Vérités "de droite" et "de gauche"

Evidemment, ni les vérités, ni la vérité qu'elles constituent, ne sont de droite ou de gauche, sauf la vérité que l'homme a ces deux cotés dans son corps. Le théorème de Pythagore ne vote pas de droite, parce que Pythagore croyait (dans sa liste des oppositions, style yin/yang) que la main gauche portait malheur. Les nombres de Fibonacci ne votent pas à gauche parce que da Vince (qui les utilisait) était gauchier.

Avec une évidence pareille, il y a des vérités, dont les partis de droite ou de gauche s'accaparent dans les débats politiques - comment pouvaient-ils autrement attirer les votes? Parfois la logique en souffre:

• La liberté d'éduquer ses enfants sans électricité dans la maison - écolo, donc de gauche. La liberté de les éduquer sans les envoyer à une école laïque et obligatoire pour tous - chrétienne, donc de droite.
• La liberté de faire la route et vivre dans la rue avec ses enfants et son époux ou son épouse - hippie, donc de gauche. La liberté de se marier jeune pour les garder ensemble - traditionnaliste, donc de droite.
• La liberté des musulmanes de porter la voile dans l'école - menace à la chrétienneté de la nation, donc une liberté de gauche. La même liberté pour des vocations monastiques - menace à sa laïcité, donc liberté d'extrème droite.
• La liberté de fumer haschisch avec modération - anarchique, donc de gauche. La même liberté pour l'alcool - antique, donc de droite.
• La liberté d'écouter trash metal dans la cour de l'école - anarchique, donc de gauche. La liberté de chanter y-même le grégorien - antique, donc de droite.
• La liberté d'écarter les chrétiens de parmi ses potes (si l'on est laïc) - laïque, donc de gauche. La liberté d'en rayer les laïcs (si on est chrétien) - chrétienne, donc de droite.
• La liberté d'une femme de ne pas se marier tôt, de travailler - féministe, donc de gauche. La liberté d'une-même de se marier tôt, d'être nourri par le mari - sexiste, donc de droite.
• La liberté d'un jeune de ne pas prendre conseil d'un prêtre, mais d'un psychiâtre - laïc et scientifique, donc de gauche ou du milieu. La liberté d'un jeune de ne pas prendre conseil d'un psychiâtre mais d'un prêtre - chrétienne, donc de droite.
• La liberté de pensé vis-à-vis la Génèse et Josué et la vue et le sens commun d'accepter darwinisme et héliocentrisme et d'éduquer ses enfants d'après ça - laïque et scientifique, donc de gauche ou du milieu. La liberté de pensé vis-à-vis darwinisme et héliocentrisme d'accepter la Génèse et Josué et la vue et le sens commun et d'éduquer ses enfants d'après ça - obscurantiste, donc de droite.

Et c. Et c. Et c. Et, à part la bonne logique, la paix entre les citoyens (évidemment de droite ou de gauche) en souffre aussi, et on voit déjà leur libertés s'effondrer et les pouvoirs des bureaucraties s'augmenter.

Hans Lundahl
12/25 juillet 2008
Avignon

Teen pregnancy at Gloucester High School, Massachusetts (link)

He baptised my granny

My unseen stepgrandmother as well as my stepgrandfather: Heinrich and Agnes Brautmann, were baptised together by Msgr. Ghika

Memory eternal!

I thought he was Latin, I did not know he was born in an Orthodox family. My deepest regret about SSPX is that it is anti-orthodox, that it considers Orthodoxy as schism. My deepest regret about Old Calendarists is that it considers papism as heresy.

My enemies, their methods goals and approximate possible descriptions

When lying accusations * dare not appear
When half told lies * hold people in fear
When virtue is made
To hide in the shade
Like vice and perversion * - psychology's there!

When Chaplin's last marriage * and Sodom's last crime
Are seen as one sickness * in our muddleheaded time
But all is excused
If you will be used
By shrinks or employers * - there's no reason, no rhyme!

When payment is due * for "faults" in the past
According to "justice" * in a network that's too vast
That cares not for truth
When "protecting the youth"
I believe I perceive * Free Masonry's blast:

Or maybe the synagogue's * (part Jewish I am
But foremost a Christian * the Talmud is sham)
Whatever's the reason
It ruins my season
Whoever's behind it * I don't like this SPAM!

These Moslems came late * onto the path of my life
And maybe someone else * is the root of this strife
But some have been trying
To end my defying:
To give me menial work * and a spinster for wife.

"In der Schule verrohen die Kinder" (Link)

on same theme:

Homeschooling and Socialization

UPDATE: above link no longer works.
Common objections to homeschooling still does. Its answers to objection nr 6 deal with same issue.

Royalisme ou royauté? Quoi sert à quoi?

Je crois que la royauté a une chance, parce que les partis politiques divisent la vérité politico-morale et économico-morale entre eux. Parce que trop souvent des discussions internes fort nécessaires dans chacun des partis sont étouffés par le constat "ce n'est pas constructif". C'est à dire: ça sert à l'autre parti, pas au notre. Après, les discussions internes des partis font surface, ayant écarté tout ce qui "n'est pas constructif". Et si quelqu'un qui voulait débattre une vérité "de gauche" (c à d prise par la gauche) dans un parti de droite ou une vérité "de droite" dans un parti de gauche tâche après de se faire entendre dans le débat général, tout débat interne ayant déjà écarté sa position comme "non constructive" se trouve, à cause de ces débats internes, encore une fois étouffé dans le débat général. C'est d'ailleurs exactement ce que disait Ch. Maurras (mémoire éternelle!).

Le royalisme sert normalement à la royauté, et celle-ci sert, normalement et entre autres choses, à rendre cet esprit de parti hors état de nuire, ouvrant le débat à tout ce qui n'est pas trahison ou blasphème. Attention, je parle de trahison envers la patrie (T et ensuite R, feminin) ou l'armé, pas juste "trahison" envers le parti (R et ensuite T, masculin) - un substantif qui avec ses synonymes a fait carrière dans la politique des partis.

Mais on a vu le siècle passé que l'élimination des partis est parfois passé par l'élimination de tous les partis sauf un. Avec un étouffement pour tout débat qui n'est pas interne au parti unique. Il y a une grande différence entre absence de partis (réf angl.) et parti unique dans les élections*. Une restauration monarchique pour et par absence de partis serait bienvenue. Une restauration qui ferait du parti légitimiste le seul parti, ne le serait pas forcement.

Hans Lundahl

*Sans partis, comment établir une proportionnalité entre les votes, s'il y a juste les personnes auxquelles on vote?

A: la proportionnalité porte sur localité partielle ou classe partielle des votants. P. ex. la Commune d'Avignon; il y aura des représentants tels pour centre historique, tels pour St Ruf, tels pour autour de l'Hôpital, et c en foncion des habitants; ou encore tels pour les propriétaires de café, tels pour les employés de Bibliothèque ou Musée, et c. en fonction des catégories socio-professionnels des habitants, et c.

B: si on vote sur plusieurs personnes, et si on vote pour une personne deux fois le nécessaire pour qu'il soit élu, il pourrait avoir deux mandats (sériellement ou simultanément selon son choix ou les dispositions légales ou locales). Ou il pourrait encore supplementer les votes mancants pour l'élection d'un autre candidat.

"When does His Grace Hilarion sleep?" /Orthodixie (link)

As to post title chosen by Father Huneycutt, composing need not keep one awake for hours on end.

How e v e r

Ayers has something to say, its a pity to miss it because of his past:

"This is a time not only of great stress and oppression and authoritarianism, and a kind of rising incipient American form of fascism, and what the government counts on, what the powerful count on, is that we will stay quiet. It's the idea that we can tolerate these intolerable things without screaming, without somehow coming out, joining up and coming out and saying something. It's what they count on in terms of keeping things under control."

It is not by calling adoption "the responsible option" as if every indulgence in teens were not just a sin, but a mismatch to be repaired by loneliness and separation, rather than marriage and mother-/fatherhood, that one will stop (if ever abortions). It is by calling every deviance from "responsability" a disaster to be erased by doing the contrary, that one pushes teens into getting abortions rather than families (and works). It is by demanding more and more qualifications and "preparations for real life" (mine has not started at nearly forty, they are still not letting me stand for my compositions last wednesday) for the simplest tasks, that one keeps teenagers out of work and fatherhood.

Hans

I don't believe in Weathermen

Astrologers and such!
Psychologists and pedagogues
I don't respect too much.
I don't know if this attitude
Is anti-Dutch or Dutch:
But if one writes "Kill parents"
- Keep kids out of his clutch.

"Kill your parents" +40ys=Educate your children! (link)

A certain man back in around 1968 seemingly wrote "Kill your parents" for his age peers. Now that they are parents themselves, he is helping them to educate their children.

Turncoat or not? Was his loyalty to youngsters as such or to those who were young when he was? The answer to the first depends on that to the second.

Another question is whether he did real service back then.

And a third is whether he is doing real service now.

Bill Ayers is the name ... its for you to name the game. Click link in title.

Purely personally - ma was not with Ayers in 68. I do not take my ideas on raising my possible future children from him now. She mostly obeyed her father, I mostly obey her. Exceptions mean excuses or explanations offered and accepted. We do not believe in killing rich for being that either. But we do believe in sustaining and respecting the poor, within bonds of possibilities, and family first. Read on, post after next!

Johan ger mig alternativ ...

Paa kommentardelen af en redan öfverfull kommentardel paa annan blogg, i stället för paa det bloggmeddelande paa denna blogg, jag hänvisat honom till, saa ger mig Johan tvaa alternativ:

Hans, angående induktion har du två alternativ:

i) Gud kan utföra mirakel när som helst, hur som helst och var som helst >> Gud är allsmäktig, du kan dock inte förutsätta naturens regelbundehet (t.ex. kan du inte vara säker på att solen går upp i morgon.)

2) Gud kan inte utföra mirakel när som helst, hur som helst och var som helst >> du kan förutsätta naturens regelbundenhet, men du måste förneka den kristna guden.

Jag accepterar att de äro uttömmande, om tvaaan inkluderar atheism och nihilism, jag tar alternativ 1. Gud kan det. Det innebär intet att han vanligen gör det. En gitarrist och bandleader afbryter intet kamraternas alla verser (som han sjelf skrifvit med regelbunden rhytm) för att klämma ur sig eqvilibristiskt synkoperade riff han raakar komma paa för stunden. Hvilket innebär att en lyssnare kan göra induktioner om den vanliga rhytmen i laaten, oafsedt att han vet att riff förekomma.

Vi kunna inducera att solen lyser fraan morgon till afton, bortsedt fraan solförmörkelser (nra minuter laanga mellan det gradvisa försvinnandet och det gradvisa uppdykandet) och kraftig mulenhet, samt att stjernor intet först uppträda som kometer och sedan som fixstjernor, dessutom fixerade öfver ett bestämdt hus eller stall, äfven om Gud nu gjorde Bethlehemsstjernan och den tre timmar laanga förmörkelsen af hela himmelen paa Golgatha - derföre att riff är riff och vers är vers. Den parallelen borde till och med metalheads klara af att begripa! O s v för andra mirakler. Hvarföre reserverade han en vandrande stjerna som stadgar sig öfver Gud blifven menniska och en förmörkelse af en sol som vägrar lysa paa sin skapares misshandlande genom hans andra skapelsers otacksamhet för den gaangen? Just för att med denna special effect deklarera hvem som föddes och dog. För att empiriskt klargöra var det vanliga slutar och det transcendenta tar vid - för att det vanliga skall börja om med förnyad glädje.

Engelsmännen ha ett uttryck: "God willing and weather permitting" som brukas som formel reservation för annars förväntade framtida händelser eller handlingar. Araberna yttra dervidlag "Insh' Allah" (gäller baade kristna och muslimer, hvad jag fattat). Logik innebär intet att vara för fyrkantig för att fatta saadant.

Hans Lundahl
5/18 juli 2008
Avignon

PS, länken gaar till Joshuas tionde kapitel (en klassiker för geocentriker, som Galileo-processens upphof ger uttryck för) och derifraan till en förment motsägelse i Bibeln.

Read here. The second quote has been heavily over-interpreted. In fact it does not guarantee explicitly that all days will be equally long and bright, and if in spirit it mostly means that, it does not exclude miracles making one or two exceptions, or so.

Hey, I am Dutch!

Your Inner European is Dutch!

Open minded and tolerant. You're up for just about anything.

Who's Your Inner European?

Who would have guessed?

You Are Taco Salad

You are brutally honest and totally real. You can't be bothered to be fake for a second. You are a total riot. You have a wicked sense of humor, and you crack people up. You often shock people with your antics. You have a very spicy personality. You are energetic and intense. You live every moment to its fullest.

What Kind of Salad Are You?

You Are 7 Up

Understated and subtle, people warm up to you slowly. But once they're hooked, they can't imagine going back to anyone else! Your best soda match: Diet Coke Stay away from: Mountain Dew

What Kind of Soda Are You?

François Tremblay's conclusions tremble

Argument from necessity of Naturalism:

1. Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.
2. Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge.
3. A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.
4. Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3)
5. Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4)

Critique:

• Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.

Begs the question how he came to exclude all other causes than material! As a conclusion from this? Then his argument is circular. Or because his knowledge is without limits? Look on his next premisses:

• Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge.

All that is needed is knowledge of what natural causes are. If a medicine is not given, if a cure is too sudden to depend on the immunity system, if something has been destroyed which the processes of the body have no possibility to restore and is then suddenly restored - there is no natural explanation.

• A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.

Even if granted, this would be acceptably identified by miracles. Like when St Luke knew that the boy who had fallen broke his neck and died (he was a doctor) and then saw St Paul restore him to life (and good functioning of complete neck).

This means that the steps four and five fall to the ground.

He then goes on to give a dilemma:

1. Naturalism is an absolute.
2. The concept “god” either implies supernaturalism, or it doesn’t.
   1. If the concept “god” implies supernaturalism, then it is an impossibility. (from 1)
   2. If the concept “god” does not imply supernaturalism, then it is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
3. The concept “god” is either impossible or meaningless. (from 2a and 2b)

Since 1. depends on a false reasoning, 2a. and 3 are not proven.

In the main though, Tremblay depends on "nothing comes from nothing" and identifies creation or the voice of God speaking to Moses as "something comes from nothing" and therefore a violationof that principle. We know well that we can produce some effects wilfully using our body, i e "something comes from our will and material cause connected to it"; we do not know (as that identification would need to repose on) that there be no entity that can produce somthing by its will alone. Indeed, if the historic evidence for miracles is good enough, or the philosophic for a need for creation, then we know there is such a being. Getting to know Him is however quite another adventure. There I can only advice prayer and reading of Church Fathers (including hagiography) and Gospels. That however includes plenty of miracles to read about.

Hans Lundahl
17 juillet (N. C.) 2008
Avignon

14 et 17 juillet - avant la révolution!

C'est de coûtume de considérer le 14 juillet (N. C.) de 1789 comme le début de la révolution française. Si le Roi avait repondu avec répression sévère, il y en aurait été comme ça, parce qu'alors il aurait, soit inauguré une révolution d'en bas (comme celle en Russie après le Dimanche sanglant de 1905), soit une répression qui aurait fini sa libéralité envers son peuple, en quelque façon retournant aux mœurs de Richélieu.

Mais la reponse du Roi fut tout autre: le 17 juillet il accorda le rasage de la Bastille.

Si la révolte populaire (et, accordons-le, excessive dans des détails) a été pardonné, c'est qu'elle ne constituait pas une révolution inacceptable aux yeux du Roi. Le geste que je commémorerai demain a fait d'une révolution potentielle une réclamation de liberté exaucée par décret royal.

Si, comme je le pourrais soupçonner, il y avait derrière cette révolte populaire une instigation vraiment calculant la révolution, celle-ci avait échoué pour le moment le 17 juillet 1789. Il en fallait des nouvelles initiatives pour séparer le peuple de son Roi et opprimer les deux. La constitution de la nuit du 4 août - un jour vraiment digne du deuil - constitue, j'en doute pas, la plus importante immédiatement après. Si le Roi a pu accorder la fin de la servitude avec bon cœur - comme plus tard le St Czar et porteur de la Passion Nicolaï II - et si la fin des exactions féodales était bien-intentionnée, la Constitution Civile du Clergé avec la nouvelle liturgie constituait une vrai provocation envers une minorité importante du peuple, capable des révindications armés pas moins populaires que la prise de la Bastille - notons Vendée et Bretagne - comme elle était aussi inacceptable pour la Reine.

Hans Lundahl
3/16 juillet 2008
Avignon

PS/ J'ai passé le 14, pas en deuil, mais j'ai suivi un conseil attribué (peut-être à tort) à la Reine Marie-Antoinette: ayant faim, j'ai mangé des gateaux. Des alimens plus solides ne manquèrent point longtems. Grace à son intercession?

Disagreeing with TFP

Having laid down all the rules for the conduct of the family - hierarchy, the government of the father, the counsel of the mother, the duties proper to each member of the family, the necessity of monogamy and the prohibition against divorce, and so on - God also established rules for the perfection of society: the authority of the government, social hierarchy, the specific honors accorded the functions of every member of society, and so forth. The application of these rules that normally concern the proper function of society are found first, in due proportion, in the family.

God established that Government have authority (or rather keep authority, the first Government was that of Kain, the brotherslayer, in the City of Nod, East of Eden: but King David, Christ conversing with Roman soldiers, St Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 13, the Constantinean peace, several ecclesiastic condemnations of anti-monarchists - at least on RC side, but implicitly on Czarist clergy's position, - therefore of anti-government, all these suggest that God did not finally condemn state authority as such); but He also established limits for it. Seeing Antigone today reminded me that the Heathen knew that too. And that it is honourable to oppose Government when it trespasses beyond those limits. An eventuality not totally far off, as things now are.

God established that faithful obey the successors of the Apostles, and as the faithful man obeys the Church, so also his wife him, their children them, their servants them. But he did not establish that anyone innocent be forced to serve, in the new alliance. Even the thief, who must work to give alms, should possibly prefer a work on his own, which allows him to give alms, to an employer, if that one were to force him to not only forgo almsgiving, but also steal or participate in the spoils of thieves. An eventuality not totally far off, as things now are.

He also established that Government be respected - for the things that enumerate in Romans 13. Not for opposite things. An eventuality not totally far off, as things now are.

He also established at least one good council:

21 Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. 23 You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men.

(My emphasis added)

This is not a council to take an employer, in case such a one be in one respect or other like a master of bondsmen. An eventuality not totally far off, as things now are. At least to some.

And that means that the things cited as instituted by God by the author, where neither instituted absolutely, nor without limit. Nor without the possibility to oppose a "social order" when it goes beyond the limit.

The context is: the author thinks that sitting on the floor is a bad manner. He has the humility not to impose his view as Church dogma or at least as compulsory for each and every reactionary or counterrevolutionary (in case you did not know, TFP considers itself as opposed to French and similar revolutions - and I do so too) When he says that sitting on chairs is a good manner, I do not disagree. In Antiquity chairs - cathedrae with a back on them - were reserved for priests, royalty, old people in positions like teaching. Ordinary men sat on stools when debating or reading, they lay down on beds to eat. The chair for all has a sence: everyone is majesty, noone is supposed to debauch. Not a very Confucian or authoritarian message, but an egalitarian if you ask me. Like the use of Scythian-style clothing: shirts with sleeves sewed on, sewed trousers - where Roman Heathendom as well as Greek showed the honoured man in drapery he could not work in, and the working man in tunics that did not cover legs and arms. Again the message is: everyone is dignified, noone is supposed to be debauched.

But when sitting on the floor is equated with sitting low on dirty ground; when there is a reference to Genesis and to snakes crawling on the ground, I feel the author goes a bit far. It may come as a surprise to some readers - who clicked the link and read to end - that he had the humility to conclude his essay with a clause about the subject not being anywhere near closed. I will profit from that humility by stating objections. The reader who clicked that link may have already had a surprise before coming to the end: the fact that someone who writes for TFP has actually formed friendships with people who invite him to sit on the floor. I will use the descriptions of the scene and of his feelings to do so.

With somewhat exaggerated smiles, my hosts gesture to the floor while setting the example by squatting down on a rug or carpet that moments before had been the exclusive domain of Fido or Fluffy. Doing my best to hide my culture shock, I am obliged to join my hosts on the floor, not really understanding why I have been banished from the inviting arms of the sofa. My discomfort - physical and psychological - is intensified by my allergy to dogs and cats, which is aggravated by my being reduced to their level.

Let us face it, the floor of a civilized home - unlike that of a jungle hut - was not intended for sitting, especially by adults. Once I broke a child's toy by sitting on it with the full force of my 185 pounds. On another occasion, I leaned back on a coffee table to lessen my discomfort, only to send the tea service flying.

Of course, when one sits on the floor, everything needed at his disposal must follow: the coffee and cake, newspapers or magazines, even paper and pen-the table having been deprived of its long and worthy function.

...

Our conversations, influenced by the position of our bodies, tended to be less serious. The sensation that we were like children at play became ever stronger. Some people were so uncomfortable sitting on the floor that they would remove their shoes, a practice I succeeded in avoiding. Others would recline somewhat upon the floor, supporting themselves on their elbows, giving the appearance of someone in quest of a bed on which to lie down.

When arguing that the floor is arguably a dirty place, or at least dirtier than a chair, I feel he contradicts the fact that his friends took off shoes while sitting on the floor. To people who - unlike him, alas! - do not suffer from allergia against pets, dog hair is not equated with dirt. And to people who have less than 185 pounds, sitting on the floor is not as uncomfy as all that. Maybe his hosts tried to poke gentle fun at his weight and his allergia, maybe they did not know about the allergia. Getting back to purely hygienic matters, a floor of marble or wood will not transmit Scabies, but a textile mat will. A chair without padding, purely wood, metal or plastic, will not transmit them, but a padded chair will.

But the main objection he gave was that sitting on the floor gives a sensation of children at play. He feels:

Making oneself "comfortable" on the floor perhaps seems favorable at least for dealing with more "relaxed" subjects; but not all subjects are relaxed. It is one thing to talk about the latest baseball game, quite another to deal with the serious problems that often invade our family circles - divorce, abortion, drug use, and so forth. I perceived that the seriousness necessary for dealing with such matters - moral matters - was compromised by the fact that we were sitting on the floor and not on chairs or sofas. Despite the gravity of the conversation, our posture was conducive to greater optimism, so the seriousness proportional to such subjects was soon sacrificed in favor of the idea that all is well.

This makes me get back to C. S. Lewis. "Some people talk as if having a face like bluebooks were a moral disinfectant. I care nothing for moral earnestness, I prefer morality". Quoted from memory, from The Four Loves. In other words: rather laugh like Papageno and be faithful to your wife than be earnest like Tamino, take every test required by an equally earnest Sarastro (free-mason!) and, not really being Tamino, come to an earnest conclusion that marriage is - alas! - impossible or divorce is - alas - inevitable. If the author is 185 pounds since youth, he may be not married. Chesterton had the good fortune to be slender in youth and marry before getting something like that weight. Or the author may be married, but to a wife that thinks - as some women do - that moral earnestness is indispensable to morality.

Parents who drive their 13 year old daughters to abortion by nagging five weeks on a row usually are not optimistic. A parent that would suggest a plan consisting of - A getting married to the father in a state where that is legal - B living on stray jobs, begging in the street (like the father of Sor Eusebia, when out of the seasons that brought him work) and when necessary going on travel with their child (like Holy Family from Bethlehem to Egypt) would not be considered morally earnest by those who care for that quality. Yet such a father or such a mother would be, at once, optimistic and also expressing the usual obligation of reparation for that sin in this here Christendom, throughout the ages.

I feel that some important part of the defense of Traditional Christianity is being swamped by semi-adepts to Shariah and Talmud. And that there is sense to the Oriental saying "as happy as a Christian".

Hans Georg Mikael Elitzur,
Lundahl by family name
2/15 July 2008
Avignon

Adversité ... et observation versifiées

Crachat sur le sol ou je vends
D'habitude les photocopies
Des compositions que je fis
- Un peu d'eau sa fraîcheur lui rend.


Il y'en a des gens qui méprisent
Tout gain qui n'est pas salaire?
Eux-mêmes, comment veulent-ils faire?
Cracher au patron? L'obéir?

Snurrigt resonnemang (recension)

"Naturalismen är absolut!"

Kärnpunkten (och det snurriga resonnemanget) är:

"Ett övernaturligt fenomen kan endast "förklaras" via den negativa vägen, d.v.s. genom att ge fenomenet negationer till naturliga fenomen och visa vad det inte är. För att fastställa ett övernaturligt fenomen krävs det därför att alla möjliga naturliga fenomen, nuvarande och framtida, utesluts. Detta kräver dock mänskligt allvetande. Då ingen människa är allvetande, är negationen av alla möjliga naturliga fenomen, nuvarande och framtida, omöjliga. Ergo, det går aldrig att berättiga ett övernaturligt fenomen och den ontologiska naturalismen är absolut!"

Det snurriga är gifvetvis förvexlingen mellan "konstatera att det hända är öfvernaturligt enligt den striktaste definitionsförståelsen af det begreppet" och "konstatera att något händt som man i vanlig mening klassar som öfvernaturligt".

För det andra fins det en massa saker man kan yttra sig om alla förekomster nu, tidigare och i framtiden om, utan att vara allvetande, helt enkelt p g a betydelsen af ordet: t ex trianglar, att alla trianglar ha vinkelsumman lika med två räta vinklar. Hvilket i sin tur innebär att om vinklarne möttes i st f att gå i sär, skulle deras yttre gräns vara en rät linje.

För det tredje är öfvernaturlig icke enbart en negation af naturlig, eftersom negationen af det naturliga omfattar:

• icke-vara/icke-händelse
• öfvernaturlig entitet/händelse

Den korrekta definitionen af öfvernaturlig omfattar dermed icke bara ord som "utan död" utan också ord som "lefvande" (till skilnad från naturligt lif, som går mot döden, men också till skilnad från icke-lif, som icke dör för att det redan är t ex "död materia"); icke bara ord som "utan gräns för förmågan" utan också som "hafvande förmåga, magt"; icke bara ord som "utan gräns för vetandet" utan också ord som "vetande" o s v.

Och det korrekta konstaterandet af en öfvernaturlig händelse är att ngt vi med vårt vetandes normala (i theorien felbara, men icke alltid eller ens för jemnan felande) förutsättningar veta intreffat uppfyller kriterier oförenliga med icke bara kriteriet "begränsad förmåga" eller "begränsadt vetande" utan också oförenligt med "icke-vetande" och "icke-förmåga"; icke bara oförenligt med dödlighet, utan också oförenligt med det redan dödas dödsfrihet.

Hvilket icke på förhand kan uteslutas på det sätt som författaren söker göra gällande.

Om han kontrar med att öfvernaturliga händelsers egentliga naturlighet är ngt vi icke kunna utesluta på förhand, så svarar jag ur rent pragmatisk synpunkt: en händelse uppfyller ett ypperligt tumregelskriterium på öfvernaturlighet, om kunskapen om denna händelse nekas af denne författare med hänvisning till att påståendet bara vore "nekandet af den naturliga (om än totalt obelagda och kanske ej ens naturligt förklarbara) händelsen".

Hans Lundahl
29 Juni/12 Juli 2008
St Petrus och Paulus G.K.
Avignon

PS: Det lustiga är att författaren citerar en annan atheist, François Tremblay, hvars position tvertom är att Skapelsen, Uppståndelsen och Moses skådande af den brinnande busken lätt kunna identifieras som öfvernaturliga (utan allvetande) och affärdas på den grunden.

PPS: denna recension har diskuterats.

Min egen hållning motsvarar débatteuren Mumriks (nej, vi äro ej samma person), så långt den nu yttrats (fram till tor 17 jul 2008 0:20).

Citerar en dålig definition eller categorisering från annan deltagare:

Om ett "övernaturligt" fenomen har empriska konsekvenser, så är det per definition ett naturligt fenomen.

Nej, för att vara naturligt räcker det icke med att ha naturliga conseqvenser, det kräfs också för uppfyllandet af definitionen att ha naturlig natur och dessutom (bortsett från det som hvilar direct på Gud) grund för existence eller förekomst.

I öfrigt är undantagslöshet i naturens uniformitet intet ett villkor för empirie, det räcker med att det fins en uniformitet, äfven om den - som motsvarar faktiska rapporter om phänomenen - ibland bryts.

Ang. Tremblay, är hans snurrighet icke mindre angående skapelsen och negativa definitioner:

"Our only conclusion is that the claim of divine intervention is defined negatively. By virtue of being “divine”, we must conclude that it excludes the possibility of material causes."

Att en negativitet kan conclueras från en definition, innebär intet att definitionen som sådan vore negativ. För öfrigt var det icke fråga om definition, som det formulerades.

Brain death diagnosis kills? (link)

Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death:
Apnea testing may induce rather than diagnose death

By Cicero Galli Coimbra, M.D., Ph.D.

Click title of or in this post to read story.

Uranium dans le Rhône: 12 g./l. (*30 m3 ou *6,25 m3?)

Après un accident audessus de Montélimar.
Propos recueilli: Greenpeace à Carpentras.

Vérification par internet, autre source.

Gaffière et Auzon sont également touchés.

Toutefois, quel que soit le risque aux bords du Rhône, travailler dans une centrale nucléaire est un métier à haut risque. Là, ils ont une source très amère à coté.

Autriche vit sans l'énergie nucléaire. En Suède, j'était trop proche d'une centrale nucléaire (Barsebäck).

Exmason on Masonic Oaths

John Salza is a Roman Catholic Apologist, he was once a Mason. He speaks here on those false oaths once taken, which he now regards as gravely sinful. Click title for his message.

Note: the present blogger, Hans Lundahl, is not a freemason, and has never taken masonic oaths. God preserve me in such innocence!

Vidarebefordradt: mattelärare kämpar för att få göra nytta!

Jag fick detta bref:

Hej!

Först och främst vill jag tacka Dig för att Du besökte mina matematiska hemsidor och för att Du skrev några rader till mig eller några meningar i min gästbok. Jag ber nu om ursäkt för att jag inte svarade dig, trots att det betydde så mycket för mig. De många breven och inläggen som har skrivits av mina hemsidors besökare, har gett mig kraft att orka kämpa vidare och har gett mig en mening i tillvaron.

Jag är en arbetslös lärare sedan flera år tillbaka. Som motprestation för den arbetslöshetsersättning och aktivitetspenningen som jag fick, men huvudsakligen som tidsfördriv, gjorde jag matematisksidor på internet. Jag gjorde hemsidorna för att kunna hjälpa de som har problem i matematik, för att kunna hjälpa elever, men även för outbildade lärare som behövde stöd. Jag trodde att jag gjorde något samhällsnyttigt.

Men den senaste utvecklingen visade istället att jag begick ett brott. Jag lade även ut skrivning/övningsuppgifter på internet. Samma eller liknande matematiska uppgifter som dagligen används och har använts under de senaste hundra åren i miljontals skolor över hela världen.

För upphovsrättsintrång dömde tingsrätten mig till böter och att betala skadestånd till upphovsmännen samt även rättegångskostnader. Det har gått så långt att Kronofogden tog mina besparningar och nu även tar den största delen av den blygsamma ersättningen som jag får från försäkringskassan. Detta har lett till att jag nu lever inom den möjligaste fattigdom som finns i Sverige.

Jag har inga medel för att kunna kämpa vidare. Men jag måste. Matematik är en vetenskap. Matematik tillhör mänskligheten och inte till någon privat ägare. Även om de matematiska uppgifterna som ligger till grund för betygsättningen i hundratals skolor i Sverige, tillåts att säljas privat och i vinstsyfte av kommunanställda lärare i gymnasieskolan till köpare.

Efter domstolsbeslutet lade jag ner mina matematiksidor, men efter de ytterligare anmälningar och fordringar som jag har fått, tänker jag lägga tillbaka allt, med en förhoppning att högre rättsliga instanser befriar mig från brottanklagelsen och skulden. Jag har lagt upp matematiklexikonet på en ny hemsideadress: http://matmin.kevius.se/, därifrån kan du ladda ned hela innehållet i en zippad form. Du kan läsa kopior av rättegångshandlingar på adressen http://www.kevius.com/ .

Jag hoppas på Din hjälp. Jag är rådlös men också medellös. För att kunna anlita en advokat eller en sakkunnig går det bra att lämna ett bidrag på följande konto på SEB: 5404 - 00 108 76 (kontohavare Bruno Kevius)

Du hjälper mig även om du visar mitt brev till dina bekanta eller hänvisar till mina matematiksidor till de som behöver och önskar grundkunskaper i matematik.

Med vänliga hälsningar


Bruno Kevius

I enlighet med önskemålet lägger jag upp det här.