"I have lived with it my whole life and now I've been enlightened" is the standard argument to pull critics over the fence. My theory is still that, by aging and nearing their inevitable death, people construct scenarios that make them "immortal" in some spiritual realm, an afterlife, a heaven, take your pick. It's just fear of the inevitable and again, the need to be recognised.
The small problem is that these methods/healings have been going on for thousands of years beyond the gaze of science .. There are many things that are unexplainable by science, right? Does that mean they don't exist?
You heard of Christianity, Bible etc. etc. You see, Hegel only speaks on the basis of ample evidence, which he carefully analyses and it is all verifiable. Whereas you do not. Sorry but... Anyone can do that! As I just proved my case, re. Croats and Serbs being the teachers of Humanity...
Of course not. It's just that you can not prove your claims. And anyone can claim anything like that... And that is a serious problem...
So you put up a quote and add words to it within the quotations "I have lived with it my whole life and now I've been enlightened" how is that respectful at any stretch of the imagination .. I was not assigning any attributes of some knowledge gained by living a long life .. You are .. Can't you see that ? I am simply stating that is my observation thus far in my life, period .. Simply accept that I have had a different life experience than yourself .. It is not difficult .. Heck, if I can do it so can you
Again read what you posted There is no proof there Then you say You seem to want to hold me to a higher standard with regards to proof then yourself .. Is that not correct ?
I put your quote and then a similar made-up quote I nowhere attributed to you. They were my words, hence why they were outside the quote box. Yours and my quote are examples of credibility by experience/age, where you try to convey your point by saying that you lived longer so your argument holds more weight.
You are right it can be a serious problem but not in the way that you think .. Example: Two nations meet face to face for the first time on the soil of the one nation .. We will call the one nation a foreign nation for clarity .. The home nation's social fabric is based on speaking the truth at all times is paramount in our survival as a people .. The foreign nation lives by anything goes .. The home nation has no concept of individual ownership of real estate because the entire land is shared by it's people under the belief that it was gifted to them by the creator .. The foreign nation asks ' how would you feel about sharing some of your land ' .. The home nation is somewhat puzzled because they have never thought of ownership in that way .. An agreement is reached (treaty) between the two nations with the home nation's stipulation that if the foreign nation is to live there that it conduct itself within the tenants of the home nations democracy .. Here is where proof and reality collide .. The foreign nation brings in it's land surveyors and the data collected is put on paper and Hocus Pocus the foreign nation now claims ownership and dominion over all of the land because it has proof of ownership The moral of the story is there are some people who lie and will seldom make choices which could be seen as 'For the good of all' .. Proof which has a shelf life is not really proof is it?
@Redroad: You've basically described what was done to the Native Americans when the Whites occupied their land. Nowadays, this could be done to anyone who owns land...It's called Eminent Domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
I think we can be glad the discussion doesn't involve words with the letters "p", "e", "n", "i" and "s" in that order. Your charming juvenile humor would have to work overtime.
So you are quoting yourself ? "I was not assigning any attributes of some knowledge gained by living a long life" This is what I said word for word read it .. "I have lived with it my whole life" .. more specifically skepticism and your conclusion in trying to define what I meant is "Yours and my quote are examples of credibility by experience/age, where you try to convey your point by saying that you lived longer so your argument holds more weight." Even after I took the time to explain "I was not assigning any attributes of some knowledge gained by living a long life" I get it your testing the boundaries of my ability to be tolerant ..
You may want to inform yourself about something like that, so you do not write stuff which leads to a seriously red face afterwards (no pun intended)... It (what I would call Mediterranean-Western European tradition, i.e. Ancient Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Christianity, Hegel etc. etc.) is a matter of public record, so to speak, as it is a matter of public discussion, based in relevant historical documents of various sorts and debate for many centuries now, as opposed to myths and alleged "tradition of XYZ, given by oral means from one generation to another"... I repeat, you have misunderstood what I wrote to begin with and you are accusing me of not being informed on matters you insist are to be included in this debate but of which we have no real, physical records and hence no real proof. The problem with that is that anyone can claim anything at all - see Erich von Daniken, for instance... Not disprovable, so nice and easy earner or grounds for mythology, cults and whatever... I am NOT talking in those terms! And you know that you have been pulled over, so to speak, more than once, on this forum, for the very same reason, so do not play coy, please - as you know what I am talking about very well....
Again .. Really again .. Here is your proof .. At least hold it the same regard as your own common knowledge This is a replica of the original which is kept elsewhere for safe keeping .. It may be something you have difficulty accepting as proof but none the less this belt is what is the foundation of our nation "The great peace".. Physical record
When I took a US History class, it was considered common knowledge that North American tribes in general had a democratic process. But rather than the current (still) Western patriarchal model, those societies were matriarchal in nature and it was often the women that were main players in the decision-making process (they were more often than not the 'representatives', if you will). I really do think the whole Western male macho/insecurity was not present in those cultures, they had much more immediate concerns and also respected elders. The man's physical prowess and natural hunt instincts were employed by the tribes to secure meat, etc., but I think the 'hearth-space' as maintained by women (the 'home space') was considered central and this is why women had such a prominent role in many North American cultures. It is where children were raised and the raw resources of Nature where converted into edible sustenance of life. Just like the hearth used to be the central space in the home (which was in the kitchen), which is why kitchens still are often the meeting place of families, even if no food is involved. It is the place were life is maintained, and the process of life (cooking, eating, talking, etc.) takes place. After all these millenia, we still like to gather around the fire, the hearth space, just like the planet revolves around the sun or giver of life and warmth. As Feynman once said in an interview, where he was talking about the nature of wood that is on fire: "so it's kind of like 'stored sun' that's coming out when you burn a log." See the clip here. EDIT: Home is where the hearth is
I find it puzzling that some people find oral tradition to have less credence then the written word .. For us there are no fictional works in oral tradition only in storytelling for me there is a distinct difference .. Bring something else to the table Gorski without attempting to discount what others have to say .. Why is your voice any more valid then my own or others? .. Is not the tone of your words although somewhat nuanced contain the same corrosive nature that you accuse others of and does nothing but undermine what could be a legitimate discussion on matters which I see as significant in our understanding of each other
Aha, so what stops anyone from claiming anything they want, on the basis of... "Well, somebody told me... errmmm... a few generations ago"... or who knows how many generations ago...??? As for reducing patriarchy (not that I would defend it!!!) to "insecurity" and forget whatever came out of it on such a basis... oh well...
"Aha, so what stops anyone from claiming anything they want, on the basis of... "Well, somebody told me... errmmm... a few generations ago"... or who know how many generations ago...???" What stops someone from writing fiction or skewing their reported data ? That is why one of the basic/obvious tenants of a healthy society would be to speak the truth and expose gossip wherever it is recognized ..
The law finds an oral agreement to be an agreement, nonetheless, and it can be upheld in court. So it is not 'fluff' even by the standards of the law. All knowledge of medicine is an oral tradition (upon which Western medicine was based). Almost all family culture is oral tradition. Vedas were orally transmitted for centuries if not millenia before written down over 2000 years ago. You'd be surprised to see what little of human culture remains if you take out the element of oral tradition. But like I said, if you won't accept the account of someone who is actually part of a tradition, then you might consider how historians regard it, and it quite matches Peoples of old were not so much into the 'how can I con people' but were rather living honestly If you think they would conjure up claims of democracy and taint their own history or tribal memory with lies, it is quite disrespectful to say that. If something doesn't meet your person standard of 'proof' (remember, history is to a great extent an contemporary interpretation of the past) that is fine, but to express it and say it can't mean more to you than any random liar, that I would consider disrespectful, yes.