Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

Scott G. Beach · 2003-11-28 13:22:16

Hazer:

I wrote, ?It appears to me that you enter these forums in order to haze people. Is that your intent? Is it your intent to ?harass by banter, ridicule, or criticism?? Is that what you intend to convey by using the name Hazer??

You responded, ?Scott is a brand of toilet paper, G. could stand for ?Gay?..."

You have made it quite clear that you intend to live up to your name. You are a hazer. Furthermore, you lack the courage to admit that you are a hazer. You are a petty coward.

Hazer · 2003-11-28 15:18:24

What I want to know is this, will Euthenia work? Do we have enough experience with mitigating cultural clashes to make something like this work?
Although I must admit that I like the idea of nationally-sponsoring neighborhoods-or districts in a future Martian city. It really sounds like a good idea-if the colonization of Mars is going to be an international venture.
Past the first few decades though, I think we should let future Martians develop their own culture-out of what we put there in the first place.

Scott, Scott, I made the toilet paper comment in order to make a point. And that point was that your assumption about my being a hazer-simply because of my name, is flawed.
It is equally rational for me to make my assumptions about you based on YOUR NAME, as it is for you to assume that I am a hazer. I could have said G. stood for giddy, or good, or great. But enough with the petty arguing.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-01 02:02:41

Nobody ever rewrites his worldview. Your worldview unfolds from your presuppositions. If you really adopt a new worldview, it's a life-changing event. An changed opinion here and there within the same context doesn't count.

The people who live in the experimental neighborhoods of Euthenia would be working together to create a sociocultural system that is adapted to Mars.

No, they'd be working together to create a sociocultural system that is adapted to Scott G. Beach, who is, as I've said many times before, a fruitcake.

clark · 2003-12-01 09:58:06

Nobody ever rewrites his worldview. Your worldview unfolds from your presuppositions.

:laugh: I guess we now know one Mr. A.J. Armitage worldview! No one is asking, but it looks mighty small to me.

If you really adopt a new worldview, it's a life-changing event.

Is it? Care to explain? Probably not.

Remember, Cliff Laboski loves you.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-03 02:06:17

clark;

Next week, be a serious and committed Lutheran on Sunday, be a serious and committed Muslim on Monday, be a serious and committed follower of Ayn Rand on Tuesday, be a serious and committed communist on Wednesday, be a serious and committed Sikh on Thursday, be a serious and committed Taoist on Friday, and on Saturday, believe you're the Incredible Hulk.

Since apparently you can rewrite your worldview at will, genuinely believing all this stuff on the day indicated should be easy.

clark · 2003-12-03 10:31:48

You get an 'A' for form, but a dismal 'D' for content A.J., as usual.

Because you have an inablity, or lack the capability to assume a different perspective, you argue that others are just as incapable as you. Crippled comes in many forms, as your views do attest.

How about this A.J.- each example you cite is a form of 'world view' that acts as a prisim for you to understand the world in a way that makes sense to you. It's a way to translate the unfathomable chaos that surrounds us into a small bit of what we might understand.

So on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday I will be part Luetheran, part Muslim, part follower of Rand, part communist, and part Sikh. I will not be the incredible Hulk on Saturday though because I have plans, and they don't involve a lot of green skin and heaving.

Our 'world views' are like fences, they make order in the wilderness. Now get a clue, and look over your own damn fence. It's only as hard as you make it.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-03 15:26:22

clark;

So on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday I will be part Luetheran, part Muslim, part follower of Rand, part communist, and part Sikh.

Which is to say, you won't actually be any of those things. At most -- and I doubt you'll even do this -- you'll take some spolium Egyptum to ornament your own worldview. What you will not do is simultaneously believe that society should be organized on the principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" and in the virtue of selfishness, the evil of altruism, and the greatness of private property. Nor will you simultaneously believe that God has no son and that Jesus is the Son of God.

Unless, that is, you don't believe in the law of non-contradiction. In which case, denial of the law of non-contradiction is itself a presupposition of your worldview, and if you abandoned it, you'd have to get a whole different worldview.

Our 'world views' are like fences, they make order in the wilderness. Now get a clue, and look over your own damn fence. It's only as hard as you make it.

You presuppose that the world as it is in itself is a "wilderness" and that order is an invention of the human mind. Never mind that if you really believed it, rather than pretend to be a little of everything you'd be a straight-up nihilist, you bought into currently fashionable ideas without question. You presume to grade me based on your unquestioned worldview, which you, unsophisticated as you are, mistake for something objective. Maybe it is, but I see no reason for it.

clark · 2003-12-04 08:42:28

Which is to say I will not be your interpretation of what any of those things are. Would you rather argue the invisible, visible?

I also wasn't aware there was a 'law of non-contradiction?' I suppose legislators really have a lot of spare time on their hands, huh? Would breaking this supposed law be an infraction, misdemeanor, or a felony? Is there a three strikes rule? Who can I appeal to? Was this some wacky ballot initiative?

As for me presupposing the world as a 'wilderness', I think you may be a bit confused. I'm sorry you are having a hard time with metaphors, I blame myself really, it's not your fault you fall into the intellectually lazy trap of literalism. Abstract ideas are tough, so don't beat yourself up too much for being so ignorant.

Let me try this slowly, maybe then you'll get it. Reasonable people can come to different, and reasonable conclusions regarding how the way the world works. Now, if we accept that reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions, but different conclusions all the same, what does that say?

It might just suggest that a certain amount of our understanding of this world is based on the subjective experience of each individual. Now, if that is the case, don't we have to take a step back and say that maybe our assumptions about how the world works, or how it should work, is less than objective?

Most people though never take a step back, as you prove.

I've never stated that my views are objective, but instead acknowledge that I cannot make the invisible, visible, nor would I want to try. As for 'nothing matters' being prescribed to me, by you, I think I will have to disagree. You see, I don't know if anything matters, or if it does.

But the way I figure it, it all matters the same, whatever that might be.

:laugh:

What else you got?

clark · 2003-12-04 13:06:52

The meaning of this will more than likely be lost to you, but we all have a wall upon which we bang our head... :laugh:

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe

"It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain, quoth he;
Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a rope!

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen! "

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-05 15:39:34

clark;

Which is to say I will not be your interpretation of what any of those things are.

Nor can anything be "my interpretation" of a square and simultaneously "my interpretation" of a circle.

Unless you're speaking some other language (or mean precisely nothing by any of the words you use), you really, truly will not be any of those things. And if you are, why you'd attempt to communicate with an English speaker I don't know.

I also wasn't aware there was a 'law of non-contradiction?'

It shows.

As for me presupposing the world as a 'wilderness', I think you may be a bit confused. I'm sorry you are having a hard time with metaphors, I blame myself really, it's not your fault you fall into the intellectually lazy trap of literalism. Abstract ideas are tough, so don't beat yourself up too much for being so ignorant.

The truth, clark, is that you haven't understood anything I've said, because you are shallow. You lack the rudiments of logic, you are foolish, you have evidently never examined the roots of your own thought.

Yes, you should blame yourself.

Let me try this slowly, maybe then you'll get it. Reasonable people can come to different, and reasonable conclusions regarding how the way the world works. Now, if we accept that reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions, but different conclusions all the same, what does that say?

Amazingly, you typed those words, presumably your own, and never even thought to consider your own question. What does it say?

It might just suggest that a certain amount of our understanding of this world is based on the subjective experience of each individual. Now, if that is the case, don't we have to take a step back and say that maybe our assumptions about how the world works, or how it should work, is less than objective?

Stunning. Absolutely stunning. You might as well be a trained monkey for all the comprehension you show of your own words.

Now think. I've been talking about presuppositions. Now you're talking about "assumptions about how the world works, or how it should work", and you expect me to be surprized by this notion? IDIOT!

I, of course, am well ahead of you. Not only do individuals have different experiences, the experiences themselves do not come in "pure" form, but must be interpreted. At the basic level, the eyes, for example, represent a certain range of wavelengths with certain nerve signals, which are then interpreted as the experience of seeing the color blue. But it goes up from there. Ask yourself: why do two people who see the same thing interprete it differently? I'm not talking about blind men touching different parts of an elephant, I'm talking about people outwardly perceiving the same thing, but having totally different ideas of what they perceived. Ask yourself why that might be. No, don't. You're stupid. I'll tell you.

It means they have different presuppositions.

Think of three blind men who each tough the tail. One takes it to be a rope, one takes it to be a power cord, and one takes it to be a tail. This is what I've been talking about through the whole presupposition discussion.

Most people though never take a step back, as you prove.

I am, as it happens, several steps more advanced than you. You're inviting me to regress. I decline.

clark · 2003-12-08 10:10:24

The truth, clark, is that you haven't understood anything I've said, because you are shallow. You lack the rudiments of logic, you are foolish, you have evidently never examined the roots of your own thought.

Well then, I guess I'm lucky to encounter someone as deep as you. Someone so well grounded in the ways of logic, who is wise, and has evidently examined the roots of all his own thoughts. All this, and I didn't even have to go to a top of a mountain. You truly bless me, and anyone else who interacts with you A.J.

Please, reveal to me the secrets of wooing women and winning friends. It must be so easy for you. I am so jealous.

Well, sarcasm aside, you lose.

By demonstrating your understanding, at least what you call understanding, you reveal yourself. Thanks. Just needed the confirmation really.

A.J. declare:

Nobody ever rewrites his worldview. Your worldview unfolds from your presuppositions. If you really adopt a new worldview, it's a life-changing event. An changed opinion here and there within the same context doesn't count.

then A.J. declares:

I, of course, am well ahead of you. Not only do individuals have different experiences, the experiences themselves do not come in "pure" form, but must be interpreted. At the basic level, the eyes, for example, represent a certain range of wavelengths with certain nerve signals, which are then interpreted as the experience of seeing the color blue. But it goes up from there. Ask yourself: why do two people who see the same thing interprete it differently? I'm not talking about blind men touching different parts of an elephant, I'm talking about people outwardly perceiving the same thing, but having totally different ideas of what they perceived. Ask yourself why that might be. No, don't. You're stupid. I'll tell you.
It means they have different presuppositions.
Think of three blind men who each tough the tail. One takes it to be a rope, one takes it to be a power cord, and one takes it to be a tail. This is what I've been talking about through the whole presupposition discussion.

You lay it all out, so you show your ability to understand where Scott is coming from with some of his suggestions here. Scott is merely pointing out that we can take control of our own presuppositions, or the things that influence them.

Now, instead of arguing with him, me, or anyone else here, for the sake of argument, why don't you just keep to arguing with yourself. Or those little events you do on weekends.

Get interesting, or get lost. Right now, you're just getting us all bored. Thanks. :laugh:

twit.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-08 14:14:31

clark;

You lay it all out, so you show your ability to understand where Scott is coming from with some of his suggestions here. Scott is merely pointing out that we can take control of our own presuppositions, or the things that influence them.

And now we're back to where we started. There's a reason the Noble Lie can only be taught after everyone over ten has left the city.

By definition, your presuppositions are things you think are true. If you "take control" of your presuppositions, you must first suppose that truth is either irrelevant, or highly malleable by an act of will -- but THIS is the presupposition which is sincerely held to be true. If you denied it, you would reject the whole worldview. There's no place prior to your presuppositions from which you can neutrally judge them, or choose from among them like items at a buffet. There are ways of rationally examining them, but you evidently have no knowledge of this and it would just confuse you anyway.

And clark, all insults aside, you've been getting your ass handed to you. If you can't manage even a minimally serviceable defense of your positions, it looks real stupid to insult the other guy's intellegence.

clark · 2003-12-08 14:28:02

tee hee. you presume that I care what you think. you play my game, I don't play yours.

and around and around and around we go. I hope you are feeling better, I know I sure am.

So let's see what we have here. We have you, One Araon J Armitage. Congrats on those debating awards by the way. Come to practice at the local watering hole? Any port in the storm no doubt. I mean, it's not like we discuss many of the esoteric trivialities you continually prat on about elsewhere.

My 'ass handed to me...'. That has got to be one of the best lines I have ever encountered. Mind if I use it? Thanks.

So Big Dog, now that you've proven to yourself that you're head hancho, what now? Hmmm? Shall we descend back into name calling, ambiguity, and circle jerk arguments?

Don't get me wrong, you say things with flare time and again, but you don't say much. I think you are letting your little side interests get the better of you. But then, you've never been really challenged have you? Or maybe you have, so you feel this need to go prove yourself out among the anonymous electronic wild. Poor guy, never easy getting the silver, eh?

Well, anyway, I look forward to more amusement from you, at least I hope it's amusement, and not this incessant bore of you trying to sound smart. :;):

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-08 14:57:03

Evidently you cared enough to reply. And enough to think I'd be impressed or intimidated by the fact that you searched my name on Google. Granted, your stuff is several years out of date, but if that's the best you can do it's the best you can do.

What you didn't do is answer anything substantive. I suppose a pissing contest would be less embarrassing for you than a serious discussion in which you're obviously outclassed.

Bill White · 2003-12-08 15:05:01

By definition, your presuppositions are things you think are true. If you "take control" of your presuppositions, you must first suppose that truth is either irrelevant, or highly malleable by an act of will -- but THIS is the presupposition which is sincerely held to be true. If you denied it, you would reject the whole worldview. There's no place prior to your presuppositions from which you can neutrally judge them, or choose from among them like items at a buffet. There are ways of rationally examining them, but you evidently have no knowledge of this and it would just confuse you anyway.

Hmmm. . .

"What if" I believe my mind is too small to handle the whole of TRUTH (after all how can any human mind encompass the entire mind of God?) and that my pre-suppositions are merely shorthand guides to the larger truth?

A growing mind can learn to encompass the "truths" found in a variety of cultures and traditions and then formulate a larger truth. A mind which reconciles seeming contradictions into a larger synthesis will then encompass both sides of the seeming contradiction.

By taking snippets of truth from various sources (pre-suppositions) perhaps we can formulate a deeper more sublime truth always keeping in mind that any human truth is mere a tiny subset of God's truth which is too large for any of us to handle.

God allows us access to those portions of the TRUTH our souls are prepared to handle. (Think about Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men" for the flavor of what I am trying to say here.)

Even if TRUTH is absolute - yet none of us are able to handle more than a tiny fraction of the TRUTH - therefore day to day life requires a large dose of relativism just in case someone else can better handle the truth than me.

clark · 2003-12-08 15:10:51

Well golie, I dun not know what yer spoking about. Cud yer splain that der to me so I understood?

So little caustic one, what shall I reply to in any substanitive way?

You already contend I don't know what i'm talking about. In deed, you go as far as to say "you're getting your ass handed to you" (see, I told you I would use it). Now you want a reply from someone you declare the fool?

Shall we discuss Plato and his noble lie? What color is the metal you are made of? Of course, of course, I know, you are talking about the metaphorical subtext of which this little story reviews. I am so proud of you, learning to master the art of metaphor. Here's one for ya, how are you like a braying ass? Oh, wait, that's a bit literal. Hmmm, I better work on it some more.

Okay, now where was I? oh yes, the neccessity of a lie to foster moral certaintiy for a greater good. Well, on the surface, it seems Plato might actually agree with the final conclusions of Scott here. Afetrall, Plato is arguing that the lie, which in essence could be anything, is used as a means to shape people to a better end. I think Scott is doing the same thing here- you know, the guy you were calling names for no apparent reason.

Or presuppositions are invisible. Mere assumptions connecting what dots we have available. How we view the world is a function of our experience, and what we think of that experience. Now, we could be passive, simply receiving the information, without ever realizing that we can actually take a part in the shaping of our own assumptions to the point where we might not even realize it.

You know, people have exercises, maybe you know about it, usually for depressed people, or those with low self-esteem. It involves waking up and saying something into the mirror several times a day. It's reinforcement. It's taking a hand in your own view of the world.

But I digress, I have given you more than enough to play with, which seems to be all you're capable of. Now, the Fool must dance!
:laugh:

Bill White · 2003-12-08 15:18:10

For the record, I see Scott Beach as very clearly following a tradition initiated by Plato in The Republic and amplified in The Laws.

Having taken several term long courses in which these books were the sole topic of discussion, just let me say = IMHO= that there is much in these books that is useful and much that does lead to a "fruitcake" society to use A.J.'s term - - a term I am certain was chosen by A.J. to facilitate useful dialouge and consensus.

As for Plato (and Scott Beach) I am totally un-interested in giving either the power of a dictator to shape a society. That said, there also are ideas of value worth contemplation and incorporation into a society built from the synthesis of various pre-suppositions.

Fair enough?

clark · 2003-12-08 15:26:29

Yes King Solomon.

Bill White · 2003-12-08 15:44:50

Yes King Solomon.

Surely you know all of Western Civilization has been built on the twin foundations of Athens and Jerusalem and our civilization has been so intellectually fertile precisely because neither the Greek worldview nor the Jewish worldview ever quite managed to best the other. Let alone the intra-Greek conflicts between Plato and Aristotle.

Contradictory world views (pre-suppositions) locked in a two milleniua conflict each finding new resources whenever it appeared one or the other would pre-dominate. Contradictions and paradoxes are the well spring of all philosophy, after all.

Which is mother and which is father? Athens or Jerusalem? I refuse to answer that.

clark · 2003-12-08 15:54:22

Surely you know all of Western Civilization has been built on the twin foundations of Athens and Jerusalem and our civilization has been so intellectually fertile precisely because neither the Greek worldview nor the Jewish worldview ever quite managed to best the other. Let alone the intra-Greek conflicts between Plato and Aristotle.

Mighty bold claims.

Did the even handed King forget the East? Or the role of the Arabs and Turks in maintaining our 'fertile' intellectualism when the walls fell in the Mediterranian?

Surely not. :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-12-08 16:20:49

Surely you know all of Western Civilization has been built on the twin foundations of Athens and Jerusalem and our civilization has been so intellectually fertile precisely because neither the Greek worldview nor the Jewish worldview ever quite managed to best the other. Let alone the intra-Greek conflicts between Plato and Aristotle.
Mighty bold claims.
Did the even handed King forget the East? Or the role of the Arabs and Turks in maintaining our 'fertile' intellectualism when the walls fell in the Mediterranian?
Surely not. :laugh:

Muslims are also the "seed of Abraham" right? Don't they believe themselves to be co-heirs to the city of Jerusalem?

And yes, they did preserve the heritage of the Greeks and yes some say Islam represents a more "Eastern" interpretation of Christ's message while St Paul took Western Christendom in a decidely more Greek direction.

While Zoroaster-ism and perhaps some early Buddhist ideas may have infiltrated from the East both the Greeks and the Jews managed to establish coherent "world-views" that may have built on prior traditions but also were quite revolutionary for their time.

I challenge you to name any tradition that has more of its memes survive into the 20th century West that those of the Athenian Greeks from the 4th century BCE and the Jews and Christians from the 1st century of our common era.

clark · 2003-12-08 17:08:51

I challenge you to name any tradition that has more of its memes survive into the 20th century West that those of the Athenian Greeks from the 4th century BCE and the Jews and Christians from the 1st century of our common era.

One question, then I'll take you up, how are you measuring 'memes'?

Palomar · 2003-12-08 17:17:39

By definition, your presuppositions are things you think are true. If you "take control" of your presuppositions, you must first suppose that truth is either irrelevant, or highly malleable by an act of will -- but THIS is the presupposition which is sincerely held to be true. If you denied it, you would reject the whole worldview. There's no place prior to your presuppositions from which you can neutrally judge them, or choose from among them like items at a buffet. There are ways of rationally examining them, but you evidently have no knowledge of this and it would just confuse you anyway.
Hmmm. . .
"What if" I believe my mind is too small to handle the whole of TRUTH (after all how can any human mind encompass the entire mind of God?) and that my pre-suppositions are merely shorthand guides to the larger truth?
A growing mind can learn to encompass the "truths" found in a variety of cultures and traditions and then formulate a larger truth. A mind which reconciles seeming contradictions into a larger synthesis will then encompass both sides of the seeming contradiction.
By taking snippets of truth from various sources (pre-suppositions) perhaps we can formulate a deeper more sublime truth always keeping in mind that any human truth is mere a tiny subset of God's truth which is too large for any of us to handle.
God allows us access to those portions of the TRUTH our souls are prepared to handle. (Think about Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men" for the flavor of what I am trying to say here.)
Even if TRUTH is absolute - yet none of us are able to handle more than a tiny fraction of the TRUTH - therefore day to day life requires a large dose of relativism just in case someone else can better handle the truth than me.

*Bill: Just chiming in briefly. Your comments reminded me of the following:

"It seems improbable that the first principles of things will ever be thoroughly known. The mice living in a few little holes of an immense building do not know if the building is eternal, who is the architect, or why the architect built it. They try to preserve their lives, to people their holes, and to escape the destructive animals which pursue them. We are the mice; and the divine architect who built this universe has not yet, so far as I know, told His secret to any of us." [Voltaire]

I have read before the analogy of the elephant and the (in this version, blind-folded) men who are trying to figure out what it is and believe they "know" based on the limited sensory input they are allowed. Their assertions that "the elephant is like a cord" or whatever are the subjective interpretations. Unblindfolding themselves and being able to then see the entire animal represents, IMO, objective truth.

I agree with you in that I do not believe it is humanly possible to oversee everything, cosmologically speaking. Of course, I also believe it behooves people to attempt to sort out what truth is, for a variety of reasons (enrichment of life, avoidance of painful mistakes, beneficience to loved ones, etc.), i.e. to attempt to remove the blind-fold and try to see the bigger picture (or elephant, in the analogy) as best as possible.

As an aside of sorts, it has been very interesting to me to discover people (not you) who insist very stridently in not believing in or valuing -anything-, even to the smallest degree. It's been even more interesting to observe that those sorts of folks can be just as arrogant and intolerant in their nonbelief/nonvalue (and while pushing that agenda just as fiercely) as anyone else.

My 2 cents' worth. Thanks for your consideration, Bill.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-12-08 21:57:27

Hi Cindy -

"It seems improbable that the first principles of things will ever be thoroughly known. The mice living in a few little holes of an immense building do not know if the building is eternal, who is the architect, or why the architect built it. They try to preserve their lives, to people their holes, and to escape the destructive animals which pursue them. We are the mice; and the divine architect who built this universe has not yet, so far as I know, told His secret to any of us." [Voltaire]

That Voltaire was rather insightful, no? I can pretty much agree with this. Just because "we" cannot grasp the big picture doesn't mean there isn't a big picture. Maybe and maybe not. :;):

Anyway, I find "evangelical" atheists particularly annoying. I rather wish Voltaire were around to skewer some of them.

clark · 2003-12-09 10:16:48

"It seems improbable that the first principles of things will ever be thoroughly known. The mice living in a few little holes of an immense building do not know if the building is eternal, who is the architect, or why the architect built it. They try to preserve their lives, to people their holes, and to escape the destructive animals which pursue them. We are the mice; and the divine architect who built this universe has not yet, so far as I know, told His secret to any of us." [Voltaire]

We are the mice with the ability to understand and conceive how the immense building is constructed. We can slowly understand how the blocks were shaped, how they were moved, when they were set upon the foundation, and differentiate between the colors of the rocks and the windows that let light shine through.

Yet for all of our exploration, our understanding, we can never know for certain why the immense building was created. We can only guess as to this buildings purpose, never certain if our guess, our assumptions related to intent are correct.

The 'why' is the invisible, it is the meaning. It is the effect without a discernable 'cause'.

It's a bit like trying to contemplate why a child let's go of a balloon into the open sky. A treasured keepsake, set free, but for what reason? Only the child really knows, and perhaps not even then.

But what do I know.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-28 13:22:16

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#27 2003-11-28 15:18:24

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#28 2003-12-01 02:02:41

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#29 2003-12-01 09:58:06

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#30 2003-12-03 02:06:17

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#31 2003-12-03 10:31:48

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#32 2003-12-03 15:26:22

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#33 2003-12-04 08:42:28

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#34 2003-12-04 13:06:52

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#35 2003-12-05 15:39:34

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#36 2003-12-08 10:10:24

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#37 2003-12-08 14:14:31

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#38 2003-12-08 14:28:02

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#39 2003-12-08 14:57:03

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#40 2003-12-08 15:05:01

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#41 2003-12-08 15:10:51

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#42 2003-12-08 15:18:10

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#43 2003-12-08 15:26:29

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#44 2003-12-08 15:44:50

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#45 2003-12-08 15:54:22

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#46 2003-12-08 16:20:49

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#47 2003-12-08 17:08:51

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#48 2003-12-08 17:17:39

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#49 2003-12-08 21:57:27

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

#50 2003-12-09 10:16:48

Re: Politics, Religion & Social Stability - A Supplementary Religion for Mars

Board footer