On 2001-11-12 18:06, sv81 wrote:

On 2001-11-12 07:19, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
The role of genes in determining behavior is debatable, but in my opinion very real. It came first.

What an intellectually significant statement.

Without openly agreeing or disagreeing,(or stating any opinion); such a position has some far reaching social consequences.

I could ask:

(1) do all humans have essentially the same set of genes?

(2) if there are differences amongst people, either in intensity or variety of genes, does that make a difference in how the lives of those individuals plays out?

(3) aside from the difficulties in defining words and behaviors, is there some merit to the idea that when it comes to a unifying set of rules for society, one size does not fit all?

(4) what structure would society take for it to fit all people? Is that possible? Is western civilization and specifically the United States the closest approximation to that society? What past or present saculum fits that structure the best?

(5) lastly, is it possible that western thought has a unifying set of social rules, which we refine over time, but other civilizations on this planet, due to a different gene pool, require a different society? Could their society, as a reflection of their constitutents, be incompatable with ours?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-12 18:12 ]</font>

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! SV81 has just introduced Master Race Genetic Theory into the discussion. Question - are you pro or con?

I don't stand ready to defend Al Queda, but I'd rather try to understand someone who believes in God, even an different God than mine, than try to understand an atheist.

Basically there is much less hope for the atheist. He has chose to be beyond reach of both God and the one who believes in God, and thus is impaired in a dimension of understanding that quite literally 'makes all the difference in the world.'

Edgar?

Wow! I had no idea who this Edgar A. Howard guy was, but after finding him on the forum, and reading his posts, I'd like not to be characterized in his camp. Further I don't want to be sequestered from the discussion, by either the webmaster OR the readers.

I don't believe you have been so sequestered, nor has anyone on this forum given you anything BUT a respectful hearing. To the best of my knowledge, no one has asked for you to be removed from this forum, or told anyone not to speak with you. That being said - the reception to your proposed ideas is, I believe, similar to the reception you would recieve in most places in the US where the audience was smart enough to be able to follow your arguments. You give a veneer of logic, rationality and faux-tolerance to some of the ugliest ideas in human history. You are more than welcome to hold such ideas and speak them from whatever soapbox will bear you - and I am more than welcome to point out that your ideas are full of hot air

I'd also like to think my viewpoint is much more flexible than Mr. Howards. In fully disclosing to the forum that the above quote is the impetus for speaking aloud, I would want you all to: (1) listen, (2) judge the content of the idea, and (3) not castigate the author. Is that too much to ask?

I have done all three of the above, and I have apologized where I have judged you and not your ideas. As for my judgement on your ideas, see the aforementioned "hot air" quote.

It's not from a blind religious fervor, or lack of taking my medication that I raise the viewpoints so far. Further, there may exist only one Mr. Howard (let's hope), but there are many people advancing the uncomfortable ideas I posit.

There always are. They wear different costumes as the years go by, pharaonic headdresses, furry cossack hats, white sheets, leather jackboots, but the basic message remains the same.

I have disclosed several times neither any pride of authorship for my position - instead attempting to fully document my resources with websites and books. That doesn't make the idea correct at all; but does make it more difficult to dispose of me as a solitary nut. Lots of nuts on the west coast.

True enough. Heck, I live in San Francisco County - the place where the ultra-leftist Berkeley City Council recently decided that they're not really a part of America. There are nuts on both the left and the right - that doesn't mean I choose to become their spokesperson or cite their arguments in support of my own. Even if I ostensibly agree with their position, association with them only weakens me.

I have no hidden agenda, and unlike Mr. Howard, no hatred toward any particular individual(s).

Perhaps Stonewall Patton is correct: our perceptions of world events are "clearly irreconcilable." But does that end our ability to communicate? Does that mean my ideas are to be consigned to oblivion? Sure I'll tone down the position - for you see where I'm coming from, and don't need more. But my world view on this was solicited in great measure to explain earlier ideas raised. I think differently than you. That's all. I didn't want to anger anybody, and have expressly apologized more than once for my comments sounding evil or in ill will toward groups I have mentioned.

I have said nothing to this forum that I would not freely say to a friend or acquaintance. As friends, we act at times like a mirror to each other. Mr. Howard painted a delusional and distorted picture, based on his religious intolerance of the very people he was speaking to. No wonder you ignored him. I however voice a position that might be lacking in the comfort scale of chatting, but is there zero benefit in talking to someone that thinks differently?

Mine is a voice you are free to ignore, but in another time and place, when someone other than me says the same thing, will you discount them as well?

I don't believe you are being ignored, nor do I discount you. Far from it. People like you who hold the ideas you do and have the intelligence and verbal skill to present them in a semi-palatable way are far more dangerous than the moronic thugs that litter most of these movements. You are an example the ultimate benefit of an open society that treasures free speech because the best cure for the ideas you espouse isn't supression it's people who peacefully oppose pointing out why you're wrong.

Mr. Reed thinks that, "Assuming that god exists, god would've convinced me if we really wanted to. Remember that god is omnipotent, and omniscient."

Do you suppose, Mr. Reed, that when one, minding the days 'business at hand" on the 97 floor of the World Trade Center, suddenly
found themself starring face to face with a wild-eyed fanatical 'god' piloting a Boeing 737, gave any thought at that very moment that 'god' was about to convince him/her that indeed 'god exists'?

Were there perhaps, Mr. Reed, other more peaceful moments when 'god' sought to enjoy fellowship, far from the 'business at hand,' and 'ye were not willing'? Are there perhaps, Mr. Reed, times when 'god' spoke, not in the 'strong wind,' not in the 'earthquake,' not in the storm of 'fire,' but rather in the 'still small voice'?

And ye, thinking to hear the voice of a 'god,' could not recognize the voice of the true and living God?



"And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?"
--1 Kings 19

On 2001-11-11 22:32, jcarson71 wrote:
God is logically unprovable because of the implicit limitations in set theory. That is, beings with only natural items at their disposal cannot prove--by logic--things which exist outside of the natural.

JCarson71:

I've been thinking about your exposition on set theory and the concept that something bound within a framework is unable to see past the edge of that framework or box. Just last week, I went to see Brian Greene speak, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...570621-6331215
and he covered the same concept concerning the creation of the universe. Currently we have conventional physics to trace history back to an instant just after the universe was created, the Big Bang, but no further before that time, since conventional physics doesn't work at the atomic particle level. The field of quantum mechanics apples there, but the connection between those two branches of science, string theory, hasn't been fully formulated, let alone tested, or proved. Until that happens, we can't approach the edge of our box. We can't know of the creation of the universe.

I mention this because in some ways the history of technology defies set theory as you have defined it. Take for example machine tools. We have machines that can form a piece of metal to dimensions that are measured in angstroms - very small. Way past the visual or tactile capacity of our bodies. How can that be, since flatness and precision don't exist in nature?

True, we harness optics and electronics to give us fantastic precision modernly, but even a hundred years ago, there were steam engines, lathes, and many precision machine tools. They relied on flat surfaces, machined threaded shafts, and precision components which had to be created by.... earlier machines. Where did the first one come from? For nothing can be made more precise than the machine (or human) that created it. The decay of an analog signal.

So, way before the digital world gave us an newer tool, with higher precision, how did the humans, in creating such technology, surpass their own abilities?

Is this not like working from within the box to create an opening to see not just outside, but to look back and see the box and its contents ?

Perhaps set theory doesn't apply as I have described it, however, if it doesn't work for technology, what confidence should we have for it applying to society as a whole?

On 2001-11-12 20:48, Delsyn wrote:

On 2001-11-12 18:06, sv81 wrote:

On 2001-11-12 07:19, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
The role of genes in determining behavior is debatable, but in my opinion very real. It came first.

What an intellectually significant statement.

Without openly agreeing or disagreeing,(or stating any opinion); such a position has some far reaching social consequences.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! SV81 has just introduced Master Race Genetic Theory into the discussion. Question - are you pro or con?

Nope, I didn't introduce it. Bob Butler brought it up, and rather than let it pass unaddressed, I said it was a significant statement.

Then, rather than give an opinion,(my talking to the issue), I though it better to ask a series of questions that punctuate the implication of his statement. I believe that everyone can see the the slippery slope created by such a position.

I don't know if secular humanists as a population adhere to the concept of genetics influencing behavior, but there is cause enough to worry. I'm worried.

Beyond that, my opinion sits on the bench. I have shared much with this group, and have always been taken to task when my thoughts go against the grain of the collective prejudices of the group. Consequently, I have another way of participating, one that may keep me from being censored in the future.

Robert,

You are quite a strong individual. As a long-time lurker to this site, you have always impressed me with your thought-to-age ratio.

The last few posts of yours reminded me of arguments I had during college. Your thoughts are always filled with logic and reason. But be careful with reason. Reason is bi-polar. Reason is always left infinitely open-ended and unresolvable: our telescopes will never see the end of space, our microscopes will never see the smallest particle, our computers will never solve pi. Never. These are absolutes. Reason is paradoxical, as is (and will be) all of the human's discoveries. Therefore, the person who depends on reason is forced, through our innate qualities, to dress the world in our personal perceptions. Which are always both true and false at the same time. We project our inherent qualities upon all that we attempt to know. Therefore, the mystery of God remains hidden for only those with "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" and "minds to understand." "My sheep know my voice," Jesus says. The Mystery is essential, for in Faith is true strength.

If you could reason beauty, what value would nature have? If you could reason Love, what value would Love have? If you were able to reason God, what value would God be?

Don't wait to choose, like others seem to advocate; you may have the grace of time, you may not. It may be the 4T for you, what a perfect moment to apply your will freely. It's your choice. Choose wisely. Choose Love. The default is the loneliest of lonelies.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dave'71 on 2001-11-12 22:38 ]</font>

On 2001-11-12 21:21, Marc S. Lamb wrote:

Do you suppose, Mr. Reed, that when one, minding the days 'business at hand" on the 97 floor of the World Trade Center, suddenly
found themself starring face to face with a wild-eyed fanatical 'god' piloting a Boeing 737, gave any thought at that very moment that 'god' was about to convince him/her that indeed 'god exists'?

Were there perhaps, Mr. Reed, other more peaceful moments when 'god' sought to enjoy fellowship, far from the 'business at hand,' and 'ye were not willing'? Are there perhaps, Mr. Reed, times when 'god' spoke, not in the 'strong wind,' not in the 'earthquake,' not in the storm of 'fire,' but rather in the 'still small voice'?

And ye, thinking to hear the voice of a 'god,' could not recognize the voice of the true and living God?



"And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:

And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?"
--1 Kings 19

well, that proves it. i'm certainly convinced.


TK

On 2001-11-12 22:31, Dave'71 wrote:

If you could reason beauty, what value would nature have? If you could reason Love, what value would Love have? If you were able to reason God, what value would God be?

What a great expression,(in my humble opinion). Is that from a book? Do you have a source?

On 2001-11-12 22:31, Dave'71 wrote:
Robert,

You are quite a strong individual. As a long-time lurker to this site, you have always impressed me with your thought-to-age ratio.

The last few posts of yours reminded me of arguments I had during college. Your thoughts are always filled with logic and reason. But be careful with reason. Reason is bi-polar. Reason is always left infinitely open-ended and unresolvable: our telescopes will never see the end of space, our microscopes will never see the smallest particle, our computers will never solve pi. Never. These are absolutes. Reason is paradoxical, as is (and will be) all of the human's discoveries. Therefore, the person who depends on reason is forced, through our innate qualities, to dress the world in our personal perceptions. Which are always both true and false at the same time. We project our inherent qualities upon all that we attempt to know. Therefore, the mystery of God remains hidden for only those with "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" and "minds to understand." "My sheep know my voice," Jesus says. The Mystery is essential, for in Faith is true strength.

If you could reason beauty, what value would nature have? If you could reason Love, what value would Love have? If you were able to reason God, what value would God be?

Don't wait to choose, like others seem to advocate; you may have the grace of time, you may not. It may be the 4T for you, what a perfect moment to apply your will freely. It's your choice. Choose wisely. Choose Love. The default is the loneliest of lonelies.

Thanks for the suggestions.

On 2001-11-12 22:23, sv81 wrote:
Beyond that, my opinion sits on the bench. I have shared much with this group, and have always been taken to task when my thoughts go against the grain of the collective prejudices of the group. Consequently, I have another way of participating, one that may keep me from being censored in the future.

Come now SV81 - you're far too intelligent to really equate harsh disagreement with your point of view with "censorship". That's the kind of nonsense I'd expect from tenured radical hippies members of the so-called "Peace movement" in one of our ivory tower universities.

You yourself admit that you knew that this group would be mostly unfriendly to your ideas - after all, we're all mired in our collective prejudices - but you also said that there's no point in talking only to those that agree with you.

Speech is free, but only a fool expects it to have no consequences. In terms of consequences, I'd say you've gotten off rather lightly - the only thing that happened is that a number of people (and not even that many compared with the total number of people who post on all these forums) vehemently disagreed with you. As a private citizen, had you been a TV host I would have pulled my advertising (though that is not enough to cause it's cancellation), had you been a professor, I would have taken away your tenure (which would not have prevented you from getting another job) and had you been a cashier at my McDonald's I would have fired you (which would not have prevented you from getting a job at Burger King).

None of that would have been censorship (or even that harsh, all things considered).

Of course, if I was your government, another way to shut you up would be to have had you shot, placed you under house arrest for the rest of your life without a trial or kidnapped and murdered your family. Now THAT's censorship.

But you're an American, and as we all know, that's not going to happen. What if you were a Palestinian in Israel? Surprise - it won't happen there either!

I'm not so sanguine about your chances with the Saudis, the Lebanese, the Sudanese or the Palestinian Authority.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-13 00:42 ]</font>

On 2001-11-12 23:33, sv81 wrote:

If you could reason beauty, what value would nature have? If you could reason Love, what value would Love have? If you were able to reason God, what value would God be?

...Is that from a book? Do you have a source?

Source: Glorification.

If you know it, it's yours.

Great discussion about God. Where can I find a thread about whether the 911 attacks are triggering a 4T?

I think genes almost certainly influence human behavior. Of course, it also works the other way around :wink: .

The same is true with the anatomy of the brian. Brain architectures influence behavior. But behavior also alters the anatomy. People often forget this.

SV81 could (and did) ask:

(1) do all humans have essentially the same set of genes?

(2) if there are differences amongst people, either in intensity or variety of genes, does that make a difference in how the lives of those individuals plays out?

(3) aside from the difficulties in defining words and behaviors, is there some merit to the idea that when it comes to a unifying set of rules for society, one size does not fit all?

(4) what structure would society take for it to fit all people? Is that possible? Is western civilization and specifically the United States the closest approximation to that society? What past or present saculum fits that structure the best?

(5) lastly, is it possible that western thought has a unifying set of social rules, which we refine over time, but other civilizations on this planet, due to a different gene pool, require a different society? Could their society, as a reflection of their constitutents, be incompatable with ours?

1. Define essentially? By definition, humans are a species, spices are sometimes defined as a group with genes similar enough with one another for reproduction, and one could define ?essentially? as ?capable of reproduction.? If I were to seriously address such a question, I?d have to have a measurable definition of ?essentially same.?

Let?s define some drives, or emotions: The male-female bond, parent child bond, peer bond, territory, aggression, and dominance might do as a start. Or, more mundanely, many of these combine into love, anger, belonging to a group, respecting the leader of a group, a willingness to defend the group and its way of life, and an aspiration to become leader. Some studies have suggested these are gender linked. Males might have a greater desire for authority, a greater readiness to use force. Females might have a greater affinity for the family. It is entirely plausible that gender linked roles during millions of years of evolution got hard programmed.

Suggesting this might be so was considered politically incorrect in the 3T. It might still be so. Is a behavior genetically impelled, or culturally taught? We don?t really know. The studies are still new, and the establishment forces are resisting acceptance of new and politically unpopular work. I am inclined to believe sex linked genes do as a broad tendency effect human behavior, that different people might be pushed in different directions, but this should not be an excuse for laws or traditions that prevent a male from getting custody of a child, or a female from becoming CEO. The fastest man runs significantly faster than the fastest woman, but there are a heck of a lot of men that haven?t a prayer of catching the fastest woman. A lot of women are happy working with children, a lot of men have chosen the life of a soldier. Can we accept some of this tendency might be basic, instinctive and genetic without harassing or outlawing male day care center workers or female soldiers? All might not be equal, but should be given equal opportunities.

Yes, it is possible that the emotional drives are slightly different in various ethnic groups. As an example, there is only a fairly small fraction of the Earth?s land surface area where wars are fought. Poor land, which barely supports human life, does not produce sufficient surplus to support warfare. Is it plausible that the aggressive emotions are more cost effective in some areas than others? Perhaps so. If so, the drift would be extremely small, as it has not been all that many generations since we left Africa. I would guess that any racial drift in behaviors would be significantly smaller than the controversial male - female difference. Yes, tribes that have lived in rich areas with resultant warrior traditions might be genetically more aggressive than a tribe living in a desert or on the edges of the arctic circle. However, assume this is a very small shift in a very broad bell curve. The difference between the most and least aggressive members of a given ethnic group would be much larger than the average difference in aggression between two tribes.

As a dangerous example, in 1948 an awful lot of Arabs declared an intent to push a very few Jews into the Mediteraian Sea. They failed. Israel, drawing on the threat presented, the warrior culture of Europe, recent experience with intense warfare, and perhaps some small difference in genetic material, wanted to stay alive more than the enemy wanted to kill them. How much was genetic, how much cultural? I would assume 99% cultural until some one figures out some scientific method of measuring such things. Looking at the history and culture of the Jews over the two prior millennia, it is hard to argue that aggressive behavior was a positive survival trait rewarded with additional offspring. With each war after 1948, the Arabs became more dangerous. It is not that their genes were inferior, but rather they had managed to avoid major all out wars long enough to lack a warrior culture. I would not assume that the Jews are the master race destined to ethnically cleanse the Middle East. This would be prejudicial thinking. In general, while in principle different racial groups might have evolved slightly to their respective environments, in practice the human race is too new for any genetic drift among populations to be more significant than cultural factors.

2. Yes, individual personalities are likely effected by genetic inheritance. I think the best place to look is at the twin studies. Again, I would expect much larger variance between individuals within a culture than between cultures. Still, genetic behaviorism is a new field, still fighting off the initial resistance of the establishment schools of human behavior. Read some books in the field, and form your own opinion.

3. I would agree that ?one size fits all? in terms of moral rules. The basic moral rules are shared across many cultural groups. The differences seem to come far more from environmental differences and as the result of past power struggles. If moral laws are somewhat different in two cultures, there are lots of reasons I would look to as the basis of the differences before I would look to genetic drift. Until some method of measuring behavioral differences as a result of different genes is developed, it would seem reasonable to assume zero genetic drift until proven otherwise.

(4) what structure would society take for it to fit all people? Is that possible? Is western civilization and specifically the United States the closest approximation to that society? What past or present saculum fits that structure the best?

4. Ugh. What technology is available? Technology drives the form of the society. I have often enough mentioned a progression from hunter gatherer to agricultural empire to (maybe) industrial autocracy to (maybe) industrial democracy to (maybe) networked global utopia. In my opinion, we are not going to reach networked global utopia this crisis. We might take a few steps in that direction, but history is not yet over.

I would say the United States and similar western democracies are state of the art given current technology levels, but there is a big division of wealth between rich and poor nations, and rich and poor individuals. During the industrial age, powerful nations assumed the power to dictate policy and economy in their zones of influence, creating the imbalance of wealth. Should NATO and company continue using economic, military and political power to continue their economic, military and political advantages over the rest of the world? Given that poor countries are beginning to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would attempting to continue the division of wealth be cost effective or stupid?

At a more basic cultural level, I would prefer human rights and innocence until proven guilty to the old religious systems of morality and justice. However, this is a cultural thing. Our crime rate isn?t all that great. I could see how some might prefer harsh punishment to justice, might think we go to far in protecting the criminal. Our system is not working well enough to impose it on other cultures. Human culture is a work in progress. Western civilization is a major contender for the championship, but it is still the middle of the season. We still have serious growing to do.

5. In my opinion, the any genetic drift between ethnic groups is so small as to be not important in setting up systems of law. Currently, in the West, in most (all?) cultures, males end up in jail far more than females. This may be in part cultural, but trends that occur in most to all cultures might be genetic. While it is clear males tend to criminal behavior more than females, does this mean we need two sets of laws, one for males, one for females? I would say no. I would say all sentients should be equal under law. I would advise neither stricter punishment nor leniency by gender, nor by ethnic group.

However, cultures with different traditions and different technologies could reasonably tune their laws to fit their cultures. ?One size fits all? might be an exaggeration. In a small rural village with a strong moral and religious tradition, the laws and enforcement thereof would properly be different from a densely packed urban environment. If the wealth is not spread evenly, crime will not be spread evenly, and the proper response to crime will not be everywhere identical.

You asked some very large questions. If they could be answered cleanly, we might be a lot closer to the hypothetical global networked utopia. It is one thing to have read a little of the academic studies, and another to have figured out how to get the world to accept the implications of the academic work. Racism has been a very dangerous force in recent history. An understanding of how humans behave is going to require an understanding of how much of behavior is genetic, how much cultural, and how much individual. However, as racism has been so dangerous, there is a great academic resistance to studying the roles of genetics in behavior. It is considered politically correct to remain ignorant of human behavior. I would contend that while racism is dangerous, so is an ignorance of human behaviors that lead to warfare.

Dave Updegrove coments... Great discussion about God. Where can I find a thread about whether the 911 attacks are triggering a 4T?

Noted. Dave has a point. There ought to be threads elsewhere on God and racisim. If not, there ought to be.

On 2001-11-13 09:52, jcarson71 wrote:
I think genes almost certainly influence human behavior. Of course, it also works the other way around :wink: .

Agreed. To the contrary of the current science paradigm, The phenotype affects the genotype just as much as the genotype influences the phenotype. Genes are *strengthened* by dominant features of the phenotype; i.e., nature writes the code, nurture tweaks it.

With regards to the saeculum: The "genes" of a saeculum are passed to a 1T; but the child saeculum is not only determined by its parent, but also determined by a nuturing factor. In the human case: what you use your Freewill to choose in a turning determines the "gene" that you will influence.

Nature's processes always flow in both directions: it's cyclical. Feedback happens.

Dave Updegrove, Everthing is related. The key is to recirculate tangents back to the original thread. IMHO, the only solution to 911/4T is God/Christ.

Genes are complicated and regulated in many different ways in many different places.

The "central dogma" is that DNA encodes genes, which encode mRNA, which encode proteins.

Kinda like this little linear chain

DNA-->mRNA-->protein

However, proteins called "transcription factors"--which are expressed and regulated differently in different tissues--can "land on" the DNA and tell it where to "open" up and regulate which mRNAs and proteins to produce.

So the central dogma is still central but allows for a situation where

DNA-->mRNA-->protein
^ |
| V
protein <-----

this ^ happens.

Also there are proteins which methylate the DNA itself, "silencing" genes.

No I don't believe in Lamarck; I am only talking about somatic tissues here.

As far as evolution goes, it's definitely more complicated than Darwin envisioned. Here's why:

Environmental stress
|
|
V
Decrease in fidelity of DNA copying
|
|
V
Increase in point mutations,
transposon activity, translocations
|
|
V
Increase in genetic diversity of
offspring

The following oversimplified scheme allows for evolution to occur quickly that are registered as "jumps" in the fossil record.

Oh well this has nothing to do with the WTC but I figured I'd throw in my .02. Like Dave said, feedback happens. Nature does lots of things in cycles, very rarely do you find simple "chains" of linear events.

This topic now has over twice as many replies as its nearest competitor (which, I believe, is the evidence for 3T/4T thread). Unfortunately, some of these replies have little or nothing to do with the topic. I agree with Dave, *please* take these issues to another thread...they're easy enough to start!

sorry, will do.

On 2001-11-13 14:12, Tom Mazanec wrote:
This topic now has over twice as many replies as its nearest competitor (which, I believe, is the evidence for 3T/4T thread). Unfortunately, some of these replies have little or nothing to do with the topic. I agree with Dave, *please* take these issues to another thread...they're easy enough to start!

We already have. Brian Rush started at least one such thread over in Culture and Values. But for some reason this thread's stated subject matter seems to keep drifting back to the subject of the nature and form of religion.

looking at the numbers it actually looks like the fourth turning is right on time.
correct me if i'm wrong but the last crisis was 29-45 (16 years); the last high was 46-63 (17 years); the conchisnis rev. 64-84 (20 years) and if 911 is the end of the culture wars then it would be 85-1 (16 years).

So looking at previous turnings culture wars had a normal span of time to run it's process.

I'm not up for this theory about warm days in winter, or what have you. People hae shown incredable amount of change for just seeing something on tv.
but I am confident that there are going to be greater blows to keep things strong. the winds have picked up but to raim sailing they will have to continue.
I think more serious terrorist acts could continue us to propel deeper into the crisis, or economic problems. we were going into a recession already and things don't look much better after the destruction of the trade towers.
the government's priorities are going to have to hit some tough and even unpopular decissions dealing with the war on terrorism, social security, and the national debt.
oh yeah social security and the national dept, two things that we big topics before 911, but reading news articles or watching the news you wouldn't even know that we have a problem with it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-14 18:48 ]</font>

Plain Dealer November 14, 2001 Page A1
BUSH OKs MILITARY TRIALS IN TERROR CASES
President Bush declared an "extraordinary emergency" that empowers him to order military trials of suspected international terrorists and collaborators, bypassing the criminal justice system, its rules of evidence and its constitutional guarantees ... The decision to bypass U.S. courts and international tribunals is the latest in a series of legal steps taken by the government to combat terroroism. Last week, the Justice Department authorized the wiretapping of conversations between some jailed suspects and their lawyers. Congress also passed legislation allowing "roving wiretaps" that cover multiple telephones and making it easier for U.S. intelligence agencies and criminal investigators to share information.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-11-14 23:25 ]</font>

Blowing smoke? Deluded? Or something more chilling and sinister on the horizon? Here is a transcript of the BBC Interview with Mullah Omar, for discussion purposes only:

The BBC's Pashto service has interviewed Taleban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.
The BBC asked the questions through a Taleban intermediary over satellite phone. He passed them on to the Taleban leader through a hand-held radio and then attached the phone's receiver to the radio for Mullah Omar's answers.

The following is the transcript of the interview

What do you think of the current situation in Afghanistan?

You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America.

And on the other hand, the screening of Taleban [for those who are or are not loyal] is also in process. We will see these things happen within a short while.

What do you mean by the destruction of America? Do you have a concrete plan to implement this?

The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented.

But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings.

If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction.

Osama Bin Laden has reportedly threatened that he would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against America. Is your threat related to his?


This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.

During the past few days, you have lost control of several provinces. Are you hopeful to regain the lost territory?

We are hopeful that you will see the same kind of change that you saw [losing and regaining territory].

What was the reason for the fast retreat? Why have your troops fled the cities? Is it because you suffered heavily from the US bombings or have your soldiers betrayed you?

I told you that it is related to the larger task.

The Taleban may have made some mistakes.

Screening the Taleban [for loyalty] is a big task. And these problems may serve to cleanse [errant Taleban] of their sins. But there is a big change underway on the other side as well.

Can you tell us which provinces are under your control at the moment?

We have four-five provinces. But it is not important how many provinces we have under our control.

Once we did not have a single province, and then the time came when we had all the provinces, which we have lost in a week. So the numbers of the provinces are not important.

As your participation in the future government has already been ruled out - if some of your forces decide to join the future government as representatives of the Taleban in general or to moderate Taleban, will you oppose it?

There is no such thing in the Taleban. All Taleban are moderate. There are two things: extremism ["ifraat", or doing something to excess] and conservatism ["tafreet", or doing something insufficiently]. So in that sense, we are all moderates - taking the middle path.

The struggle for a broad-based government has been going on for the last 20 years, but nothing came of it.

We will not accept a government of wrong-doers. We prefer death than to be a part of an evil government.

I tell you, keep this in mind. This is my prediction. You believe it or not - it's up to you. But we will have to wait and see.

Why should I, Mr. Updegrove, give a crap what stoneage Mullah, who is basically a mere gnat on the world's ass, has to say about anything?

Having just watched Bush and Putin down in Crawford, Texas gives me much to cheer about today. Eighty-some years after the left's most cherished memory, and now Russia is finally poised to enter the twentieth century.

Ronald Reagan's dream has just come true. It is a very great day in the history of the United States of America.

A few more 'daisy cutters,' and Mr. Mullah shall be kissing Allah's ass, Mr. Updegrove! :smile: