write for him or her is not limited to Einstein quote, but that is the best frame of reference I have for what it means to me.
My question also includes to why must God do as we say whether we be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu. Why do we get to write what rules he must follow?
4-8 a summation of our positions.
However, your statement that God has nothing to do with reality is UNPROVEN, and UNPROVABLE.
Hense we slog thru your posting about somebody I neither accept his limitations of what is acceptable proofs, and the relevance he places on each.
Ending up with;
The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
Neither is IT your right to say because you can not prove something as false, that you have the right to attempt to force somebody who believes it ...to prove something they choose to believe to YOU.
It is simple, I have free speech which I do not have to justify, and I have the right to choose to believe what ever I choose, with NO obligation to prove my beliefs to anybody.
To attempt to do otherwise smacks of a form of fascism, where somebody gets to set the rules for others, while the others have not the same rights.
I do not attack your beliefs, just choose to believe something different, PROOF not required.
To demand a proof for something I personally believe, is not much different than forcing me to accept a certain political belief, even if I choose to believe in different political ideals.
Either we allow freedoms of belief as well as expression, or we begin a slide down a slippery slope towards..forms of totalitarianism which prescribe what is acceptable for beliefs, speech and actions.....not where I want to be.
I want freedoms of thought and beliefs, which are not subject to another's prejudices or limitations.
That is where I want to live. That is why I propose we agree to disagree.
There is NEVER going to be an onus to Mr Dawkins or you or anybody for ME to justify my beliefs....they are what I believe based on my experience, readings discussions and thoughts, and NOBODY has a right to question why I believe them, to do so is fascist because it smacks of 1984 where even thoughts were subject to approval, and that is not what I accept.
I demand the right to believe in what I choose, and am willing to extend that right to the rest of the human race, too bad so many others are not so open minded.
BTW Gary, you will enjoy this article,
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
it is germane here as you will soon see.
Gary what we disagree about is what constitutes reality.
You demand reality is ONLY what we can experience in some way with our senses, but I say more exists than that, and since historically reality has been much more than just sensory experience, I think I have that on my side.
Until the age of modern science, the limits of our senses was GREAT compared to what we consider reality to be NOW.
There were NO provable molecules or atoms let alone sub atomic particles or "string theory". All of which I accept with NO problem. I just say we are still TOO LIMITED to know all of reality, and thus your argument rests on the faith that what we have is enough to close the door on any other possibilities, I do not accept that.
DNA and the human genome is very recent discoveries. They are good vehicles for explaining what we are made of and why, but still leave many questions open to speculation.
There is far too much unexplained to say you can close the door to any thing you would conclude to be metaphysical.
And it does NOT require big hairy balls to deny the possibility of what you can not prove either true or untrue, just a closed mind.
Define reality Clif. Can you?
Reality is ALL that exists whether we can perceive it or NOT, science does NOT have the final word on reality, unless you want it to.
Do NOT give me any somewhat snide remarks about MY bias, because that is the most open minded definition of reality I can give, just because YOU want to limit your definition do NOT lay it on me.
I do NOT accept your limits on ME so reject your limitations on what is real or rational.
Your stuck in the same western mindset which places the western scientific world view that western based societies have used for centuries to dominate this planet, I do not accept they have the lock on truth.
BTW my disagreement of point 1;
1. Only partly agree, because what is agreed upon to be real from that which is not real is VERY open to debate.
Eastern cultures would never agree with what you think is the real.
They describe an illusionary deception that we all believe in, so your first assumption you want me to agree with is not very solid....
is based on my rejection of the western based greco-roman philosophical being the only true.
I do NOT grant Aristotle the right to order thinking. and if you do not accept the Aristotle based philosophy as the beginning of definitions, you can find other "truths" which are just as valid, just not ones that fit in the realm of thinking that arose from Aristotle.
Sorry, but since I reject you the right to frame the debate in Aristotelian terms, it leaves me free to use MY own. Which makes a philosophical discussion in some sort of limbo.
What we are doing is sort of the dicotomy between Marxists and Capitalists, they NEVER agreed on what was the right place to begin, and what was the right measures of economic progress and equality of the masses, so they could NEVER agree.
I simply do NOT agree with the way you want to divide what is real from what is NOT real. I accept that your lists are not real, BUT I NEVER SAID they were, you call me dishonest, but keep trying to put words and Ideas in my arguments I do not attempt to argue, LIKE your discussion of the unreality of Christianity as expressed by organized religion, which to me was and is a moot point in this debate.
I have never tried to defend it, in fact I personally believe most of what is commonly expressed as the right way to practice that religion especially in societies based on the western style of government whether the hereditary aristocracies of old Europe, or the Capitalistic "democracies" of today, has MORE to do with framing it for the advantage of those who wish to exert power over the masses than true SPIRITUALITY.
I am NOT refusing to debate honesty, just refusing to allow YOU to frame the debate, define all the terms I use, and refuse to accept your limits, because I have the right to believe something different than YOU.
Like I said, we are debating a spiritual idea, which is like arguing whether something is real or not with no possibility of ever proving it.
Sort of like when some scientists think there could be alternate universes, something we will never have any way of proving, since we exist in this one.
But THAT is scientific ...RIGHT?
Not to me, it is a faith based argument, the possibility exists, and some believe it, some do not, neither can prove the other wrong EVER.
I have not been dishonest, but the opposite, I have argued my beliefs, which are not dishonest, just not provable with western based Aristotelian based science. But science, like you said, "science is the only ONGOING arbitrator of what is real from what is not real."
Not true, but since it is ongoing and even has to reform it's ideas from time to time, because what was formerly held to be scientifically true is found to be no longer totally true for all time and possible applications, means it can NOT be the final arbitrator. At best it is the best explanation for what we can perceive or mathematically prove even though there is NO experimental proof as of yet, BUT there are areas where science still leaves too much unexplained, and there are areas where science seems to have NO way to proceed.
Thus science has it's limits also.
BTW whether you realize it or NOT this quote;
Clif "You demand reality is ONLY what we can experience in some way with our senses"
No I do not. That is what you keep misrepresenting my statements as. I repeat, reality is what we DO have proof of
1.directly
2.indirectly
3.sensory
4.non-sensory
Is open to interpretation, especially #4 Because non-sensory proofs can include things which NOT all people can experience, thus have no ability to accept as real.
Gary, we will never agree, just as Adam Smith and Karl Marx never agreed.
We have two different sets of ideas, and acceptable proofs for what is real, you want a science based set, I do not demand reality to be so closed.
I am NOT saying your is wrong, and mine is right, just that we disagree and am willing to leave it at that.
Another way to put it, is, science can study Bethovens Fifth symphony all it wants, BUT unless it is played and experienced science misses the point. Gary I have spent years studying the Fine arts, so approach life as an artist, NOT a scientist, thus have a completely different set of criteria for what is real to me, and what I am willing to allow to frame my bias's and universe. I do think a lot, but in the end it is the artist in me that decides what I believe, not the rigorous set of rules which OTHERS want me to accept. I guess i should have said this earlier, then you would have understood your arguing with a classically trained painter, who is interested in philosophy and modern physics, but uses the artistic approach, NOT the scientific approach to life.
I do not allow rationality rule my entire life because I have artistic experiences which defy rationality, and include them as important clues to what is ultimately real. and since personal experience is NEVER a good starting point for science which demands theories and experimental proofs, it does sort of set us up to never agree.
Gary in some ways I do live in an alternate universe on the same planet as you.
Bet you'd never have guess My College degrees were in the fine arts would you. I am still more of a artist than scientist...and accept my artistic nature as as good arbitrator of reality as you do your scientific side, it is NOT lying that me write what I write, just a completely different set of values, separate approach to philosophy, and different willingness to accept what constitutes reality.
Post a Comment
<< Home