Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Bulldog]

Then the comparison you just made with the Italian by birth which by conversion becomes an Italian Jew, just like you are an American Jew, yet being so by birth it's a bit confusing.

If it looks like I'm splitting hairs, I think I actually am, so never mind.

Yes, you're splitting hairs by making the distinction between converted Jews and Jews by birth.  Once converted, a jew is a jew.

[Bulldog]

Correct.  Chap simply does not know what a fact is.  Incapable of learning?  Just wilfully dense?  You make the call.

Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.

[karlhenning]

Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.

When I see him emerge from the fog, I will affirm your faith in his capability.

[Josquin des Prez]

Why is this addressed to me?  Do you seek a logical analysis of these statements, neither of which is true? 

If a statement is factual, then it is factual, regardless of "proof."  It is customary to offer support for factual claims that may be in dispute.

Calling someone a "racist" is not necessarily an attack of any sort (though it can be and often is, for instance when used as an epithet intended to quash discussion).  It could be a simple statement of fact. 

So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me? It seems as if many people have already established that my arguments and ideas are erroneous a priori, so that any attempt from my part to spread those ideas is automatically dismissed as hate propaganda, that is, that i myself know full well that those arguments and ideas are fallacious, but promote them nonetheless because of my innate hatred or racism. This is what we generally refer to as bigotry, to act upon previously established preconceptions and prejudices while shunning all attempts at rational discourse.

For instance, let's take the following article:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm

How many here would dismiss the data as racist because of the pre-conceived idea that all attempts at arguing for human bio-diversity is racist by default, and how many of you will automatically assume me to be a racist for merely linking to it?

[DavidRoss]

So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me?

Again I'm puzzled that you address this question to me.  I don't recall expressing either toward you--but I have openly expressed disdain for your delusion of moral and intellectual superiority.  If you really were bright, you'd be bright enough to know that you're not very bright at all.  Like most intellectuals, you confuse intellectualism with intelligence--but if you got out more, you'd know that intellectuals are no smarter (and at best no dumber) than anyone else.

If you're sincerely asking why "hate" and moral outrage get hurled at you on this forum (and elsewhere?), I suggest that you are bright enough to answer that for yourself if you just look back through your posts to see which attracted the most scorn, and then make a fair-minded attempt to see them from your critics' perspectives.  I think you will find that arrogant superciliousness, coupled with persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions, may be largely responsible.

[Josquin des Prez]

So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. 

Well, there's degrees of everything. Jews may be in fact more prone to ethnocentric feelings then other European cultures, but this doesn't mean they are genetically engineered parasites governed telepathically by a single central intelligence or something. 

But really. Having been raised in Italy, i've had plenty of experience with ethnocentrism to be able to recognize it in others. I also think that one of the things that ties Jews together is their sense of victimhood. They believe they are a persecuted people who always need to look out for one another to fend off gentile hatred, real or imagined. This has had a powerful binding effect even among the most liberally minded of Jews.

Of course, one of the most characteristic signs of ethnocentrism among Jews is the fact more then 90% of them vote liberal. This seems a bit incongruent considering the number of conservative orthodox Jews, and the only possible explanation is that Jews vote liberal because they benefit from liberalism as a group, whereas conservatism is tied to gentile nationalism and is thus seen as a threat.

It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.

I was exaggerating of course, but i think there is a level of truth in saying modernism, while not necessarily a Jewish led phenomena, does in a way reflect a Jewish perspective, particularly in this past fifty years or so. Indeed, many of the most characteristic movements that define the 20th century have been heavily influenced by Jews, well out of proportion relatively to their numbers. Professor Yuri Slezkine argue that because of the type of skills Jews specialized in, they were the most modern and by extension the most prepared when modernism actually came around. His argument is that modernity is about acquiring a particular set of skills, and since Jews have specialized in those particular skills better then any other group, we can say that being modern is essentially akin to being Jewish. Others, like Kevin McDonald, attribute a more direct involvement of Jews in the shaping of the events that characterized the 20th century.

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

[Guido]

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

I would be impressed if you could prove that Einstein had produced a Jewish physics (and almost as impressed if you could show that Schoenberg was a 'Jewish' composer in that he reflected Jewish ideals with 12 tone music.)

[Florestan]

persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions

This is exactly what Galilei or Darwin did.

My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.

[karlhenning]

Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.

[Fëanor]

...

Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.

To diddle with semantics, is it really the "Jewish influence" or merely the "influence of Jews"

There's not doubt the individual Jews have made great contributions to European (Western) civilization and we are better off for that.  If the worst we have to complain about is their involvment in leftist movements, then indeed we don't have much to complain about -- arguably the contrary.

[Florestan]

Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.

Yes, but if arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it. I might be wrong but, as far as I recall, he expressed his controversial views in a polite manner. His favourite term of abuse seems to be "liberal", which is a mere trifle compared to the amount of scornful insults and ironies that have been heaped upon him.

[Elgarian]

OK.  So you propose that somehow that the experience is open to those who keep their eyes open (another metaphor), so that somehow not experiencing  "the extension of consciousness into the ether" is somehow their own fault.

My comparison with opening eyes/seeing blue is not a metaphor, actually, but an illustration of the fact that some things need to be shown, and cannot be told - (there's a Wittenstein quote for this - I may not have it exactly but the gist is there).

'their own fault', you say? There's no one at fault here. We're trying to understand why there's a failure of communication. At least, that's what I'm trying to do - though admittedly without much success. But this has nothing to do with whose fault it might be; it's about trying to discover how best to understand each other.

my formulation (not a quote) of getting beyond the ether makes sense, since the ether in the interpretation you propose (but don't say you accept) is only a medium through which one might learn something besides itself.  Neither, however, makes sense if we don't know what 'ether' means and Josquin isn't saying.

The issue is whether his original metaphor is intelligible. You found it unintelligible. I said I could make something of it, and tried to explain why. If you find my explanation equally unintelligible, then I think we probably have to admit defeat and agree that we don't understand each other.

However, those who do not have the alleged experience may find it strange that people blame them for not having it, along with some particular interpretation of it.  It seems rather insulting and I can hardly blame people for objecting to it.  Not the way to make friends and influence people. 

What is all this business about 'blame' and being 'insulting'? If you see someone trying to remove a screw with a pair of scissors, would you expect them to be insulted if you suggested they might have more success with a screwdriver? No one is being 'blamed'.

To use my analogy again, if you were trying to explain to someone the experience of the colour blue, you would not be able to do so in mere words, regardless of how much they insist that you try to do so. It has to be seen, not told. One of the reasons why we resort to the use of metaphor is because it enables us to attempt 'showing' (albeit imperfectly), rather than 'telling'. And sometimes metaphor fails. Josquin de Pres's metaphor did not completely fail, for me. I think I understand to some degree what he was trying to say (or show). But it did fail completely, for you, and my efforts to explain have also failed completely. That's the risk of trying to communicate at all. But no one is to blame. No one is being insulted. We've simply failed to communicate, sad though that is.

[Homo Aestheticus]

What's this obsession you have about circumcision?  

Why would you even care?

Why ?

Because there is no medical justification for it.

But hypothetically, if there were no religious command for it and if the father himself was intact, why would it  ever  occur to a parent to have their infant son's foreskin snipped off ?

[Homo Aestheticus]

We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.

Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.

What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?



Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?

[DavidRoss]

My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.

True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.

Yes, but if arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it.

Lucky you.  I, too, skip over most of his posts.

Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts.  On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."

Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them.  How often we mistake the finger for the moon!

[Josquin des Prez]

True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.
Lucky you.  I, too, skip over most of his posts.

Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts.  On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."

Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them.  How often we mistake the finger for the moon!

That is why most intellectuals in the past were both philosophers and poets in the same breath. Today, we have replaced all that with science, the art of studying and categorizing approximations.

[Bulldog]

Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.

What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?



Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?

But that woman is already voluptuous with an angelic face.  You are hopeless.

[Josquin des Prez]

You really are a hoot.  Can you go even one whole day without thinking in terms of group characteristics?

The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. But tell me, why is that you are bothered so much by it? 

[Florestan]

The study of humanity is my favored hobby

J, I'm curious: what do you make of Romanians from your study? Where do they fit in the overall European scheme? I want an honest answer.

[Bulldog]

The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. 

Excellent.  Could you provide some suggestions as to how Western Civilization can stop the decline that you talk about?