Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning more evil from the religious right

basically these churches are, like the press, another propaganda wing of those whose purpose is to reinstitute slavery for all except an elite class of multinational corporate thieves.
the very existence of this type of rhetoric proves that their so called intelligent design is nothing more than a proof of god's unintelligent design. look at those who he put into the the position to supposedly have dominion over the rest are incapable of much beside demanding serfdom to some imaginary fascist pig in the sky with a long beard. this is pretty much a parapathopsychological decease it shares with all forms of monotheism.

john roberts is going to turn the supreme court into a similar institution as the high council in Iran.
nothing will be able to be done, if they don't approve. the form of gov't will be nothing less than a judicial dictatorship.
your vote, which they will change, as they already do, on a whim once the electronic machines are everywhere to suit their purposes.
if this goes through , i will join the church of satan and demand that our own views also be put along side this BS.

The proof is that satan exist and none of these others do so called gods do.
Proof of this is best illustrated by the fact that every single exorcism performed by the last pope failed.
I understand the new one is in the same boat.
Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1578678,00.html
>
>I can't believe the US mentality...we are ahead in many ways yet behind in so >many others, nowhere more behind than in this low-IQ religious garbage.
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <coul@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> if this goes through , i will join the church of satan and demand
that
> our own views also be put along side this BS.
>

I think this is probably the only really effective (???) response.
Pretentions to scientific objectivity and/or "moderate" whatever
such-like are not only mostly just another kind of delusion, they
completely fail to polarize the stupidity being decried!

I'd join right along with you Kraig, (unfortunately?) for the same
reasons I joined the ["alternative" political party]: They're the
only other game in town, basically, right now, for me.

The main problem I see with a church of Satan is that according to
one philosopher, Satan is a poor conflation of Lucifer and Ahriman,
and thus hopelessly misleading, too. (That same philosopher also
indicates that ALL the gods exist, and are different, in contrast to
the scholarly "conflations" of Frazier and Campbell!) But I'll
still join! Hee! ;-)

> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
>
>http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,15786
78,00.html
> >
> >I can't believe the US mentality...we are ahead in many ways yet
behind in so
> >many others, nowhere more behind than in this low-IQ religious
garbage.
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

In truth i see no reason to go from one parapathopsychological decease of monothesism over another.
one is the goal, but not the means!
IO PAN

ambassadorbob wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>if this goes through , i will join the church of satan and demand >> >>
>that > >
>>our own views also be put along side this BS.
>>
>> >>
>
>I think this is probably the only really effective (???) response. >Pretentions to scientific objectivity and/or "moderate" whatever >such-like are not only mostly just another kind of delusion, they >completely fail to polarize the stupidity being decried!
>
>I'd join right along with you Kraig, (unfortunately?) for the same >reasons I joined the ["alternative" political party]: They're the >only other game in town, basically, right now, for me.
>
>The main problem I see with a church of Satan is that according to >one philosopher, Satan is a poor conflation of Lucifer and Ahriman, >and thus hopelessly misleading, too. (That same philosopher also >indicates that ALL the gods exist, and are different, in contrast to >the scholarly "conflations" of Frazier and Campbell!) But I'll >still join! Hee! ;-) >
> >
>>Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,15786
>> >>
>78,00.html
> >
>>>I can't believe the US mentality...we are ahead in many ways yet >>> >>>
>behind in so > >
>>>many others, nowhere more behind than in this low-IQ religious >>> >>>
>garbage.
> >
>>>
>>>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>>>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>>>
>>>To post to the list, send to
>>>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>You don't have to be a member to post.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

some jews thinkers (the cabala) have incorporated this also as there being a aspect of god that reveals itself only when you reject him/she/they/it.

i have had too many 'experiences ' to dismiss the question all together. but that doesn't mean that i feel we have adequate 'representations".
The Shi'ites at least recognize each vision as only a "horizon" of something we can see. unfortunately they stop with mohammed.
If we had a religion that was able to constantly unveil new horizons' we might be on to something.
This is pretty much what science is although we seem to not allow any real interpretation of what it shows us.

But they way religion is practiced makes it hard to stomach, being more walls to prevent us witnessing anything than allowing us a visionary bridge into the great mysteries.
Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>On Thursday 29 September 2005 12:03 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>In truth i see no reason to go from one parapathopsychological decease
>>of monothesism over another.
>>one is the goal, but not the means!
>>IO PAN
>> >>
>
>atheism is the only answer. or at least an acknowledgement that the whole >question fo god or gods 'begs the question'.
>
>theism of any sort is a disease, IMO. not to mention an error, a byproduct of >the limits of the human mind--the need to worship something.
>
>-Aaron.
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thursday 29 September 2005 8:44 pm, ambassadorbob wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
>
> wrote:
> > atheism is the only answer.
>
> The only answer to what, pray tell? Any opposition of any sort to
> what YOU believe?

yes. I have the answers. All of them ;)

> I don't see any difference between that statement and every other
> dogma I was ever force-fed.

look a little harder. atheism claims that the belief in the existence of
god(s) is a heresy against reality as we all experience it, esp. as revealed
by science. religion is founded on lies, and the oppression and segregation
of human groups from each other. i'm sorry, but nothing good ever comes of
it. period.

yes atheism is a belief, but at least it's one belief that is reasonable, and
doesn't ask much in the way of plausibility.

i'm ok with agnosticism, but for me, it's a sign of lack of bold spiritual
courage to remain indescisive, however understandable. my stance really is
not atheism, anyway, I don't like the word: it gives theistm the precedence,
and is set up as a reaction. the closest i can say is that i'm an
anti-metaphysician, an empiricist. i think a 'yes or no' to a meaningless
question 'is there a god', is still meaningless, in a sense.

that being said, if the question *did* have some literal meaning at all, then
i'm sure i don't believe, so atheist is as close to describing me to joe q.
public that one could get, i guess. i don't think the universe was ever
'created' by anything, or that 'life after death' exists, etc. that's
bullshit.

i'm not dogmatic about it: if you don't believe what i believe, not biggie. if
you believe what the sheep believe, i lose respect for you, except where i
can forgive you (like if you are a genius the level of Messiaen, etc.)

> Thanks to Kraig making me laugh so hard, I want to become a Satanist
> just to piss off certain people. C'mon, admit it. It's funny, isn't
> it? :-)

Yes, it was....

-A.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thursday 29 September 2005 12:43 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> some jews thinkers (the cabala) have incorporated this also as there
> being a aspect of god that reveals itself only when you reject
> him/she/they/it.
>
> i have had too many 'experiences ' to dismiss the question all
> together. but that doesn't mean that i feel we have adequate
> 'representations".

I guess i do too, but i don't trust my own interpretation of them, esp. where
the explanation would be hard to swallow, or at odds with common scientific
notions of what is possible.

for example, synchronicities can always be interpreted as following the laws
of probability and coincidence, why would i attribute supernatural cause to
them when down to earth explanations suffice? i like occam's razor, thank you
very much!

> The Shi'ites at least recognize each vision as only a "horizon" of
> something we can see. unfortunately they stop with mohammed.
> If we had a religion that was able to constantly unveil new horizons'
> we might be on to something.
> This is pretty much what science is although we seem to not allow any
> real interpretation of what it shows us.
>
> But they way religion is practiced makes it hard to stomach, being more
> walls to prevent us witnessing anything than allowing us a visionary
> bridge into the great mysteries.

well put!!!

-A.

> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >On Thursday 29 September 2005 12:03 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >>In truth i see no reason to go from one parapathopsychological decease
> >>of monothesism over another.
> >>one is the goal, but not the means!
> >>IO PAN
> >
> >atheism is the only answer. or at least an acknowledgement that the whole
> >question fo god or gods 'begs the question'.
> >
> >theism of any sort is a disease, IMO. not to mention an error, a byproduct
> > of the limits of the human mind--the need to worship something.
> >
> >-Aaron.
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@a...> wrote:

<<atheism claims that the belief in the existence of
god(s) is a heresy against reality as we all experience it, esp. as
revealed
by science.>>

Hi Aaron,

A heresy? Against orthodox doctrine? I'll take it! Just
kidding,
sort of. Revealed? Who was hiding it? God? Hee!

I question all doctrine, scientific and not.

Reality as I experience it has nothing to do with "we all",
thank
you, except maybe how it hurts when I bump my head, too, and my car
doesn't always stay on the road, either.

I don't need science to prove that, do I? Are those
"reasonable"
assumptions? Can I take them on "faith"?

No belief is "reasonable" IMO, it's just a comfort zone
for this or
that person, who may or may not be hostile to me.

I don't feel the need to believe in science OR god(s)/religion,
if
you must know. I think they're both human, both fallible, and
both
potentially extremely pathological.

Look at the state of the science of mass murder in this country.
Them boys are rockin' to the tune of $500 billion a year for so-
called defense. Defense against what? Hunger? Ignorance?
Disease? Nope. Against "heresy", I think. Certainly not
against
bullshit!

<<religion is founded on lies, and the oppression and segregation
of human groups from each other.>>

I beg your pardon! Religion is founded on the same search for truth
that "we all" (I hope) undertake at some point, just like
science.
A religion is not a political philosophy any more than a science
is. Now, a "church" or a "scientific institute"
probably DOES have
a political philosophy, and the need to gain and retain some form of
power, ie domination of some group of people. It is thus set up to
be ripe for abuse. I don't think religion OR
science is exempt from blame in the kind of shitty politics you
describe. In the form of churches and institutions, for sure, no?
How long has it been since "scientists" stopped trying to prove
racial inferiorities? I don't think they have, or it's only been
about a minute.

And by the way, was it shitty science, or mad religion that led to
the destruction of New Orleans? The mad religion of materialism,
perhaps?

I have tremendous respect for the strength of your convictions, in
any case. I think agnostics are kinda lame, too.

And I think Messiaen will forgive you as well, hee!

Cheers,

Pete

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Friday 30 September 2005 2:58 am, ambassadorbob wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@a...> wrote:
>
> <<atheism claims that the belief in the existence of
> god(s) is a heresy against reality as we all experience it, esp. as
> revealed
> by science.>>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> A heresy? Against orthodox doctrine? I'll take it! Just
> kidding,
> sort of. Revealed? Who was hiding it? God? Hee!

I know you are joking but i'll answer seriously: something revealed was not
neccesarily hidden by a *personality*.

> I question all doctrine, scientific and not.

...a good thing.

> Reality as I experience it has nothing to do with "we all",
> thank
> you, except maybe how it hurts when I bump my head, too, and my car
> doesn't always stay on the road, either.
>
> I don't need science to prove that, do I? Are those
> "reasonable"
> assumptions? Can I take them on "faith"?

Probably.

> No belief is "reasonable" IMO, it's just a comfort zone
> for this or
> that person, who may or may not be hostile to me.

...so is it not reasonable to assume that if i jump off a tall building, no
angels will catch my fall if i just believed in Christ hard enough?

I 'believe' in gravity. I 'believe' in hard evidence for things. I 'believe'
that the earth goes round the sun, and that we evolved. Yes, I am more
'comfortable' with the truth of things, call me a wussy.

> I don't feel the need to believe in science OR god(s)/religion,
> if
> you must know. I think they're both human, both fallible, and
> both
> potentially extremely pathological.

Yes science *is* fallible*, but science has built in self-corrective systems
that tend to avoid pathological thinking in the long run (peer-review, the
'repeatibility standard'). Religion does not. except Buddhism, which is
hardly a religion. The Dalai Lama has said, quite admirably, that if Buddhist
scriptures disagree with the findings of modern science, the scriptures
should be changed. That's a refreshing view!

Let me also point out that the Biblical way of life would not allow us to be
having this cyber-conversation. Science and tecnology allow that. And
apparantly, god in the bible thinks pi=3.

> Look at the state of the science of mass murder in this country.
> Them boys are rockin' to the tune of $500 billion a year for so-
> called defense. Defense against what? Hunger? Ignorance?
> Disease? Nope. Against "heresy", I think. Certainly not
> against
> bullshit!
>
> <<religion is founded on lies, and the oppression and segregation
> of human groups from each other.>>
>
> I beg your pardon! Religion is founded on the same search for truth
> that "we all" (I hope) undertake at some point, just like
> science.

Oh, yeah, check out this search for truth from 'Leviticus':

1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the
fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall
burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of
"a sweet savour unto the LORD".
1:10 And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the
goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD:
and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the
altar. "Kill and sprinkle blood round about."
1:12 And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the
priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon
the altar: (1:12-13) "Cut it into pieces and burn it for a sweet savour unto
the Lord."
1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest
shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an
offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then
he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
1:15 And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and
burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of
the altar: "Wring off its head and burn it."
1:16 And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside
the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:
1:17 And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it
asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is
upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet
savour unto the LORD.

...detestble stuff, that.

> A religion is not a political philosophy any more than a science
> is. Now, a "church" or a "scientific institute"
> probably DOES have
> a political philosophy, and the need to gain and retain some form of
> power, ie domination of some group of people.

I think this al depends on the practitioners. History shows clearly that
scientists tend to be reasonable people too busy with their own reserach to
be bothered with power-play. I'm sure there are exceptions.

OTOH, no religion (with the exception of Buddhism, which, again, is hardly a
'religion') was ever born without tremendous drive to subjugate and corral
its human subjects towards brainwashing, and no-where is this more true than
in the history of the Christian denominations. And now witness the violence
with which fundamentalist Islam clings to its' 11th century vies for dear
life! What threats and punishments were/are piled on to disbelievers!!! I
judge religions in inverse proportion to their advocacy of violence: Buddhism
comes out on top (no where, and we all know who's on the bottom.

I challenge you to come up with a single case of a murder of a human being
being committed *by a scientist* in the name of scientific truth. I'm sure
somewhere it exists, but compare that tend with what we know about religious
violence.

The number of murders of of humans by humans in the name of some religious
view, however, is *so* large, stretching as it does back into the mists of
pre-history.

> It is thus set up to
> be ripe for abuse. I don't think religion OR
> science is exempt from blame in the kind of shitty politics you
> describe. In the form of churches and institutions, for sure, no?
> How long has it been since "scientists" stopped trying to prove
> racial inferiorities? I don't think they have, or it's only been
> about a minute.

Well, the truth is, all the races appear *not* to be created equally. How far
you take that is a political question, not a scientific one.

For example, certain black africans have been shown to be better built for
long-distance sprinting. The jury may still be out on intellectual prowess,
etc. but I'm doubtful personally that the differences are truly significant,
and can mostly be attributed to cultural/economic factors.

> And by the way, was it shitty science, or mad religion that led to
> the destruction of New Orleans? The mad religion of materialism,
> perhaps?

It was shitty everything, led by the blind eye of the incompetent Republican
party under George W. Bush.

> I have tremendous respect for the strength of your convictions, in
> any case. I think agnostics are kinda lame, too.

Well, I was only joking....I try not to think anyone is 'lame', even if they
are.

In truth, I think, like Chris pointed out, agnosticism is the only really
truly consistent view: we know so little about the universe.

To that, I would add: we also know enough to know when something goes against
what we know in a ridiculous way (the Bible), and that meaningless questions
(does God exist?) don't really have meaningful answers.

Take it as you will, but statistics aso show that the higher your IQ, the less
likely you are to believe in god(s), or be agnostic or disinterested on the
matter. this will doubtless make some people angry to hear, but statistics is
studying the universe *as it is*, not as we wish it to be: that's the realm
of morality.

> And I think Messiaen will forgive you as well, hee!

I think he doesn't really exist anymore to care!

> Cheers,
>
> Pete

Cheers,
Aaron.

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the treatment of mental illness is a great example of the inadequacy of science.
the use of chemicals to do what lobotomies use to do is a result of their 'statistics and observations'. speaking of the gulag, these same chemicals were used for torture
One can only be amazed by a book like madness and civilization, which shows how this treatment has gotten worse and not better throughout history
In fact science refuses to accept any morality for any of it actions,
if they can make a decease or a bomb that kills millions because it can be done'objectively is inhuman.
guess what , i say fuck Feymann . a little arrogant punk, drunk and partying the day they dropped the bomb.
does an observation that a particle can go backward in time for a billionth of a second worth the cost of the people killed by his hard work.
his saving grace is that he admitted his mistake. but how did he get there in the first place if it wasn't that science is above right or wrong.

ambassadorbob wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson ><aaron@a...> wrote:
> >
>>On Friday 30 September 2005 2:58 am, ambassadorbob wrote:
>> >>
>>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
>>><aaron@a...> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>I have tremendous respect for the strength of your convictions, >>> >>>
>in
> >
>>>any case. I think agnostics are kinda lame, too.
>>> >>>
>>Well, I was only joking....I try not to think anyone is 'lame', >> >>
>even if they > >
>>are.
>> >>
>
>Yeah, sorry! I didn't mean that to be as insulting as it came out, >either.
>
> >
>>In truth, I think, like Chris pointed out, agnosticism is the only >> >>
>really > >
>>truly consistent view: we know so little about the universe.
>>
>> >>
> >Maybe. But it shouldn't be a mystification, or a dodge. My >observation has been that scientists are the worst when it comes to >admitting we don't know. Look at textbooks on mental illness. They >go on and on and on and then finally in the tables of results you >see: um, but we're not sure. Ridiculous.
>
>Just a jot for now,
>
>P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Kraig (and the others in this thread),

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> some jews thinkers (the cabala) have incorporated this also as there
> being a aspect of god that reveals itself only when you reject
> him/she/they/it.
>
> i have had too many 'experiences ' to dismiss the question
> all together.

I sympathize with that!

> but that doesn't mean that i feel we have adequate
> representations".
> The Shi'ites at least recognize each vision as only a
> "horizon" of something we can see. unfortunately they
> stop with mohammed.

This calls to mind Goethe's vision in _Faust_ (the closing
lines of which say "everything transitory is merely an
illusion"), which leads right into my next comment ...

> If we had a religion that was able to constantly unveil
> new horizons' we might be on to something.
> This is pretty much what science is although we seem to
> not allow any real interpretation of what it shows us.
>
> But they way religion is practiced makes it hard to stomach,
> being more walls to prevent us witnessing anything than
> allowing us a visionary bridge into the great mysteries.

Here in SoCal, the land of cult religions, i've been toying
for quite some time now with the idea of setting up a
"Church of Mahler".

IMO, if anything can be seen as a "a religion that was able
to constantly unveil new horizons", that would be it!

I admit that i'm totally a Mahler fanatic, and i understand
what others here are saying about the human need to worship
something, and how detrimental that is to our progress as
a species in general ... but this man was definitely tuned
in to something cosmic, something which he himself knew was
inexpressible in words, or for that matter, in any format
dealing with concrete aspects of human life. As he said
himself, that's precisely why he chose to express himself
in the abstractions of music.

Anyway, the tie-in with Goethe's _Faust_ is that Mahler
used it as the text for Part 2 of his 8th Symphony, and
he wrote about it at length to his wife, on exactly the
kind of "lack of representation" you're talking about here.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

monz wrote:

>
>
>
>Here in SoCal, the land of cult religions, i've been toying
>for quite some time now with the idea of setting up a
>"Church of Mahler".
>
>IMO, if anything can be seen as a "a religion that was able
>to constantly unveil new horizons", that would be it!
>
>I admit that i'm totally a Mahler fanatic, and i understand
>what others here are saying about the human need to worship
>something, and how detrimental that is to our progress as
>a species in general ... but this man was definitely tuned
>in to something cosmic, something which he himself knew was
>inexpressible in words, or for that matter, in any format
>dealing with concrete aspects of human life. As he said
>himself, that's precisely why he chose to express himself
>in the abstractions of music.
> >
i have a friend Ken up here who runs or did run the mahler society which each year put on a get together of listening to all his sym- minus one which they would play song of the earth. no one is allowed to talk , just listen , but people do bring food.
if it happens again , i will let you know. it happens a mere 1/4 from my house.
it has gone on now for 20 years.

Mahler brought a certain time scale and breath that probably is the fore runner of minimalism in general. he has way more humor and possibly just less desire not to be beyond human than the latter.

>Anyway, the tie-in with Goethe's _Faust_ is that Mahler
>used it as the text for Part 2 of his 8th Symphony, and
>he wrote about it at length to his wife, on exactly the
>kind of "lack of representation" you're talking about here.
> >

I have been meaning to add to all of this that i believe in music and art as agent of change and the most appropiate medium in which the visionary spirit can desend into our rhelm. i have more faith in music and in art than in any religion. the latter has to resort to the former more than the other way around. i am quite aware of how many others are in the same boat.
the amount of lives that have been ruin in this church, foresaking all forms of family and security and what have you is staggering.

>
>
>-monz
>http://tonalsoft.com
>Tonescape microtonal music software
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <peteysan@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@a...> wrote:
>
> <<atheism claims that the belief in the existence of
> god(s) is a heresy against reality as we all experience it, esp. as
> revealed
> by science.>>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> A heresy? Against orthodox doctrine? I'll take it! Just
> kidding,
> sort of. Revealed? Who was hiding it? God? Hee!
>
> I question all doctrine, scientific and not.
>
> Reality as I experience it has nothing to do with "we all",
> thank
> you, except maybe how it hurts when I bump my head, too, and my car
> doesn't always stay on the road, either.
>
> I don't need science to prove that, do I? Are those
> "reasonable"
> assumptions? Can I take them on "faith"?
>
> No belief is "reasonable" IMO, it's just a comfort zone
> for this or
> that person, who may or may not be hostile to me.
>
> I don't feel the need to believe in science OR god(s)/religion,
> if
> you must know. I think they're both human, both fallible, and
> both
> potentially extremely pathological.
>
> Look at the state of the science of mass murder in this country.
> Them boys are rockin' to the tune of $500 billion a year for so-
> called defense. Defense against what? Hunger? Ignorance?
> Disease? Nope. Against "heresy", I think. Certainly not
> against
> bullshit!

No offense, but there seems to be little understading of what science
is demonstrated here. Especially in thie last paragraph. I'll
probably have more to say about this in a subsequent post. Science?
No president of the U.S. has ever been as universally reviled by
scientists as the current one. Bush is the anti-science president,
and this is the consensus of scientists:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=121

> How long has it been since "scientists" stopped trying to prove
> racial inferiorities? I don't think they have, or it's only been
> about a minute.

Where do you get your information, pray tell? Your statement may be
true of some isolated, fringe "scientists" but is certainly not true
of scientists in general.

To address your other point, neither religion nor science need greedy
institutions in order to exist. The difference is repeatability.
Anyone can repeat Galileo's or Newton's experiments themselves and
they will obtain the same result, without the need for any
institution or previous knowledge of that result. A false scientific
theory will eventually run up against the evidence, and will
therefore have to be abandoned (as science, at least). Meanwhile,
different religions disagree with one another fundamentally, in ways
that mere observation cannot reconcile. You can't run an experiment
to resolve the disagreement. But you can't let your children be
taught beliefs contrary to your own! This makes the history of
religion "interesting", to use a euphemism for massive wars and
genocides.

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

I've already discussed mental illness. Say what you will, the act of
killing millions with a disease (is that what you meant?) or a bomb
is not "science" by any stretch of the imagination. Scientists who
commit atrocious actions are morally responsible for them; neither
they nor you can blame "science" as if that was some sort of sentient
entity governing their actions or some sort of dogma endorsing
murder. Those who worked on *engineering* and *building* the bomb
(note: not science) had their motivations to do so, whether
nationalistic brainwashing, a desire to defeat forces that had
suppressed them in the past, or perhaps something more insiduous.
Plenty of people in the world are working on the bomb today but you
can't say that that they're doing so because they're morally
disinterested and "science is above right or wrong" and dropping the
bomb would be a scientific thing to do -- come on now. Science can
and has been used toward both moral and immoral ends, of course, but
so has, say, the English language -- should we therefore attack
English as not accepting responsibility for its moral consequences?

"Because it can be done objectively"? What sense does that make --
what is it supposed to mean?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> the treatment of mental illness is a great example of the
inadequacy of
> science.
> the use of chemicals to do what lobotomies use to do is a result of
> their 'statistics and observations'. speaking of the gulag, these
same
> chemicals were used for torture
> One can only be amazed by a book like madness and civilization,
which
> shows how this treatment has gotten worse and not better throughout
history
> In fact science refuses to accept any morality for any of it
actions,
> if they can make a decease or a bomb that kills millions because
it can
> be done'objectively is inhuman.
> guess what , i say fuck Feymann . a little arrogant punk, drunk
and
> partying the day they dropped the bomb.
> does an observation that a particle can go backward in time for a
> billionth of a second worth the cost of the people killed by his
hard work.
> his saving grace is that he admitted his mistake. but how did he
get
> there in the first place if it wasn't that science is above right
or wrong.
>
> ambassadorbob wrote:
>
> >--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
> ><aaron@a...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Friday 30 September 2005 2:58 am, ambassadorbob wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
> >>><aaron@a...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have tremendous respect for the strength of your convictions,
> >>>
> >>>
> >in
> >
> >
> >>>any case. I think agnostics are kinda lame, too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Well, I was only joking....I try not to think anyone is 'lame',
> >>
> >>
> >even if they
> >
> >
> >>are.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, sorry! I didn't mean that to be as insulting as it came
out,
> >either.
> >
> >
> >
> >>In truth, I think, like Chris pointed out, agnosticism is the
only
> >>
> >>
> >really
> >
> >
> >>truly consistent view: we know so little about the universe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe. But it shouldn't be a mystification, or a dodge. My
> >observation has been that scientists are the worst when it comes
to
> >admitting we don't know. Look at textbooks on mental illness.
They
> >go on and on and on and then finally in the tables of results you
> >see: um, but we're not sure. Ridiculous.
> >
> >Just a jot for now,
> >
> >P
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the funny thing is that certain language is no longer tolerated, so there is a moral restraint on language.
the restraints on science are usually done from the outside. often times in ways agreed are not appropriate either.

the real problem i guess is neither science or religion, but people under the spell of
" causes"

objectivity is a myth, that one can observe without being apart of what is being observed.
All so called 'evidence' is tainted in this manner.

sure you can get rid of it one place, but it is going to reappear somewhere else.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Science can >and has been used toward both moral and immoral ends, of course, but >so has, say, the English language -- should we therefore attack >English as not accepting responsibility for its moral consequences?
>
>"Because it can be done objectively"? What sense does that make -- >what is it supposed to mean?
>
>
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>the treatment of mental illness is a great example of the >> >>
>inadequacy of > >
>>science.
>>the use of chemicals to do what lobotomies use to do is a result of >>their 'statistics and observations'. speaking of the gulag, these >> >>
>same > >
>>chemicals were used for torture
>> One can only be amazed by a book like madness and civilization, >> >>
>which > >
>>shows how this treatment has gotten worse and not better throughout >> >>
>history
> >
>>In fact science refuses to accept any morality for any of it >> >>
>actions,
> >
>> if they can make a decease or a bomb that kills millions because >> >>
>it can > >
>>be done'objectively is inhuman.
>> guess what , i say fuck Feymann . a little arrogant punk, drunk >> >>
>and > >
>>partying the day they dropped the bomb.
>> does an observation that a particle can go backward in time for a >>billionth of a second worth the cost of the people killed by his >> >>
>hard work.
> >
>>his saving grace is that he admitted his mistake. but how did he >> >>
>get > >
>>there in the first place if it wasn't that science is above right >> >>
>or wrong.
> >
>>ambassadorbob wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson >>><aaron@a...> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>On Friday 30 September 2005 2:58 am, ambassadorbob wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>>><aaron@a...> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>I have tremendous respect for the strength of your convictions, >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>in
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>>any case. I think agnostics are kinda lame, too.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>Well, I was only joking....I try not to think anyone is 'lame', >>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>even if they >>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>are.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>Yeah, sorry! I didn't mean that to be as insulting as it came >>> >>>
>out, > >
>>>either.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>In truth, I think, like Chris pointed out, agnosticism is the >>>> >>>>
>only > >
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>really >>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>truly consistent view: we know so little about the universe.
>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>Maybe. But it shouldn't be a mystification, or a dodge. My >>>observation has been that scientists are the worst when it comes >>> >>>
>to > >
>>>admitting we don't know. Look at textbooks on mental illness. >>> >>>
>They > >
>>>go on and on and on and then finally in the tables of results you >>>see: um, but we're not sure. Ridiculous.
>>>
>>>Just a jot for now,
>>>
>>>P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>>>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>>>
>>>To post to the list, send to
>>>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>You don't have to be a member to post.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles