Dictatorship of relativism?
chrissy
Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
relativism".
Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a contradiction in
terms?
Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the ecxtent
to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an exemplar of
relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any
meaningful sense.
Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say that it
is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a straight
face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
cheers
Chrissy
R J Valentine
} Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
} Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
} relativism".
That'd be "Pope Benedict" to you.
} Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a contradiction in
} terms?
}
} Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
} intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the ecxtent
} to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an exemplar of
} relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any
} meaningful sense.
}
} Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say that it
} is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a straight
} face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
This is one guy you really don't want to bandy words with. But like
practice on Ron or Rey first, in case you really feel frisky.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
"Oscar" is a registered trademark of the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
chrissy
R J Valentine wrote:
> In alt.usage.english chrissy <chrissy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> } Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
> } Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
> } relativism".
>
> That'd be "Pope Benedict" to you.
Not when he said this
>
> } Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a
contradiction in
> } terms?
> }
> } Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
> } intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the
ecxtent
> } to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an exemplar of
> } relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any
> } meaningful sense.
> }
> } Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say that
it
> } is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a
straight
> } face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
>
> This is one guy you really don't want to bandy words with. But like
> practice on Ron or Rey first, in case you really feel frisky.
>
That was my joke.
CyberCypher
> Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
> Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
> relativism".
>
> Does anyone think that such a term
It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
> can be other than a contradiction in terms?
Ever heard of metonymy and synechdoche? Try them on for size.
> Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
> intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the
> ecxtent to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an
> exemplar of relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a
> "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense.
Why not? If one accepts the idea that there are no absolute truths,
then one can justify almost any type of behavior prohibited by the
Roman Catholic Church and other absolutist religions that claim the
one true way of the one true god.
Relativism of any sort threatens the very foundation of Christianity,
whose clerics profess to believe that it is the one and only true
faith, the one and only true path to redemption and salvation, and
the one and only true way to worship the one and only true god. If
other religions are accepted as equally true, then Roman Catholicism
must be merely one of many equally plausible religions out there.
That ain't how it works for Jews or Christians or Muslims, in case
you haven't noticed.
> Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say
> that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with
> a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts its own
absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the relativists who assert
that there are no absolute truths --- except for this one, of course.
Where have you been all your life?
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"You've got to get over this idea that there's a rule for
everything."
Professor John Lawler, U. Michigan
fran...@hotmail.com
Your point is well made. Had the cardinal been more precise with his
words, he might have asserted merely that moral relativist thinking was
so ubiquitous that it had acquired the status of orthodoxy.
Conservatives often mistake challenge for being dictated to.
Fran
chrissy
CyberCypher wrote:
> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
>
> > Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
> > Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
> > relativism".
> >
> > Does anyone think that such a term
>
> It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
>
I was being casual -- I might have said "phrase" -- but given that a
leading figure in the Catholic Church was using the phrase, one might
think it had acquired the mantle of "term".
> > can be other than a contradiction in terms?
>
> Ever heard of metonymy and synechdoche? Try them on for size.
>
How is something meant to stand the part for the whole relevant here?
> > Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
> > intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the
> > ecxtent to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an
> > exemplar of relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a
> > "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense.
>
> Why not? If one accepts the idea that there are no absolute truths,
> then one can justify almost any type of behavior prohibited by the
> Roman Catholic Church and other absolutist religions that claim the
> one true way of the one true god.
True, but how does that amount to or even permit "dictatorship"?
>
> Relativism of any sort threatens the very foundation of Christianity,
> whose clerics profess to believe that it is the one and only true
> faith, the one and only true path to redemption and salvation, and
> the one and only true way to worship the one and only true god. If
> other religions are accepted as equally true, then Roman Catholicism
> must be merely one of many equally plausible religions out there.
> That ain't how it works for Jews or Christians or Muslims, in case
> you haven't noticed.
>
Well I can understand why *they* don't like it, but my original
question persists.
> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say
> > that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with
> > a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
>
> The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts its own
> absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the relativists who assert
> that there are no absolute truths --- except for this one, of course.
>
uh huh ..
> Where have you been all your life?
>
The question is imprecise, and possible answers too detailed to record
here.
cheers
Chrissy
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>CyberCypher wrote:
>> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
>>
>> > Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
>> > Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
>> > relativism".
>> >
>> > Does anyone think that such a term
>>
>> It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
>
>I was being casual -- I might have said "phrase" -- but given that a
>leading figure in the Catholic Church was using the phrase, one might
>think it had acquired the mantle of "term".
I'd chalk one up for Chrissy, Catholic Church or not, formal or
informal. The COD has, for 'term':
'a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept'
The million dollar question is how many words can a term contain
before it must be called a phrase? I've wrestled with that question
many a time when posting to this group of pedants.
Charles Riggs --
There are no accented letters in my email address.
CyberCypher
[..]
> I'd chalk one up for Chrissy, Catholic Church or not, formal or
> informal. The COD has, for 'term':
>
> 'a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept'
Yes, I looked it up in the W3NID and found the same thing. It's not a
question of denotation but of connotation. It's a new expression, as
far as I know, so it's not a "term". Chrissy said in her self-defensive
retort:
[quote]
I was being casual -- I might have said "phrase" -- but given that a
leading figure in the Catholic Church was using the phrase, one might
think it had acquired the mantle of "term".
[/quote]
She understands full well that it's not what is normally considered a
"term". Just because Ratzinger said it doesn't give it the mantle of
termism, at least not yet.
> The million dollar question is how many words can a term contain
> before it must be called a phrase? I've wrestled with that question
> many a time when posting to this group of pedants.
A phrase like that becomes a term when it describes something that
everyone recognizes it as an established idea --- sorry, but I f
also find "concept" pretty pretentious in her post as well.
And, hey, Charles, we aren't pedants for nothing, you know. I know you
know, but I thought I should remind you that it's still true.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
>>
>> > Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
>> > Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
>> > relativism".
>> >
>> > Does anyone think that such a term
>>
>> It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
>
> I was being casual -- I might have said "phrase" --
I know you knew better.
> but given that a leading figure in the Catholic Church
> was using the phrase, one might think it had acquired
> the mantle of "term".
Not until it's on a lot of lips and in a lot of journals, papers, and
blogs. Relativism isn't a dictatorship or a dictator. Ideas have
currency only in the minds of the people who have them or know them
or accept them, whether they understand them or not. Logicians
condemn relativism. Moralists condemn relativism. Ideologues of all
stripes condemn relativism.
>> > can be other than a contradiction in terms?
Yep, see? You knew that the expression contains two "terms",
"dictatorship" and "relativism", both of which we all understand and
use all the time.
>> Ever heard of metonymy and synechdoche? Try them on for size.
>>
>
> How is something meant to stand the part for the whole relevant
> here?
The part for the whole, or the whole for the part. Either way, it's a
trope. He's condemning humanists, secularists, religionists of other
faiths, and Roman Catholics who act on their personal understanding
of what is right and wrong instead of the RC Church's dogma of right
and wrong. He has to do that, of course. But it demonstrates what a
caveman he is.
>> > Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral,
>> > ethical, intellectual, epistemological or ontological
>> > relativism, or the ecxtent to which one can fairly describe any
>> > phenomenon as an exemplar of relativism, the concept *cannot*
>> > operate as a "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense.
>>
>> Why not? If one accepts the idea that there are no absolute
>> truths, then one can justify almost any type of behavior
>> prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church and other absolutist
>> religions that claim the one true way of the one true god.
>
> True, but how does that amount to or even permit "dictatorship"?
Dogma. Papal infallibility. Excommunication. Confession. Penance.
Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell. If the Church (whatever church) has the
one and only truth and its leader is infallible in the interpretation
of its meaning, we have spiritual dictatorship, dictatorship in the
afterlife that Xians are so fond of believing in, and dictatorship in
practical and mundane ways, eg no birth control, no family planning
at all except via the rhythm method, no abortion, no divorce, no
recognition of civil marriages, homophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism,
etc. The Church (ie, it's leaders) has always been a dictator. The
recent movie about Joan of Arc has been showing on Taiwan TV for the
paast three weeks or so. Watch it. You'll see how the Church acted as
a dictator only because it had a lock on the "Truth" in the bad old
days.
>> Relativism of any sort threatens the very foundation of
>> Christianity,
>> whose clerics profess to believe that it is the one and only true
>> faith, the one and only true path to redemption and salvation,
>> and the one and only true way to worship the one and only true
>> god. If other religions are accepted as equally true, then Roman
>> Catholicism must be merely one of many equally plausible
>> religions out there. That ain't how it works for Jews or
>> Christians or Muslims, in case you haven't noticed.
>>
>
> Well I can understand why *they* don't like it, but my original
> question persists.
It's not a "contradiction in terms". It's hypocrisy. Ratzie is
complaining that there are reputable and influential people who
lionize the idea of relativism, the notion that morality, right and
wrong, good and bad, and cosmology are functions of time and place
and individual intellects rather than the "only Truth" of the RC
Church. Insofar as ideas "dictate" what is acceptable behavior and
allow for differing interpretations of the meaning of life,
>> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say
>> > that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths,
>> > with a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or
>> > other?
>>
>> The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts its
>> own absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the relativists who
>> assert that there are no absolute truths --- except for this one,
>> of course.
>
> uh huh ..
It seems that you misunderstood that last line, so I'll spell it out
for you: Relativism denies absolute truth. The denial of absolute
truth is itself an absolute truth. *This* is a contradiction in
terms. It's the liar's paradox: "Everything I tell you is a lie". But
only a formalistic trick of the logician is operating here. Even
liars tell the truth sometimes.
>> Where have you been all your life?
>
> The question is imprecise, and possible answers too detailed to
> record here.
I'm really not interested in your autobiography, so thank you for
being kind enough not to provide it.
Raymond S. Wise
A conservative Minnesota Republican politician appears to have gone
even further, equating disagreement against his position with an
expression of hatred against him. See the sorry story in *Speak up
against adding bias to Constitution* by Jon Tufte, on page A21 of the
opinion pages of the (Minneapolis) *Star Tribune* in the Saturday,
April 23, 2005 issue or online at
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5364322.html
(a subscription may be required).
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
chrissy...@yahoo.com
So what you're saying is that he messed up.
It's an extraordinary gaffe for someone who has done little else over
the last however many years but sit aorund poring over abstruse tomes
with a view to determining how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin. He has breathed the air for most of his 78 years, not to
contribute to humanity, but to prepare himself to become fit to lead
1.1 billion people in a moral and spiritual sense. No that He has
exhaled, this is what has emerged -- foetid air.
We mere mortals don't claim to be able to channel an omniscient being,
but in one of my first posts here, an earnest argument ensued over
whether it was apt for me to say "warmest regards" or use an extra
period after an ellipsis. Now here's some clown (and given the funny
hat and his declaration of what appears to be his first piece of papal
bull, what else could you call him?) making a gaffe that few first year
philosophy students would make.
It's hardly suprising though. Two thousand years or so of
self-indulgent cant will do that to you. Perhaps we should paraphrase
Burke here: "absolute truth corrupts absolutely".
cheers
Chrissy
CyberCypher
> fran...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> chrissy wrote:
>> > Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
>> > Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
>> > relativism".
>> >
>> > Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a
>> > contradiction in terms?
>> >
>> > Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral,
>> > ethical, intellectual, epistemological or ontological
>> > relativism, or the ecxtent to which one can fairly describe
>> > any phenomenon as an exemplar of relativism, the concept
>> > *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense.
>> >
>> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say
>> > that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths,
>> > with a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some
>> > kind or other?
>>
>> his words, he might have asserted merely that moral relativist
>> thinking was so ubiquitous that it had acquired the status
>> of orthodoxy.
>>
>> Conservatives often mistake challenge for being dictated to.
>
> gone even further, equating disagreement against his position with
> an expression of hatred against him.
Yep. It makes a joke of everything that America stands for on paper
but does not actually practise as a matter of policy these days.
> See the sorry story in *Speak
> up against adding bias to Constitution* by Jon Tufte, on page A21
> of the opinion pages of the (Minneapolis) *Star Tribune* in the
> Saturday, April 23, 2005 issue or online at
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5364322.html
>
> (a subscription may be required).
Nope. I got the full article without any trouble.
chrissy...@yahoo.com
You're asserting that he's not a relativist, with which I'd heartily
agree.
> >> > Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral,
> >> > ethical, intellectual, epistemological or ontological
> >> > relativism, or the ecxtent to which one can fairly describe any
> >> > phenomenon as an exemplar of relativism, the concept *cannot*
> >> > operate as a "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense.
> >>
> >> Why not? If one accepts the idea that there are no absolute
> >> truths, then one can justify almost any type of behavior
> >> prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church and other absolutist
> >> religions that claim the one true way of the one true god.
> >
> > True, but how does that amount to or even permit "dictatorship"?
>
> Dogma. Papal infallibility. Excommunication. Confession. Penance.
> Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell. If the Church (whatever church) has the
> one and only truth and its leader is infallible in the interpretation
> of its meaning, we have spiritual dictatorship, dictatorship in the
> afterlife that Xians are so fond of believing in, and dictatorship in
> practical and mundane ways, eg no birth control, no family planning
> at all except via the rhythm method, no abortion, no divorce, no
> recognition of civil marriages, homophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism,
> etc. The Church (ie, it's leaders) has always been a dictator. The
> recent movie about Joan of Arc has been showing on Taiwan TV for the
> paast three weeks or so. Watch it. You'll see how the Church acted as
> a dictator only because it had a lock on the "Truth" in the bad old
> days.
>
Indeed. For them it's dictatorship under god, as they see him and
interpret him. (Mind you they don't concede it's an intepretation, for
obvious reasons).
> >> Relativism of any sort threatens the very foundation of
> >> Christianity,
> >> whose clerics profess to believe that it is the one and only true
> >> faith, the one and only true path to redemption and salvation,
> >> and the one and only true way to worship the one and only true
> >> god. If other religions are accepted as equally true, then Roman
> >> Catholicism must be merely one of many equally plausible
> >> religions out there. That ain't how it works for Jews or
> >> Christians or Muslims, in case you haven't noticed.
> >>
> >
> > Well I can understand why *they* don't like it, but my original
> > question persists.
>
> It's not a "contradiction in terms". It's hypocrisy. Ratzie is
> complaining that there are reputable and influential people who
> lionize the idea of relativism, the notion that morality, right and
> wrong, good and bad, and cosmology are functions of time and place
> and individual intellects rather than the "only Truth" of the RC
> Church. Insofar as ideas "dictate" what is acceptable behavior and
> allow for differing interpretations of the meaning of life,
>
Oh I see, so your interpretation of his use of "dictatorship" casts it
as no more than "an influential paradigm" "dictating apostasy".
> >> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say
> >> > that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths,
> >> > with a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or
> >> > other?
> >>
> >> The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts its
> >> own absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the relativists who
> >> assert that there are no absolute truths --- except for this one,
> >> of course.
> >
> > uh huh ..
>
> It seems that you misunderstood that last line, so I'll spell it out
> for you: Relativism denies absolute truth.
Correct
> The denial of absolute
> truth is itself an absolute truth.
This paradox is why I'm not an epistemological relativist.
> *This* is a contradiction in
> terms. It's the liar's paradox: "Everything I tell you is a lie". But
> only a formalistic trick of the logician is operating here. Even
> liars tell the truth sometimes.
>
> >> Where have you been all your life?
> >
> > The question is imprecise, and possible answers too detailed to
> > record here.
>
> I'm really not interested in your autobiography, so thank you for
> being kind enough not to provide it.
>
I used context to work that out. Relativism has its uses.
cheers
Chrissy
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>The million dollar question is how many words can a term contain
>before it must be called a phrase? I've wrestled with that question
>many a time when posting to this group of pedants.
>
An extrapolating: how many words does a term contain when it is too long to
be called a phrase?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
Peter Duncanson
>He has breathed the air for most of his 78 years, not to
>contribute to humanity, but to prepare himself to become fit to lead
>1.1 billion people in a moral and spiritual sense.
In my, admittedly limited, understanding of Catholic doctrine the Pope is
God's representative to the whole of humanity, not just to the present
members of the RC Church. It could be said that his mission to non-Catholics
is the most important part of his work.
--
Yours agnostically
Peter Duncanson
Daniel James
wrote:
> [Chrissy wrote]
> > Does anyone think that such a term
>
> It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
Why is it not a "term"?
NSOED:
| Term (n)
| 11
[snip]
| b Any word or group of words expressing a notion or conception,
| or used in a particular context; an expression (for something).
| Usu. w. qualifying adj. or phr. L15.
seems to fit.
Cheers,
Daniel.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
>> > CyberCypher wrote:
>> >> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
> Oh I see, so your interpretation of his use of "dictatorship"
> casts it as no more than "an influential paradigm" "dictating
> apostasy".
My interpretation of his use of the word "dictatorship" is that he is
a hypocrite. He doesn't see that the RCC is a dictatorial institution
and that he is the chief dictator. Do ideas dictate anything? No.
Only people and their institutions dictate.
>> >> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To
>> >> > say that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute
>> >> > truths, with a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some
>> >> > kind or other?
>> >>
>> >> The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts
>> >> its own absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the
>> >> relativists who assert that there are no absolute truths ---
>> >> except for this one, of course.
>> >
>> > uh huh ..
>>
>> It seems that you misunderstood that last line, so I'll spell it
>> out for you: Relativism denies absolute truth.
>
> Correct
>
>> The denial of absolute truth is itself an absolute truth.
>
> This paradox is why I'm not an epistemological relativist.
So you're some kind of absolutist? You might as well be a Muslim or
Catholic or a Communist, then. One falsehood's as good as another.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> [Chrissy wrote]
>> > Does anyone think that such a term
>>
>> It's a phrase or an expression, not a "term".
>
> Why is it not a "term"?
>
> NSOED:
>| Term (n)
>| 11
> [snip]
>| b Any word or group of words expressing a notion or
>| conception,
>| or used in a particular context; an expression (for
>| something). Usu. w. qualifying adj. or phr. L15.
>
> seems to fit.
Not everything is what it seems. You can read my explanation in another
post in this thread. I won't repeat myself.
chrissy
CyberCypher wrote:
> wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
> > CyberCypher wrote:
> >> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
> >> > CyberCypher wrote:
> >> >> chrissy wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
> [...]
> >
> > Oh I see, so your interpretation of his use of "dictatorship"
> > casts it as no more than "an influential paradigm" "dictating
> > apostasy".
>
> My interpretation of his use of the word "dictatorship" is that he is
> a hypocrite. He doesn't see that the RCC is a dictatorial institution
> and that he is the chief dictator. Do ideas dictate anything? No.
> Only people and their institutions dictate.
>
Fair point
> >> >> > Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To
> >> >> > say that it is absolute truth that there are no absolute
> >> >> > truths, with a straight face surely demands an Oscar of some
> >> >> > kind or other?
> >> >>
> >> >> The Roman Catholic Church, like all Christian sects, asserts
> >> >> its own absolute truths and demands fealty. It's the
> >> >> relativists who assert that there are no absolute truths ---
> >> >> except for this one, of course.
> >> >
> >> > uh huh ..
> >>
> >> It seems that you misunderstood that last line, so I'll spell it
> >> out for you: Relativism denies absolute truth.
> >
> > Correct
> >
> >> The denial of absolute truth is itself an absolute truth.
> >
> > This paradox is why I'm not an epistemological relativist.
>
> So you're some kind of absolutist? You might as well be a Muslim or
> Catholic or a Communist, then. One falsehood's as good as another.
>
No, I'm not sure how to exactly name my position, epistemologically.
I accept that there's a real world to which my senses refer, because I
cannot imagine how I could evaluate how best to act, or even that I was
acting without such an assumption.
I readily accept that the intellectual tools of humans are inadequate
to describe that real world with anything like the standard of proof
one would need to say the description was immune from challenge.
One proposition may certianly be true to the other's exclusion, but we
can't tell which is which.
Some propositions appear more useful than others to work with,
according to my best insights, and that's a sufficient reason for
acting, in my view.
I suppose one could call that "agnostic realism".
cheers
Chrissy
Michael J Hardy
> Dictatorships assert absolute truths
I don't think so. The nazis didn't care about truths.
In occupied Poland they said anyone selling bread for
more than pre-war prices would be shot dead. Everyone
sold bread for more than pre-war prices; no one was shot
for it. Instead they shot large numbers of people dead
for reasons unrelated to their avowed positions. Words
didn't mean anything to them.
> and demand fealty.
Correct. -- Mike Hardy
chrissy
Weren't their absolute truths manifest destiny, blood and honor, and
the triumph af the superior gene pool?
Didn't they have Hobbes' position on the sovereign?
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy...@yahoo.com
Undoubtedly, this would be his view.
In ntheory at least, he wants the whole box and dice.
Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
cheers
Chrissy
R J Valentine
...
} In ntheory at least, he wants the whole box and dice.
}
} Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
Not as interesting as "ntheory". It does remind me that I've been stuck
for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini. I
think I'll get it eventually, because I think I've gotten each of the gems
at least once individually. It looks to be a matter of forgetting the
reflexes necessary to get each one before going on to the next. Ntheory
I'm confident.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Intermediate 23 was just nuts.
Steve Hayes
Isn't that the exception that proves the rule, or something?
Like Tom Lehrer's "I know there are people in this world who do not love their
fellow man and I *hate* people like that. Cf. the tolerant intolerance thread.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
chrissy
R J Valentine wrote:
> In alt.usage.english chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...
> } In ntheory at least, he wants the whole box and dice.
> }
> } Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
>
> Not as interesting as "ntheory".
Whoops ... sticky keys ...
> It does remind me that I've been stuck
> for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini.
I
> think I'll get it eventually, because I think I've gotten each of the
gems
> at least once individually. It looks to be a matter of forgetting
the
> reflexes necessary to get each one before going on to the next.
Ntheory
> I'm confident.
>
Very witty Wilde.
I had been referring to the metaphysical antecedents of "theory" of
course.
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2005 21:33:19 -0700, "chrissy" <chrissy...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
> >Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
> >relativism".
> >
> >Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a contradiction
in
> >terms?
> >
> >Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
> >intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the
ecxtent
> >to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an exemplar of
> >relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any
> >meaningful sense.
> >
> >Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say that
it
> >is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a straight
> >face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
>
> Isn't that the exception that proves the rule, or something?
>
> Like Tom Lehrer's "I know there are people in this world who do not
love their
> fellow man and I *hate* people like that. Cf. the tolerant
intolerance thread.
>
>
You think he was riffing? Wow!
That *is* wilde!
cheers
Chrissy
Charles Riggs
<cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote on 24 Apr 2005:
>[..]
>> I'd chalk one up for Chrissy, Catholic Church or not, formal or
>> informal. The COD has, for 'term':
>>
>> 'a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept'
>
>Yes, I looked it up in the W3NID and found the same thing. It's not a
>question of denotation but of connotation. It's a new expression, as
>far as I know, so it's not a "term". Chrissy said in her self-defensive
>retort:
>[quote]
>I was being casual -- I might have said "phrase" -- but given that a
>leading figure in the Catholic Church was using the phrase, one might
>think it had acquired the mantle of "term".
>[/quote]
>
>She understands full well that it's not what is normally considered a
>"term". Just because Ratzinger said it doesn't give it the mantle of
>termism, at least not yet.
Well, I don't know what she know full well; it isn't something I'd
ever heard before, but I'm not the final arbitrator of what is
familiar and what is not. Can it be a 'term' for her and the Pope, but
not for us?
I see your point, of course, and I'm not arguing only for the sake of
arguing, acceptable as that is in this group. I am often unsure
whether a phrase is a term or not, so I stuck my oar in.
>> The million dollar question is how many words can a term contain
>> before it must be called a phrase? I've wrestled with that question
>> many a time when posting to this group of pedants.
>
>A phrase like that becomes a term when it describes something that
>everyone recognizes it as an established idea --- sorry, but I f
>also find "concept" pretty pretentious in her post as well.
>
>And, hey, Charles, we aren't pedants for nothing, you know. I know you
>know, but I thought I should remind you that it's still true.
You aren't for nothing, but most people here aren't paid for the job.
Since it'd be unkind of me to assume they are naturally
anal-retentive, I must assume they do it out of love.
Areff
> It does remind me that I've been stuck
> for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini.
By the way, has Erk gotten a Mac Mini yet?
Has Ron bought AAPL yet?
Daniel James
wrote:
> Not everything is what it seems. You can read my explanation in another
> post in this thread.
I read it and remain unconvinced. IME people use "term" to mean "an
expression" (as the NSOED recognizes) without any requirement for the
expression to have any previous currency.
It seems to me that you were nitpicking for want of anything of substance
to say, and were being needlessly harsh to Chrissy who did nothing worse
than to use a word with one of its more general meanings.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Peter Duncanson
He would say that it is God who "wants the whole box and dice" and that he,
the Pope, is merely God's inadequate instrument.
>Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
>
Yes. The word is used with all sorts of meanings.
chrissy
> wrote:
> > Not everything is what it seems. You can read my explanation in
another
> > post in this thread.
>
> I read it and remain unconvinced. IME people use "term" to mean "an
> expression" (as the NSOED recognizes) without any requirement for the
> expression to have any previous currency.
>
To which one might add that although Cyber's objection has merit, his
set of criteria marking the rite of passage from "mere phrase" to
"term" is highly subjective, and that being so, my defence that it had
been used by the cardinal on the eve of popedom might have sufficed.
How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of mass
murder" did it take to become a term?
What about "Iron Curtain" as used by Winston Churchill?
> It seems to me that you were nitpicking for want of anything of
substance
> to say, and were being needlessly harsh to Chrissy who did nothing
worse
> than to use a word with one of its more general meanings.
>
I thank you warmly for coming to my aid, but I'm of robust disposition,
as Cyber well knows. I'm also estopped from complaining about
nitpicking, when I post in a place, the alternate name of which might
be alt.usage.nitpicking.
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
and cheers in even greater quantity
Chrissy
chrissy
Peter Duncanson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2005 19:48:21 -0700, chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Peter Duncanson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2005 05:03:46 -0700, chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >He has breathed the air for most of his 78 years, not to
> >> >contribute to humanity, but to prepare himself to become fit to
lead
> >> >1.1 billion people in a moral and spiritual sense.
> >>
> >> In my, admittedly limited, understanding of Catholic doctrine the
> >Pope is
> >> God's representative to the whole of humanity, not just to the
> >present
> >> members of the RC Church. It could be said that his mission to
> >non-Catholics
> >> is the most important part of his work.
> >>
> >
> >Undoubtedly, this would be his view.
> >
> >
> He would say that it is God who "wants the whole box and dice" and
that he,
> the Pope, is merely God's inadequate instrument.
>
He might say that, but he'd be mistaken. An omnipotent being has no
need of instruments, inadequate or otherwise, for wanting, needing and
having are much the same to one who is all-powerful and omniscient.
> >Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
> >
> Yes. The word is used with all sorts of meanings.
>
Its intitial usage deriving from the godhead, like so much else in
language.
cheers
Chrissy
Mike Lyle
>>> Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
>>>
>> Yes. The word is used with all sorts of meanings.
>>
>
> Its intitial usage deriving from the godhead, like so much else in
> language.
Such a pretty notion that I had to rush to the dictionaries before
yielding to my impulse to dismiss it! But of course it isn't so.
"Theory" is about _looking_, while, as I understand it, the
derivation of _theos_ has yet to be proposed with any plausibility:
the usual rules make it hard even to trace it to Sanskrit _deva_=
Latin _deus_. So, sadly, it looks like a coincidence.
--
Mike.
Alan Jones
"chrissy" <chrissy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114429597.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
>> He would say that [....] that he,
>> the Pope, is merely God's inadequate instrument.
> He might say that, but he'd be mistaken. An omnipotent being has no
> need of instruments, inadequate or otherwise, for wanting, needing and
> having are much the same to one who is all-powerful and omniscient.
[...]
That might be true of God at the Creation, though even then tradition has it
that the Angels were intermediary between pure Spirit and base Material. Bur
as regards mankind, the Adam and Eve myth teaches us that God has, by giving
us free will, withdrawn to that extent the exercise of his omnipotence.
People choose to "eat of the Tree", though God warns them not to do so. The
Blessed Virgin could of her own free will could have rejected the role of
God-Bearer, but her voluntary "Be it unto me according to thy word" is
instrumental in the work of redemption. The Pope, and any faithful teacher
or pastor, is only following her lead, and that of the prophets and
apostles, in saying that he accepts a role as one of God's instruments,
however inadequate his human failings may make him.
(I write as an agnostic, by the way, but one who does listen to the lessons
and sermon on Sunday mornings.)
Alan Jones
chrissy
Not entirely ... for ten points ... consider the word "vidya" in
Sanskrit.
What is it that the person possessed of it actually sees?
cheers
Chrissy
Peter Duncanson
>
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2005 19:48:21 -0700, chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> >> On 24 Apr 2005 05:03:46 -0700, chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >He has breathed the air for most of his 78 years, not to
>> >> >contribute to humanity, but to prepare himself to become fit to
>lead
>> >> >1.1 billion people in a moral and spiritual sense.
>> >>
>> >> In my, admittedly limited, understanding of Catholic doctrine the
>> >Pope is
>> >> God's representative to the whole of humanity, not just to the
>> >present
>> >> members of the RC Church. It could be said that his mission to
>> >non-Catholics
>> >> is the most important part of his work.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Undoubtedly, this would be his view.
>> >
>> >In theory at least, he wants the whole box and dice.
>> >
>> He would say that it is God who "wants the whole box and dice" and
>that he,
>> the Pope, is merely God's inadequate instrument.
>>
>
>
>He might say that, but he'd be mistaken. An omnipotent being has no
>need of instruments, inadequate or otherwise, for wanting, needing and
>having are much the same to one who is all-powerful and omniscient.
If we take this topic much further we might drift off topic.
>
>> >Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
>> >
>> Yes. The word is used with all sorts of meanings.
>>
>
>Its intitial usage deriving from the godhead, like so much else in
>language.
Aha - back on topic.
From:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theory?view=uk
• noun (pl. theories)
<snip>
— ORIGIN Greek theoria ‘contemplation, speculation’.
and from:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theocracy?view=uk
theocracy
<snip>
— ORIGIN from Greek theos ‘god’.
My knowledge of Greek is zero.
What is the connection between 'theoria' and 'theos'?
Is it, perhaps, that a 'god' is 'one who sees'?
Which derives from which?
Or do they have a common origin?
rban...@shaw.ca
<r...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In alt.usage.english chrissy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>...
>} In ntheory at least, he wants the whole box and dice.
>}
>} Isn't "theory" an interesting word in this context?
>
>Not as interesting as "ntheory". It does remind me that I've been stuck
>for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini. I
>think I'll get it eventually, because I think I've gotten each of the gems
>at least once individually. It looks to be a matter of forgetting the
>reflexes necessary to get each one before going on to the next. Ntheory
>I'm confident.
For the _really_ old Catullus stirs no reflexes, but they tell me they
are never forgotten.
rban...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>R J Valentine wrote:
>> It does remind me that I've been stuck
>> for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini.
>
>By the way, has Erk gotten a Mac Mini yet?
>
Do not be beastly, kitten.
>Has Ron bought AAPL yet?
In and out, like Catullus.
chrissy
Alan Jones wrote:
> "chrissy" <chrissy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114429597.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> He would say that [....] that he,
> >> the Pope, is merely God's inadequate instrument.
>
> > He might say that, but he'd be mistaken. An omnipotent being has no
> > need of instruments, inadequate or otherwise, for wanting, needing
and
> > having are much the same to one who is all-powerful and omniscient.
> [...]
>
> That might be true of God at the Creation, though even then tradition
has it
> that the Angels were intermediary between pure Spirit and base
> as regards mankind, the Adam and Eve myth teaches us that God has, by
giving
> us free will, withdrawn to that extent the exercise of his
omnipotence.
Here we have a paradox. Does an omnipotent being have the power to
restrain itself? Semantically at least, that must be among its powers,
but if it exercises it, it's no longer omnipotent.
Can an omniscient being predict its future? It must be so. Can it then
act otherwise? Not without being retrospectively showing it wasn't
omniscient. And if it can't, its omnipotence is frustrated by its
omniscience.
Can humans act otherwise than as the omniscient being foresees? Hardly.
Whatever we do, every change of heart, every epiphany, every descent
into vice and doubt, every recantation, is all foreseen long before the
earth was ever created, along with everything that might have
predisposed us one way or t'other. Every shadow cast upon every human
being contains within it the work and insight of the prime mover, who
knows full well its consequences.
No, on this account, there is no space at all for anything one might
describe as "free will".
> People choose to "eat of the Tree", though God warns them not to do
so.
Yet the serpent's action was foreseen while he was still the Archangel
Lucifer, who after all, was also the creation of God. The "warning" is
even more moot than one who warns a pubescent teenager to stop it for
fear of blindness.
> The
> Blessed Virgin could of her own free will could have rejected the
role of
> God-Bearer,
Oh sure ... that would have been embarrasing. He was the only suitor in
history 100% sure his advances would be accepted. When he whispered,
she didn't need to say "pardon?"
> but her voluntary "Be it unto me according to thy word" is
> instrumental in the work of redemption.
I must remember that if I ever get have to explain an indiscretion.
Mind you, if it's god ...
Maybe that's why that's such a common ejaculation during intercourse?
> The Pope, and any faithful teacher
> or pastor, is only following her lead, and that of the prophets and
> apostles, in saying that he accepts a role as one of God's
instruments,
> however inadequate his human failings may make him.
On the logic of theism, all humans are his instruments, far more
clearly and faithfully than any tool we could wield. Inadequacy just
doesn't enter into it. We are as he intended.
>
> (I write as an agnostic, by the way, but one who does listen to the
lessons
> and sermon on Sunday mornings.)
>
So you're just passing on a rumour then?
> Alan Jones
Not the race car driver or shock jock/ex-rugby coach I take it.
cheers
Chrissy
Mike Lyle
>> Its intitial usage deriving from the godhead, like so much else in
>> language.
> Aha - back on topic.
>
> From:
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theory?view=uk
> <snip>
> - ORIGIN Greek theoria 'contemplation, speculation'.> - ORIGIN from Greek theos 'god'.
>
> My knowledge of Greek is zero.
>
> What is the connection between 'theoria' and 'theos'?
> Is it, perhaps, that a 'god' is 'one who sees'?
> Which derives from which?
> Or do they have a common origin?
As I mentioned just now, the accepted view seems to be that the
similarity is a coincidence.
--
Mike.
chrissy
>
> My knowledge of Greek is zero.
>
> What is the connection between 'theoria' and 'theos'?
> Is it, perhaps, that a 'god' is 'one who sees'?
> Which derives from which?
> Or do they have a common origin?
>
If you consider the word "seer" it's clear sight is not merely a
literal concept associated with the eyes. It's about seeing one's place
in the cosmos.
While the judeo-christian world has commonly expressed religion in
terms of hearing metaphors (hence that famous piece in John 1 "in the
beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a
god", the Qu'Ran is literally, the "recitation") the traditions of the
Indus Valley focus on sight. Vidya, in was about the capacity to see
the hand of the godhead in the world about you, and your connectedness
to it.
That was 7000 years ago of course. Contemporary words that relate to it
include wide, vision, wizard, vizier etc ...
What else does an ancient speculative philosopher contemplate but the
nature of the universe and the role of such metaphysical entities in
bringing it together. And of course a "theory" would almsost by
defintion both encompass one's sight of the god and the role of the god
in the description.
One can see an almost parallel process in considering the evolution of
words such as dogma and doctrine, and what about the word "logic" for
example.
I think it rather curious that despite my hostility to metaphysics,
it's nearly impossible to speak without summoning up what Marx might
have described as the weight of the dead generations, which even now
weighs upon the brain.
I read that even the word "idea" is ultimately traceable back to
"theos".
In a way, this sheds new light (there I go again!! roll on Rene
Descartes) on my conversation with Peter elsewhere in this thread.
My broad point though is that it's hardly surprising, given our past,
that so much of our contemporary language should be metaphysical in
origin.
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy...@yahoo.com
chrissy wrote:
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
snip>>
> In a way, this sheds new light (there I go again!! roll on Rene
> Descartes) on my conversation with Peter elsewhere in this thread.
>
<snip>
Apologies ...
I misread the header describing whom I was responding to.
cheers
Chrissy
Mike Lyle
Don't misunderstand me: my knowledge of etymology at this level is
secondary, not to mention second-rate. But I don't think you can get
to _theos_ from _vidya_, either etymologically or logically (am I
wrong in thinking _vidya_ means something like "knowledge"?).
--
Mike.
chrissy
I was thinking of the movement of the idea that lay behind the concept
of "vidya" and seeing. You might consider the discussion with Peter I'm
having.
cheers
Chrissy
Mike Lyle
[...]
> the traditions of the
> Indus Valley focus on sight. Vidya, in was about the capacity to
see
> the hand of the godhead in the world about you, and your
connectedness
> to it.
>
> That was 7000 years ago of course. Contemporary words that relate
to
> it include wide, vision, wizard, vizier etc ...
Whoa there! You missed out "widow", "widdershins", "Visigoth", and
"Widnes".
> What else does an ancient speculative philosopher contemplate but
the
> nature of the universe and the role of such metaphysical entities
in
> bringing it together. And of course a "theory" would almsost by
> defintion both encompass one's sight of the god and the role of the
> god in the description.
Except that it isn't the same word in Greek. It really isn't, you
know: I'm not making this up.
> One can see an almost parallel process in considering the evolution
of
> words such as dogma and doctrine, and what about the word "logic"
for
> example.
[...]
You've lost me there.
> I read that even the word "idea" is ultimately traceable back to
> "theos".
[...]
Really?
--
Mike.
CyberCypher
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:10:43 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
> <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>>And, hey, Charles, we aren't pedants for nothing, you know. I know
>>you know, but I thought I should remind you that it's still true.
>
> You aren't for nothing, but most people here aren't paid for the
> job. Since it'd be unkind of me to assume they are naturally
> anal-retentive, I must assume they do it out of love.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"You've got to get over this idea that there's a rule for everything."
Professor John Lawler, U. Michigan
chrissy
Mike Lyle wrote:
> chrissy wrote:
> [...]
> > the traditions of the
> > Indus Valley focus on sight. Vidya, in was about the capacity to
> see
> > the hand of the godhead in the world about you, and your
> connectedness
> > to it.
> >
> > That was 7000 years ago of course. Contemporary words that relate
> to
> > it include wide, vision, wizard, vizier etc ...
>
> Whoa there! You missed out "widow", "widdershins", "Visigoth", and
> "Widnes".
>
Well if you're going to be silly ...
> > What else does an ancient speculative philosopher contemplate but
> the
> > nature of the universe and the role of such metaphysical entities
> in
> > bringing it together. And of course a "theory" would almost by
> > definition both encompass one's sight of the god and the role of
the
> > god in the description.
>
> Except that it isn't the same word in Greek. It really isn't, you
> know: I'm not making this up.
>
I'm not suggesting it's the same word, but if two cultures come into
contact, might one not use an existing word by definition *in its own
language* to take up some of the space used by the word in the other
language?
So if there is an Indo-European word that is carried to wherever the
Dorics are for example, might they not begin to use whatever word they
had to do some of the work the Indo-European word was doing?
> > One can see an almost parallel process in considering the evolution
> of
> > words such as dogma and doctrine, and what about the word "logic"
> for
> > example.
> [...]
>
> You've lost me there.
>
> > I read that even the word "idea" is ultimately traceable back to
> > "theos".
> [...]
>
> Really?
>
In its philosophic uses:
[extracted]
"In the philosophy of Plato, an archetype of which a corresponding
being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica;In the philosophy
of Kant, a concept of reason that is transcendent but nonempirical; In
the philosophy of Hegel, absolute truth; the complete and ultimate
product of reason."
Middle English, from Latin, from Greek. See weid- in Indo-European
Roots.
[see below]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idea
also:
1430, "figure, image, symbol," from L. idea "idea," and in Platonic
philosophy "archetype," from Gk. idea "ideal prototype," lit. "look,
form," from idein "to see." Sense of "result of thinking" first
recorded 1645
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=idea&searchmode=none
also interesting in this context ...
vision
... from PIE base *weid- "to know, to see" (cf. Skt. veda "I know;"
Avestan vaeda "I know;" Gk. oida, Doric woida "I know," idein "to see;"
so the link in the Doric is explicit between knowing and seeing ...
O.Ir. fis "vision," find "white," i.e. "clearly seen," O.E. witan "to
know;" Goth. weitan "to see;" Eng. wise, Ger. wissen "to know;" Lith.
vysti "to see;" Bulg. vidya "I see;" Pol. widziec' "to see," weidziec'
"to know;" Rus. videt' "to see," vest' "news," O.Russ. vedat' "to
know"). ...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=weid&searchmode=none
> Mike.
I will continue this later as I need to refer to some physical sources.
CyberCypher
> Daniel James wrote:
>> CyberCypher wrote:
>> > Not everything is what it seems. You can read my explanation in
>> > another post in this thread.
>>
>> I read it and remain unconvinced. IME people use "term" to mean
>> "an expression" (as the NSOED recognizes) without any requirement
>> for the expression to have any previous currency.
Yes, but the NSOED is just a dictionary, Daniel. I am a subjective
commentator. There's a difference.
> To which one might add that although Cyber's objection has merit,
> his set of criteria marking the rite of passage from "mere phrase"
> to "term" is highly subjective, and that being so, my defence that
> it had been used by the cardinal on the eve of popedom might have
> sufficed.
I'll wait to see how many others pick it up and use it after next
week. If it gains general currency, then it becomes a term.
> How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
> mass murder" did it take to become a term?
Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it was
already a well-known concept.
> What about "Iron Curtain" as used by Winston Churchill?
When it was accepted as an apt expression. That wonderful metaphor
and WMD are both immediately grokkable, but "dictatorship of
relativism" is something you found paradoxical at best. I don't think
it identifies anything I am familiar with. It can't be anything but
bullshit. We'll see how the rest of the world likes papal bullshit
soon enough.
>> It seems to me that you were nitpicking for want of anything
>> of substance to say, and were being needlessly harsh to
>> Chrissy who did nothing worse than to use a word with one of
>> its more general meanings.
What do you expect from a curmudgeon, fer crissake, Daniel? Should I
gush?
> I thank you warmly for coming to my aid, but I'm of robust
> disposition, as Cyber well knows. I'm also estopped from
> complaining about nitpicking, when I post in a place, the
> alternate name of which might be alt.usage.nitpicking.
Yes, I do well know. Had you been one of the few fraileins here, I
wouldn't have bothered.
Dick Chambers
chrissy wtote
> [ ... ]
> [ ... ] ......................................... To say that it
> is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a straight
> face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
Others might claim that it is an absolute truth that *every* issue can be
reduced to terms of an absolute truth. That is circular reasoning.
To me, it appears that our world consists of a mixture of (1) absolute
truths, and (2) relativistic issues in which the word "truth" is an
inappropriate term to use. An example of an absolute truth is "2 + 2 = 4".
An example of a relativistic issue (in my terminology) is "Cricket is a
better game than baseball".
The difficulty is that when you compare the merits of, for example,
Christian ethics against Utilitarian theories of ethics, it is never clear
whether the conclusions you reach are an example of absolute truth (Roman
Catholic teaching is supreme because it comes from the word of God), or a
relativistic issue (Utilitarian theories of ethics are supreme over
Christian theories because they have been better analysed). When you
conclude that moral theory A is better than moral theory B, have you arrived
at an absolute truth, or have you simply stated a relativistic issue? If you
wish to claim that you have arrived at an absolute truth, I shall ask you to
prove that it is absolute.
Since the Pope's absolute truth depends logically upon the absolute truth of
the existence of God, which itself is an absolute truth, round and round he
goes in a logical circle. You get into that continuous loop if you are a
christian, but face other logical flaws if you base your logical analysis
upon atheism. In all fairness, if I ask the Pope to prove (without circular
reasoning) that his absolute truths are absolute, then I must equally ask
the moral relativist to prove that his issue is a relative one, not subject
to absolute truth.
What went wrong with the Roman Catholic Church when they asserted an
absolute truth in the case of Galileo? Have they learnt humility since that
case? Have they learnt that the word of God comes down to the Papal Office
sometimes on a rather poor quality telephone line?
Summing up, nobody knows nuttin', not even the Pope.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
CyberCypher
[...]
> Summing up, nobody knows nuttin', not even the Pope.
See, Dick, you're really an epistemological nihilist, not a
Liberatarian after all.
Peter Duncanson
<cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>> How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
>> mass murder" did it take to become a term?
>
>Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
>don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it was
>already a well-known concept.
There is an aricle at
http://hnn.us/articles/1522.html
<quote>
The origin of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is almost as
elusive as Iraq's weapons themselves. In 1925, the Geneva Convention
prohibited "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of
bacteriological methods of warfare." It did not prohibit the manufacturing
and stockpiling of chemical or biological weapons. In 1972, the Biological
and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) prohibited the development, production
and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons.
The term Weapons of Mass Destruction was first used in the London Times in
1937, according to Robert Whealey, writing on H-Diplo. It was used to
describe a Luftwaffe German air force attack on the town of Guernica, Spain.
The attack reportedly lasted for 3 hours and destroyed 70 percent of the
town and killed a third of the population. The attack was ordered by
President Franco of Spain to crush the Basque resistance to Nationalist
forces. Documents discovered after World War II suggest that Guernica served
as the testing ground for a new military tactic -- blanket-bombing of a
civilian population to demoralize the enemy. When the London Times reported
the bombing of Guernica the paper was referring to the devastation caused by
the blanket bombing. Although the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was
used to describe the massive amount of damage by conventional bombs, it was
not associated with biological or chemical weapons as it is today.
...
...
</quote>
and
Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:42:11 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
><cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>
>>> How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
>>> mass murder" did it take to become a term?
>>
>>Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
>>don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it was
>>already a well-known concept.
>
>There is an aricle at
>http://hnn.us/articles/1522.html
></quote>
>
>and
[I accidentally hit the Send button]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2744411.stm
<quote>
weapons of mass destruction • n 1. any weapon which could potentially
inflict fatalities and physical damage on a massive scale. 2. polit. the
nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) arsenals of states identified as
belonging to the axis of evil. also abbrv. as WMD.
CURRENT USAGE: "These [UN] reports do not contend that weapons of mass
destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility." Dr
Hans Blix's statement to the UN Security Council - 27/01/03.
ORIGIN: British newspapers called bomber aircraft "weapons of mass
destruction" in 1937, when the Nazi Luftwaffe was flattening towns - such as
Guernica - during the Spanish Civil War.
In the arms race of the Cold War, WMD was exclusively applied to
thermo-nuclear bombs - since the opposing sides were ready with enough nukes
to mutually assure the destruction of, well, everything.
BROADENED DEFINITION: ...
DISPUTED DEFINITION: ...
DISPUTED DEFINITION (TWO): ...
DISPUTED DEFINITION (THREE): ...
ALTERNATIVES: ...
MASS USE: WMD has had a mass impact of its own. Its recent ubiquity has
earned it a place on Lake Superior State University's famed list of
"misused, overused and generally uselessness" words.
</quote>
Peter Duncanson
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Summing up, nobody knows nuttin', not even the Pope.
I suspect that to a Catholic the Pope's 'nuttin, outranks anyone else's
'nuttin.
Tony Cooper
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Since the Pope's absolute truth depends logically upon the absolute truth of
>the existence of God, which itself is an absolute truth, round and round he
>goes in a logical circle.
I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Martin Ambuhl
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:11:01 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
> do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
Found s.v. 'Hubris', as applied especially to Pius IX, who also
discovered the Immaculate Conception. God knows what other nonsense
Vatican I would have come up with but for the entry into Rome of Garibaldi.
chrissy
CyberCypher wrote:
<snip>
> > How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
> > mass murder" did it take to become a term?
>
> Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
> don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it was
> already a well-known concept.
>
<snip>
It was the term he went to war on, but his revision of it to "weapons
of mass murder" was a deliberate attempt to move away from what his
search failed to find to something that sounded as scary.
I even heard this term applied to 9/11, though Mouusawi was described
as having planned to use a jumbo jet as a WMD as well.
Chrissy
Tony Cooper
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Tony Cooper
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's pretty good chocolate. I'm sure it sells well in Rome.
Wait....that's Ghirardelli...my mistake...carry on.
Laura F. Spira
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:46:04 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:11:01 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
>>
>>>I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
>>>do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
>>
>>Found s.v. 'Hubris', as applied especially to Pius IX, who also
>>discovered the Immaculate Conception. God knows what other nonsense
>>Vatican I would have come up with but for the entry into Rome of Garibaldi.
>
>
> That's pretty good chocolate. I'm sure it sells well in Rome.
>
> Wait....that's Ghirardelli...my mistake...carry on.
>
>
Ah, my stash of Ghirardelli has also long been eaten and I've never seen
it on sale in the UK.
Perhaps you were thinking of Garibaldi biscuits, also known as squashed
fly biscuits?
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/biscuits/views.php3?filter=botw%3D10
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Alan Jones
>
.[...][replying to Alan Jones]
> Does an omnipotent being have the power to
> restrain itself? Semantically at least, that must be among its powers,
> but if it exercises it, it's no longer omnipotent.
Does a pianist cease to be a pianist during the times when he or she isn't
playing the piano?
> Can an omniscient being predict its future? It must be so. Can it then
> act otherwise? Not without being retrospectively showing it wasn't
> omniscient. And if it can't, its omnipotence is frustrated by its
> omniscience.
Suppose that the being exists outside the frame of time and space, but is
able to act upon those within the frame. If (if only!) I could write a "King
Lear", I might have conceived it in fragments and even perhaps started the
serious work by writing the the last act, though by that time the whole play
would be simultaneously in my thoughts. The play itself, though, runs in
order and stretches through a length of time. Not an exact parallel to the
work of a divine being, but, like the playwright, the being's mode of
existence is independent of his creation and its time and space.
>> The
>> Blessed Virgin could of her own free will could have rejected the
> role of
>> God-Bearer,
> Oh sure ... that would have been embarrasing. He was the only suitor in
> history 100% sure his advances would be accepted. When he whispered,
> she didn't need to say "pardon?"
>> but her voluntary "Be it unto me according to thy word" is
>> instrumental in the work of redemption.
> I must remember that if I ever get have to explain an indiscretion.
> Mind you, if it's god ...
> Maybe that's why that's such a common ejaculation during intercourse?
Why the rather strained flippancy, I wonder?
>> The Pope, and any faithful teacher
>> or pastor, is only following her lead, and that of the prophets and
>> apostles, in saying that he accepts a role as one of God's
>>instruments,
>> however inadequate his human failings may make him.
> On the logic of theism, all humans are his instruments, far more
> clearly and faithfully than any tool we could wield. Inadequacy just
> doesn't enter into it. We are as he intended. [...]
True, as far as having free will goes. But untrue as regards the
consequences of its misuse. Of course, if he had peopled the world with
puppets ... Human beings can regard themselves as God's instruments only
insofar as they align themselves with his revealed will, and they know that
their compliance can only ever be partial and inadequate. Hence the notion
of grace.
Alan Jones
Paul Wolff
chrissy <chrissy...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Mike Lyle wrote:
>> chrissy wrote:
>> > What else does an ancient speculative philosopher contemplate but
>> >the nature of the universe and the role of such metaphysical
>> >entities in bringing it together. And of course a "theory" would
>> >almost by definition both encompass one's sight of the god and the role of
>> >the
>> > god in the description.
>>
>> Except that it isn't the same word in Greek. It really isn't, you
>> know: I'm not making this up.
>>
>
>I'm not suggesting it's the same word, but if two cultures come into
>contact, might one not use an existing word by definition *in its own
>language* to take up some of the space used by the word in the other
>language?
>
>So if there is an Indo-European word that is carried to wherever the
>Dorics are for example, might they not begin to use whatever word they
>had to do some of the work the Indo-European word was doing?
>
>> > One can see an almost parallel process in considering the evolution
of words such as dogma and doctrine, and what about the word "logic"
>> > for
>> > example.
>> [...]
>>
>> You've lost me there.
>>
I was expecting a reply referencing 'logos', as in "In the beginning was
the word", already quoted by chrissy here - Message-ID:
<1114437119.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
My posts are currently being shunted into a siding and parked somewhere
in the Internet, so don't hold your breath expecting to see this one...
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> chrissy wrote:
>> [...]
>>> the traditions of the
>>> Indus Valley focus on sight. Vidya, in was about the capacity to
see
>>> the hand of the godhead in the world about you, and your
>>> connectedness to it.
>>>
>>> That was 7000 years ago of course. Contemporary words that relate
to
>>> it include wide, vision, wizard, vizier etc ...
>>
>> Whoa there! You missed out "widow", "widdershins", "Visigoth", and
>> "Widnes".
> Well if you're going to be silly ...
You started it. Switch to the anoraks in sci.lang if you like: they
don't understand humans, but they do know how consonants travel..
>>> What else does an ancient speculative philosopher contemplate but
>>> the nature of the universe and the role of such metaphysical
>>> entities in bringing it together. And of course a "theory" would
>>> almost by definition both encompass one's sight of the god and
the
>>> role of the god in the description.
>>
>> Except that it isn't the same word in Greek. It really isn't, you
>> know: I'm not making this up.
>>
>
> I'm not suggesting it's the same word, but if two cultures come
into
> contact, might one not use an existing word by definition *in its
own
> language* to take up some of the space used by the word in the
other
> language?
Not at that distance, no.
Sorry, but it's bed-time. I'm not copping out, but you aren't showing
the slightest _etymological_ connection. You may draw a poetical
connection, and if you do I'm with you all the way; but that isn't
scientific. But we need to understand both.
This comes from one who thinks linguistics' pretensions to scientific
respectability are sometimes perilously close to good old-fashioned
bollocks. There are areas where science can go on jumping up its own
arse into its subatomic particular eternity, while poetry resumes a
sort of public command. But we don't need to contradict it: better to
side-step. Linguisticians wouldn't do it if they had the talent to do
Eng Lit, and physicists wouldn't do it if they were smart and brave
enough to do biology.
I'm a poet because I don't know where the fuck I am, but by the
living God I know the words drug me out of my tiny confused mind. I
sense that you are on the poetic side: it's much more rigorous, much
more exacting, more depressing though more exciting, but it's
actually the shortest way -- God help us. It's a priesthood, and all
may join as long as they can stay there. There's no other rule.
>> Mike.
>
> I will continue this later as I need to refer to some physical
> sources.
P.S. Jolly good about the physical sources: you mean books? That book
in your hand is physical, all right. But if you still think it's
physical after you've opened it, well, I was wrong. Don't be afraid.
Hear it.
--
Mike.
CyberCypher
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:52:46 +0100, Peter Duncanson
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:42:11 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
>><cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
>>>> mass murder" did it take to become a term?
>>>
>>>Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
>>>don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it
>>>was already a well-known concept.
>>
>>There is an aricle at
>>http://hnn.us/articles/1522.html
>></quote>
>>
>>and
>
> [I accidentally hit the Send button]
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2744411.stm
> <quote>
> weapons of mass destruction ?n 1. any weapon which could
Thank you for all the detective work, Peter. Very interesting. I
didn't know when it originated, but it seems appropriate that "mass
destruction" should not long post-date "mass production".
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote:
> <snip>
>> > How long after George Bush used the revamped phrase "weapons of
>> > mass murder" did it take to become a term?
>>
>> Never, actually. It was WMD = weapons of mass destruction. But I
>> don't think that was W's term to begin with. I do believe that it
>> was
>
>> already a well-known concept.
>>
> <snip>
>
> It was the term he went to war on,
If that's true --- I can't remember that he ever said it, and I do
remember a great deal of what he's said over the years --- it
demonstrates that "weapons of mass murder" was just one of a dozen[1]
phrases he's memorized since getting on the wagon. And I was glued to
CNN for three days after 9/11. It is a most forgettable phrase, and
not at all what I would call a term; after all, neither the press nor
the public has been repeating it. "Mass murder" and "mass murderer",
on the other hand, are well-known terms that have been around for a
long time. YHVH was the first mass murderer, if I recall my OT
history well enough.
> but his revision of it to "weapons of mass murder" was
> a deliberate attempt to move away from what his search
> failed to find to something that sounded as scary.
His revision wasn't popular despite his position in the world.
> I even heard this term applied to 9/11, though Mouusawi was
> described as having planned to use a jumbo jet as a WMD as well.
Yeah, well it's no fun to kill a bunch of people if you can't destroy
a building at the same time.
chrissy
I did have that in mind, but I was looking for an ancient greek
dictionary as a more imposing reference. Still looking.
> My posts are currently being shunted into a siding and parked
somewhere
> in the Internet, so don't hold your breath expecting to see this
one...
> --
> Paul
> In bocca al Lupo!
shouldn't that be "nel bocca d'al lupo"?
In the mouth of the wolf?
That's tough if you're tiny as well!! (Paolo = the smallest coin in
Imperial Rome)
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy
Alan Jones wrote:
> "chrissy" <chrissy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114436065....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> .[...][replying to Alan Jones]
> > Does an omnipotent being have the power to
> > restrain itself? Semantically at least, that must be among its
powers,
> > but if it exercises it, it's no longer omnipotent.
>
> Does a pianist cease to be a pianist during the times when he or she
isn't
> playing the piano?
>
An omnipotent godhead who chooses not to act one way chooses to act
another way, and this too has consequences, which in his omniscience he
foresees.
> > Can an omniscient being predict its future? It must be so. Can it
then
> > act otherwise? Not without being retrospectively showing it wasn't
> > omniscient. And if it can't, its omnipotence is frustrated by its
> > omniscience.
>
> Suppose that the being exists outside the frame of time and space,
but is
> able to act upon those within the frame.
Aren't you forgetting no3? He is omnipresent. In any event, his reach
is total as his knowledge, which is the same thing as being there. Only
us spatially limited and lowly powered entites can be described as not
being somewhere.
> If (if only!) I could write a "King
> Lear", I might have conceived it in fragments and even perhaps
started the
> serious work by writing the the last act, though by that time the
whole play
> would be simultaneously in my thoughts. The play itself, though, runs
in
> order and stretches through a length of time. Not an exact parallel
to the
> work of a divine being, but, like the playwright, the being's mode of
> existence is independent of his creation and its time and space.
>
It can be so with you, but not such a being as is described in the
literature.
> >> The
> >> Blessed Virgin could of her own free will could have rejected the
> > role of
> >> God-Bearer,
>
> > Oh sure ... that would have been embarrasing. He was the only
suitor in
> > history 100% sure his advances would be accepted. When he
whispered,
> > she didn't need to say "pardon?"
>
> >> but her voluntary "Be it unto me according to thy word" is
> >> instrumental in the work of redemption.
>
> > I must remember that if I ever get have to explain an indiscretion.
> > Mind you, if it's god ...
> > Maybe that's why that's such a common ejaculation during
intercourse?
>
> Why the rather strained flippancy, I wonder?
>
I don't think it's strained. My flippancy droppeth as the gentle dew
from heaven.
> >> The Pope, and any faithful teacher
> >> or pastor, is only following her lead, and that of the prophets
and
> >> apostles, in saying that he accepts a role as one of God's
> >>instruments,
> >> however inadequate his human failings may make him.
>
> > On the logic of theism, all humans are his instruments, far more
> > clearly and faithfully than any tool we could wield. Inadequacy
just
> > doesn't enter into it. We are as he intended. [...]
>
> True, as far as having free will goes.
We are an isometric exercise in the mind of god. We have no purpose at
all, on the theologians' assumptions.
>
> But untrue as regards the
> consequences of its misuse. Of course, if he had peopled the world
with
> puppets ... Human beings can regard themselves as God's instruments
only
> insofar as they align themselves with his revealed will, and they
know that
> their compliance can only ever be partial and inadequate. Hence the
notion
> of grace.
>
> Alan Jones
It's all specious. It was incoherent babble even when people took
blarney as good coin. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor)
Now it's widely seen for what it is. Cant. (with a "c")
cheers
Chrissy
meirman
<chrissy...@yahoo.com> posted:
>Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
>Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
>relativism".
>
>Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a contradiction in
>terms?
Imagine when your mother comes to visit and perhaps she is the kind
who tells you how to run your house at least when she's there.
Or maybe your sister tells you how to run your social life.
That is the dictatorship of relatives. I don't see how that is a
contradiction in terms.
###
>Surely, whatever one may say about the merits of moral, ethical,
>intellectual, epistemological or ontological relativism, or the ecxtent
>to which one can fairly describe any phenomenon as an exemplar of
>relativism, the concept *cannot* operate as a "dictatorship" in any
>meaningful sense.
>
>Dictatorships assert absolute truths and demand fealty. To say that it
>is absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, with a straight
>face surely demands an Oscar of some kind or other?
>
>cheers
>
>Chrissy
s/ meirman
--
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years
Peter Moylan
>We mere mortals don't claim to be able to channel an omniscient being,
>but in one of my first posts here, an earnest argument ensued over
>whether it was apt for me to say "warmest regards" or use an extra
>period after an ellipsis. Now here's some clown (and given the funny
>hat and his declaration of what appears to be his first piece of papal
>bull, what else could you call him?) making a gaffe that few first year
>philosophy students would make.
Be fair, now, Chrissy. Are you really suggesting that the Vatican
should have the same high standards as AUE?
There's omniscience, and there's omniscience.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
chrissy
Peter Moylan wrote:
> chrissy...@yahoo.com turpitued:
>
> >We mere mortals don't claim to be able to channel an omniscient
being,
> >but in one of my first posts here, an earnest argument ensued over
> >whether it was apt for me to say "warmest regards" or use an extra
> >period after an ellipsis. Now here's some clown (and given the
funny
> >hat and his declaration of what appears to be his first piece of
papal
> >bull, what else could you call him?) making a gaffe that few first
year
> >philosophy students would make.
>
> Be fair, now, Chrissy. Are you really suggesting that the Vatican
> should have the same high standards as AUE?
>
Well that's their claim, but as we see, it's spurious.
> There's omniscience, and there's omniscience.
>
Indeed
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy
meirman wrote:
> In alt.english.usage on 23 Apr 2005 21:33:19 -0700 "chrissy"
> <chrissy...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> >Ratzinger apparently warned, just before the conclave, that the
> >Catholic church had to struggle against the "dictatorship of
> >relativism".
> >
> >Does anyone think that such a term can be other than a contradiction
in
> >terms?
>
> Imagine when your mother comes to visit and perhaps she is the kind
> who tells you how to run your house at least when she's there.
>
> Or maybe your sister tells you how to run your social life.
>
> That is the dictatorship of relatives. I don't see how that is a
> contradiction in terms.
>
>
Not quite. That would be the dictatorship of absolutist relatives.
I don't think Perry Anderson quite covered that.
cheers
Chrissy
Daniel James
wrote:
> Although the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was
> used to describe the massive amount of damage by conventional bombs, it was
> not associated with biological or chemical weapons as it is today.
Sensible, really, as gasses and germs don't destroy (buildings, equipment,
etc.) they "only" affect living things -- and even then not necessarily to
the point of "destruction".
WMD is a catchy phrase for something we can all readily despise, but using it
to describe chemical and biological weapons is really just spin.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
wrote:
> Yes, but the NSOED is just a dictionary, Daniel. I am a subjective
> commentator. There's a difference.
Indeed. The dictionary reflects the weight of opinion of the group of
professional lexicographers who compiled and edited it while your opinion
is your own. That doesn't make the dictionary "right" or you "wrong" --
lexicographers do make mistakes and some of those survive the editorial
process, langauges evolve and dictionaries may be slow to catch up -- but
it does mean that the opinions expressed in the dictionary should bear more
weight than those of any individual.
Note that I am also a subjective commentator, and that my experience
differs from yours. It happens that on the point in question here the
dictionary supports my understanding of "term" in a general sense, to which
you have taken exception.
You say that you are not familiair with this usage: that's fine -- nobody
expects you to know everything -- but to claim that I am wrong and that the
dictionary is wrong merely because you believe differently strikes me as a
little silly.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Chris Malcolm
All this is just tinkering with the problem. We should simply grasp
the nettle and ban the use of explosives in warfare.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Peter Duncanson
>
>All this is just tinkering with the problem. We should simply grasp
>the nettle and ban the use of explosives in warfare.
Quite right -- explosives are much too loud.
Chemical, biological and radiation weapons are much quieter.
CyberCypher
> In article news:<Xns9643F1283...@139.175.55.249>,
> CyberCypher wrote:
>> Yes, but the NSOED is just a dictionary, Daniel. I am a
>> subjective commentator. There's a difference.
>
> Indeed. The dictionary reflects the weight of opinion of the group
> of professional lexicographers who compiled and edited it while
> your opinion is your own.
Not just my own. It is also an (not "the") opinion of the
lexicographers who complied the OED, as you will see below. I didn't
know that until today, but it justifies my sense of how "term" should
be used in certain circumstances.
> That doesn't make the dictionary "right"
> or you "wrong" -- lexicographers do make mistakes and some of
> those survive the editorial process, langauges evolve and
> dictionaries may be slow to catch up -- but it does mean that the
> opinions expressed in the dictionary should bear more weight than
> those of any individual.
>
> Note that I am also a subjective commentator, and that my
> experience differs from yours. It happens that on the point in
> question here the dictionary supports my understanding of "term"
> in a general sense, to which you have taken exception.
>
> You say that you are not familiair with this usage: that's fine --
> nobody expects you to know everything -- but to claim that I am
> wrong and that the dictionary is wrong merely because you believe
> differently strikes me as a little silly.
I'd agree if I'd said the dictionary was wrong. I finally got my
OED2v3CD working today and looked up "term". It generally agrees with
all these dictionary entries, but it does say this:
[quote]
IV. Uses leading up to the sense 'expression'.
See Note at end of article.
11. Math.[deleted irrelevant entry]
b. in terms of: (Math.)[deleted irrelevant entry]
c. transf. A member or item of any series; each of the things
constituting a series. Also more vaguely, an element of any complex
whole.
1841 Myers Cath. Th. iii. iii. 8 The Bible contains a series [of
revelations] of which the earliest terms are the least. 1857 Miller
Elem. Chem. III. i. par. 2 (1862) 48 A series in which hydrogen forms
the lowest term. 1863 Lyell Antiq. Man xxi. 419 Certain genera of
plants ... consist of a continuous series of varieties, between the
terms of which no intermediate forms can be intercalated. 1881
Williamson in Nature 1 Sept. 416/1 The lower terms of the series are
distinguished from one another by differences of boiling points
approximately proportional to the number of atoms of carbon and
hydrogen by which they differ from one another; whilst the higher
terms ... are distinguished ... by differences of melting points.
d. Physics. [deleted irrelevant entry]
12. Logic, etc. Each of the two things or notions which are
compared, or between which some relation is apprehended or stated, in
an act of thought, or (more commonly) each of the words or phrases
denoting these in a verbal statement; spec. in relation to a
proposition, each of the two elements, viz. subject and predicate,
which are connected by the copula; in relation to a syllogism, the
subject or predicate of any of the propositions composing it, forming
one of its three elements (major term, minor term, middle term), each
of which occurs twice (see major a. 2, minor a. 4, middle a. 6).
[deleted examples for length]
13. a. A word or phrase used in a definite or precise sense in
some particular subject, as a science or art; a technical expression
(more fully term of art).
[This is how I use the term "term": as a "term of art".]
1377 Langl. P. Pl. B. xii. 237 Ac of briddes and of bestes men by
olde tyme Ensamples token and termes. c1386 Chaucer Prol. 639 Than
wolde he speke no word but latyn. A fewe termes hadde he, two or
thre, That he had lerned out of som decree. I Frankl. T. 538, I ne
kan no termes of Astrologye. I Can. Yeom. Prol. & T. 199 We semen
wonder wyse, Oure termes [of alchemy] been so clergial and so
queynte. I Pard. Prol. 25 (Harl. MS.) Sayde I wel can I not speke in
terme? 1486 Bk. St. Albans Dij, Som folke mysuse this terme 'draw',
and say that thayr hauke will draw to the Ryuer. 1590 Sir J. Smyth
Disc. Weapons 2b, To vse our ancient termes belonging to matters of
warre. 1695 W. W. Colbatch's New Lt. Chir. Put out p. xi, Why he
hath used so few Terms of Art, is, because he designs Plainness.
1703 Moxon Mech. Exerc. 109 An Explanation of Terms used among
Joiners. 1748 Smollett Rod. Rand. (1812) I. 376 The barrister who
... had recollected himself and talked in terms. 1862 Grove Corr.
Phys. Forces (ed. 4) 96 The idea involved in the term latent heat.
1876 Tait Rec. Adv. Phys. Sc. i. (ed. 2) 1 Explanation of new
scientific terms. 1881 Williamson in Nature 1 Sept. 419/1 A chain of
evidence involving the use of chemical terms.
b. In wider application: Any word or group of words expressing a
notion or conception, or denoting an object of thought; an expression
(for something). Generally with qualifying adj. or phrase (as an
abstract term, a term of reproach).
[This is what you and the dictionaries are saying "term" means. Yes,
but in some contexts it is necessary to be picky about the words one
chooses to use. I think that's what English usage is all about.]
contradiction in terms: see contradiction 5b.
c1477 Caxton Jason 21 A trew louer vseth neuer suche termes as ye
speke of. 1490 I Eneydos Prol. 2 Some gentylmen ... desired me to
vse olde and homely termes in my translacyons. 1530 Palsgr. 518/1, I
disconsolate. ... This terme is nat yet [= no longer] comenly used.
1586 Day Eng. Secretary i. (1625) 2 Aptnesse of worde and sentences,
consisteth in choice of good tearmes. 1605 Play of Stucley in
Simpson Sch. Shaks. (1878) I. 258 Can there issue from your lips a
term So base and beggarly as that of flight? 1653 Holcroft Procopius
i. 2 The Archers in Homer's time (whose Profession grew to be a tearm
of reproach). 1791 D'Israeli Cur. Lit. (1858) III. 70 In politics,
what evils have resulted from abstract terms to which no ideas are
affixed. a1860 Whately Commpl. Bk. (1864) 265 A term of reproach is
one that denotes something which is denied and thought wrong by the
person to whom it is applied. 1883 H. Drummond Nat. Law in Spir. W.
vii. (1884) 235 The apostles ... accepted the term in its simple
literal sense.
[/quote]
I particularly like D'Israeli's statement about "abstract terms to
which no ideas are affixed" because "dictatorship of relativism" is
just such a "term". It is not a "term of art" because it describes
nothing known to anyone but Ratzie. That's all I'm saying. I don't
like dignifiying his words with a label that implies that they
constitute a "term of art". "Phrase" is good enough is this case.
Dick Chambers
Tony Cooper wrote
>
>>Since the Pope's absolute truth depends logically upon the absolute truth
>>of
>>the existence of God, which itself is an absolute truth, round and round
>>he
>>goes in a logical circle.
>
> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
> do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
I was not referring to Papal Infallibility, which has been claimed only
since 1870, and even then only on issues where the infallibility is
specifically invoked. I was referring to the long-standing claim that the
Pope is God's Representative on Earth. What use is it to be God's
Representative if communications with God are on such a poor quality
telephone line that even God's Representative cannot hear clearly what God
is telling him? I repeat the question. What went wrong in the Galileo
Affair? Is the same problem of the poor quality telephone line likely to
recur when "absolute truth" is claimed on other issues? If we can't rely on
the Pope's statements being absolute truth, is there any utility in him
making such a claim? Is relativism, based on the principle of "Love thy
neighbour as thyself" and combined with a good logical analysis, perhaps a
better option for morality than is an unsupported claim of absolute truth.
I forget her name (Kerry? ...), but the USA two weeks ago debated the
problem of the woman who had been on the life support machine for ten years.
On the one side of the debate, there was the claim of the "absolute truth"
that human life was sacred. On the other side, you could argue for switching
off the life support simply from the Christian premise of "Love thy
neighbour as thyself". The latter, unfortunately, is ultimately a relativist
argument. I have little doubt which of these two arguments, the absolute
truth or the relativist one, involves a dictatorship. Is the Pope absolutely
sure that he has heard God correctly on his poor-quality telephone line? Is
the claim of "knowing" this type of "absolute truth" just the claim of a
charlatan? The act of a moral dictator?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Chris Malcolm
> On 26 Apr 2005 09:13:34 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>All this is just tinkering with the problem. We should simply grasp
>>the nettle and ban the use of explosives in warfare.
> Quite right -- explosives are much too loud.
> Chemical, biological and radiation weapons are much quieter.
I think you're missing an important technological point. It's
certainly not impossible, but it's much more difficult to arrange the
targeting and dispersal of these weapons without the use of
explosives. The US, for example, would have had to have two agents
enter Hiroshima separately, each with a sub-critical mass of fissile
material, and then when on site employ some pretty fearsome mechanical
exploitation of elasticity in order to arrange anything remotely
resembling the characteristic mushroom cloud.
As far as chemical and biological weapons are conerned, note that
Saddam Hussein's fictional arsenal of WMD depended crucially on
fictional explosives for delivery and dispersal. Without those
fictional explosives we would have had no need, or at any rate not
that particular excuse, for dropping huge amounts of nice clean
environmentally friendly and ethically sound real explosives on Iraq.
Chris Malcolm
> Tony Cooper wrote
>>
>>>Since the Pope's absolute truth depends logically upon the absolute truth
>>>of
>>>the existence of God, which itself is an absolute truth, round and round
>>>he
>>>goes in a logical circle.
>>
>> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
>> do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
> I was not referring to Papal Infallibility, which has been claimed only
> since 1870, and even then only on issues where the infallibility is
> specifically invoked. I was referring to the long-standing claim that the
> Pope is God's Representative on Earth. What use is it to be God's
> Representative if communications with God are on such a poor quality
> telephone line that even God's Representative cannot hear clearly what God
> is telling him? I repeat the question. What went wrong in the Galileo
> Affair?
Did anything go wrong? After all, it was one of the earlier fallible
popes who got it wrong, a few hundred years later they devised the
improved infallible model, and only a hundred or so years later
Galileo got an apology. The Roman Catholic Church is not one of your
fly-by-night here-today-gone-tomorrow institutions. Infallibility
requires a certain amount of conservative caution in coming to a
decision.
Peter Duncanson
>In alt.usage.english Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2005 09:13:34 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>All this is just tinkering with the problem. We should simply grasp
>>>the nettle and ban the use of explosives in warfare.
>
>> Quite right -- explosives are much too loud.
>> Chemical, biological and radiation weapons are much quieter.
>
I was, at least partly, joking.
>I think you're missing an important technological point. It's
>certainly not impossible, but it's much more difficult to arrange the
>targeting and dispersal of these weapons without the use of
>explosives. The US, for example, would have had to have two agents
>enter Hiroshima separately, each with a sub-critical mass of fissile
>material, and then when on site employ some pretty fearsome mechanical
>exploitation of elasticity in order to arrange anything remotely
>resembling the characteristic mushroom cloud.
>
I wrote "radiation weapons". These are not necessarily explosive. Any means
of dispersing radioactive material will serve to use the material as a
weapon.
Ditto chemical weapons.
Ditto, even more so, biological weapons. Remember the anthrax attack in the
US in 2001? A biological agent was distributed via the ordinary postal
service.
>As far as chemical and biological weapons are conerned, note that
>Saddam Hussein's fictional arsenal of WMD depended crucially on
>fictional explosives for delivery and dispersal. Without those
>fictional explosives we would have had no need, or at any rate not
>that particular excuse, for dropping huge amounts of nice clean
>environmentally friendly and ethically sound real explosives on Iraq.
Saddam's arsenal used not to be fictional. It was partly destroyed by UN
inspectors. It appears that many people thought that Iraq still had enough
weapons to cause trouble; and that the country maintained the ability and
the intention to develop new weapons if it was left alone. It seems that one
of the people who thought the country still had "WMDs" was President Saddam.
Dick Chambers
"Chris Malcolm .
>
>> I was not referring to Papal Infallibility, which has been claimed only
>> since 1870, and even then only on issues where the infallibility is
>> specifically invoked. I was referring to the long-standing claim that the
>> Pope is God's Representative on Earth. What use is it to be God's
>> Representative if communications with God are on such a poor quality
>> telephone line that even God's Representative cannot hear clearly what
>> God
>> is telling him? I repeat the question. What went wrong in the Galileo
>> Affair?
>
> Did anything go wrong? After all, it was one of the earlier fallible
> popes who got it wrong, a few hundred years later they devised the
> improved infallible model, and only a hundred or so years later
> Galileo got an apology. The Roman Catholic Church is not one of your
> fly-by-night here-today-gone-tomorrow institutions. Infallibility
> requires a certain amount of conservative caution in coming to a
> decision.
Quoted extract from
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Papal-Infallibility/papal-infallibility.html
Start quote
-----------------
When making such solemn pronouncements, the pope is not speaking as a
private theologian, but as supreme teacher of the universal Church. Before
doing so, he may consult with bishops and theologians, but it is he, and not
they, who exercises infallibility under carefully defined conditions. This
infallibility is not a personal attribute of the pope, but a charism of his
office. Its most recent exercise was the promulgation of the dogma of the
Assumption of Mary by Pius XII in 1950.
Papal infallibility is a stumbling block for many Christians, even many
Catholics. But it is actually a very limited doctrine. It means that when,
and only when, the successor of Peter makes a solemn pronouncement about
faith or morals, he is guarded by the Holy Spirit against teaching error.
Unlike scripture, such pronouncements are not "inspired." They are simply
free from error. The other way the extraordinary Magisterium can be
exercised is through an ecumenical council of bishops when they define a
doctrine under the guidance of the pope and subject to his confirmation. Two
of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council are "dogmatic" in
this manner: Lumen gentium, or the Constitution of the Church, and Dei
verbum, on revelation.
Solemn pronouncements are not, however, the way the Church usually goes
about teaching the faith. There is also the doctrine of the ordinary
Magisterium. It was succinctly defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870:
"Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is
contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed
by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in solemn
decree or in her ordinary universal teaching."
In other words, there is a body of infallible teaching that has not been
made known by solemn declarations. What this refers to is the deposit of
faith handed down through the centuries. The pope is its chief guardian, and
he may use whatever means he chooses to preserve and teach it. As one writer
puts it, the pope does not invent the truth, he locates it.
The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was clearly and explicitly
taught by Pius XII and by the Second Vatican Council. Here is what Pius XII
wrote in his 1950 encyclical Humanae generis: "Nor must it be thought that
what is expounded in encyclical letters does not itself command consent, on
the pretext that in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the
supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with
the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say, 'He who heareth
you, heareth me.' . But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is
obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same
Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion
among theologians."
In Lumen gentium #25, a key Vatican II text about which dissenters don't
like to be reminded, the Council Fathers teach that "loyal submission of the
will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic
teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex
cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be
acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made
by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made
known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or
by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner
in which the doctrine is formulated."
----------------------- End quote
Is this moral dictatorship?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Mike Lyle
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:46:04 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
>> <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:11:01 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
>>>
>>>> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation,
>>>> but do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
>>>
>>> Found s.v. 'Hubris', as applied especially to Pius IX, who also
>>> discovered the Immaculate Conception. God knows what other
nonsense
>>> Vatican I would have come up with but for the entry into Rome of
>>> Garibaldi.
>>
>>
>> That's pretty good chocolate. I'm sure it sells well in Rome.
>>
>> Wait....that's Ghirardelli...my mistake...carry on.
>>
>>
>
> Ah, my stash of Ghirardelli has also long been eaten and I've never
> seen it on sale in the UK.
>
> Perhaps you were thinking of Garibaldi biscuits, also known as
> squashed fly biscuits?
>
>
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/biscuits/views.php3?filter=botw%3D10
Anyhow, not the Pope's tailor, who is Gam[m?]arelli. (Amid all the
beautiful soutanes and stuff -- the Church sure knows how to dress --
G himself seems to favour the tweedy English gent look: I take it
this means Rome is "country", like Manchester, not "Town".)
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> We are an isometric exercise in the mind of god. We have no purpose
at
> all, on the theologians' assumptions.
I would see no great intellectual difficulty in the notion that we're
company, or a sort of gardening; or, indeed, that we aren't equipped
to know.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Am I alone in finding the papal figure of speech perfectly legitimate
as a figure of speech? I thought it was rather striking, though I
have a suspicion that I've heard it before; I even knew what he
meant.
--
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> R J Valentine wrote:
>> It does remind me that I've been stuck
>> for a while on Advanced level 13 on MarbleBlast Gold on the Mac mini.
>
> By the way, has Erk gotten a Mac Mini yet?
Too expensive for what you get, in my opinion.
As I'm sure I've mentioned, I've bought Macs over the years, including
a couple while I've been working at HP. They had a great head start
... and completely squandered it and for the past several years seem
to have settled on "Aw, isn't the physical box cute" and "All the cool
kids have them" as a marketing strategy.
> Has Ron bought AAPL yet?
I wish I had when I considered it last year. (I see--and I believe
that it's officially held that there is--no conflict of interest in
owning a competitor's stock as long as (1) it's not a significant
enough part of your portfolio that you couldn't handle it going down
and (2) if you have the ability, you don't make decisions specifically
for the purpose of raising its price. I also don't vote in
competitors' shareholders' referenda, but as an insignificant
shareholder that's probably not necessary.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant
|overlap in intelligence between the
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest
(650)857-7572 |humans.
| Yosemite Park Ranger
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Alan Jones
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d72sdF...@individual.net...
You've been reading Genesis as elaborated by Milton!
Alan Jones
Pat Durkin
> Laura F. Spira wrote:
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:46:04 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
> >> <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:11:01 GMT, "Dick Chambers"
> >>>
> >>>> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation,
> >>>> but do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
> >>>
> >>> Found s.v. 'Hubris', as applied especially to Pius IX, who also
> >>> discovered the Immaculate Conception. God knows what other
> nonsense
> >>> Vatican I would have come up with but for the entry into Rome of
> >>> Garibaldi.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's pretty good chocolate. I'm sure it sells well in Rome.
> >>
> >> Wait....that's Ghirardelli...my mistake...carry on.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ah, my stash of Ghirardelli has also long been eaten and I've never
> > seen it on sale in the UK.
> >
> > Perhaps you were thinking of Garibaldi biscuits, also known as
> > squashed fly biscuits?
> >
> >
>
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/biscuits/views.php3?filter=botw%3D10
Love the site.
Here was another page from the sidebar.
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/underpanttoast/
I thought it particularly relevant to an earlier thread.
Tony Cooper
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Tony Cooper wrote
>>
>>>Since the Pope's absolute truth depends logically upon the absolute truth
>>>of
>>>the existence of God, which itself is an absolute truth, round and round
>>>he
>>>goes in a logical circle.
>>
>> I don't have enough interest in this to get into an explanation, but
>> do look up "infallibility" as it is used regarding the Pope.
>
>I was not referring to Papal Infallibility, which has been claimed only
>since 1870, and even then only on issues where the infallibility is
>specifically invoked. I was referring to the long-standing claim that the
>Pope is God's Representative on Earth. What use is it to be God's
>Representative if communications with God are on such a poor quality
>telephone line that even God's Representative cannot hear clearly what God
>is telling him?
I'll respond because you directed a reply to me, but your comments are
so absurd that I probably won't be able to work up enough enthusiasm
to present a decent case.
You're talking about religion. Not science. Not logic. Not
something as uncomplicated as a Meccano set. You're talking about an
area where some people think that a whale swallowed a man, and the man
prayed and God had the man vomited out on dry land. And you concern
yourself about telephone reception between God and man?
To try to impose logic into religious thinking is sheer fallacy.
Religion is based on faith, and faith - in this context - is
acceptance without any need for logic.
If you don't have this faith, as I don't have this faith, then don't
concern yourself with the thinking process of those that do. You will
never, ever, understand how they think. You will never, ever, be able
to reconcile their thinking to any form of the logical premises of
your thinking.
They are no more wrong than you are right. You will never be able to
shake the beliefs of the truly religious by offering discrepancies of
illogical thinking. And you shouldn't be able to. You aren't welcome
as a Missionary of Logic, and you're preaching to the unconvertable.
I don't welcome the doorstep peddlers of religious thinking. I would
not expect them to welcome me as the doorstep peddler of logical
anti-religious thinking.
Find yourself a cause where logic matters. Devote your mental
energies to something like the question of if telephone signal relay
towers give off dangerous emissions or if ice floes will break off and
raise the sea level enough to destroy the Blackpool North Pier.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Mike Lyle
Who better?
--
Mike.
Areff
> I also don't vote in
> competitors' shareholders' referenda, but as an insignificant
> shareholder that's probably not necessary.)
Anyhow, you're still voting, in some imputed way, I'd think, in that some
vote takes place based on your particular shares. It's not like an
abstention.
Paul Wolff
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>Am I alone in finding the papal figure of speech perfectly legitimate
>as a figure of speech? I thought it was rather striking, though I
>have a suspicion that I've heard it before; I even knew what he
>meant.
>
stop our lads and lasses whetting their knives and starting to carve?
Paul Wolff
chrissy <chrissy...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Paul Wolff wrote:
>> I was expecting a reply referencing 'logos', as in "In the beginning
>>was the word", already quoted by chrissy here - Message-ID:
>><1114437119.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>
>
>I did have that in mind, but I was looking for an ancient greek
>dictionary as a more imposing reference. Still looking.
>
>> My posts are currently being shunted into a siding and parked
>>somewhere in the Internet, so don't hold your breath expecting to see
>>this
>>one...
>> --
>> Paul
>> In bocca al Lupo!
>
>
Not here.
>In the mouth of the wolf?
>
Both that and 'Good luck'. Two meanings are better than one.
>That's tough if you're tiny as well!! (Paolo = the smallest coin in
>Imperial Rome)
>
I wasn't named for my size, unless it was in irony. I didn't know about
the coin angle, so thanks - my education in Latin wasn't designed to
assist practical living in the city, beyond 'cave canem'.
Mike Lyle
> In message <1114481672.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> chrissy <chrissy...@yahoo.com> writes
>> That's tough if you're tiny as well!! (Paolo = the smallest coin
in
>> Imperial Rome)
>>
> I wasn't named for my size, unless it was in irony. I didn't know
Interesting: is that = a _sextans_? Even with a more Latin spelling
(paulus, or paulum), I don't seem to be able to find it. Anybody know
what the Vulgate uses for the widow's mite?
--
Mike.
chrissy
Mike Lyle wrote:
> chrissy wrote:
> [...]
> > We are an isometric exercise in the mind of god. We have no purpose
> at
> > all, on the theologians' assumptions.
> [...]
>
> I would see no great intellectual difficulty in the notion that we're
> company,
Why does the great one need company. Does that mean he is imperfect?
Whatver would Descartes say about that?
> or a sort of gardening;
So whether we're weeds or not is not about morals as much as about
style. In either event, free will is irrelevant.
> or, indeed, that we aren't equipped
> to know.
>
Well I already think that at least at this stage, we're inadequately
equipped to understand "truth" or to pronounce upon it with anything
resembling what most of us think it normally means. At best, we can
offer a working hypothesis that seems comparatively fruitful.
You don't need to have god in your schema to see that.
> --
> Mike.
cheers
Chrissy
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> chrissy wrote:
>> [...]
>>> We are an isometric exercise in the mind of god. We have no
purpose
>>> at all, on the theologians' assumptions.
>> [...]
>>
>> I would see no great intellectual difficulty in the notion that
we're
>> company,
>
> Why does the great one need company. Does that mean he is
imperfect?
> Whatver would Descartes say about that?
You're that powerful, you get what you want; and if you want pets,
well, you just about get pets. And you probably don't feel obliged to
make life easy for Descartes.
>
>> or a sort of gardening;
>
> So whether we're weeds or not is not about morals as much as about
> style. In either event, free will is irrelevant.
I was looking at the purpose of creatures, not their qualities. But
your remark about style is a nice one. Come to that, maybe ethics
_are_ a matter of style, in a certain way. Hmm...ethics as
aesthetics...must have been done before.
>
>> or, indeed, that we aren't equipped
>> to know.
>>
>
> Well I already think that at least at this stage, we're
inadequately
> equipped to understand "truth" or to pronounce upon it with
anything
> resembling what most of us think it normally means. At best, we can
> offer a working hypothesis that seems comparatively fruitful.
>
> You don't need to have god in your schema to see that.
I was discussing aspects of a schema which _did_ have God in it: my
jumping-off point was your line about our not having a purpose, on
theological assumptions.
--
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
True. I see it more as allowing the company to govern itself as it
sees fit. If they wish to assert shares whose ballots are unreturned
will be voted a certain way, that's their business.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Xavier
[snip]
> I was discussing aspects of a schema which _did_ have God in it: my
> jumping-off point was your line about our not having a purpose, on
> theological assumptions.
I find, among the schemata which did have God in it, quite interesting
the gnostic viewpoint: the god that created this world, Yahveh in the
Bible, the Demiurgos in gnostic theology, is not the main god, but a
secondary one, who is not omniscent nor ubiquitous neither omnipotent,
as the world's facts and the Bible clearly show us (just read Genesis).
--
Javi
Xavier
[snip[
> I was discussing aspects of a schema which _did_ have God in it: my
> jumping-off point was your line about our not having a purpose, on
> theological assumptions.
I forgot: about our having a purpose, some gnostics maintain that the
purpose of having created the world is just mnemonic, so we (human
beings and elseanimals) are damned to repeat, with slight variants, our
simple history. Progress is just a phantasy, a fantasy, maybe a fantasia.
--
Javi
chrissy
It's groundhog day all over again!
There clearly are elements in history that recommend the cyclic view,
and others that recommend the linear view. What about a spiral (a kind
of compromise bwteen the two figures). We retrace our steps, but not
exactly as before. We see our past and learn from it but are
constrained by it too, even if only in the nature of the questions we
pose and the solutions we seek.
cheers
Chrissy
Chris Malcolm
> On 26 Apr 2005 13:32:09 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In alt.usage.english Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2005 09:13:34 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>All this is just tinkering with the problem. We should simply grasp
>>>>the nettle and ban the use of explosives in warfare.
>>As far as chemical and biological weapons are conerned, note that
>>Saddam Hussein's fictional arsenal of WMD depended crucially on
>>fictional explosives for delivery and dispersal. Without those
>>fictional explosives we would have had no need, or at any rate not
>>that particular excuse, for dropping huge amounts of nice clean
>>environmentally friendly and ethically sound real explosives on Iraq.
> Saddam's arsenal used not to be fictional. It was partly destroyed by UN
> inspectors. It appears that many people thought that Iraq still had enough
> weapons to cause trouble; and that the country maintained the ability and
> the intention to develop new weapons if it was left alone. It seems that one
> of the people who thought the country still had "WMDs" was President Saddam.
Unless of course he knew perfectly well that he didn't have any, but
thought he could scare up a bit more respect by pretending that he
had. But that would imply that Saddam Hussein was a political bluffer
who was capable of fooling Western intelligence services. Or even
worse, that Western leaders were lying to us about what their
intelligence services were telling them. How could that possibly be?
Nope, if there's any fools and lies going on about Iraq's WMDs then
obviously the liar was Saddam and he was such a fool that he even
fooled himself with his own lies.
Peter Duncanson
This thread is drifting seriously OT. However...
On January 26, 2004 the New York Times published a report of an interview
with David Kay. This is the basis of my assertion that Saddam incorrectly
believed that he had WMDs.
A few extracts:
<quote>
The inspector, David A. Kay, who led the government's efforts to find
evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs until he resigned on Friday,
said the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi
scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr.
Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes.
...
"He said Baghdad was actively working to produce a biological weapon using
the poison ricin until the American invasion last March. But in general, Dr.
Kay said, the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had
all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or
biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.
From interviews with Iraqi scientists and other sources, he said, his team
learned that sometime around 1997 and 1998, Iraq plunged into what he called
a "vortex of corruption," when government activities began to spin out of
control because an increasingly isolated and fantasy-riven Saddam Hussein
had insisted on personally authorizing major projects without input from
others.
After the onset of this "dark ages," Dr. Kay said, Iraqi scientists realized
they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons
programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money. Whatever was left
of an effective weapons capability, he said, was largely subsumed into
corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and
surviving in a fevered police state.
"The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process," Dr.
Kay said. "The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral.
Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The
scientists were able to fake programs."
</quote>