OT Re: [oclug] 16-year-old technology obsolete while 916-year-old
tech lives on
gilliland at sympatico.ca
Tue Mar 5 07:48:11 EST 2002
"Francis J. A. Pinteric" wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:33:11 -0500
> Pat <gilliland at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> Rights
> > > impose on man that notion of the `greater good' that mere 'biological
> > > imperative' denies.
> > >
> > No not at all. As a species our main survival tool is the acquisition,
> > retention and dissemination of knowledge. Stephen Hawking to use a much
> > overused example, is very fit to live in our society and may well have
> > excellent genes to contribute. "Fittest" for humans does not
> > necessarily mean physical prowess or Wayne Gretzky would be running
> > Microsoft not Bill Gates. Co-operation and helping the weak actually
> > might improve our species overall.
> You're jumping from the biological to the social. Stephen Hawking, as the
> overused example, is a prime example of why the "biological imperative" is
> irrelavent to the socialogicall order. (Although why he is an example that
> is overused you will need to expalin to me -- he proves that genius is
> inspired not bred). There is such a thing as the "social imperative" also
> known as the "greater good" which the biological aspect of our nature
> works against. I suggest you spend some time studying the "lower classes"
> and a reading of the life and works of Maslov at this point.
No jumps. Our sociology at worst intersects with our biology. Hive
behaviours, pack and pride structures are all part of the overall biology of
the "lesser" animals why should we be any different? Our social structures
are the fangs teeth and ruminant guts whcih have allowed us to survive.
Stephen Hawking is all too often trotted out in the pop press as the "crippled
genius" thus the "over used".
The nature vs nurture debate especially in regard to intelligence has yet to
be resolved. I tend to see nurture as the prime influence but nature does
play a factor.
The social and biological imperatives are not in conflict, they are two facets
of the same overall drive.
I am lower class so fuck off! ;) ;) ;).
(Working class parental background from London and Liverpool. Have worked
for a significant part of my life in blue collar occupations, been on welfare
(thankfully briefly) and used a food bank.)
I am familiar with Maslov but have not studied him extensively so I will not
comment one way or the other.
> /* SOME MAY FIND THE FOLLWING OBJECTIONABLE -- TOO BAD */
> There are certain social theories, however, that take as their inspiration
> the biological order and perverting them. Social Darwinists insist that
> the rich are better people by virtue of their wealth and therefore are
> entitled to the best education and the best jobs, even at the expense of
> the poor (which flies in the face of their abhorence of new money). Nazism
> created a form of religion on the basis of a supposed superiority of the
> German people which they presumed to be Aryan (which in point of fact they
> are not). One hundred years ago, even the concept of race was much
> different than it is today. Then, culture and locality also factored into
> our understanding of race. Today our understanding of race is mostly based
> on physical characteristics, except where politically expedient (like the
> Jews and Palestinians, or the Islamic and Hindi Punjabi). It is also
> interesting to note that even our modern understanding of race is based on
> Nazi research -- perhaps something we should be undoing?/* I FORGET HOW TO
> USE LINT */
Hmmm... I pretty much agree. My concept of "race" has always been that it is
an increasingly unreliable indicator of cultural tendencies. e.g. In general,
a person of "African" racial type (ignoring white South Africans, Rhodesians
etc) will not be likely to support the Klu Klux Klan. When specific
physiologies were more closely tied to specific cultures the concept of race
PERHAPS had more usefull meaning.
I tend to look at a person in tems of what culture they profess rather than
any specific physiological characteristics.
> Some humans are driven not only by biology. Some of us also possess the
> spark of the divine, and that drives those of us possessed of it even
> further. Some are driven to prove their divine natures, others are driven
> to categorically deny it and rank themselves as no better than their
> animal neighbours. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.
That supposes animals do not possess any divine spark. As far as I can tell
my dog is pretty damn happy being a dog. He displays an apparent level of
innate contenment that mystics of all stripes spend lifetimes trying to
To quote St. Francis (not Pinteric) "...consider the lillies of the field..."
Sometimes I wish humans would try to achieve a rank as good as their animal
> > Farmers provide food for academics who do research to allow us to grow
> > more food and so on.
> Mixing sociology and biology again. Farmers exist because of sociology not
We were all farmers once. A sociological behaviour that ensured biological
> > First word of the sentence thus capitalized. Henry and Luther and a few
> > others (including my late grandfather) would strongly disagree on the
> > One True Church.....
> And thus your strongly humanist opinions. Indeed, Luther would rank as a
> humanist if he did not strongly believe in God. Luther, in the end, was a
> strong believer in God and His law. The problem lay in that Luther assumed
> that he was a man not only capable of sinning and indulging it, but that
> it was in his very nature ... that man himself was evil. From the absolute
> corruption of mankind we move to a whole host of Protestant doctrine that
> took decades to invent, all of which stands in contrast to true Catholic
> But Luther's big problem was Luther himself. Luther started out arguing a
> novel concept of "salvation by faith alone." When the Church showed him
> his error, rather than accepting that he was wrong, he clung to his
> opinion and tried to prove it from another angle. (How many of us in our
> younger years have done the same?) Now, salvation was indeed accomplished
> by faith "alone" because the Bible itself proclaimed it, and that if one
> ignores the opinions of all the fathers of the Church and accepted the
> authority of the Bible alone, he would be vindicated. Well, the Church
> took him up on his offer and proved him wrong yet again, and showed that
> his own particular view of salvation by faith alone was false even on his
> own terms. (2 Maccabees 12:42-46 was usually quoted in this regard).
> After that, he started tampering with the Bible itself. He was convinced
> that he was right and the Church was wrong and in order to do so started
> writing all sorts of invectives against not only the Church but the Bible
> itself. Luther would want half the Bible removed, and declared that
> salvation was accomplished by his doctrine alone, and even the angels
> could not judge him (citations available on requrest).
> Protestants eventually rejected 7 books from the Bible, and parts of two
> others in order to justify their two new novel theories never before found
> in Christian theology: salvation by faith alone, and the concept that the
> Bible alone was the sole rule of faith. (For those interested, by that
> point the Bible was over 1100 years old -- if you want to know what it was
> originally look for the "Catholic Ediition" when looking for Bibles in
> your local bookstore).
Yes but that doesn't give you the expurgated gnostic bits now does it.
> By then, it was decades later, growing into centuries with wars and
> insurrections. As time wore on, animosities and hatreds developed and
> Luther and his errors developed into a religion of hatred against
> Catholicism. Christ's religion of love became a hatred of Catholics.
> But I find myself becoming too partisan and a different forum would be
> better suited to a diatribe on the evils of Protestantism.
Don't sweat it. Its marked OT ;)
I cannot comment the extended history of Luther, the Catholic church et al.
you have given above. I know probably a bit more of christian history than
most but certainly not as much as you. I am thus not in a position to either
disprove what you stated or agree with it so I cannot comment.
> P.S. While there are a great deal of terrible things that Catholics did
> in the name of their religion, Protestants have used those things as an
> excuse for their own behaviour. When we hear of the Inquisition, the
> Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. But never do the Inquisitions that the
> Protestants themselves created in central Europe, even by Luther himself,
> or Calvin or Zwingli, or that it far outdid the wort of the excesses of
> the Crusades (which was the result, not of the Church, but of greed). And
> the Witch-hunts in the new world were all carried out by Protestants. Did
> you know that many victims of these Protestants Inquisitions moved south
> and into the protection of Catholic Maryland?
> In fact it seems that ancient religious excesses of every variety are to
> being blamed on the Catholic Church, especially those of Protestants
> anxious to ignore their own history. Especially the Fundamentalists who
> claim no history at all, except by invention.
> There is a great deal of mis- and even dis-information that all sides of
> the anti-Catholic crusade have instigated. I would be prepared to debate
> all of it with members, off line of course.
Problem is that the Catholic Church has been the biggest kid on the block for
a long time thus the most obvious target. And as you noted, some pretty nasty
acts have been carried out in the name of the church. (Not forgetting of
course that the non-witches of Salem were persecuted by protestants who had
fled Europe to escape persecution themsselves....)
I am not a Catholic and as far as I can tell at this time never will be.
Again at this time I doubt I will ever be a christian of any denomination.
But it does not follow that I hate christians generally or Catholics
More information about the OCLUG