Re: Asifism

From: Quentin Anciaux <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:39:02 +0200

On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote:
> History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to
> ensure that it doesn't.

Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't
assert "Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are
prerequisites for the survival of civilisation."... if you really believe
that History has not finished yet.

> If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a
> moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis
> of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am
> wrong.

I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't truly
say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't
be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better
system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.

> Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which
> of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an
> opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out.
> "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied
> by respect.

You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics
too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of
your assertion... but what you're saying are not "all time certainty".


> The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method.
> Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras,
> Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method,
> certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what
> were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of
> sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and
> unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for
> most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as
> things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear,
> superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the
> champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have
> time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.
> The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is
> not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true
> human strength;
> ethics is the foundation of civilisation;
> Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success
> of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government
> and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they
> are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't
> really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its
> necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia;
> the application of scientific method is transforming the human
> species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile
> grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours,
> following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the
> further application of the method, and so it will ever be.
> Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not
> trivial, and it is not going to go away.
> Regards
> Mark Peaty CDES
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this.
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> > 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <>:
> >> CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method
> >>
> >> These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Mark Peaty CDES
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David Nyman wrote:
> >>> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <> wrote:
> >>>> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> >>>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> >>>> relationships entail existence and difference.
> >>>
> >>> I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
> >>> whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
> >>> a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
> >>> suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
> >>> usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
> >>>
> >>>> Particles of matter are knots,
> >>>> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
> >>>> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
> >>>> whatever other structural/topological features occur.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
> >>> has had something to say about this in the past.
> >>>
> >>>> If an
> >>>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
> >>>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> >>> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> >>> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> >>> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> >>> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
> >>>
> >>> PS - Mark, what is CDES?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 15:39:27 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST