Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 31 2014


IQ2 debate: The Media Can’t Be Trusted to Tell the Truth - Culture and Society - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV

Freedom of the press is held up as one of the most fundamental values of a functioning Western Democracy. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2009/08/05/2647061.htm

January 08 2014


PodOmatic | Best Free Podcasts

Neil Kramer is a British philosopher and teacher specializing in the fields of consciousness, metaphysics, and mysticism. Kramer has made a lifelong independent study of philosophy, mystical traditions, religion, and esoteric world history. He shares his path of transformation and empowerment in writings, recordings, interviews, and lectures, as well as giving personal consultations and group workshops. He is a frequent guest on leading alternative radio and internet shows, enjoying international audiences and enthusiastic support. His work regularly appears on cutting-edge media portals and has featured on television networks in the US, UK, Canada and Europe. Kramer speaks on many fascinating subjects and is renowned for his unique blend of lucidity, empowerment, and authenticity. He divides his time between Oregon, Washington, and New York. Neil Kramer’s latest book “The Unfoldment” is in bookstores now.   For more info: www.neilkramer.com Host: John Gibbons (www.djjohngibbons.com) Mus" name="DESCRIPTION http://alchemyradio.podomatic.com/entry/2013-10-01T04_16_12-07_00

December 10 2013


girl on guy 117: dan savage

girl on guy 117: dan savage — american savage December 10, 2013 Dan Savage does not care what you think. He is not concerned with social mores, cultural propriety, or the delicate rules of polite conversation. Dan Savage is here to tell the truth. The truth about sex, homophobia, bullying and matrimony. About religion and parenting and infidelity and fetishism and blow jobs. Yes, the truth about blow jobs. Dan Savage has a savage mouth and he uses it as a weapon. Dan does not care if your feelings are hurt. He has pissed off everyone from the Catholic Church to the gay community and everyone in between. He will say exactly what he thinks, and occasionally what he doesn’t think, to provoke a response. Dan Savage is a warrior for freedom. Personal freedom. Sexual freedom. Intellectual freedom. And yes, the freedom to get, or give, blow jobs. Or, all of the above. If that’s your thing. join columnist, author and activist dan savage and aisha has they rage about sucking it up for jesus, being hot for leif garett, honoring thy father and mother, sympathy for ted haggard, redefining marital success, double bagging it, honesty versus kindness, and obliterating the center. plus dan says exactly the wrong thing at the right time, every time. girl on guy is avoiding dishonest necrophiliacs. http://girlonguy.net/podcast/girl-on-guy-117-dan-savage/

December 05 2013


David Harriman interview, pt. 2 - "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap" - #112 - Gnostic Media

“Word. But does that mean anyone can SAY anything about absolute reality?” First, define absolute reality. “One listens for two hours to an intellectual’s attempt at deconstructing reality, but the onus is always on the observant listener to put it back together again. Logic can’t properly handle these issues with language, so as to ensure that I receive the infallible truth from you or Mr. Harriman.” Actually, if you study logic, you’ll see that it specifically deals with language. It doesn’t do well with things OUTSIDE language. Actually, if you’re properly using logic, identifying the subject and predicate, understanding the identification of words and seeking clarity, removing contradictions and fallacies, you most certainly can receive our signal without noise, the infallible truth as you call it. This was discussed in my Philly lecture that I recommended previously. This is also discussed in the trivium series talks that I referenced you in the last post. “What we can say must always belong to the phenomenal world, because words have no independent substantial meaning.” Harriman’s work, the trivium, etc, all deal specifically with such issues. Certainly the number 1 represents 1 item of 1 thing. This is why it’s important to define words specifically so that we know what, exactly, is being communicated. “Meaning is “dependent-arising” – just as the world itself is said to be dependent-arising, in the Mahayana tradition.” Again, this is why we define our words. If you establish arbitrary meanings, that’s what you’ll get. This is why having a firm understanding of logic is important. How, specifically, do the Mahayana tradition and the trivium and logic contrast? How have you compared these two? Was logic created before, or after the Mahayana tradition. If you can’t form any meaning from anything in life, then why do anything at all? “Seems to me reality, truth, meaning, unfolds intimately and inwardly for each and every individual, without any need for arguing for absolute objective reality.” If that were the case, you wouldn’t be able to use your computer, as it would work differently for every individual. In fact, the truth of turning on a light switch would always have a different result in your world – which, thankfully, we don’t live in. This is why having basic laws of physics, things we do know and understand is important, rather than just dreaming up what we wish in our own heads to be “reality”. “There are external patterns that we must pay mind to, yes, from which to induce understanding. But if you look at it, many of the iniquities you mentioned have resulted from various historical crusades for “absolute reality”, whether by scientist, philosopher or priest-king. And none of these can or ever will be ascertained.” It’s funny how you classify what I say as “iniquities” – or crimes. Yet, thoughtlessness and irrationality and not identifying what we’re dealing with is what creates these crimes. What you’re failing to understand is that these are methods in constant development, open for revision as we understand more. Again, try turning on your computer or typing your next reply if none of these can or ever will be ascertained. Your position is completely illogical and contradictory to the world around you. “I do bid you good luck in demonstrating your truth, but meantime declare myself a model-agnostic, as no model of the universe has yet satisfied all the dimensions of my observation and experience. Why regard this with contempt?” Did you listen to the episodes 49 – 51, and have you taken a specific course in logic so that you’re capable of understanding how these systems work before you discount them? A model agnostic, what does that look like, exactly, without being able to identify what a gnostic is, or have any knowledge outside you other than what you dream up on a whim? “As a self-reflecting human being, perhaps you are aware that the mocking tone in your voice,” I’m mocking you a bit now, but would you please show me where I did so previously? “so constant throughout the interview, is also intoned in the lecture of your post.” How, where? Would you please identify exactly how that’s so – substantiate this truth you claim, please. “I wonder when authorities are going to realize that no free-thinking individual is ever going to accept that “this is how it is” when it is pronounced with such supreme derision.” Clear, critical thinking is able to look at the evidence, gain knowledge of what’s there, remove the contradictions and discover, logically, “how this or that is” – but what you fail to realize is that the trivium, et al, don’t at all teach you “how it is” – they don’t teach you what to think, but rather now to think, logically, without contradictions. So it appears that you’re knowledge and understanding of these matters is off base. The trivium itself teaches one not to rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority in and of itself, so it negates the point of your argument. “To be clear, i am not arguing for solipsism, or the extreme subjectivity that follows from the Copenhagen interpretation. Nor am I the new age, bright-sided philosopher you insinuate in your words.” You’re not arguing for Kantian philosophy or solipsism? That’s very difficult to discern by your comments here. It seems your ideas are based firmly on Kant and solipsism, and that you’re arguing for contradictions and not being able to discern the world around you – as impossible to do – all the while you seem to be misunderstanding many of the key issues – and jumping to conclusions elsewhere. “It’s a commonly held truism, perhaps something you also find laughable, but I think it holds true: the one thing we can ascertain in the world is impermanence, which is to say that our universe is ever changing, ever evolving – and it will continue to unfold in events of emergent property that simply astonish scientists.” Who was it that argued these things, Heracles? It’s a good thing that Aristotle came along and refuted him, allowing us to move forward in science and history. Because the view that all was only change and we could know nothing, brought the ancient world temporarily to a halt – some philosophers refusing to ever speak again, for instance. Now we’re able to categorize the type of change: volume, age, locomotion, etc. This is why it’s important to identify the type of change specifically, rather than just seeing all as “change” – and never being able to understand anything. “Events which will always defy 1+1=2 logic. Say 1+1=3: this is no ordinary Aristotelian logic.” The problem with this argument, however, is that it’s not based in reality. It’s a non-argument, a straw man? Please give me one instance, EVER, where 1 + 1 = 3? It’s no ordinary Aristotelian logic because it’s simply not logic at all. You’re arguing the arbitrary and that is simply dismissed. “Indeed you can see the enigmatic Axiom of Maria in most forms of symbiosis. Truths that hold true only relative to order and scale of magnitude… None of what you said is over my head. You simply cannot conceive of Zero (the mathematical alternative to the Big Bang theory) without implying contradicting, complementary, or self-annihilating opposites. Without conceiving of both abstract and positive integers.” Why would I employ contradictions, etc. Even for you to argue the things you argue requires logic. But I think Maria’s axiom is properly explained under the quadrivium, the next level of the trivium. See episode #50. But even in symbiosis, this is covered and understood in the repeating, self-checking, self-correcting system of the trivium. To hold the concept of zero, even by allowing ourselves a model to compare it with – say 1, while we may use this model to understand zero, it doesn’t imply contradiction or self-annihilation in itself. It’s using a model, such as induction, to understand reality. If you have one of something and I take that one away, it doesn’t annihilate you. You’re then able to understand the concept of zero, or having nothing that you just had. “I was wondering whether David was familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein. He never mentioned him in the interview, which i did find to be interesting, by the way.” Why would you find that interesting? He discussed the 50 or so points that we wanted discussed after having read his books and listening to his lecture series. Other than asking him directly (as an interview is never meant to represent the whole of someone’s work – it’s just a method to introduce the work to people who may be interested – after which they can buy the books and lectures to gain deeper understanding of that particular body of work), I’d buy the books and lectures and find out – or send him an email. This is the process of the trivium, gaining proper knowledge of the items that are there and are discussed , without needing to find things interesting or whatever simply because you yourself didn’t put the interview together – or read the book or hear the lecture to gain your own systematic knowledge. “I had to wonder why he seemed so keen on throwing nonsensical eastern philosophies out the window, when in truth these traditions attest to an ageless wisdom with profound application in day to day existence. Wisdom that eludes words. And wisdom that certainly escapes your diatribe.” What is my diatribe, exactly? How much have you even studied my work? How many of my shows have you heard? Are you aware that I, just recently, interviewed a Buddhist Lama? What specific philosophies was David throwing out? Why, even with a disclosure at the beginning of every show, would you jump to the conclusion that what David believes is automatically what I believe? Did you just make that up and accept it as fact based on solipsism? And is every aspect of eastern philosophy valid, or is there invalid dogma even there? If they were nonsensical, as you claim, then why would throwing them out be bad? Which aspects of these traditions attest to an ageless wisdom with profound application? Which ones don’t? Does, for instance, the (appeal to) tradition of the Hindu cast system attest to their ageless wisdom? In what way? How could you express and explain this without logic? Without making up things as you go along – as you’ve done here? “You can tell by how irate both yourself and Dr. Harriman come across in the interview that you’re still occupying a fairly differentiated mindset, prone to conflict, which precludes peace of mind. And I suppose you will never have your peace until everyone believes in the one true objective reality that you are arguing for?” Please point out where I was irate. I don’t recall being irate at all. Rather, I’d say that your emotional reaction to our interview was irate – so that would mean your projecting your beliefs onto us, rather than gaining knowledge via a systematic method. But yet, here you are, claiming I’m prone to conflict, when you’re here stirring conflict. Do you see the irony, the hypocrisy? Where have I ever, anyplace on my show, books, et al, argued for “the one true objective reality”? Again, you’re not even familiar with what I say, with my show, with the fact that I’ve had leading academic experts from all over the world on my show discussing at length the very things you think I ignore. But your hypocrisy is beyond ironic. Again, do you see the importance now of having a systematic method to acquire knowledge, so that you don’t maintain such false ideas in your head? “Philosophy as therapy, as suggested by Wittgenstein, helps us from becoming “bewitched by our own words…” a common phenomenon when folk arrive at premature certainty, mistaking the menu for the meal, the map for the territory.” Had you listened to episodes 49 – 51, you’d have known that these are the very things discussed, not to mention when used properly as a system, this is an inherent property of the trivium method. In fact, we discussed specifically mistaking the map for the territory. I tried to share that with you before you replied, but apparently you chose to kill the messenger rather than to understand the message and avoid looking foolish. “This is existentially sound philosophy, which doesn’t seek to enforce an authoritative view on the world, but rather to cultivate virtue and truth in one’s life, for the better of the world. This is the only philosophy that seems to me to be worthwhile.” As is the trivium. Which you clearly didn’t bother to study before making your reply. Had you studied the trivium before your reply, you’d have seen that it’s exactly this. And you’ve clearly become bewitched by your own words, so it doesn’t appear to be working for you. But unfortunately your system doesn’t provide you with a method for fact checking yourself and not coming up with arbitrary ideas based on your own whimsical thoughts – as I’ve now pointed out several times. “In conclusion, i do agree Reason is an essential faculty when it comes to integrating consciousness. I do however think that reason can easily become overbearing and lopsided, and the clearest sign of this is when “irrationality” is regarded with such extreme derision. This is an attitude which can only exasperate the poverty of cognition you claim to ameliorate with the Trivium.” Based on your use of fallacies, jumping to conclusions, claiming things we’ve never said, attacking things you’ve not studied, et al, I can understand and see your distaste for reason and logic, and your need to stand up for and protect the irrational, unconscious, and illogical – claiming that not accepting (your) irrationality is somehow a poverty of cognition. That I’m perfectly willing to accept. By the way, reason, rational, is no longer reason and rationality when it becomes lopsided – that’s irrationality – by very definition. Something for you to consider. And please provide me an (obviously irrational, reasonless) argument as to how dismissing irrationality would exasperate the poverty of cognition. Isn’t cognition in itself rational and reasonable by very definition? Where does irrationality and unreasoning fall into cognition? How, in what way? http://www.gnosticmedia.com/david-harriman-interview-pt-2-the-philosophic-corruption-of-physics-and-the-logical-leap-112/

May 06 2011


media monarchy: on 'nightvision radio' - may4

Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. - George Orwell, 1984' name='description http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-nightvision-radio-may4.html

October 13 2010


Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?

Some people claim that they can't trust in the Bible because it is historically unreliable and culturally regressive. But do we have cultural blinders on? Dr. Keller discusses solid reasons that we can trust the Bible historically, culturally, and personally.
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!