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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (234181)	6/25/2007 11:31:42 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"So you make generalizations about the art of cultures you know nothing about, and will never learn about. How...odd." This seems to be some sort of a conservative thing. When "Formula 9/11" came out, they were of one voice in condemning it, yet not ONE of them had even SEEN it! It was really quite prescient, and has been proved true with the passage of time. So, when you can see "Sicko" at the end of the month, go SEE it conservatives, and BELIEVE what you're seeing.

To: epicure who wrote (234181)	6/25/2007 3:29:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Now you are getting there. <So you make generalizations about the art of cultures you know nothing about, and will never learn about. How...odd. Your post could apply to all Shakespeare's plays, but most of us still find them worth reading. > It's easy to make generalisation which are true. By definition, arts are not "real". It doesn't matter whether they are Islamic or Shakespearian. Sure, the writers can include real descriptions too, which makes them interesting. But they are fantasies for all that. Remember the Oprah writer who was a hero of drug recovery and stuff, but it turned out he made it all up and became persona non-grata. He wanted to make a good story to sell a lot of books. Yes, you are right that Shakespeare's play fit the bill, but I suppose the lasting quality of them is that they match quite well what goes on in reality so people continue to find them interesting. Or it's snob value, and social obligation to genuflect to the "great works" just as people still go on and on about the Bible and Koran as though they are anything more than what some blokes wrote in a malevolent time long ago. I've read a bunch of fiction [decades ago] but these days don't bother. No Da Vinci Code for me. Serious harm comes from fiction - people start to think it's real. Jeffrey Archer's buddies tried to take over a country - my theory is that Archer, who likes writing fiction, came up with the idea and the idiots [including Margaret Thatcher's stupid son] followed the plot, but real blokes with real guns caught them. It's a bit like King George II coming up with a fantasy scheme about how to invade Iraq and the Iraqis would all ululate and throw flowers. He believes all that Bible stuff. Of course it's excellent to imagine a desired reality, then set about creating it. That's exactly what I do. It's nothing less than the purpose of life. But one needs to be extremely careful about what reality allows to be created and move in harmony with the cosmos, not try to oppose the four forces of the apocalypse [strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravity] or the fifth consciousness [Mq's Conceptual Cosmic Constant]. It's true I write fiction, as part of thinking about what's possible and what's not. There might even be some fiction sprinkled in my SI posts. It's not that I expect anyone to adopt them as a plan. They are just ideas, to be tested against other consciousness to see if there are any defects. Sometimes there are. Ashley Mullen for example persuaded me to look again at CO2 levels which I hadn't checked for well over a decade. I didn't think human CO2 emissions are substantial enough to be an issue. I went from thinking that CO2 could be ignored, to thinking CO2 might have to be managed at some stage. 24 years ago, I had suggested a carbon tax to my BP Oil boss Nelson Cull as being the solution if CO2 became a serious issue. Quarter of a century later, while CO2 levels have increased, I think of the increase as being a good thing. Which isn't to say continued increase to 2000 ppm would be good. But I won't be worrying if CO2 gets to 450ppm. Which it won't do [my guess]. Human population implosion is going to fix any CO2 problem. Peak People is going to occur at the about the same time as Peak Oil. Peak People is going to be FAR more significant than whatever happens to oil and coal consumption. Mqurice