32101f91
XPost: alt.magick, alt.pagan.magick, alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic
XPost: alt.religion.druid
From: root@wan
Op 19-10-2011 1:52, Tom schreef:
> On Oct 18, 8:45 am, Bassos wrote:
>> Op 18-10-2011 17:07, Tom schreef:
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 3:19 pm, "le-Olahm, Angelus"
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
>>>> one's will.
>>
>>> But not one's will alone. Will requires some form through which it
>>> can be expressed.
>>
>> How do you define Will as used by you here ?
>
> The impulse to action. Can you google "readiness potential"?
The pereparation of the body to act, which is then presented to
consciousness?
(with a possible NO to the suggestion)
>>> That's where art and science come in.
>>
>> Yet the science is at odds with the Art, untill both are mastered.
>
> Bah.
We'll see.
> I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
> science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
> art, he could invent new flavors.
Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.
The art can only start when the science is adequate.
> The science informs his artistic explorations, but does not limit them.
Ofcourse it does.
He brews Beer, not chocolate.
> The scientist seeks to produce the same result every time (replicability).
Only as a means to art.
One has to know the science of math before one can appreciate the wonder
of math.
> The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).
Does an artist set out for a result ?
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.
> "Set these two asses to grind corn."
Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.
>>>> remember silence is golden!
>>
>>> So you shouldn't speak out against injustice?
>>
>> Perhaps doing something is more effective;
>
> Speaking something that is done.
>
>> re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
>> out against injustice.
>
> But there does appear to be a consensus forming.
There does?
Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?
>> Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
>> small difference between the rich and the poor.
>
> It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
> nothing to say about it at all.
Yes it does.
Happyness actually *is* operationally defined in a myriad of ways.
Sure, there is no clear consensus about what factors are the most
relevant, but that does not stop 'science' from making claims in other
area's either.
Think observational data, just ask people how happy they are and compare
to difference in the population regarding income.
The rationale behind this theory is also quite sound.
Rich people do not like poor people and vice verce.
Nobody likes unhappy people.
>> Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness.
>
> Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
> either guarantee it or compel it.
That is not the job set out.
Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.
For some time to come we will still need someone to say *NO* to
unbridled lust for results.
> The Constitution provided us only
> with greater license to pursue happiness than we had previously. "We
> hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness." Of course, where one's pursuit of happiness interferes
> with the various rights of others is a point of some debate.
omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?
Do people need 100 million dollars as a retirement package ?
(or as a bonus for causing the global crisis, and profiting thereof)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
