[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01353: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

From: "Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:10:32 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

Antonio,l recently watched a show on our location ABC television, about
Toledo in Spain,that this was one of the few places that co-existence of
Christian,Jewish and Moorish cultures(muslim), that there was an embracing
of shared knowledge, a meeting of the East and West knowledge,which they
believe was before the Renaissance, very important step front for humanity.

Interestingly when l went to the Freemason Grand Lodge all the halls are
built where they face east to west,in their meeting rooms the have chairs of
the meeting at the east,west and south sides,the head is at the eastern end,
one of the people in our group ask why, the freemason replied that the
knowledge had been transferred for the east to the west, and found this
quite interesting.

T O L E D O

From Wikipedia,

Toledo Arabic: Tulydwah,) is a city and municipality located in central
Spain, 70 km south of Madrid. It is the capital of the province of Toledo
and of the autonomous community of Castile-La Mancha. It was declared a
World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1986, due to its extensive cultural and
monumental heritage as one of the former capitals of the Spanish Empire and
place of coexistence of Christian, Jewish and Moorish cultures. Many famous
people and artists were born or lived in this city, including Garcilaso de
la Vega, Alfonso X and El Greco, and it was the place of important historic
events such as the Visigothic Councils of Toledo.

Regards Martin Jackson




----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio




Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
Hi Antonio,
intriguing issue, the bi/monocameral mind. I'm not sure
this is the right place to discuss it, but there are several
social/political threads attached.
One question: do you think that the "evolution" (yuk!)
that brought as gift the bicameral mind took place when
agricolture was adopted?

Good thesis, "the bicameral mind took place when agriculture
was adopted." One of its antithesis would read: "the agriculture took
place
when the bicameral mind gained momentum"

Make your choice...



I've never heard of the Shumacher society, but i've heard
about the logical and the contemplative mind. We too often
use the logical mind (any action MUST contain a goal,
anything has an explanation) and leave little or no room to
the contemplative one (you do it because you like it - ie no
goal - and things simply happen).

Why, no goal? The goal could be one's self-satisfaction. Not so bad a
goal, for a mind gifted with sound ethical
(say, democratic) values.


I have the strong impression that fundamentalism is not
only religious. Scientific fundamentalism is far worse
simply because is not commonly sensed, covered as it is
by tons of scientific propaganda. The abovementioned
"evolution" is a clear example of this. The invention of
linear Time and measurable (thus sellable) Space are
milestones that has allowed to create the technologies
that lead Western values to spread all over the world
and rule it. Denying their meaning, their sense and
acknowledging their ultimate goal (power/profits) is
something that very few have dared to do and is still
topic of profound discussions among philosophers of
science, historicians and anthropoligists.

You write:
"fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even
if the fundamentalist claims it is"
.
I've tried many times to make clear that Democracy
is an invention of the elites offering the illusion that
common people are ruling their lives. It's never been
so,
Why? As far as I can see, Democracy has always been
up, unless of course it was replaced by violent
dictatorship.

In most western countries, the so-called "democratic
countries", the inhabitants do not want to implement
Democracy - that encompasses people's direct control
over both policies and politicians". Really as well as
paradoxically, people like themselves to be controlled
by political propaganda and PR managed by the money
holder elites.

You say: "people are deceived by the elites." I argue:
"people want to deceive themselves by themselves,
just because they own the power of control -- if only
they wanted to wield it directly and responsibly. But their democratic
wish does not go to wield it,
because wielding it is too much labour they dislike".



certainly not in ancient Athens nor now, as the
Biggest of All Democracies (BAD) keeps showing us.
In a recent survey nearly 60% of American citizens are
dissatisfied with their political system (democracy, exactly).
Had they the power to change as clearly stated in any
democracies' plans, they'd do it. Unfortunately they can't.
They could, they could, if only they wanted to do it.
The start for this goal is quite simplest: let'hem adopt
John Bunzl's "Simultaneous Policies" (www.simpol.org)
If nothing else, the SP adoption would demonstrate that
they want to control their elected representatives.



That's why i say that Democracy is perfectly compatible
with fundamentalism, being ruled by numbers as it is.
Ruled by numbers, not by people, please notice.
This is your thesis. I wholeheartedly disagree.

My antithesis is, "Fundamentalism is perfectly compatible
with the people's democratic renounce of democracy.


It doesn't
take into any account "who will follow, to wit, our children"
which is (and i hope you agree here) the one and only
valid reference. The world to come has little importance to
the democratic rulers, busy as they are to assure higher and
higher profits to the multinationals that are paying their bills.
This thread is getting too heavy, so i better stop here.

Ciao

Giorgio


Or else, to assure higher and higher power to themselves
as the bureaucratic and/or scientific leadership. See our
shadow rulers, for instance...


Ciao,

antonio

antonio

Antonio Rossin wrote:


Giorgio Menon ha scritto:

Antonio Rossin wrote:


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


Antonio,
you are a neurologist and no one better than you can let me
understand what's happening in Georges' mind. I repeatedly
read his insults and contempt toward anyone who disagree
with his ideas. Then i read this:

"1.I don't write TO PEOPLE, but ABOUT their massages.
I'm probably the only person on this list who does not write
ad personam. If it happened once or twice, show me where
and I appologize in advance."
http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&;

What do you think?

Regards

Giorgio


Giorgio,

In my humble opinion -- but also in my past experience
as a psychiatry practitioner -- it is a matter of one's brain
hemispheres working together to process some thinking
line. The question is, re to a given input-idea-argument,
do the two brain hemispheres co-operate together in good
balance, or there is a strong, possibly absolute dominance
of one hemisphere over the other?

This question is intriguing.
In the past, we have been told about a "mono-cameral
mind" which, along with the evolution of humankind,
is being slowly substituted by some "bi-cameral mind".

Let's suppose, humankind is still evolving from the
"one hemisphere only!" individual's manner to process
his-her believing-behaving procedures, towards some
"both hemispheres working together in good balance"
manner of thinking and behaving.

More recently we have been told by some "Shumacher
Society" that there are two different attitudes of human
mind: the "*either/or*" one (which I would call "*either* one
*or* the other brain hemisphere!") and the "*and - and*" one
(which corresponds to what I would call "*and* one *and* the
other brain hemisphere tied together in a good balance").

Now, let me recall, it is not that us humans are so rigidly
divided into two strictly defined categories, the *either/or*
and the *and-and*. There can be tendencies, nuances and
different inputs-ideas-arguments that can be processed as
well within one's thinking machine (AKA Logics) in this
or that ways -- likely enough, with the only exception of
the religious fundamentalist, whose mind is able to perform
the either/or manner of thinking-behaving exclusively, for
any input-idea-argument.

Practically, the "either-or" mind is far more precise than the
"and-and" one. The "either-or" minded people don't bear
uncertainty, but absolute (i.e. unquestionable) truth only.
Equally, the "either-or" minded one does not bear dialectics
(which implies antitheses to one's theses as a methodology)
nor being questioned-criticized.

A question arises: is the scientific fundamentalist similar
to the religious fundamentalist? I think it is, depending on
how the scientist behaves, i.e. performs science : whether
for the sake of the (absolute) scientific truth -- or for the
sake of those of us who will follow, to wit, our children.
Clearly, the religious fundamentalist behaves for the sake
of God, regardlessly for their children 's life.

Also, fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if the
fundamentalist claims it is.


However, I must remark, these different characters of
human mind do not present in a "pure" form", even.
The "either/or" and the "and-and" traits of the human
mind represent the opposite poles of a continuum with
countless intermediate positions, although each one of
us (our esteemed George Metanomski included) cannot
but tend towards either one or the other of these opposite
polarities...


Hoping this helps,

antonio




[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]