| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Open for Conversation | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Mar 11th, 2013 05:53 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Something interesting, not to start a new topic, but at 1hr:12minutes:21seconds a definition of Capitalist is given and it is different than what I have seen so far and Quigley even says something about Soviet Russia being capitalist but Nazi Germany not. I found it very interesting. If you have time could you listen to a little of it? Maybe start a couple minutes earlier to get context, like maybe at 1 hour 10 minutes and then just listen til you get the gist…maybe for 5 minutes or so, and tell me what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bWLTM9ajFA&list=PLMMPK5eDLaV5qZ6grw1Nh8PSwJXGx7UI8
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 11th, 2013 09:03 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, War is profitable? That is, of course, a lie.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 5th, 2013 02:34 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
"War is profitable? That is, of course, a lie." Wouldn't that depend on whether you are a criminal or not? Someone funds both sides of war. Why? Profit? What kind of profit? Power? OK, I didn't reply to that earlier because I couldn't think. I must have had a brain freeze  ----------------- Anyways I came back over here to ask you if you could interpret something for me. I can't understand what is being said to me. I do often see in color even if I only see black and white. And before you answer, let me say that I have already asked the author and did not hear back. It is full of links to movies with a final link to Aleister Crowley. I am trying to connect dots and read some kind of message that may not be there. Can you understand? Or is it just some kind of meant to be fun mind trip? Joe, if you don't mind. What do you make of this: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2937963 -grasshopper
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 6th, 2013 10:30 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I don't know what to make of all those words. Example: "But tonight, I met a sweet girl at a bar, and I'm reminded, that girl energy is different from boy energy." He is married, yet he met a sweet girl at a bar, and somehow a sweet girl at a bar is similar to you? I do not know this person, I have looked up his Web Site on a Web Site Ranking page, and the Web Site looks like a money maker. A Web Site Ranking Page You ask: "It is full of links to movies with a final link to Aleister Crowley. I am trying to connect dots and read some kind of message that may not be there. Can you understand? Or is it just some kind of meant to be fun mind trip?" I don't know, and if he does not answer back, then that is an answer, especially if you ask 3 times. I have always had a thing about asking 3 times whenever dealing with someone I could not afford to trust, like bosses at work, or even kids, it rarely happened, but when it did I made sure, like a person suffering from that stuff they call O.C.D. (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), I made sure that the event was reinforced on the spot, kind of like how people suffering from O.C.D. wash their hands a few times in a row. I say, later, no, no, you can't tell me that, because I remember well, in fact while I was asking you I made sure that I asked you 3 times, and each time you gave me the same answer: 3 times, so no, I am not forgetting about this specific thing, you answered this way, and I know it. Eventually I got a tape recorded to tape record my Boss telling me lies, and that was just me being too naive. As soon as I had the lies on the tape recorder, not "only" in my own head, I got up and left that job on the spot. If the message is confusing, which it is, then the messenger is writing a confusing message to you, and it may even be confusing to him, and if you can't find out if there is any message worth sending from him to you, that is not confusing, that is a message, and it isn't confusing. You can't find out what he means. That is not confusing. How do you build up trust? Also, and very important: War is Profitable is a lie. In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided. War is good for the economy <------------------- That is fraudulent in demonstrable, accurate, fact.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 09:26 am |
|
5th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
I am laughing as I think I am writing Joe like one would write a Dear Abby. Thank you for your words though. I don't know how I would expect you to know what someone else means. But I had been wondering for a month or so. I will have to think about asking 2 more times. I am not so forward and probably have a bit of fear concerning the outcome. ----------------- Your Russian friend is writing a 20th Century History of Russia!!! How very interesting!!! I already read this morning and am so looking forward to hearing a personal perspective of Russian History instead of the canned version that may or may not be true. ------------------ "Also, and very important: War is Profitable is a lie. In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided. War is good for the economy <------------------- That is fraudulent in demonstrable, accurate, fact." Once again Joe, you look at an angle I didn't exercise myself to think about. Yes, What would they have gained if war had been avoided. Yes, and if I think about it long enough, I suppose I would see Joe's Law at work and it is almost too much to take in. The boys are watching 20,000 leagues under the sea as they picked up the vhs at a garage sale. It seems there is some conflict with good, peaceful society being destroyed. I haven't watched it to see exactly what it was about, but it caught my attention. I had forgotten that angle. All I had remembered was the giant octopus. They can't allow competition to exist because I suppose they want to be the only ones to profit? Control and power is more important that wealth because they have so much wealth they do not need anymore? So now it is a game of domination? Lots of question marks because I do not know if I am connecting the dots right. But to me it seems like a logical conclusion. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 10:06 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I found a possible measure of hope for you on The Daily Paul, so I want to share. Invocation I hope you and my friend from Russia can get along famously, but that will require some agreement to disagree on the subject of organized religion, and I use the word "organized" for what I think is good reason. As to your dot connecting: I can say that you remain skeptical while you find reason to be confident, and that is reasonable compared to what? Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question? When you are ready for the next book project I have 2 ideas working. 1. Liberty Day Challenge 2. Mike's Illusion Explanation 3. The History of Russia As Publisher the book projects could be your jobs, to take on, one way or the other. I don't know. I do know that the book I am working to finish up would not exist if you did not take on that job.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 01:06 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, What do the words: "Common Sense in Modern Times" inspire in your thinking?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 05:24 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
So there were 3 ideas? Or 3rd just happen to come to mind at the last second? Because I would seriously advise against planning on making book on this subject. Subject is SO messed up and falseful that I'm not sure any open-minded person can digest quickly. I'm putting things politely in that forum section (which takes quite some juice out of me, like I'm writing cursed history book), because if I didn't, I'd seem completely nuts, and I mean 'the great wall(-nut) of China' (oh, don't get me started on the subject of that wall - i'll explode) kind of nuts. There has to be a sincere wish to sort out that huge pile of dung, otherwise it would be like convincing Thomas Aquinas that he failed on his philosophy (which he obviously did, though btw - I strongly suggest learning about his famed '5 proofs' and trying to beat his logic on your own - very nice brain excercise). I'm actually seriously relieved that you didn't ask me to explain earlier history of Russia. There are so many holes in official and most review versions and explanations given are ludicrous at best. Things like "48 people held 600 tons in suspension for x amount of time". Yeah, right... What do the words: Sorry to butt in, but this really inspired me to say a few words (which is why I'm typing this when I should be fast asleep already). The way you put it suggests that common sense as conception is a conditional value, rather than absolute. So I would ask to carefully elaborate on term limits. Because if we view this name as describing conditional value - we are prone to logical inconsistencies such as 'common' sense not being exactly common (and there is no 69 ways about it - that's unfortunately is the case), which would result in it being a figure of speech instead of accurate description. However, if it is an absolute value, then name of said conception is undoubtedly a figure of speech but referring to a different substance. The whole wording of 'common sense in modern times' indicates common sense changing, pointing out conditional nature respectively. However the idea of it represents at any given time throws mind toward absolute values of good and evil no matter how close to the truth understanding of those by any given individual stretches. Last edited on Mon Apr 8th, 2013 05:33 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 09:23 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
I can add to this statement:In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided. I was listening to a radio interview of an economist. I cannot remember now the name of the show or the interviewed individual but it isn't important. He was discussing the economic effect of WWII . He said, and I paraphrase, that the same economic boost created by the war could have been accomplished if instead of a war everyone just built a bunch of tanks, planes, boats, etc. and simply dumped everything in the ocean. Inferring that no war is ever necessary for profit; and imagine how much more economic and social growth could have been accomplished if we built useful, life enhancing products instead. I agree with him. Last edited on Mon Apr 8th, 2013 09:25 pm by |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 8th, 2013 09:23 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Jee-Host, you must understand that I have been reading Joe Kelley for almost a year now and I can just now read his words (most of the time) one time thru now...when it used to take 3 times thru and I still could not understand his words to me. Now, I am on my 2nd time thru of your words, and I still don't understand. I am laughing inside as I find it very funny that I am having to expand my brain again. I appreciate your words to me and I will work at understanding. Joe is a very smart person. He has had to pound a dead horse to help me see. I am not as smart or as well read. He does a lot of outside reading. Me, I like to watch you-tube videos. So, my intellectual capabilities are, unfortunately, lacking when it comes to reading intense wordings. I took the words "Common Sense in Modern Times" from Joe's words to me from the Daily Paul in context: "Life is good, and that is another thing that moves Ron Paul so far from any counterfeit version of Ron Paul, if any were to dare to try to counterfeit the example who sets the bar so high. Not Jesus, not God, no Glory, just Common Sense in Modern Times; despite the depleted demand for it." The term "Common Sense" could have been from: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/ which, if I remember correctly, is the first reading assignment Joe gave me when I wanted to learn some history. The term "Modern Times" could have come from the name of a village Josiah Warren started which employed Equitable Commerce: http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf -------------------- Anyways, since Joe mentioned a new book and said that phase to me earlier, I thought it might sound like a good title for a book and I wanted to know what he meant by saying those words to me. I appreciate your input. I am working to understand it. It is not because English is not your first language. It is my deficiency. ------------------- When you say you advise against 20th Century Russian History as a book topic do you mean that people would not take your presentation as credible because it is so far outside the norm of the politically correct understanding? ...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 02:43 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Now, I am on my 2nd time thru of your words, and I still don't understand. I am laughing inside as I find it very funny that I am having to expand my brain again. I appreciate your words to me and I will work at understanding. Commendable. However, the root of the problem (at least partially) might lie in my inability to express myself in English. I try to follow the basic rules of the language, but as you can imagine I think in different terms and construct sentences in different fashion than native English speaker. Then I find myself needing to reconstruct them to suit language specifics. So certain degree of misunderstandings could and should certainly be attributed to that fact. Seeing as you say you don't understand what I am saying I must admit that you did a decent job on following through on what I asked - elaborating on term limits. Although I am slightly disappointed those are not your personal thoughts, but mere links (or so your response indicates), I get the basic gist of what you meant - and that should suffice for now. When you say you advise against 20th Century Russian History as a book topic do you mean that people would not take your presentation as credible because it is so far outside the norm of the politically correct understanding? First of all - me and political correctness don't mix together. Political correctness is a way of justifying a lie with fancy words - not my cup of tea. My presentation as I write it is a translation-compilation of certain sources. Even I cannot attest to it being historically accurate more than "as far as I can tell", which is a big stretch when versions differ so heavily. But If I were to write things blatantly it would sound like as if I called Ben Franklin an actual vampire who fried little children to perform dark rituals and get more power over universe. Does that sound like an epigraph to a book you would take seriously and take your time reading thoroughly? I kinda sorta doubt that. But the book should reflect an educated opinion, right? So how to convey an educated opinion that cover things vast majority never heard about, never even conceived existing? Take for instance the way human beings perceive information. Does it occur to you that at this stage it is impossible for us to prove existense of completely different way to perceive it? We cannot do it exactly because the way we perceive it. Only way we can mess around in that area is by using logic. But logic has nothing to do with things existing or not. Is it logical to think there are different way to perceive reality? Yes. Is it logical to think that our own perception probably doesn't account for the reality in it's fullest? Yes. Now of course the subject of history I talk about is not this level of alien, but anyway - what if I say that 200-300 years ago who knows who nuked half of the planet? Does that sound preposterous? Then imagine how it would sound for anyone less open-minded. I'm trying to make exceptionally obvious examples to express what I meant. Last edited on Tue Apr 9th, 2013 03:08 am by |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 11:13 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Book ideas are proposals made by me to me. Book ideas are proposals made by me to bear. bear took up the challenge and pieced together a whole book, and it is moving toward the printing stage, and then it will move toward the e-book sales stage. Book ideas are now proposals made by me to bear, Sergey, and Mike (Kurtwaters, who is my cousin from both our fathers who were brothers and our sisters who were sisters), and that is all it is as this stage. The proposal concerns what I think is a very serious missing element in our current human condition. I think that we human beings have been led away from the power of discussion, and the reasons why I think these things could fill a book, if someone wanted to discuss those reasons with me. I think that the idea of a Russian History book, a product of discussion between a person living in Russia and people living in America, may go along way toward exemplifying the power of discussion. To those words I am going to ad a quote from Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn. From here: Nobel Lecture From time immemorial man has been made in such a way that his vision of the world, so long as it has not been instilled under hypnosis, his motivations and scale of values, his actions and intentions are determined by his personal and group experience of life. As the Russian saying goes, "Do not believe your brother, believe your own crooked eye." And that is the most sound basis for an understanding of the world around us and of human conduct in it. And during the long epochs when our world lay spread out in mystery and wilderness, before it became encroached by common lines of communication, before it was transformed into a single, convulsively pulsating lump - men, relying on experience, ruled without mishap within their limited areas, within their communities, within their societies, and finally on their national territories. At that time it was possible for individual human beings to perceive and accept a general scale of values, to distinguish between what is considered normal, what incredible; what is cruel and what lies beyond the boundaries of wickedness; what is honesty, what deceit. And although the scattered peoples led extremely different lives and their social values were often strikingly at odds, just as their systems of weights and measures did not agree, still these discrepancies surprised only occasional travellers, were reported in journals under the name of wonders, and bore no danger to mankind which was not yet one. But now during the past few decades, imperceptibly, suddenly, mankind has become one - hopefully one and dangerously one - so that the concussions and inflammations of one of its parts are almost instantaneously passed on to others, sometimes lacking in any kind of necessary immunity. Mankind has become one, but not steadfastly one as communities or even nations used to be; not united through years of mutual experience, neither through possession of a single eye, affectionately called crooked, nor yet through a common native language, but, surpassing all barriers, through international broadcasting and print. An avalanche of events descends upon us - in one minute half the world hears of their splash. But the yardstick by which to measure those events and to evaluate them in accordance with the laws of unfamiliar parts of the world - this is not and cannot be conveyed via soundwaves and in newspaper columns. For these yardsticks were matured and assimilated over too many years of too specific conditions in individual countries and societies; they cannot be exchanged in mid-air. In the various parts of the world men apply their own hard-earned values to events, and they judge stubbornly, confidently, only according to their own scales of values and never according to any others. To me, in the face of what I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, there are our own crooked eyes to see with, instead of being led to slaughter through a scientifically perfected mass hypnosis. Literature exists, art exists, if we create it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 12:12 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Well, I'll say this - if you think you can write it the way some considerable part of society will comprehend, while not compromising on any vital point - go ahead. Because I certainly cannot make that way on my own. There are far easier (comparatively) and yet ridiculously difficult to wake up people to truths. That is why I sincerely hope we can eventually go past any "agree to disagree" subjects (by finding consensus), because I imagine most of them will be vital to overcome if we are to succeed in any tangible attempt of actually waking people up with our efforts. Can bring examples if not clear.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 07:59 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
Joe, I like that quote. Although I do wonder what his definition of mishap might be. Cortez wiping out an entire civilization would seem to me to be a mishap. The maltreatment and near genocide of the native North Americans would seem to me to be a mishap. Yet, I agree with Solzhenitsyn's final words. I think sometimes, Joe, you put far to much emphasis on an abject belief in falsehood, as you call it, due to scientifically perfected mass hypnosis when, in truth, it is simply humans being humans in the various parts of the world [where] men apply their own hard-earned values to events, and they judge stubbornly, confidently, only according to their own scales of values and never according to any others. The same observation applies to the population of America with its large geographic, ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity. Some of the adversity you face when expressing your view is due to this human tendency to form a value judgement of an idea or action based on their experience and not on having been duped. The problem, of course, is distinguishing between the two. It would seem to me, therefore, that one way to avert any future impending mishaps, is continually engaging in discussions that attempt to honestly convey one anothers experiences in the hope of eliciting a common value judgement that permits all people to live in peace --- a rather lofty goal, I admit. This I believe, Jee-Host[gm], is what Joe intends when he talks of a Russian history book idea. Is it, Joe? Last edited on Tue Apr 9th, 2013 08:08 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 10:51 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Jee-Host, Yes, I can see what you mean about perception. Even in day-to-day events, people perceive the happenings differently. My husband and I see things thru 2 different sets of eyes; even though we are witnessing the same thing we, may not see the same thing. So, I can see how history can be perceived differently. And then you have to take into account that you are reading, compiling, and translating from someone else's perception of history and then write the words down thru your perception. From my perception, it seems to me, that the Russian people have been thru hell. But that is my perception and I don't know if it is true or not. And it is only in the last year that I have come to understand that there was probably western funding that created alot of that hell. I still don't understand it all and alot of the stuff about western funding is hard for me to accept because it is new information to me and was far outside of my perception. Perception does change with new information though? So perhaps a certain person's perception is valid to add to information so that other people can clarify their perception? I perceive that you have a very good command of the English language! ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 9th, 2013 11:07 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
bear wrote:Joe, What do the words: Considering that we are talking about book proposals.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 02:37 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
bear,Yes, I can see what you mean about perception. Even in day-to-day events, people perceive the happenings differently. My husband and I see things thru 2 different sets of eyes; even though we are witnessing the same thing we, may not see the same thing. I find that most important thing about that notion is the concept of truth. Truth is what's actually happening. Things are as they are. Whatever opinion anyone has about them is irrelevant in relation to truth because it doesn't change the truth. So in any given comparison of opinions there is no such thing as equality of said opinions, because one that is closer to the truth is obviously better. Now the question is - how to figure out which is closer without knowing the truth (which would require absolute knowledge)? Now that is where logic comes into play. An example: person wants to explain something he doesn't comprehend, so person creates a postulate that explains the phenomenon in terms person does comprehend. After further researching the phenomenon person comes across newer and newer facts which don't really fit his initial postulate. Yet person creates sub-postulate to accomodate for those facts. Eventually contradictions pile up so high that person writes a book filled with postulates to accomodate them. How do you think - logical judgment of this person was correct? I think not. Because logically If your assumption with shot in the dark is correct (truthful) - then you won't need to create such a pile of postulates since initial ones will be further solidified by new facts and developments. There will be no contradictions. And that is logical. So, I can see how history can be perceived differently. And then you have to take into account that you are reading, compiling, and translating from someone else's perception of history and then write the words down thru your perception. Obviously I do take that into account. But then again - logic applies. An example - many medieval-ancient Russian written books were written using font called "Ustav". However, careful analysis of said font in comparison to 19 other fonts of the periods revealed something. this one particular font is unique in a way that it is completely unusable to write a book. Instead writing - you're essentially drawing, which takes extreme amounts of time and is entirely inefficient. And there are techniques about said medieval font that are explained in attached research. Yet author of said analysis doesn't draw any conclusion from that fact. While there is quite an obvious conclusion - all books 'written' with "Ustav" are forgeries. Which means the actual written sources of the period have been destroyed. Or there wasn't any of such sources (though this is highly unlikely according to my research). So there are ways to discern lies, regardless of perception. From my perception, it seems to me, that the Russian people have been thru hell. But that is my perception and I don't know if it is true or not. And it is only in the last year that I have come to understand that there was probably western funding that created alot of that hell. I still don't understand it all and alot of the stuff about western funding is hard for me to accept because it is new information to me and was far outside of my perception. Perception does change with new information though? So perhaps a certain person's perception is valid to add to information so that other people can clarify their perception? That is one perception-heavy paragraph. I wish to again stress out that I think it is very important to choose the right goal from the get-go. And that would be self-development and search for truth. So any information received is viewed in the context of 'how to transform this information into actual knowledge, to understand' rather than to just asses and ponder. I'd love to introduce you to some compelling concepts (which are just like right postulates - do not create contradictions when further research and logic are being applied), but it seems we've gone very far off topic here already, so we should probaly move our discussion into more appropriate thread. I perceive that you have a very good command of the English language! LOL EX DI! If that was the case - no bloke would argue with my factual position on homosexualism being a medical issue no less than psychological. And yes - I vehemently oppose gay couples children adoptions. kurtwaters, This I believe, Jee-Host[gm], is what Joe intends when he talks of a Russian history book idea. That is what I thought my response to him indicated. Because discussion or not, there has to be an audience willing to learn. And anyway - isn't discussion is what we're constantly having? I totally expect this to turn in to a variety of threads where we share facts and forge certain consensus, which brings us closer to the truth, even if only by a little bit. Slow and steady wins the race, right? Just have to move in the right direction. Last edited on Wed Apr 10th, 2013 02:48 am by |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 09:31 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Mike is on target (as far as I can see) here:It would seem to me, therefore, that one way to avert any future impending mishaps, is continually engaging in discussions that attempt to honestly convey one anothers experiences in the hope of eliciting a common value judgement that permits all people to live in peace --- a rather lofty goal, I admit. But then I see places where Mike and I can find where our viewpoints part company: Yet, I agree with Solzhenitsyn's final words. I think sometimes, Joe, you put far to much emphasis on an abject belief in falsehood, as you call it, due to scientifically perfected mass hypnosis when, in truth, it is simply humans being humans. A good study on that, in my opinion, is the work of Edward Bernays. I've done some study work. Another suggested source is the work of Eric Fromm. One more source, is a small book I found in Mom's Antique Store titled Prescription for Revolution by Lindner. Here: Prescription To say that we are "simply being human" targets is an olive branch intending to bridge the gap in perspectives? To all, bear, Mike, and Sergey, on my viewpoint I offer occasional updates on what I call The Liberty Day Challenge. I put copies of those updates on this forum. Today Please feel free to create any new Topics, in any order, since my ability to order things into order is disorderly.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 11:54 am |
|
19th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Jee-Host,That is one perception-heavy paragraph. I wish to again stress out that I think it is very important to choose the right goal from the get-go. And that would be self-development and search for truth. So any information received is viewed in the context of 'how to transform this information into actual knowledge, to understand' rather than to just asses and ponder. Those words inspire me to ask, does not pondering and assesssing lead to understanding? And if the goal is to provide truth for transformation of or at the least sharing of perception, then, the author would provide information that is worth pondering and assessing in order for the reader to gain understanding. JOE, My friend, I am going to ask this question a 3rd time, and if you don't want to answer it you can say so. If you would like to answer it and don't have time, then you can say that too, or if you find the question trivial and not worth an answer you can say that as well. But right now I don't know if you are ignoring me, or would like me to go away, or if I missed your reply, or if you are testing to see if I will ask a 3rd time, or if you simply have not seen my question. What do the words "Common Sense in Modern Times"inspire in your thinking, since we are discussing book proposals? I personally think that Jee-Host offers a very competitive and very interesting topic of Russian History.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 12:17 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Those words inspire me to ask, does not pondering and assesssing lead to understanding? And if the goal is to provide truth for transformation of or at the least sharing of perception, then, the author would provide information that is worth pondering and assessing in order for the reader to gain understanding. I meant that the goal should be accurately articulated. Just pondering and assessing doesn't lead to anything. But if It's not JUST pondering and assessing, but also acting as a result of it - then some knowledge is probably gained. So if we allow things like "Agree to disagree" to persist then it would seem understanding hasn't been reached. Goal is of course getting closer to the truth. Maybe I misspoke and my English failed me yet again? These are the times I absolutely inexplicably despise English language. It's like rainbow with colors lacking... Sorry for that.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:58 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Book > bears Book > Open for Conversation | Top |
