That Dude said...
I actually like the the term they used in the movie WAITING FOR
SUPERMAN. They called them "failure factories", and that's what they
are. They produce failure, that's their product. What's great about
the movie is that they profile kids from different regions, different
economic classes and different ethnicities. But they all are motivated
kids and supportive parents. But none of them have a shot at a decent
education.
Think about the consequences of a properly functioning public school system.
Underachieving elites the GWHBush would have to compete with smart kids from working class backgrounds for jobs. Fortunes that have been maintained for generations would be transferred to other families.
And what about the kids who were educated but couldn't get a job? They might start to question the entire system, design a new one and organize for change.
Naw, better to keep kids fighting over the right to poison their neighbors.
I actually like the the term they used in the movie WAITING FOR
SUPERMAN. They called them "failure factories", and that's what they
are. They produce failure, that's their product. What's great about
the movie is that they profile kids from different regions, different
economic classes and different ethnicities. But they all are motivated
kids and supportive parents. But none of them have a shot at a decent
education. Think about the consequences of a properly functioning public school system.
Underachieving elites the GWHBush would have to compete with smart kids from working class backgrounds for jobs. Fortunes that have been maintained for generations would be transferred to other families.
And what about the kids who were educated but couldn't get a job? They might start to question the entire system, design a new one and organize for change.
Naw, better to keep kids fighting over the right to poison their neighbors.
DMG
said...
Did you watch this before you posted it? Aren't you a proponent of DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL. The video says those who DROP OUT of SCHOOL are:
125 comments:
Did you watch this before you posted it? Aren't you a proponent of DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL?
The video says those who DROP OUT of SCHOOL are :
1. 8x more likely to go to prison
2. 50% less likely to vote (you don't care about that one)
3. More likely to need social welfare assistance
4. NOT eligible for 90% of new jobs (didn't I mention something similar a couple of days ago?)
5. Are being paid $0.40 to the dollar of a college graduate.
6. And continuing the cycle of poverty
This is kind of the antithesis of what you preach here. Did you mean to post this?
LOL@ -This is kind of the antithesis of what you preach here.
Ah, the folly of grasping for straws to defend incoherent positions.
What do free-market education reformers like Geoffrey Canada and Howard Fuller have in common with “Improve Your Education—Drop Out of School” Devany Bacon-Bey Ben-Israel Akbar? Absolutely nothing!
lol...
If school is so valuable ... can either of you two geniuses explain why so many young people drop out?
"NOT eligible for 90% of new jobs "
DMG.Could you please give us a few of examples of these "new" jobs you speak of:
__________
__________
__________ ?
WHY would a kid who leaves school in the 10th grade not be "eligible" to work at Blockbuster?
Brother Makheru.
1) How does dropping out of public school prevent a young person from obtaining an education?
2) Are the young people staying in high school becoming educated?
3) Don't you feel as if you are operating on assumptions developed in the 1970's?
It's obvious that the school systems of america need to be reformed. The teachers unions, and most unions for that matter stifle innovation and progress, an unseen byproduct of their maturation.
DV I'll take a stab at those questions:
1) Dropping out of school will not allow you to obtain accreditation to become a structural or architectural engineer, a doctor that you would see in a modern hospital (evil as most modern medicine is, that is still the place most would take their loved ones in an emergency), a lawyer, a social worker, a therapist, a nurse, the list goes on. "New" jobs are those in these fields being created everyday and in others not mentioned here that require a diploma - even if you were a talented software engineer MSoft despite it's founder leaving school will not hire if you do not have one, one of the many examples. Most "New" jobs for scientists are also with the gov, positions you will not be able to obtain without appropriate degrees. Is this really a question of what jobs require degrees? Look on monster for some examples!
2) Secondly, dropping out of school decreases the likelihood that a child will receive any type of training or education at all, period. And if they are the few that do obtain education, who will recognize its merit? The same people that are asking for a degree holder were told that getting one was the most important thing for them to achieve! For some skilled trades, and specialties there are still opportunities for apprenticeship but it relies on who you know, and the quality of those that can vouch for you should you know someone of value that can mentor your child.
3) The majority of all people are not educated to a high level, diploma or not, degree or not - because the only true education you can receive in this world is that which is passed down to you from people in-the know. This is a non-point DV, you know the game, if you are strong enough to prove your merit and receive education outside of the confines of the establishment go ahead, try it out, I did and it wasn't and is not easy!
The problem with this is that most kids will never have a chance to get close enough to someone to mentor them. Education cannot be found in most homes because the modern family/community is dismembered - whole other topic, and there is no open source curriculum that provides accreditation - a system I was trying to allude to earlier in one of my posts.
4) As long as we have the current state and federal systems, and teachers unions of the 70's, then unfortunately we must presume upon such conditions.
DV, do you send your children to school, if so is it public/charter/private? Do you also live in a state where you DON'T HAVE TO i.e. in CALI you will be jailed if you don't.
If they aren't going to school, how do you ensure that they receive an education worthy of your standards?
If the are going to school, how do you ensure that are receiving an education worth of your standards?
What would be the optimal education system in your view?
Solo
MOTI?
"NOT eligible for 90% of new jobs "
DMG.Could you please give us a few of examples of these "new" jobs you speak of:
__________
__________
__________ ?"
No, no, no my favorite knucklehead. It's not ME who is speaking of anything. YOU who posted the video without knowing the content. I just transcribed what it said. You are responsible for it's content.
Yeah, it really was enjoyable to point that out. Made my day.
I saw Davis Guggenheim on some talk show last week or the week before. He was coming with that same old song about better teachers; how the parents put pressure on the school to blah blah, making sure their children are blah blah so they get the blah blah best education.
Suck
A
BLAH BLAH
Textbook
The 5'oclock news covers that argument. They preach it's the teachers fault, good teachers are absent, they make too much money by blasting any pay raise or bonus that they may get every other planetary alignment. If that is the sum total of this film, it's not worth the time.
DV you may not agree with my point on hip-hop in drawing parallels to this film, but when a conversation is controlled by the grassroots initiative, it is expropriated by the very institution that is identified as the problem.
Much like the questionable events that took place within the Civil Rights movement in the wake of black, white and Latino revolutionaries; the lyrical blitz on public education, government policies, promotion of unifying gangs from the early rap community.
In both instances these movements have been overrun by external heavily funded forces. I believe with the growing movement of homeschooling/adversity towards public education the only recourse is to control the conversation. Do not include personalities talk'n that "riot act" talk.
You can't have cats like Gatto and Alfie Kohn running the show, jump starting the conversation that through scientific engineering, children are converted into obedient tools.
Dang! I made the main page! I even dig my icon. Scarily accurate. thanks DV.
a high school diploma and college degree does not mean you are promised a job. There's not enough unskilled or minimally skilled jobs left in this county anymore.
But not having a college degree pretty much insures that a person will be broke.
Bad teachers, bad principals and bad school boards are devestating to kids, but as bad as those problems are, what we are teaching and how we are teaching them are the biggest issues that still aren't being addressed.
Anonymous - it is clear you are an idiot. I am sorry, but from what perch do you swoop down upon us to give your overly simplistic opinion?
Do you know that you can't spell? Do you know you are trying to make absolutes with less than so language?
Nothing guarantees you a job, are you a ninny?
There may not be enough unskilled jobs, but there are too many skilled positions that cannot be filled from the talent pool in the U.S - hence we import the best and brightest to fill those positions from around the world. Your point is? Further, what is the cause of this? That's rhetorical, please from what I can tell you should stay anonymous and go away.
Not having a college degree does not ENSURE you will be broke. It increases the probability that you will not find work for someone else.
Bad teachers, bad principals and bad school boards are devestating to kids, but as bad as those problems are, what we are teaching and how we are teaching them are the biggest issues that still aren't being addressed.
My man/woman, what planetary system are you from? You disqualify the first half of this statement with the second half. After the fed determines its minimum requirements, it is then left to the state and district school boards, principals, and teachers unions, to determine what you are being taught, and how it should be learned, and although that sounds like a well formulated and structured system, it's not.
If most families weren't going crazy by working 2 low skilled jobs to support their families, maybe they would home school their children, or send them to a charter school if there were enough slots to meet the demand for them...
GHEE GHEE Waiting for Superman is not only about highlighting the responsibility that the teachers unions carry... it's about the story of the kids that don't win the lottery, as well as the kids that never try to. Why don't you watch the film before you make a half-assed remark? Have you heard of the term "Know Thy Enemy"?
Books regarding homeschooling: For the Sake of Our Children Leandre Bergeron, Homeschooling for Excellence, by the Colfax family in California who sent three sons to Harvard and wrote a book about their years learning together, Ready, Set, College: The Homeschoolers Guide to College by Wendy Whaley, Homeschoolers' College Admissions Handbook by Cafi Cohen, and The Homeschooler's Guide to Portfolios and Transcripts by Loretta Heuer.
Solo,
I think your response to Anonymous/That Dude is a bit over the top. And before you talk poorly about a persons spelling and grammar, you should probably give your offerings a quick run through MS Word. Just a suggestion.
He's expressed an opinion. I can't say that I totally agree with it, but he's got a point with some urban schools.
"Not having a college degree does not ENSURE you will be broke. It increases the probability that you will not find work for someone else"
Not having a college degree increases the likelihood that a person will be at a disadvantage in a number of ways, and I don't see how a degree in Business Administration puts you at a disadvantage when compared to a high school drop out when starting a small business...that stuff learned in Financial Accounting, micro-economices, and statistical analysis may actually come in handy.
Insure. Ensure. Probably closer to assure, but I'm no English professor, and who cares anyway?
Now, you said you dropped out of high school. What was your experience since then? I'm curious about your reasons for dropping out.
Thanks, forgot about the school lottery. If the sum total of this film is also about kids that don't win the lottery into a charter school, to be converted into obedient tools through scientific engineering, then it's not worth the time.
How's that?
Actually its Gee Chee, but I can do Ghee. I've been known to keep it butta.
DMG - agreed, it was a bit too critical, if not hypocritical. My apologies to Anonymous.
I also agree with your statement, however mine does not preclude your own, we are hitting this from two different angles - roughly the same point.
Anonymous stated that "not having a college degree pretty much insures that a person will be broke". I disagree with this statement because I know that it is possible to make plenty of money without a state sponsored education, the only thing ensured is that nothing will be granted to you on the basis that you have a piece of paper saying you can do something. The only thing that NOT having a degree will ensure is that you will have a decreased probability of getting a job that pays more than $20 per hour/work in a field that requires such accreditation. If you are starting your own business, getting above that level of income can be be very useful, so in that sense not getting a degree can increase the improbability of you starting a business of your own as well.
It is ensure or assure, but not insure.
My decision to leave school was multifaceted. I moved a lot between Canada and the U.S during my childhood, I went to more than 13 schools by the time I reached grade 9.
When I hit grade 9 my mother left for the W.Coast of the U.S and my welfare was left to my grandmother once again (long story). My GMa ran a pioneering publishing company out of a home in Toronto, Ontario. The basement of this home office is where I lived from the time I was 16-18. I began hustling and making money from drugs, I flipped this money into studio time and began producing music with my friends.
From there it was apparent a lot of the people I was around were very talented, and I started to manage some of them, and by 17 I had signed my first artist management deal to one of the members of Main Source who had agreed to do XYZ for an artist and producer I was managing. This led to work in NYC, where I had family, and after getting a taste for the scene I was convinced that's where I wanted to be, I moved to NYC at the age of 18 where I began my internships for Elektra, and Def Jam - specifically Rocafella in the video and A&R departments. My mentors at these companies are some of the most powerful entertainment executives in the industry; however my visa situation at the time prevented me from gaining true employment under their tutelage. I made the most of the time I had there despite this, interning full-time (working for free) for the period of 2 years and working small cash jobs as an assistant to the producer on many hip-hop videos. In the meantime when I was home I took care of my great grandparents in Bed Stuy.
I would go on, but that should give you an idea of what my life was like at the time I made my decision, I had very little invested into the education system which was telling me that I needed it for my pursuit of happiness - this only emboldened my desire to buck it. I was in my mind at the time already self-made due to raising of myself through social, emotional, and physical hardships. I was essentially educating myself - or had taken full responsibility for doing so, and I decided to drop-out to do my own thing upon the congruence of all these factors. I know what it feels like to want both a great education, and to be disenchanted from the system. I know both sides of this argument well, because on those days when I am beaten up, and feel like the path I have made is too tough, I have alone wondered what fate would have been for me should I have done it the conventional way. Then again, I do not regret it, because it was not my choice to begin with, much of where I am was already fore ordained - spiritually and otherwise.
Anyway DV, and all the contributors here I appreciate the forum and opportunity to discuss all these interesting topics on here. DMG this place would not be the same without you, and DV please keep up the good work.
Peace
Solo
Gee Chee Vision - wow, my bad on your name, but you should still watch the movie. It's not all about the education, it's about the social cachet of it that makes it matter most.
Solo,
Interesting story. Believe it or not, I am NOT and advocate of everyone going to college. I personally think the experience would have alot of benefit. Having friends in different fields sparked new ideas in ways I wouldn't have imagined. But if a person isn't going to put in the work, there's no point wasting time and money. I dropped out of college, and joined the Marines, because I hadn't found my focus...or work ethic. Started a business major, and finished doing Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology. I left high school thinking I'd never take another science or math class. Who knows where you'd be if you took another path and graduated and went to University. It seems like you did what you had to do, with what you had to work with. I don't see any shame in that. But it's a familiar story. There are legions of young kids with similar ideas. Sell some drugs, flip it to buying studio time, making beats on the side, etc. The kids who can run a 4.4 40 use college as a stepping stone to pro sports. But here's the real question.
What percentage who took your route or the athlete route are successful? How many positions are available in the NFL and NBA? A few hundred? How many people can get a hit song sold to more than a few dozen people? Then do it again? Not many. High risk. Low reward.
As far as high school education, I think a good basic foundation should be attained before graduation. I don't have personal experience with shitty schools, so I can't fully speak to whether they harm students who graduate more than a kid who drops out. I doubt it.
In my opinion the problem with education are watered down mandates coming from a federal government with a political agenda or unreasonable resistance from local communities (WTF is creationism doing in a science class?). Students suffer when governing bodies are less interested in fixing problems than bowing to an agenda. As we've discussed previously on this blog there are a lot of countries that get it right. Finland is one of them.
I'm not a proponent of homeschooling, because there are too many parents who don't understand the subject matter any better than their kid does. There's probably more variation in quality than public schools. And I've always wondered about a parents ability to give little Johnny an F when he deserves one, and an A when he surely didn't. And how are you going to teach Calculus if you've never taken it yourself? I do encourage supplemental education at home. You better believe, I've explained how to take out a gallbladder to my son and his friends and shown video. I think that sparks their interest, and makes learning fun. If I were an Architect, I'd show them physics behind keeping things like the Sears Tower from toppling over in high winds. If I were a music executive I'd teach him about the economics of the industry...etc.
"WTF is creationism doing in a science class?"-DMG
If that is to imply that transcendental knowledge delays the scientific method then a more immediate query would be, "A person that asks that question, why aren't they in a history class?"
Gee Chee,
Creationism is not science, no matter how you slice, package, or market it, neither is 'transcendental knowledge' (whatever that happens to be).
I have NO objection at all teaching creationism Christian, Greek, Egyptian, Nordic or Pima Indian versions in a comparative religion, anthropology or history class. It's just NOT science. Period. End of story. Full stop (for our British audience).
Maybe you should brush up on the concept of the scientific method?
"Maybe you should brush up on the concept of the scientific method?"-DMG
At this point I say: "You talking al-Haytham scientific method?" then you say, "Whatever an al-Haytham is, it has nothing to do with the scientific method. Period."
Then once again I concede to your phaser stunning brilliance.
SoloInto - In the mean time...
http://www.openfilm.com/videos/human-resources
I will check it out, also reading about al-haytham.
Would your need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method be any different if it were named after someone?
No.
The early pioneer or pioneers of the concept are inconsequential to this particular discussion.
And no, I am talking about the modern concept of the Scientific Method. But since you are asking, do you think Creationism would stand up to the scrutiny of Ibn al-Haytham? Remove him from the cultural and religious restraints of his time, and I'm sure he'd laugh at you as much as I am now.
At this point I say: "You talking al-Haytham scientific method?"
GeeChee, please describe a single experiment you've designed and undertaken using alhazen's methods and how was this experiment procedurally or theoretically different from an experiment conducted using a western scientific rubric?
If school is so valuable ... can either of you two geniuses explain why so many young people drop out?—DV
There are a plethora of reasons for this but the primary one as far as I’m concerned is this: “Achievement motivation must exist in the culture before there are schools which serve as the means by which achievement motives attain their goals.” A culture with high need achievement would not accept poor schools with incompetent administrators and teachers with low expectations for their children. A culture with high need achievement would not accept “savage inequalities” as articulated by Jonathan Kozol. A culture with high need achievement would not tolerate a “conspiracy to destroy Black boys” as articulated by Jwanza Kunjufu.
A culture with high need achievement would have tolerated neither Bush’s No Child Left Behind, nor Obama’s Race to the Top, programs which have assaulted critical thinking skills as Joseph Moore points out: “The results of this emphasis on standardized testing, outlined in Alfie Kohn's The Case against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools, have been a dramatic decline in teacher autonomy, curricular creativity and innovation, and substantive critical engagement within the classroom as schools are forced to teach to the test in order to receive desperately needed funds and avoid takeovers by the state.”
How does dropping out of public school prevent a young person from obtaining an education?—DV
It does not prevent it, and Dr. Carter G. Woodson did say that the most important part of education is that which we give to ourselves beyond the classroom. But how many drop-outs possess the motivation of Alvin Sykes--a sterling example of self-education Bro. Nulan made us aware of a few months ago. Bro. Sykes has made a career out of his self-education. However, how many of us would put our lives in the hands of a self-trained heart surgeon?
Are the young people staying in high school becoming educated?—DV
Some are, but most of them are receiving minimal competency training.
Don't you feel as if you are operating on assumptions developed in the 1970's?—DV
What are those assumptions?
"...do you think Creationism would stand up to the scrutiny of Ibn al-Haytham?"
I don't understand your point. He thought & functioned within his cultural & theological institutions just as you do an exist today in your own. That isn't self-evident. Are you saying he removed any theological principles in his process? That would be conjecture. Your experience in discrepancies between empirical and the transcendental universe would be that obtained from western science and the Negro church. If that's the case, you are attempting to redefine how a people define their own existence.
"Remove him from the cultural and religious restraints of his time, and I'm sure he'd laugh at you as much as I am now."-DMG
"Cultural and religious restraints"? What are these cultural/religious "restraints" that may have presented an obstruction to his practice? How are you identifying these restraints? Did he or did he not succeed at a level of science that you have yet to obtain in your atheism and the technologies that are at your disposal?
It still remains those "creationists" were great contributors to the development of civilization and human kind. It is an arrogance & a crooked tooth perspective that exists within the west of what constructs a sincere objective approach. With all your objectivity I witness time and time again you reduce extensive works on psychology to guesswork. You couldn't imagine even the table etiquette of someone from al-Hatham's period much less a position he would have taken on the voluminous works of his own theological principles.
"...please describe a single experiment you've designed and undertaken using al-Hazen's methods and how was this experiment procedurally or theoretically different from an experiment conducted using a western scientific rubric?"-CNu
My argument is not the comparison, even if I knew how to compare them; it is to dispute an assumption that belief in a Creator corrupts the ability to be objective when to the contrary it was within the very fabric of their philosophy. Proof is in the non-gelatin pudd'n.
Ummm Gee Chee,
Look, dude everyone here saw that you were cornered. Trying to change the subject isn't going to do it. Creationism isn't science. Period. No amount of history is going to help your position.
I'll tell you what. I'm going to brush my teeth, finish reading this journal article and go to bed. I promise to forget this little tirade of yours. Why don't you pack it in? I mean, you tried to use some fancy footwork, but nobody is buying it today. We all have off days.
Move along now. There you go...keep going. It wasn't your best fight...but you'll fight again. Pick up your jock on the way out. Thanks.
You too quick draw for me DMG. I got cornered and you saw straight through my sleight of hand. When switch'n up convo like that using no particular font, we like to call that "sleight of Sans." But obviously mere font tricks don't work on ol' "quick draw" DMG. Tell'em, you shot the serif, hunh?
You weren't arguing creationism being science. You said what is it doing in a science class. Your point is sound on the bases of the contradictions within western theology and western science. In the context of Islam's rational interpretation of sacred Books these were their guiding principles for mathematical analysis, observation, science etc.
A Western assumption cannot apply that non-empirical knowledge as an impediment to rationalization of impartiality as a universal marker across all cultures. "I can get a job, why can't people under bridges get jobs." From your perspective that makes perfect sense if someone under a bridge undergoes a myriad of mirror reflection experiences using your mental faculties.
I witnessed this cat reduce a Kanye song (about Kanye's adversity towards his single mother's boyfriends) as the Oedipus complex. Obviously that's a cultural interpretation...limited to his concepts...sick concepts...and that is within the SAME culture and decade. So imagine being removed by culture, centuries and scepticism of a Creator then surmising that absolute certainty of a Creator being the source of all truths cannot exist within the same space of observation and experimentation.
Which returns to the point of fundamental differences in the conception of methodology of science within Islam/African/Chinese/Indian civilizations etc.
This secular perspective has to first undergo a massive historical revisionist campaign to prove by discarding religion one obtains higher standards of impartiality despite what has been demonstrated within Islamic sciences?
I was searching where I "subject switched." I think I must have mistakenly deleted the post you are referring to. Could you point it out to me?
"Creationism isn't science." dmg
How stupid.
What is more scientific than the creation of the universe?
Gee Chee,
It's rare that you admit that you were cornered. I applaud the admission. Why you continue on with your three card monty schtick is beyond me. Instead of all of these gesticulations...maybe you would have better spent your time reviewing the Scientific Method.
MOTI,
Do you really think anybody is falling for that? Are you mad that we are ignoring you on your own blog? You can't come up with anything better than an attempt to substitute Creationism for creation?
Pedestrian...no handicapped.
lol ...
"Are you mad that we are ignoring you on your own blog?" dmg
lol.
oh man.
"we"
Plantation Negro Schizophrenia
Who is "we" DMG?
For whom else does DMG speak?
You a funny a cat.
But anyway.
Um.
Bruh.
What's the difference between "Creationism" and "creation"?
Yep. As I thought, little DiVinity is mad because nobody is paying attention to him lift his skirt.
Don't worry girl, somebody will come along who wants what you got. Where's Wax at? I know he doesn't mind the smell.
Amusing as it is to read Gee Chee and DMG energetically talking right past one another, there's a hole in your respective/collective buckets big enough to drive a mack truck through. Rhetorically, at least, this hole is easy enough to patch.
Which returns to the point of fundamental differences in the conception of methodology of science within Islam/African/Chinese/Indian civilizations etc.
This secular perspective has to first undergo a massive historical revisionist campaign to prove by discarding religion one obtains higher standards of impartiality despite what has been demonstrated within Islamic sciences?
No. No. No. No. No....,
It is a complete misnomer to call anything "islamic science". During its imperial glory days, SCIENCE flourished across the Islamic world, period. The science practiced during the golden age of the moor is indistinguishable from the science practiced today.
{I fully realize that Devany Bacon-Bey Ben-Israel Akbar will nut in his Paul Smith briefs on that one, and misquote it in perpetuity, oh well..., the ignant do what the ignant do...,}
In addition to SCIENCE practiced during the golden age of the Moor, there was also a pharaonic backdrop to much (though not all) Islamic learning, because Islam inherited, translated, absorbed and transmitted the sacred science of ancient egypt - particularly that strain of Islam which embraced/embraces the lineage of the Imam Ali aka Shia/Sufi Islam - by which the sacred science of Al-Khemit was rescusitated and made to permeate the entire culture transmitted worldwide by Islamic high culture.
To be sure, Al-Khemit (alchemy) was never rendered explicit (because it cannot be) and would be deemed occult/esoteric and downright heretical within the majority pedestrian peasant strain infecting and crippling the Sunni multitudes. Alchemy can be demonstrated and proven and has been demonstrated and proven time and time again in the miraculous art and architecture of the Islamic world, whose "works" give concrete proof to the underlying science of the irrational moment.
One of Devany Bacon-Bey Ben-Israel Akbar's core influences is an ignorant disinformation peddling canadian jiggaboo named David Livingstone who calls the alchemical strain of Islam "satanic" or "apotheotic" and denies its reality and its effect on high Islamic culture, all the while ignorantly claiming its miraculous works for the unwashed Sunni hordes. Those fundamentalist retards could no more produce a Taj Mahal, than bible thumping dominionists could produce a Chartre Cathedral.
The Cathedral at Chartres and the Taj Mahal share a common underlying esoteric/alchemical source which was recovered and reignited for centuries by the high Islamic culture whose most enduring center of multinational/multicultural practice was the University of Cordoba in el-Andalus.
I suspect that DMG is skeptical/dismissive concerning the alchemical strain within and across high Islamic culture and would not acknowledge its source, use and purpose. If his atheism goes to that extreme, then it is a profound hole in his bucket. I am confident that Gee Chee knows what I am talking about, has some idea of what it is (feels it and can identify it and its works) without however, the knowledge sufficient to document, detail, or effectively convey to another exactly what he's pointing toward.
Carry on gentlemen with continuing pyrotechnic talking past one another aided and abetted by coonassed insertions/provocations from the moorish science peanut gallery...,
I'm not talking past Gee Chee. I'm just not acknowledging his attempts to get off the subject. I really couldn't care less about who or what Al-Haytham was or did. I'm sure it's interesting from a historical perspective, but does not change anything in this conversation.
"I suspect that DMG is skeptical/dismissive concerning the alchemical strain within and across high Islamic culture and would not acknowledge its source, use and purpose."
No. I just don't care about it at all. It has nothing to do with why I told Gee Chee to familiarize himself with the Scientific Method with regard to creationism being taught in science class. I'm not interested in a long meandering conversation. Gee Chee has admitted to being cornered and attempting a head fake. Didn't go for it.
lol,
Gee Chee didn't admit nothing.
Gee Chee knocked you straight the fuck out.
Knocked you so cold in fact, that you still don't realize what happened.
Not that you care, or that it matter, but here's exactly where he hit you square on the button and then just proceeded on to the next episode.
You too quick draw for me DMG. I got cornered and you saw straight through my sleight of hand. When switch'n up convo like that using no particular font, we like to call that "sleight of Sans." But obviously mere font tricks don't work on ol' "quick draw" DMG. Tell'em, you shot the serif, hunh?
he did it real pretty-like too, some scha-weet science, priceless..,
From there he went on into some lowbrow banter about the non-existant depths of Kanye West..., and other handwavy stuff about taking stupid pop cultural riff-raff seriously.
Bottomline though, when you pare out the popular cultural detritus, Gee Chee knows about something vitally important whose existence I'm afraid you're not even aware of.
He's not sufficiently conversant with it to explain it to you, but he's perfectly capable of pointing you in its general direction.
Where Gee Chee and I differ is that he would actually go to the effort to try and explain it to you.
Once he's capable of explaining it, that might change, but for now, his heart's in the right place.
Me, I would never even consider trying to explain it. To anyone.
Least of all, someone who hasn't exercised sufficient discernment to know that this crucial "something" even exists.
In its day, Cordoba was both the hub of global scientific knowledge and discernment.
I'd be very interested to know how/if Gee Chee, Solo, or Bro. Makheru have any thoughts on how awareness of "discernment" and aspirational tendencies in that general direction could be resuscitated in some or another framework in which real learning could be stimulated?
Bro. Makheru, despite years of close association, I've not seen it yet successfully represented in any african centered education content.
One thing's for sure, it can't be in anything even remotely purporting to be a "public" school that admits all comers without standards or discrimination.
Even with standards and the most exemplary discrimination, it.is.an.incredibly difficult cultural impetus to sustain. It's just naturally rare and difficult and thus shows time and again the propensity to rise and fall and become occulted throughout various historical periods.
How, for example Gee Chee - might you account for your boy Devany Bacon-Bey Ben-Israel Akbar's utterly erroneous belief on the one hand that what we're on about here is "luciferian" - while DMG on the other hand - doesn't even know that it exists?
Craig,
If you say so. But I think you are giving our resident artist a little too much credit. Every time he, or our host is cornered they turn on the same coon act in an attempt to change the subject Maybe you hang on their every word...I tend to skip over most of their offerings.
A knock out would have been if I let him steer the conversation completely away from the topic...kind of what you are allowing him to do right now.
Am I supposed to ponder the trials and tribulations of Vivien Thomas, and become distracted with emotion and rage every time I'm in someones chest operating? No.
History lessons have a time and place. Not sure why black folks try to use the "you don't know your history ploy" when it has little or no pertinence to the topic. As you can see knowledge of Al-Haytham has no bearing on a persons scientific IQ.
Was I dazzled by a cheap EL train three card monty hustle? No. I'll admit I didn't get whatever reference you picked up. It wasn't germane to the topic we were discussing: creationism being taught in science class.
If you can tell me what some 10th century scientist has to do with teaching creationism in Kansas public schools, I'd appreciate it.
A knock out would have been if I let him steer the conversation completely away from the topic...kind of what you are allowing him to do right now.
oh God. please shut up DMG. Gee Chee Vision and CNu are taking you to school. You should know when to fold your cards and be quiet. You may learn something.
Anonymous?
Would you care to be dealt some cards? It seems you want in on some of this. Or are you just strictly an online poker player?
Seeing that I brought the subject of creationism up, with regard to attempts to teach that un-scientific subject in public school science classes, let me ask you what 10th Century scientist Ibn Al-Haytham's connection with the Scientific Method (which is tenuous at best to the Modern Scientific Method) has to do with teaching Christian Creationism in public schools. There, you have some cards. Play your hand or shut up and sit back down in the gallery.
If you say so. But I think you are giving our resident artist a little too much credit.
Gee Chee a baaad muhfuggah Doc. Seriously.
Believe me when I say I understand your objectively valid irritation with Devany Bacon-Bey Ben-Israel Akbar (Bro. Makheru has.me.rolling with this)
I understand your objectively valid irritation with the uninformed extremist attacks on the medical industrial and modern allopathic science and practice.
To the extent that Gee Chee spends even one red cent of his own social capital on the wackest man on the Internet, he's just that much poorer for it.
oh well...,
Every time he, or our host is cornered they turn on the same coon act in an attempt to change the subject Maybe you hang on their every word...I tend to skip over most of their offerings.
C'mon. Hang on their every word?
Stop playing.
I read Gee Chee close because he has talent and discernment and.he.means.well.
A knock out would have been if I let him steer the conversation completely away from the topic...kind of what you are allowing him to do right now.
I didn't catch the threadjack. What I read is that he offered a different perspective on the common theme, and that an unfortunate choice of words (creationist) not fully reflective of what Gee Chee is most interested in talking about - and certainly not reflective of what he pointed toward - got him defaulted into the enemy camp of the wackest's extremism.
History lessons have a time and place. Not sure why black folks try to use the "you don't know your history ploy" when it has little or no pertinence to the topic. As you can see knowledge of Al-Haytham has no bearing on a persons scientific IQ.
Disregarding the wackest's gas, and looking exclusively at what That Dude said about Waiting for Superman, coupled with the flow of commentary that followed, Gee Chee makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps that's because I share and encourage Gee Chee's interest in the irrational moment and how knowledge of that has been preserved and transmitted since antiquity.
(continued)
See, I didn't catch him promoting "creationism" like what the morons in Kansas are pushing. What I read him talking about is inspiration. That overarching preoccupation with the secret of the irrational moment is not in any way w.h.a.t.s.o.e.v.e.r incompatible with the practice of science, and, no other factor in all of human history has shown itself more inspiring than preoccupation with the secret of the irrational moment.
Pyramids, mosques, cathedrals, and quantum mechanics have all drawn their inspiration from this greatest of mysteries.
If you can tell me what some 10th century scientist has to do with teaching creationism in Kansas public schools, I'd appreciate it.
I'd hazard to guess there isn't a teacher alive and in service in the entire Kansas City public school system who could tell you anything at all useful about the profound and centuries long movement founded in the heart of Al Andulus, and possibly not a teacher in Kansas period who could tell you how the roots of Al Andalus were laid in Memphis, Luxor, and Thebes - and flowered all across europe hidden in plain site in the thick of the popular and idiotic mass (pun intended).
Now if you'll tell me what local community standards have to do with the decline in the quality of education in general in America, I'd appreciate it. It's been over a week since I clearly asserted that the withdrawal of professional and managerial class talent from urban public school teaching marked the death of those schools, the same is true of public schools in general.
I don't suppose you opted for cardiothoracic surgery simply because of its technical challenges, adrenaline fixes, and your own charitable convictions. Nah, you went there because there really is no higher stakes, higher status, or better compensated game in all of medicine, is there? (well, I guess high demand cosmetic surgery might rank a close second, but both quite clearly several flights above proctology, podiatry, and gerontology, right?)
One of the unintended consequences of prolonged economic collapse is that a MUCH higher quality of personnel will inevitably be driven back into teaching by sheer economic necessity.
Gee Chee has his moments in his arena. I still think you are giving him too much credit for one of his weaker offerings, but you are entitled to your opinion.
His word to impact ratio is kind of high for my taste, but to each his own. I think Gee Chee knows I don't harbor any animosity toward him, but it bothers me that neither he nor the blog owner, can concede when cornered or admit they just didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. If you'll notice there are a number of topics where I'm not knowledgable and usually don't tread. Why? I have the good decency to not open my mouth (it's also why I don't rap--the world would be a better place if some tattooed face midgets shared the sentiment). And if I do, you'll notice an apology. Simple.
If Gee Chee and I were neighbors, I'd probably send my kid over around his house to talk about art (and tell my boy to politely roll his eyes if the subject drifted toward science).
it bothers me that neither he nor the blog owner, can concede when cornered or admit they just didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.
Since you already know Devany Bacon-Bey Ben Israel Akbar's profound limitations;
Yep. As I thought, little DiVinity is mad because nobody is paying attention to him lift his skirt.
Don't worry girl, somebody will come along who wants what you got. Where's Wax at?
stop playing his three-card monty/human-shield game.
one-by-one, and without exception, all the smart correspondents know what time it is.
Craig boy,
Once again you dazzle us with your history lesson while successfully shielding from us your particular stance in the matter? Should creationism- the belief that the God of the Bible created the universe - be taught in science class? Clearly, DMG doesn't know that quantum mechanics very much allows for the literal interpretation of Genesis. And you know that science is limited to labeling redundant events. It simply doesn't have the capacity to "observe" one-time events and so science has no ability to go forward in these cases. What evolved is a DMG; one who denies the existence of unique one-time events.
Gee Chee,
Why do these two individuals, DMG and CNu; both of whom are existing in various degrees of anti-Supremacy, get to be seen as representatives of Western science? Is a faithless doctor traditional to Western medicine? Is a non-white pro-homosexual eugenicist traditional to Western science?
Did Thordaddy REALLY just try to say that Quantum Mechanics allowed for a literal interpretation of Genesis?
I guess Thordaddy doesn't realize that Genesis was probably written by no fewer 4 writers...at different times in history, or had you not noticed how repetitious and sometimes contradictory that book happens to be?
How about this Thordaddy instead of the same old thing prove this:
Prove that all of the other creation stories are myths and Christian creation story is not, using the same logic....that ought to keep you busy for awhile.
Once again you dazzle us with your history lesson while successfully shielding from us your particular stance in the matter?
lol,
History is an open book Devany Bacon-Bey ben Israel Akbar's favorite white boy..,
Nothing keeping either you or the self-proclaimed master of the Moorish Science temple from the truth of the matter (inclusive of my own pure stance) except air, opportunity, and personal "ahem" limitations.
Should creationism- the belief that the God of the Bible created the universe - be taught in science class?
Clearly, DMG doesn't know that quantum mechanics very much allows for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
And you know that science is limited to labeling redundant events.
It simply doesn't have the capacity to "observe" one-time events and so science has no ability to go forward in these cases.
What evolved is a DMG; one who denies the existence of unique one-time events.
rotflmbao, (only madness could lead a white plumber's helper to assert what a black cardiothoracic surgeon knows or doesn't know)
{Thanks btw for unintentionally serving as the poster-child and counterpoint to the Gee Chee/DMG dichotomy.}
DMG: There is no set agreement on how many authors there are to genesis. Some say 4, some say 3. Some say 1. I'm assuming it was one being that it can't be empiracally proven that it was anything else.
Also, if you read the order of creation in Genesis, it falls in line with science.
1. Formation of the cosmos (heaven and earth)
2. Earth coming from the seas
3. Plant life
4. Animals in the sea. Also great animals (could be interpreted as dinosaurs)
5. Mammals and most land animals.
6. Man.
I don't know of any other prior creation stories which give this order. Even the connections between the Genesis account and Mesopotamian religion (I'm assuming you're referring to the Enuma Elish) do not go into this order detail.
There are scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to the condensation process that the earth uses for rain, that the earth is round (something that was not believed in the mainstream world until around 6th centure BC and a flat world was taught in Mesopotamian religion).
Sorry, DMG, but Creationism is quite scientific. Maybe you're confusing creationist with "short-earth" theorist.
Cash Rulz,
Say it isn't so. Please. I knew it was too good to be true. Cash Rulz has a fatal flaw. It's OK, I can still work with that. CNu and I don't agree on everything either. You need a refresher, don't take offense.
Scientific Method.
Real science is verifiable. Science relies on evidence which is observable, and measurable. Creation myths are not verifiable. Their claims are not measurable, observable, or reproducible.
Let me begin here:
1. You cannot provide any empirical data or reproducible evidence that the creation story of the Judeo-Christian religion is true. Period.
2. Yes I am referring to Enuma Elis which predates the Genesis myth. It is one of many creation stories, which are most likely a retelling of earlier Mesopotamian creation myths that predate the writing of the Bible by a thousand or so years.
3. You are correct, there is no set agreement. I'm referring to authors of Genesis who refer to God as Elohim (E), Yahweh (J) , and those how had a specific interest in Priests (P). The E group also seems to be by more than one author. This alone should lead you away from the claim that the bible is the unaltered word of the Christian god.
4. Your order of Genesis falling in line with science is a HUGE stretch theologically AND scientifically. Oh, yeah...if I recall my Sunday school teaching (grandaddy was a preacher) On day THREE your god made fruit bearing trees etc...a full day BEFORE he made the Sun and the moon (which brings up the topic of the days are to be taken literally or not...). How do trees work and plants work?
And there are no mention of the millions of years of dinosaurs or other things that flew in the air before birds. By the way, a bit off topic...but, why would an omnipotent god have to rest after making one damn planet in an insignificant solar system on the far reaches of an average galaxy among billions of other galaxies? Just saying.
If you start talking about man walking with dinosaurs I will be depressed for the rest of the week at how someone SO intelligent could fall for that Okie doke.
You believe in the Judeo-Christian creation myth because you want to...and maybe you also want to satisfy the more rational side of your brain by convincing yourself it is somehow based on solid scientific principles. This is a mistake. Believe in your god if you want to. There's nothing wrong with that. But creationism as a science is nothing but fantasy.
S'all good DMG. You don't believe in creation. Its alright, nobody's perfect, :D
Let's address your points:
1. You cannot provide any empirical data or reproducible evidence that the creation story of the Judeo-Christian religion is true. Period.
The order of creation has been proven. If there is Intelligent Design behind creation is no more verifiable than the Big Bang. Remember its still a THEORY. Science will never be able to prove how the universe began because we do not and probably won't within several lifetimes, have the ability see that far into space to determine where either the Big Bang's center is or the ever-expanding universe's edge is.
2. The Enuma Elish is like most creation stories (not myths) in that it attempts to establish a WHO. It is also polytheistic as opposed to the Bible's monotheistic view. No DNA evidence proves Muhammed or the Buddha existed but its generally accepted that they did.
3. Because some historians "believe" something does not make it fact. Use your scientific method to apply thought to this one.
4. You were too busy staring at the pretty light-skinned girl in Sunday school because you're wrong. Its really as simple as reading Genesis chapter 1 to get the order. Why rely on your memory?
Again, DO NOT ADDRESS ME LIKE YOU ARE TALKING TO YOUR GARDEN VARIETY SHORT-EARTH CREATIONIST. I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. I do not believe man walked with dinosaurs. The Bible does not put an actual time frame. The word day is symbolic. No different than saying "in my day". There is no set measure of time.
What I don't understand is how your rational mind allows you to believe that if I throw enough grenades into a dirty room, after 100 billion throws it may turn out clean and orderly.
DMG,
All you have told us is that science is so limited in scope that its practitioners actually believe that ALL that exists are redundant events. According to the faithless doctor, UNIQUE ONE-TIME events have never and will never happen. Revelation, ressurection, miracle, conception, big bang are all gross illusions according to the redundantist.
Cash Rulz,
"The order of creation has been proven. If there is Intelligent Design behind creation is no more verifiable than the Big Bang."
Nice try. Statement without evidence, then a not so smooth segue into a false comparison. Perhaps you think you are speaking to an amateur? Nothing in the Christian creation myth has been proven. Please provide some evidence. Statement in the bible is not proof.
Oh, Cash Rulz...why do you want to break my heart like that...and on Valentines Day too? Are you REALLY going to use the old "just a theory" with ME? That's slow pitch softball. Look, I'll give you another chance. Theory is not the same as guess, or hypothesis, or layman's use of the word. Stop using it as such. Their is quite a bit of evidence for the model. Anyway, the limitations of the Big Bang Theory are not proof of the Christian creation myth.
"The Enuma Elish is like most creation stories (not myths) in that it attempts to establish a WHO"
So? How is that proof of anything?
"It is also polytheistic as opposed to the Bible's monotheistic view".
An slightly off topic question for you and the audience. Why is monotheism seen as some sort of positive? Who said the belief in one god is superior to the belief in several? It's still a belief in the idea of "god" with supernatural power and the old crutch "god's will". That's not science.
Do you have DNA evidence that your father is your father? Probably not. What's that got to do with anything?
One doesn't need DNA evidence (and how would that work anyway??) to know that Siddhārtha Gautama or Muhammad ibn Abdullah existed. There's written record from more than one source that is reasonable evidence that these MEN walked the Earth. They weren't deities.
Let's not veer off into insults now....and since I happen to have a Bible (given to me by my grandparents...that I happen to keep nearby) right in front of me. Ahem...
Now saints, I want you to get your Bibles and (huh) turn to (huh) Genesis Chapter 1 verse 9 and read all together now (chuch!):
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after it's kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Can I get an amen? I said can I get an amen this morning church?
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
...to be continued
So...which other light rules the day other than our own Sun? And if that's not enough....are you really going to tell me that your god made fruit trees on this earth and grass BEFORE the rest of the stars in the Universe?
I rely on memory because my grandfather (the Apostolic Pentecostal preacher from North Carolina) made his oldest grandson read the entire bible several times. I'm from a very religious family. I'm not new to this.
Address you how? Please, nobody gets special treatment. Short Earth creationist or whatever. Creationism is all the same. NOT SCIENCE. Believe what you want, when you want, how you want. Just don't try to come at me asking to wrap that stuff in science.
But...now that you mentioned it. A day is symbolic right? OK, explain to me in scientific terms how the plants described in the bible survived so very long without sunlight for photosynthesis?
DMG,
You duck and dodge with the best of them.
Does an atheist recognize unique one-time phenomenon?
If not, then your "science" is debilitating as it requires you to BELIEVE that ONLY repeatable and redundant phenomena exist. This is clearly irrational and not even your "science" tells you that unique one-time phenomenon don't exist.
Again, do unique one-time phenomenon exist and are not such phenomena, by definition, outside the "observable" scope of science?
See faithless doc, you're an illusion.
Thordaddy,
When you show that you have a firm grasp of reality I'll engage you in conversation. Until then, maybe you could just stick to rhyming?
Silly soldier, answer the question. My grasp on reality is irrelevant.
Do unique one-time phenomenon exist and what does science have to say about it?
Take a shot Craig boy and show us your cards?
Good to know that you also realize your grasp on reality is tenuous and remains in question. Knowing is half the battle...
I'll be nice and bite.
But first, what evidence was left behind for your "unique one time phenomena" of Judeo-Christian Creation?
Supposedly unique one time phenomena that was not observed, and left no evidence is questionable to have occurred at all.
The prevailing Theory of the origins of the Universe differs from the Myth of Creationism (J-D) in several ways. Tradition, wishful thinking and a desire to believe in ancient stories because you are afraid to go to Hell, does not trump evidence.
First the Big Bang Theory is a scientific model that describes how the Universe came into being. Creationism is a story about an omnipotent god speaking our planet into existence (out of order from the rest of the Universe--and even our Solar System).
What happens if another group of scientists refine the Big Bang Theory, or come up with a more precise model that is supported by the evidence? Scientists celebrate the new found knowledge.
What happens when the Myth of Creation is questioned? History says quite a bit of anger, and sometimes bloodshed, as backward "thinkers" attempt to suppress all questioning of their dogmatic belief system. Your foundation is made on sand.
The Big Bang Theory is supported by evidence, and there are currently experiments in particle physics lending further support are being conducted by CERN.
Creationism? Well, you just require that I close my eyes, shut my mouth, plug my ears, click my heals together and believe. That's not science.
DMG,
This pattern is getting repetitious, but is there an actual physical remnant that can represent your unwillingness to give straightforward answers, soldier? I mean, you could actually claim that there is no evidence of you refusing to answer this question:
Do unique one-time phenomenon occur and therefore exist or have existed, now or in the past, respectively?
Yes or no, soldier! Maybe is like baby, just another way to cry and distract from the matter at hand, something like hand-waving.
PS We can get into details about Christianity later.
First off twit, I figured your living in San Diego somewhere close to Camp Pendleton, you'd be savvy enough not to use the term "soldier" with me. But that's just your sloppy inattention to detail I suppose.
You got a straightforward answer. The inability to process it isn't my problem.
To know that an "unique one time phenomenon" to have occurred it would need to leave evidence...as I've already said. The yes or no question is really is there proof.
No, we can't get into Christianity later. This exchange was a "unique one time phenomenon" if you will.
You haven't gained my respect yet.
AN OLD JEW
"But in their imaginings about their 'God' your contemporary favorites have gone still further. They picture him as an 'old Jew,' since in their bob-tailed notions all sacred personages come from that race.
"Be that as it may, my little Hassein, each of your favorites in his whole presence is, in every respect, exactly similar to our Megalocosmos.
DMG,
*long ass sigh*
The order of creation hasn't been proven? So you're telling me that scientist don't agree that there were stars, then planets, then the seas, then the earth, then plants, then animals, then man??? Are saying that's not the order that things appeared in? That answers that.
When you list scriptures to prove your point, list them all.
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Obviously, he created the stars (including our sun) prior to the plant life. In the beginning of the Earth's formation, there was initially no direct sunlight. However, direct sunlight is not needed for photosynthesis to occur in plants. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the sun and the moon were not uniquely visible at the time thus the explanation for verse 16.
No disprespect to your family, but just cause you read the Bible, don't mean you understand it. Also, plants don't need sunlight to survive, JUST LIGHT. Since those verses you left all clearly descibe the existence of LIGHT before plants, then there's nothing contradictory about the creation story.
And the creation story works hand in hand with natural selection and evolution. The only place it differs is in the origin. You say it came from nothing. I say from intelligent design.
How about you answer my last question about explain how life supposedly popped up from a serious of explosions and accidents and that somehow makes sense to you?
Cash,
"The order of creation hasn't been proven? So you're telling me that scientist don't agree that there were stars, then planets, then the seas, then the earth, then plants, then animals, then man??? Are saying that's not the order that things appeared in? That answers that."
Go back and read my post again. You seem to have gotten things twisted. I said, "Nothing in the Christian creation myth has been proven. Please provide some evidence. Statement in the bible is not proof." Anyway, your story says plants came before stars, the sun and moon. It's clearly written in the first chapter of Genesis.
"Obviously, he created the stars (including our sun)....". Not so.
No. You see there are a couple of things going on here. The most obvious (to someone who doesn't believe in desert fantasies of the beginnings of this planet) is that my point about Genesis being written by SEVERAL authors, sometimes contradicting themselves is right on point.
But, I figured I'd argue using your source material. Like I said above, your source material makes clear that your god created the sun and moon on the 4th day. It says so, right on the first page of your book. I didn't make it up. I used the "New Marked Reference Bible" King James version, by Zondervan Bible Publishers.
Now, don't go trying to switch up to cell biology. I'm REALLY not easily fooled there. There was NO SUNLIGHT in your version at all....by your bible's own account it hadn't been created yet. Or is your book incorrect? And...just out of curiosity, why would the first words of an omnipotent being who does not need eyes (and for that matter light) say, "Let there be light"? Light for whom? Requiring light for sight is a biological process that no self-respecting "god" would need. Perhaps it was Odinn and not Yahweh?
No disrespect taken. I not only have read it as a then young and impressionable Christian grandson of a Pastor (and you KNOW church was an all day affair on Sunday, Wednesday bible study, and Friday night youth group...), I read it as an adult with a critical eye. I didn't leave the versus out as trickery, I left them out because we all know them, and I was trying to conserve space.
The creation myth does not work at all. Period, end of story, no matter what kind of shoe-horn you use. No matter how badly you want it to be "science" it just isn't. You have no evidence, you have no experimental data. No hypothesis. No way to design an experiment or collect data. You don't even have a plausible model. You rely on a book that has so many contradictions that even a young 13 year old DMG could pick out (and for which I was subsequently punished).
Seriously, why are you arguing this? I'm humoring you because you seem to be an otherwise smart guy. There are far too many holes in your thinking.
Why don't you take a critical look at the bible. It's not science, and it wasn't meant to be science. If that bothers you, maybe you should examine your own faith.
Life didn't come from "nothing", but rather from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane. Miller and Urey demonstrated the concept back in the 1950's. And there have been a number of other experiments since then.
I don't really think you are arguing with me. Maybe you are having a crisis of faith, and want to wrestle with with me to "prove" that your world makes sense.
If that's the case, you are going to have to deal with that on your own. Nothing wrong with believing in a god. Believe what you like, I would never try to convince you otherwise. Just don't think you can argue that creationism is science with someone who knows better. You might be able to pull that on the average cat down the street, but you can't do that with me.
Sorry.
DMG...
You cannot see
sometimes unique one-time phenomenon
leave nothing to see
you "see" purely by inference
no observation in real-time, objectively
Like your conception
that NO ONE could see
Science can't prove it
You say, "But it left behind me!"
Who's me
DMG?
Online personality
cyber-erkel
Thumpin' his chest relentlessly
Science is debilitating
if it's highest on your hierarchy
Atheist in name only
Your game is radical autonomy
Do whatcha do
That ain't predictable
So how science "see" you
DMG, head full of nothing
Mouth full of doo-doo...
Who are you?
Where is the science to prove you?
Ain't you a unique one-time phenomenon?
Or, you're a redundant "yes" man?
Good, you've gone back to rhyming, and I've gone back to ignoring you. All is right with the world.
...any thoughts on how awareness of "discernment" and aspirational tendencies in that general direction could be resuscitated in some or another framework in which real learning could be stimulated?-CNu
In my opinion, regulating and subverting media effects is a very important step. Unfortunately to so many, tv is escapism. The more tv the more difficult it is for children to concentrate. I'm really feeling Changing Education Paradigms.
Obviously the underlining principle in popular culture is that your notoriety is contingent on how well you can emulate popular figures. Heard this ex-BLA member speak of the books they shared from Crater Woodson to Frantz Fanon with classmates from ages 12, 13 etc. He attributed this interest in literacy to the Panther Party. They were the popular thugs of their time; clean black leather, style, talking back to authority but in the context of the pursuit of first manhood then justice. It wasn’t that these kids fully understood the objective but what it was about replicating those gestures of manhood. Interestingly Nelson George argues Mr. T was a safe way to portray the militancy of the 60’s and 70’s to audiences in the 80’s.
Jordan on a Ronald MacDonald poster endorsing literacy obviously makes learning superficial. Learning is not synonymous with success. The Panthers stayed broke. That didn’t matter because who knew? Kids saw them on tv, witnessed a presence in the hood (as seen on tv) and that was a tall order of popular culture; to the point Michael Evans was a representative of those sentiments though probably dying off by that time.
Children go to school and bring all of their collected data from their personal media experience and reinforce the validity of those things amongst one another. Heard someone quote Nietzsche saying, "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Rule out tv or create an aesthetic in media intake. Selected museum film outings are cool. The communal gathering gives the film a measure of importance in the child’s mind. I make it clear to my son that he is attending a film that only adults can understand, but because he is more advanced than most kids he could possibly understand it. It works. It triggers him to meet an expectation. I thought of this when Gatto spoke of a friend that took some middle school kids to a junior college for a year and received better results than when they were at their own school. They wanted to live up to their expectations while matching the maturity of their atmosphere.
I know a writer who has some brilliant kids. They mostly watch foreign films with subtitles. I can’t remember if they understand Cantonese or what. Black kids speaking Cantonese. Trippy. They’re literacy level is off the charts. He puts them into writing workshops and everything. He is successful because of repetition. Its not an experimental project its something a parent has to really believe in. They have to believe the educational system threatens their children’s development. Otherwise it’ll just die off like gym club membership.
It is also polytheistic as opposed to the Bible's monotheistic view - Cash
Cash, the only Christians that looked at the Bible with a monotheistic view were the Arians. Unfortunately because they could not accept Trinitariasm as monotheism, they were voted to be heretics at the Council of Nicaea.
Why is monotheism seen as some sort of positive? Who said the belief in one god is superior to the belief in several? –DMG
You are likening God’s Oneness to our oneness. The question is rooted in anthropomorphism.
For us to be “one” we are in NEED of the absence of plurality.
For us to hear we are in NEED of the absence of silence.
For us to see we are in NEED of the absence of blindness.
The Creator is not in the NEED of anything from within His creation. There are no conditions for His Existence. God being “One” is not referring to number one i.e. -3, -2, -1, 0, “1”, 2, 3 etc. Just as God being the All Hearing does not refer to a need of physical ears on the side of a physical head. You are “one” doctor out of many that came before you and those that will come after you; I am “one” artist out of many before me and after me. That is because we are created beings and our oneness is conditional. There are no co-existing gods or gods that have come before and after the Creator. There is no conditional number “one” for God. In Islamic theology this is categorized as intellectually impossible. An elevator that moves side to side, up and down and back and forth all at the same time is an example of something that is intellectually impossible. That is because it exists within creation while acting outside the limits of creation. God is not in His creation existing as one of many.
“One” in the principle of God’s Divine Attributes (again in Islamic theology) denotes Uniqueness; His being unlike His creation; His Oneness is not contingent on the absence of other existing gods. His Oneness cannot be added to another one to make twoness or threeness and so on because it is not a created numeral one. It is the “One” of His Divine Attributes.
It's still a belief in the idea of "god" with supernatural power…-DMG
He is not supernatural. God is not a “super” version of anything. He is not a supped-up version of His creation ie a super powerful magical man on some throne living in the sky. That is an anthropomorphic view. The Creator is free of our Negro church theological training.
… and the old crutch "god's will". –DMG
Very short about God’s Will. You are confused with God’s Knowledge and His Will; also you are confused with action and intention. God does not force you to do anything with His Will. With His Knowledge, He knows of the pre-existence of your actions. He knows of it through His Knowledge and He brings it into existence through His Will. If he didn’t know then that is assigning ignorance to His Divine Attributes. It’s not a crutch. He does not force you into it, He provides your intended action with existence IF He so wills. It is you who intended the action. That is the concept of free will. It is the discretion of the Creator through His Will. His Will is not a created will like ours. Some actions we intend to commit are brought into existence and some actions never come to fruition. Hendrix suffered from this phenomenon. According to him, he could not play notes that were in his head. The existence of those notes being played was contingent on the Creator giving them existence. Those notes did not pre-exist in the Creator’s Knowledge nor did He Will their existence. These are not my concepts but strict traditional theological principles.
Gee Chee,
Your arguments are all moot if one, like me, does not believe that a god, or especially your god exists at all.
"You are likening God's Oneness to our oneness...."
No, I'm asking a question about monotheism vs polytheism, not your flavor of god. I'm asking why many (especially in Western Society) are more accepting of cultures with monotheist based religions than those with polytheist based. One answer is that "christians" can rationalize that the others god is the same as the christian god, but with a different name. This is done somewhat with Allah, Yahweh/God etc. I don't know why you thought I was talking about the concept of the trinity.
"He is not supernatural"
Can you speak a universe into existence? Can you impregnate a woman while maintaining her sexual virginity? Can you be omnipresent?
All examples of SUPERnatural attributes.
"Very short about God's Will. You are confused with God's...."
No, I think you are a bit confused as you later state: "He provides your intended action with existence IF He so wills".
Yeah, it was God's will that _______________ happened....the old crutch.
We could go into "free will" and the concept of an omniscient god, but I don't really have the time or interest today.
a measure of importance in the child’s mind. I make it clear to my son that he is attending a film that only adults can understand, but because he is more advanced than most kids he could possibly understand it. It works. It triggers him to meet an expectation.
yessss....,
bears repeating; a measure of importance in the child’s mind
He is successful because of repetition. Its not an experimental project its something a parent has to really believe in.
with inspiring importance established in the child's mind, it becomes much easier to get the child to practice with an eye toward self-cultivation - for its own sake.
these are indispensible fundamentals - if you can help the child to find what he/she loves to do and tie it into that feeling of importance in his/her mind along with the urge to practice in order to realize what he/she values- everything else is a cakewalk.
dayyum,
I really do hate to see the bredren struggling in vain.
Do ants exhibit "intelligence"?
Is an individual ant "intelligent"?
Is the intelligence exhibited by "ants" an emergent property or quality of something within an individual ant?
(take this down to the level of bacteria or other living forms vastly simpler than insects and lacking neurons - wash, rinse, repeat)
Do bacterial colonies exhibit "intelligence"?
Does a bacterium exhibit "intelligence"?
Is the intelligence exhibited by "bacterial colonies" an emergent property or quality of something within an individual bacterium?
There is no conditional number “one” for God. In Islamic theology this is categorized as intellectually impossible. An elevator that moves side to side, up and down and back and forth all at the same time is an example of something that is intellectually impossible. That is because it exists within creation while acting outside the limits of creation. God is not in His creation existing as one of many.
Forget "islamic" theology and look to the al-khemy of the Moorish Scientists.
What I can now confirm that you're each missing/overlooking is in the trinity... as understood, revealed and resuscitated by authentic Moorish Scientists such as Alhazen.
DMG, my intent was not to engage in a back and forth about the concept of God. The intention of my post is to identify the roots of your disbelief that share the same anthropomorphic logic as one who believes using those same tools.
"No, I'm asking a question about monotheism vs polytheism, not your flavor of god. I'm asking why many (especially in Western Society) are more accepting of cultures with monotheist based religions than those with polytheist based. One answer is that "christians" can rationalize that the others god is the same as the christian god, but with a different name. This is done somewhat with Allah, Yahweh/God etc. I don't know why you thought I was talking about the concept of the trinity." DMG
Nah.
Doc.
ughhh ... yuck.
That's some lame ass thinking bruh.
Obviously they don't teach theology in Plantation schools. Your grasp of "monotheism" and "polytheism" sounds like an answer on an SAT test.
Let's try to stir up your thinking a bit. See if you could get a bit more creative.
Ponder this:
God
Jesus
The father.
The son.
The Holy spirit.
The Virgin Mary
& 10,000 canonized Saints ...
effectively makes modern "Christianity" the most polytheistic religion in the world.
Modern Christians are as flawed in the practice of their Christianity as modern medical doctors are flawed in the practice of science.
Gee Chee,
If you'd like to identify the "roots of my disbelief", maybe it would be more expedient and productive to just ask me, rather than assuming you know my thoughts. Then maybe you could make a comparison.
If you want to try that route, I'll be happy to oblige. It might be an interesting conversation.
MOTI,
I'm going to ignore you for awhile. Lately, your posts have been almost as lame, disorganized and down right stupid as anything Wax and Thorpuppy usually write.
The whole make up your own definitions thing has become really tedious and boring. I just feel embarrassed for you. That's serious, not an insult.
Ask you what DMG? If you used to dip your bite size crackers in your Welch's grape juice? What do I need to ask you that I can plainly identify in your post?
You like Polka music and dislike rap music based off of MC Hammer (analogy). Hammer is all you've really investigated. You hate rap, no sweat. I get it. But dissecting the failings of rap on the bases of a Hammer album pretty much sums up your understanding.
Gee Chee,
And this is the response I get when I offer an olive branch and suggest a rational conversation?
I'd point out how much you'd like that your caricature of me to be correct, but you've already wasted enough of my time.
I guess I should probably just label you an idiot again, and move on.
It's too bad you can just talk like a grown man once in awhile.
...
that was weird
Would you like to try again?
In the context of fulfilling my objective, "try again" would imply a technical failure in the posting of my comment. But your response was a sufficient 'mic check' confirmation.
Intent: Provide the counterpoint.
Will: Fulfilled.
Gee Chee,
This is getting boring...no, actually it was boring a couple of days ago. No counterpoint, or duel, or whatever. In my opinion your mistake is that you believe you have me "figured out". Your post proves to me otherwise. If you'd like to know why I don't believe in your particular flavor of god, you should ask me.
If you don't want to, the conversation is over. Simple.
rotflmbao,
Gee Chee and DMG exemplify the classic and pervasive dichotomy.
There's no "versus" here, just mutually exclusive and utterly infantile conceptions of "God". No equilibrium, minimum self-knowledge, and utter polarization into incommensurable spheres of silly self-delusion.
Bacon-Bey jiggaboology has taken a turrrrible toll on your mutual and reciprocal thought and communication capabilities...,
I've opened the door for Gee Chee. He won't change my mind, but I don't think that's the point.
He said:
"The intention of my post is to identify the roots of your disbelief that share the same anthropomorphic logic as one who believes using those same tools."
He hasn't identified the roots of my disbelief...nor has he laid out a logical argument that my disbelief is a miscalculation on my part. This isn't a discussion to prove the other incorrect. I'm allowing him to interview me, for his own edification, but he's chosen to, again, posture.
Beautiful DMG. Well said.
Reminds me of that proverbial gesture, "You can't fire me CAUSE I QUIT!"
I understand and feel your sentiments CNu. Most people have infantile conceptions of the piece of metal of a Japanese sword. Then there are those caretakers of the nihontō traditions that are neither harmed nor assisted by those who are clueless. Regardless of a cut is just a cut, those traditions go on being meticulously preserved.
"He hasn't identified the roots of my disbelief...nor has he laid out a logical argument that my disbelief is a miscalculation on my part. This isn't a discussion to prove the other incorrect. I'm allowing him to interview me, for his own edification, but he's chosen to, again, posture."-DMG
DMG,
I'll slow down my typing to explain this.
Your critique of monotheism is a critique rooted in concepts within Christianity and the Bible.
Monotheism (monotheism) is not surmised by the Bible as it is interpreted from a Christian perspective.
Christianity is one of the three Abrahamic faiths. One of the three. That's all.
You ever read the disclaimer...
..."the views and opinions stated on this show does not necessarily represent blah, blah, blah of the tv station?
Well, monotheism is the network. Your critique via an anthropomorphic veiw is the featured show.
A person that grew up watching Anime and turns around and sums up Japanese culture.
It's that difficult to grasp?
I've opened the door for Gee Chee.
lol,
He won't change my mind
lol,
but I don't think that's the point.
rotflmbao..whew!!!
That thurr's some Bacon-Bey jiggaboology at its finest.
I opened the door for bofe-a-y'all upthread in an effort to get you mutually unstuck from that turrrrrrible tarbaby "God".
Cause unlike some folk I really do hate to see the bredren struggling in vain.
Christianity is one of the three Abrahamic faiths. One of the three. That's all.
Alhazen was part of a school well familiar with what precisely undergirds the so-called Abra-Kham-ic religions.
Matter fact, he and his bredren practiced not only the science of experience, they practiced and maintained a peer-reviewed standard for insperiential science, as well....,
It was that science of insperience which produced a culture suffused with and capable of producing the magnificent architectural works which beggar the technical and material capabilities available to us today.
Sadly, most cats don't know or are in denial of the indisputable fact that for as long as there has been an historical record, there has been a thriving and evolving human science of consciousness.
As societal institutional constructs, schools reflect the dichotomies rife within the underlying culture. Ours is a culture in which science and religion have been utterly segregated from one another to the point where there is no conceivable common ground.
The metaphor "God" and all that that idiotic metaphor has become vested with by its respective adherents - is in large measure responsible for this schism.
If you simply ratchet back your deeply vested notions of "God" and approach the middle ground through a subject about which neither one of you can make a particularly definite statement (CONSCIOUSNESS) I suspect you'll quickly find you have a great deal more in common, than not.
or perhaps you've become permanent casualties in the neo moorish science war on consciousness?
Gee Chee,
Again, you are assuming things that I've not written. You are essentially having an argument with yourself.
I used Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as an example. No I didn't dig up details on obscure NYAUOT religions, because that's not the point.
I think you two are stuck in the world of verbal gamesmanship, to the point you assume everyone around you is being duplicitous...which of course is only a few steps removed from paranoia.
What I said is what I meant. If Gee Chee would care to join me in a rational conversation feel free say so.
CNu,
"He won't change my mind
lol,
but I don't think that's the point.
rotflmbao..whew!!!
That thurr's some Bacon-Bey jiggaboology at its finest.
I opened the door for bofe-a-y'all upthread in an effort to get you mutually unstuck from that turrrrrrible tarbaby "God"."
What in the purple-Kool-Aid fuck are you talking about?
I'm sure you are aware that not every conversation is to "change someones mind". We obviously don't agree on this topic, and thanks but we don't really need you to referee or keep us from "getting stuck on a god" topic. As I've said many times before, I don't care about any of those particular desert myths. From what I've seen written, I'm lead to believe the Christian god or some close resemblance is real to Gee Chee. You won't see me flushing all of what I believe down the toilet to start running to church, bible in hand on Sunday to "testify". And I'm pretty sure from Gee Chee's responses he's not ready to say fuck it, there is no god anytime soon.
Gee Chee is so far off the target that have to re-read the comments to make sure he's not talking to someone else.
I say believe what you want, when, how, and why you want to, it has no direct effect on me.
But, it's also my opinion that Gee Chee would prefer to believe in whatever caricature of a non-deity believing person he already has in his mind, the same way our host sees you as a morbidly obese sloppy pig, and me some pimply faced nerd type with glasses, who has an American flag outside my door. Maybe it's soothing to them or perhaps anything else would cause too much disruption of their myopic world world view. I don't know. And I really don't care.
I'm not really sure why you are so intent on playing Flava Flav to Gee Chee's substance free rap.
You've read Iceberg Slim, I thought you were impervious to the style over substance crowd?
What in the purple-Kool-Aid fuck are you talking about?
lol,
The obvious hole in your conceptual bucket that's big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
I'll write it again so you can pretend not to understand me again, umm-kay?
If you simply ratchet back your deeply vested notions of "God" and approach the middle ground through a subject about which neither one of you can make a particularly definite statement (CONSCIOUSNESS) I suspect you'll quickly find you have a great deal more in common, than not.
DMG, even though you routinely work with patients whose consciousness is fully ablated, and, even though your work routinely exposes you to the most extreme variety of emotional highs and lows imaginable - and even though you have years of direct subjective experience with some range of the phenomenon itself - I suspect you don't know enough about consciousness to fill a thimble.
More trenchantly, you have no science with which to disguise your reticence to broach this topic. (I don't think GCV has the "mystical" chops to go very far with it either)
sheeeeiiiiiiitttt.......,
truth be known, "consciousness studies" are damn near "forbidden" science.
So there the two of you sit, looking across a totally affected cultural chasm and shared personal enigma - and instead of trying to constructively compare notes, you'd rather engage in a pissing contest over whose "style" of undeveloped and rudimentary engagement with this crucial subject matter is more palatable.
pair of ole broke-ass ninjas...,
Like watching a pair of little kids who ain't up on their reading, writing, and arithmetic acting out in class in hopes of preventing anybody from finding out how stunted and behind the curve their academic game is.
Bacon-Bey jiggaboology at its finest....,
all pose, no substance.
I'm not really sure why you are so intent on playing Flava Flav to Gee Chee's substance free rap.
You ain't read no "yeah boi!!!" come from me!
Waaaaay up yonder I said GCV was well-meaning but handwavy.
Now I'm calling you out and saying that your reaction is much less well-meaning but equally or even more handwavy than GCV's.
At least GCV could place us in an historical and cultural context in which this subject was not only not forbidden, but was the primary subject/object of vigorous scientific inquiry. So much so, that the hallmark of a man of discernment or a brother of purity was the extent of his engagement with and mastery of this subject.
You've read Iceberg Slim, I thought you were impervious to the style over substance crowd?
Totally.
That's why you and I went round and round about the godawful pseudoscience of ADD/ADHD a few years ago...,
That's also why these Interwebs are cluttered with my fervent arguments against genetic determinism and racist pseudo-science.
Craig,
Let me help you out, THERE'S NO HOLE, because with Gee Chee on this particular point I'm not debating GOD, his existence, his color, shape, corporeal form, or what kind of drawers he wears...if at all. I'm not debating ANYTHING. I've invited him to ask me questions. It's really that simple. What are you going on and on about?
It's like I'm talking to a brick. What's up with you today?
You believe I don't know anything about "consciousness"? Again, you are making the same bonehead mistake as Gee Chee. You are attempting to tell me what I think based on WHAT exactly? Have we ever discussed consciousness? No. You are only making a wild assumptions.
Read the thread again. You are off course by a wide margin.
And the discussion over ADD/ADHD I presented the facts, as usual. What you do with them is your business.
Pete & Repeat are sitting on a fence. Pete falls off. Who's left?
...
Wearing out the heels of those ruby slippers all the way down to the white meat while reciting the same incantation over & over won't make delusions reality.
broken record
Very well Doc, are you willing to be interviewed about consciousness?
Why not? Do you have a topic in mind?
Let's move it over to this clean thread and my first question cluster for you is;
Please differentiate between consciousness and intelligence?
Is IBM's Jeopardy winning super-computer Watson either intelligent or conscious?
Is a super-colony of leaf-cutter ants either intelligent or conscious?
This topic's in the air today.
Cobbski's gone and put himself on Beelzebub's horns too.
Alhazen was part of a school well familiar with what precisely undergirds the so-called Abra-Kham-ic religions.-CNu
Are you familiar with the philosophical school(s) of thought in which al-Hassan was reared or how are you using “school” here?
I don't understand what you meant by Abr-Kham-ic religions. Is this Diop? I know that Abraham is not the word they used. Unlike the name “Adam,” I’m not even sure if “Abraham” is the actual Semitic form or a derivative of Ibraheem. I’m no linguist, but I don’t believe that kind of phonetic word splicing can take place in a Semitic form the way we do it in English.
Like say Alhazen. Phonetically, it’s actually al-Hassan. “Al” meaning “the” and “Hassan” meaning “good.” But because it’s phonetically rendered into English doesn’t mean you can pull from it’s meaning “Al-Has-san” ie Al Cartwright the son of Hoss.
“Matter fact, he and his bredren practiced not only the science of experience, they practiced and maintained a peer-reviewed standard for insperiential science, as well....,
It was that science of insperience which produced a culture suffused with and capable of producing the magnificent architectural works which beggar the technical and material capabilities available to us today.” -CNu
Al-Hassan’s principle understanding of absolute knowledge was rooted in his theological principles and rearing. If some historians claim his examination of relative knowledge, at times/or completely, took precedence over his principles of absolute knowledge, if or when this conflict arose, I’m very interested in this source. Meaning to say, did al-Hassan document these conflicts in his works? As meticulous and thorough as they were I would assume so. If this isn’t the case, then I can only image one being somewhat versed in the profuse rulings of Islamic exegesis thereby equipping them with the faculties to discern that point of departure in al-Hassan’s works.
Are you familiar with the philosophical school(s) of thought in which al-Hassan was reared or how are you using “school” here?
Yes and precisely.
Leave the islamist shoes outside the door - they offer cover outside of school - but only bring mud indoors.
Al-Hassan’s principle understanding of absolute knowledge was rooted in his theological principles and rearing.
School.
I can only image one being somewhat versed in the profuse rulings of Islamic exegesis thereby equipping them with the faculties to discern that point of departure in al-Hassan’s works.
rotflmbao..., the formal antithesis and mirror-image of the hole in DMG's bucket.
"Yes and precisely. Leave the islamist shoes outside the door - they offer cover outside of school - but only bring mud indoors." -CNu
Either the last part questions your preciseness or there's too much cryptic action pop'n off.
Your use of Islamist brings up an interesting discussion on identity.
"...the formal antithesis and mirror-image of the hole in DMG's bucket."-CNu
No you are not understanding. I am stating that al-Hassan's identity was never abandoned (if one was to suggest such, should identify that point of departure)in his pursuit of knowledge.
When I say identity I don't mean culturally, I mean his existing within the boundaries of his self-governing principles.
Alhazen was an Ismaili and an exemplar of the continuous knowledge society which runs as an undercurrent throughout the history of Islam.
To identify him as Muslim in the sense that a Bedouin fundamentalist Sunni is a "Muslim" - would be preposterous.
You tell me to leave the Islamist shoes at the door, but you plow straight through it with an Ismaili Mack truck stuck in 12th gear.
Whether or not you categorize him as Muslim is inconsequential to how al-Hassan defined al-Hassan.
How can you make a claim that hasn't been substantiated either way? Not only is there difference in opinion but Hassan was Chief Minister in 10th century Basra, performing theological readings and religious debates. Al-Hassan got a history of antithesis/mirror-image bucket holes.
How can you make a claim that hasn't been substantiated either way?
lol,
Whose "authority" should I consult in support of the obvious GCV?
His lifelong preoccupation with and extensive written works on;
1. "Moorish cybernetics"
2. Stations of "attainment"
CUH-CUH-CUH-LEARLY marks him as a man of discernment and member of the knowledge society.
There can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the stream in which Alhazen swam.
“Anything lying outside one’s own experience cannot be comprehended in its true dimensions.”
Out of all the ancient languages the one in its purest form is Arabic. This is because it was landlocked and preserve in the native desert until it expanded through Islam. According to the Encyclopedia Biblica this is why it was able to preserve its Semitic forms more so than Hebrew or Aramaic. At this time the Muslim Persian grammarians formally systemized the language retaining its antiquity.
As Hamza Yusuf points out, (Classical) Arabic has its own cosmology. Because of what is interpreted as having (metaphysical) weight, some Islamic scholars of Arabic linguistics weighed the letters in gram quantities. Arabic letters also have numerical values. So in ritualistic acts of worship a particular invocation may be recited x amount of times because of its numerical sum.
It has moon & sun letters. 28 letters/28 days (lunar calendar). Sun letters disappear because the sun obliterates, it burns and withers things, whereas the moon letters are opposite because you can look at the moon.
Where most linguists may argue that “names” have arbitrary relationships with a thing, (classic) Arabic rejects an arbitrary relationship but that names have deeper connections. Example: the letters shin, jim and ra. Shajara meaning tree. The letter shin denotes something that spreads out or has radiation. Tree branches spread out. Also in the word for sun because the sun spreads or radiates light; or in hair because your hair spreads out. The letter jim is a strong letter. The trunk of the tree is strong. Ra is use for something that regenerates. Trees die in the winter then regenerate. The words become alive in this sense.
“Surely in the variants of tongues & complexions and the Heavens and the Earth for those who think.”
It’s a type of antithesis where tongue is related to Heavens since in their cosmology language comes from the Heavens and complexion comes from the different colors of the Earth’s soil. Language is meaning, complexion is sensory. Meaning and sensory are joined in the human.
I said that to explain within the meanings of their ancient language, letters and words, inherently wired these figures in how they speak and think metaphysically. We understand how the labeling theory works.
Naturally al-Hassan would be committed to the secrets in words and the universe.
They believe the Quran is a book and the universe is a book. The Qur’an is “the Revealed and Written Universe,” and the universe is the “Created Book.” This is why the preservation of the language itself is of extreme importance because the universe is preserved within words as it is argued by some.
“Would the universe exist if nobody were around to observe it?”
If the words are disrupted or suffer death, those means of obtaining hidden truths die with it.
This is a phenomenon that personalities like al-Hassan inherited. He is definitely not the first to take it there. It was not uncommon for these people to take in a deeper examination. In Islamic cosmology God swears by the pen because it’s the most important means of storing and transmitting information. This is why in traditional study circles there is etiquette in the treatment of pens and books. One scholar was reported saying you’ll never benefit from the book that’s placed on the ground.
my man...,
tickles me how someone could loudly proclaim that he is steeped in aljabr - yet be so ignorant concerning the nature of the thing as to be entirely incapable of recognizing its indispensible historical, functional, and CONTINUING place at the crossroads of humanity's highest cultural endeavors.
Notice...
http://www.hajjpacks.com/BismillahArabic.jpg
...the similarities of a short statement if you look at the top of al-Hassan's manuscript on optics. From right to left of coarse.
http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Ibn_al-Haytham_new_optics_12b.jpg
Even though he reference a particular school of thought to accredit his works ("Islamists"), I'll make sure next time to look him up according to categories you've assigned him.
What publishing company can I find info on cats apart of the "knowledge society" again? Was that Marvel or DC?
"Frits Staal (Berkeley), convener of the workshop, argued that modern science is not a product of Europe or world history but the result of a major advance in human cognition through language. "
Um ...
Nah.
That's apotheotic nonsense.
Dayyum Gee Chee,
tickles me how someone could loudly proclaim that he is steeped in aljabr - yet be so ignorant concerning the nature of the thing as to be entirely incapable of recognizing its indispensible historical, functional, and CONTINUING place at the crossroads of humanity's highest cultural endeavors.
I wasn't talking about you.
That's apotheotic nonsense.
lol,
Quit clownin jiggaboo...,
School was in session all weekend long.
Class was adjourned hours ago.
See if you can get one of your winged monkeys to talk to you about the minutiae of golf on that old dried-up extra crispy looking golf course you were nutting in your pants about the other day....,
School?
lol
School?
You think this long soulless technobabble-neverending-footnote shit you poppin is school?
Pork ... eatin' ... Jigaboo ... please.
You and your little poorly educated Plantation MD boyfriend so boring I don't even want to come to my own gotdamn blog.
Listen to you corny muhfuggas.
Shiiit. I aint read half your posts since 2007.
How a muhfuggah with manboobs going to pontificate about God anyway?
Obviously he aint fuckin' wit your Hamburger Helper eatin' ass.
You think this long soulless technobabble-neverending-footnote shit you poppin is school?
yawn...,
shutup jiggaboo!!!
You and your little poorly educated Plantation MD boyfriend so boring I don't even want to come to my own gotdamn blog.
lol,
leave then and get out the way!!!
jealous witcha lip poked out cause don't nobody with two active brain cells care about'ya ignant ass.
go see if you can get one'a'these three kid and no husband-having thirsty bitches to talk to you about a kale chip or summin...,
^^
Ahhhhh ...
wow.
That's what it is.
Jigaboo Jealous!
um.
Damn shame.
CNu hates the sisters because the sisters feel Denmark Vesey.
They ignore CNu.
They don't read his little blog. They don't follow his little links.
They don't get excited about his little fried chicken and waffle recipes.
They don't think a good meal starts at Walmart.
They don't like men with bigger breasts than them.
Yeah ...
That tends to bothers corny fat nerd Jigaboos high on cheap weed.
That also explains the 4 year love affair with my Johnson.
You think about me too much bruh.
It aint healthy.
Get. A. Chick.
kneegrow,
at this very moment you got five posts featuring one or more of your butt-hurt caricatures of CNu on your muhphuggin front page!
you got my blog linked on your sidebar under "Blogs I'm More Impressed With Than My Own"
but you wanna pretend that I.think.about.you?
face facts brah..., once the discussion goes more than half a micron deep, you're as lost as a 5 year old in Grand Central Station.
I'm try'na help you out here.
Stick to fanboying lil'weezy, offer trendy diet and relationship advice to chickenheads, and the occasional metrosexual fashionista product placement for Paul Smiff, talk about golf.
Keep it simple and stick with what you can handle DeeVee.
umm-kay....?
Hustle Hard.
CNu, yes, I must confess, I take advantage of your presence to make a point.
The caricatures are simply metaphors for ugly bitter sick jealous arrogantly ignorant Plantation Negros who would be better served if they would Get A Chick and Eat Natural Food.
I put a link to your blog on this page nearly 5 years ago because you seemed like a smart guy who never got the attention he deserved because he had a fucked up personality and nobody liked him.
I figured DV.Net would serve as a bridge to people who felt the Blackest Man On The Internet ... and a lonely fat nerd in Kansas who wanted to talk about Dopamine Hegemony, Peak Oil and the virtues of late term abortion.
Honest.
That's the truth.
You came to my spot all the time. I never went to yours.
I felt sorry for you.
I tried to give you some play.
In late 2008, you wrote a long tearful post announcing you "WOULD NEVER RETURN!" to DenmarkVesey.Net and that you would be "Removing!" the DenmarkVesey.net link from your blog.
♫ dun dun dun duuuuuuun ♫
Remember?
You asked me to remove your link from my blog.
I remember laughing ... and saying to myself ... "fuck CNu".
Well ... 4 years later ... here we are.
And you aint been NO muhfuggin place.
Except right here.
... 8 to 12 times a day,
... 7 days per week,
... 365 days per year.
You are literally here more than me.
Why?
Because Denmark Vesey IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND COMPELLING EVENT IN YOUR LIFE.
I am CNu.
Give it up.
I give you a reason to live Jigaboo.
You are passionate about what you get here.
But you don't want to be thankful.
You want to pick little playfights and hate because you can't stand to be grateful.
You love Denmark Vesey.
You think people can't see that?
At least you've got good taste.
And despite the head fakes ... we know your family eats nowhere near the amount of cloned factory meat, HFCS or Pasteurized homogenized cows milk as it did before Denmark Vesey came into your life.
Don't thank me Jigaboo.
Just spread the word.
Hustle.
Hustle.
Hustle Hard.
"tearful"?
lol,
The above indicates you clearly know EXACTLY what to do to exorcise CNu from dv.net.
1. Delink my blog.
2. Keep my name out your mouf.
We're good, and I'm gone.
On the serious tip DeeVee.
For the past ten months we're locked in a spiral of mutual and reciprocal abuse.
Same type of abuse you formerly heaped on David Mills, who for a year or so, also found your "idiosyncrasies" amusing - and despite your childish prattle, came back for the dopamine hits and the freewheeling discussion with smart folks who challenged his point of view. (which sad to say didn't really much include you)
For the next two weeks after Mills died last March, you were still feeling guilty about having been such an unrelenting asshole to him and like the digital incarnation of a typical unconscious hoodrat full of self-pitying regret, you put up post after tacky-assed post shamelessly trying to crawl into the grave with the brother.
Hell, you still mining the dead for material right up to this very day.
Too late.
You fucked up.
He dead.
You were an asshole.
A shameless asshole full of regret.
But there are no second chances.
Then and there, and for that very reason, I asked you to delink my blog. Best believe I delinked yours.
I didn't feel sorry for you at the time, and I don't feel sorry for you now.
You work harder than anybody I know of (short of constipated faceplant) to prove yourself a declasse', trifling and developmentally arrested embarrassment.
You've succeeded.
I'll be perpetually grateful when you delink my blog and keep my name out y'mouf.
Post a Comment