If he continues to use White man's technology to claim that White man's technology is wrong, he will be banned for blatant hypocrisy.
hypocrisy warrants banning??...you should have said that long time ago; I would have been pointing some out for you.
Perhaps "hypocrisy" is a poor choice of word. I see this case as similar to the two or three each year that we get, where someone jumps through all the hoops necessary to become a member of ODR, but then their first (and last) post is a tirade against the very existence of this website. I eject such people on the spot.
The other moderators and I continually debate the purpose of this site. Personally, I lean towards limiting it to scholarly and technical discussion. But others want to include support-group forums for intermarried parents and interracial individuals. But one thing is certain, we definitely do not welcome threads advocating the destruction of the website itsef. And the posts in question apparently advocate doing away with the very technology upon which we depend.
So the problem is not merely hypocrisy per se. It comes down to the mission of this website--why it exists. I suggest that we, collectively, have no interest in providing a site where people can argue against technology. Such an argument is self-destructive and too far afield from U.S. racialism.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 03:38 Post subject: Hypocresy?
fwsweet wrote:
...So the problem is not merely hypocrisy per se. It comes down to the mission of this website--why it exists. I suggest that we, collectively, have no interest in providing a site where people can argue against technology. Such an argument is self-destructive and too far afield from U.S. racialism.
Hi Frank,
Perhaps the person has something that is valuable to expose. If I am not wrong the idea is the conflict between a holistic symbolic mentality, and our logical analytical way of thinking. Yes, those are two opposing mentalities but not necessarily belonging one to ancient people and the other to the industrialized west. Even on campus one find that conflict between the students of arts (holistics) and the ones of engineering (reductionists). And inside our brain we have a left and right brain, one is artistic and the other analytical. So that difference has existed always and in all cultures and civilizations (Taoists versus Confusionist in China, for example).
I don't know, I found the dialog interesting. However, you people are the moderators and as we say in Spanish at least, "Donde manda capitan no manda marinero" (If the captain gives the orders, the sailors don't do")
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 11:34 Post subject: Re: Hypocresy?
oevega wrote:
Perhaps the person has something that is valuable to expose.
Perhaps. If so, perhaps the warning will encourage him to focus on presenting data rather than conclusions. But I am skeptical that this will happen. Look at his reply to William's gentle admonishment at http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?p=11478#11478.
oevega wrote:
If I am not wrong the idea is the conflict between a holistic symbolic mentality, and our logical analytical way of thinking. Yes, those are two opposing mentalities but not necessarily belonging one to ancient people and the other to the industrialized west. Even on campus one find that conflict between the students of arts (holistics) and the ones of engineering (reductionists). And inside our brain we have a left and right brain, one is artistic and the other analytical. So that difference has existed always and in all cultures and civilizations (Taoists versus Confusionist in China, for example).
As a profesional performing musician, as well as a retired engineer, I agree that analytical intellect and artistic interpretation are different skills (athough mathematics is closer to the latter than to the former). The question is which skills do you use on what ocassion.
The triumph of reductionism that ushered in the Age of Enlightenment was hard-fought. It is true that a few die-hard authoritarian types (especially in Tennessee school boards) would like to return to the days when facts were whatever the religious leaders said they were, and when advocating that you should examine nature to learn her secrets would get you killed. But I think that such people are fools; we have come too far and fought too hard to give up the idea that factual reality trumps authority. I could probably tolerate such fools if I thought that they were sincere. But they would have to convince me of their sincerity by allowing their desperately ill daughter to perish, rather than take her to a reductionist hospital.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 20 Jul 2006 13:56; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 13:48 Post subject: Re: Hypocresy?
fwsweet wrote:
.. But they would have to convince me of their sincerity by allowing their desperately ill daughter to perish, rather than take her to a reductionist hospital.
I agree !
By the way, this is not the place to say this, but it is something interesting to mix both worlds, in an intelligent manner, of course.
Do you know that in several places of Latin America, in Chile, Central America and Brazil, for instance, tribal shamans and western medicine work together? Yes, the shamans receive patients and made rituals, but they have received trainning to sent the patients to the hospitals if things are really serious. And they do. That way it works, I believe
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:07 Post subject: Re: Hypocresy?
oevega wrote:
Do you know that in several places of Latin America, in Chile, Central America and Brazil, for instance, tribal shamans and western medicine work together? Yes, the shamans receive patients and made rituals, but they have received trainning to sent the patients to the hospitals if things are really serious. And they do.
Of course. Physicians everywhere are aware of the replicable therapeutic importance of the patient's belief in his/her own treatment. Countless double-blind placebo studies have demonstrated it beyond any doubt. The very fact that priests, rabbis, and, yes, animistic shamans are invited to patients' bedsides by physicians is precisely the point that I was making.
You do what works, no matter what the "authorities" say. Nature is not mysterious nor inscrutable. She shows how she works to anyone willing to open his eyes and look. Scientists are sceptics and anyone deserving of the title has as little patience for those who "obey authority" and turn their back on the findings of double-blind placebo studies as for those who who obey "authority" and turn their backs on electric lights.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:25 Post subject: Re: Hypocresy?
fwsweet wrote:
...Of course. Physicians everywhere are aware of the replicable therapeutic importance of the patient's belief in his/her own treatment. Countless double-blind placebo studies have demonstrated it beyond any doubt. The very fact that priests, rabbis, and, yes, animistic shamans are invited to patients' bedsides by physicians is precisely the point that I was making.
You do what works, no matter what the "authorities" say. Nature is not mysterious nor inscrutable. She shows how she works to anyone willing to open his eyes and look. Scientists are sceptics and anyone deserving of the title has as little patience for those who "obey authority" and turn their back on the findings of double-blind placebo studies as for those who who obey "authority" and turn their backs on electric lights.
Agree!
I will post in the right place some info about the "apprentice of shaman" program in Brazil, which is helping science to discover new drugs and shamans to preserve theirs culture and have an income. A win-win situation. Which follows the same pattern of colaboration between the "traditional" and "moden" way of thinking.
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:30 Post subject: Re: Hypocresy?
oevega wrote:
I will post in the right place some info about the "apprentice of shaman" program in Brazil .... A win-win situation. Which follows the same pattern of colaboration between the "traditional" and "modern" way of thinking.
Please do, although I think that such collaboration reflects the very essence of "modern" thinking. Traditional (pre-Enlightenment) thinking is violently against such collaboration. Traditional (pre-Enlightenment) thinking is that anyone who openly seeks truth not sanctioned by the priesthood is to be killed as publicly as possible.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:30 Post subject:
I don't mean to discuss this further in the Site Management forum, but I would just like to make this one point: Different philosophies can co-exist in the same society -- indeed, in the same person. Some cannot see why they can't believe in the Big Bang and God simultaneously. Those so inclined can imagine the universe unfolding the way science says it did, with God or some higher being having been the catalyst and director, as it were.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
