Who is true atheist
kati sinenmaa
> why do you ASSUME everyone in this newsgroup is an atheist. of what
> concern to your higher being of existence is some other person's
> position. why do you seem so insecure with allowing other people the
> freedom to believe what makes them feel comfortable...just like you?
Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
religion or something like that, is atheist.
Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
no one has created to master His brothers!
Religionists are plaspheming God, if They argue,
that God's creation needs the external piloting!
God created every being to be perfect, and He
install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
So!
Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
orangie
now you say god like schoolboy. you make not god. that is good. need not
god. thank you.
Denis Loubet
"kati sinenmaa" <asi...@lib.hel.fi> wrote in message
news:3BC32BAC...@lib.hel.fi...
> brent wrote:
>
> > why do you ASSUME everyone in this newsgroup is an atheist. of what
> > concern to your higher being of existence is some other person's
> > position. why do you seem so insecure with allowing other people the
> > freedom to believe what makes them feel comfortable...just like you?
>
> Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
> religion or something like that, is atheist.
>
> Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
> no one has created to master His brothers!
>
> Religionists are plaspheming God, if They argue,
> that God's creation needs the external piloting!
>
> God created every being to be perfect, and He
> install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
>
> So!
>
> Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
> needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
As far as I can decypher your message, atheists don't think there is an
"outsider pilot."
> argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
However, I would go so far as to agree that humans are imperfect.
> Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
No. Whoever does not believe in gods is an atheist.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
>
Jim (Red)
snip
>
>Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
>
What do you make of people who think everything is perfect? I am an
atheist who thinks everything is perfect, including my unhappiness
with the way things are!
kati sinenmaa
> >Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
> >
>
> What do you make of people who think everything is perfect? I am an
> atheist who thinks everything is perfect, including my unhappiness
> with the way things are!
Ok.
If You are really an atheist, and not more, then
You are unhonest, and no one unhonets can be perfect creation.
Prove, that You love me, and anyone else:
Teach to the all that They have divine right to
administer equal amount of soil. Teach this
also to Your enemy, like You might teach it
Your neighbours.
If You cannot give to the all humans excatly the same
rights to administer the equal amount of soil, then You
proved that You are not pretty perfect being.
It is eternally impossible, that some people are created
to master others life by God!
On ikuisesti mahdotonta ajatella, että Jumala olisi
luonut jotkut ihmiset muiden ihmisten mestaroijiksi!
kati sinenmaa
> > Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
> > needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
>
> As far as I can decypher your message, atheists don't think there is an
> "outsider pilot."
And, say then, why there are so many atheists?
It is my opinion, that Your atheism guids You from the
outside of You. Because You are not the source of the
atheism; You got it from the outside of Your brains.
Just like religionists have taken Their owns dogmas.
You cannot be autopiloting mode, when You believe
some dogmas!
Human being is autopiloting mode only then, when
His thoughts have come from Him; When He thinks
brand new thoughts.
kati sinenmaa
> > Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
>
> No. Whoever does not believe in gods is an atheist.
It is my honest opinion, that if someone do not know
God's will then He cannot be an true god-believer.
And, it is my honest opinion, that because sc religionist
argues, that human beings are imperfect, even it, that
They an original sin, then i say that then They plaspheme
God, because They argue, that God created some imperfect.
Who ever argues that God has created some imperfection,
then He denies God, and He is an atheist.
God's will is the most easiest thing to find.
Be good. Give to all humans excatly the same amount
of soil, and not until then You know what the love is.
John Popelish
>
> Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
> religion or something like that, is atheist.
Atheists generally do not think that others must share their opinion
that apparently, no gods exist. Believers in doctrine seem compelled
to persuade others that their doctrine is correct. In fact, doctrine
and correct are almost synonyms in the minds of believers. Non
believers have only opinions, not doctrines.
> Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
> no one has created to master His brothers!
Atheists are more likely to agree with this than believers in
supernatural deities, which are masters of humanity by definition.
> Religionists are plaspheming God, if They argue,
> that God's creation needs the external piloting!
I agree, but most believers in doctrine do not.
> God created every being to be perfect, and He
> install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
The definition of the very elastic word, 'god' is so vague that I
cannot have an opinion of whether it created anything, perfect or
other wise.
> So!
>
> Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
> needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
> argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
I am atheist, and I do not believe that other people need outsider
piloting.
I also do not believe in perfection, except in the mathematical sense
of perfect (exact) mathematical equality.
> Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
But atheists do not believe in creation, but only in being.
--
John Popelish
kati sinenmaa
> > Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
> > no one has created to master His brothers!
>
> Atheists are more likely to agree with this than believers in
> supernatural deities, which are masters of humanity by definition.
Maybe You now can see, that a being, who called itself
to God, thinks these thoughts? So, because a divine mind
produce these thoughts, that no ones have nothing right
to be master of others, then religionists are not believing
in true God, but only Their imagination of sublime man.
kati sinenmaa
> > Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
>
> But atheists do not believe in creation, but only in being.
Is evolution (process) perfect?
Sommers
kati sinenmaa wrote in message <3BC32BAC...@lib.hel.fi>...
Kumo Atsureki
wrote in message <3BC32BAC...@lib.hel.fi>:
Your godawful syntax is proof enough that people aren't perfect.
You shame your deity.
Kumo Atsureki
wrote in message <3BC33F6A...@lib.hel.fi>:
Absolutely not. But it is perfectly logical.
Absolute, universal perfection will always be self-contradictory,
particularly when you're building upon established fact. Absolutely
nothing that exists now could exist in a truly perfect universe.
Owen Hughes
You are assuming we all started out identifying ourselves as atheists.
I didn't even know there was a word for it for a good seven or eight years
after I came to the conclusion religious people talked out of their poop-
chutes.
I don't know if you try shutting up and listening much (might do you some
good) but we don't actually agree on all that much apart from our lack of
religion.
"atheist" covers a whole range of philosophies and viewpoints.
I guide myself, from inside. I doubt you'd even understand what I
know/believe, let alone work out the source of any of it.
--
Owen Hughes
a/a #1883
kati sinenmaa
>> John Popelish wrote:
i;
> > > Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
> >
> > But atheists do not believe in creation, but only in being.
i;
>> Is evolution (process) perfect?
>Absolutely not. But it is perfectly logical.
Ok, if the evolution is not perfect, then how on
earth You can argue that kind? Is Your answer perfect?
If evolution is not perfect, then You --as an evolutive
creation being-- cannot think anyhing perfect thuoghts!
Because You are a product of the evolution, and because
You said that the evolution is not perfect, then Your
opinion is much less perfect than the evolution itself.
This is my absolute honest opinion, and because
i am honest then my thinking is perfect; i think
that the evolution is perfect, because i cannot
think IT, if the evolution was imperfect.
kati sinenmaa
>> Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
>Your godawful syntax is proof enough that people aren't
> perfect. You shame your deity.
I have nothing shame.
You all see that i wrote; THINKS!
You cannot prove, that my thoughts were imperfect.
You see only forms, but not at all to there, what is inner..
kati sinenmaa
> > It is my opinion, that Your atheism guids You from the
> > outside of You. Because You are not the source of the
> > atheism; You got it from the outside of Your brains.
> > Just like religionists have taken Their owns dogmas.
> >...
> > Human being is autopiloting mode only then, when
> > His thoughts have come from Him; When He thinks
> > brand new thoughts.
>
> You are assuming we all started out identifying ourselves as atheists.
Definitely not.
No one can be an atheist.
No one can be a religionist.
No one can be an agnostic.
No one can be a name.
No one can be a follower of Dogma!
Human being is above all. Human being is even
above of His dogmas; Human being is the true
source of all.
You cannot follow any dogmas, because You are created them!
Dogma has nothing own, like wheels, and motor wherewith it moves
place to place, and You were just follow it.
John Popelish
Evolution is. Perfect does not apply.
--
John Popelish
Tom Servo
>
> >Your godawful syntax is proof enough that people aren't
> > perfect. You shame your deity.
>
> I have nothing shame.
>
> You all see that i wrote; THINKS!
>
> You cannot prove, that my thoughts were imperfect.
But we can prove that your english is total crap.
> You see only forms, but not at all to there, what is inner..
--
"If dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?"
Tom Servo, network admin and anti-religious
BAAWA International Intelligence Services Director
EAC Swimsuit Business Leader
Praise the Almighty Wanker(tm)!!!
kati sinenmaa
> > You cannot prove, that my thoughts were imperfect.
>
> But we can prove that your english is total crap.
Bah! And say then, how on urantia You readed it?
Thor
I have translated some paragraphs into English.
But I have done it my way!
> brent wrote:
>
> > why do you ASSUME everyone in this newsgroup is an atheist. of what
> > concern to your higher being of existence is some other person's
> > position. why do you seem so insecure with allowing other people the
> > freedom to believe what makes them feel comfortable...just like you?
>
> Everybody who thinks, that they have to have some doctrine
> religion or something like that, is atheist.
Translation:
Everyone who thinks that they have to believe in some doctrine,
or religion is crazy.
> Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
> no one has created to master His brothers!
Translation:
We can all see that nobody should run another person's life for
them.
> Religionists are plaspheming God, if They argue,
> that God's creation needs the external piloting!
Translation:
Religious believers are hypocrites. They claim to love God - but
hate His creation.
> God created every being to be perfect, and He
> install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
> So!
>
> Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
> needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
> argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
Translation not needed.
> Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
Silly.
I do not regard the existence as imperfect. So, by your odd
definition, I am not an atheist.
However ...
THOR
To reply, remove pan.
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
> brent wrote:
>
> > why do you ASSUME everyone in this newsgroup is an atheist. of what
> > concern to your higher being of existence is some other person's
> > position. why do you seem so insecure with allowing other people the
> > freedom to believe what makes them feel comfortable...just like you?
>
> Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
> religion or something like that, is atheist.
I believe in the ONE(ness) of God. Does that make me an atheist?
>
>
> Because everyone can grasp, that in the reality
> no one has created to master His brothers!
>
> Religionists are plaspheming God, if They argue,
> that God's creation needs the external piloting!
>
> God created every being to be perfect, and He
> install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
The "autopilot" system seems to demand our need to
master our brothers. Is that an imperfection?
>
>
> So!
>
> Everyone, who thinks, that some other people
> needs outsider piloting (like religion, or atheism)
> argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
God alone is perfect. Its all to easy to recognize
imperfections in man.
>
>
> Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
His creation is perfect for its purpose. Imperfection is necessary
to fulfill that purpose.
.
--
RJL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the drinks go down, the truth comes out. - R. M.K.
Suck me up Oh Sun... make me idol of the beach. - RJL
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
Can you give an example of a "brand new" thought?
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
Where did the idea of being "masters of others" come from?
Does it come from "perfect" men?
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
On "Urantia" they say:
"Religion is not a technique for attaining a static and
blissful peace of mind;
it is an impulse for organizing the soul for dynamic
service. It is the enlistment
of the totality of selfhood in the loyal service of loving
God and serving man.
Religion pays any price essential to the attainment of the
supreme goal, the
eternal prize. There is a consecrated completeness in
religious loyalty which
is superbly sublime. And these loyalties are socially
effective and spiritually
progressive. [1096:6]"
Are you from Urantia?
kati sinenmaa
> > Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
> > religion or something like that, is atheist.
>
> I believe in the ONE(ness) of God. Does that make me an atheist?
If You think so.
I have said that nothing such thing like belief exists.
In fact, You dont believe in the ONEness; You think it.
> > God created every being to be perfect, and He
> > install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
>
> The "autopilot" system seems to demand our need to
> master our brothers. Is that an imperfection?
When a being doent think thatHe is autopiloting system,
then He compensate it with some beliefsystem. All belief-
systems are the action of imperfection.
> > argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
>
> God alone is perfect. Its all to easy to recognize
> imperfections in man.
YES! And because i love much myself,m then i am God too.
I hate myself, if i said to be an imperfect being.
> > Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
>
> His creation is perfect for its purpose. Imperfection is necessary
> to fulfill that purpose.
Nonsense. You just justified that human beings must continue
this bloody system.
kati sinenmaa
> Are you from Urantia?
For Heavens sake, not.. I am from the Paradise.
kati sinenmaa
> > Human being is autopiloting mode only then, when
> > His thoughts have come from Him; When He thinks
> > brand new thoughts.
>
> Can you give an example of a "brand new" thought?
I have thought thousands of new thoughts and shared them
to here, and You say that give me an example. In this holy
moment i gave to You this old thought from Jesus, but it
is in the brand new relation
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
Yes, you have shared your thoughts. Many may seem new to you
but not to me. How does "the brand new relation" change a
thought
from old to new?
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
Will you describe your "Paradise" for me?
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
> Roy Jose lorr
>
> > > Everybody, who thinks, that He has to be some doctrine,
> > > religion or something like that, is atheist.
> >
> > I believe in the ONE(ness) of God. Does that make me an atheist?
>
> If You think so.
>
> I have said that nothing such thing like belief exists.
>
> In fact, You dont believe in the ONEness; You think it.
What I think, I believe. To think without belief, or believe
without thought is impossible. Nature demands it.
>
>
> > > God created every being to be perfect, and He
> > > install to everyones the perfect autopiloting system.
> >
> > The "autopilot" system seems to demand our need to
> > master our brothers. Is that an imperfection?
>
> When a being doent think thatHe is autopiloting system,
> then He compensate it with some beliefsystem. All belief-
> systems are the action of imperfection.
Are not all "belief systems" started by the "autopilot"? Is
the autopilot imperfect?
>
>
> > > argues, that God's creation (human being) is imperfect!
> >
> > God alone is perfect. Its all to easy to recognize
> > imperfections in man.
>
> YES! And because i love much myself,m then i am God too.
> I hate myself, if i said to be an imperfect being.
How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
different parts?
>
>
> > > Who ever thinks that God's creation is imperfect, is an atheist.
> >
> > His creation is perfect for its purpose. Imperfection is necessary
> > to fulfill that purpose.
>
> Nonsense. You just justified that human beings must continue
> this bloody system.
I don't justify, God created nature does. Until man can alter nature,
its system continues. Pray for man to fail in his attempts to change
nature, for on that day man ceases to exist.
kati sinenmaa
> > I have said that nothing such thing like belief exists.
> >
> > In fact, You dont believe in the ONEness; You think it.
>
> What I think, I believe. To think without belief, or believe
> without thought is impossible. Nature demands it.
Yes, because You think so.
But when i think, that there are nothing belief, then i am right,
because my thought tell its.
> > YES! And because i love much myself,m then i am God too.
> > I hate myself, if i said to be an imperfect being.
>
> How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
> different parts?
Because i believe what You say. God believe in You,
then You could believe in me, too
kati sinenmaa
> > moment i gave to You this old thought from Jesus, but it
> > is in the brand new relation
>
> Yes, you have shared your thoughts. Many may seem new to you
> but not to me. How does "the brand new relation" change a
> thought from old to new?
Easily. Hmmm. Just get, what this in English:
When a thought is in new relation, then it is the¨same as
You use rope to an other situation.
You can use rope for many purposes, and then it has
many names:
Nostoköysi,
Hinausköysi,
Vetoköysi,
jne.
kati sinenmaa
> > For Heavens sake, not.. I am from the Paradise.
>
> Will you describe your "Paradise" for me?
It's great
kati sinenmaa
> How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
> different parts?
It is my nature.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
> Roy Jose lorr wrote:
>
> > > moment i gave to You this old thought from Jesus, but it
> > > is in the brand new relation
> >
> > Yes, you have shared your thoughts. Many may seem new to you
> > but not to me. How does "the brand new relation" change a
> > thought from old to new?
>
> Easily. Hmmm. Just get, what this in English:
> When a thought is in new relation, then it is the究ame as
> You use rope to an other situation.
Same old rope... repetitive situations.
--
RJL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the drinks go down, the truth comes out. - R. M.K.
Philosophers are little men, rebelling against their smallness. -
RJL
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
A mistake?
--
RJL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the drinks go down, the truth comes out. - R. M.K.
Philosophers are little men, rebelling against their
smallness. - RJL
Suck me up Oh Sun... make me idol of the beach. - RJL
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
> Roy Jose lorr wrote:
>
> > > I have said that nothing such thing like belief exists.
> > >
> > > In fact, You dont believe in the ONEness; You think it.
> >
> > What I think, I believe. To think without belief, or believe
> > without thought is impossible. Nature demands it.
>
> Yes, because You think so.
>
> But when i think, that there are nothing belief, then i am right,
> because my thought tell its.
A mistake?
>
>
> > > YES! And because i love much myself,m then i am God too.
> > > I hate myself, if i said to be an imperfect being.
> >
> > How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
> > different parts?
>
> Because i believe what You say. God believe in You,
> then You could believe in me, too
It would be mistake if I believed you god.
--
RJL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the drinks go down, the truth comes out. - R. M.K.
Philosophers are little men, rebelling against their smallness. - RJL
Suck me up Oh Sun... make me idol of the beach. - RJL
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
A mistake?
--
RJL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the drinks go down, the truth comes out. - R. M.K.
Philosophers are little men, rebelling against their
smallness. - RJL
Suck me up Oh Sun... make me idol of the beach. - RJL
kati sinenmaa
> > > How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
> > > different parts?
> >
> > It is my nature.
>
> A mistake?
The difference. Yesterday late evening the president of
Finland said to me that i am an extraordinary being; i
must believe in Him, because i am a honest being.
Every honest beings are the most peculiar beings,
because of the honesty
BTW. It is fact, that there exists one concept that descripes
the beingness so perfectly that in it there exist 'more-than'
-concept.
Do You want to hear, what it is?
kati sinenmaa
> > Easily. Hmmm. Just get, what this in English:
> > When a thought is in new relation, then it is the究ame as
> > You use rope to an other situation.
>
> Same old rope... repetitive situations.
The haulage rope is different the lift rope.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
> Roy Jose lorr;
>
> > > > How can you be God if God is ONE, and you are made of
> > > > different parts?
> > >
> > > It is my nature.
> >
> > A mistake?
>
> The difference. Yesterday late evening the president of
> Finland said to me that i am an extraordinary being; i
> must believe in Him, because i am a honest being.
>
> Every honest beings are the most peculiar beings,
> because of the honesty
I agree.
>
>
> BTW. It is fact, that there exists one concept that descripes
> the beingness so perfectly that in it there exist 'more-than'
> -concept.
>
> Do You want to hear, what it is?
Certainly.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
One rope through block and tackle.
kati sinenmaa
> > BTW. It is fact, that there exists one concept that descripes
> > the beingness so perfectly that in it there exist 'more-than'
> > -concept.
> >
> > Do You want to hear, what it is?
>
> Certainly.
BTW. It is fact, that there exists one concept that descripes
the beingness so perfectly that in it there exist not anything
'more-than' -concept.
I tell what it is... --Replace You old God -concept.
kati sinenmaa
> > The haulage rope is different the lift rope.
>
> One rope through block and tackle.
One thought to the haulage and another thought to the lift.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
One, two, twenty, more thoughts, to one same outcome.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
With what? How to do it? "Replace your old God" is
not enough information.
kati sinenmaa
> > BTW. It is fact, that there exists one concept that descripes
> > the beingness so perfectly that in it there exist not anything
> > 'more-than' -concept.
> >
> > I tell what it is... --Replace You old God -concept.
>
> With what? How to do it? "Replace your old God" is
> not enough information.
Because Your language is poor, then my thoughts are flying
far above Yuor thoughts.
In our language "Korvaa vanha Jumalasi." if perfect sentence.
In our language a reader can itself ponder, what that sentence means.
In our language we are so clever that we know, what that sentence means.
kati sinenmaa
> > > One rope through block and tackle.
> >
> > One thought to the haulage and another thought to the lift.
>
> One, two, twenty, more thoughts, to one same outcome.
Ok!
The meta-philosophy.
Now all of Yuor thoughts about the meta-philosophy are one
and the same outcome.
You prove this to be the absolute truth, because if
any rope-thoughts are the same outcome, then any
meta-thoughts are the same outcome, too.
This means, that: In the meta-philosophy every single
though is the meta-philosophy.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
What is this in the real world?... mistake?
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
If your "thoughts" "fly" "far above" mine, how will I see? What matters
this to you?
GFostel
>
>Because Your language is poor, then my thoughts are flying
>far above Yuor thoughts.
>
>In our language "Korvaa vanha Jumalasi." if perfect sentence.
>
>In our language a reader can itself ponder, what that sentence means.
>
>In our language we are so clever that we know, what that sentence means.
ROTFLOL!
It is probably true that your profound ignorance of English makes it seem
clumsey. Certainly your use of it is so. You use what is often refered to, by
linguists, as a Pidgeon English, that reflects some limited knowledge of
vocabulary, but little understanding of the sublties of grammar and semantics.
That's forgivable. Being ignorant and not realizing it is forgivable. But all
of that together with arrogance is over the line.
---garyFostel---
kati sinenmaa
> If your "thoughts" "fly" "far above" mine, how will I see?
In that way, that You --as a human being-- confess that You
are the Unknown. The unknown is the only and one concept
that we have common; the unknown links we together.
Without the unknown we can know nothing, because
all knowledge was once without revelation.
It is the Unknown itself that reveal new things and gives
new thoughts. Nothing old and well-known can reveal it,
that lies in the world of potentiality.
If You dont confess that You are the Unknown, then
You might think that the unknown things comes acci-
dentally out of nothing.
kati sinenmaa
> >In our language we are so clever that we know, what that sentence means.
>
> It is probably true that your profound ignorance of English makes it seem
> clumsey. Certainly your use of it is so. You use what is often refered to, by
> linguists, as a Pidgeon English, that reflects some limited knowledge of
> vocabulary, but little understanding of the sublties of grammar and semantics.
> That's forgivable. Being ignorant and not realizing it is forgivable. But all
> of that together with arrogance is over the line.
Think that maybe my brainsystem has bypassed the critical time
what was needed to learn Your grammar...
I am happy, that my English is that kind, because
now You cant argue, that i have learn my thought
from the englishthinkers.
Roy Jose lorr
kati sinenmaa wrote:
I know you.
GFostel
Well, your "brainstem" comment is off base. Langauge is not a brainstem issue.
We're talking neocortex. Rather a well defined area of neocortex too, but that
would suggest you actually had learned something. Brocca's area?
I'm not conviced you have learned "your thought" from anyone.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011023032300...@mb-ce.aol.com>:
>
>Well, your "brainstem" comment is off base. Langauge is not a brainstem
>issue. We're talking neocortex. Rather a well defined area of neocortex
>too, but that would suggest you actually had learned something.
>Brocca's area?
>
>I'm not conviced you have learned "your thought" from anyone.
>
>---garyFostel---
>
you know this for sure, gary? i mean, you really think that language is
only available on the aural-symbolic? what about the physical gesture?
like, every reptile knows how to hiss.
hisssss.
GFostel
Gee, I can't match you on that.
Anyone who wonders about this should read Steven Pinkers excellent book "The
Langauge Instinct." It made it to the NY Times Best Seller list for good
reason. I'd love to have the power to force every High School English teacher
to read the first half of this book.
I have no doubt, nor I think would Pinker, that there are non-lingusitic
channels of comunication, e.g snarls and hisses, facial expressions, even
pheromes, but human language is very clearly cortical skill. Monkey talk may
be deeper in the pudding.
---garyFostel---
mike
cn.aol.com>:
>
>I have no doubt, nor I think would Pinker,
since he hasn't thought that hard on the subject, i would think he had few
doubts at all!
GFostel
Is this opinion based on something, or just random Orangie crap? He certainly
acts like he has thought hard on the subject. Have you read the book?
In any event, it would not be hard to find others who would concur that human
langauge is largely neo-cortical and certainly at least some of them might pass
the Orangie test of hard thinking.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011025010759...@mb-cn.aol.com>:
>
>Is this opinion based on something, or just random Orangie crap? He
>certainly acts like he has thought hard on the subject. Have you read
>the book?
>
you haven't figure out yet that i was doing linguistics at MIT? i've
certainly pointed you in that direction often enough, particularly since
you don't really have much background in conceptual structures. conceptual
structures are what comprise the framework for inventing and expressing
thought. the book is very superficial.
GFostel
Sorry, I don't think that deeply about other posters. I know you are into
philsopohy, and back in the day, it was the "Philosophy and Linguistics"
depatrment. But you also once seemed not to know much about Chomsky's lecture
style. I sought out his classes. He may be a flaming commie, but he is also a
facinating intellectual, who can put it into words rather well.
The "superficiality" you refer to was, I am sure, intentional to make the
material more accessable. As I said, much of the book should be required
reading for High School English teachers. I wonder if he had hoped they might
give it a read?
Many of his points are confirmed in other more abstruse literature. I just
tonite (really!) read a paper in Nature on Nicaraquan Sign Language, which is
dry and dusty and quite formal, and come to the same conclusion, that the
evolution of this new langauge was driven by the youngest of the students. The
ones closest to the Chomsky grammar development stage. They were able to
invent a new langauge, for the same reason every child essentially reinvents
language to learn their native tounge.
The evidence will eventually beat you into submission; some can see the train
comming in advance. Maybe that's a difference between philsophy and science.
As to our respective background in "conceptual structures" I agree with Gump.
Stupid is as stupid does. Demonstrate your brilliance, don't talk about it.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011027025229...@mb-ft.aol.com>:
>Many of his points are confirmed in other more abstruse literature. I
>just tonite (really!) read a paper in Nature on Nicaraquan Sign
>Language,
sorry, i know that he says alot... it's simply that the form of the book is
as a new yorker profile... you get too much of Jerry Fodor, say, as
explaination. if you know that j's explainations are meant only to stop you
from saying things.
the book says stuff, but none of his points seem to be his own thought. and
he doesn't lead the reader into an understanding of how really difficult
the subject is. he just "explains" stuff.
i hadn't heard much of the chomp's political speeches, so i don't know if
he really had a politic. we never talked politics, believe it or not.
what is "gump", by the way? the movie? but, "stupid" is a useful tool. is
that what the movie was about?
GFostel
Forrest Gump the movie about the moron who does quite well in life. I'm not
sure what the message of the movie is supposed to be. I suppose it might have
been an attempt to show that happenstance controls much of our lives.
Odd. I heard many political speeches from Chomsky prior to my ever taking a
class on lingustics from him. If you want a quick bite of his politics, he
wrote an amusing book called "Manufacturing Consent" which generally damns the
marketing aproach to politics and other decision making in the US. A bit left
of Mother Jones.
Anyway, as to the book, I agree that he is presenting much work done by others.
he does go to some pains to explain which sorts of work he personally does, so
I guess you are supposed to figure out that the rest is just from others.
There are extensive references for anyone who might wish to check out the
original work. But you knew that.
What's so bad about a book that explains "stuff"? And I think it was the
intent to not make it seem an impenetrably hard subject.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011028013252...@mb-ce.aol.com>:
>Anyway, as to the book, I agree that he is presenting much work done by
>others.
> he does go to some pains to explain which sorts of work he personally
> does, so
>I guess you are supposed to figure out that the rest is just from
>others. There are extensive references for anyone who might wish to
>check out the original work. But you knew that.
>
>What's so bad about a book that explains "stuff"? And I think it was
>the intent to not make it seem an impenetrably hard subject.
>
>---garyFostel---
>
>
naw, it's ok for the crackerbarrel, it just doesn't taste that good in
here. but, there are easier ways. the "Oxford Book of The Mind", for
instance, has helped some of my friends understand my point of view.
which classes did you take with the chomp, by the way?
GFostel
>
>the "Oxford Book of The Mind", for
>instance, has helped some of my friends understand my point of view.
>
>which classes did you take with the chomp, by the way?
There were three in which he shared the teaching and lecturing duty. One was a
course called something like "Psychological Explanation" which attempted to
show what was or was not a valid explanation of observed psychological
behavior. That was shared with Fodor, who was incomprehensible. Another was a
joint class with an AI guy, foget his name, which was about the problems of
implementing natural langauge systems based on human psycholinguistic models.
Transformational grammar is (or at least it was 25 years ago) a challenging
computational problem and we spent a lot of time on trying to prove that
various formalisms like ATN's were or were not able to cope with this sort of
problem. The other was team taught with Ned Block and was a seminar on topics
in the Mind Body Problem. That class was somewhat schizoid, as they had rather
different approaches. Sort of like my econ class that was lectured by
Samualson, but my recitation instructor was a Marxist. The 'Tute was (is?)
like that.
Can you give me a more precise ref for the "Oxford" book? I'll check my
library. (They won't have it, small town ... but Amazon might.) Author?
Year?
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011031005711...@mb-fu.aol.com>:
cheez, gary, it was the "Oxford Companion to The Mind"... guess i'm too
much of a loner to have remarked it. the isbn is 0-19-866124-x. it's from
Oxford University Press, 1987.
but, i have to apologise to you. you've walked the walk, and i didn't
realize it. you probably know more about what chomper taught than i do.
Jerry Fodor, though, is another problem. he's a thug, and the main reason
why i didn't do more than talk with these guys. i have to wonder about you
being able to sit through his class.
my super-reason for being down by mit was photo (but, how many cosmic
"smoots" was it to mit in mental space?", but i had the notion that the
only way i was going to really know how to learn was to tackle language...
to get at the root of the learning process... so, i needed to get access to
MIT and bug these guys. hrvd linguistics was pretty much an extension of
rhetoric... something which i appreciate more now, but, at the time,
thought was pretty old fashioned (!). so, photo got me in there, and then i
ran amok.
what can i say... the thing i didn't like about MIT was that everyone
thought that they'd already learned the path to true application -- h-
school was about learning the concept, but h was 500 years behind the
times.
GFostel
>
>Jerry Fodor, though, is another problem. he's a thug, and the main reason
>why i didn't do more than talk with these guys. i have to wonder about you
>being able to sit through his class.
Well, they very wisely did not announce in advance which of the profs would
lecture any given class, or else no one would have shown up for Fodor. (:-)
---garyFostel---
Chimp Manaras
then(remember "neural nets"?).
I thought Fodor was off the wall. There were eight of us in the
course, but Fodor would enter into these 45-minute colloquies with his
two or three admirers. One such exchange concerned "computers made of
cream cheese". It went on and on. (Fodor initially came on like an
expert on cognitive psychology, but it soon became clear that he knew
only a pastiche of odds and ends, and that he was in love with the
sound of his own voice.) Experiences like that soured me on
philosophy.
On the other hand, there was a great math professor, Gian-Carlo Rota
(recently deceased) who gave very entertaining lectures on
combinatorics and logic. As I recall he dabbled in phenomenology and
actually gave courses in it, which drove the analytic philosophy
contingent at MIT (under R. Cartwright) nuts.
gfo...@aol.com (GFostel) wrote in message news:<20011101013442...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
GFostel
>
>I took a course with Fodor once, back in 1977 at MIT. AI was hot
>then(remember "neural nets"?).
>
>I thought Fodor was off the wall. There were eight of us in the
>course, but Fodor would enter into these 45-minute colloquies with his
>two or three admirers. One such exchange concerned "computers made of
>cream cheese". It went on and on. (Fodor initially came on like an
>expert on cognitive psychology, but it soon became clear that he knew
>only a pastiche of odds and ends, and that he was in love with the
>sound of his own voice.) Experiences like that soured me on
>philosophy.
>
>On the other hand, there was a great math professor, Gian-Carlo Rota
>(recently deceased) who gave very entertaining lectures on
>combinatorics and logic. As I recall he dabbled in phenomenology and
>actually gave courses in it, which drove the analytic philosophy
>contingent at MIT (under R. Cartwright) nuts.
So true. Rota regularly taught a course on existentialism while I was there.
I took a math class from him, but never a philosophy class. I took a couple of
philosophy classes and they were, quite strongly in the analytic tradition.
That suited me fine at the time since they were essentially math classes that
satisfied the humanities requirement and saved me from literature, poetry and
writing classes. Phew. (They have tightened the requirment now and young
gear heads actually need to deal with that sort of stuff.)
But, there is a value to the analytic method, in that it helps clarify the
essentials of some loosely presetned arguments. The experience I got in
arguing by analogy and breaking loose analogies has been very handy over the
years. Those basic skills are handy in legal analysis, computer science and
many other fields.
But did they offer any enlightenment? No. They were about studying the
structure of shadows, but not about what might be light or what might be dark.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011107004133...@mb-fx.aol.com>:
>But, there is a value to the analytic method, in that it helps clarify
>the essentials of some loosely presetned arguments. The experience I
>got in arguing by analogy and breaking loose analogies has been very
>handy over the years. Those basic skills are handy in legal analysis,
>computer science and many other fields.
>
>But did they offer any enlightenment? No. They were about studying the
>structure of shadows, but not about what might be light or what might be
>dark.
>
>---garyFostel---
>
fuk, man. you only got a look at the parts manual. if you get a chance,
read Language, Truth and Logic again for a joke. you'll see how forced
everything in it is. mostly, in logic classes, i felt that they were
packing the suitcase by cutting off any clothes which stuck out... like,
whatever didn't play, wasn't real.
but, i think it's too late for you to read the later Wittgenstein, so i
don't see you ever being in a position to change your mind about what
philosophy is.
schade and shade, wee weep.
GFostel
Ist das shade? I feel like breaking into a few rounds of Schnitzlebunk. I
have done a bit on my own since then; I have a brother-in-law who did his
dissertation on Wittgenstein, and my being the only person in the extended
family willing or able to listen to him, I got some of that. Actually a lot of
that. As with much of "poetry," I can understand that some people get a lot
from it, but do not myself, with a few notable exceptions. Some people don't
get jazz either. I find more meaning in a tight quartet, that the worlds best
couplets.
Anyway, the parts manual is not a bad place to start for a reductionist. One
of the poems I did appreciate, was, ironically, eecummings "today we have
naming of parts...."
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011109012821...@mb-ft.aol.com>:
>
>Ist das shade? I feel like breaking into a few rounds of Schnitzlebunk.
> I have done a bit on my own since then; I have a brother-in-law who
>did his dissertation on Wittgenstein, and my being the only person in
>the extended family willing or able to listen to him, I got some of
>that. Actually a lot of that. As with much of "poetry," I can
>understand that some people get a lot from it, but do not myself, with a
>few notable exceptions. Some people don't get jazz either. I find more
>meaning in a tight quartet, that the worlds best couplets.
>
>Anyway, the parts manual is not a bad place to start for a reductionist.
> One of the poems I did appreciate, was, ironically, eecummings "today
>we have naming of parts...."
>
>---garyFostel---
>
W. was into saying the the reduction was necessary, but that it shouldn't
be taken as anything more than a neat thing you can do with language.
"language" he thought of as primarily a way of doing things: a rule system,
where, no matter what, you always end up within the system. the first
Wittgenstein exercise, the Tractatus, is a reductionist manifesto which
goes towards a radical reductionism of saying that things like "God" can't
be talked about in philosophy, because there is simply no reference. for
W., god talk was ok, but only in the context of "prayers" and theological
stuff. it wasn't philosophy.
talk about what wasn't philosophy made him very interested in how we came
to truth certainty from the uncertainty of sense datum. can philosophy show
truth, for instance, if it's objects aren't "truth" themselves? the later
Wittgenstein is concerned with how truth situations are set-up -- in Freud,
for instance, where W. thought that the concept of substitution was
interesting, but dependent on context. Wittgenstein wasn't into thinking of
thought as structured as levels, but as dynamic responses to sense datum.
he understood that the interpretation "fit" the interpreter's needs, but he
wasn't into seeing that there might be more than one mind object at the
same time and that's where i part company with him. he's sometimes obtuse,
but he's always looking for understanding; and, because of his refusal to
take the easy way out, he's my teacher. (written for you, G. -- words like
"certainty" are much more involved, in W., than i'm making them out to be.
but this is introductory.)
GFostel
But, when the Witt was doing his thinking, wasn;t bahaviorism yet to be
supplanted by the cognitive psychology? "dynamic responses to sense datum" is
a fair approximation of behaviorism. My brother-in-law seemed to view Witt not
so much as a reductionist/behaviorist as perhaps more in line with the Gestalt
movment. (He's yet to get tenure so maybe he's just wrong :-) Visual Gestalt
is perhaps the normal example, but linguistic gestalt is an interesting idea,
and does seem consistent with poetry.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011110012554...@mb-fu.aol.com>:
>
>But, when the Witt was doing his thinking, wasn;t bahaviorism yet to be
>supplanted by the cognitive psychology? "dynamic responses to sense
>datum" is a fair approximation of behaviorism. My brother-in-law seemed
>to view Witt not so much as a reductionist/behaviorist as perhaps more
>in line with the Gestalt movment. (He's yet to get tenure so maybe he's
>just wrong :-) Visual Gestalt is perhaps the normal example, but
>linguistic gestalt is an interesting idea, and does seem consistent with
>poetry.
>
>---garyFostel---
>
>
the "implications" of how the mind behaves -- isn't this what "psychology"
creates? depending on an idea of "mind". both "behavorist" and "cognative"
psychologies assume that they know what the mind looks like. they aren't
philosophies. W. held that both were adequate for explaination... the one,
in that it corrected the idea of an "innate" meaning, and the other because
it looked at process as the creator of meaning (cognitist ideas emerged
from the same thinkings that Wittgenstein's ideas developed from). the
"gestalt reference is used, usually, because of W.'s notion of "family
resemblances" between words... and this he got from continental notions of
"psychologism" (the idea of "influences" countering the idea of the innate
"associations"; the rejection of an innate "understanding").
"poetry" is the application of rhythm to conversation; nothing more -- the
notion of "saying the unsayable" is easier understood as "metaphor".
"metaphore" is the carrying of one meaning onto another meaning for yet a
third meaning. for this meaning, metaphor is ephemeral and unique to a
specific moment; the "moment" is the self-consciousness of the reader
suddenly seeing himself as participant in interpretation.
your brother in law might be very good with W., if he realizes that W. was,
early and late, reacting to a strict reductionist view, while, at the same
time, laboring under the understanding that there was no other way to do
science than by negation (reduction). i think W. wanted to say that the
reductive method was fine, but that the product of reduction was the
process; that the reduction product was not a "meaning" (with
"interpretation" being "meaning", and meaning being specific to an
activity).
GFostel
>
>"poetry" is the application of rhythm to conversation; nothing more -- the
>notion of "saying the unsayable" is easier understood as "metaphor".
>"metaphore" is the carrying of one meaning onto another meaning for yet a
>third meaning. for this meaning, metaphor is ephemeral and unique to a
>specific moment; the "moment" is the self-consciousness of the reader
>suddenly seeing himself as participant in interpretation.
Well, I guess I agree with the sonic characterization of poetry, but there are
poets who would not accept this. It's perhaps like saying that impressionist
painting is the same as pointilism.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011111024339...@mb-fu.aol.com>:
i am a poet, and i publish poetry. what i was doing, of course, was
reducing poetry to it's most recognizable form. poety uses simile and
metaphor; but isn't simile and metaphor. poetry is the attempt to make
words conform to a shape. if you know poetry, then you know how modern
poetry came to look the way it does.
the impressionist/pointillist isn't so clean, since the Surat is reduction
of the Monet, by intention. and, there was no "impressionism, as you
know... that was a literary remark about the painting style.
one wants a magic place where words don't have to mean what they mean; but,
Donne is a way better poet than rod mckuen, and never uses false words.
goo...@attglobal.net
Check here for the right attribution:
http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~mquieto/papers/reed.html. - Regards, Teresa G
GFostel
.....
well, lots of stuff, but what I wanted to say was that I got my copy of the
"Oxford Companion for the Mind" from Amazon and it is a neat book. Wonderfully
reserved and skeptical in a droll British sort of way. Good bathroom reading
as the essays are all pretty well controlled in length.
Having recently read Pinkers rather detailed description of the Chomsky Theory
of Language, the essay in this book pretty thin gruel, but it does a fair job
of summarizing a bit of the reasoning in a few pages. I'll keep pecking away
at this book. Hmmm ... would a box of prunes lead me to more rapid insight?
(:-)
---garyFostel---
GFostel
You seem to be right and I was clearly wrong. Sigh.
---garyFostel---
mike
<20011113022732...@mb-ci.aol.com>:
>
>Having recently read Pinkers rather detailed description of the Chomsky
>Theory of Language, the essay in this book pretty thin gruel, but it
>does a fair job of summarizing a bit of the reasoning in a few pages.
>I'll keep pecking away at this book. Hmmm ... would a box of prunes
>lead me to more rapid insight? (:-)
>
>---garyFostel---
>
impacted retrosynergy, perhaps. but, insight is in the behind of the
beholder.