Today's discussion question

[Joseph Tracy]

Even the most technically advanced modern cultures still sacrifice the young for idiotic lies. The humanity of the high priests of culture has always been a crapshoot.  Your idea that anyone who has a different frame of technological reference has nothing they could teach you was shared by the crew of the Franklin polar expedition who refused the maps and aid of Inuit people and perished.  
Currently we are faced with a global ecological crisis founded in our own technologies and habitual addictions and some pretty stupid presumptions. One of the most intriguing alternative paths is permaculture which is largely drawn from tribal patterns of survival through the knowledge and cultivation of local resources,  combined with science and technology. That seems a legitimate example of mutual respectful interaction. 

As far as "we" knowing so much, I'm not so sure.  How many of 'us' could design/build an ac power plant, a computer, a cell phone, an electric motor or refrigerator. Most people, probably 90 to 99 percent really don't know enough to do so, though many have some small subset of such knowledge.  There is something slightly false about crediting ourselves with the cumulative benefits of scientific qnd technological inquiry.  
On Aug 20, 2013, at 5:43 PM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:

> "Proud vaunting"?  "False pride"?  Please.  We know a thousand times more now than we did a thousand years ago.  That's simply true.  Certainly people weren't stupider, but the idea that their ignorance provided a shortcut to some deeper truth is romantic silliness.  They sacrificed animals, virgins, children as a result of their "knowledge."  Later, they leeched the humors from people, racked and burned people for superstitious heresies.  Etc., etc.
> 
> It was a stunning achievement, once, to lash a sharp stone to a tree limb and make a spear.  But you think the person who did that has lessons to teach us.  I don't.
> 
> "Halliburton of the holy house of halitosis."
> 
> 
> I'm still laughing over that ...
> 
>  
> This proud vaunting of ones culture, knowledge and modernness as displaying a 
> superior mentality is something I see as false pride. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 1:13 pm
> Subject: Re: Today's discussion question
> 
> This proud vaunting of ones culture, knowledge and modernness as displaying a 
> superior mentality is something I see as false pride. No matter how far back in 
> any culture one goes there are stunning technical achievements, beautiful, 
> subtle and relevant poetry and a fulsome array of all that is human and 
> delightful along with what is dark and cruel. I see little evidence that our 
> technical abilities have freed us from cruel military empires, idiotic lies etc.  
> Long life? What is the glory of vast numbers of fat TV watchers waiting for 
> death. 
> 
> As far as moderns wanting experience and reliable information over dogmatic 
> constructs, come again? Facts like evil Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction, 
> weapons of mass destruction , weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass 
> destruction.  Facts like a world suddenly filled with terrorists and requiring 
> the imperial suspension of civil rights.  Facts like Fracking is perfectly safe, 
> here, have a drink. The invisible hand of the marketplace is even now ending 
> hunger and making the world better every minute; that isn't dogma, thats true as 
> even now Democracy spreads throughout the middle east with her friendly 
> handmaidens dronella, starvation sanctionlalla, and Halliburton of the holy 
> house of halitosis. I too am proud to be a modern man. Have a high powered 
> semi-automatic my child. It is your precious birthright and the solidest of 
> facts. It comes with a credit card backed by Ben Bernanke's personal 
> endorsement. Spend freely and kill with pride for thou art blessed with stars 
> and stripes up every fucking orifice. 
> 
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:05 PM, 
> MalignD at aol.com
>  wrote:
> 
> > It always strikes me that, when people speak of the ancient wisdom they 
> picture elders and sages, wise and wizened men possessed of some deep, now lost, 
> knowledge.
> > 
> > These were bronze age people with little but superstition to direct them past 
> their ignorance and fear and most of them were dead before they were fifty. 
> > no ancient or
> > childlike trust in the elders or the prophets or whatever the sages of
> > old handed down, what the scibes writ will do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Morris <
> fqmorris at gmail.com
> >
> > To: alice wellintown <
> alicewellintown at gmail.com
> >
> > Cc: pynchon -l <
> pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> > Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 10:01 pm
> > Subject: Re: Today's discussion question
> > 
> > Well said, Alice.  AND so succinct!  Huzzah!
> > 
> > On Friday, August 16, 2013, alice wellintown wrote:
> > He will never encounter anything that will persuade you, MalignD, but
> > he may have an experience that will, as it has others, persuade him.
> > Of course, such experiences are the foundation of modern adaptatons of
> > traditional religions. In other words, an immediate awareness of
> > relation with a decine presense or mysticism.
> > 
> > Because modern peoples are weary of ancient traditions, and because
> > modern peoples have built and discovered modern ways, no ancient or
> > childlike trust in the elders or the prophets or whatever the sages of
> > old handed down, what the scibes writ will do. We want facts. We don't
> > want authority. We want experience not dogmatic constructs. So the
> > mystical religion, that is, religion grounded in experience. So, if
> > one looks for evidence of reincarnation or resurrection or grace, one
> > may find it in experience.
> > 
> > Will it ever happen for for YOU?
> > 
> > Not even MalignD can can say.
> > 
> >  8/16/13, 
> malignd at aol.com <malignd at aol.com
> > wrote:
> > > Nor will you.
> > >
> > > I've never encountered anything like persuasive evidence of reincarnation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian Livingston <
> igrlivingston at gmail.com
> >
> > > To: David Morris <
> fqmorris at gmail.com
> >
> > > Cc: Bekah <
> bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net>; malignd <malignd at aol.com
> >; pynchon-l
> > > <
> pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> > > Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 9:44 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Today's discussion question
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, the (Tibetan Mahayana) Buddhist model is not limited to this world.
> > > There are myriad other worlds in Samsara. We're only passing through this
> > > one, en route to eventual enlightenment.
> > >
> > >
> > > I've never encountered anything like persuasive evidence of reincarnation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:33 PM, David Morris <
> fqmorris at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to see a math model of just the human accounting on how the
> > > present exploding population works with retreaded souls as a ratio of new to
> > > old.  There must be a huge source of new human souls yet to go spinning on
> > > this Merry-Go-Round.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 15, 2013, Bekah  wrote:
> > >
> > > If reincarnation is true there are a whole lot of dead people waiting for
> > > another shot at life - either that or they've come back as cockroaches -  in
> > > which case I suspect we have extra lives coming from somewhere.
> > >
> > > I just don't see how the accounting works out.
> > >
> > > 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead
> 
> > >
> > > Bek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, David Morris <
> fqmorris at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> The concept of reincarnation long predates the advent of Buddhism in
> > >> India.
> > >>
> > >> I don't find it useful, since access to lessons learned in a previous
> > >> lives isn't common nor plausible when through hypnosis people recall being
> > >> Napoleon or Cleopatra. If there is a kernel of truth in the concept of
> > >> reincarnation it seems to me useful as a way to understand inherent
> > >> knowledge, instincts, in every living being, passed on via eons of
> > >> evolution. Collective Conciousness?
> > >>
> > >> David Morris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thursday, August 15, 2013, wrote:
> > >> It's not remotely plausible.  Where would you suggest this "knowledge"
> > >> comes from?
> > >> The idea that the Tibetans
> > >> know something in regard to reincarnation that we don't seems perfectly
> > >> plausible.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Joseph Tracy <
> brook7 at sover.net
> >
> > >> To: P-list List <
> pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> > >> Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 11:16 am
> > >> Subject: Re: Today's discussion question
> > >>
> > >> Unless it is true. This idea has been around for a long time and has had
> > >> some
> > >> non bubble headed proponents who may perceive things unseen by a certain
> > >> kind of
> > >> logic. I am agnostic on all questions that seek to definitively describe
> > >> other
> > >> dimensions of experience, but some of my own experiences have kept me
> > >> from
> > >> closing the door on this and I do not find that leaving the question open
> > >> induces any more bubble headedness than watching TV. The idea that the
> > >> Tibetans
> > >> know something in regard to reincarnation
> 
>