6d27c50e   
   XPost: alt.magick, alt.pagan.magick, alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: root@wan   
      
   Op 19-10-2011 15:49, Tom schreef:   
   > On Oct 18, 10:57 pm, Bassos  wrote:   
   >> Op 19-10-2011 1:52, Tom schreef:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > But he doesn't need to "master" science.  He just needs a basic   
   > recipe.   
      
   Well, unless he wants to master Beer-Brewing.   
      
   You agree, right ?   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > There is no science of math.   
      
   Ofcourse there is, mathematics itself is science.   
      
   >>> The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).   
   >>   
   >> Does an artist set out for a result ?   
   >   
   > Sometimes yea and sometimes no.  The result is different every time   
   > either way.   
      
   Wigglebut.   
      
   >> For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,   
   >> is every way perfect.   
   >   
   > You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I   
   > did.  It's your turn.  Define "will" in the context of the statement   
   > above.   
      
   Okay.   
   Will: a term used to describe the movement of the universe as it   
   influences our own personal expressions of reality.   
      
   >>> "Set these two asses to grind corn."   
   >>   
   >> Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.   
   >   
   > Some artists do, some don't.   
      
   Artists do, fakes don't.   
      
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > Sure.  If you don't think so, you're not paying attention.   
      
   Agreed, i decided to not pay.   
      
   >> Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?   
   >   
   > It's becoming so.   
      
   Hey, i am the one not paying, what is it ?   
      
   > Like all political views, there is always a certain   
   > amount of fuzziness, but there does seem to be a consensus regarding   
   > the damage done to the global economy by huge, unregulated financial   
   > organizations.   
      
   Duh.   
      
   So now what ?   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > So many ways than nobody can agree on what it is, unless they're all   
   > members of the same cult.   
      
   There is the example of the kingdom of Bhutan.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That's because what you're calling "science" isn't science.  It's   
   > media hype.   
      
   No.   
   I may have framed it thus, but it is actual science.   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Precisely.   
      
   So, erm, what ?   
      
   >> Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.   
   >   
   > No they don't.  They exist to regulate cooperative behavior.   
      
   Heh.   
   A starting point of exploration if ever i met one.   
      
   >>> 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)   
   >   
   > You asked about "the American Dream".  The Constitution is the primary   
   > expression of it.   
      
   I called the American Dream a Nightmare.   
   No wonder some piece of paper does little to ease the suffering.   
      
   >> How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?   
   >   
   > That isn't what it's for.  I told you.  It's not about compelling or   
   > guaranteeing happiness.   
      
   So it is worthless, but you reference it anyway, as if it has some purpose.   
      
   As in:   
      
   Ta fucking Da.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)