NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
What exactly are you saying Bob, I have a hunch, but I am sure like usual it’s probably wrong. The only picture I see is this, the entire establishment and all the sub units all operate like a religion. They all have a god, a hierarchy, a holy bible, priests and a loyal congregation. The entire world runs on worshiping something and will fight like hell to protect this something. Establishments survive by refusing to admit failure, they twist reality or slowly conform to a new twist of fate. My guess is, evolution of truth and knowledge is retarded by the bias and fear establishments have for anything that may dethrone their gods, what else would they do.
Comment by Alan
ME:
You have made an excellent statement here, to the point and covering a huge amount of territory. It deserves that people do what I am doing, chew it over.
Good stuff. I await a book from this outline.
AND you made me think of restating what I have said before. You are NOT supposed to put in, a la Shari, those apologetic first sentences that say you are merely repeating the Master’s words. You are picking up the ball and going with it.
It is not really flattering to a person who has made his living for decades as a professional writer, “What exactly are you saying?” But I understand what you are getting at. But remember you aren’t asking me what BOB is getting at. You are asking me how YOU should understand what I say.
Like all of us, I have spent a major of my life teaching myself things. To do that, I have to take a text and state the proposition in a way that makes sense to me. The original writer of the average calculus textbook would be baffled by the way I stated his proposition to myself to make sense of it. He is used to statements like “Let us make six assumption, now let y approach v as t is held constant where 1),2),3)…”, and so forth.
This is not MY language, so I translate it into MY terms. Is he trying to say, as I do, “I am trying to estimate the rate of change of brick relative to clay. I need a way to do it. I know that while the calculations trail away, they are constant, so I can get on the other end and see how it comes out. Now how will I do that?”
This is NOT what the mathematics textbook is “trying to say.” It IS what BOB needs from it.
So you see Pain busily building around my structure. If he says anything I think is wrong I will point it out in my usual diplomatic fashion: “Pain, you silly ass …” and so forth. But Pain is NOT saying what I am TRYING to say. He is going ahead of me. If not AHEAD, at least applying what I made him think of in new areas.
That is the fundamental difference between this seminar and the college professors you have been enslaved by for so long. There is no Whitakerism here. You are not graded on meticulously repeating what I am trying to say. I am talking and following a line of thought.
The dead ends are when someone says, “So what you are trying to say is that IQ is the measure of EVERYTHING.” Or, “You are in the area of Gobdooble’s 1905 book when you say…”
#1 by Dave on 01/15/2007 - 1:31 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
All human societies explain themselves and perceive reality by various brands of sincerity. Those that are considered “conservative” (i.e, fundamentalist Islamic, ect.) pride themselves for having “enduring sincerity”, which they style as making them superior.
In contrast, the first world societies (white societies) have done considerable tumbling from one brand of sincerity to another.
National official sincerity in America has become this peculiar thing that just comes up with anything plausible to paper over the fact that the separation of powers model of government, held in such high esteem by the idolaters of our “Founders”, has completely morphed into a colossal failure, hence the endless squawking about “America and Freedom”.
But the very nature of the scientific attitude is to be very skeptical and aware of “sincerity” in all it forms. That is why I am such a fan of Johann Goethe: “In life nothing less than everything will do.”
Try getting that statement out of an Islamic fanatic.
#2 by Alan on 01/15/2007 - 1:46 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Bob, that was an excellent discription of what I was trying to say in the first place, thats where I fail here, your mind is focused and honed beyond my wildest dream. I am stuck with this in mind, Is truth less inportant than ideology to the enemies of our race? I shutter when I think a leader of any faith could sell out so many of the faithfull on a lie, they must be psycopaths. Do honest men really believe in such non sense? As I write these questions, one of you earlier coaching sessions will come to mind and I begin to answer my own questions, so why the hell can’t I tie it together? What am I affraid of?
#3 by Pain on 01/15/2007 - 4:25 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Asians do well on tests of ROTE SKILLS, which are not signs of INTELLIGENCE. Calling ROTE SKILLS “intelligence” is absurd. Those with high INTELLIGENCE do not think by way of ROTE SKILLS.
Since most current “IQ tests” measure ROTE SKILLS, they are not consistent measures of INTELLIGENCE. Thinking by way of ROTE SKILLS impairs INTELLIGENCE.
Asians always STAGNATE because ROTE SKILLS enable one only to COPY.
This is exasperating. BOB PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS.