Logos 48 – Impulsul American

10 decembrie 2010 de 19 comentarii

Filed under Video

19 Responses to Logos 48 – Impulsul American

  1. Dan says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 06:14

    Vorbind de „visul american” sau visul european sau de ori ce alta culoare, automat implica o anumita stare de adormire.Adormire a cui? In general oamenii viseaza in timpul somnului si din cind in cind cu ochii deschisi. Al cui somn? De-a lungul istoriei umanitatea a experimentat tot felul de vise terminate in cosmaruri cu perioade scurte de trezire dupa care „back to sleep”. Ciclul se repeta constant! In anumite cercuri in America fenomenul acesta repetativ incepe sa fie observat si studiat. Ma gindesc la George Carlin, filmul „The Matrix” si mai nou filmul „Inception” de exemplu. Ok , Ok, pop culture dar acesta este vehiculul prin care se ia pulsul Americii in sec. 21. La vremea deciziei cum e paharul : pe jumatate gol sau pe jumatate plin? E o chestie de interpretare! Unii angajeaza vreo 3 bocitoare care sa plinga la comanda, tavalindu-se in suferinta iar altii se-apuca de treaba ca mai e un pic si se umple paharul! Si ambii au in fata acelasi pahar. ” Nu va teme-ti! ” so many times he said it! Curaj!

    Like allways
    Respect

  2. JungleLeaks says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 06:27

    Ma gindesc la George Carlin… 😛 dane, nebunaticule!
    http://shoqvalue.com/george-carlin-on-the-american-dream-with-transcript
    „That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
    _____________________________
    ps: „nu va temeti” (se scrie legat 😉 )

  3. eddieconst says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 06:53

    off topic:

    Dan, my apologies for not picking up the phone last week. Let’s have a bite together with our wives.

  4. Dan says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 06:54

    CJ
    Acum doua saptamini am ascultat un interviu cu Kelly Carlin, fica lui George Carlin. Amazing!
    Stii vorba aia : engleza n-am invatat si romaneste am uitat! Stuck in between! Mersi pentru observatie si promit ca o sa se mai repete!A kick in the butt is a step forward!

  5. eddieconst says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 06:55

    CJ-ule, cum in the world le gasesti ?

  6. Dan says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 07:03

    Don’t worry! We’ have to take care of first things first. Let’s keep it in perspective.

  7. JungleLeaks says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 07:19

    @dane, sa nu te superi pe mine, ok? am inteles (si cu northlite si cu edi – suntem oameni), forget about it… eu imi cer scuze.
    @tati, e tarziu… go to bed, old man! 😛 it’s one o’clock already…
    destul ca mi-am pierdut eu noaptea in fata pc-ului (si n-am facut mare drac, sunt un idiot).

    hmmm… inca astept sa ma trosnesti. doar pentru a te strangr si mai tare in brate.
    sa aveti o noapte linistita. va pup pe amandoi!

  8. i-oana says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 07:33

    Dane,

    Aproape-aproape c-ai dat reteta anti-depresie !

    Ha, auzi tu, hai la munca ce tot stati atata si bociti cea criza si jumatea aia goala de pahar !

    Daca te tin „nadragii” baga si tu un editorial cu ceva mai multe realitati americane si nu numai !!

    Hai, la munca ,ca tara geme de multi ce e aia de zice ca stie ceva ,cand de fapt, ei e prosti de-a binelea.

    Dane-bre, poate n-oi intelege pe dos ce-am scris, ai grija , altfel pt. tine Dane numai Buzdugane !

  9. virgil d says:
    10 decembrie 2010 la 22:16

    Eddi
    Acum cateva posturi ai amintit de un anume predicator din Anglia, Fletcher dacă nu ma insel, care interpretand profetia a spus de la amvon data căderii papalitatii si a regelui Frantei. Asta cu mult înaintea lui Miller. Unde as putea găsi mai multe detalii? Multzam.

  11. JungleLeaks says:
    11 decembrie 2010 la 08:30

    Veşnic ni se tot vorbeşte despre sfârşitul lumii. N-aş zice că mă impresionează prea tare, în primul rând pentru că mă obişnuiesc cu gândul, apoi pentru că moartea fiecăruia dintre noi este un mic sfârşit de lume pentru cel în cauză.

                                        ~ Julien Green

  12. virgil d says:
    11 decembrie 2010 la 09:44

    CJ esti tare. multzam

  13. oli says:
    11 decembrie 2010 la 16:11

    cred ca, vorbind de fundalul filosofic american, l-ati omis de William James si pragmatismul. Nu Bacon e filosoful care sta la baza sistemului nord-american, ci pragmatismul.

    acolo nu e vorba de percpeptie, ci de reprezentare, vezi triada senzatie-perceptie-reprezentare.

  14. eddieconst says:
    12 decembrie 2010 la 10:50

    Virgill # 9:

    Robert Fleming

  15. Stef says:
    12 decembrie 2010 la 10:52

    America a fost in primul rand proiectia idealurilor nascute in Europa. Mai apoi, atragand ca un magnet valori din toata lumea si din toate domeniile, a ajuns ce a ajuns.
    Dar cum nimic nu e vesnic, cine stie in ce parte se va inclina balanta puterii peste 50, 100 de ani? China poate? Posibil. Eu sper intr-o schimbare atat de mare la nivel global dar mai ales individual, incat urmasii nostri sa poata trai intr-o societate gen Star Trek si nu intr-una post nucleara, a batei. Echilibrul e atat de fragil, iar noi suntem atat de norocosi ca omenirea este cat de cat pe drumul cel bun.

  17. JungleLeaks says:
    12 decembrie 2010 la 12:12

    #11

    Veşnic ni se tot vorbeşte despre sfârşitul lumii. N-aş zice că mă impresionează prea tare, în primul rând pentru că mă obişnuiesc cu gândul, apoi pentru că moartea fiecăruia dintre noi este un mic sfârşit de lume pentru cel în cauză.

    „I reject your reality and substitute my own” :evilgrin:
    seriously this time… dincolo de aceste speculatii metafizice (care-si au sensul lor) si romantic-idealist-subiective… exista totusi o realitate obiectiva, pe care n-o putem ignora sau nega, oricat am dori.

    We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are. Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics. So whenever we explore reality in any specific manner, we have to leave out something. For example, when you describe an orange, you cannot say anything about its totality. You have to talk about its color or its taste or its shape. If you want your description to encompass the whole thing – its color, shape, and taste all together – you can only say, „orange.” It is the same with objective reality. If you want to say anything about it, you have to focus on its specific characteristics. […]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality#Truth
    Not Your Father’s Objective Reality: 100 Years of Quantum Weirdness
    The Denial of Objective Reality

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip K. Dick
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/atom-tim/

  18. JungleLeaks says:
    12 decembrie 2010 la 20:00

    hey guys, ia aruncati o privire pe siteul asta:

    Newton TV :victory: :victory: :victory:
    a TED-like site of science lectures and documentaries

  19. JungleLeaks says:
    13 decembrie 2010 la 01:36

    » Atheism – Scholars – Spong «

    http://library.nu/search?q=John+Shelby+Spong
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Christianity_for_a_New_World#Twelve_points_for_Reform
    http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/spong983.htm
    http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/spong_change_or_die.htm

    Another common conclusion reached by liberal theists is the rejection of some or all of the miracle stories in the Bible and other books as historical. For example, the „Twelve Theses” of the well-known and controversial liberal Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong dismiss the virgin birth, physical resurrection, and heavenly ascension of Jesus, among other Bible miracles. Spong also rejects the traditional conception of God as an anthropomorphic being who periodically invades human history, and writes in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism that „God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us” and calls God „the sum of all that is”.

    The question that arises is this. If God does not intervene in human history miraculously, then what does he do? Does he do nothing more than confer on us qualities such as love, reason, compassion or curiosity? But these are purely human traits whose existence no one denies in any case, and atheists can explain them just as well. Does the liberal god do anything clearly distinguishable from random chance and human action?

    Again, I wish to emphasize that I find nothing blameworthy about these views in and of themselves. The mind is to be commended which can recognize that the Bible and other holy books are superstitious relics of a bygone era. For far too long, humanity has been haunted by angels and demons; for far too long, the spirit of free inquiry was hampered by beliefs that the natural world was not something we could rationally investigate and learn to control to our advantage, but something governed by capricious spirits that could be placated, appeased, or entreatied, but never understood. We are only beginning to emerge from this darkness into the light, but remnants of this ancient and outdated mode of thinking persist. The miracle stories in most scriptures are a symptom of this age-old devotion to mysticism, the superstitious belief that the unchanging laws of the cosmos may at any time, without warning or reason, be suspended by the inscrutable whim of a mysterious Deity. Anyone with the wisdom to set aside this primitive mindset and view reality through a rational, naturalistic lens, whether atheist or theist, is worthy of commendation. But if one has gone this far, why not take the logical next step, and conclude that the supernatural itself is equally a figment of human imagination?

    The deist or pantheist god who does not intervene miraculously in history has in its favor that it is not contradicted by reality. On the other hand, such a god does not seem to be useful for much. What is the difference between a god who never acts in any way distinguishable from chance, and a god who does not exist at all? Even if such a god did exist, what would be the point of believing in it?

    And that brings me to my final argument. There are those who claim that God loves everyone, that he will not send any good-hearted person to Hell, that all religions have it at least partly right, and so on. Well and good. But if this is what God is like, then for what reason should I – or anyone – believe in him? It seems (in a sort of reverse Pascal’s Wager) that we have nothing to gain thereby, and if lack of belief does not by itself doom one to Hell, why not just discard the unverifiable supernatural baggage and instead devote one’s life to being the best human being possible? It is even conceivable that God has purposely withheld evidence and allowed the claims of religions to become exaggerated and go unsubstantiated because he does not want us to believe in him. (Something for a liberal theist to think about: Could God be a spiritual „parent” whose desire is that humanity grow to the point where it no longer needs him?)

    Why do we even need religion, according to liberal theists?

    = read the entire article =

    ______________________________________________
    http://opensourcechurch.ro/index.php?showtopic=50&st=40&p=10886&#entry10886

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Gravatar
Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. ( Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. ( Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Anulează

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: