Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 10/09 14:03 +3 Re: 20060909#parlement
- 17/09 00:54 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 23:24 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 22:53 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 06:19 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 05:53 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 01:59 +1 Re: Truth
- 13/09 23:44 +1 Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds
- 13/09 23:29 +1 Re: Truth
- 13/09 17:49 +1 Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds
Latest posts
- 17/09 00:54 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 23:24 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 22:53 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 06:19 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 05:53 +1 Re: Truth
- 14/09 01:59 +1 Re: Truth
- 13/09 23:44 +1 Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds
- 13/09 23:29 +1 Re: Truth
- 13/09 17:49 +1 Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds
- 13/09 17:09 +1 Re: Truth
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] irc
-
10/09/06 06:28
20060909#parlement
—- Log opened sam sep 09 00:00:19 2006
- 01:47
!illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 01:48 < illegal> back
- 03:22
!illegal [n=illegale@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [] - 12:49
!illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung178.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 12:50 < illegal:#parlement> truth: openstanding perfection
- 12:50
!Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement - 12:50 < illegal> ;)
- 12:51 < echarp> and where do you see any such thing?
- 12:51 < echarp> can you show any eternal truth anywhere?
- 12:51 < illegal> it is ideal
- 12:51 < illegal> where we want to go
- 12:51 < echarp> it is non reachable
- 12:51 < illegal> what we want to become
- 12:51 < illegal> it does not matter
- 12:51 < echarp> it does
- 12:52 < echarp> “truth” is a concept used to lure
- 12:52 < illegal> do you think ideals are important?
- 12:52 < echarp> because no such as an eternal truth can be reached by humans
- 12:52 < echarp> ideals are something else
- 12:52 < echarp> they are memes
- 12:52 < echarp> ideas
- 12:52 < illegal> i see them as diretions
- 12:52 < illegal> truth is direction
- 12:53 < illegal> there are two philosophies as i can notice
- 12:53 < echarp> show me one eternal truth please :)
- 12:53 < illegal> one that is based on ideals and other one that is based on wu wei
- 12:53 < echarp> wu wei?
- 12:53 < illegal> i believe the first one beocmes second one
- 12:53 < illegal> at least that is message of Sidharta :)
- 12:53 < illegal> yep
- 12:53 < echarp> do you know any truth?
- 12:53 < illegal> should i?
- 12:53 < echarp> care to show one?
- 12:54 < illegal> i can say what is not truth in some case
- 12:54 < echarp> if you don’t, does anybody do?
- 12:54 < illegal> if then else
- 12:54 < echarp> if 1==1 then? :)
- 12:54 < echarp> 1==1 is a definition
- 12:54 < illegal> sort of
- 12:54 < illegal> i talk about practical manner
- 12:54 < illegal> that is important to live fine
- 12:54 < echarp> we can show that something seems inconsistant
- 12:54 < illegal> truth is the way of minimalisation of the world pain
- 12:54 < echarp> but truth, can you or anybody show it?
- 12:55 < illegal> truth is constistent by definition
- 12:55 < illegal> within itself
- 12:55 < illegal> and facts
- 12:55 < echarp> then you are looking for definitions, inside out things
- 12:55 < illegal> yet, it is openstanding also
- 12:55 < echarp> things you create and then you can say: “see, it is as I made it”
- 12:55 < echarp> truth is supposedly about the universe
- 12:55 < illegal> i do not follow you
- 12:56 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
- 12:56 < illegal> truth is a word i took from regular talk
- 12:56 < illegal> not from philosophy
- 12:56 < echarp> “Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree, and numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. Differing opinions exist on such questions as what constitutes truth, how to define and identify truth, what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play, and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims.”
- 12:56 < illegal> not interested in philosophy,but reality
- 12:56 < echarp> lol
- 12:56 < illegal> took definition i feel fine with
- 12:56 < echarp> sorry, you are discussing, you are thus philosophing
- 12:57 < illegal> it is about aproach
- 12:57 < illegal> common peasant thinking
- 12:57 < illegal> what i prefer
- 12:57 < echarp> common thinking is very often flawed you know (and I am a peasant by roots)
- 12:57 < illegal> does not give you too much space for relativisation
- 12:57 < illegal> it is
- 12:57 < illegal> if you do not know what it means
- 12:57 < illegal> bottom up bottom up
- 12:58 < echarp> philosophy is one of the best ways to understand the universe and ourselves
- 12:58 < echarp> but I remember you fearing that approach
- 12:58 < illegal> how do they say something withouth something is empty …
- 12:59 < echarp> uh?
- 12:59 < illegal> wester philosophy?
- 12:59 < illegal> i doubt
- 12:59 < echarp> “something without something is empty”???
- 12:59 < illegal> western philsoophy i do not like at all
- 12:59 < illegal> i do not know english words
- 12:59 < illegal> something you feel and abstraction you link to
- 12:59 < echarp> care to explain, because you are rejecting a huge thing of which some are interesting others are not
- 13:00 < illegal:#parlement> i do not doubt that by this statetemnt i do much harm to people who where finest thinkers of their time
- 13:00
!Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement - 13:00 < illegal> yet, the whole tradition is so big burdain instead of being so good ground for moving forward
- 13:01 < echarp> it’s not harm you are doing, it’s rejecting some of the finest ideas
- 13:01 < illegal> you mentioned some philosopher from france i remember who hays fne thought
- 13:01 < illegal> you will help me to understand :)
- 13:01 < illegal> as you did with determinism
- 13:01 < echarp> I remember yes, the one who was one of the tutor behind the american revolution
- 13:01 < echarp> montesquieu I believe
- 13:02 < illegal> yes
- 13:02 < illegal> though, in croatia, philosophers are far from sharp minded
- 13:02 < illegal> far far far away
- 13:02 < illegal> so, i asume it does not really help them. better to say it beracretises their thought
- 13:02 < illegal> their ming
- 13:02 < illegal> mind
- 13:02 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu "a French political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions all over the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms “feudalism” and “Byzantine Empire”
- 13:03 < illegal> so they can not see anything before them with burdain of their ancient grounds
- 13:03 < echarp> I disagree
- 13:03 < illegal> oh no, i talked about modern one
- 13:03 < echarp> it’s not a burden, it’s a starting ground
- 13:03 < illegal> reality has to be starrtng ground
- 13:03 < illegal> not intrpretations of nterpretations
- 13:04 < illegal> in this way you swolow to many non truths
- 13:04 < echarp> it’s not interpretations of interpretations
- 13:04 < illegal> oh yes
- 13:04 < echarp> where ever have you seen that?
- 13:04 < echarp> they did “interpretations of interpretations” during the middle ages
- 13:04 < illegal> where?
- 13:04 < echarp> that was a dark age
- 13:04 < echarp> in europe
- 13:04 < illegal> let me mention one example
- 13:04 < illegal> if i may
- 13:05 < echarp> of course you may
- 13:05 < illegal> friend of mine did work for a degree about media nfluence
- 13:05 < echarp> but good luck, because it’s a huge body of work, and there are bound to be huge amounts of errors
- 13:05 < illegal> i told him to use a little bit more broad literature if he wants to come to some conlucion
- 13:05 < illegal> you know what was his ground
- 13:06 < illegal> faucalt
- 13:06 < echarp> foucault I guess
- 13:06 < illegal> he did not want to use any literature from media experts
- 13:06 < illegal> so, that is just clear example
- 13:06 < illegal> you know, no facts just philosophical debates with no clear ground
- 13:06 < illegal> just bad interpretations
- 13:07 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault "is known for his critical studies of various social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine, and the prison system, and also for his work on the history of sexuality. His work concerning power and the relation between power and knowledge, as well as his ideas concerning “discourse” in relation to the history of Western thought, have been widely discussed and applied."
- 13:07 < illegal> it is a shame
- 13:07 < echarp> foucault is huge
- 13:07 < illegal> i do not say he did some good points
- 13:07 < echarp> but what you are saying is just demonstrating that his teacher was a prick
- 13:07 < illegal> did not
- 13:07 < illegal> how is that possible?
- 13:08 < illegal> that guy, friend of mine is just an example
- 13:08 < echarp> come on
- 13:08 < illegal> of whole philosophical paradigm
- 13:08 < illegal> no
- 13:08 < echarp> there are “of course” plenty of wrong things
- 13:08 < illegal> they are binded to their tradition
- 13:08 < illegal> structuralism, destructualism whatever
- 13:08 < echarp> if I can show you one example of bad eastern philosophy then you will erase the whole thing?
- 13:09 < illegal> they are forced to get into it very much if they want that “title”
- 13:09 < illegal> and they loose themselves in that process
- 13:09 < echarp> many do yes, and?
- 13:09 < illegal> no, i wont
- 13:09 < illegal> i do agree with you there is a pleny of mud in this process
- 13:09 < echarp> oh you won’t, yet you do with western philosophy?
- 13:10 < illegal> you are right, i could probably do the same thing to eastern
- 13:10 < illegal> yet eastern is exotic with many new thoughts for me
- 13:10 < illegal> so i find them uch more informative
- 13:10 < echarp> it’s hard and tedious, over time humanity is creating a corpus of knowledge about itself and the universe
- 13:10 < echarp> that process is hugely difficult
- 13:10 < echarp> and they are many many errors
- 13:11 < illegal> birocratisation of thought is its purpose
- 13:11 < echarp> yet do we have to reject that process and the knowledge it brings us?
- 13:11 < illegal> yes
- 13:11 < illegal> process yes
- 13:11 < illegal> knowledge now, yet aproach has to be different
- 13:11 < echarp> we have to reject what process then? :)
- 13:11 < illegal> in ordr of avoiding tis birocaratisaiton
- 13:11 < echarp> the whole western tradition of critical thinking and free speech maybe?
- 13:11 < illegal> clasical school
- 13:12 < echarp> what is the classical school? platon?
- 13:12 < illegal> what i can see is the problem of indoctiriantion
- 13:12 < illegal> no, the way people wanna be philosphers go
- 13:12 < illegal> you have to “understand” platon if you want to go on bs
- 13:13 < illegal> clasical philosophical work is what Kant meant by his maxima
- 13:13 < illegal> wtf, there is the RL, go there and search for answers
- 13:13 < illegal> Kant can help you, but can not be your base
- 13:14 < illegal> and philosophers do excatly that
- 13:14 < illegal> interpret interpretors of interpretors loosing info
- 13:14 < illegal> becoming far from lucid
- 13:14 < echarp> then you seem to antagonise two corners: one is total real life, the other is total thought
- 13:14 < illegal> no
- 13:14 < illegal> just set primace
- 13:15 < echarp> but, without the second, you would only be a lonely animal, with no speech and tools
- 13:15 < echarp> without the first, you would be a platonician who can dream ideas yet can’t live life
- 13:15 < illegal> you can learn speech and tools but not by direct process of indoctrination
- 13:15 < echarp> philosophers, modern one anyway, don’t do that
- 13:15 < illegal> fukuyama
- 13:15 < illegal> :-)ž
- 13:15 < echarp> science is a process which starts from reality, then give ideas
- 13:15 < illegal> :p
- 13:15 < illegal> philosophy has to be that tooo
- 13:16 < echarp> philosophy is often that too
- 13:16 < illegal> you just use a little wider set of methods in that process
- 13:16 < echarp> just don’t go on the platonic side of western philosophy
- 13:16 < echarp> platon is crap
- 13:16 < echarp> go for nietsche
- 13:17 < illegal> nietche was a man for his time
- 13:17 < illegal> we live in some really different age you know
- 13:17 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietsche "German philologist and philosopher, produced critiques of religion, morality, contemporary culture, and philosophy, centered around what he viewed as a fundamental question regarding the life-affirming and life-denying qualities of different attitudes and beliefs. Nietzsche’s works feature unique, free-form stylization "
- 13:17 < echarp> nietsche is a timeless thinker
- 13:17 < illegal> you can say thaa t if you wish
- 13:19 < illegal> philosophy in our age is just a bone for people who want to think, decadent bone
- 13:19 < illegal> that leads you actually nowhere
- 13:19 < illegal> you can only gain some of popularity by affirmation in that socieaty
- 13:20 < illegal> but it means far from something for rl in fact
- 13:20 < echarp> I’m sorry, but you are philosophing right now!!!
- 13:20 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy “is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics, in which people ask questions such as whether God exists, what is the nature of reality, whether knowledge is possible, and what makes actions right or wrong. The fundamental method of philosophy is the use of reasoning to evaluate arguments concerning these questions. However, the exact scope and methodology of philosophy is not rigid. What counts as philosophy is itself debated, and it varies across philosophical traditions.”
- 13:21 < illegal> you are rigt, i am talkng about academic aproach
- 13:21 < echarp> Epistemology: Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: “What is knowledge?”, “How is knowledge acquired?”, and “What do people know?”. Although approaches to answering any one of these questions frequently involve theories that are connected to others, there is enough particularized to each that they may be treated of separately.
- 13:21 < illegal> academic aproach
- 13:21 < echarp> you are particularly wondering about epistemology
- 13:21 < illegal> ok
- 13:21 < echarp> the academic approach is something quite different yes
- 13:22 < illegal> ok, that is the stuff i antagonise very much
- 13:22 < illegal> you are right
- 13:23 < echarp> it’s quite often rigid and full of sect like grouping, yes
- 13:24 < illegal> so, i like philophers who are capable of putting their thoughts in 5 papers
- 13:24 < illegal> with no need to attach to all their ancestors
- 13:25 < illegal> for an example, faucalt is not that guy
- 13:25 < illegal> even though he has some fine articulations
- 13:25 < echarp> foucault?
- 13:25 < echarp> why not?
- 13:25 < illegal> yet, he could do that in 2 pages, but he could not selll the book in that way
- 13:25 < illegal> yes
- 13:25 < illegal> book of 2 pages
- 13:25 < illegal> who will buy it :=)
- 13:26 < illegal> so he takes regular school of filling with texts
- 13:26 < illegal> bitrocratising the knowledge
- 13:26 < echarp> I’ve read some other kind of litterature, science fiction is more prone to filling I think
- 13:26 < illegal> you read fucuyama
- 13:26 < illegal> ?
- 13:26 < echarp> no
- 13:27 < echarp> I don’t know him
- 13:27 < illegal> good for you i think :)
- 13:27 < illegal> people just c/p some extracts of him that where very inconsistent indeed
- 13:27 < illegal> no broad picture
- 13:28 < illegal> lame articualtion
- 13:28 < illegal> maybe we could put a list of prefered philosphers
- 13:28 < echarp> but the, it’s the use of their work which is to be attacked, not their work themself
- 13:28 < echarp> but the => but then
- 13:31 < illegal> do you have list of prefered philosophers?
- 13:32 < echarp> currently I’m reading michel onfray
- 13:32 < echarp> but he’s most probably in french
- 13:33 < illegal> french living guy liberal?
- 13:33 < echarp> I love his “counter history of philosophy”
- 13:33 < echarp> very left sided
- 13:33 < illegal> you talked about him
- 13:33 < echarp> anarchist kind of guy, but believes in capitalism :)
- 13:34 < echarp> you might appreciate his “counter history of philosophy”, he takes a very irreverant view on the academic approach :)
- 13:34 < echarp> he also wrote about religion and stuff, most famous his “treaty of atheology” :)
- 13:34 < echarp> two counter books on this treaty were actually published to defend religion, it’s huge!
- 13:35 < illegal> i really have to take look at him :-)
- 13:35 < illegal> what he sys about religion’
- 13:35 < echarp> and he used to be a meager teacher in technical schools
- 13:35 < echarp> he is a strong atheist
- 13:35 < echarp> to him, religions are inventions used to control minds
- 13:36 < illegal> and?
- 13:36 < echarp> it’s akin to believing in santa claus :)
- 13:36 < illegal> he says something good about religion?
- 13:36 < echarp> no, bad very bad
- 13:36 < illegal> i misinterpreted you
- 13:36 < echarp> do you believe in santa claus?
- 13:36 < echarp> :)
- 13:36 < illegal> yxes
- 13:36 < illegal> of course
- 13:36 < echarp> lol
- 13:36 < illegal> he is going to establish internet democracy :)
- 13:37 < echarp> definitely, on the 24th of december! :)
- 13:37 < illegal> we just have to waint for him and suffer:
- 13:37 < illegal> i like this guy very much, philosopher not santa
- 13:37 < illegal> as long as i can notice
- 13:37 < illegal> and he is living though
- 13:38 < illegal> gonna post topic at philosophy forum at croatian phislophy faculety about the guy
- 13:38 < illegal> i am very sharp to them, they loooove me :O)
- 13:39 < echarp> shame it’s probably in croatian :)
- 13:39 < illegal> yed
- 13:39 < illegal> s
- 13:39 < illegal> that is the place i calm my nervs
- 13:39 < illegal> i do not use top politics for that :-)
- 13:40 < echarp> you should
- 13:40 < illegal> nah, id like top politics to be example of finest finessses
- 13:40 < illegal> strongly productive place
- 13:41 < echarp> :)
- 13:41 < illegal> huh, gotta go
- 13:42 < illegal> nice to see yo u for saturday mornig cup of philosophy :)
- 13:42
!illegal [n=illegale@cmung178.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [] - 15:36 < urgen> cool, looks like shuttle is still on countdown
- 18:00 < echarp> I see it took off perfectly
- 18:00 < echarp> nasa must be real happy
- 18:00 < echarp> urgen: what is your opinion on the iss?
- 18:01 < urgen> I’d go for a visit if I could
- 18:01 < echarp> but is it useful except as a symbolic outpost?
- 18:02 < urgen> I thought that there were micro-gravity composites that can only be done in space
- 18:02 < urgen> medicines and stuff
- 18:03 < echarp> if only they would have spinned the whole thing in order to obtain gravity
- 18:03 < echarp> you would still have micro gravity on the central axis
- 18:04 < echarp> yet, on the outside you could have permanent settlements
- 18:39
!illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung18.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 18:39 < illegal> blah, what to do?
- 18:40 < echarp> on?
- 18:40 < urgen> hi
- 18:40 < illegal> hey
- 18:40 < illegal> 1
- 18:40 < illegal> Serge wants to go directly to wik
- 18:40 < illegal> i
- 18:40 < urgen> illegal
- 18:40 < urgen> you should try to attend the ting
- 18:41 < illegal> attend the ting’
- 18:41 < illegal> ?
- 18:41 < urgen> the collaborative chat they have has an auto-publish-to-wiki option
- 18:41 < urgen> I meantioned it and mattis before
- 18:41 < illegal> ting program?
- 18:41 < urgen> gobby
- 18:41 < illegal> ok
- 18:42 < illegal> new tool
- 18:42 < urgen> it takes three steps to install
- 18:42 < illegal> learning how to use it
- 18:42 < urgen> how to use it is pretty intuitive
- 18:42 < illegal> there is a problem about any definition
- 18:43 < illegal> it takes some time to look at any tought from enough directions in order to set it usefull
- 18:43 < urgen> define the process for arriving at a definition
- 18:43 < illegal> imo it doesn ot come through te night
- 18:43
!illegal is now known as gale - 18:44 < gale> got tired from aliases :=)
- 18:44 < urgen> I’ve been urgen longer than I’ve been my rl name
- 18:44 < urgen> internet time runs a lot faster you know ;-)
- 18:44 < gale> hehe
- 18:45 < gale> define the process, you mean with gobby?
- 18:46 < urgen> no, in general
- 18:46 < gale> i defined it
- 18:46 < urgen> definitions stop being so much a problem after you see what steps there are to make one
- 18:46 < gale> took me some time though
- 18:46 < gale> not easy stuff if you are not into it
- 18:46 < gale> probably did miss some things
- 18:46 < gale> youve seen it?
- 18:46 < urgen> a definition process?
- 18:47 < urgen> I’ve not seen one yet
- 18:47 < gale> how to go to definition?
- 18:47 < gale> how to go to definition
- 18:47 < gale> where are we now, etc..
- 18:47 < gale> in first stage we share thoughts of how do we look at top
- 18:47 < urgen> suggestion, review, …
- 18:47 < gale> in second stage we share thoughts what do we want from top
- 18:48 < gale> and than we go doing that by wiki by setting reasanoble including shell
- 18:48 < urgen> it can be postponed, rejected, put back for refinement, approved
- 18:48 < urgen> published
- 18:48 < urgen> redressed
- 18:48 < urgen> published
- 18:48 < gale> yes
- 18:48 < gale> though, if we have same focus of group it can not be randomised i suppose, right
- 18:48 < gale> ?
- 18:49 < gale> groups focus, needed or not needed?
- 18:49 < urgen> it should be allowed to change over time
- 18:49 < gale> it might be dmeotivating for someone who runs before his tme
- 18:49 < urgen> group process.. you can have live only, scheduled live, deadline based, etc
- 18:49 < urgen> different types of focus
- 18:49 < gale> and oposite
- 18:50 < urgen> combinations of focus
- 18:50 < gale> Markus suggested the existing model of top
- 18:50 < gale> to be starting shell
- 18:50 < urgen> you’d want to have timeouts… no activity means automatically move to a different state
- 18:51 < gale> yet, me personaly do not find it be satisfactory in shell style as long as it misses some important parts
- 18:51 < gale> cool
- 18:52 < urgen> groups play can have subsets of agreement
- 18:52 < urgen> then later others can join
- 18:52 < urgen> if there are five people and two go on vacation
- 18:52 < urgen> the three should be allowed to build
- 18:52 < gale> of course
- 18:52 < urgen> and the two can catch up and challenge to change or just adopt
- 18:52 < gale> wiki work is timelss
- 18:52 < gale> timeless
- 18:53 < gale> echarp: what you think?
- 18:58 < gale> urgen: you share opinion about top with echarp?
- 18:58 < urgen> no
- 18:58 < gale> :-)
- 18:58 < urgen> top isn’t very important to me
- 18:59 < gale> blah
- 18:59 < urgen> :-)
- 18:59 < echarp> t is important to me
- 18:59 < gale> suppose you do not see the point of definition, right?
- 18:59 < echarp> open and public, I still am not sure
- 18:59 < gale> t can play dull
- 18:59 < gale> top can not
- 19:00 < urgen> maybe I feel the principle is different than the effort
- 19:00 < gale> huh?
- 19:00 < urgen> how we go about something tells a lot about how well we understand the goal
- 19:00 < echarp> the goal is one of principles I believe
- 19:00 < gale> absolutely
- 19:00 < echarp> and to each it brings different things
- 19:00 < echarp> for example, gale is looking for a political caucus
- 19:01 < gale> you?
- 19:01 < echarp> me, to confront it with my tool
- 19:01 < gale> confront?
- 19:01 < urgen> ok, that’s a good way to say this.. I am not sure TOP understands that the goal is one of the principles :-)
- 19:01 < gale> what is it tool about it not about politcs?
- 19:01 < gale> urgen, you are too smart for me :-P
- 19:01 < gale> :)
- 19:02 < urgen> well it is something that will naturally show up with people working on it
- 19:02 < urgen> maybe it requires a revision maybe not
- 19:02 < echarp> TOP is just a group of concepts, from what I can gather
- 19:02 < urgen> if revisions are already allowed then things are in a good way
- 19:02 < echarp> O could just be “Open Source”, then I would appreciate it :)
- 19:02 < gale> it seems i have to say something about my real concern about top definition
- 19:03 < gale> it is just like gpl
- 19:03 < gale> selfprotection of aproach
- 19:03 < gale> if you do not have that, you can not move on actualy as long as it is buzzed with leaches
- 19:03 < echarp> but the gpl is based on testable elements
- 19:03 < echarp> can you see code
- 19:03 < echarp> can you modify it
- 19:03 < echarp> can you use it
- 19:03 < urgen> gale, have your read the creative commons license?
- 19:03 < echarp> can you republish it
- 19:03 < gale> you can see organsiaitnal pricniiples also
- 19:03 < urgen> s/your/you
- 19:03 < gale> if you define it properly
- 19:04 < gale> if you do not define it properly, than you can not start process
- 19:04 < gale> due to very simple reason
- 19:04 < gale> by giving away info, you loose power of it
- 19:04 < gale> in politics loosing power is not so productive
- 19:04 < gale> unless you have the way to reestablish it
- 19:04 < gale> and top definition is for that
- 19:04 < urgen> ok, that’s an interesting principle
- 19:04 < gale> same as gpl actually
- 19:05 < echarp> gale: but “open” and “public” still are troubling, for me anyway
- 19:05 < gale> i understand, ill try to explain my point of view about open
- 19:05 < gale> public is imo just stamp
- 19:06 < gale> one of the next texts is about open for echarp :=
- 19:06 < gale> )
- 19:06 < gale> and top sounds better than to
- 19:06 < gale> :-)
- 19:06 < echarp> I understand that the sound of it is important
- 19:07 < gale> when something is totally open and transparent it is public by default
- 19:07 < echarp> public could just be the group of persons using the “top” institution/tool
- 19:07 < gale> unless you define some other thing by public
- 19:07 < gale> such as orientation of organsiation
- 19:07 < gale> transparent is not just public as long as it talks about clearness
- 19:07 < gale> also
- 19:08 < echarp> transparent to the public maybe, and using open source
- 19:08 < gale> a lot of work before us, indeed
- 19:08 < gale> llol
- 19:08 < urgen> open is as in license
- 19:08 < gale> echarp: you said what you had about tOP?
- 19:08 < gale> urgen: what you meanŠ?
- 19:09 < echarp> gale: in the mail?
- 19:09 < urgen> no tolls for use
- 19:09 < gale> echarp: on top politics
- 19:09 < gale> tolls?
- 19:09 < echarp> gale: I’m concerned about o and p, that’s all I believe yes
- 19:10 < echarp> “toll: to pay for passage”
- 19:10 < gale> ok, ill try to give my shot about that part
- 19:10 < gale> urgen: hmh
- 19:10 < urgen> what if you had to pay echarp for every word you typed here?
- 19:10 < urgen> :-)
- 19:10 < echarp> lol
- 19:10 < gale> ok, that is free
- 19:10 < echarp> that would be a toll yes :)
- 19:11 < gale> not open stalman would say :)
- 19:11 < urgen> the battle is always who owns the public
- 19:11 < echarp> stallman does not talk about service, just about software source code access
- 19:11 < urgen> public should already have access
- 19:12 < urgen> national boundary claims ownership over its public
- 19:12 < urgen> but isn’t there a greater commons?
- 19:12 < gale> yes
- 19:13 < gale> internet public is entity for itself
- 19:13 < echarp> but public could also be smaller group of individuals
- 19:13 < echarp> it could be fluid
- 19:13 < urgen> :-) it needs to be fluid
- 19:14 < echarp> and it is not because you exist that you are allowed access to any top organisation data
- 19:14 < echarp> thus, public, to me, should only be the participants
- 19:14 < echarp> p Public/Participants :)
- 19:14 < echarp> transparent and open to the participants? :)
- 19:14 < echarp> = top
- 19:15 < gale> cool
- 19:15 < gale> :)
- 19:15 < echarp> but then, open to the participants seems like a repetition
- 19:15 < gale> but that is not perfet
- 19:15 < gale> yes
- 19:15 < gale> and you have to sign something beore you know what you are signing at all
- 19:16 < gale> i can enter sdp and the organisatio will be “open and transparent” to me than
- 19:16 < echarp> the contract is also fluid yes
- 19:16 < gale> but that means i support sdp programe politicians everything which is not true
- 19:16 < echarp> but it is easy to just break the contract, without much consequences
- 19:16 < gale> i as a public have right to have acces to info
- 19:17 < gale> public organisation
- 19:17 < gale> organisation oriented towards puvlic
- 19:17 < gale> really important
- 19:17 < gale> there is a new text i write aobut it
- 19:17 < urgen> once upon a time that was called a journalist
- 19:17 < gale> as long as political base determines your plitical success
- 19:18 < gale> no
- 19:18 < gale> politians used to be it also
- 19:18 < gale> even musicians :=)
- 19:18 < urgen> ya
- 19:18 < gale> all who set their base on public
- 19:18 < gale> that is characteristic of democratic politicans
- 19:18 < gale> in contrary to oligarchical who have different base
- 19:19 < gale> organisational structure, relation to mass media owners etc
- 19:19 < echarp> urgen: lol, exactly, a journalist yes :)
- 19:19 < echarp> gale: but, as part of humanity, why should you be entitled to informations from an organisation you are not part of?
- 19:19 < gale> ha ha
- 19:19 < gale> :-B
- 19:20 < gale> it is about democracy
- 19:20 < gale> trust in people n general
- 19:20 < gale> and pragmatical also
- 19:20 < gale> as long as non members of my parrty might be interested to vote for me or be part of me if they see how we work
- 19:20 < gale> freedom of info is good for those who are fne people
- 19:21 < gale> all in all, one month for sharing other data about top
- 19:21 < gale> is it fine dead line?
- 19:21 < gale> take less or more maybe?
- 19:22 < gale> echarp: fine with that?
- 19:22 < echarp> fine yes
- 19:22 < urgen> sometimes I’m busy and sometime’s not
- 19:22 < echarp> gale: so, are you afforded the right to access all data from a top organisation you are not part of?
- 19:22 < gale> i gonna call some other people to join us, maybe somebody gets involved, it would be really nice
- 19:22 < gale> echarp:yes
- 19:22 < echarp> why?
- 19:22 < echarp> it’s a huge right
- 19:23 < gale> ok, you are right aobut this
- 19:23 < gale> we might talk about decision making process a separate thing
- 19:23 < echarp> the gpl doesn’t afford that kind of thing, its effects are limited to the users
- 19:23 < gale> realisation process might be clos imo
- 19:23 < gale> what you mean?
- 19:23 < gale> i have access but not right to do with that info, right?
- 19:24 < gale> political decision has to be top
- 19:24 < gale> that is a stratng thougt imo
- 19:24 < gale> it does not get into colision with term of tactics which is also important
- 19:24 < gale> yet you gain legimacy for it
- 19:25 < urgen> have you read the creative commons license, echarp?
- 19:25 < urgen> example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
- 19:25 < gale> gotta go
- 19:25 < gale> cu
- 19:25
!gale [n=illegale@cmung18.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [] - 19:26 < echarp> urgen: I have gone over it
- 19:26 < echarp> gale does not consider the possibility of multiply overlapping groups
- 19:26 < urgen> I’m exploring the idea that ‘distribution’ has a lot to do with identity / ownership
- 19:27 < urgen> yes, that is essential
- 19:27 < echarp> distribution is the key concept in gpl, and possibly the creative commons too
- 19:27 < urgen> digital allows for very quick redefinition
- 19:27 < urgen> license of distribution is a way to define “public”
- 19:27 < urgen> it defines ownership
- 19:28 < echarp> yeap
- 19:29 < echarp> I agree, it defines a kind of ownership
- 19:29 < echarp> of equal participation, of equality
- 19:30 < urgen> that cc can attempt a global agreement that gains weight within independent national identities is an interesting phenomenon
- 19:30 < urgen> re the legitimacy problem
- 19:33 < echarp> cc is still difficult for me, because it allows a mixin of cool and not acceptable elements
- 19:33 < echarp> but it’s a very good start anyway
- 19:33 < echarp> I prefer his proposition of renewable copyright requiring 1$ every year
- 19:33 < echarp> a great idea!
- 19:36 < urgen> there was someone that was talking to me about ‘evolutionary economics’
- 19:36 < urgen> regarding the idea that all actions were drawn against the bank of public power
- 19:39 < urgen> these deeds are drawn against the actual global reserve
- 19:52 < echarp> the global reserve being the public domain?
- 19:56 < urgen> well public is always relative
- 19:56 < urgen> there isn’t really a global bill of rights
- 19:56 < urgen> even United Nations would be tainted definitions
- 19:58 < echarp> there are international treaties on copyrights, patents and trademarks
- 19:58 < echarp> it’s quite an equivalent
- 19:58 < urgen> it is a start
- 19:58 < urgen> but it is still dependent upon nationally based legitimacy
- 19:58 < echarp> not for me
- 19:59 < echarp> nations are a dangerous thing of the past
- 19:59 < urgen> inter"national"
- 19:59 < urgen> without the national the treaty would hold no power
- 20:43 < echarp> definitely yes
- 20:43 < echarp> those treaties rely on national laws
- 20:46 < echarp> ok urgen, good night for now, I think
- 20:47 < echarp> gf is around ;)
- 20:51 < urgen> ’k
- 22:06 < echarp> re :) —- Log closed dim sep 10 00:00:19 2006
+1
-
Hi,
I personally favor the very simple and functional definition of truth given by Erich Fromm. In short, truth can be defined as a functional approximation of reality. The closer to the truth you are, the better you are able to grasp on your environment. As one can see, this is coherent with the widely shared view of what illusions/delusions are, and how they affect one’s ability to deal with their environment in a productive manner.
Actually went and modified the entry about truth on wikipedia, here’s the bit on Fromm I added if you want a fuller explanation:
Fromm’s theory of truth
Erich Fromm finds that trying to discuss truth as “absolute truth” is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on “optimal truth”. He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one’s environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in “a strange and powerful world”. The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in “Man from Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics” (1947), from which excerpts are included below.
- the dichotomy between ‘absolute = perfect’ and ‘relative = imperfect’ has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where “it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles”.
- In that respect, “a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result”. The history of science is “a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation.”
- As a result “the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period.” Fromm furthermore notes that “different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth” and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.
Best regards,
Serge
+3
-
11/09/06 23:10
Truth
+1
In the wikipedia article on truth, here is the part I prefer:
> There also have more recently arisen “deflationary” or “minimalist” > theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term > like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about > it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth > is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, > or to form certain types of generalizations
End of quote.
> I personally favor the very simple and functional definition of truth > given by Erich Fromm. In short, truth can be defined as a functional > approximation of reality. The closer to the truth you are, the better > you are able to grasp on your environment. As one can see, this is > coherent with the widely shared view of what illusions/delusions are, > and how they affect one’s ability to deal with their environment in a > productive manner.
Truth as a relative and changing point of view. I like that, a good starting point.
> – As a result “the history of thought is the history of an > ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not > absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a > given historical period.” Fromm furthermore notes that “different > cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth” and that > increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to > reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the > truth.
This optimum seems strange, how do we know it is really optimum? Isn’t it simply optimum by definition?
Is it always increasing?
My point of view on reality: as long as we haven’t traveled to every single part, atom, quark, quanta, of our universe, we won’t know for sure that somewhere sometime there is not a mouse hole taking us to a bigger and more real universe :-D
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> +1 > > In the wikipedia article on truth, here is the part I prefer: […] > > G:The closer to the truth you are, the better > > you are able to grasp on your environment. As one can see, this is > > coherent with the widely shared view of what illusions/delusions are, > > and how they affect one’s ability to deal with their environment in a > > productive manner.
> Truth as a relative and changing point of view. I like that, a good > starting point.
-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and changing.
> >G: […] and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to > > reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.
-M: Yes.
>ec: This optimum seems strange, how do we know it is really optimum? Isn’t > it simply optimum by definition?
-M: What is the difference? You are using defined words to communicate this idea, regardless, correct?
>ec: Is it always increasing?[…]
-M: Yes.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 07:55 PM 9/12/2006, Mark wrote:
>-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. >Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and >changing.
When it comes to “truth,” people argue apples and oranges. That is, they don’t first agree on what truth is. Is it a thing? (a dharma, in Buddist terms). Is it a quality of statements? Is it a relationship between statements and some thing?
With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue indefinitely and without resolution.
I tend to write about truth and about Truth, distinguishing them by the capital letter. Truth is a dharma, indeed, it is the foundation dharma, reality itself. Truth is a synonym for Reality and for God. And, by the way, this is on solid religious foundations for a Muslim. But that’s not the point here.
Then I may say that a statement is true. This is far more complex. I, quite simply, don’t have time to address it tonight, except that I could make a possibly provocative statement…. why not?
A statement is true if it leads one who reflects on it to a more direct relationship with Truth, and that relationship confirms, rather than denies, the statement.
+1
-
> >-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. > >Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and > >changing.
>L: When it comes to “truth,” people argue apples and oranges. That is, > they don’t first agree on what truth is. Is it a thing? (a dharma, in > Buddist terms). Is it a quality of statements? Is it a relationship > between statements and some thing?
-M: Its a thing.
>L: With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue > indefinitely and without resolution.
-M: Agreed, its good to start debate with definitions and argue the definititons if nessicary.
>L: I tend to write about truth and about Truth, distinguishing them by > the capital letter. Truth is a dharma, indeed, it is the foundation > dharma, reality itself. Truth is a synonym for Reality and for God. > And, by the way, this is on solid religious foundations for a Muslim. > But that’s not the point here.
-M: These are things that seem foundational to your worldview, so this is relevent.
And if I understand these statements, I agree with them.>L: Then I may say that a statement is true. This is far more complex. I, > quite simply, don’t have time to address it tonight, except that I > could make a possibly provocative statement…. why not? > A statement is true if it leads one who reflects on it to a more > direct relationship with Truth, and that relationship confirms, > rather than denies, the statement.
-M: OK. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 06:45 AM 9/13/2006, Mark wrote:
> >L: When it comes to “truth,” people argue apples and oranges. That is, > > they don’t first agree on what truth is. Is it a thing? (a dharma, in > > Buddist terms). Is it a quality of statements? Is it a relationship > > between statements and some thing? > >-M: Its a thing.
Good. Is there one such thing or are there many?
> >L: With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue > > indefinitely and without resolution. > >-M: Agreed, its good to start debate with definitions and argue the >definititons if nessicary.
It is essential to come to an agreement about definitions before attempting to go further, particular with something as multivalent as “truth.” Generally, if people really do seek to discover agreement underlying their differences, they must find a way to agree on the definitions. If necessary, they can invent new terms that are not loaded with prior implications. It can be quite a process.
> >L: I tend to write about truth and about Truth, distinguishing them by > > the capital letter. Truth is a dharma, indeed, it is the foundation > > dharma, reality itself. Truth is a synonym for Reality and for God. > > And, by the way, this is on solid religious foundations for a Muslim. > > But that’s not the point here. > >-M: These are things that seem foundational to your worldview, so this >is relevent. >And if I understand these statements, I agree with them.
Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim.
It’s quite a detail, though, and I’d be surprised if you were in a position to agree with it, so I certainly don’t expect it. The detail is that Truth has sent a message to us through the prophets, a truth reminding us of its existence, and that Muhammad was one of these. (Some would say “the last,” but the credo does not actually say that, it merely says that Muhammad was the Messenger of God, and it is clear from general context that there were others; indeed, from the traditions, there is an element of prophecy remaining after Muhammad, and that is “clear vision.”)
To agree with this statement, as a matter of “testimony,” requires recognizing the author of the Qur’an, and most don’t actually do that, they merely wish that they did. It is not easy. For me, I had to learn Arabic; before that, from the translations, the Qur’an looked like something quite different. It looked like a relative reflection. But, of course, what I was seeing was the understanding of the translators, not the Qur’an itself. But some do still infer, with a clear inference, from what they can get in English. But, again, I don’t expect it.
Rather, from a Muslim point of view, one who acknowledges the Truth itself, but who does not affirm the Messenger, is simply a “believer.” Which, in the Qur’an, quite explicitly includes others than those who recognize Muhammad as a Messenger.
> >L: Then I may say that a statement is true. This is far more complex. I, > > quite simply, don’t have time to address it tonight, except that I > > could make a possibly provocative statement…. why not? > > A statement is true if it leads one who reflects on it to a more > > direct relationship with Truth, and that relationship confirms, > > rather than denies, the statement. > >-M: OK. :-)
This response is unusual, actually. I can tell that Mark has a difficult path to follow, and I wish him safety and peace in his journey.
+1
-
> > >L: When it comes to “truth,” people argue apples and oranges. That is, > > > they don’t first agree on what truth is. Is it a thing? (a dharma, in > > > Buddist terms). Is it a quality of statements? Is it a relationship > > > between statements and some thing? > > > >-M: Its a thing.
>L: Good. Is there one such thing or are there many?
- One, in terms of an aggregate evolutionary trajectory – that we particapate in as being the prime vector of God’s grace and evolutionary capacity.
- Many, there are many components of this truth, but it is all in the context of the one truth that we participate with.
> > >L: With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue > > > indefinitely and without resolution. > > > >-M: Agreed, its good to start debate with definitions and argue the > >definititons if nessicary.
>L: It is essential to come to an agreement about definitions before > attempting to go further, particular with something as multivalent as > “truth.” Generally, if people really do seek to discover agreement > underlying their differences, they must find a way to agree on the > definitions. If necessary, they can invent new terms that are not > loaded with prior implications. It can be quite a process.
-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: -faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through acceptance and sufficiency for action. -worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world -religion: a faith-based worldview.
> > >L: I tend to write about truth and about Truth, distinguishing them by > > > the capital letter. Truth is a dharma, indeed, it is the foundation > > > dharma, reality itself. Truth is a synonym for Reality and for God. > > > And, by the way, this is on solid religious foundations for a Muslim. > > > But that’s not the point here.
> >-M: These are things that seem foundational to your worldview, so this is relevent. And if I understand these statements, I agree with them.
>L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim.
-M: Me, a Muslim?:
- I have a Koran
- I enjoy reading it
- I like Muhammad
- I love God dearly
- I am protective of Muslims
- But I am not Abrahamic
- My chosen religion is Shaivism
>L: It’s quite a detail, though, and I’d be surprised if you were in a > position to agree with it, so I certainly don’t expect it. The detail > is that Truth has sent a message to us through the prophets, a truth > reminding us of its existence, and that Muhammad was one of these…
-M: I am aware of these points. I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.
>L:…(Some would say “the last,” but the credo does not actually say that, > it merely says that Muhammad was the Messenger of God, and it is > clear from general context that there were others; indeed, from the > traditions, there is an element of prophecy remaining after Muhammad, > and that is “clear vision.”) To agree with this statement, as a matter of “testimony,” requires recognizing the author of the Qur’an, and most don’t actually do > that, they merely wish that they did. It is not easy. For me, I had > to learn Arabic;…
-M: I am learning some Sanskrit.
>L:…before that, from the translations, the Qur’an looked like something quite different. It looked like a relative reflection. But, of course, what I was seeing was the understanding of the translators, not the Qur’an itself. But some do still infer, > with a clear inference, from what they can get in English. But, again, I don’t expect it. Rather, from a Muslim point of view, one who acknowledges the Truth > itself, but who does not affirm the Messenger, is simply a > “believer.” Which, in the Qur’an, quite explicitly includes others > than those who recognize Muhammad as a Messenger.
-M: OK, I am a believer. And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-)
> > >L: Then I may say that a statement is true. This is far more complex. I, > > > quite simply, don’t have time to address it tonight, except that I > > > could make a possibly provocative statement…. why not? > > > A statement is true if it leads one who reflects on it to a more > > > direct relationship with Truth, and that relationship confirms, > > > rather than denies, the statement. > > > >-M: OK. :-)
>L: This response is unusual, actually. I can tell that Mark has a > difficult path to follow, and I wish him safety and peace in his journey.
-M: Thank you, and likewise. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 05:29 PM 9/13/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: >-faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through >acceptance and sufficiency for action. >-worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world >-religion: a faith-based worldview.
This would be “Diyn” as used in the Qur’an, commonly translated as “religion.” However, religion, as used by most people, refers to a body of belief and practice that “binds” people together, hence the etymology.
> >L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with > which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim. > >-M: Me, a Muslim?: >1. I have a Koran >2. I enjoy reading it >3. I like Muhammad >4. I love God dearly >5. I am protective of Muslims >6. But I am not Abrahamic >7. My chosen religion is Shaivism
So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” Many Muslims would immediately assume that, if you say that your religion is Shaivism, you therefore worship something other than God, which, of course, would make you a mushrik, usually translated as polytheist, but really means “one who makes shares, something that shares power [with God].” Whether or not this would be true of you would depend on details that you have not revealed, nor am I asking…. I do not make the assumption I described, and, indeed, that assumption is frequently incorrect. From the Sanskrit, “truth is one, it is known by different names, but all the enlightened agree….”
>I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have >achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. >We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.
Rumi was not a mushrik. That is, he worshipped none but God. There is ambiguity aplenty in the term “worship,” within it lurks substantial danger, and this was a familiar topic for our friend.
>-M: OK, I am a believer. >And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-)
Or seek to be. Easy, not.
+1
-
> >-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: > >-faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through > >acceptance and sufficiency for action. > >-worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world > >-religion: a faith-based worldview.
>L: This would be “Diyn” as used in the Qur’an, commonly translated as > “religion.” However, religion, as used by most people, refers to a > body of belief and practice that “binds” people together, hence the etymology.
-M: I would call that ‘organized religion’.
> > >L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with > > which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim. > > > >-M: Me, a Muslim?: > >1. I have a Koran > >2. I enjoy reading it > >3. I like Muhammad > >4. I love God dearly > >5. I am protective of Muslims > >6. But I am not Abrahamic > >7. My chosen religion is Shaivism
>L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.”
-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from Abraham.
This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). They largely differ over where this line stops.>L: Many Muslims would immediately assume that, if you say that your religion is Shaivism, > you therefore worship something other than God, which, of course, > would make you a mushrik, usually translated as polytheist, but > really means “one who makes shares, something that shares power [with > God].” Whether or not this would be true of you would depend on > details that you have not revealed, nor am I asking…. I do not make > the assumption I described, and, indeed, that assumption is > frequently incorrect. From the Sanskrit, “truth is one, it is known > by different names, but all the enlightened agree….”
-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of aspects of one Godhead.
And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.> >I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have > >achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. > >We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.
>L: Rumi was not a mushrik. That is, he worshipped none but God. There is > ambiguity aplenty in the term “worship,” within it lurks substantial > danger, and this was a familiar topic for our friend.
-M: OK. I have not studied this matter in detail.
> >-M: OK, I am a believer. > >And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-) > Or seek to be. Easy, not.
-M: OK. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 04:53 PM 9/14/2006, Mark wrote:
> >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from >Abraham.
“Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.
>This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). >They largely differ over where this line stops.
Indeed. Christians and Jews-and-Muslims — the latter being quite close — have differing definitions of prophethood. The Baha’i introduce a whole new concept which is in my opinion alien to Islam, but not so alien to Christianity. (The Baha’i consider the Prophets to be the “Manifestation” of God, which gets very close to the Christian concept of the Incarnation. Jesus himself, of course, was a Jew, and quite a good one at that.)
But, again, this has to do with TOP?
There is a connection, but it is getting pretty thin. The connection is my claim that people can come to agreement much more than is often thought, if they can take the time and have the space in which to examine what they believe deeply, rather than merely noting surface appearances and differences.
>-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. >I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of >aspects of one Godhead. >And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.
It ought to be. That’s where I got it (or, more accurately, from the synthetic Vedanta tradition, the Sanskrit begins “ekam sat vipra bahudra vedanti sarvam khalvidam buddham tat tvam asi….” If I remember it correctly.)
But I could also state it from my personal experience. Truth is one. People call it various names. But all agree [where the conditions permit it]….
+1
-
> > >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > > > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from > >Abraham.
>L: “Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.
-M: ‘Respect’, in the context of religious authority, I would call ‘veneration’.
> >This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). > >They largely differ over where this line stops.
&
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 01:47