Text 29883, 194 rader
Skriven 2015-12-29 06:13:33 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 29815 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
Hello David,

 DD>>> How did God slip into this analogy?

 LL>> Everybody has a god.

 DD> We do? Who is my god? I worship no-one. I bow down to no-one. I pray to
 DD> no-one.

 DD> http://godisimaginary.com/

Jim Morrison called his band "The Doors" because it represented
his belief that we all live in an imaganary world - "the doors of
perception" is the complete phrase of his meaning.

 DD>>> One does not have to perceive any gods to support one's country.

 LL>> Whether one recognizes or perceives any gods is not the issue.
 LL>> Everybody has a god, whether they like it or not, or choose to
 LL>> admit it or not.

 DD> As proved by what evidence? Again I ask, who is my god?

One must doubt to believe.

What I mean by this is that faith is not dependent on evidence.
An individual can believe in something without having any evidence
to support the existence of whatever it is that he/she believes in.

Christopher Columbus convinced a rich patron to believe in him.
Columbus convinced a handful of men to believe in him.
Whether he succeeded or failed in his mission is not the issue.

 DD>>> Then there are us aliens. I am not a citizen in the country of my
 DD> current
 DD>>> residence. I am not expected to offer them/it any allegiance until I
 DD> seek
 DD>>> citizenship. Even then, I think that allegiance is to their laws,
 DD> not the
 DD>>> country.

 LL>> Not necessarily.  But one does pledge allegiance to something.

 DD> I haven't pledged anything since I was a junior boy scout - (in a
different
 DD> country).

You carry coins and/or currency in your pockets.  Making payment
with those coins and/or currency is a type of pledge.

 DD>>> Perhaps I am once again mistaken.

 LL>> We are all mistaken.  But rarely (if ever) admit it.

 DD>>> "From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its
 DD> people,
 DD>>> whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I
 DD> respect,
 DD>>> and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

 LL>> I pledge allegiance to a flag.

 DD> Idol worshipper!

We are all idol worshippers.  Just look at the faces on those
coins and currency.  Graven images!  Idol worship!

 LL>> I have absolutely no idea what that means, or what it is supposed to
 DD> mean.  But I do pledge allegiance to
 LL>> a flag.  Actually, the flag.  Not just a flag.  It has to be the
 DD> flag.

 DD> The "stripey rag"?

The Harlem Globetrotters wore those flags everywhere they went.
To more than 100 countries around the world.  And not once did
anybody ever burn a single flag.  But they sure burned those
nets, everywhere they went!  And always with a smile!

Meadowlark Lemon, RIP (age 83)  What a wonderful showman,
and ambassador to the world.  Saw him play in person, many
years ago.  He could do anything with a basketball.  And
sink a shot from midcourt with an amazing grace.

 DD> How often do you make this pledge? I understood that only school kids had
 DD> this inflicted on them each school day...

We inflict ourselves with this pledge at the beginning of
every public meeting we attend.  I think it is the law.  Not
really sure.  We just do it.  Just to be on the safe side.
Can't have anyone think we are terrorists or Muslims or
some other kind of devil.

And we don't stop there.  At every sporting event we sing
a song.  A drinking song.  But nobody can remember all the
words.  Even if nobody is drunk.  So we get somebody to
volunteer to sing it for us, and promise to sing along.
We call it the national anthem.  There are supposed to
be four verses, but finishing the first verse is hard
enough.  And people start hitting you if you try to
sing the second verse.  Nobody is stupid enough to even
get to the third verse.

 DD>>> I wonder if I can find the list of alleged "rights".

 LL>> Rights?  Did somebody mention rights?

 DD> The Aussie citizenship pledge did.

We ratified the US Constitution and it had no rights.
So James Madison decided to give us a list of ten rights
that we could have.  But nobody knew what they meant,
so we let the courts decide for us.

 DD> Then again, those born here of parents who are citizens do not have to
 DD> pledge any allegiances to the nation, the people or the laws. I wonder if
 DD> they enjoy those rights, liberties etc. without pledging their souls...

SOS.  Save Our Souls.  When the market crashed in 1929, and the
people were left destitute, who came to their rescue?  Was it Jesus?
Or was it man, saving himself from his own actions?

 LL>>  Not in what I pledge allegiance to.  What rights does any flag grant
 DD> to anybody?
 LL>> Hell, these days the flag is imported from China and is made
 LL>> of material that is impossible to burn.  What do you think
 LL>> that tells me?

 DD> Get a hotter flame?

There is not enough red in the flag to even give it a spark.

 LL>>>> So what are you?

 DD>>> non-aligned.

 LL>> To be non-aligned is to stand for nothing.

 DD> I stand for the equality of all fidonet echo users - for the
"ordinariness"
 DD> of the moderators.

That would be a plus for all of fidonet.  With no "heavies"
being able to hit on participants, true freedom for all could
be accomplished.

 LL>> Does that make you a nobody?

 DD> I suspect that I am somebody - even if I am not aligned to any
nationalistic
 DD> propaganda.

"I am somebody!" - Jesse Jackson

What is somebody?  Is somebody a thing?  What is a thing?

[Page 247 ]

An Analysis of Martin Heidegger's What is a Thing?

by Eugene T. Gendlin

University of Chicago

In the pages to follow, four main topics will be discussed: (1) the
sort of questions that are philosophical (to explain such questions
as "What is a thing?"); (2) the text itself, dealing with sections A,
in which the question "What is a thing?" is raised; B-I, which
examines the basic assumption system involved in modern science; and
B-II, which presents the way Kant fundamentally altered the grounds
on which this scientific assumption system was based and the limits
within which it can be valid; (3) the relationship of Heidegger to
Kant; (4) the later Heidegger and future philosophy.

Heidegger's first section (A) is preparatory and is designed to give
the reader a fresh start, freeing him from some of the preconceptions
he is likely to have. Although written as a simple common-sense
discussion, it contains all of Heidegger's major points. This
analysis will attempt to relate these points as raised in section A
with their carefully detailed analysis in sections B-I and B-11.
However, before examining the text itself, we must discuss the
meaning of the question "What is a thing?", and, [Page 248]
as this question is one version of the sort of question philosophy
always asks, we must briefly discuss what sort of questions are
philosophical.

[..]

p. 10,848

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)