HGL's F.B. writings: mars 2015

samedi 28 mars 2015

On Some Words by Burke (kind of Cardinal, except not canonically outside Vatican II sectarian context)

Status in a group: Cardinal Raymond Burke: Gays, remarried Catholics, murderers are all the same
by David Gibson,Religion News Service | Mar. 27, 2015
http://ncronline.org/news/people/cardinal-raymond-burke-gays-remarried-catholics-murderers-are-all-same
RMcC: I think he could have expressed himself somewhat better...
RT: Arbitrary examples he has used. He could have included gluttons, gossips and those who criticise others.
KS: Why should he? Isnt it the Truth? These are equally grave mortal sins!
RD (D, not T!): t think his concern goes a lot in favor of the great danger faced by the Family. Gays-lobby are trying to "murder" the family, so does a big part of remarried Catholics that want to impose their home-made view about marriage.
KB: Nobody knows the state of another person's soul. Burke's is the preaching of tyranny and fear mongering. I do not believe that he is doing God's will with it.
RD (D, not T!): The Catholic Chuch urgently needs that "tyranny". We have been too kind, too good, too weak! And we have the results today. babies with 3 parents, surrogate mothers, "marriage" between two men who claim the "right" to have children, legal 3-term abortion by poison injected into the fetus's heart....Burke for tyran! Hurrah!!!
KB: We do not need any kind of tyranny. One evil cannot stop another. Burke is not preaching Jesus' truth. That's why Pope Francis sidelined him.
ZW: Cardinal Raymond Burke -- Santo Subito!
RMacK: Vile, repulsive and pathetic little man. He knows nothing about the concerns and struggle of the working man or woman
HGL: KB : It is Jesus' truth that even one mortal sin blocks from Heaven, and that despite any good deeds done while in mortal sin. The utmost such deeds can do for you if you're in mortal sin is that God might consider them a reason for giving you the grace of repentance.

I'm assuming that by "murderer" he means "unrepentant murderer". A condemned man who has said he was sorry for killing an innocent man may be presumed to have regained grace.

@RMacK, if the concerns and struggle of a working man or woman have in your place become such that it seems impossible for them to repent of being gay, or impossible for them to repent of a remarriage, they need to stop having such concerns, even at the price of becoming bums.

@RT "He could have included gluttons, gossips and those who criticise others." - No since there are cases when these are only venial.

And criticising someone else is sometimes even not a venial sin but a virtuous act.

@KB "Nobody knows the state of another person's soul. Burke's is the preaching of tyranny and fear mongering."

The state of a soul, no. But certain mortal sins are public facts.

Staying in a "gay couple" or staying in a "remarried one" would at any time it involves a voluntary choice imply mortal sin.
KB: As I say, nobody knows the state of another's soul. We can never say that anybody else in a state of sin. That being do, it is illogical to claim that anybody has sinned publicly.

All we can ever justifiably say is "If I did that, I would be on a state of sin".

Jesus gave us Christianity as a guide for our own lives individually, not as an excuse for judging other people.
HGL: Sure, the guy who seems to me to be in a gay couple could theoretically just have decided to leave it and thereby regained God's grace. I just don't know it yet. That would remain true even if by tomorrow he has changed his mind. And that change of mind would usually be another mortal sin.

There IS such a thing as public sin.

Being a tax collector is not a public sin, it is just a public occasion for sins of extorsion, if it is done as it was back then. So a tax collector could cease to be in mortal sin, simply by deciding to take only what the provincials owe Rome and take for himself only what he needed.

But Herod was living in public sin and St John the Baptist denounced it.

"Jesus gave us Christianity as a guide for our own lives individually"

ALSO as a guide for the public life of nations.
RMacK: Using homophobic language doesn't get you anywhere mate
RG: "Repent for being gay"? What I find disturbing is the lack of education here. Sexual orientation and proclivity to same sex attraction is no more a choice than skin colour.
HGL: @RG

Why did you start a non-quote with quotation marks? [I was wrong about that, see further on - or you recall?] Or was it a quote from article?

I did not speak of repenting for "being gay", but of repenting for "being in a gay couple".

"Sexual orientation and proclivity to same sex attraction is no more a choice than skin colour."

I would say you might be wrong, except for extreme cases. And skin colours are sometimes genetic, but sometimes also due to skin diseases (like all white being a colour due to psoriasis or leprosy), which is a fair parallel to those extreme cases.

But supposing even that with a certain man the proclivity for same sex attraction is ineradicable, this need not imply the choice between abstinence or sodomy, since Josh Weed seems still today to have such a proclivity and still he is faithfully married to a woman for now more than eleven years and there are at least three daughters.

If what you are saying is that there are men who are condemned both to the proclivity and to inability of making Josh Weed's choice and on top of that also to inability for celibacy and abstinence, even with adjusted diet (lent is a reminder of the role of diet in chastity), you are basically saying some men cannot help sinning mortally.

It sounds more like demonic posession than like what happens to sane and free men, if you put it that way. Now, demonically possessed are indeed not responsible for all they do while under the influence of the demon, but even there, sodomy is so repulsive even to demons (as St Bridget heard from Christ), that when the act is committed, demons withdraw, which leaves the men free to also withdraw, at least for some moments, unhampered by demons, and to ask God for help.

God does NOT predestine any to evil, and sodomy is an inherently evil act, whatever excuses there may be in certain instances of it.

@RMacK "Using homophobic language doesn't get you anywhere mate"

I seriously do not know what you are talking about. I have not used any word choice reflecting homophobia, nor in each word choice chosen any word reflecting most disgust possible for men. As to sodomy for act, well, for the act we should have uttermost disgust.

So, no, I have not used homophobic language to express otherwise PC ideas, I have used the language expressing most properly and even dispassionately certain ideas which you might consider homophobic.

Because I believe reality is at every level of the cosmos, except the minds of certain sinners and except the expressed ideas in certain "gayfriendly" nooks and crannies of society, utterly against sodomy.

Oh, sorry, @RG , I did in fact use the word "repent of being gay" followed by an "or" and by "repent of a remarriage". I meant by the first obviously "repent of being in a gay couple", not of the proclivity (except one should repent of occasions when one encouraged it).

I thought it was the other answer you meant.

"But comparing those situations in any context is unusual and certainly out of step with the pastoral tone that Francis has set in his papacy."

What papacy?

"Moreover, reformers argue that a murderer -- or almost any other sinner -- can go to confession, receive absolution, and take Communion in a state of grace. But there is no such option for a gay person or those who are divorced and remarried, except permanent celibacy."

For the guys in a gay couple, there is the option of Josh Weed, sometimes. For the remarrieds, there is sometimes a possibility of getting back to spouse. In case only one person has a divorce from a valid matrimony behind himself or herself, the other person can get out and get a real marriage.

And murderers too sometimes can only stop murdering, hence only get absolution, if for instance getting to police and giving up and thereby exposing themselves to death penalty or life time prison. Mafiosi would be a case in point, if Mafia only protects them as long as they stay in torpedo business, or forces them to return to it as long as they are alive and free.

"Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, for example, repeatedly stressed that the church should "look at the person and not the sexual orientation." He cited the case of a gay couple he knew in which one partner cared for the other through a long-term illness in a way that was 'exemplary. Full stop.' "

Schoenborn is hardly a good authority.

He is evolutionist, for one.
RG: Let me quote the whole thing then as you seem to have so readily forgotten what you wrote. "RMacK, if the concerns and struggle of a working man or woman have in your place become such that it seems impossible for them to repent of being gay, or impossible for them to repent of a remarriage, they need to stop having such concerns, even at the price of becoming bums." You need not read more into what I wrote other than the writing itself. Same-sex attraction isn't voluntary and doesn't dictate a person's actions anymore than opposite sex attraction does. I'm sorry but you are just wrong on that. I might add that it is a fact that some people find both sexes attractive so your example is a bit weak.
HGL: I thought it was the other answer you meant. [I did not know RG had answered, see above, where my answer series comes as I posted it, I was following up to my discovery of fault.]
RG: No problem.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I just don't agree with you on the element of choice when it comes to same-sex attraction.
[THEN ONLY: come on the board my previous posts on e g Schoenborn]
RG: Sorry, I don't understand. What's an evolutionist?
KB: Pope Francis holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus gave to Peter. Burke does not. It's that simple.
HGL: RG "I just don't agree with you on the element of choice when it comes to same-sex attraction."

Where exactly do we disagree?

I never said the spontaneous attraction in general was directly a choice as such. The choice I suggested as that of Josh Weed still has not cured him of ssa, but he's not living a life of sodomy. Would you say that is not a matter of choice either?

An evolutionist is a man who believes we evolved from apes, mammals from reptiles, amphibians from fish and so on.
RG: I take it you don't believe in evolution?
HGL: KB, Bergoglio and Burke neither of them have the keys of Heaven for all earth. Burke may have greater chances of, despite accepting Bergoglio as "Pope Francis" having a kind of accreditation for a time by whoever is real Pope if we have one.

I suppose Pope Michael is the real one, but if he condones AA (hope that is not his final decision on matter), he cannot be.

@RG you are correct I don't believe in microbes to man evolution or macro evolution or in a common ancestor of cats and dogs. I do believe Chihuahuas and Great Danes have a common ancestor, some have called that believing in microevolution.
RG: Do you believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor?
HGL: No, I do not believe that either.
KB: Who the heck is Pope Michael?
HGL: KB, check out David Bawden
RG: Ok, so how did humans come about then in actuality? Also, explain to me why Pope Francis is not Pope.
HGL: See Genesis on point one.

On point two, see Bergoglio also being an evolutionist, plus this:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html
KB: Ah, the Pope of Kansas and Oklahoma, where most of the other cowboys live too!

So far as I'm concerned, anybody who denies the legitimacy of the Pope elected by the Cardinal-electors is in Schism from the Church.
RG: Thanks but, I'll take my leave here chaps. Enjoy.
HGL: He's a farmer, not a cowboy.

Was the conclave a conclave? Or should Benedict XVI/Ratzinger on resigning have investigated the claims of say Bawden to being Pope Michael?
Left out:: To simplify overview, I left out a discussion on battling ISIS. I agree it would be a just war and some others have not been.
KB: [chuckle] Hans-Georg, in British English, "cowboy" is slang for a rogue or swindler.

No. Benedict did exactly the right thing. He realised that he did not have the strength to do what is currently necessary to weed out evil from the Church's structure, so he stepped aside to let the Holy Spirit influence the choice of somebody who did. In making that choice, the electors picked somebody from as far away from the Vatican as possible.
HGL: [First I post link to article]

"Benedict did exactly the right thing. He realised that he did not have the strength to do what is currently necessary to weed out evil from the Church's structure"

If it did, the structure was perhaps that of some kind of counterchurch?

"so he stepped aside to let the Holy Spirit influence the choice of somebody who did."

He could have stepped aside by asking "may the real pope please stand up" too. Like asking a council to decide between claimants (his own line, Palmar, Pope Michael, etc).

"In making that choice, the electors picked somebody from as far away from the Vatican as possible."

But who had showed himself very close indeed to certain evils of Ecumenism and Modernism.

Even sacrilege, considering how he handled the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires.

"in British English, 'cowboy' is slang for a rogue or swindler."

Was hardly so in the days of Enid Blyton, GKC, CSL, JRRT. That's where I learnt English (I had to update it on the item "gay").

If that is so now with "cowboy", it reminds of the days when "shepherd" and "fisherman" were similarily Hebrew/Aramaic slang for sinner.

jeudi 19 mars 2015

Neither Racist Nor Antiracist

Friend (status showing meme): [White man, Cultural Marxist - presumably, since meme generator was against such - in a straitjacket beside the text]

Whites are oppressors
Non-Whites are victims
But race doesn’t exist
Yet I love racial diversity
And I celebrate our differences
Because we’re all the same
So let’s destroy diversity
by mixing together …
But only in white countries
Me: Let's see if I can straighten the cultural Marxist out a bit ...

« Whites are oppressors » - correction, some whites have been colonisers and slave owners and all of these have not been vile oppressors, but only some of them.

« Non-Whites are victims » - correction, some non-whites have been among colonized and slaves, but other non-whites have been slave hunters (worse than slave owners), like certain blacks in Africa or like Arabs with interests in slave hunting razzoos, or colonisers, like Peruvians for the Empire of Incas.

« But race doesn’t exist » - correction, race meaning descendance or posterity of a common ancestor does exist. It exists as family extended over centuries (race of Merovingians, race of Carolingians, race of Capetians) or as family of Adam extending over centuries. Skin colours also exist. While less vital they may be indications of nationality, which is a subdivision of larger race and a coalition of smaller races. There were 72 ones of them after Babel.

« Yet I love racial diversity » - correction, diversity of races as in skin colours living together is too general a phenomenon to either love or hate. It can be a good circumstance or a bad circumstance, depending on circumstances. It is neither a thing to be violently sought as Paradise, nor a thing to be violently fought off as Hell.

« And I celebrate our differences » - correction, you ought to celebrate some but not all of them.

« Because we’re all the same » - correction, in nature yes, in connatural or acquired dispositions no.

« So let’s destroy diversity by mixing together » - correction, mixing together should happen or not depending on personal whims, not depending on some programme of destroying or upholding diversity.

« But only in white countries » - correction, it seems quite a lot of the mixing started in colonies outside Europe and is now getting to Europe – including to Europeans who were not opting for it by going to colonies, or whose nations weren’t even possessing colonies or very many of them.

For instance, Blacks not shutting down abortion clinics by, I will not say riotting but even picketting or personal condemnation spread as far as one's word reaches, and that as one man, that is not what I like about blacks.

Lifenews : Since Michael Brown Died, 981 Black Babies Have Died in Abortion in Missouri, But There are No Riots
Opinion Steven Ertelt Nov 26, 2014 | 11:52AM Jefferson City, MO
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/11/26/since-michael-brown-died-981-black-babies-have-died-in-abortion-in-missouri-but-there-are-no-riots/

mercredi 18 mars 2015

John Médaille loses interest, after giving an interesting answer (real sequel III)

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman , 12) John Médaille loses interest, after giving an interesting answer (real sequel III)

Hans-Georg Lundahl (also on previous post)

John Médaille (if Mark Stahlman will excuse me), you said you were a surveyor, right?

What exact angle is the least you are measuring and using for trigonometry (btw, what use are tables of sunrise and sunset to surveyors, just curious)? Is it like 5°, or 1° or an arc minute or an arc second, or what is it?

The principles are of course you need for distance, of the six measures of a rather oblong triangle, three, whereof at least one distance. Even if it be the shortest one. So, usually, one short distance and two angles directly (i e close to right angle, but with slight inclination toward middle) to measure a considerably longer distance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (after previous post)

John Médaille, I have now blocked Mark Stahlman, feel free to come back to polite debate, if you like.

What he did was not debate, was not polite, was not peaceful.

My question to you as to a surveyor stands : what is the exact angle at which you can no longer measure it and use it to determine a distance?

When two near parallels meet way over there in:

5°
1°
1 arc minute
or
1 arc second?

Because, it has a somewhat curious bearing on astronomic subject.

John Médaille

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sun shots or star shots are used to find North, not to measure distance. But then, it's been nearly half a century since I ran a survey.

I don't friend people because I agree with everything they say; I don't block people because we disagree.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do block people because they get very troublesome. Which he got.

I was not asking if you agreed with everything he considers, but "his outlook" - meaning obviously the parts like "debating is your version of violence" and so on.

OK, sunset and sunrise are then one thing, used to find North. Figures.

The OTHER question was, the ANGLES you use to find distances, how large are the minimal "far angles"?

Can you - whatever distance you have on your side - pick out 1 arc second or for that matter even twenty arc seconds at the far angle? Or is that too small to measure?

John Médaille

I don't know the point of this, but angles can be measured in arbitrarily small increments, depending on the instrumentation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, what kind of instrumentation does it take to measure one 3600:dth part of one degree?

And, have you used such a thing in the terrain, or have you used larger angles?

MO

I have not followed this debate, but isn't it in the end a question of free choice to choose for a geocentric worldview? Goethe preferred natural perception (not through microscopes of teloscopes) as superior perception above perception done with instruments for the simple reason that natural perception leads to natural understanding whereby human standards in all sorts of ways are not crushed by the results of mechanic or otherwise enhanced forms of perception. For example he knew the earth was round, though in human perception it is flat. we cannot sense the earth as a round flying object.

We did choose the heliocentric view as scientifically superior or more 'true' than the geocentric, but I don't think we have realized which great consequences that has for the way we look a the human being, at our human dignity.

I said somewhere earlier here that ever since science shifted from goecentrism to heliocentrism, the morals shifted from God-centered to ego-centered (in a very Newtonian action-reaction process) I suspect that shift took place as a way to reinstall the centre of gravity back into the human being but in a very wicked way, which made us poorer, shallower and less civilized, less responsible and more 'godless' people. So I can understand people who feel attracted to geocentrism, they just should not defend that view with scientific arguments, just like creationists do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"isn't it in the end a question of free choice to choose for a geocentric worldview?"

I can see two ways of reasoning through the question thoroughly:

you believe your eyes as long as they are not disproven (flat earth is disproven by geography), and then you go by observations to Tychonian Geocentrism and from there to acknowledge there is a God and there are angels;
or you believe ONLY your eyes, therefore deny God and angels, therefore consider Tychonian orbits impossible, therefore consider Geocentrism impossible and deny it in favour of for instance Newtonian Heliocentrism.

So in a way it is a free choise, in a way it isn't.

"Goethe preferred natural perception (not through microscopes of teloscopes) as superior perception above perception done with instruments for the simple reason that natural perception leads to natural understanding whereby human standards in all sorts of ways are not crushed by the results of mechanic or otherwise enhanced forms of perception."

I consider natural perception one step closer to being sure of what one sees.

Which is a somewhat other stance.

Meaning for instance I consider seeing Earth and Heaven from Earth as seven billion or nearly do more sure than seeing them from the Moon.

If I have to choose between the view nearly all of us have and the view that Armstrong at least purportedly had of Earth turning (and no, I think going into the reasons for some skepsis are another debate) I take the one God providentially gave the millions.

"For example he knew the earth was round, though in human perception it is flat."

Not if perception is varied enough.

"We did choose the heliocentric view as scientifically superior or more 'true' than the geocentric,"

Who, "we"? I do not.

"So I can understand people who feel attracted to geocentrism, they just should not defend that view with scientific arguments, just like creationists do."

What's wrong with creationism?

John Médaille, if you bump in, do take the angle question too, it starts to become burningly relevant!

bump in as in "bump in" it being your wall, of course!

John Médaille

MO, those are very shrewd observations. The problem of course is always the domain of the observations. Geocentrism is "natural," but only if one is standing on the Earth. It is not beyond human capability to imagine standing someplace else. You would not see the same thing. The problem is not with the "science" of heliocentrism (or even with the pseudo-science of geocentrism), but with the narratives that accompany both. The fact that the earth revolves around the Sun says nothing about the centrality of man to the cosmos, unless one insists on interpreting it that way. Insofar as geocentrism tries to affirm its own narrative of the centrality if man by maintaining the centrality of the earth, it actually reinforces the scientific narrative and provides the means to negate its own narrative. After all, if the centrality of man depends on the centrality of the earth, then disproving one disproves the other. And the heliocentrists make the stronger case.If my own view of the centrality of man to creation depended on the centrality of the earth, I would be forced to abandon it.

For a surveyor, the earth is "flat" for any survey of, say, less than 20 kilometers. That is, there is no need to correct for curvature.

Hans-Georg, why don't you just tell me where you are going with this measurement question? And what do you mean my "bump in"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry for the "bump in" word choice.

If I meant anything it was rather that you had been absent a bit, so I should have said "bump back in" or "bump in again".

For a surveyor, you said, Earth is flat for any survey less than 20 km.

That means that to a surveyor two vertical poles thirty metres apart (meeting at 1 arc second in centre of Earth) or even six hundred metres apart (meeting at 20 arc seconds in centre of Earth) are, thought not actually so, virtually parallel.

Now, 1 arc second > largest parallax angle.
20 arc seconds < than the "annual aberration" angle.

Are you still confident these angles can be hundred percent sure measured?

Well, there is this thing with the question, that when you look at "closest" star, you also look at largest "parallax" angle.

Meaning alpha Centauri which is supposedly "only 4 light years away" shows a parallax angle around 0.75 arc seconds (in centre of Earth an angle like that would lead to two verticals less than 30 metres apart on the surface).

As Kent Hovind said on the debate of "distant starlight problem" for a young Earth, it is a "very skinny triangle".

However, suppose the angles are after all accurately measured.

Then, so is the NEGATIVE parallax of 63 Ophiuchi.

"Uncertain negative parallax measurements of –0.77 ± 0.40 mas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/63_Ophiuchi

If the measure is correct, it means the negative parallax of 63 Ophiuchi, or any negative parallax, cannot really be a parallax at all, but rather a proper movement.

That is why the scientists say "uncertain negative parallax measures".

If they admitted the measures as certain, it would scientifically ruin all of modern cosmology, since the obvious possibilities are two, none of which concords with it:

stars don't have parallax but a proper movement done in time with the sun, i e annually, bt not necessarily same direction and not necessarily same distance, i e we can make no distance measures and get no proof for heliocentrism from such "parallax";
it is really parallax, all parallax is indeed positive, a negative parallax measure is just a relatively smaller parallax than the mean one, so, reducing -0.77 arc seconds to zero (positive parallax at infinite distance) and that to some kind of positive x (since infinite distance cannot exist and light could never reach us over an infinite distance), the measured parallax of zero is really 0.77 arc seconds more than x, the measured parallax of 0.75 arc seconds above zero is really 0.75 arc seconds above a pseudozero which is at least 0.77 + x positive parallax, and the real positive parallax of alpha Centauri would be twice as great, that means the real distance would be only two light years (at most) instead of four.

Now, it is true that other methods exist to measure distances to stars than parallax measures. Long before we get to claims like "13.5 billion light years away", we get to very other methods indeed.

As a surveyor you are much better fitted than I to know how tiny parallax 13.5 billion light years would be, if the measure had been parallactic. But anyway, too tiny to measure, that is for sure.

But the point of all these other measures (including but not limited to distance measure by red shift - ! I am not making this up!) build on the distance measures via parallax measure.

So, collapse parallax measures as a distance measure (and geostasis makes that very radically, unless you arbitrarily posit that all stars are centred on sun and make same annual journey in space as Sun), you have collapsed all the other distance measures too (outside solar system, that is).

And by doing so, as I realised nearly fourteen years ago, Geocentrism does away with "distant starlight problem" for, not a young earth, but a young universe.

And Christ said "from the beginning of creation, God created them man and woman" (Mark 10:6 - would to God all Protestants citing this for YEC were also against divorce and remarriage!)

" Geocentrism is "natural," but only if one is standing on the Earth."

The observers to whose observations we do have access are those standing on Earth, with very few exceptions.

"It is not beyond human capability to imagine standing someplace else."

I can imagine standing in Heavenly Jerusalem and looking down through a river of moving stars onto an Earth which stands still, for instance.

But I suppose you meant sth else?

"The fact that the earth revolves around the Sun says nothing about the centrality of man to the cosmos, unless one insists on interpreting it that way."

Have I for my part all through this debate ever made that an issue?

"Insofar as geocentrism tries to affirm its own narrative of the centrality if man by maintaining the centrality of the earth, it actually reinforces the scientific narrative and provides the means to negate its own narrative."

Insofar as - which mine does not, which the Medieval one did not - and also insofar as heliocentrism is scientific.

I'd like to hear the words of an old surveyor on my observations on "parallax".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille, did you lose interest or are you working sth through before answering?

John Médaille

I've lost interest. I've seen this all before and I am not impressed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Noted.

And in a sense requited.

mardi 17 mars 2015

Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I do not commit myself to studying.

I am debating you, if that is of any interest, I do not consider the topic worth studies if involving facts and factoids that cannot even be presented openly and as crucial before I have committed myself to studying them.

Mark Stahlman

HA!! Then you are conducting a ONE-SIDED "debate"(ala Narcissus?) -- which I suspect is something that happens to you all the time . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was conducting a debate with John Médaille, where I really had studied the matters ten times over.

You introduced a sideline, which I do not think worth pursuing.

But I was debating you anyway to get you off, and your suspicion is not very interesting to me in itself.

If you happen to be a shrink, it can be deleterious, but as it happens, it is not in itself very interesting.

Mark Stahlman

I just noticed that Lyndon LaRouche came up in one of your *debates* -- why did that happen . . . ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, like Chesterton he is not a fan of big big companies and crony capitalism.

I happen to think he is right on many things, though not all.

He wants for instance to water the Sahara using desalination plants powered by uranium. I want the same effect without the uranium, if that can be had. Best of all, without electricity at all.

Now, I have known about him since back in my senior high school days. And he also has sth to do with the debate here, namely as an admirer of Kepler and non-admirer of Newton.

What John Maynard Keynes had to say about Newton as "not first of age of reason but rather last of Sumerians" was very familar to him when he wrote back then and presumably is so still.

And I think the documentation of JMK is above doubt, he had bought Newton's belongings on an auction.

So, this has even before I became a Geocentric (about this world and not just Narnia and Middleearth) been part of my thoughts on astronomy. And Kepler, obviously, was not a believer in universal gravitation nor in spiritual non-significance of the arrangement of the solar system.

Riccioli, as I found out way later (last year in fact) considered wrong of Kepler to believe movements of celestial bodies due to inherent non-living principles (in Kepler's case some kind of electromagnetic theory, like "electric universe" hated by atheist astronomers like Phil Plaite and dear to Chuck Missler). But even electric universe is closer to Medieval theory than Newton-Laplace mechanics are.

Were you referring to this one?

HGL's F.B. writings : Lyndon and Benito
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2012/03/lyndon-and-benito.html

If you note what labels there are, it says "articles, eng" so unlike the mirror of my debate with John Médaille this was not classified as a debate.

So, presumably you referred to sth else.

Sth like :

HGL's F.B. writings : Defending Commons and feudalism against Locke on FB, and legal kingship against supposedly powerless one
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/11/defending-commons-and-feudalims-against.html

Or here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Debate on communism (posted on day before and day of St Justin Martyr, A. D. 2010)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/06/debate-on-communism-posted-on-day.html

Or here:

HGL's F.B. writings : GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2013/08/gp-tries-it-again-after-attacking.html

HGL's F.B. writings : A Correspondence with an Adherent of Capitalism
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-correspondence-with-adherent-of.html

Mark Stahlman

No, I noticed it in one that you linked to above -- so how did you know of LaRouche in your *high school* days (and where was that Weisbaden) . . . ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was given a ticket to a conference of New Solidarity which another guy was given but didn't want.

That is how I came to know of Schiller Institute etc.

I was at a boarding school near Stockholm, in Sigtuna. Conference itself was in Stockholm or another suburb. That was mid to late eighties.

In one I linked to above?

That escaped me, which one?

Mark Stahlman

This one –

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html

Did you go to the Conference and meet anyone? Are you involved with them today -- other than following what they have to say online .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah yes, "Tycho Brahe had to do away with spheres, his heliocentric disciple Kepler (as you will know from Lyndaon LaRouche's laudatories of this man) actually thought he could save the spheres by becoming heliocentric."

I will have to correct spelling of his name.

[Done]

As it was 1-VIII-2013, I had forgotten.

I met people who distributed the paper New Solidarity, I have been curious whenever I could lay hands on one, but never been what one would normally call an adept.

The fact that LaRouche considers:

Catholic Church to have been founded on Roman Pagan worship of Saturn;
Reactionaries at 1815 ALL as bad as Castlereagh (and me being pro-Austrian, against "Italy" a k a Sardinia too)

was not quite to my taste. Also I think he grossly simplifies Socrates and unduly identifies him with technological progress.

As mentioned, Sahara should not be watered by Nuke power. It would be good for the population there, but bad (as usual) for where Uranium is being mined for.

In other words, their main contribution to my thought has been to make me anticapitalist and anticommunist and sceptical of modern mainstream media and school versions of recent events.

And of course also on the outlook for where La Rouche got his errors on history from.

Mark Stahlman

That's quite a lot (generated by the son of a Quaker "fundamentalist," thus the antipathy to the Queen) . . . !!

So, what would say if I told you that they have always been a (Cold War) CIA "front" organization (like many Trotskyists of his generation) . . . ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would:

doubt the information;
acknowledge he was an ex-Trotskist
and consider it irrelevant for where he is right, where of course he is right and also for where he is wrong where of course he is wrong.

Of course not totally irrelevant, it explains perhaps a few quirks which would otherwise sit somewhat badly on his general talent, but irrelevant as to what I gave my partial consent and partial dissent.

It only explains a few of the things I dissent from, apart from also co-explaining, in a non-inportant way, what he is right about. Or some of them.

Btw, it is the kind of explanation he is fond of overdoing himself.

That Enlightenment (which I don't like) was a plot by secret services of Venice, Ok, but when he claims Romanticism (which I like) was also so, he loses me.

Mark Stahlman

Yes, while I'm not a Freudian, I think that would be called PROJECTION on LaRouche's part . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did so back then, or as soon as I knew it, does so now.

Especially since the "Classicists" which he endorses were in their time by some considered as earliest "Romantics" in music.

BUT his / Schiller Institute's enthusiasm for the Classic Viennese school has of course been shared by me. "Enlarging the phrase from within" - ok, I said, how do you do that? And I looked for answers and found them in Schenker and Budday.

I looked at his search for tuning, and I thought about subject too.

Does that make me a CIA agent?

Mark Stahlman

No -- that's makes you one of the "outliers" that the CIA pays LaRouche to find (yes, in places like Sweden). <g>

Btw, the whole VENICE story was actually the work of Webster Tarpley and it was then incorporated into the script for EYES WIDE SHUT by Stanley Kubrick, who was a subscriber to many LaRouche publications -- as reflected by the "password" to the orgy . . . !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Wide_Shut

And, just for the record, my *original* research into the long history of LSD began when I was part of the team that produced DOPE, INC (in 1978) . . . !!

Dope, Inc.: Britain's Opium War Against The U.S. Paperback – 1978
by Konstandinos Kalimtgis (Author), U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team (Author), & 1 more
http://www.amazon.com/Dope-Inc-Britains-Opium-Against/dp/0918388082/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426529810&sr=8-3&keywords=dope+inc

[He's not personally named among authors, but could be part of "U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team" - especially since he actually says he was part of the team.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl [must have posted before reading above comment.]

"thus the antipathy to the Queen"

He gives a few very detailed accusations. I don't know if they are true, but excepting the drug cartel story which is uncheckable, there is a thing or two that would need explanation if the larouche version is not or were not true.

I am not very fond of Sweden's present monarchs either. HMtQ promotes a "charity" which has given access to abortion.

"No -- that's makes you one of the "outliers" that the CIA pays LaRouche to find (yes, in places like Sweden). <g>"

OK, and what difference does that make?

If I had been very useful to CIA, would I not rather have been better rewarded by them?

Ah, you are connected to that little research as well, doesn't that make you one of the outliers?

I might, btw, be more bothered of being an outlier, if heretics were not by definition outliers to Catholicism and Catholicism could therefore also be described as on certain points "outlier" of this or that or sundry heresy.

[Obviously if outlier is a terminus technicus, the guy has not fully explained it, and I am answering only according to the contextual meaning he gives it.]

Mark Stahlman

AGENTS -- on the payroll. ASSETS -- "witting" collaborators but unpaid.

Yes, as our conversation should have alerted you, I am definitely one of the OUTLIERS (who is also a Catholic) . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One can be an asset to very many different things one does not intend to be an asset to.

I think I am an asset to bad causes mainly as long as I am unread and unpublished (mostly) on paper, and would cease to be such a thing when my positions became more publically know.

Btw, CIA is neither in itself a bad or a good cause. It has both kinds of causes.

I do not much trust its direct members, having heard those nasty rumours there was Satanism there (or was that the FBI)?

Mark Stahlman

Actually there is a lot of OPUS DEI (and Mormons) in both of them . . . <g>

Since the number of "identified" OUTLIERS is pretty small, I suspect that the CIA has a "list" (which the LaRouche group helps to compile) and that both of our names are on it . . . !!

[Now I note a certain avoidance of subject.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possible.

Wasn't Opus Dei what certain Spaniards called "Catholic Calvinism"?

I am not quite glad with what the 1960's government in Spain (with two OD members) introduced as changes.

And the OD members I have met (at least two Swedes and a third Englishman in Denmark) tend to consider me as very much too dowdy for their taste in investments. The Englishman considered I had too short trousers and this made me a liability in apologetics at a personal basis.

Sad to say SSPX has some of that too.

And there my loyalties have been with some on-off for more than half my life.

Now, I think for instance CIA has too strong ties to NASA to really relish my Geocentrism.

And while CIA might like people to be anti-abortion in a general way, they might less like the fact I consider teens should regain the right to marry (and this is not a LaRouche position) and therefore:

more young employees,
more different employers/self-employed and less need of education before becoming one
girls seduced should be able to sue the perpetrator and get a marriage or an allowance for child VERY much more easily than now that they can be pushed to abortion.

Mark Stahlman

Indeed, SSPX probably also has a "list" . . . <g>

Not sure about the "Catholic Calvinist" comment but Belloc *did* link Calvin to the Cathars (as per the PURITANS) and OD seems to have its own significant problems with "perfection" . . .

The CIA (or MI6 etc) doesn't care AT ALL about whatever particular opinion people take -- their interest, as regards this conversation, is *only* in people who stand out when "heterodox" topics are being discussed . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mark Stahlman

Yes, by all means, please get back to your DEBATES (as opposed to your "instruction") . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have had my instruction already.

Without the guys who have wanted to give me such.

I am pretty often tired, and studying a subject that is new is pretty awkward. Perhaps impossible.

Fortunately, I instructed myself so well before this turn in my fortunes, that now I can debate from instructions already enjoyed.

Any man who lays claim to give me "instruction" is delaying a life already too long delayed, infantilising a man already having grey hairs in the beard, in other words a slave hunter.

John Médaille, when you befriended this man, did you know his outlook?

Are you in agreement with it?

Mark Stahlman, did you know I laid down da Vinci code after reaching the chapter where Teabing gets blasphemous? But moreover, before that I had more than once laughed at "Princess" for being so open to "instruction" whenever offered during a trying adventure by a guy like the hero or by a guy like Teabing.

Such gullibility is beyond me. I did not show it to Lyndon LaRouche back then and am not showing it to you now either.

Mark Stahlman

That's what it's like to live in a world of HALLUCINATIONS (*caused* by the ELECTRIC media environment) -- which, alas, differs sharply from the one inhabited by Nicholas of Cusa (which is now being *retrieved* by DIGITAL technology) . . . !!

Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an Appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia Paperback – June, 1985 by Jasper Hopkins (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Cusa-Learned-Ignorance-Translation/dp/0938060279/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426586344&sr=8-2&keywords=ignorance+nicholas+of+cusa

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, but unlike Lyndon I am not really an enthusiast of Cusanus.

And your p o v on "electric media" and hallucinations, whatever was that of Eric McLuhan, is pretty worthless, since hysteric.

Mark Stahlman

" Violence, whether spiritual or physical, is a quest for identity" and DEBATE is your version of "violence" (which is why I refuse to participate) . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed not. What you are trying to do instead of debating is violence.

As to violence, I have tried to debate INSTEAD of getting to situations where it may be appropriate.

By the way, your quote makes you once more suspect of being some kind of shrink.

[Which is where I unfriended him and blocked or tried to block him.]

lundi 16 mars 2015

Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Btw, your Father made a foreword to the book on Kepler, but it was really from 1804.

Mark Stahlman (who was MS in previous part)

Yes -- and the book on Solar and Planetary Longitudes was *all* his own (unless we're counting the IBM computer that he used, plus some help from Owen Gingerich.)

He got his PhD at Brown under Otto Neugebauer and taught at MIT, Harvard and Univ. of Wisconsin . . .

The Exact Sciences in Antiquity Paperback – June 1, 1969
by O. Neugebauer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Exact-Sciences-Antiquity-O-Neugebauer/dp/0486223329/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426265372&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=otto+neugebower

William D. Stahlman . . .

STAHLMAN and Related Family History
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=stahlmanmaster&id=I01686

[This is where I reckon he renounced anonymity in the mirror of dialogue on my blogs.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ha, if your father calculated solar and planetary longitudes, he was in a series which includes a sequence like:

Ptolemy (Geocentric)
Copernicus (Heliocentric)
Tycho Brahe (Geocentric)
Kepler (Heliocentric)
Riccioli (Geocentric)

Each more exact than predecessor, but the factor of "cosmological choice" has nothing to do with it, since it goes zig zag rather than any progression.

Mark Stahlman

So, you can add Stahlman (Heliocentric) . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Of course I do!

As to your Godfather, I started looking at his book.

He seems to be seriously overestimating the Theological value of Galileo.

Letter to Christiane of Pisa is not a pretty work. If prosecutors had concentrated on that, he might have landed on the stake or had sth to abjure already in first trial.

Mark Stahlman

Giorgio was a "modern" man (i.e. Italian Communist Party) who finished his life with a *very* strange counter-mythology book -- Hamlet's Mill . . .

Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time Hardcover – November 1, 1969
by Giorgio de Santillana (Author), Hertha von Dechend (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Hamlets-Mill-Essay-Myth-Frame/dp/0876450087/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1426266353&sr=8-3&keywords=hamlet%27s+mill

And, if you are interested, I have PDF scans of Giorgio's collected essays (that I'd be glad to send you) . . .

Reflections on men and ideas. Paperback – 1968
by Giorgio De Santillana (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-men-ideas-Giorgio-Santillana/dp/B0048FAON6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426266590&sr=8-1&keywords=reflections+on+man+giorgio

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pdf for whole collection or essay by essay?

In latter case, I would like his essays if extant on St Robert Bellarmine (having done Crime of Galileo it would be one man to reflect one), St Thomas Aquinas, and to take two other turns : Hercules and Engelbert Dollfuss.

In case they lack, any of above, I'd be glad to publish a correspondence with you starting with your supplying the lacuna.

Here is my correspondence blog btw:

http://ppt.li/kw

[long url :

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com ]

Mark Stahlman

What I have is the whole book -- 9 scans (each of the first 8 around 25MB), broken as such by the fellow doing the scanning . . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok!

Btw, <g> = <grin> right?

Mark Stahlman

Yup -- pre-emoticon (i.e. I started sending public emails circa 1992) . . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was reflecting and remembered sth like that.

Mark Stahlman

PM (private message) me your email and I'll send you the Google Docs link to the "Reflection on Men and Ideas" scans . . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Btw, I have started reading Giorgio.

He considered astronomy was till lately mythical.

I consider, as stars are far off objects we study with one sense only, astronomy is still necessarily so.

What was it Aragorn replied after being challenged on Imladris and Lothlorien?

"Earth and heaven above it are in themselves a mighty theme of myth" or sth like that?

Mark Stahlman

Giorgio's Hamlet's Mill is an attempt to illustrate that MYTH is actually often a "scientific" description of our sensory observations about the HEAVENS (thus undercutting those like Joseph Campbell's and Carl Jung's misuse of *mythology* and reportedly leading to major problems getting it published) . . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

On Helios driving a chariot, I agree it is scientific.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Flat Earth theories - Common Sense or Solar Mythology?
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2014/12/flat-earth-theories-common-sense-or.html

[But not on earth being flat, adding this for readers who might be slower than Mark Stahlman.]

I added next day

I started reading sent pdfs - now, Galileo stood for a more ancient tradition than St Robert?

I am getting a bit queezy, having some bad vibes, if you see what I mean, about his judgement, but will not make premature judgements on it. However, that part I think erroneous.

Especially if "Ancient Tradition" = tradition of Pagan Greek Philosophers.

Some of their traditions were accepted as consentaneous to Catholic tradition. Some weren't, and going back to them was not being traditional in the Catholic sense.

In Sweden the Odinist tradition probably and the Nerthus tradition nearly certainly were older than the Christian one : but if a Swede worships Odin, he is not a trad, but a reactionary or restaurationist, which is sth else.

And when I say Odinist tradition was probably older, I mean I don't know when Odinids started being Odinists, nor when the first Cristian came to Sweden, if it was St Ansgar or earlier.

Mark Stahlman

Thanks -- I have *zero* commitment to Giorgio's views on any of this (or, for that matter, Norbert's) -- unlike McLuhan, they were *not* Christians (although Giorgio was presumably baptized), so their PAGAN sympathies are likely to be flapping-in-the-wind (as indeed they are in Hamlet's Mill) . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The preview of Hamlet's Mill was basically giving the Hamlet story as I knew it from Saxo, as far as I read.

Now, this story is on one point giving a dialogue in which Hamlet gives clever answers about natural phenomena, and I wonder if the title is not from that dialogue.

There is nothing specifically Pagan about it, except for its participants presumably being Pagans (unless they were Arians or perhaps Easter Rite Christians if that came to Nordic countries before the Viking age flourishing of Odinism).

There is nothing clearly mythological about Hamlet either : he's as historical as Agamemnon and King Arthur and far less involved in supernatural stuff, where authors of Iliad or tragedies may have gotten it wrong, what it was about by their Paganism.

That said, I have some sympathy for Pagans, in the sense that they for instance had the good sense to become Christians many of them when hearing the Gospel. Especially if it was supported by miracles.

Mark Stahlman

Belloc was a *mentor* to McLuhan (who actually joined the Distributist League in London and went to Chesterton speeches) and I befriended John Médaille because he is also a Catholic writing about Distributism (the application of which to our current ROBO-economics I seriously doubt), so I just happened to see this exchange fly by on my Newsfeed - plus John is still associated with the University of Dallas, where Eric McLuhan got his PhD on James Joyce . . . <g>

The Role of Thunder in Finnegans Wake Hardcover – May 16, 1997
by Eric McLuhan (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Role-Thunder-Finnegans-Wake/dp/0802009239/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426342173&sr=8-1&keywords=eric+mcluhan

Yes, of course, none of those involved in these discussions over the past few centuries is *actually* PAGAN -- however, their "sympathies" often tend in that general direction, as Belloc suggested they would.

It took McLuhan to begin to offer a *formal* causal explanation (with some help from UofD's Fritz Wilhelmsen) for why the "moderns" would aggressively *retrieve* the pre-Socratics (with the help of some *hallucinogens* and a little ritualized initiation behavior, as was the case with Nietzsche and Steiner etc) . . . !!

By Hilaire Belloc The Great Heresies and Survivals and New Arrivals [Paperback] Paperback – November 2, 2012
by Hilaire Belloc (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Hilaire-Heresies-Survivals-Arrivals-Paperback/dp/B00RWST9PA/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1426341953&sr=8-6&keywords=belloc+survivals

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille, I am not sure if you asked Mark Stahlman to comment here or he found his way here himself, but I think you also could continue the dialogue with someone other than the other: meteorologists.

Ask them:

a whether rotating cosmos or Earth rotating other way makes any difference whatsoever as to prediction of Equatorial Oceanic Streams or Equatorial West Winds
how much these need precise prediction anyway
and last but not least, how much the rest of their predictions are based on astronomy, except the item already mentioned.

John Médaille

Paganism isn't "wrong"; It is just incomplete, and subject to some degeneration (as are all religions, including the Catholic religion.) But the Church does recognize itself as "semper reformanda", Always in need of reform.

It makes a big difference whether the earth is stationary. Weather is an obvious example of turbulent flow. The motive power is the rotation of the solid earth, which causes flows in the more fluid atmosphere and oceans. To say the Earth is stationary and the oceans and atmosphere is moving due to astronomical influences is nonsense. And why is the Earth stationary, when we can see all the other planets revolving? What kind of mechanics would make an exception for this planet?

And why? Why does this question even come up? Is it because of something in the Bible?

My old philosophy professor, Fritz Wilhelmsen, and McLuhan were great friends, and Fritz even wrote two books on those themes. I meet McLuhan once when he came to UD at Fritz's invitation.

Mark Stahlman

Do the GEO-CENTRISTS "deny" that the Earth revolves on its axis? I thought this was about the *centrality* of the Earth in Creation, which, of course, is rather basic to the Bible . . . !!

What I should have said (instead of PAGAN "sympathies") was simply Belloc's term of NEO-PAGAN, which is the crucial "new arrival" and a HERESY (i.e. wrong) . . . <g>

TL

What I hear Geocentrists continually repeat is that if one only takes into account as yet undetected (but just you wait!) infinitely dense aethers and such, and if one makes all the computations with a triple-stationary earth, why then we've proven the earth does not move as well as physics-as-we-have-it has proven that it does move. But as best I can tell, the computations have not been made -- they're as alleged as the aethers.

They also seem to fall into two camps. The silly camp appeals to relativity to claim the earth is the center of the universe. But that doesn't work because relativity says there is no "center" in the first place. The smarter but sillier camp caught onto this, and so it denies relativity, saying that the things we use every day that we THINK work because of relativistic effects don't really work the way we think they do. They work for some other reason (see above).

As to why the earth is stationary when we can see all the other planets moving -- according to the self-styled Catholic Traditionalists, it is because the earth really is special -- it is fitting the place where God became Man is the unmoving center of creation. It is fitting because we say so, and we're confirmed in this because the Bible says it actually IS so. Just read it. So why do you hate Catholic Tradition? Are you a Catholic or a Modernist Physical Relativist John?

Which is why I dislike arguments from fittingness and most all of speculative theology.

John Médaille

While technically the stationary earth and geocentrism are different, in practice a rotating earth makes geocentrism absurd even to the geocentrist: you have the earth's movement's added to the sky's movements, and things get a little...er....complex.

MD

Damn literalists. We are the center because we are conscious, because of the Incarnation, but not because of the celestial mechanics or location. When we find someone else to talk to, we may have to think about that, but by thinking about what 'center' means - may we both be! - not denying the astronomy.

God does not care for rarity, centrality, size, or physical distinction, any more than he cares for numbers ending in a lot of zeros.

TL

Complex doesn't mean absurd; if you just do the computations...

And how do you know what God cares for?

John Médaille

" Complex doesn't mean absurd;" It does when there is a simpler explanation.

GNB

Sheesh! No wonder so many people deny evolution and human-caused climate change!

TL

Ockham, the Father of Nominalism and all Modernist Philosophy? Heretic!

John Médaille

You're cutting it close.

TL

It is all an act...

Mark Stahlman

William of Ockham was a "member" of a HERETIC end-of-the-world group of "Spiritual Franciscans" (derived, in part, from the Cathars), who were known as "Michaelists" (and his "razor" doesn't belong in this discussion) . . .

The Nature and the Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli Paperback – August 1, 2008
by Decima L. Douie (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Effect-Heresy-Fraticelli/dp/1597404977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426418886&sr=8-1&keywords=nature+heresy+fraticelli

[nevertheless, it was the razor which brought him in at all]

Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille "Paganism isn't "wrong"; It is just incomplete,"

You mean Gentile religion at the start. When we talk about Pagans, we talk about the last of the Gentile religions resisting conversion to Christianity.

" and subject to some degeneration (as are all religions, including the Catholic religion.)"

When Gentile turns to Pagan, it is degenerated.

Catholicism in subject x can indeed degenerate. But Catholicism in the Church as such cannot turn to error, unlike what Paganism did. Gentiles started to fall into idolatry around the time of Nimrod.

" But the Church does recognize itself as "semper reformanda", Always in need of reform."

No. Its members are, the Church itself is not.

"It makes a big difference whether the earth is stationary."

For some things yes. Tychonian orbits of planets (Venus circling Sun which circles Earth, Mars having Deimos and Phobos circling it and circling Sun which cirles Earth) does indeed make the atheistic and chance explanation of geocentrism offered by Epicurus even more impossible than it wsa from its start. But, hardly to the weather.

"Weather is an obvious example of turbulent flow."

Sure.

"The motive power is the rotation of the solid earth, which causes flows in the more fluid atmosphere and oceans. To say the Earth is stationary and the oceans and atmosphere is moving due to astronomical influences is nonsense."

Depends on what is between us and the stars. Btw, what you call nonsense is exactly what St Thomas Aquinas believed.

Turbulent flow caused by sphere above atmosphere, lunar, that moving west due to sphere above it until you come to Prime Mobile which is moved by God. That is how his Prima Via is explained in more detail in Summa Contra Gentes. That is also how Riccioli takes his Prima Via.

With a "thin space" (basically just void, though for some unknown reason capable of transmitting light and gravitation), you have a point, though not too definite a one. With a thick space (wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum being waves in aether, bodies having their vectors or lack thereoef in relation to aether etc.) we get sth else.

Prime Mobile is moved by God, it means aether flows westward at roughly speaking equal angular speed through the universe from sphere of fixed stars down to the turbulent flow we call weather.

Tychonian orbits mean then that the planets are not fixed in certain spheres around earth but rather moving up and down through aether - this was unknown to St Thomas.

On less accorded to Greek philosophy and more to its mythology and Hebrew cosmology, we do get a "thin space" scenario, and weather also would, not just in detail but even in the broadest parts of the turbulent flow, namely westward along equator, be caused by angels down on earth dancing in time with the dance of the stars.

Paganism is more complete than Modern Philosophy thereon, but of course erroneous in worshipping any either stars or lower angelic beings.

"And why is the Earth stationary, when we can see all the other planets revolving? What kind of mechanics would make an exception for this planet?"

The mechanics in which the most basic and broad causes of movement in matter are spirits, including God.

Aether moves westward (optional) because God so rotates it. Sun and Moon and Planets have their at least seasonal (monthly, yearly, etc) if not daily movement determined by angels. Earth is still because neither God nor any angel is moving it.

"And why? Why does this question even come up? Is it because of something in the Bible?"

Day and night proclaim the glory of God.

First mover argument * heliocentrism * stars are just suns like ours = Bruno's damnable heresy, each solar system having its own God.

Plus of course Joshua X. Which came up in the process against Galileo in 1616.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (two other answers)

Mark Stahlman, "Do the GEO-CENTRISTS "deny" that the Earth revolves on its axis?"

Yes. Like Pope Urban VIII in 1633.

TL, I think what you are polemising against is basically Sungenis - how about reading what he says about what is proof and what is explanation before summing up his position in a denigrating way?

"Which is why I dislike arguments from fittingness and most all of speculative theology."

Well, that is already one bad turn Heliocentrism did you!

Mark Stahlman

Thanks -- since I'm new to all this (even though I was *born* into it -- Catholic mother, Heliocentrist *historian* father), I've just bought Geo-Centrism 101 and look forward to reading it . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille "While technically the stationary earth and geocentrism are different"

Actually geostasis falls into two major camps.

Round earth in centre of universe, flat earth in one ledge somewhere in the middle but not necessarily central in a box shaped universe (was abandoned after geographic discoveries - may I remind you that there is no geographic discovery in that sense which has similarily proven heliocentrism).

Rotating earth but also moving heavens for the nondaily motions has been proposed but hardly ever widely believed. It was btw implicated in the second condemned proposition in 1633.

" in practice a rotating earth makes geocentrism absurd even to the geocentrist: you have the earth's movement's added to the sky's movements, and things get a little...er....complex."

I'd rather say a rotating earth:

makes St Thomas Aquinas' Prima Via a non-argument;
makes God a liar in the context of Joshua X, since God did not hear Joshua tell Earth to stop rotating in front of all Israel before it, in that case, stopped rotating.

John Médaille about the razor:

Heliocentrism simplifies orbits, but complexifies human knowledge;
Geocentrism simplifies human knowledge while complexifying orbits.

So, pick or chose, I'd rather God gave us a rather straight path to correct knowledge.

Mark Stahlman, as far as I know Ockham was a Franciscan, not a Fraticello. That said, I am not buying his application of the "razor" to deny the Platonic ideas or the Aristotelic categories.

MD, what do you mean by "Damn literalists"?

Is one wrong for denying the allegorical sense (like the Blessed Virgin being allegorically involved in all four OT women who were called individually "blessed among women" or "blessed")?

Or is one wrong for pursuing the literal sense as literally true to the utmost? Whichever it is, you seem to consider it "damned" wrong.

The first if it I consider wrong too, and does not concern this debate.

The second of these was never defined as "damned" wrong by the Church.

GNB, as to "so many people deny evolution and human-caused climate change!" you may feel free to count me among these. Unless you consider radioactive radiation a "climate".

Mark Stahlman

GNB: As always, to consider the "validity" of something like (Darwinian) Evolution or "Climate Change," you need to start by examining the FIRST PREMISES of these theories. Can you do that . . . ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mark Stahlman, "climate change" is hardly deniable. It is whether it is manmade or not.

I say it is not, we are not as hot yet as in the 1200's.

[South Greenland had agricultural produce back then and England could grow grapes for wine, I think. The record coldness was in the 1600's, when Great Belt froze so that a Swedish King could march over it on ice. With his army and horses not just infantry.]

Mark Stahlman

Yes, Ockham was a FRATICELLI in the sense of defying the Pope and following Micheal of Cesena to Munich to be protected by Louis of Bavaria -- the Douie book is the best I've found (in English) on all this. As you likely know, there is also some fascinating literature linking DANTE into all of this, including this one by Rene Guenon . . . !!

[not linking]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Gueron or Guénon?

Dante was a Thomist.

And even if Ockham at one point was Fraticello, does not mean that is all there is to the razor.

Oh, Guénon.

Well, hardly a man I have the utmost respect for, since he apostasised to Derwishism.

Mark Stahlman

Indeed -- however the CLIMATE change that most interests me is the one generated by our INVENTIONS, regarding which, speaking to Jacques Maritain, "The Prince of this World [yes, who is an *angel*] is a very great electrical engineer."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possible.

However, I started reading Guénon, saw "Hell represents the profane world" on page 13 and wondered what if Hell, Purgatory and Heaven are simply the Hell, Purgatory and Heaven of a Catholic and Geocentric Christian of that century?

Too simple for a man like Guénon?

[Actually, I started on page 13, so it is not as if I had read 12 pages before I found a fault.]

Mark Stahlman

Guenon was, by many accounts, functioning as a "spy" with his attempts to "infiltrate" the SUFI orders (none of which alters his apostacy) and, even if DANTE was a "Thomist" does that rule out him also being a TEMPLAR (and a "Catharist" devoted to Parfait-style movements/initiations) . . . ??

Wikipedia : Cathar Perfect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar_Perfect

John Médaille

The Catechism defines the Church as semper reformanda.

Mark Stahlman

WHICH Catechism (Catholic or Rosicrucian) . . . ?? The one you *should* be using is this one (the basis of a *class* I'm now taking on the topic) . . .

Baltimore Catechism and Mass No. 3: The Text of the Official Revised Edition 1949 with Summarizations of Doctrine and Study Helps Paperback – January, 1995
by Francis J. Connell (Author), David Sharrock (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Baltimore-Catechism-Mass-No-Summarizations/dp/0965602400/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426427274&sr=8-2&keywords=baltimore+catechism+3

John Médaille

" makes God a liar in the context of Joshua X," Yes, this line in the Bible is the mainspring of the whole debate, which is why it is so ridiculous. Even under modern astronomy, it is proper to say "Sun, stand thou still," since movement is measured relative to the observer. IOW, the whole debate is unnecessary from the standpoint of "saving the Bible." The Bible is correct either way.

As a surveyor, I used sidereal tables, which listed the times of sunrise and sunset. This was not an error; from the standpoint of the surveyor, it is the sun that is moving, while the theodolite is stationary.

" WHICH Catechism (Catholic or Rosicrucian) . . . ?? " The one the Church tells me to use. I am a man living under obedience; I don't get to choose which Catechism sets the norm for the Church.

Mark Stahlman

As you know very well, the American Catholic Church was nearly *wiped* out following Vatican II, so you are under NO OBLIGATION at all to use the materials which fed that -- and no one in Rome will tell you that you have to either. So, do you know the Catechism in which you found that phrase and who put it there . . . ??

Re-Formed Jesuits: A History of Changes in Jesuit Formation During the Decade 1965-1975 Paperback – April, 1992
by Joseph M. Becker (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Re-Formed-Jesuits-History-Formation-1965-1975/dp/0898704022/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426436687&sr=8-2&keywords=reformed+jesuits

John Médaille

Mark, far from "as you know," I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mark Stahlman

No problem -- that is why I included a pointer to a book on the topic of the *collapse* (er, "re-forming") of the American Jesuits, which you might enjoy reading (even if the author's promise of giving us a "cause" for these changes was not one could fulfill) , , , <g>

MD

It is foolish literalism to think our centrality is derived from celestial mechanics or spatial location, ie, any false ideas that the Earth is physically still, central, fails to spin, orbit, or travel with the solar system around the Galaxy. Nevertheless, we are central as the sole [so far] locus of consciousness and the site of the Incarnation. There, in very simple words. "Damned" is dialogue, not to be taken, well, literally.

And I know what God cares for by what He made: a moving Earth; a comprehensible Cosmos of space and time, at least on the macro scale; great things appearing in shabby settings; treasure in earthen vessels; lots of beetles; and infinitely more real numbers than round numbers.....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Even under modern astronomy, it is proper to say "Sun, stand thou still," since movement is measured relative to the observer."

John Médaille, er no. When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using figurative language.

If Earth was what needed to stop rotating, Joshua was incorrect to adress the sun and the moon.

Furthermore, supposing it were Earth that stopped (this was noted by St Robert Bellarmine in his process against the book of Galileo, 1616, where Galileo attended not as accused of heresy but as accused of having written a bad book and as defendant of his book) there would have been no movement perceptible in the Sun if Earth had also stopped short in its annual movement (as the Heliocentrics suppose) but there would have been a movement perciptible over the time of a "whole day" in the Moon.

John Médaille, "The one the Church tells me to use. I am a man living under obedience; I don't get to choose which Catechism sets the norm for the Church."

I suppose you mean that horror of CCC?

When I converted, it was not yet there. I used five catechisms, none of which called the Church "semper reformanda".

Mark Stahlman " Guenon was, by many accounts, functioning as a "spy" with his attempts to "infiltrate" the SUFI orders (none of which alters his apostacy) and, even if DANTE was a "Thomist" does that rule out him also being a TEMPLAR (and a "Catharist" devoted to Parfait-style movements/initiations) . . . ??"

Supposing Dante was a Templar, though this is NOT borne out by his situation in life (Templars were not just esoteric before they got condemned, they were also esoterics within a closed military-social and paramonastic context), this does not mean his books are books of Templarian esotericism.

If they had been, they would have been condemned.

Guénon, who was as you said a Sufi (yesterday I was actually too tired to recall the word and chose Derwish as a close enough substitute, I had gotten an entry to sleep in where passage was going on many times same night), was above all an esoteric of initiation type and as such he was, as I noted on top of page 13 as far as I can see scrambling for proofs that such and such a man he admired was an initiate esoteric too.

Poor guy.

Would he also have considered Benedict XV as an esoteric when he recomended Dante?

[On top of that, the recommendation of Dante is the real subject of the encyclical which has in bad faith been taken as a real endorsement of Heliocentrism. The Pope was making a concessive clause in very cautious words and basically avoiding the subject.]

MD ""Damned" is dialogue, not to be taken, well, literally."

Thank you!

"It is foolish literalism to think our centrality is derived from celestial mechanics or spatial location, ie, any false ideas that the Earth is physically still, central, fails to spin, orbit, or travel with the solar system around the Galaxy."

I am not concerned so much with the centrality as "locus of importance".

To a Medieval, the inmost nook of the universe, the inmost corner of Hell, is the centre of the Earth. We are 6000 km and some more above that spot. We are also much further than that below the stars. Yet our destination is - if we get right - not the centrality of Hell, but the perifericity above the stars.

"Nevertheless, we are central as the sole [so far] locus of consciousness and the site of the Incarnation."

So Heaven above the stars is not a "locus of consciousness"? Our Lord and Our Lady are not enthroned up there? Stars and planets are not "loca of consciousness" insofar as angels guide their orbits?

I don't think so.

As to Locus of Incarnation and Redemption, the point is not so much centrality as fixity. God the Father looks down on the Cross of Calvary with utmost satisfaction and honour - would he want it to spin around like a football?

"And I know what God cares for by what He made: a moving Earth; a comprehensible Cosmos of space and time, at least on the macro scale; great things appearing in shabby settings; treasure in earthen vessels; lots of beetles; and infinitely more real numbers than round numbers....."

A moving Earth is hardly sth you know.

It is something you have been told that "we" know, and you have identified yourself to that "we".

And Cosmos is actually more comprehensible, as in pointing in its material and visible parts more directly to God and angels if Earth is still and Universe is moved around us and sun and planets get their sometimes very florid orbits from angels guiding them, since merely bodily interaction would hardly have had those effects.

John Médaille "As a surveyor, I used sidereal tables, which listed the times of sunrise and sunset. This was not an error; from the standpoint of the surveyor, it is the sun that is moving, while the theodolite is stationary."

Supposing the Heliocentric theory were true, nevertheless in human knowledge for one thing it is not ingrained yet in all aspects of language and for another it is simply, even if it were true, not known. So, in purely human words, the phenomenal language is not inappropriate.

However, Joshua, was he just acting like a man praying for a miracle like Naaman or was he acting like a prophet working or signalling a miracle, like Elisaeus or Elisha? I think when he spoke up to Sun and Moon, he was acting like a prophet and thus the words of the creed are involved: "credo in Spiritum Sanctum ... qui loquutus est per prophetas".

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/11/columbus-and-joshua-imagine-christopher.html

Even Naaman was not wrong about the diagnosis, it was not a psoriasis which would have abated of itself somewhat if he had been less stressed.

But we can with utmost certainty say, Elisaeus was not wrong about which river to bathe in or how many times he should dip. Elisaeus was not getting sth backwards and God then doing it the right way. Because Elisaeus was a prophet - and so was Joshua.

John Médaille

" When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using figurative language." Exactly. It is not "figurative" language to say sunrise and sunset. Relative to the observer, that is literally what is happening. All this effort to defend a line that doesn't need a defense.

Mark Stahlman

Interesting question about the *esotericism* of Benedict XV (and, while we're at it, Benedict XVI) . . . !! <g>

I'm quite confident that "organic" LSD *was* used by "some" Popes in a version of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was a "secret sacrament" administered by the Hospital Bros of St. Anthony -- which were "regularized" by Boniface VIII at the end of the 13th century and only disbanded at the end of the 18th (at which time their "lore" passed into the hands of the Rosicrucians/Illuminati etc).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" When a miracle maker adresses what must be done, he is not using RELATIVE language." then?

"I'm quite confident that "organic" LSD *was* used by "some" Popes in a version of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was a "secret sacrament" "

Got that from Guénon or someone?

Mark Stahlman

No I didn't -- I have been researching this question for a few decades on my own (in my capacity as the "unofficial" historian of LSD) and, as you should know, the ESOTERICS rarely admit that they have been taking *drugs* (which are fundamental to the "insights" of the Sufis et al) . . . !!

pre-history of LSD topic posted Sun, January 1, 2006 - 4:38 PM by iona
http://tribes.tribe.net/ethnobotany/thread/5a0356c2-b179-45b4-a6a1-a5ea44e0f36f

IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV ON DANTE --
TO PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS OF LITERATURE
AND LEARNING IN THE CATHOLIC WORLD.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly.

It was cited by the Dimond Brothers as Pope Benedict XV endorsing Dante.

Your point about esoterics is very moot.

Reminds me of a similar point on Eleusinian mysteries as you mentiones but also on Platonic school.

I distrust that conclusion, I think some people who are simply too engulfed in DiaMat have failed to follow correctly the reasoning and especially if they didn't fail, freaked out when reaching the conclusions and cried out "this is too spacey, there must be drugs involved".

And Eleusinian mysteries were, this is legitimate, esoterics.

But saying such and such Popes were esoterics and using drugs as secret sacraments is going beyond known fact. It is a widereaching allegation and needs proof.

I just saw point 6:

6) Following the end of ceremonies at Eleusis after Goths destroyed the sanctuary around 400, these ergot-based initiatory practices were preserved in the Greek community in Constantinople and elsewhere.

Weren't the mysteries closed by Emperor Theodosius?

point 7:

7) Early crusaders carried a version of these ergot-based practices back to southern France along with the relics of St. Anthony the Hermit (desert father of monasticism) in the 11th century. Centered near Arles, on the east side of the Rhone, the hospice escaped the Albigensian Crusade.

I take this to be a just so story, unless you have some kind of proof.

Mark Stahlman

Proof? Does Nietzsche count . . . ?? <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nietzsche thought so? No, does not count as proof.

Nietzsche is a parallel? Well, first establish how much he is parallel.

Here is my correspondence with the Dimond brothers, it is public, as I have taken this debate to be too:

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-benedict-xv-tofrom-mhfm1-dates-29.html

[Also linked to sequels I and II of the debate, to illustrate the latter point.]

Mark Stahlman

Yes -- whatever I say on Facebook (or in my 2008 "Pre-History of LSD") is indeed *public*, however none of it is a DEBATE, which I don't do *online* . . . !! <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in that case I have a different take on what I mean by debate.

I do consider my and John Médaille's exchanges on geocentrism, and your participation in it, as debating.

Mark Stahlman

John has been "arguing" with you -- whereas, I have NOT (i.e. simply making statements based on my own work, asking questions and pointing you to material that you were not aware of), which is *crucial* difference you might want to ponder a bit . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But you have been arguing with John and a few others who made hasty assumptions. The rest of what you did was not debating per se, agreed, but I took it in anyway.

Oh, btw, your pointing me to material I was not aware of, that should neither by you nor anyone else be taken as me needing to revise everything I have written on topic before getting anything published, as some would like me to do.

Probably part of this "research" on LSD being involved in Platonism has helped to stigmatise my work, as I am Platonic-Aristotelian in a Thomistic sense.

That is one reason why I object to it.

As to Guénon, I have heard hints both of my being into him (common point : believing in a common morality of all mankind, diverging points, he means a secret esoteric tradition, I mean the morality which Catholicism publically hits bulls eye - Catholicism, not sinful Catholics - and which other public traditions hit around with various deviations) and even been recommended to him.

I prefer, obviously, being myself recommended to simple Catholics who would not touch Guénon.

Mark Stahlman

Hans: I have *no* idea who you are or what you have done in your life. <g> Whatever "category" you fit in (by your own description or others) isn't particularly important to me. All that matters is that you have *generously* taken the time to talk with me (and many others) online -- which I take to be a blessing . . . <g>

Since LSD -- either in its "organic" form at Eleusis or in the many derivatives (during and subsequently at places like Mt. Athos) or in its "synthetic" form as invented by Steinerites in the 1930s (from which the KGB "esotericists" took it to London/Paris/SFCal in the 1960s) -- is a *fundamental* aspect of Western "spirituality" (and, indeed, the split between East and West over "mystical" practices), my advice is that you should want to better understand these developments. If you're interested, I can help you with that.

I have NO interest in "stigmatizing" you (or anyone else) but would rather suggest that my responsibility is EVANGELISM under our current *digital* conditions . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you for interest.

I disagree obviously as to ergot being a part of Western spirituality.

But if you would like to make a contribution there are some parts of my writings not involving lots of debators (some of whom were involuntary such, like Chris Ferrara objected to coming on my blog) and getting those printed would be a help, not just for the good cause, bt also for my economy.

I got a certain mail from the French representative of the Swedish Study Loan System.

If you agree, before the end you will know lots more of who I am.

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

Mark Stahlman

Based on what you've said so far, you have NO BASIS for having any opinions about the *role* played by ERGOT (or other "hallunicinogens") in Western spirituality -- which is what I'm offering to assist you on, if you were to choose to study the topic . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, took another look at your work on lsd.

15) In 1847 at Columbia College in New York, the "Greek" fraternity St. Anthony Hall (aka Delta Psi) was formed to continue this "secret tradition" and Col. Henry Steele Olcott -- who was later join with Madame Blavatsky to form Theosophy -- was one of four 1849 pledges at Columbia.
16) In 1866 at the University of Leipzig, Frederich Nietzsche and Erwin Rohde became ergot-based initiates of a "neo-Eleusinian" group that was devoted to understanding early Greek culture by actually living as the Greeks did.

The crucial point for a misinformation about previous "tradition" is of course 15.

If a group forms to "continue a secret tradition", it is extremely easy to invent it ad hoc.

Including in this case items 6 and 7.

Otherwise I do believe tradition reflects it previous stages at any given moment, whether human or divine.

As to your statement on what I have a basis for, I retort that YOU have no basis, if your basis is that you know points 6 - 14 by Nietzsche and thus by 15 and 16.

Mark Stahlman

HA!! So, I guess you have *no* interest in actually STUDYING the topic . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I happen to prefer the topic of Geocentrism.

I also happen to think there is such a thing as common sense.

What is your evidence for parts 6 to 14 INDEPENDENTLY of 15 and 16 and thus the possibly misinformed opinion of Nietzsche?

Mark Stahlman

HA!! Still trying to *debate* me -- which is demanding EVIDENCE is all about. <g> Please read the "prologue" to my 2008 posting, which should help you to understand what I know and how I know it (hint: it doesn't come from reading books, even though I do a lot of that also) . . . !!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"as a result of interviews and experiences with over a hundred people, some living and some dead, regarding the fascinating history of LSD."

And how much of it have you verified by reading documents on for instance the Anthonites?

Or, your not having done so, how much can you trust the guy who gave you that info?

Saying you heard this point many times over 40 years of interviewing only means the story is widespread in our days - not that it was exsisting when Antonites came about. Or when Hieronymus Bosch lived.

Mark Stahlman

Like I said -- #1 you commit yourself to *studying* the topic and #2 I will help you with the available documentation . . . <g>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

samedi 28 mars 2015

On Some Words by Burke (kind of Cardinal, except not canonically outside Vatican II sectarian context)

jeudi 19 mars 2015

Neither Racist Nor Antiracist

mercredi 18 mars 2015

John Médaille loses interest, after giving an interesting answer (real sequel III)

mardi 17 mars 2015

Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

lundi 16 mars 2015

Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I)

Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II)

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB