SLake, that was one hell of a long way of saying "can't we all just get along?"
If only, xd. S'like, where's common-sense these days?! The update, you like? ^^
I actually don't use atheism to describe myself to anyone but strangers. Strangers (sorta) understand what atheism is because of the culture we live in; but friends get a story that starts with what's important to me; not what's not.
I'll go along with that, thanks.
Why aren't humans capable of caring about common concerns? And if they're not then why are they doomed now rather than in their two million or so years of prior history?
Timing, yeah, I was going to say something about that in the above post but it was moving into theology, a subject you'll realize I've been trying to sideline even along with science, as an entity. Well my personal view inclines towards geological concepts of
now, those being considerably longer than human perceptions of
now. Although my epitaph thing I'll agree was indicative of immediacy, which of course one feels at times with one's pet subject.
me, sacred means an ideal surrounded by a taboo. I have ideals, but I don't have many taboos so not much is sacred to me. My beliefs about the world certainly are not sacred; neither is whatever sense of purpose I may from time to time marshall.
Just a posit and yes I think the concept sacred should be modified, essentially to something like
what one holds dear. In my opinion, and I hope I don't offend anyone unnecessarily, I think the concept sacred in the religious sense has moved into the area of,
traditional historical, so we value it immensely. I've only looked briefly into religious origins of sacred, so essentially I'm guessing, but even so, I'm trying to categorize today rather than justify remnants of yesterday.
pointed out (by assertion) that people are trivially identical. Odd that they hadn't realised it before, but assuming so, where to now?
Trivially identical - I'll take that as compliment, but well yes ok, you're stating a fact. It is odd as you say that people
haven't realized it before, something like the obvious multi strata make up of earth, visible in one way or another to just about everyone since humanity began.
If you can answer why strata hasn't been recorded as being noticed then you will have answered a ton of sociological questions about humanity, I think. It kinda hints the question: were people like Galileo Galilei exceptions through the ages or were there many who were overlooked, and for multitudes of reasons? I'm not placing myself with him or other greats, even if you'd let me try, but if you accept there is a future then there will probably be changes which result from realizations, currently unrealized.
Where to now with this etymology thing? Shall I be facetious and say it's in God's hands, or maybe not
Etymology, a branch of linguistics and there's semiotics and finer subdivisions or fields, the list of which kinda do the dry butterless toast banquet on a hot day during a water shortage thing for most people, but they involve the basis of all human thought, rather than what people think. The latter of the sentence: an important point.
Lost in that tangle of specialties is: {item, and / or, system} = {concept (or idea)} = {spoken word, its sign(s) and its symbol(s)}. Meaning that our mind is structured so that collections of items and systems have words etc assigned. That's the basis of human thought. Theoretically, for example: there's no reason to suppose time alters the concept
belief, or that culture to culture the concept belief could be different but it is, which the many fields of linguistics examine to the nth degree, the frequent result being the burnt bread banquet.
I'm not proposing the studies are overlooked just refined to offer -most certainly school kids- a succinct overview of thought first before the more advanced and frequently conflict inducing, what they think.
The current approach to thought is often abstract to the point of metaphysics, even if it's taught by people who wouldn't give the subject a second glance. Not knowing the nature of thought, abstraction occurs, so that although the same language is spoken, the possibilities of derivatives can become horrendous. Knowing the structure would highlight divisions in language even from town to town, but actually knowing there are divisions offers a distinct advantage. Further they highlight pronenesses and consequently differences from individual to individual.
What do you think? would become a more complex question certainly, but then the human is supposed be intelligent.
I hope this post makes some sense - I've cut it down a fair bit - essentially advocating looking at thought first before thinking about thinking! I hope the post also contributes to this thread,
controlling bias.
