Soccer playing soccer to avoid injuries, maybe fewer.. parents can afford the safety equipment.. and shows far better sportsmanship and team work a far greater level of physical conditioning.. To put children in to they can be physically hurt with injuries that of their at will last them the rest of their lives,
Allan
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@gmail.com> wrote:
I do think football has become the "national pastime" for many but
don't count out baseball or ice hockey. Many parents are turning to
soccer to avoid injuries so that will blossom. It's all good.
On Jul 30, 1:29 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I grew up with American football,
>
> Allan
>
> On 29 jul. 2011, at 15:24, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most of the boys who played football are pretty beat up as they aged-
> > they need new knees, shoulders, etc. Well, anything to smother male
> > aggression is a plus- versus the injuries/deaths of wars.
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:55 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I played both Para. Still have the odd 20 over swipe at cricket. I
> >> played rugby before it got to be so much of a war of attrition. The
> >> toughest physical aspect was often resisting cold rain and wind.
> >> My guess on science for many years has been that people doing it have
> >> abilities in observation, patience, language and maths others lack.
> >> Words and concepts don't work well with most, just habit. Something
> >> else is at work but we don't seem to have contact with it. Beyond
> >> that I don't know but suspect 'knowing stuff certainly" is a major way
> >> through which many are convinced by people hooked on being credible
> >> and convincing.
>
> >> On Jul 27, 4:42 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less
> >>> "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for sure.
>
> >>> So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that
> >>> physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking
> >>> point :)
>
> >>> Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :)
>
> >>> On Jul 26, 5:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting
> >>>> Relativity as 'new physics' always was. I did my dancing on the rugby
> >>>> field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy! Chemistry is more my
> >>>> line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is
> >>>> wonky. I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to
> >>>> enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much. Thus they
> >>>> remain prey to the Old One. Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old
> >>>> One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb. I
> >>>> believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy.
> >>>> There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from
> >>>> the old Idols.
>
> >>>> On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in
> >>>>> content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the winners/
> >>>>> colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their stories/
> >>>>> recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee".
> >>>>> There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine,
> >>>>> Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps readied
> >>>>> them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is not
> >>>>> always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which also
> >>>>> inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit as
> >>>>> a path to power.
>
> >>>>> On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> LOL. Yeah I am still here,
> >>>>>> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others.
> >>>>>> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on their own ..
> >>>>>> Allan
>
> >>>>>> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your
> >>>>>>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :)
>
> >>>>>>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :)
>
> >>>>>>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one
> >>>>>>> "heretic" here already...alan? :)
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the insights.
>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per
> >>>>>>>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially
> >>>>>>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect
> >>>>>>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're
> >>>>>>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing
> >>>>>>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to
> >>>>>>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better
> >>>>>>>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as
> >>>>>>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing
> >>>>>>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and
> >>>>>>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed
> >>>>>>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture
> >>>>>>>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like
> >>>>>>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others
> >>>>>>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative
> >>>>>>>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at
> >>>>>>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton
> >>>>>>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard
> >>>>>>>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more
> >>>>>>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with
> >>>>>>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are.
>
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to
> >>>>>>>>> get out more :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i
> >>>>>>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a
> >>>>>>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality;
> >>>>>>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and
> >>>>>>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the
> >>>>>>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite
> >>>>>>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not
> >>>>>>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be
> >>>>>>>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts
> >>>>>>>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which
> >>>>>>>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very
> >>>>>>>>> optimistic, archytas :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it
> >>>>>>>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by
> >>>>>>>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with
> >>>>>>>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make
> >>>>>>>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as
> >>>>>>>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as
> >>>>>>>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of
> >>>>>>>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much
> >>>>>>>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in
> >>>>>>>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old
> >>>>>>>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have
> >>>>>>>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes
> >>>>>>>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side
> >>>>>>>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal
> >>>>>>>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that
> >>>>>>>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved
> >>>>>>>>>> that does.
> >>>>>>>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we
> >>>>>>>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we
> >>>>>>>>>> come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology
> >>>>>>>>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve
> >>>>>>>>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know
> >>>>>>>>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured
> >>>>>>>>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell
> >>>>>>>>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is
> >>>>>>>>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history
> >>>>>>>>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but
> >>>>>>>>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither
> >>>>>>>>>> matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the
> >>>>>>>>>> obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into
> >>>>>>>>>> the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case
> >>>>>>>>>> because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a
> >>>>>>>>>> rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds
> >>>>>>>>>> and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not
> >>>>>>>>>> under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each
> >>>>>>>>>> other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through
> >>>>>>>>>> asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the
> >>>>>>>>>> holographic
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
(
)
I_D Allan
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
0 comments:
Post a Comment