Re: Objects and Relations

On 19 fév, 02:52, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Cimode wrote:

> > *savages*? Is there a need for such etymology from another time?
> sure there is when there is so much unnecessary overkill here.
As every action provokes a reaction, I do not believe in randomness of conflict. At some point in time, there is indeed a shared responsability over a conflict.
In 1930's Germany several intellectuals and scientists tried to warn their respective communities over the rise of totalitarian nazi inspired thesis promoted by nazi scientists. That's where *neutrals* came in, and were convinced that consensus was the goal not truth. The rest is history: nazis came up and imposed aryan thesis in their respective fields, enlightenned scientist either were killed or flew away to US and/or USSR, and neutrals paid the heavier price. They became the one who *did not know* or *who did not think* that nazism would lead where it led. History judge harshly whom who believe conflict in not a part of human nature and remain in state of denial when facing it.

> > People maybe *misguided*, *uneducated* but what exactly is a
> > *savage*?.
>
> somebody who in desperation prefers mindless opportunity over sensible
> motive.
So a desperate misguided person is a savage? What if there is no sensible motive but just an illusion of it built for self interest of power driven motives?

> On a scientifc perspective, Elitist bias is the opposite
>
> > of intelligence.
>
> hardly. Elitist is a moniker given to people who prefer their own
> company over that of others who don't understand what they are talking
> about by the other people who don't understand what the "elitists" are
> talking about.
What could also say that Elitist is a moniker who is afraid to find out that his entire *preference* relied in fact on illusion of truth...Besides, most revolutions are led by educated people.

> nobody is born with intelligence, although most animals are born smart.
> the ability to be intelligence does seem to be innate among us but it
> must be developed and refined. any usenet group is proof of that.
On this point, Disagreed. This usenet hardly produces intelligence nor encourages uneducatd audiences to do so. If this was true, this usenet should be principally filled with bibliography links

> Elitism is a power driven phenomenon. How can
>
> > power driven motives help scientifc progress?
>
> i think you are confusing physics with metaphysics. just my opinion.
No my friend, I think you are wrong in thinking that real science can advance without strong ethical and humanistic principles to help feed its generation process. Science is not an end in itself and serves some purpose sooner or later. The nature of the motive of science makes primarily the value of the idea generation process.

*Science with no consciousness is a ruin of the soul* Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 09:02:44 CET