Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
> ======================================================
> For some reason my answer to Antonio does not appear
> in the list and I repeat it here:
> ======================================================
> Hi Antonio,
> Rather fair and decent post, with slight exceptions,
> which I comment inline.
> Georges.
>
> --- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi list,
> >
> > Georges Metanomski -- I met him face-to-face
> > at Munich a six years ago -- is a old chap of
> > about eighty who survived the Warsaw Ghetto
> > massacre made by the Nazi at the beginning of
> > WWII.  Later, as the war ended, he attended
> > the group of Infeld, a pupil of Einstein.
> > So, he became talented in Physics and calculus.
> >
> > G.M.  is working out a updating of the history
> > of the scientific knowledge, trying to lead the
> > users up to a point where he is planning his
> > "Relativistic Dialectic"theory he presents as
> > the salvation of the world.
> ================================================
> G:
> Not quite. It's Einstein who claimed that "A new
> manner of thinking is essential if humankind is
> to survive".
> As researcher in his team I endeavored to define
> some such NMT without ever pretending that it's
> the only one possible, nor that it guaranties the
> "salvation". I asserted that the ABSENCE of any
> such NMT may lead to catastrophe, which has a
> totally different logical connotation.
> ================================================
 ant
where is it the great difference?   Einstein stated that a NMT is
essential for humankind's survival;  you claim and claim that
your stuff is a NMT.  Isn't that quite enough, to understand that
you're presenting your stuff as essential for the world salvation?

Yet the syllogism is wrong:

Main premise: "NMT is essential"
Secondary premise: "GM's  DE theory  *is*  NMT"
Conclusion: "DE theory is essential"

Unfortunately, it is not so proved, that your stuff belongs
to the "New Manner of Thinking".  Rather, it looks to the
eyes of  the humankind member I am, like old mannered
tautology having competitive "pecking order" purposes --
until contrary proof, of course.


> A:
>
> > Unfortunately, his theory suffers from
> > too much hierarchy (with himself as the
> > mastermind of a New World Order) and too
> > little Dialectic (he doesn't
> > bear his theses -- that he presents like
> > axioms, kinda absolute truths -- being
> > criticized by any antithesis).
> =====================================================
> G:
> It could be fair, if preceded by "IMO".
> Declared ex cathedra by virtue of godlike
> absolute knowledge it's unfair and,
> additionally, false.

Agreed: what you claim could be fair, if preceded
by "IMO", instead of being declared ex Einstein's
and Infeld's cathedra.


> Axiom, unlike Dogma is by definition
> refutable and so is my RD, axiomatic,
> thus refutable, thus essentially
> anti-absolute.

Do you mean, absolutely anti-absolute?
> Trouble with chat lists is that nothing
> gets remembered, let alone accumulated

Well, I remember very well your insulting violence
in rejecting any antithesis to your theses as "prattle,
meaningless asininity, bullshit" and alike pleasantries.

> and the present list is still trying and
> failing to define what's "Democracy". I
> have presented years ago the RD as part
> of "Shadow Parliament", which I believe
> to be the only way to DD.
> It fell of course in total oblivion, so
> I repeat here its address:
> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/shadow_eng.html
> =====================================================
>
> > Every now and then -- at least yearly,
> > at Easter because it is the anniversary
> > of the Warsaw Ghetto massacre -- G.M.
> > makes us remember the Holocaust.
> >
> > Also, he presents himself as the top
> > defender of the Hebrew race against
> > all those people who do not respect the
> > Holocaustmemory.  He claims against them:
> > "I spit in your face"...
> ======================================================
> G:
> Not "top defender", but a fellow who did
> his little bit as a 14 years old kid in
> Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere,
> whenever called upon.
>
> Not of "Hebrew race", as IMO there ain't
> no such animal, but, by solidarity with
> victims of Holocaust which I witnessed.

Ok., and this solidarity sounds highly worthy.  But there
are victims everywhere, caused by the supporters of this
or that "absolute truth" and their subsequent domineering
violence.

Of course, no number of such victims have reached
the enormous amount of the Holocaust victims, that
was an outcome of the German efficiency and
organizational ability.  But, solidarity for solidarity,
you appear to remember only the victims of the
Holocaust which  you witnessed.   That's your right,
of course, and also a duty: but this solidarity seems to
emphasize the witness, more than the witnessed reality.
I mean, this sort of claimed solidarity smells a bit like
the self-promotion of the claimer...


> I don't care so much about those who don't
> respect the memory of the Holocaust; it's
> the problem of their dirty conscience. But
> I care about those who prepare the new one
> and those who support them.
> With respect to them I assume the historic
> stand of Mordechai Anielewicz and Warsaw
> Mayor Starzynski, expressed by their "I spit
> in your face".
>
> Georges.
> ======================================================
Better IMHO if you expose the people who are
preparing the new one, and the instruments they use
to perform their evil job.  May I suggest you a read
of the document "Democracy vs. Fundamentalism:
which Education Model?" now free in the Internet at:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin08.htm


Regards,

antonio