evil has no inherent root

[Marblehead]

Hate is fearing through ignorance.

If one concluded fearing, one would also have concluded the illusion of hating.

I disagree but doubt there is any value in discussing it any further.

[iain]

Hello Brian,

... I am not a Christian, merely a student of many subjects, each of which shapes my essence and my beliefs daily. As such, I would likely be considered rather heretical by most religious followers of all traditions (including, but not limited to "Christianity" and "Science").

 

One of the things which draws me to TTB is the sense that I am not alone in this regard...

I did wonder briefly; though you seem to me to be far to learned to ascribe to any one particular denomination.

Simply ancient Greece.

 

Mark Twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes...

 

 

Wonderful, thank you for that; A quote that I shall remember with remarkable ease, I can feel my highly selective memory auto activating.

 

If only I knew where the switch was ...

[Brian]

Hello Brian,

 

I did wonder briefly; though you seem to me to be far to learned to ascribe to any one particular denomination.

 

<snip>

I am something of a syncretic tinker (or tinkerer, if that word is more comfortable).

 

Models are not correct. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that they are entirely incorrect or that they are without value, either as a model or as a collection of component parts. What I tend to do is seize upon a topic, absorb and digest it with feverish commitment, and then integrate elements with elements gleaned from previous endeavors.

 

I take models apart, spread the pieces out around me and then use something akin to "sorcerer's vision" to identify which elements shimmer with an internal aspect of truth (whatever that means). I then assemble the shiny parts into a new model, which remains intact until I have disassembled something else. On each iteration, I assess not only the new elements but also the previously used elements AND the previously discarded elements -- and then I build a new model.

 

At the same time, I retain and continually reassess the individual models I disassembled as whole models because each of them also had value in their own right -- even if only as a reminder of how misleading a model might be. Understanding no model is correct but most are useful, I feel free to move between them according to their applicability to a particular situation. As a simple mathematical analogy, I switch between arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus and other more arcane practices -- mixing and matching as seems appropriate -- without regard for the dogma of a particular "school."

 

This sometimes frustrates people, and has resulted at times in people thinking me fickle or contrary or insincere. For instance, I might argue in one thread in favor of Newtonian mechanics but in another thread going on at the same time I might appear a staunch supporter of relativistic mechanics and in a third I might seem to be lecturing on the merits of quantum electrodynamics. In truth, they are all incorrect yet are all partially correct and of immense value.

 

You probably won't find me arguing in support of Aristotle's "grasshoppers come from dew" theory but I find value in remembering it nonetheless. I likewise see value in the geocentric model of the solar system and its heavenly spheres even though I understand why it fails to describe observational evidence. I could write a book on the huge mistake I think occurred when Michelson-Morley was misinterpreted, even in consideration of the tremendous advances that misinterpretation afforded.

 

Point is, my philosophies are eclectic and I often seem self-contradictory because I tend not to have many strong attachments to the models.

[iain]

Sounds like a good way to study Brian. The models only point at something ...
I am facinated to learn of Michelson-Morley, why not write that book?

[Brian]

LOL

 

I have other fish to fry.

 

Think about this, though -- Michelson & Morley set out to measure the effect of "the ether" on the speed of light and, failing repeatedly to find the anticipated effect, the scientific community threw out the entire concept. A few decades later, building in part upon their work, Einstein demonstrated (although Maxwell had really already done so two decades before Michelson & Morley conducted their experiments) that the effect they were attempting to measure would not be found. Proof that there is no such thing as aether, right?

 

Well...

 

Not so fast.

 

Einstein used the term in general relativity as a label for the gravitational field. Since then, people like Feynman, deBroglie and Dirac have also revisited the concept. Now we have this troubling little detail called "dark matter..."

 

I think the concept should have been refined rather than discarded.

[iain]

I am with you there Brian, Dark matter to me is proof that the universe is ... well don't want to let the cat out of the box here, either is akasha in the vedic system, it is fundamental.

Enjoy your fish

[Marblehead]

I too like models.

[Nungali]

[Nungali]

LOL

 

I have other fish to fry.

 

Think about this, though -- Michelson & Morley set out to measure the effect of "the ether" on the speed of light and, failing repeatedly to find the anticipated effect, the scientific community threw out the entire concept. A few decades later, building in part upon their work, Einstein demonstrated (although Maxwell had really already done so two decades before Michelson & Morley conducted their experiments) that the effect they were attempting to measure would not be found. Proof that there is no such thing as aether, right?

 

Well...

 

Not so fast.

 

Einstein used the term in general relativity as a label for the gravitational field. Since then, people like Feynman, deBroglie and Dirac have also revisited the concept. Now we have this troubling little detail called "dark matter..."

 

I think the concept should have been refined rather than discarded.

 

Yes, but did they disregard it ... or just rename it and pretend they discovered it ?

 

Something here reminds me of Hawking's doco 'proving' God doesnt exist. So much seemed flawed in the logical steps. They would explain things 'wrong' and then 'correct' them. When everything he said could have been said using an 'original old model' in the usually triangular arrangement;

 

Energy

 

Matter - Space. (I know I tend to reduce everything to this triangular model - but they did it this time - they said, to make a Universe you need 3 ingredients - but listed them wrong ... then reduced them to two, then later admitted a 3rd )

 

With matter and space as two 'polarities of energy' - without having to refer to 'stuff' (as opposed to 'void' or 'space' ) first as matter then as mass and then back to matter again, and then try to explain the 'very difficult concept' of energy being in space that has no mass ... as well as in matter. And ( in the past) denying ether and using 'void space' as a container for missing energy, when it IS energy but manifests in the opposite'pole' of matter... and all explained by a a guy digging a hole to make a mound ... AND the total fudge of removing the 'digger' ... the thing that 'caused the original 'separation' of hole and mound by bringing non-existent time into the equation (before the big bang) to remove any 'cause' as there cannot be a cause without time.

 

And then walk off dusting his hands (figuratively) feeling smug that it is all proved (they even said that at the end ; here we are on earth quiet pleased with ourselves that we have worked everything out).

 

I mean .... really !

 

... cant one just give the ideas out and admit there is a point beyond which we just dont know ?

 

Anyway ... not being a scientists myself ... the above probably reads as rubbish to most.

[Marblehead]

Something here reminds me of Hawking's doco 'proving' God doesnt exist. So much seemed flawed in the logical steps. They would explain things 'wrong' and then 'correct' them. When everything he said could have been said using an 'original old model' in the usually triangular arrangement;

I watched that documentary and was rather disappointed.

[Brian]

 

Yes, but did they disregard it ... or just rename it and pretend they discovered it ?

 

Something here reminds me of Hawking's doco 'proving' God doesnt exist. So much seemed flawed in the logical steps. They would explain things 'wrong' and then 'correct' them. When everything he said could have been said using an 'original old model' in the usually triangular arrangement;

 

Energy

 

Matter - Space. (I know I tend to reduce everything to this triangular model - but they did it this time - they said, to make a Universe you need 3 ingredients - but listed them wrong ... then reduced them to two, then later admitted a 3rd )

 

With matter and space as two 'polarities of energy' - without having to refer to 'stuff' (as opposed to 'void' or 'space' ) first as matter then as mass and then back to matter again, and then try to explain the 'very difficult concept' of energy being in space that has no mass ... as well as in matter. And ( in the past) denying ether and using 'void space' as a container for missing energy, when it IS energy but manifests in the opposite'pole' of matter... and all explained by a a guy digging a hole to make a mound ... AND the total fudge of removing the 'digger' ... the thing that 'caused the original 'separation' of hole and mound by bringing non-existent time into the equation (before the big bang) to remove any 'cause' as there cannot be a cause without time.

 

And then walk off dusting his hands (figuratively) feeling smug that it is all proved (they even said that at the end ; here we are on earth quiet pleased with ourselves that we have worked everything out).

 

I mean .... really !

 

... cant one just give the ideas out and admit there is a point beyond which we just dont know ?

 

Anyway ... not being a scientists myself ... the above probably reads as rubbish to most.

By Jove! I think you've got it!

[Nungali]

WHAT!

 

I wasnt expecting that ... I was sorta expecting a lecture about not projecting my badly understood Hermetic 'principles' into science and the answer lied in Hawking's techno giobbledegook speak ...... ( oops - I meant scientific jargon ... not his 'speaking machine' )

 

But I remembered the fudge he made:

 

1. We need 3 ingredients; matter ... then energy, then space.

 

2. But matter is energy so matter and just 2 now ; energy and space (so they jump from a trinitarian to a dualistic approach).

 

3. But that doesnt work out as they believe there is more energy around than there is in 'matter' [which they just converted to energy ( huh?) ]

 

4 . So they postulate the missing energy (which is supposedly equivalent to matter) is in 'space' (which they postulated was the opposite of matter - although energy = matter ) .

 

What a convoluted load of ..... hole digging.

 

But then I suppose they just could not have explained in the triangular relationship at the beginning as it would have made it more obvious that what they were saying was a version of an age old principle that can be applied to understand MANY things, as a large part of the such presentations seemed to be scoffing about how dumb we were before modern science and how smart we are now.

 

As I see it, yes we have more 'reasonable' approaches and better technologies now but also a lot of problems associated with it as well.

 

Now ... how to tie this all in with a lack of an inherent root of evil ....

 

 

Oh yeah ... thats what I thought at the end of that show .... not inherent but it is a thing we can slip into that can cause a lot of problems;

 

Hubris.

[Brian]

Hubris.

 

High Priests of the Church of Science using dogma to defend dogma.

 

Not all who study science wear the robes of Science.

[Nungali]

Thank God ..... them ... for that !

 

Hmmm ... I would like to go further here, but it would be real OT.