Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Things I used to think were true
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:Muriel wrote:Mv ufanisi, I am assuming you opine you are 'enlightened'. I am, however, of an otherwise opinion. You are still in 'darkness'. For example: 1. did you know that the richest and most affluent countries in Europe had very strong religious roots and heritage? 2. You opine USA is great because it's God fearing. Just because it's founders were deeply religious does not follow that now all Americans are also deeply religious consequently resulting to it's greatness. 3. Education leads to personal development. You get education so you can optimise your latent potential. That your country benefits from your eduction is a bonus. Capitalism. Reason for availability of educated poor people and lots of uneducated wealthy people is capitalism. 4. Your rank in school has a role to play in how you start your independence from your benefactors. When you got your bachelors you were given 'power to read and do all that appertains' to your line. It's the start not the end. 5. Before you do, you must know. or have you forgotten the relationship between cause and effect? See point #7. 6. You analyse Mississippi hoping we will take what you say at face value. Income Distribution Within U.S. Religious Groups Please do not fuddle statistics. More than a quarter of the population in Mississippi is African American.  Shida ya nyeuthi hata huko Amerikani usibandike kwa wengine. 7. If you insist for government to define education for you and accept and abide by that definition what does that make you in the system? See point #4. Just because one has strong religious roots or even wears red shirts every day doesn't mean that is the cause of their wealth level. For example, students at Alliance High School wear green sweaters, does that mean that we should tell students in all other high schools to wear the same clothes and hope for better exam results? You have to establish causality. Correlation =/ (not equal) Causality. I'm yet to see the causality between wealth and religion. From you data Hindus have the highest proportion of people earning more than 100k USD. Should we use that data to then think that it's Hinduism that's causing this? You are yet to see causality between wealth and religion? I must be mistaken somewhere. Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not you I was discussing with earlier the relationship between cause and effect? About reaping and sowing? Is it logical to include perhaps working to eat and things like that? We must be careful not to lapse into fallacies e.g. of green and sweaters in our arguments.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 10/27/2010 Posts: 266 Location: Nairobi
|
Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/2/2012 Posts: 1,134 Location: Nairobi
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:Things which hoodwinked me in the past
In no short order;
1. Poverty causes insecurity and thuggery - until you visit poor countries where no one will steal from you
2. Education leads to national wealth - until you realize that there are lots of educated poor people and lots of uneducated wealthy people.The are more poor uneducated people than poor educated ones. If education wasn't necessary for wealth, the wealthy wouldn't take their kids to school! This raises the question, should we be always talking about educating people as the solution to poverty alleviation in our countries?
3. The United States is great because it's a God fearing nation - the poorest states in the US such as Mississippi are also the most religious and racist. Also most people in the United States are not religious. Not true; you mean "many" not "most
4. Your rank in high school will predict how you will do in life - the problem with linear thinking in a multi-variable universe
5. It's important to have an all-rounded education - we're in the age of the specialist not the generalist.
6. Diversify your investments - not if you are trying to grow wealth! Business people specialise; investors diversify
7. Knowledge is more important than practice. Doesn't practice create knowledge?
...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. Is the subjection the cause or the effect?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. Is the subjection the cause or the effect? Either cause or effect, both cause and effect, neither cause nor effect, and probably all of these or none of them.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. Is the subjection the cause or the effect? Either cause or effect, both cause and effect, neither cause nor effect, and probably all of these or none of them. I am interested in the either or. It will be good to also know the other conditions while at it. Which one is it?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. Is the subjection the cause or the effect? Either cause or effect, both cause and effect, neither cause nor effect, and probably all of these or none of them. I am interested in the either or. It will be good to also know the other conditions while at it. Which one is it? Choosing one is a matter of social interest and the reality one wishes to create.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? What's the universe?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
mv_ufanisi wrote:digitek1 wrote:Jews are disproportionately richer than any other religion and they are very religious as a simple Google search of wealth vs religion shows
capitalism also owes it's spread to the Protestant work ethic
What's the GDP per capita of Israel an almost entirely Jewish country? Not among the top 10 highest in the world. Christians like to tout Jewish exceptionalism as some kind of "god-given" trait while Muslims probably see the oil wealth of the middle east as some evidence of "super-natural" providence. Fuzzy statistics to confuse those who don't cross check stats. a resident of Israel is an Israeli. ..A follower of the Jewish faith is a jew... I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 2/3/2010 Posts: 1,797 Location: Kenya
|
masukuma wrote:Culture plays a huge role in making an ethnic group standout from others. Most rich Jews are irreligious they are quite atheistic in nature. Being Jewish is like being a luo or a kyuk.last time I checked...most of all those listed as Jews above are non practising and Israel is 42% irreligious ooh so rothschild is now a like a kiuk? pleez irreligious isn't the same as atheism I may be wrong..but then I could be right
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. Is the subjection the cause or the effect? Either cause or effect, both cause and effect, neither cause nor effect, and probably all of these or none of them. I am interested in the either or. It will be good to also know the other conditions while at it. Which one is it? Choosing one is a matter of social interest and the reality one wishes to create. Let's create one.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? What's the universe? Yes. Wakanyugi?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? I think it is. One of the accepted definitions of the Universe says that it contains everything that could possibly exist (Quantum physics, not Metaphysics). This includes all permutations of all things in all forms. In such a scenario, nothing came before anything else. Everything simply IS. The need to order things in linear form is a convention forced on humans by the need to overcome the limitations of 'living' in a 3 dimensional reality. It is no more real than space or gravity, for instance. No time. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
Caramba wrote:Back to the title of this thread, used to think that crime does not pay.
Some dude is just about to collect 11billion from some hospital deal.
Crime does seem to pay. Just like, rarely does any good deed go unpunished. But then again, no man escapes himself. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Muriel wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:If you know something to be true or not true then the knowledge is most likely obsolete. How does this fit in the cause-and-effect scheme of things? Assuming that the cause and effect model is valid - there are grounds for skepticism - the instance of knowledge is subjected to a process driven by the sociology of knowledge and forces of paridigm shifts as illustrated by Kuhn. Then again cause and effect is always conditional, and conditions will always vary. In a timeless Universe there can be no cause and effect. Everything that can ever BE, already IS. What we have is simply REVELATION, namely a process by which we apprehend and internalize different things and events that already exist (in other words 'create' them anew in our experience). This revelation process is conditioned on: a) a three dimensional reality, in which we have inserted the illusion of time (thus the erroneous perception of cause and effect etc) b) the limitations of the human Earth instrument (the body) with its sensory tools etc that simply limit how much experience we can process and c) the terms of our Earth walk, which require, for instance, that we handicap ourselves, say, by deliberately suppressing much of what we already know so as not to interfere with our 'learning' experience on Earth Is the universe currently timeless? I think it is. One of the accepted definitions of the Universe says that it contains everything that could possibly exist (Quantum physics, not Metaphysics). This includes all permutations of all things in all forms. In such a scenario, nothing came before anything else. Everything simply IS. The need to order things in linear form is a convention forced on humans by the need to overcome the limitations of 'living' in a 3 dimensional reality. It is no more real than space or gravity, for instance. No time. I doubt if the universe exists. It's only possible to generalize a worldview; a contingent and a social creation.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Things I used to think were true
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|