In Variegate Unitas-Union en poly on-Isxys en ti Enosi
Greek: Haris Aleksiou - Mia Pista Apo Fosforo (1990)
Turkish: Sezen Aksu - Herşeyi Yak (1991)
Italian: Milva - Il Canto Di Un' Eneide Diversa (1994)
French: Demis Roussos - Elle Attend (1997)
Bulgarian: Kichka Bodurova - Kude Si Trugnal Sine (2006)
Lyrics with translation in all the versions
Most of you wonder what this means...This is a Notary-certified declaration(Averment Pro Se) stated by a History student named Vasiliye Gligorov national of F.Y.R.o.M.
Part of the text translated in English by Vasiliye:
XIX) By stating the facts in previous chapter, to the uttermost of my knowledge, the truth, nothing more, nothing less, without guilty mind or in dissimulation.
1. I, Vasil Gligorov, as an act of free will, individual one and unadulterated, acting in competency of a history student on University, which is not otherwise affiliated with me or my statement in entirety, do affirm these truths, remaining ready to prove them in case of any challenge, being assured in them as a result of a critical, open-minded study of the matters exposed, that:
2. Macedonians were and are Hellenes, from their genesis in antiquity to the present day. ”Macedonian” in this single, undivided and non-shared sense is a Hellenic individual directly affiliated with the region of Macedonia in its historic borders, which are more restrictive from the fairly new concept of “Geographic Macedonia”, the later being enormously stretched to the north of the true Macedonia. The evidence derived from history, linguistics, interpretation of archaeological artifacts and other relevant sciences point to this conclusion.
3. The ancient Slavs of and the Slavic peoples derived from them, also known as “Slavs”, and Hellenes, both groups being Indo-European peoples with few loose traces of common I. E. cultural heritage are nevertheless two very separate peoples, with their own characteristics, including separate languages, culture and history including their formation as an ethnicity in different and distant areas, as well as in possession of distinct ethnological attributes, withstanding the certain degree of historical mutual influence on each other which did not altered them.
4. The South-Slavs of Eastern type, known en masse from 1944 to the World as “Macedonians” and which compromise the main people of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, are an artificial, primarily Communist creation initiated by the Comintern and by the dictator Josip Broz and his subservient apparatschiks. The existence of these Pseudomacedonians was first brought by their “recognition”, in spite of historical and ethnologic realities, by the acts of the
53
illegitimate AVNOJ organization. Many people, primarily conscious Bulgarians and also Serbs and others, suffered by the post-WW II regime in Yugoslavia because of their rejection of the forced “Macedonisation”.
The wrongful Yugoslav intrusion into the 1946-1949 Civil War in Greece is a crime, the motive of which was in accordance with the Pseudomacedonian ideology of expropriation of the real Macedonia.
5. The usurpation of Hellenic heritage and expansionist agenda by the many Pseudomacedonians, including segments of their state, where the fake doctrine of “Macedonism” is an official creed, is not only one of the main generator of crisis in the Balkans, but it is an self-injury of the Slavic Pseudomacedonians to their true, traditional heritages: Bulgarian and Serbian.
I, Vasil Gligorov, thereby, affirm that the victory of truth and reason over the forces of Bolshevik Pseudomacedonism will benefit Slavs of FYROM, Slavs in general, Greeks and all other parties involved in these unfortunate circumstances.
Изјавено во Скопје,
Изјављено у Скопљу,
Stated in Skopje,
21-XI-2007
Васил Глигоров
UNI ON EN POLY ON
Unity in Diversity.
Philosophy without technique is Useless.
Technique without philosophy is Dangerous.
SOCRATES-ISON-PATANJALI
-noemon-
EN=IN
ON=BEING
ENON=ONE->ENOS
ENONEN=UNION->ENOSIS
POLY=PLENTITUDE
POLY ON=PLENTY BEING=POLIS=CITY.
ENON POLYON ENON EMON
ENON ELENON EMON
[1] Songs, rulers of the lyre, what god, what hero, what man shall we celebrate? Indeed, Pisa belongs to Zeus; and Heracles established the Olympic festival, as the finest trophy of battle;[5] and Theron must be proclaimed because of his victorious four-horse chariot, Theron who is just in his regard for guests, and is the bulwark of Acragas, the strength of the city, the choicest bloom of illustrious ancestors,[8] who labored much with their spirits, and won a sacred home by the river, and were[10] the eye of Sicily; their allotted lifetime attended them, bringing wealth and grace to their inborn excellence. But you, son of Cronus and Rhea, who rule over your home on Olympus, and over the foremost of festivals, and over the ford of Alpheus, be warmed by our songs and graciously preserve their ancestral land[15][15] for their future generations. When deeds have been accomplished, whether justly or contrary to justice, not even Time the father of all things could undo the outcome. But forgetfulness may come, with favorable fortune. Under the power of noble joys, malignant pain[20] is subdued and dies,[21] whenever god-sent Fate lifts prosperity on high. This saying applies to the daughters of Cadmus on their lovely thrones: they suffered greatly, but their heavy sorrow collapsed in the presence of greater blessings.[25] Long-haired Semele, who died in the roar of the thunderbolt, lives among the Olympians; Pallas is her constant friend, and indeed so is father Zeus, and she is loved by her ivy-crowned son.[28] And they say that even in the sea, among the ocean-daughters of Nereus, immortal life[30] is granted to Ino for all time. Truly, for mortal men at least, the time when we will reach the limit of death is by no means fixed, nor when we will bring a peaceful day, the sun's child, to an end in unworried well-being. But at various times various currents, both of pleasure and of toil, come to men.[35][35] In such a way does Fate, who keeps their pleasant fortune to be handed from father to son, bring at another time some painful reversal together with god-sent prosperity, since the destined son met and killed Laius, and fulfilled the oracle of Pytho,[40] spoken long before.[41] But the sharp-eyed Erinys saw it, and destroyed his warlike sons through mutual slaughter. Yet Polyneices, when laid low, left behind him a son, Thersander, honored in youthful contests and in the battles of war,[45] a scion to defend the house of the descendants of Adrastus. And it is fitting that the son of Aenesidamus, whose roots grew from that seed, should meet with songs of praise and with the lyre.[48] For in Olympia he himself received a prize of honor; at Pytho[50] and at the Isthmus, the Graces who love them both brought garlands of flowers to his equally blessed brother for his four-horse team, victorious in the twelve courses of the race. To attempt a contest and be successful brings release from sadness. Wealth adorned with excellence brings many opportunities, rousing deep wild ambitions;[55][55] it is a brilliant star, a man's true light, at least if one has and knows the future, that the reckless souls of those who have died on earth immediately pay the penalty--and for the crimes committed in this realm of Zeus there is a judge below the earth; with hateful[60] compulsion he passes his sentence.[61] But having the sun always in equal nights and equal days, the good receive a life free from toil, not scraping with the strength of their arms the earth, nor the water of the sea,[65] for the sake of a poor sustenance. But in the presence of the honored gods, those who gladly kept their oaths enjoy a life without tears, while the others undergo a toil that is unbearable to look at.[68] Those who have persevered three times, on either side, to keep their souls free from all wrongdoing,[70] follow Zeus' road to the end, to the tower of Cronus, where ocean breezes blow around the island of the blessed, and flowers of gold are blazing, some from splendid trees on land, while water nurtures others. With these wreaths and garlands of flowers they entwine their hands[75][75] according to the righteous counsels of Rhadamanthys, whom the great father, the husband of Rhea whose throne is above all others, keeps close beside him as his partner. Peleus and Cadmus are counted among them, and Achilles who was brought there by his mother, when she had[80] persuaded the heart of Zeus with her prayers--[81] Achilles, who laid low Hector, the irresistible, unswerving pillar of Troy, and who consigned to death Memnon the Ethiopian, son of the Dawn. I have many swift arrows in the quiver under my arm,[85] arrows that speak to the initiated. But the masses need interpreters.1 The man who knows a great deal by nature is truly skillful, while those who have only learned chatter with raucous and indiscriminate tongues in vain like crows[88] against the divine bird of Zeus. Now, bend your bow toward the mark; tell me, my mind, whom are we trying to hit[90] as we shoot arrows of fame from a gentle mind? I will aim at Acragas, and speak with true intent a word sworn by oath: no city for a hundred years has given birth to a man more beneficent in his mind or more generous with his hand[95][95] than Theron. But praise is confronted by greed, which is not accompanied by justice, but stirred up by depraved men, eager to babble and to bury the fine deeds of noble men. Since the sand of the shore is beyond all counting,[100] who could number all the joys that Theron has given others?
A review of:
Atticism and the ‘Obsession with Language’
Ptolemaic Egypt...remained throughout its history a land of two
cultures which did coexist but, for the most part, did not coalesce or
blend. . . . We discern the manifestations of the two discrete cultures in
every aspect of their coexistence. . . . It would be difficult...to
exaggerate the significance of the fact that, except for some local
designations of places, measures, and so on, no native Egyptian word
made its way into Greek usage in the thousand years that Greek
endured as the language of Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Egypt.554
In fact, none of the words that we commonly use today to describe ancient Egypt are Egyptian themselves, e.g. pyramid, sphinx, pharaoh, Egypt, hieroglyph. (Some of these Greek words, however, have Egyptian etymologies which by far predate Alexander’s conquest. It is, however, unlikely that Greeks in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were ever aware of this.) Even the Gods and all of the cities were given Greek names, most of which accompany them to this day. The Egyptian kings of antiquity are also still known, ever since the sway of the Greek apartheid system, by their Greek name.
(1)Cultural dispossession was later repeated to roughly the same large extent in South Africa and Israel as in Egypt, one difference being that Egyptian, the language of the entire indigenous majority, was eventually wiped out under Greek (and to a lesser extent, Latin) domination. (2)The Persian occupiers of Egypt, prior to the Greeks, did not use their own language, but Aramaic, the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean region at that time, as the language of administration in Egypt. They did this although Persian, an Indo-Iranian language, is very different from Aramaic, which is a Semitic language. And being a Semitic language, Aramaic is also an Afro-Asiatic language, which means it is much more closely related to ancient Egyptian than to Persian, the mother language of the invaders.556
(3) Apparently, an invading power needs at least a sizeable civilian element if it is to impose its language on an indigenous majority, and especially if it is to achieve the demise of an indigenous majority’s language, unless of course the difference in military resources is large enough and a physically genocidal policy is implemented successfully, as was frequently the case in the Americas during the last half-millennium. In other words: a colonialist power – though not neocolonialism – apparently needs to develop into apartheid (or further into physical genocide) if it is to achieve linguistic genocide.
(4)The ancient Egyptian language only lived on during and after the Graeco-Roman period with another name and in a vastly different form as Coptic, which is massively influenced by Greek and by the new Greek-inspired system of writing. At least one quarter of the Coptic vocabulary is Greek in origin. It is no longer being used in the vernacular today, and the lingual blame for that should not only be given to Arabic, which has largely replaced Coptic during the last millennium, but to Greek and Latin, as well. As we have seen, only a negligible amount of Egyptian words ever made it in the opposite direction, into the Greek and Latin languages of the dominant ethnic minority. In comparison, Khoisan languages, with some very limited exceptions, were annihilated in South Africa, whereas the Bantu languages of the majority preserved and survived, though not without also being massively influenced by the white languages.
This is a great video that i came across while blogo-surfing in the Unique Epitomy.
Well, this video is the epitome of our exponential "shifting", because advancement would be a far too noble word to describe our current state of nature. In any case, i do not wish to start on the wrongs of the world, and how they increase exponentially as well, so i will just leave it there.
"The use of argumentation implies that one has renounced resorting to force alone, that value is attached to gaining the adherence of one's interlocutor by means of reasoned persuasion, and that one is not regarding him [or her] as an object, but appealing to his [or hers] free judgment. Recourse to argumentation assumes the establishment of a community of minds, which, while it lasts, excludes the use of violence."
(Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, "The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation," 55).
By Nick Childs
BBC world affairs correspondent
A majority of people believe that Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.
It shows that the two countries are closely followed by the United States and North Korea.
The poll asked 28,000 people in 27 countries to rate a dozen countries plus the EU in terms of whether they have a positive or negative influence.
Canada, Japan and the EU are viewed most positively in the survey.
'Traditional divides'
In January, the BBC World Service revealed polling results that suggested most people think the US has a mainly negative influence in the world - and that the numbers had increased significantly in the last couple of years.
This latest GlobeScan survey, mostly of the same people, confirms those findings.
But it also suggests that two countries are viewed even more negatively - first Israel, and then Iran.
North Korea is just behind the US.
Israel, of course, has long provoked sharp international reactions, and last year was involved in a controversial war in Lebanon.
Iran and North Korea have both been at the centre of international disputes over their nuclear programmes.
Canada, Japan, and the EU are viewed most positively, perhaps because they have all taken less high-profile roles in the world's recent confrontations.
India is one country in the survey that seems to have improved its standing in the last year.
In general, opinion seems to divide along the traditional fault lines of international politics.
Israel is viewed most negatively in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, although also in Europe.
Iran is viewed most positively in the Muslim world.
Japan is generally viewed positively, except in China and South Korea.
The EU similarly gets good marks, except most notably in Turkey, and also in parts of the Middle East.
SEE THE FULL SURVEY Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
First, let us define our terms of reference:
Ideal is what is regarded as the perfect outcome "ends", in the pursuit of the good "agatho".
Real is what is of essence "ousiwdes", "epi tis ousias".
Pragmatical is that which is of essence in its nominal sense, "epi twn pragmatwn", nominally.
In Politics and Foreign affairs, what is really ideal and what is pragmatically ideal? Can a policy or an attitude be ideal in both real and pragmatical terms? But what separates the essence from the form? The nominal from the real?
The real contains more constraints, less degrees of freedom. The nominal; in the society and era we live in the is the image governed by and offered to the media. The one based on our appetites. It takes many forms, either pro or anti to a specific cause, but always it is irrelevant to affecting the outcome of the event. It just reports.
The real is what is actually playing behind the scenes.
One example, to clear things up. Let us take Americas war on Iraq as an example. Pragmatically/Nominally the ideal outcome would be for the Iraqis to form a stable government, based on democracy and "laissez-faire" principles, in order to join the developing nations of the Planet. This is what is pragmatically ideal for the American foreign policy office.
But is it really ideal for the American office?
First of all, if Iraq, succeeds in doing all that America is asking, a) Crack down terrorism and fanaticism. b) Become stable and democratic, then there wouldn't be any reason for American troops to be in the area. Which is a good thing, both for the troops, and their societies back home. And it is pragmatically ideal for the American office as well.
But if we look one step further outside of Iraq, we will see that America is building up a circle around Iran. The encirclement rule is mentioned as "Rule number one" in every single military strategy handbook.But if Iraq, become democratic, and the troops go home, the circle will lose a part of its radius.Which according to any military hand-book, if something like that happens it would be devastating, especially for the ground forces.
So Pragmatically, the American Foreign Policy Office, wants a stable and democratic Iraq.
But do they Really want it?
This simple paradigm aims to define the difference between nominal/pragmatical and real.
Now let us see how the phrase "the ends justify the means" can fit with our example.
As we illustrated, pragmatically, America, used ugly means, war tactics in order to justify its noble ends, the Freedom of the Iraqi People. In our daily literature, we should appraise America, for taking on such a hard, and costly task for the sake of Iraqi freedom and lest not forget for Gods sake as well.
But really, America, we should ask ourselves, is that the ends they pursuit? Or is it the strategic oil resources, and military encirclement of the anti-American Nation aka Iran?
If these are the real ends? Are the means Justified? Again we have 2 pictures one is the pragmatical and the other the real. Pragmatically, they are not justified, because the public opinion as portrayed by the media does not approve such ends, a precipitating Third World War. Pragmatically such ends are not justified neither by the American Office, and hence their denial.
But are these the real ends? To attack Iran and precipitate a Third-World War? Ofc not, the pragmatical ends they say, is to pressure Iran to abide, with the same rules, that they reject. But heck, Iran cannot be trusted and must abide, while America, the pillar of Goodness, does not need to abide, because it can be trusted after all. But hey, lets not move away from the subject. Pragmatically, we need to make Iran a nuclear-free country, and Iraq, a terrorism-free country. Both pretty good ends, if you ask a 7 year old pure child. So the means, pragmatically are justified. But are they really? A Democratic Iraq, as we saw, will not help America to pursue its "wet dreams" on conquering the world, because it would put an end to to their hard-earned presence in the Middle-East. And a nuclear-free Iran, means that they will have to turn technology back in time, and increase the CO2 emissions, that opened the huge hole in the Ozone layer. Both not good. Neither pragmatically, nor really.
Conclusions.
We are left with one and only ends, which is Americas urge to achieve the full potential of its military strength. A pragmatically unjustified ends according to Global Attitudes and Trends.
But a really justified one, if we take into account the Golden Rules of Economics. a) Resources are Scarce. b) Available Resources are destined to achieve equilibrium by pursuing their full potential.
So, do their means justify their ends? Is their policy, pragmatically ideal? Is it really ideal?
Is aiming to achieve your full-potential, a noble-enough cause to justify your ugly means, in this case; War?
Opinions are nonuniform here as well. How much does a life cost? How about 2 lives? Is there a discount if i buy a dozen?
Another Time we can discuss that as well.
Cheerios for reading.
© copyright noemon.net
After conducting a careful research in my primary Hypotheses:
a) Numbers extend to infinity.
b) Numbers follow a perfectly Harmonious pattern/distribution.
b) Letters/Phonemes do not follow a perfectly Harmonious pattern/distribution.
d) Grammatical construction does not extend to infinity.
I concluded that the detailed analysis of my hypotheses and the respective conclusions shall not be made public.
I will, nevertheless make up for it, with a different subject, that popped in my head.
Political Philosophy and Strategy is coming up next. With a careful examination of the teleological infamous phrase : "the end justifies the means"
© copyright noemon.net
Today i was thinking about language and music, and i thought that which music is or can be regarded the best music in the world?
In my mind, the one that approaches perfect harmony. But what harmony? Harmonious in what sense? Well, in maths harmony is achieved when x=0, But, when does x=0?. In maths we have the odd and the even numbers, 1 is odd, 2 is even. The first 4 numbers 1+2+3+4=10, which according to Pythagoras it is the perfectly harmonious number. Also observe that in order to reach to the perfect number, the number 10, 2 odd and 2 even numbers are used.
2 odd and 2 even, this i can say is rather interesting. Also the first 10 numbers, which happen to be the basis for all the rest, follow a harmonious distribution, 5 odds and 5 evens make up the whole system. So, Harmony is achieved when x=0, Well, as you have guessed already 5-5=0 In other words we can say that 5 odd and 5 even numbers create all this harmonious system.
One can reflect on that for hours and create various syllogisms, but i just thought, in language which letters represent the odd and which represent the even. How can a language be perfectly harmonious? I would assume that odd are the consonants and even the vowels, don't know why, but this is how i would classify them. Now, how can a language achieve perfection? Probably, the same way that maths achieve perfection(Number 10 or 0), by using an equal amount of odds and evens. In other words, by using an equal amount of vowels and consonants. I will just baptize it in order to use the term for future reference in the blog or elsewhere: to the Relative Perfection Ratio ω = x/y , where x the amount of vowels, y the amount of consonants and ω represents the Harmonious Distribution of sounds of any given alphabet. When ω= 1, we can say that the Language is perfect. Or when ω1 > ω2, then ω1 is a relatively more perfect language than ω2.
But, lets put that into practice, i will examine the ones that i am more familiar with, the English representing the Latin ω1, and the Greek ω2. Bear in mind, that i will use only the unique letters of the alphabet, i will not include the diphthongs in this particular case, in order to keep it simple. Also, this examination takes place by 2 languages of the same Parent Group, the Greek, in which the alphabet contains vowels. But what happens when we compare it with the Pro-Canaanite Language group, from which Hebrew is derived from, a group which is vowel less. Hm, this is tricky, but i guess that even though vowels are absent from the group in their writing system, they are not absent from the phonetic system, and therefore these, can be taken into account, the a, the e, the i, the o and the u, which are universal phonetic sounds. Or maybe the whole Hypothesis, of the vowels representing the even numbers and the consonants respectively the odd numbers could be flawed, and the separation, can take place some how else. Maybe, but lets see what happens, in my Hypothesis.
The English(Latin) Alphabet is composed of 26 letters, good by now, the number is even just like 10, and it is possible that it can could be formed by 13 vowels and 13 consonants. But is it?
Last time, i checked 6 were the vowels and 20 the consonants, so according to my theory, this language can never achieve the perfection that the math language can.
Therefore,
ω1=x/y<->
ω1=6/20<->
ω1=0.3
What about the Greek?
The Greek alphabet is composed by 24 letters, 7 vowels and 17 consonants.
Hence,
ω2=x/y<->
ω2=7/17<->
ω2=0.41176711~
Conclusions
In words, the Greek Language cannot be perfect either. But what do we conclude from this? First of all ω1 < ω2, which means that ω2(Greek) is relatively more perfect, with a more Harmonious Distribution. Secondly, why does the ω2 equals to an indefinite number? Does it mean something? Propably. And also, maybe this Relative Perfection Ratio explains our "original sin", our imperfection, our calculating inabilities compared with calculators? Our never Harmonious programming languages, could be the root of the cause.
I will come back to this. Thank you for your time.
© copyright noemon.net
Provocateur...lets troll the dictionaries.
Wow, what a word ha?An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French language, "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group.
An agent provocateur is often a police officer that encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime. These are sometimes called sting operations.
One common use of Agents provocateurs is to investigate consensual or victimless crimes; since each participant in such crimes are willing participants, it is difficult for the authorities to discover such crimes without the use of undercover agents.
Agents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Terrorists sometimes act as agents provocateurs when they seek to provoke government repression that they hope will alienate their potential constituency from the government in question, and thus increase support for themselves (as the opponents of the government in question). In this sense, provocation may be combined with endorsement terrorism. from wikipedia.com
1. To incite to anger or resentment.
2. To stir to action or feeling.
3. To give rise to; evoke: provoke laughter.
4. To bring about deliberately; induce: provoke a fight.
[Middle English provoken, from Old French provoquer, from Latin prvoc
re, to challenge : pr
Synonyms: provoke, incite, excite, stimulate, arouse, rouse, stir1
These verbs mean to move a person to action or feeling or to summon something into being by so moving a person. Provoke often merely states the consequences produced: "Let my presumption not provoke thy wrath" Shakespeare. "A situation which in the country would have provoked meetings" John Galsworthy.
To incite is to provoke and urge on: Members of the opposition incited the insurrection.
Excite implies a strong or emotional reaction: The movie will fail; the plot excites little interest or curiosity.
Stimulate suggests renewed vigor of action as if by spurring or goading: "Our vigilance was stimulated by our finding traces of a large ... encampment" Francis Parkman.
To arouse means to awaken, as from inactivity or apathy; rouse means the same, but more strongly implies vigorous or emotional excitement: "In a democratic society like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the people's representatives" Felix Frankfurter. "The oceangoing steamers ... roused in him wild and painful longings" Arnold Bennett.
To stir is to cause activity, strong but usually agreeable feelings, trouble, or commotion: "It was him as stirred up th' young woman to preach last night" George Eliot. "I have seldom been so ... stirred by any piece of writing" Mark Twain. See Also Synonyms at annoy.
The first of these is Heidegger’s intuition that, in the course of over two thousand years of history, philosophy has attended to all the beings that can be found in the world (including the “world” itself), but has forgotten to ask what “Being” itself is. This is Heidegger’s “question of being,” and it is Heidegger’s fundamental concern throughout his work from the beginning of his career until its end. One crucial source of this insight was Heidegger’s reading of Franz Brentano’s treatise on Aristotle’s manifold uses of the word “being,” a work which provoked Heidegger to ask what kind of unity underlies this multiplicity of uses. Heidegger opens his magnum opus, Being and Time, with a citation from Plato’s Sophist indicating that the forgetting of being in Western philosophy is a consequence of the fact that it has been treated as obvious, rather than as worthy of question. Heidegger’s intuition about the question of being is thus a historical argument, which in his later work becomes his concern with the “history of being,” that is, the history of the forgetting of being, which according to Heidegger requires that philosophy retrace its footsteps through a productive “destruction” of the history of philosophy.
The second intuition animating Heidegger’s philosophy derives from the influence of Edmund Husserl, a philosopher largely uninterested in questions of philosophical history. Rather, Husserl argued that all that philosophy could and should be a description of experience (hence the phenomenological slogan, “to the things themselves”). But for Heidegger, this meant understanding that experience is always already situated in a world and in ways of being (Husserl's "intersubjectivity"). Thus Husserl's understanding that all consciousness is "intentional" (in the sense that it is always intended toward something, and is always "about" something; intentionality has been called the "aboutness" of things) is in Heidegger's philosophy transformed, becoming the thought that all experience is experience of "care." This is the basis of Heidegger’s “existential analytic,” as he develops it in Being and Time. Heidegger argues that to be able to describe experience properly means finding the being for whom such a description might matter. Heidegger thus conducts his description of experience with reference to “Dasein” (German Da—there/here; Sein—being or its; Dasein—existence), the being for whom being is a question, a being who is not man but who is nothing other than man. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, thrown into the world, is therefore thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one’s own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one’s own existence, is the basis of Heidegger’s notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the “vulgar” temporality of calculation and of public life.
After having solved all these puzzles, that is to say the interrelation between being, not-being, difference and negation, as well as the possibility of the ‘appearing and seeming but not really being’, Plato can finally proceed to define the sophistry. In other words, sophistry is a productive art, human, of the imitation kind, copy-making, of the appearance-making kind, uninformed and insincere in the form of contrary-speech-producing art.The art of manipulating terms begins with the agents provocauters, needed for our daily consumption along with milk, coffee, cigarettes and toilet. Some troll for fun, others for salary, and others for Eros
I have been asked this question so many times that i have actually lost counting. This question and the answer accompanied by, is usually " Are you affiliated with a certain religion?" And if not, then you got to be an "atheist".
Well, that's not true. Not true at all.
Bottom line, why should i bow to Savaoth, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Buddha or whatever in order to prove to my interlocutor that i believe in a Higher Energy? Why should i accept the definition given to this Higher Energy by other individuals or organizations?
But if i don't, i am automatically either an atheist or an agnosticist?
Is that which degree exactly of stereotyping, or what?
But what is belief? What is faith? Is faith that which religious organizations believe that it is?
Why? 1)Because of their volumes follower's? 2)Because of their History? Or 3)because of the energy retransmitted by them through the Concentration of their subjects?
"The faith of many people to something does not guarantee its truthfulness", even the Ugly Socrates 2500 years ago observed the blindness of the mass.
In other words, as far as i am concerned, Scientific method alone, is allowed to perform such statements of True or False. And their history, is worst than Mao Ce Tung's China....
But what about box no3? That's a tricky one isn't it?
According to this line of thought, the more followers one has, the more influential is in the Divine domain, since the followers in their own way, create through their faith a Light in the Darkness. Not because of their affiliations but through the power of their meditative minds.
So, here we have another relationship similar to the State-Citizen relationship, everything the citizens do, the government takes credit for. And it should, since it provides a competitive framework for its subjects to elaborate in.
So, maybe i should choose a religion and fast for that matter?
But wait a second, since when did "pure energy" become a tradable commodity which can be concentrated and retransmitted?
I guess we should have to wait until science answers David Chalmers Hard Problem.
Until then, take your chances, and i shall take mine.
Toodaloo.
© copyright noemon.net
Waco in its name, "waco" in its sense as well.
The Waco Massacre is the climax of an unfortunate turn of events that took place in Mount Carmel in Texas, USA. The ignition took place when David Koresh (born Vernon Wayne Howell) (August 17, 1959 – April 19, 1993) became the leader of a Christian Cult former excommunicated by 7th Day Adventists called the Branch Davidians.
Koresh ascended to leadership when he established an affair with Lois Roden, the prophetess and leader of the sect who was then in her late sixties, eventually claiming that God had chosen him to father a child with her, who would be the Chosen One.
In February 27, 1993, the Waco Herald-Tribune started a series of articles titled the Sinful Messiah accusing Koresh that had physically abused children in the compound and had taken under-age brides, even raping one of them. Koresh was also said to advocate polygamy for himself, and declared himself married to several female residents of the small community.
According to the paper, Koresh declared that he was entitled to at least 140 wives, that he was entitled to claim any of the females in the group as his, that he had fathered at least a dozen children by the harem and that some of these mothers became brides as young as twelve or thirteen years old.
A video clip of an interview between Koresh and an Australian television station notes that he was accused of impregnating the aged widow of the founder of Branch Davidianism. He sarcastically said that if the charges were true, if he had
"made an 82 year-old woman pregnant... I do miracles, I'm God!"In 1992, a UPS delivery driver alerted the local deputy sheriff that empty grenade casings had been delivered to Mount Carmel (this was and still is legal under federal law). The sheriff notified the ATF and requested their help. This led to an investigation of the Davidians that lasted several months, and ultimately resulted in allegations of weapons violations by the Davidians. In addition, former Davidians told the ATF that Koresh had taught his followers to be prepared for a government assault. The ATF began planning a raid, and search and arrest warrants were issued in early 1993.
Rick Ross told the Houston Chronicle that Koresh is "your stock cult leader. They're all the same. Meet one and you've met them all. They're deeply disturbed, have a borderline personality and lack any type of conscience. No one willingly enters into a relationship like this. So you're talking about deception and manipulation (by the leader), people being coached in ever so slight increments, pulled in deeper and deeper without knowing where it's going or seeing the total picture.Kimberly Post, a sociology student working on a class assignment for University of Virginia Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, wrote in 1997:
Relying heavily on reports from a few former members of the Branch Davidians such as Marc Breault (who claimed to have stood armed guard despite being legally blind), and self-proclaimed "cult expert" Rick Ross, Aguilera's affidavit delved into topics not under the jurisdiction of the BATF or part of the initial investigation into firearms violations, such as allegations of child abuse. His affidavit and the assumptions put forth by Breault and Ross decisively influenced the investigation and opinion of Koresh and his followers by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno, and President Clinton.The ATF began surveillance from a house across the street from the center, but their cover was inadequate (the "college students" were in their 30s, not registered at the local schools, and they did not keep a schedule which would have fit any legitimate employment or classes), so it became an open secret that they were government agents. Likewise, the agent who infiltrated the Branch Davidians discovered that he had been identified when Koresh spoke to him about the assault force then assembling across the farm fields near Mount Carmel.
In this article we shall examine the term Poem. Our adventures through these analysis aims to restore the value to those important concepts in order to save the alienation of our culture.
Every day we use terms that have changed from their initial purpose into something abstract, they have been bastardized through the fusion of languages and cultures, leading us to further widen our cultural gaps since the points of reference alter continuously. And as it seems it is harder to keep up with the continuing shifts in the terms of reference than studying the true point of reference. Paradox? Maybe....our lives are full of paradoxes, one more wouldn't really hurt us, or Would it?
So to begin our analysis with the term poem, lets examine its root: The rhema(verb) POIEIN.
Poiein literally means in Hellenic "to create".
Socrates in his elaborative arguments said that Poiesis (creation) is that which occurs "ek tou mi ontos" (from the non-existance) in other words creation applies only when we create something from the non-existance. Otherwise it would be modification, not creation.
So, Poem or Poiema in Hellenic is something that is created out of nothing. Like an idea for example. Poet or Poietes is the Creator.
However nowadays we use the term poem to refer to a verbal composition only. Under this perspective Hesiods Cosmogony is indeed a Poem like the Hemingway's poems for example. But is it just that? Is it just an imaginary song? During his time, the term Poem did not apply only to songs it applied to every single concept of creation.
In other words, Hesiod's song is a creation for the creator(Chaos).
Poem for the Poet.
What do we mean when we say that a situation is chaotic? Incontrollable crisis? Abstract movement? Unpredictability? Disorder? Assymetry? Just like the Image suggests?
Let us see,
Chaos in mathematics means an aperiodic deterministic behavior which is very sensitive to its initial conditions, i.e., infinitesimal perturbations of boundary conditions for a chaotic dynamic system originate finite variations of the orbit in the phase space. Chaos in physics is often considered analogous to thermodynamic entropy. Chaos is a poetic or metaphysical concept evoking a sense of discord, whereas entropy is a concretely defined function of a physical system. See entropy for the mathematical quantification of the disorder in a system. Physical chaos might be conceived as utter confusion, an incomprehensible and heterogeneous mess. This intuitive notion is at odds with the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. Maximized entropy always corresponds to apparent homogeneity in a system.But what all that scientific gibberish mean?
Chaos Theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect).
Eternal knowledge or just a poem?
Below are the first verses of Hesiod's cosmogony.
"First of all, Chaos (The Void), next broad-bosomed Gaia (Space), the solid and eternal home of all, and Eros (Desire-Magnetism), the most beautiful of the immortal gods, who in every man and every god softens the sinews and overpowers the prudent purpose of the mind. Out of Chaos came Erevos (Dark Matter) and Black Nyx (Black Night), and out of Night came Aither (Cosmic Radiance) and Hemera (Day-Light), her children conceived after union in love with Erevos (Dark Matter). Gaia-broad(Space) first produced Uranus (Starry Sky/Matter), equal in size with herself, to cover her on all sides. Next she produced the tall mountains, the pleasant haunts of the gods, and also gave birth to the barren waters, sea with its raging surges-all this without the passion of love. Thereafter she lay with Sky and gave birth to Ocean with its deep current. Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus; Thea and Rhea and Themia [Law] and Mnemosyne [Memory]; also golden-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After these came cunning Cronus(Time), the youngest and boldest of her children; and he grew to hate the father who had begotten him."So, at first according to Hesiod we have Chaos the void. And then Gaia the broad which represents Space.
Hello, dear Public i shall make my entrance in the blogging domain with a purely noemonful paradigm to illustrate.......!
I will translate for you dear Readers in my own words, a passage from the Symposium of Plato.
Symposium means Party in Hellenic and almost 2500 years ago, Agathon had a party to celebrate his victory in an Athenian competition called Linaia Games.
He invited Plato, Socrates, Aristophanes the Great Comedian, Alkiviades the Athenian governor, was there and some other less important figures.
They sat down and they decided to discuss about Eros, or Love, their rule was that only one speaks at a time with a clockwise rotation according to where seated.
I will skip most of their speeches which most of them are idiotic and useless and i will go down to the juice, to Socrates. Just to add, when Plato's turn came to speak, he said: "sorry, am not really up for it today, to speak about love, please allow me to comment and criticize the ones that have already spoken" And so he did, so Plato actually didn't say how he perceives Love, and how he defines Love.
However, Plato is the one that afterwards he went home, he wrote every single thing down, even the thoughts he made in his mind while the others were talking.
So to cut to the chase, Socrates is speaking, but he is using a story to tell his beliefs. He says to everybody:
"Once upon a time i met a woman called Diotima, she was very wise, so wise she even stopped a plague from coming to Athens with various medicine and prayers to our Gods. I used to believe that Eros was a Great God, beautiful and powerful but she proved me wrong the same way that i proved wrong our host, Agathon"
So here it goes:
S: "What are you saying Diotima is Eros ugly and evil?"
D: "Why are you blaspheming Socrates, who told you that what is not beautiful and good is necessarily ugly and evil?"
S: "But of course it is"
D: "Oh, my poor man, and everything that is not wise is necessarily idiotic? Dont you know that there is something in between wisdom and stupidity?"
S: "And what is this something?"
D: "This something is for someone to have a true opinion without being able to prove it, of course this is not a science because it lacks the proof, however it is not stupidity either cause it manages to reach to the essence of matter. A valid opinion is something that exists between wisdom and amathy."
S: "You 're right"
D: "So, didn't you say that something that is not beautiful is necessarily ugly and also something that is not good is necessarily evil. As you can see, this doesn't apply everywhere. Same goes for Eros."
S: "However, Diotima you have to admit that he is recognized by everyone as a God and a Great one for that matter."
D: "Who is everyone Socrates? The ones that know? Or the ones that they don't?"
S: "Everybody irrespectively"
[Then she smiled and said]:
D: The faith of many people to a particular thing does not guarantee its truthfulness. And also, Socrates, how do you say that he is recognized as a Great God when the same people claim that he is not a God at all?"
S: "But who is those people that say so?"
D: " Well I am and YOU ARE"
S: "How did you manage to gather that?"
D: "Oh, its very easy. Answer me: didn't you admit that all the gods are happy and beautifully? Or do you dare to say that even one of them is not?"
S: "Of course i do not dare, To Zeus, never."
D: "But a while ago, you claimed that Eros craves the the good and beautiful, if he craves them, then that means that he does not posses them...Did you or did you not say so?"
S: "Well, yes i did"
D: "So how can he be a God, when he lacks the beauty and goodness?"
S: "Well yes, ok you do have a point"
D: So, do you see that even yourself claims that Eros is not a God?"
S: Diotima, am about to go mental, Tell me then what is he? Is he mortal? Tell me..."
D: "Of course not"
S: "Then?"
D: "As we already illustrated with the previous examples, Socrates, he is something in between a God and a mortal"
S: "Tell me what is Eros?, cause am about to blow up!"
D: "DAEMON Socrates, he is a daemon, Aren't Daemons somewhere in between the mortals and the gods?"
S: "And what is a daemon Diotima? What is their task? Their purpose?"
D: "Their purpose is similar to that of Hermes and Charon, to transfer and translate messages from Gods to Mortals and prayers of Mortals to the Gods. The race of the Daemons, is the link between the divine and the human, it is the ones that keep the universe together, the ones that bind everything together, the cosmic glue. Man cannot approach god, so the daemons are appointed for this task. This communication takes place while we are awake and also while we are asleep. And whoever knows how to translate this communication is wise and daemonic, such are the poets, the lawmakers, the philosophers, the prophets, and the inventors." So, these daemons are plenty, however their King, their Ruler is Eros, i would say".
S: "So, Diotima, and who are the parents of Eros? Where did he come from?"
D: "Oh this is a great story, and i will narrate it to you....."
=======================================================
I will narrate it to you dear Readers another time......this is enough for the time being.
I hope that you shall enjoy this short dialectical argument, which more or less, is where our Western Civilization is derived from.
This is one of the finest examples of the dialectical arguments. This speech took place in Athens in the year 416 B.C., Month is January (Gamelion) in the House of Agathon.
© copyright noemon.net
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
