Cow sets a bad example for progressive society

[-1-]

1: Your response of cussing at me is duly noted. That's a typical response I get from people on social media. If you had actually read my earlier comment, you will see that I asked a question regarding the possible relevance of Trump to an earlier statement you made. A question is asking for information and not a declarative statement. Assuming a question is a declarative statement is certainly a good way to take unnecessary offense towards others.

You're right. My emotive side got the better of me. I apologize. I went beyond the limit of good manners and civil behaviour. I hope you accept my apology.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: Evolution is a scientific fact as well as a scientific theory, so your personal opinion on what evolution is has no relevance.

Can you give me a specific example of some person whom you believe is not a "conditioned atom" and who is a "seeker of objective truth"? I have a feeling that your version of objective truth is not the same as mine, which consists of scientific and historical orthodoxy.

Can you give me a specific example of some person whom you believe is not a "conditioned atom" and who is a "seeker of objective truth"? I have a feeling that your version of objective truth is not the same as mine, which consists of scientific and historical orthodoxy.

Simone Weil was not a conditioned atom of society or what Plato referred to as the “Beast.” She verified her beliefs through conscious attention.

First she desired truth at all cost.

Excerpts from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin shortly before her death:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Second, Simone was consistent as opposed to a follower as Susan Sontag pointed out in a book review:

The principal value of the collection is simply that anything from Simone Weil’s pen is worth reading. It is perhaps not the book to start one’s acquaintance with this writer—Waiting for God, I think, is the best for that. The originality of her psychological insight, the passion and subtlety of her theological imagination , the fecundity of her exegetical talents are unevenly displayed here. Yet the person of Simone Weil is here as surely as in any of her other books—the person who is excruciatingly identical with her ideas, the person who is rightly regarded as one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit.

Simone didn’t want to adapt to the whims of the Beast, she wanted to consciously evolve in the direction of objective truth. This requires a quality of impartiality very rare in modern times and offensive to the collective conditioned mindset.

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

“Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.”

[Science Fan]

Nick A: Simone made all sorts of superstitious claims about an alleged God, so we can write her off as a person who was interested in the truth, and certainly she was incapable of dealing with reality. She had no evidence to support her claims regarding God, she just made them up. Pat Robertson does that, and he's insane.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: Simone made all sorts of superstitious claims about an alleged God, so we can write her off as a person who was interested in the truth, and certainly she was incapable of dealing with reality. She had no evidence to support her claims regarding God, she just made them up. Pat Robertson does that, and he's insane.

Perhaps you are underestimating her. For example does the following quote really seem odd to you? She is called Plato's spiritual child for good reason. Modern collectivism and its idolatry of the Great Beast no longer understands Plato so why should it understand Simone?

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." - Simone Weil

[henry quirk]

[Nick_A]

So what of our cow. Now she lives on an island by herself chasing away people even though some smuggle food out to her. Should her individualism be praised and should she become a hero in her fight for life? Should she be killed as a disruptive influence disturbing the peace and interfering with a secular society pretending to serve the grand collective, the Great Beast, which no longer has individuality as a goal?

Hero or villain?

[henry quirk]

I think Betsy's earned the right to be left alone.

She done asserted herself, seems able to defend herself.

Leave the cow be.

[Nick_A]

I think Betsy's earned the right to be left alone.

She done asserted herself, seems able to defend herself.

Leave the cow be.

But don't you see how dangerous it would to all efforts to create the indoctrinated group mind which defines society of the future. Group mind is defined as:

(Usually with the) a way of thinking and feeling developed by a group of people, often considered to prevail over individual thoughts and beliefs; a notional collective mind or consciousness shared by a group of people, as expressed in uniformity of thought or behaviour.

The group mind of the Great Beast is essential if secular society is to prevail. What if people were inspired by Betsy to question why they have become a mindless collective? It would be a disaster which is why Betsy must be given the hemlock and die as Socrates did for corrupting the youth of Athens

Pawel Kukiz, a local politician and former singer, said he wants to find a way to allow the "hero cow" to live out the rest of its natural life.

"If all citizens could show such determination as this cow then Poland would be a much more prosperous country," he wrote in a Facebook post. "I am not a vegetarian, but fortitude and the will to fight for this cow's life is invaluable."

This is how it starts. We cannot allow this cow to inspire individuality and less dependence on government. The experts in indoctrination could never allow it. Look at this face

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2018/02/19 ... 519061268/

Could the Democrats in America allow it to be a greater inspiration than a portrait of Nancy Pelosi? Can you see how dangerous this all is.

[-1-]

This is how it starts. We cannot allow this cow to inspire individuality and less dependence on government. The experts in indoctrination could never allow it.

Nick, don't get your knickers in a bunch. The group mind has been preserved.

You said the group mind dictates that the cow be killed.

But it is also group-mind that dictates for everyone to think of the cow as an outstanding individual which defies societal oppression and strives for her own individual rights, freedom and liberty, incl. the liberty to pursue happiness, while not contributing to society (by way of providing hamburger meat from her flesh.)

So don't worry, the group-mind is still alive and well, it just switched flagships. Now instead of condemning the cow, the group mind supports the integrity of the cow.

And guess what... you, yes, you, sir, are one of the most fervent supporters of the cow's right to exercise her individual right to freedom.

Since the group now thinks this way, and you do too, why do you think you are outside of the group-mind, Nick?

[Science Fan]

Nick A: When she claims God exists and God can do certain things, then she is not basing her opinions on objective evidence, so I don't consider her a person seeking the truth. I get that some people believe that something exists, that they consider to be a God, but when people start making precise claims about such Gods, that's when I start scratching my head wondering how they could possibly know such things.

[Science Fan]

1: No problem. I've been there many times myself.

[Nick_A]

Nick A: When she claims God exists and God can do certain things, then she is not basing her opinions on objective evidence, so I don't consider her a person seeking the truth. I get that some people believe that something exists, that they consider to be a God, but when people start making precise claims about such Gods, that's when I start scratching my head wondering how they could possibly know such things.

Simone's critique of science includes recognition of its insufficiency for the search for and experience of objective truth. It cannot verify "value" which apparently our cow was able to do

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

After a swift primer on the evolution of science from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Planck, Weil turns to the key culprit in this major rift between classical and contemporary science — our increasing and, she admonishes, increasingly dangerous reliance on mathematical expression as the most accurate expression of reality, flattening and making artificially linear the dimensional and messy relationships of which reality itself is woven:

"What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense."

Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

"If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.........................................."

[Science Fan]

After that last post of yours regarding her claims, then I am convinced that she was full of bullshit.

Describing the laws of the universe with mathematics is not a hindrance for science, but a good thing, as mathematics requires those laws to be precisely stated, and not based on vague assertions. It's also proven time and again to be quite productive.

As far as science not making value judgments, so? That's no reason to claim that there is something wrong with science. The fact is, however, that science, unlike any other discipline, provides us with accurate knowledge regarding how people process information and arrive at their value judgments. In many ways, that explains morality far better than disciplines that do make value judgments. It is for this reason in fact that philosophers like Peter Singer refer extensively now to science in arriving at their moral claims in philosophy.

[Nick_A]

After that last post of yours regarding her claims, then I am convinced that she was full of bullshit.

Describing the laws of the universe with mathematics is not a hindrance for science, but a good thing, as mathematics requires those laws to be precisely stated, and not based on vague assertions. It's also proven time and again to be quite productive.

As far as science not making value judgments, so? That's no reason to claim that there is something wrong with science. The fact is, however, that science, unlike any other discipline, provides us with accurate knowledge regarding how people process information and arrive at their value judgments. In many ways, that explains morality far better than disciplines that do make value judgments. It is for this reason in fact that philosophers like Peter Singer refer extensively now to science in arriving at their moral claims in philosophy.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

Einstein and Simone are in agreement. You oppose their conclusion. What if they are right and science without the third dimension of thought is insufficient for a seeker of truth? How will you know?

[Science Fan]

Nick: No, Einstein is not in agreement with her. Not even close. Einstein specifically mentioned that what he thought of religion was dramatically different from what most people meant by the word religion. For him, religion was more like philosophy. Einstein did not believe that any supernatural being existed. He was an atheist for all practical purposes and specifically rejected any claims regarding a personal God. When asked by a rabbi if he believed in a God, he took a tactful approach and said he believed in the God of Spinoza. That's a purely atheistic conception of God. Einstein''s God had all of the following characteristics: 1. It had no will of its own. 2. It had to obey all of the laws of physics. 3. It did not intervene in human affairs. 4. It did not care about morality. 5. It did not provide any life after death. This is simply atheism. The reason Spinoza said he was not an atheist? Because during his time the name atheist meant more than a lack of belief in a God, it meant that the person was immoral. Spinoza rejected any claim that he was an immoral person, hence, he played a sleight-of-hand with the meaning of the word God. Einstein did the same thing because he felt a little sheepish admitting to a rabbi that he was an atheist.