Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: onepath who wrote (17657)	8/6/2006 2:42:42 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78411

until I saw the authoriat illusory referential I had assumed self pen and had drawn the illusion that your inheritance was either a zombification or paranormal channeling of the spirit of either Wiliam Blake, Ferdinand de Lesseps, James Morrison, or Juvenal. Satire is a mode of challenging accepted notions by making them seem ridiculous. It usually occurs only in an age of when there exists no absolute uniformity but rather two sets of beliefs. Of the two sets of beliefs, one holds sufficient power to suppress open attacks on the established order, but not enough to suppress a veiled attack. (cases in point, SI management and the set of polically correct people in North American society, i.e. liberalis fundamentalis) Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit leveled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire. The anguish that is unavoidable from this social conflict demands a remedy. In existential therapies, denial is considered the framework by which clients understand their world. Not directly confronting denial, therapists assist clients in exploring their worldview and considering alternative ways of being. Now that application seems sensible for subjects that actually are seeking help. But as we all know power hungry egomaniacs are the last people standing in line for psychoanalysis. Their prime objective is to advance their standing in ever increasing seats of dominance. Their denial is not curable, but for the masses of the exploited, there is no valid excuse to refuse your own denial therapy. I am just throwing this out here, but I had to ask, is there any way that Petty's pessimisstic worldview is in any way invalidated by the following test of existential raison d'etre? The arguments (four of them) are pretty much the same as you'll find in other sources, like Anselm or Descartes. E.g. I can imagine a greatest totally perfect being , or all existing things must have a designer or if you use reductive arguments, the chain of causes must stop somewhere. In all these you finish up with the conclusion that some being must have started the whole shebang or we wouldn't be here. What Leibniz added is something pretty obvious: so obvious, in fact, that everyone before him missed it. Namely: before you can accept the arguments that there must be a God at the end of each of these chains of arguments, you also have to prove that such a thing as God is actually possible. In other words, you must go beyond just assuming that God exists, you must show that this is possible without contradiction. Free of contradiction means, for example, that this God, in whatever form you imagine him to exist, does not by his existence make it impossible for some other thing to exist that you know exists. Or that (like Aristotle) you finish up needing 55 original causes to account for every kind of existing thing. And so on. Once you look at it this way, you'll see its not easy to create a contradiction free model. Anyway, that's what Leibniz accomplished.