Posted in Evolution at 9:32 pm by nemo
Isn’t it strange that a good mathematician such as Dembski suddenly appears from the most improbable of cultures, the brain-dead Bible Belt?
It is not chance! Must be intelligent design behind it! Uh oh, another math torpedo.
After passing through the Gurdjieff/Sufi shark pool a number of years ago I learned a strange thing: the non-random appearance of hotshot mathematicians is part of the game.
Gurdjieff was a clever fellow, but he operated in relative openness and gave the game away. There’s a deeper and more deadly level where you never even see the occult agents.
If you study the Gurdjieff game carefully you see how he burned his way through two mathematicians to try and get his game going: first Ouspensky, who turned out to be a bit of a dud. Then J.G. Bennett, who was blazingly sharp, but who was hopelessly corrupted by the sufi racket and its temptations for him, to let himself be exploited. The result is the hopelessly comprised The Dramatic Universe, a book that could have been great, but which ended up being a hybridized piece of dangerous propaganda.
So, what do we have here, is what I wonder with Mr. Dembski, who should be on the lookout for the invisible designs of his ‘handlers’.
So, watch out for suspicious math torpedoes.
And how does all this happen. That, I am sorry, is for you to figure out. Study your unconscious carefully at all times…
![[Slashdot]](http://slashdot.org/favicon.ico)
![[Digg]](http://digg.com/favicon.ico)
![[Reddit]](http://reddit.com/favicon.ico)
![[del.icio.us]](http://del.icio.us/favicon.ico)
![[Facebook]](http://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico)
![[Technorati]](http://technorati.com/favicon.ico)
![[Google]](http://www.google.com/favicon.ico)
Permalink
Posted in Science & Religion, Evolution at 6:19 pm by nemo
Does science unfairly rule out supernatural hypotheses?
By Lenny Flank
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm
IDers often whine that science unfairly rules out supernatural explanations or hypotheses. However, science does no such thing — it simply insists that any supernatural hypotheses be put through the same scientific method that any other scientific hypothesis has to be put through — and IDers are quite unable to do so.
Permalink
Posted in Booknotes, Evolution at 10:40 pm by nemo
Finished reading: The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (Vintage) (Paperback)
by Charles Freeman >>the author has an interesting ’self-review’ at Amazon.
This is an important argument: the way in which the triumph of Christianity ’shut down’ the tradition of Hellenic rationality. Secularists will read this, but not Christians, who might benefit from the depictions of the beginning moment of the theological apparatus used to brainwash even to this day. Get Pharyngula to explain it to you.
However, it is worth reading this in conjunction with the following:
The End of the Past : Ancient Rome and the Modern West (Revealing Antiquity) (Paperback)
by Aldo Schiavone
This book opens with the oration of Aristides, and explores the way in which Roman society had reached a kind of climax/dead end beyond which there was no further potential to advance.
Taken in context, we can see that the ‘receivership’ of the Christians in the deadlocked and terminal Roman system was, behind its deadening effect, paradoxically the way to another alternate future, a new potential.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Posted in you've got mail, The Eonic Effect, Evolution at 7:35 pm by nemo
I am asked to ‘explain’ the eonic effect, at the Critical Cafe listserve….
Explanation?
What is it that can operate over five millennia, seed relative transformations in five civilizations in parallel, remember its tracks over thousands of years, seed art, philosophy, science, religion, in fact, pull two religions out of a hat in parallel, one atheist, one theist, produce democracy on schedule twice in a row with a timing down to the decade in exactness—that’s a short list.
We are completed outclassed by the eonic effect. Like chimpanzees staring into the sky. We simply detect the prescence of this process using periodization.
Permalink
Posted in Evolution at 7:10 pm by nemo
Just finished reading:
Martin Heidegger : Between Good and Evil (Paperback)
by Rüdiger Safranski, Ewald Osers (Translator)
People wonder why my eonic material is so Kantianized (it’s not, but…): you have but to consider the sad fate of Heidegger to grasp the reasons for my caution here.
Actually, Heidegger was onto something: he correctly senses the ‘eonic’ character of ancient/modern philosophy, and notices the ‘being’ thematic emerging so brilliantly, so mysteriously in the Pre-Socratics. But then he wishes to press the reset button and start all over again.
Fallacy! But a view of history, as non-directional, might make you think you could repeat yourself.
A lot more to be said here/
Permalink
Posted in Philosophy, Evolution at 6:39 pm by nemo
From the Daily Transcript
I’ve been reading Ernst Mayr’s This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. In it there is this great quote;
_______
It is often asked why we do science? Or, what is science good for? … The insatiable curiosity of human beings, and the desire for a better understanding of the world they live in, is the primary reason for an interest in science by most scientists. It is based on the conviction that none of the philosophical or purely ideological theories of the world can compete in the long run with the understanding of the world produced by science.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
« Previous entries