Your first two paragraphs are spot-on.
Concerning your latter observations...
At regular intervals I must remind myself that life is intrinsically problematic. (We gringos are both Pollyanish and whiney-bitchy. My Mexican friend Lino once said, out of the blue, "The trouble with you gringos is that you don't know how to suffer. NSS!)
As you probably know, the first of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths is that "Life is suffering." ("Suffering" is the common translation of the Pali word "Dukkha" - http://buddhism.about.com/od/thefournobletruths/a/dukkhaexplain.htm /// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha)
Inevitably, we substitute one set of problems for another. Thank God. No problems. No drama. No drama.... well.... no drama.)
That said, it is also true that "magnitude" comes into play. And any discussion of magnitude requires discussion of "thresholds."
Here are two "thresholds" I am unwilling to revisit:
Until 1750, half of humankind died by age 8.
Until 1850, human beings lived half their lives with tooth ache. (Ask George Washington.)
Plus, The Revelation has begun. (Apocalypse from the Greek, "removing the veil.")
I am also a fellow whose Dad was born in a house without electricity or running water and whose farm family was lucky to have a horse and buggy!
What lies ahead is simply imponderable.
We can, however, count on the tertium quid.
Pax
Alan
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:
it would be good if real scientists distanced themselves from social scientists who spend valuable academic and govt funds in order to prove the obvious. They have encroached upon the central sphere of common sense.Old science didn't lead us a stray. The church was on guard against kooks and charlatans and protecting true research at the time that they, mistakenly, condemned Galileo. But most often their judgment was accurate and the quacks were held at bay.Social science needs to be expunged, because it causes mighty confusion among the young, and enrages fundies to blind reaction.And true science needs a good reining in. It is the fruits of true science that developed the technology that produced the industrial age and the global warming climate.If science brought us global warming -- why should we trust it to solve the problem?On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:![]()
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-on-theosis.htmlhttp://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-on-theosis.html***On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:I generally have at least 2 or 3 insights before breakfast, and another dozen during the afternoon.
Today, I'm realizing that the Baptist/fundie/literaist contempt for science might actually be a necessary rebuke of the social sciences which are faux from top to bottom. The puke of modern psychology and sociology, the utter masquerade of certainty and spurious statistics causes a worldwide stench and our Baptist/fundi/literalists cousins cry in horror -- unfortunately they are a bit misdirected when they crash into real science
But think on how much you and I and and they might agree on a critique of social science.
--
Fred Owens
cell: 360-739-0214
My blog is Fred Owens
send mail to:
Fred Owens
35 West Main St Suite B #391
Ventura CA 93001
