Operation A.C.T.I.V.I.T.Y.

[?????]

The topic title reminds me of kids next door.

[Geno]

The topic title reminds me of kids next door.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Thyme]

SHUT THE FUCK UP

ke$ha sucks and lady gaga is a true artist

[famy]

ke$ha sucks and lady gaga is a true artist

Well obviously by committing to offense, scorn, and ridicule, of course.

I see that even after half a century of rebuke, Sir Charles Snow's The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution still makes inroads because there are others willing to make the same mistake as he did. We have no fight here James, all of us are Humanists, take second to think about what that implies.

Faith in science should never serve as a comprehensive belief system that pretends to give meaning to life, as well as a sense of well-being, morality, and even immortality. I find all claims that have a quarrel with that assessment to be very deceptive and baffling; in part, because such a belief blurs the distinction between processes and practices.

By "processes" I refer to those events that occur in nature, such as the orbiting of the planets or the melting of ice or the production of chlorophyll in a leaf. Indeed such processes have nothing to do with human intelligence, are governed by immutable laws, and are, so to say, determined by the structure of nature. If one were so inclined, one might even say that processes are the creation of God. To understand the processes purely to understand them, says nothing of the merits of the individual, and only of the merits of God, or nature. When one ventures beyond detached workings and into the realm of interpersonal significance, then we can say you are in the domain of "practices". I will go further and state that only then, finally, does one show a glimmer of hope in the direction of holistic intelligence. They cease to be mere Infocrats and develop into proper spiritual intellectuals. I strongly suggest you make that switch.

Anyway, not to get ahead of myself, let us continue with what practices are. They are the creations of peopleââ,¬â€�those events that result from human decisions and actions, such as writing or reading this post, forming a new government, conversing at a dinner or falling in love. These events are a function of holistic human intelligence (which encompasses more than a strict cognitive interpretation) interacting with environment, and although there is surely a measure of regularity in human affairs, such affairs are not determined by natural laws, immutable or otherwise. In other words, there is an irrevocable difference between a blink and a wink. A blink can be classified as a process; it serves a biological function, so it has physiological causes which can be understood and explained within the context of established postulates and theories. But a wink must always be classified as a practice, filled with personal and to a large extent unknowable meaning, and in any case, quite impossible to explain or predict in terms of causal relations. This is the great secret that Scientism (default present Holy Book) has sought to subvert and render false. It could not possibly be any truer, however. I offered as an example a very basic and trivial thing. Imagine, however, the profound damage which this perverted disease of thought has caused, and the extent to which it has spread and manifested itself in virtually every facet of modern human existence.

Perhaps you cannot, given you way of reason is part of the problem. You're living a hollow life, I'm afraid, equating information with knowledge, and knowledge with wisdom. To claim, essentially, that the greatest form of appreciation of, and meaning in, let's say grass, is to understand and know the process by which it exists, is rather tragic. I refer you here to the works of Whitman and Thoreau (if you want specific recommendation of where to start, I will gladly oblige), and the notion of 'improved means to unimproved ends'. Seek and consider your convictions, character, and soulââ,¬â€�cultivate them. By doing so you will develop a great understating and acknowledgment of, in this case water, even before you worry about under what conditions it freezes, or even know that it does.

So what we call science, then, is the quest to find the enduring and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes. It follows that the quest to understand and regulate human behavior and feeling can in no sense except the most trivial be called science. We can say, fairly, that by the very nature of the occupation (yes, it is a business) a scientist studies things independently of what people think and do about them. Unfortunately, the opinions people hold about the external world or the internal one are, to scientist, always an obstacle to be overcome. Total abandonment of dogma forââ,¬Â¦ perpetualism, with nothing as a guide but itself. There needs to be a balance, cohesion, and unification. The former must always be at least somewhat responsible for the latter, or else you risk progressing backwards spiritually while moving forward  materially; that is an unstable and unsustainable format. Because as we all know, a scientist's pictureof the world is quite different (not necessarily "better") from what most people believe the world to be like. This fissure appears due to a lack of universal purpose and moral application, the very way in which humanity has actually developedââ,¬â€�recklessly, on all sides. Moreover, in their zealous-like desire for objectivity, scientists proceed on the assumption that the objects they study are indifferent to the fact that they are being studied. This "fact" relieves the scientist of inquiring into their values and motivations, and for this reason alone their derived opinions are largely meaningless (in terms of authority) in these areas of conscious. Because it is a misuse of context.

Now, my dear sir, you enter into the art of philosophy and of ethics, in which science has no business being. When you want to abandon your safe and simple world of concrete functions, I stand ready with open arms to welcome you into the intricate and, dare I say it, subjective! You will find here that one relies not so much in empiricism, but reflection. You are your own source, medium, and measuring stick. Are you ready to stop being led by the hand? Are you ready to stop believing in something that merely proclaims you have to go, but does not offer words for why you must go, or where it is you will end up? It is and exhilarating alternative James, and very enlightening. But it is no fool's game, even if fools regard it as such.

Building on the above, I will conclude this winded (though hopefully not futile) reply with the field of education. Under the prevailing modern view we first attempt improve the education of our youth by improving what are called "learning technologies". At the moment, it is considered necessary to introduce computers to the classroom. To the question "Why we should do this?" the answer is: "To make learning more efficient and interesting." Such an answer is considered entirely adequate, since in Scientism efficiency and interest need no justification. It is, therefore, usually not noticed that this answer does not address the question "What is learning for?" "Efficiency and interest" is a technical answer, and answer about means, not ends; and it offers no pathway to consideration of educational philosophy. Indeed, as mentioned previously, it stifles the way to such a consideration by beginning with the question of how we should proceed, rather than with the question of why. It is probably not necessary to say that, by definition, there can be no education philosophy that does not address what learning is for. Because I assure you, it is not for receiving employment and forcing others into peril.

Confucius, Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, Comenius, Erasmus, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Russell, Kant, Montessori, Whitehead, and Dewey (to name but a few)ââ,¬â€�each believed that there was some transcendent political, spiritual, or social idea that must be advanced through education; universal truth for all Mankind.  Confucius advocated teaching "the Way" because in tradition he saw the best hope for social order. Plato wished education to produce philosophical kings. Cicero argued that education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson thought the purpose of education is to teach how to protect one's liberties. Rousseau wished education to free the young from the unnatural constraints of a wicked and arbitrary social order. Kant sought to convey the power of human reason and perception in existence, and to warn against its many dangers. And among John Dewey's aims was to help the student function without certainty in a world of constant change and puzzling ambiguities. Only in knowing something of the reasons why they advocated education can we make sense of the means they suggest.

But to understand their reasons we must also understand the narratives the governed their view of the world. By narrative, I mean a story of human history that gives meaning to the past, explains the present, and provided guidance for the future. It is a story whose principles help a culture to organize its institutions, to develop ideals, and to find authority for its actions. At great risk of further insult, I shall point out that the source of the world's greatest narratives has been religion, as found, for example, in Genesis or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Koran, etcââ,¬Â¦ Do not confuse me for a fundamentalist. I simply ponder what some have observedââ,¬â€�as did the great historian Arnold Toynbeeââ,¬â€�that without an encouraging and meaningful (not literal) and comprehensive religious (spiritual) narrative as its core a culture must decline. To that I say, perhaps. There are, after all, other sourcesââ,¬â€�mythology, politics, philosophy, and science, for exampleââ,¬â€�but it is certain that no culture can flourish and approach some utopian desire without narratives of transcendent origin and power.

Do not dismiss what came before you, do not laugh at antiquity, and do not regard men of history as simply men of vintage. As Cicero put it, "To remain ignorant of the things that happened before you were born is to remain a child."
I hope you understand me James. To quote Whitman, "These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with meââ,¬Â¦" Maybe you cannot understand me. I admit, it seems as if you are woefully unprepared in the skill of inferring and insight. Probably you enjoy procedural and directional modes of communication and conveyance, such as literature on coding or mathematics, while others prefer prose in allegorical and existential form.

Finally, I conclude by saying that the careful and impartial reader will also notice the lack of direct insult in my argumentââ,¬â€�no ad hominem. He will also observe the citing of people as sources, because I consider them the reservoir from which wells are drawn. You might want to consider this humble exercise in restraint of one's ego, clarity in one's thoughts, calm in one's emotions. Rrespect and admire people for who they are, not simply for what they have created and done.

May you have a swell day.

Sincerely yours,

not famy.

[Geno]

tl;dr

[strongbad]

I would like the point out that I have been the only person to post 3 topics a day

[Geno]

Wrong thread lol

[YPrrrr]

Wrong thread lol

Who you talkin to

[ME##]

Who you talkin to

I don't even think Geno can answer that question. 

[Daddy]

Famy where did you get that

[Lozal]

So I came back out of vanishing for a while

again

Also, I feel like it would be incredibly awkward to speak to JMV on the phone

[YPrrrr]

Wrong thread lol

[ME##]

I agree, also:


Random 

[Samus Aran]

So I came back out of vanishing for a while

again

Also, I feel like it would be incredibly awkward to speak to JMV on the phone

lol

[ME##]

Wrong thread lol