I realize this thread is dead by now, but I've been following up with all of those who kindly responded to me, so I thought I would say "hey," and also have a bit of a response for you.
In spite of my earlier post, I totally respect your opinion of OSC. That's cool with me, and I'm not offended by it at all. You know about your own opinion, and thanks for setting the record straight on it.
Anyway, someone accused me of not having any original thoughts of my own when I replied to you. While that accusation may have been acurate in the past, I have to say that your post started me thinking quite on my own, and so that's always a positive development.:)
As far as it goes, I'm not an OSC fanboy myself. I admit I loved Ender's Game, and also Treason (read Treason if you haven't). I didn't care for Speaker for the Dead, and I thought that the Alvin Maker series were only so-so (I only read three of them, and only because I had them on my bookshelf. I don't like owning books that I haven't read). Oh, and I disliked Folk of the Fringe (most), Hart's Hope (got bored) and the Worthing Saga (finished it, anyway). I also read a book that OSC edited called Future on Fire, which was a collection of SF shorts by other authors. That might have been an excellent read, except that I was way too young for that material at the time.
I do read OSC's opinions, too; as he occasionaly writes the odd op-ed article. I confess that his opinions are partially distasteful to my own, and are very outspoken indeed (though I love to read them). I'm all about reading ideas from people who I disagree with. Those opinions often make me _think_ more than other opinions which I already agree with. Hence my earlier post to you.:)
Loved Niven's Ringworld, by the way. And Asimov's Foundation. Haven't read much from those other authors; SF reading isn't my forte.
Like you said, I don't know about scientology. It may be that they are a wacky group, but I have come to a point where I don't like to make those kinds of judgements without a lot of personal thought. Now, I won't disagree with your assessment since you seem to have some sort of information that I don't. I just can't enter into your opinion at this time. I don't like to arrive at conclusions based on research that other people have done (or their experiences), although sometimes that's a good starting point. Although many people hate the church of Scientology, there are clearly those who love it. I'm curious about why that is, and maybe if it isn't actually by some virtue of that organization.
I stepped back one day and realized just how nutty _I_ am by the standards set by others. So now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, in spite of all of the "crazy" things they do.
This sort of subjectivism regarding OSC became quite stylish about the time that a certain interview came out, revealing some of Card's religiously held sentiments. People who were once quite passive about Card, or even complimentary, suddenly became his worst critics. I know some who loved Ender's Game, and then found out that Card is Mormon. Now they hate it. It's similar to what has happened to L. Ron Hubbard, now that Scientology is a prime target of persecution.
Several years ago, Slashdot's conversations about OSC were generally quite positive. Now you can guarantee that any OSC discussion will contain the following elements:
1) Ender's Game is a Nazi-loving revenge saga. This is a recent argument based on a particular review from an OSC critic. Disciples of this "received" idea now push it as gospel truth. 2) OSC is a homophobe because he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and with gay marriage, even after science has proven that these things are perfectly normal. 3) I hate OSC, but I still think his books are pretty good. 4) I used to love Ender's Game, but now that I'm older and smarter, I find that I hate it because it's actually quite shallow. People who still like it are nostalgics. 5) OSC is a crazy mormon (followed by a list of crazy things about mormonism). Usually followed up by a post redirecting the interested and "uneducated" reader to any number of anti-mormon sites. 6) General fear and loathing of OSC and his "political" ideals. This is followed by a good dose of anti-right-wing hate talk. 7) Posts from OSC apologists (hi!) interspersed throughout the discussion. 8) OSC is trying to brainwash us with his books and I resent it.
Anyone can say that OSC is a novice hack. Well, I've read several of those other SF novelists mentioned in the parent post, whose books I also enjoy. I find that, lacking the anti-OSC bigotry, it is difficult for me to categorize OSC as a novice hack. Ender's Game is an award winning SF novel and was once quite well-regarded by those very deeply interested in the genre.
I find that OSC is quite outspoken, but nowhere near the bigot that his critics are.
Smart people, dumb people; this is largely a manufactured distinction anyway. Dumb people are usually not dumb because of some genetic deficiency of the brain, but rather due to deficiencies in the social machinery that surrounds them. It may be that the manner in which one uses one's brain can affect physical characteristics of the brain, but this would not be due to any genetic programming.
It is entirely possible that the selective advantage of one gene over another might have nothing at all to do with the capacity for intelligence that the gene lends to the individual.
Yes. In fact, the flow of culture went just as much in both directions, as the well-documented "Hellenization" of Christianity will attest to. Modern Christianity is shaped very much by Greek-style philosophy, and particularly Greek metaphysics (the idea that God is immaterial, etc, coming out of the 3rd and 4th centuries AD). Socratic dialectic eventually yielded the scientific method as well, although empirical philosophies utilize a much different concept of metaphysics.
I agree that parents should be the custodians of their own children. The fact is that "concerned" men of influence in times past have noted that, due to the effects of corporate massified America, parents are no longer suitable guardians for their children. Hence the rise of parens patriae in the United States; the government now owns and is responsible for children (this is why kids can be forced to go to school, can be taken from incompentent parents and placed with others, and also why children will shortly be medicated on the state's sole oversight). Parents are allowed to care for children only under the government's watchful (or negligent) eye.
Parents, who have now been programmed to be just as much consumers of gaming and entertainment as their children, are still very useful: they provide an excellent scapegoat for public outrage - it was the parents' fault.
It's a wonderful standard. First eviscerate parenthood with state and business agendas, then act indignant when parents fail to protect their own kids from corporate-sponsored sleaze.
I'm told that, hundreds of years ago, people were highly literate. Even kids could read Shakespeare, apparently; at least Sam Johnson seemed fine with it at the age of 9. I understand that twelve-year-old Abraham Cowley was reading Spenser. And I've been told repeatedly that colonial American farmers were able to digest the Federalist Papers without much trouble at all. How is it that America's founders were able to defy the world's foremost superpower, and fashion a remarkable democracy that lasted almost until mid-twentieth century? Those were young men then. Have you seen todays' college rabble? Those people ought to be out doing great things, not spending drunk time in some dormitory. What happened?
I have a novel idea: Why don't we do what they did in colonial times? You know, schools of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Liberal education. The Classics. Mentors. How about that? Teach people how to think as soveriegn individuals. Let's shut down the state factory schools, with the state curricula and the private interests that shape them. Why not consider the things that Brownson once said: "[A]ccording to our theory the people are wiser than the government. Here the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give law to the government [...] to entrust government with the power of determining education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power of the master."
Why don't we do this? Because it would spell the end of our managed utopias, with their closely regulated, mass-production economies. Henry Ford, for one, needed people who were satisfied with stuff that came off of an assembly line; stuff that looked strikingly similar to what everyone else had. He needed people who would be satisfied with simple, repetitive jobs. It's more efficient to build things by robot than to rely on a specialist. We don't need more smart people, we have plenty already. We need robots, that's what Utopia is all about. And that's what public schools are good at. They are just fine for what they do; they don't need to be fixed. Kids go to school so that they can "get a good job" (even if it's a sinecure), not to enrich their mind or soul.
I tried actually learning at school a few times. I soon realized that, in school, learning has a deadline. It's managed by bells and by psychology. It only really matters that you learn to answer the right way on the final exam - then you are educated. Then you will be successful. Private and state quotas are met whether we learn to read or not.
If we want better students than anyone else in the global competition, all we have to do is tweak the machine a bit. Fiddle with it. But if our goal is truly educated people, then we need to scrap the current system and start over. My guess is that it won't happen.
I would imagine that the dropouts who become billionaires would average out to be a statistical fluke.
The planned social levelling that schools (particularly public schools) provide for the government is designed to fulfil the needs of the managed utopia, i.e., to supply a professional proletariat and a predictable consumer base. Kids go to school today so that they can "get a good job" in the professions or the trades. Those few singled out as "gifted" may achieve a role in the managerial class.
Schools, being strictly secular and uniform in most cases, produce individuals who are generally like-minded or at least behaviorally similar (in spite of any external beliefs these individuals may hold, which beliefs are generally neutralized by the scientific management programme).
Now, to raise up from the burgeois ranks into those of the very affluent, an individual must defeat the well-documented psychological programming that school imposes upon its students in order to make them suitable employees for any workplace.
I suggest that the opposite of your statement is actually true. Those who have become rich from out of the middle or lower classes (here I am thinking of the modern American class system, established in the mid-1800s) would most likely have been educated in a manner other than what our public schools provide. Most of society's great achievers seem to have refused the state programme of compulsory education, and have pursued their own interests with a singular passion. Such an education would only be available to those in the finest of private institutions (generally reserved for the already-rich), or to those who have been individually mentored by masters, or to those who learned on their own. The only way to get such an education would be to "drop out" or to pursue this education in spite of school, extra-curricularly as we say.
I am very influenced in this thinking by Gatto's books on American education, specifically "The Underground History of American Education." This is extremely interesting reading, very well researched and quite persuasive in my opinion.
As a practicing Mormon, I believe that you have certain points of doctrine completely wrong. I'm not an official spokesperson for the church.
If the ceremonies were handed down by God, why have there been changes?
There would be no need for a prophet if the implication you make were true. While we believe that God's mode of operation remains constant, and that His moral "compass" remains constant, we also realize that people change with the times. The fundamental values of the church are not in the rituals. There ARE religions that attempt to approximate the exact practices of the ancient Christians, etc. We are not one of them.
The Mormons do live in an uncoventional manner and they are under the guidance of an authoritarian charismatic leader.
Typical of many religions. The "cult" argument is old an tired, used by those who wish to detract and criticize. What is a "conventional manner" to live? Would you care to enlighten us?
What the prophet says goes, there is no disputing it or questioning. If you do not do what the prophet says you are not allowed a temple recommend, or allowed to take sacrament
False. The prophet speaks in many capacities. Brigham Young himself stated that many times he knew that he had preached wrong. We are encouraged to ponder and think about the counsel given us from the Prophet, then to seek confirmation of those things from the Holy Spirit. Not all counsels we receive from the Prophet are of the type that would disqualify a person from partaking of the sacrament or attending the Temple if we fail to observe them. If someone taught you other than this, you were misled.
Why during testimony meeting on every 1st Sunday, the mormons have the children go up to the front,so the parents can whisper in their ear: I know the church is true. I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I know that the prophet today is a prophet of God. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. Does a 3 year old actually know this? How can they? But they are taught to say this from a very young age.
Why is it that my math teacher teaches me formulas that I memorize and use? Do I know them to be true? Not at first. But if I believe them, then I practice them. If I practice them, then I can prove them. Principles must be taught as if they were true, if we truly believe them; otherwise our children can have no confidence in us or in what we believe. We have a responsibility to prove them for ourselves.
Yes, many Mormons say things that they don't really know. Many of us are sincere in our testimonies. I believe that some of us actually have such knowledge. Jesus said (in essence) that to some is given to know, and to others it is given to believe. He condemned neither. Our belief gives us hope.
Only Mormons will go to heaven and hell.
Completely false. Your assessment of the degrees of glory is entirely off. There is no scriptural basis for the idea that individuals are slated to labor for the eternities in whatever "degree" they earned on earth. I realize this is somewhat of a Mormon tradition, but it is not correct. Read Talmage for more information. It is also false that only Mormons will go to "outer darkness." This is written nowhere.
The essence of the doctrine is eternal progress. People have different desires. We progress at different rates. We are not all the same; why would we receive the same thing in the next life? I beilieve that we will be satisfied with what we get, and that we will have the opportunity to improve on it if we so desire. Also, I find it imprudent to classify some individuals into their "kingdoms," as you have done. Do you know the intents of their hearts? Then how can you judge what they will receive?
I am sorry that you have been raised to believe these things about Mormons. It is too bad that you apparently intend to publish them as the truth. I do not believe that they are true. I feel that you have been misled, and very possibly mistreated b
Here is another interesting treatment option. I understand that scientists will de doing some formal human-centric studies with Curcumin at the the University of Utah.
While I think yours is a fair assessment, there is one other aspect that needs to be emphasized:
Perl syntax is very flexible. You can write Perl that looks something like C, or Perl that looks something like Basic, or Perl that looks something like Java, etc.
You might get two Perl programmers who both write small, efficient programs to do the same thing using similar architectural and design approaches. Both programs could look radically different, depending on the author's slant on Perl.
POV-Ray is great for rendering images if you want a nice picture (and have the time to play with textures and lighting). However, POV-Ray is not great for modelling because it only supports its own scripting language natively. I doubt anyone would want to script their house-plans in POV-Ray SDL.
Others have suggested Moray, which is a CAD-like modelling program meant to be used with POV-Ray. It isn't free like POV-Ray is, but it is inexpensive, and well worth the price. Still, even Moray isn't the greatest CAD software, and it only runs in Windows right now (I tried Wine, but I couldn't get it to work).
When WordPerfect was just WordPerfect, it was a U.S. company based in Orem, Utah. You may recall the days when WordPerfect was pratically the only game in town when it came to word processing.
When MS got into the office software business, WordPerfect could not keep up. The company was bought by Novell, then by Corel. A languishing Corel soon shut down the old U.S. operations (which were still responible for the Office suite at the time) and moved everything back to Ottawa.
Anyway, during WordPerfect's best days, probably all of the government agencies were using it. Most likely there are still a lot of WP documents sitting around, and a lot of WP expertise besides. That a U.S. government agency would choose Corel over MS is nothing new.
No, it's about a majority of like-minded people establishing a society around their own views and beliefs. It tends to happen when you give people some room to govern themselves.
Naturally, the cynical minority objects. It always does. But this minority never sees it for what it is, and so we have to put up with Church Conspiracy theories and vitriolic rhetoric.
What, the financial record that shows a decline in revenues, while at the same time an increase in profits due to less spending on R&D? Is that the financial you are talking about?
It sounds great to say that Microsoft just posted the most profitable quarter ever. But if you look behind the scenes, you see that Microsoft did less business than the previous quarter.
You have to realize that Microsoft can almost live on its investments alone, without even being the #1 player in the market. I'm not suggesting that MS is not the #1 player right now, but I am suggesting that you have to look at revenues, not at profits. What you see might tell you another story - a different story from the one you are preaching.
I don't study MS financials, so I am no expert. But I do get the impression that Microsoft has reached a plateau, in terms of revenues, with its current product offerings. It seems that people are slowly getting interested in other things: Like OSX. Like OpenOffice. Like Firefox. Like Linux.
Microsoft drove their growth with a certain appeal. It was a cost appeal. Microsoft let you do things with computers for not a lot of money. This was appealing to people who were interested in computers at the time, but not initially to average consumers. Now Microsoft has eliminated its own cost appeal by virtue of its monopoly. The computer enthusiasts have become disillusioned with Microsoft, and have moved on to other things (cheaper, more open, more curious other things). These people are beginning to drive the next wave of technical innovations that will later become the staple of the common consumer. At the same time, MS is cutting its R&D and relying on its monopoly position and same old predatory practices to cast the illusion of growth.
The fact is, there is no room for a monopolist to grow without getting into other markets. Yes, we see that Microsoft is trying this. I think it is because they understand the doom that is coming on the shink-wrapped software front. The good news is that, in these new markets, Microsoft is not yet a monopolist. They will try to leverage one monopoly to build the other, but I don't think they will succeed.
Of course, we will see Microsoft as a big player for many years to come. That just gives everyone more time to see the writing that is on the wall.
I'm not talking bout physical representations of metaphysical things. Clearly concepts are represented by physical phenomenon within our brains (and in other, different ways within machines). This I do not deny. I can measure the neurons and the chemicals and the impulses, but where is the "two"?
If the universe consists of no more than two rocks, does "two" not exist because no one is around to comprehend it?
The term "metaphysical" refers to the qualities of physical objects that are not themselves physical. Size, quantity, etc. I can say there are two of something, but the two things are not the "two." The synapses that comprehend the quantity are also not the "two."
a) If this isn't about ultimate truth, then proponents of "probability," as you put it, shouldn't use the term "ultimate truth." _I_ didn't introduce the term into the discussion.
But I think you are trying to fool me. We all know that probability works best when most, or all, variables are known. When you say you are talking about probability, you imply that you have confidence that the body of knowledge is all-encompassing, or at least close enough to approximate the "ultimate truth" by derivation. Otherwise, you can have no confidence that probability is telling you anything meaningful at all.
b) Clearly, you have not read Kant.
No evidence of the metaphysical? Then explain to me this:
What is 'quantity'? Can I experience it? Can I touch it? Smell it? Hear it? See it? Taste it? There is no empirical test that can prove that "two" exists, for example. I have a concept of the number two, and an understanding of numbers, but the meaning I associate with it is entirely conceptual. Concepts are metaphysical. Meanings are metaphysical.
I have never seen any philosophy disprove this, ever. The best they can do is say, "so what?"
The significance of it is that, as an integral theory of philosophy, empiricism now has a hole in it. In order to work, it must now assume certain axioms that are metaphysical (such as "we all accept and understand the concept of quantities and probabilities"), while at the same time, denying that anything metaphysical can exist.
You may not realize that true philosopies are, in fact, mathematical proofs that rely on logic. Kant deconstructed the philosophy of empiricism and showed it to be false, simply by proving that concepts are metaphysical and cannot be experienced by any empirical method. Logic is itself metaphysical, as is "sense." Do you need evidence that those things exist?
It wasn't until Ayn Rand came out with Objectivism that anyone attempted to answer Kant (that I am aware of). And her anser is, "So What?"
So we have objectivists who don't care, and we have empiricists who don't realize their philosophy is logically bankrupt, and we have everyone else who believes in God. Well, that is a generalization.
Let me tell you something about probability. Every day that science brings us closer to immortality; every day that science brings us closer to "ultimate knowledge"; every day that science brings us closer to mastery over the elements and forces of nature, is another day when the probability increases that somewhere else in the universe, someone else already beat us to it.
So, you see, I am not trying to say that God is metaphysical, or that human chimeras are evil, or any of that. I'm just suggesting that the "empirical" assessment of the situation, which attempts to draw a conclusion about something that is metaphysical (such as "value"), is illogical.
I believe that empiricism ought to constrain itself to science, where it works well.
The old empiricism went out of style when Kant made a good case for the metaphysical. Naturally, the Objectivists downplay his arguments, but I haven't seen anything really convincing from that camp.
Likewise, you bring up some points, yet fail to quantify the complete human experience.
You speak of ultimate truth. If you have such equations in your possession, do please share them with us. You will do a great service to humanity, having conquered the realms of science and philosophy.
I rather suspect that your closed system of chemistry and mathematics (etc.) can tolerate no new science. I suggest, instead, that the universe of human understanding will continue to expand. Therefore, I predict that you will have to revise your unltimate truth sometime in the future.
Won't it be ironic, once humans have overcome mortality, and have reached out beyond the confines of space (and this with our science, and in such a relatively minute fraction of time considering the history of mankind); won't it be ironic when we look back and remember how we said there could be no god?
We stand on the very brink. Only our greed and selfishness and fear hold us back. And you talk about ultimate truth, as if we were already masters of it? Last I knew, humans were still petty creatures, clinging to an existence so tenuous that few even understand the seriousness of it. In the meantime, take your own advice: Do not pretend to possess the truth until you hold in your hands all the keys of space and of time and of energy and of matter - and of all other things that we yet do not understand.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize this thread is dead by now, but I've been following up with all of those who kindly responded to me, so I thought I would say "hey," and also have a bit of a response for you.
:)
:)
In spite of my earlier post, I totally respect your opinion of OSC. That's cool with me, and I'm not offended by it at all. You know about your own opinion, and thanks for setting the record straight on it.
Anyway, someone accused me of not having any original thoughts of my own when I replied to you. While that accusation may have been acurate in the past, I have to say that your post started me thinking quite on my own, and so that's always a positive development.
As far as it goes, I'm not an OSC fanboy myself. I admit I loved Ender's Game, and also Treason (read Treason if you haven't). I didn't care for Speaker for the Dead, and I thought that the Alvin Maker series were only so-so (I only read three of them, and only because I had them on my bookshelf. I don't like owning books that I haven't read). Oh, and I disliked Folk of the Fringe (most), Hart's Hope (got bored) and the Worthing Saga (finished it, anyway). I also read a book that OSC edited called Future on Fire, which was a collection of SF shorts by other authors. That might have been an excellent read, except that I was way too young for that material at the time.
I do read OSC's opinions, too; as he occasionaly writes the odd op-ed article. I confess that his opinions are partially distasteful to my own, and are very outspoken indeed (though I love to read them). I'm all about reading ideas from people who I disagree with. Those opinions often make me _think_ more than other opinions which I already agree with. Hence my earlier post to you.
Loved Niven's Ringworld, by the way. And Asimov's Foundation. Haven't read much from those other authors; SF reading isn't my forte.
Like you said, I don't know about scientology. It may be that they are a wacky group, but I have come to a point where I don't like to make those kinds of judgements without a lot of personal thought. Now, I won't disagree with your assessment since you seem to have some sort of information that I don't. I just can't enter into your opinion at this time. I don't like to arrive at conclusions based on research that other people have done (or their experiences), although sometimes that's a good starting point. Although many people hate the church of Scientology, there are clearly those who love it. I'm curious about why that is, and maybe if it isn't actually by some virtue of that organization.
I stepped back one day and realized just how nutty _I_ am by the standards set by others. So now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, in spite of all of the "crazy" things they do.
Sorry if I copied one of your posts. Like you said, I was feeling pretty stupid at the time and your writing must have matched my mental state.
Hey, I think David Eddings is a pretty good fantasy author. :) But I'm not much of a fantasy reader anymore.
Well, I didn't mean to compare the two religions. Honestly, I don't know much about scientology, but I am interested in Hubbard's books because of it.
This sort of subjectivism regarding OSC became quite stylish about the time that a certain interview came out, revealing some of Card's religiously held sentiments. People who were once quite passive about Card, or even complimentary, suddenly became his worst critics. I know some who loved Ender's Game, and then found out that Card is Mormon. Now they hate it. It's similar to what has happened to L. Ron Hubbard, now that Scientology is a prime target of persecution.
Several years ago, Slashdot's conversations about OSC were generally quite positive. Now you can guarantee that any OSC discussion will contain the following elements:
1) Ender's Game is a Nazi-loving revenge saga. This is a recent argument based on a particular review from an OSC critic. Disciples of this "received" idea now push it as gospel truth.
2) OSC is a homophobe because he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and with gay marriage, even after science has proven that these things are perfectly normal.
3) I hate OSC, but I still think his books are pretty good.
4) I used to love Ender's Game, but now that I'm older and smarter, I find that I hate it because it's actually quite shallow. People who still like it are nostalgics.
5) OSC is a crazy mormon (followed by a list of crazy things about mormonism). Usually followed up by a post redirecting the interested and "uneducated" reader to any number of anti-mormon sites.
6) General fear and loathing of OSC and his "political" ideals. This is followed by a good dose of anti-right-wing hate talk.
7) Posts from OSC apologists (hi!) interspersed throughout the discussion.
8) OSC is trying to brainwash us with his books and I resent it.
Anyone can say that OSC is a novice hack. Well, I've read several of those other SF novelists mentioned in the parent post, whose books I also enjoy. I find that, lacking the anti-OSC bigotry, it is difficult for me to categorize OSC as a novice hack. Ender's Game is an award winning SF novel and was once quite well-regarded by those very deeply interested in the genre.
I find that OSC is quite outspoken, but nowhere near the bigot that his critics are.
Smart people, dumb people; this is largely a manufactured distinction anyway. Dumb people are usually not dumb because of some genetic deficiency of the brain, but rather due to deficiencies in the social machinery that surrounds them. It may be that the manner in which one uses one's brain can affect physical characteristics of the brain, but this would not be due to any genetic programming.
It is entirely possible that the selective advantage of one gene over another might have nothing at all to do with the capacity for intelligence that the gene lends to the individual.
ha, i'm an idiot as usual. :)
So I see that most of the obvious culprits have been exposed: Ticket prices, lousy flicks, expensive popcorn, dirty theaters, noisy crowds.
Let's add another one to it: With gas prices hovering near $3/gal in many places, why not just stay home and watch cable?
Yes. In fact, the flow of culture went just as much in both directions, as the well-documented "Hellenization" of Christianity will attest to. Modern Christianity is shaped very much by Greek-style philosophy, and particularly Greek metaphysics (the idea that God is immaterial, etc, coming out of the 3rd and 4th centuries AD). Socratic dialectic eventually yielded the scientific method as well, although empirical philosophies utilize a much different concept of metaphysics.
I agree that parents should be the custodians of their own children. The fact is that "concerned" men of influence in times past have noted that, due to the effects of corporate massified America, parents are no longer suitable guardians for their children. Hence the rise of parens patriae in the United States; the government now owns and is responsible for children (this is why kids can be forced to go to school, can be taken from incompentent parents and placed with others, and also why children will shortly be medicated on the state's sole oversight). Parents are allowed to care for children only under the government's watchful (or negligent) eye.
Parents, who have now been programmed to be just as much consumers of gaming and entertainment as their children, are still very useful: they provide an excellent scapegoat for public outrage - it was the parents' fault.
It's a wonderful standard. First eviscerate parenthood with state and business agendas, then act indignant when parents fail to protect their own kids from corporate-sponsored sleaze.
I'm told that, hundreds of years ago, people were highly literate. Even kids could read Shakespeare, apparently; at least Sam Johnson seemed fine with it at the age of 9. I understand that twelve-year-old Abraham Cowley was reading Spenser. And I've been told repeatedly that colonial American farmers were able to digest the Federalist Papers without much trouble at all. How is it that America's founders were able to defy the world's foremost superpower, and fashion a remarkable democracy that lasted almost until mid-twentieth century? Those were young men then. Have you seen todays' college rabble? Those people ought to be out doing great things, not spending drunk time in some dormitory. What happened?
I have a novel idea: Why don't we do what they did in colonial times? You know, schools of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Liberal education. The Classics. Mentors. How about that? Teach people how to think as soveriegn individuals. Let's shut down the state factory schools, with the state curricula and the private interests that shape them. Why not consider the things that Brownson once said: "[A]ccording to our theory the people are wiser than the government. Here the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give law to the government [...] to entrust government with the power of determining education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power of the master."
Why don't we do this? Because it would spell the end of our managed utopias, with their closely regulated, mass-production economies. Henry Ford, for one, needed people who were satisfied with stuff that came off of an assembly line; stuff that looked strikingly similar to what everyone else had. He needed people who would be satisfied with simple, repetitive jobs. It's more efficient to build things by robot than to rely on a specialist. We don't need more smart people, we have plenty already. We need robots, that's what Utopia is all about. And that's what public schools are good at. They are just fine for what they do; they don't need to be fixed. Kids go to school so that they can "get a good job" (even if it's a sinecure), not to enrich their mind or soul.
I tried actually learning at school a few times. I soon realized that, in school, learning has a deadline. It's managed by bells and by psychology. It only really matters that you learn to answer the right way on the final exam - then you are educated. Then you will be successful. Private and state quotas are met whether we learn to read or not.
If we want better students than anyone else in the global competition, all we have to do is tweak the machine a bit. Fiddle with it. But if our goal is truly educated people, then we need to scrap the current system and start over. My guess is that it won't happen.
I would imagine that the dropouts who become billionaires would average out to be a statistical fluke.
The planned social levelling that schools (particularly public schools) provide for the government is designed to fulfil the needs of the managed utopia, i.e., to supply a professional proletariat and a predictable consumer base. Kids go to school today so that they can "get a good job" in the professions or the trades. Those few singled out as "gifted" may achieve a role in the managerial class.
Schools, being strictly secular and uniform in most cases, produce individuals who are generally like-minded or at least behaviorally similar (in spite of any external beliefs these individuals may hold, which beliefs are generally neutralized by the scientific management programme).
Now, to raise up from the burgeois ranks into those of the very affluent, an individual must defeat the well-documented psychological programming that school imposes upon its students in order to make them suitable employees for any workplace.
I suggest that the opposite of your statement is actually true. Those who have become rich from out of the middle or lower classes (here I am thinking of the modern American class system, established in the mid-1800s) would most likely have been educated in a manner other than what our public schools provide. Most of society's great achievers seem to have refused the state programme of compulsory education, and have pursued their own interests with a singular passion. Such an education would only be available to those in the finest of private institutions (generally reserved for the already-rich), or to those who have been individually mentored by masters, or to those who learned on their own. The only way to get such an education would be to "drop out" or to pursue this education in spite of school, extra-curricularly as we say.
I am very influenced in this thinking by Gatto's books on American education, specifically "The Underground History of American Education." This is extremely interesting reading, very well researched and quite persuasive in my opinion.
Well, I probably meant the opposite scenario.
Interesting, this Ruby.
How about a public setter and a private getter? :)
I don't know anything about Ruby.
As a practicing Mormon, I believe that you have certain points of doctrine completely wrong. I'm not an official spokesperson for the church.
If the ceremonies were handed down by God, why have there been changes?
There would be no need for a prophet if the implication you make were true. While we believe that God's mode of operation remains constant, and that His moral "compass" remains constant, we also realize that people change with the times. The fundamental values of the church are not in the rituals. There ARE religions that attempt to approximate the exact practices of the ancient Christians, etc. We are not one of them.
The Mormons do live in an uncoventional manner and they are under the guidance of an authoritarian charismatic leader.
Typical of many religions. The "cult" argument is old an tired, used by those who wish to detract and criticize. What is a "conventional manner" to live? Would you care to enlighten us?
What the prophet says goes, there is no disputing it or questioning. If you do not do what the prophet says you are not allowed a temple recommend, or allowed to take sacrament
False. The prophet speaks in many capacities. Brigham Young himself stated that many times he knew that he had preached wrong. We are encouraged to ponder and think about the counsel given us from the Prophet, then to seek confirmation of those things from the Holy Spirit. Not all counsels we receive from the Prophet are of the type that would disqualify a person from partaking of the sacrament or attending the Temple if we fail to observe them. If someone taught you other than this, you were misled.
Why during testimony meeting on every 1st Sunday, the mormons have the children go up to the front,so the parents can whisper in their ear: I know the church is true. I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I know that the prophet today is a prophet of God. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. Does a 3 year old actually know this? How can they? But they are taught to say this from a very young age.
Why is it that my math teacher teaches me formulas that I memorize and use? Do I know them to be true? Not at first. But if I believe them, then I practice them. If I practice them, then I can prove them. Principles must be taught as if they were true, if we truly believe them; otherwise our children can have no confidence in us or in what we believe. We have a responsibility to prove them for ourselves.
Yes, many Mormons say things that they don't really know. Many of us are sincere in our testimonies. I believe that some of us actually have such knowledge. Jesus said (in essence) that to some is given to know, and to others it is given to believe. He condemned neither. Our belief gives us hope.
Only Mormons will go to heaven and hell.
Completely false. Your assessment of the degrees of glory is entirely off. There is no scriptural basis for the idea that individuals are slated to labor for the eternities in whatever "degree" they earned on earth. I realize this is somewhat of a Mormon tradition, but it is not correct. Read Talmage for more information. It is also false that only Mormons will go to "outer darkness." This is written nowhere.
The essence of the doctrine is eternal progress. People have different desires. We progress at different rates. We are not all the same; why would we receive the same thing in the next life? I beilieve that we will be satisfied with what we get, and that we will have the opportunity to improve on it if we so desire. Also, I find it imprudent to classify some individuals into their "kingdoms," as you have done. Do you know the intents of their hearts? Then how can you judge what they will receive?
I am sorry that you have been raised to believe these things about Mormons. It is too bad that you apparently intend to publish them as the truth. I do not believe that they are true. I feel that you have been misled, and very possibly mistreated b
Here is another interesting treatment option. I understand that scientists will de doing some formal human-centric studies with Curcumin at the the University of Utah.
While I think yours is a fair assessment, there is one other aspect that needs to be emphasized:
Perl syntax is very flexible. You can write Perl that looks something like C, or Perl that looks something like Basic, or Perl that looks something like Java, etc.
You might get two Perl programmers who both write small, efficient programs to do the same thing using similar architectural and design approaches. Both programs could look radically different, depending on the author's slant on Perl.
That is what makes reading Perl difficult.
POV-Ray is great for rendering images if you want a nice picture (and have the time to play with textures and lighting). However, POV-Ray is not great for modelling because it only supports its own scripting language natively. I doubt anyone would want to script their house-plans in POV-Ray SDL.
Others have suggested Moray, which is a CAD-like modelling program meant to be used with POV-Ray. It isn't free like POV-Ray is, but it is inexpensive, and well worth the price. Still, even Moray isn't the greatest CAD software, and it only runs in Windows right now (I tried Wine, but I couldn't get it to work).
When WordPerfect was just WordPerfect, it was a U.S. company based in Orem, Utah. You may recall the days when WordPerfect was pratically the only game in town when it came to word processing.
When MS got into the office software business, WordPerfect could not keep up. The company was bought by Novell, then by Corel. A languishing Corel soon shut down the old U.S. operations (which were still responible for the Office suite at the time) and moved everything back to Ottawa.
Anyway, during WordPerfect's best days, probably all of the government agencies were using it. Most likely there are still a lot of WP documents sitting around, and a lot of WP expertise besides. That a U.S. government agency would choose Corel over MS is nothing new.
Enforcing Mormon doctrine by law?
No, it's about a majority of like-minded people establishing a society around their own views and beliefs. It tends to happen when you give people some room to govern themselves.
Naturally, the cynical minority objects. It always does. But this minority never sees it for what it is, and so we have to put up with Church Conspiracy theories and vitriolic rhetoric.
What, the financial record that shows a decline in revenues, while at the same time an increase in profits due to less spending on R&D? Is that the financial you are talking about?
It sounds great to say that Microsoft just posted the most profitable quarter ever. But if you look behind the scenes, you see that Microsoft did less business than the previous quarter.
You have to realize that Microsoft can almost live on its investments alone, without even being the #1 player in the market. I'm not suggesting that MS is not the #1 player right now, but I am suggesting that you have to look at revenues, not at profits. What you see might tell you another story - a different story from the one you are preaching.
I don't study MS financials, so I am no expert. But I do get the impression that Microsoft has reached a plateau, in terms of revenues, with its current product offerings. It seems that people are slowly getting interested in other things: Like OSX. Like OpenOffice. Like Firefox. Like Linux.
Microsoft drove their growth with a certain appeal. It was a cost appeal. Microsoft let you do things with computers for not a lot of money. This was appealing to people who were interested in computers at the time, but not initially to average consumers. Now Microsoft has eliminated its own cost appeal by virtue of its monopoly. The computer enthusiasts have become disillusioned with Microsoft, and have moved on to other things (cheaper, more open, more curious other things). These people are beginning to drive the next wave of technical innovations that will later become the staple of the common consumer. At the same time, MS is cutting its R&D and relying on its monopoly position and same old predatory practices to cast the illusion of growth.
The fact is, there is no room for a monopolist to grow without getting into other markets. Yes, we see that Microsoft is trying this. I think it is because they understand the doom that is coming on the shink-wrapped software front. The good news is that, in these new markets, Microsoft is not yet a monopolist. They will try to leverage one monopoly to build the other, but I don't think they will succeed.
Of course, we will see Microsoft as a big player for many years to come. That just gives everyone more time to see the writing that is on the wall.
It's a late and irrelevant reply, but...
I'm not talking bout physical representations of metaphysical things. Clearly concepts are represented by physical phenomenon within our brains (and in other, different ways within machines). This I do not deny. I can measure the neurons and the chemicals and the impulses, but where is the "two"?
If the universe consists of no more than two rocks, does "two" not exist because no one is around to comprehend it?
The term "metaphysical" refers to the qualities of physical objects that are not themselves physical. Size, quantity, etc. I can say there are two of something, but the two things are not the "two." The synapses that comprehend the quantity are also not the "two."
This is what I mean by metaphysical.
a) If this isn't about ultimate truth, then proponents of "probability," as you put it, shouldn't use the term "ultimate truth." _I_ didn't introduce the term into the discussion.
But I think you are trying to fool me. We all know that probability works best when most, or all, variables are known. When you say you are talking about probability, you imply that you have confidence that the body of knowledge is all-encompassing, or at least close enough to approximate the "ultimate truth" by derivation. Otherwise, you can have no confidence that probability is telling you anything meaningful at all.
b) Clearly, you have not read Kant.
No evidence of the metaphysical? Then explain to me this:
What is 'quantity'? Can I experience it? Can I touch it? Smell it? Hear it? See it? Taste it? There is no empirical test that can prove that "two" exists, for example. I have a concept of the number two, and an understanding of numbers, but the meaning I associate with it is entirely conceptual. Concepts are metaphysical. Meanings are metaphysical.
I have never seen any philosophy disprove this, ever. The best they can do is say, "so what?"
The significance of it is that, as an integral theory of philosophy, empiricism now has a hole in it. In order to work, it must now assume certain axioms that are metaphysical (such as "we all accept and understand the concept of quantities and probabilities"), while at the same time, denying that anything metaphysical can exist.
You may not realize that true philosopies are, in fact, mathematical proofs that rely on logic. Kant deconstructed the philosophy of empiricism and showed it to be false, simply by proving that concepts are metaphysical and cannot be experienced by any empirical method. Logic is itself metaphysical, as is "sense." Do you need evidence that those things exist?
It wasn't until Ayn Rand came out with Objectivism that anyone attempted to answer Kant (that I am aware of). And her anser is, "So What?"
So we have objectivists who don't care, and we have empiricists who don't realize their philosophy is logically bankrupt, and we have everyone else who believes in God. Well, that is a generalization.
Let me tell you something about probability. Every day that science brings us closer to immortality; every day that science brings us closer to "ultimate knowledge"; every day that science brings us closer to mastery over the elements and forces of nature, is another day when the probability increases that somewhere else in the universe, someone else already beat us to it.
So, you see, I am not trying to say that God is metaphysical, or that human chimeras are evil, or any of that. I'm just suggesting that the "empirical" assessment of the situation, which attempts to draw a conclusion about something that is metaphysical (such as "value"), is illogical.
I believe that empiricism ought to constrain itself to science, where it works well.
Sorry about the long post.
Hi,
The old empiricism went out of style when Kant made a good case for the metaphysical. Naturally, the Objectivists downplay his arguments, but I haven't seen anything really convincing from that camp.
Likewise, you bring up some points, yet fail to quantify the complete human experience.
You speak of ultimate truth. If you have such equations in your possession, do please share them with us. You will do a great service to humanity, having conquered the realms of science and philosophy.
I rather suspect that your closed system of chemistry and mathematics (etc.) can tolerate no new science. I suggest, instead, that the universe of human understanding will continue to expand. Therefore, I predict that you will have to revise your unltimate truth sometime in the future.
Won't it be ironic, once humans have overcome mortality, and have reached out beyond the confines of space (and this with our science, and in such a relatively minute fraction of time considering the history of mankind); won't it be ironic when we look back and remember how we said there could be no god?
We stand on the very brink. Only our greed and selfishness and fear hold us back. And you talk about ultimate truth, as if we were already masters of it? Last I knew, humans were still petty creatures, clinging to an existence so tenuous that few even understand the seriousness of it. In the meantime, take your own advice: Do not pretend to possess the truth until you hold in your hands all the keys of space and of time and of energy and of matter - and of all other things that we yet do not understand.