Subject: Re: The Bridegroom is back
From: pfc@remove_this.rpi.edu (PFC)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 00:16:59 GMT
In article <32B52C75.359B@math.auckland.ac.nz>,
chris king writes:
>Please remember: Use Alta Vista search to find "Genesis of Eden"
>There you will find the source - the unfolding Path of the Seed.
>Please post a copy of any comment to: king@math.auckland.ac.nz.
>I will reply to these comments only for a finite period.
>The course of history will not be changed by personal argument.
>_________________________________________________________
>
>Next clarification is to the materialist skeptic PFC:
You forgot atheistic, opinionated, funny, and rational in
the above. ;)
>
>1. > I don't follow your line of, (to put it politely), reasoning
>> that the patriarchal society is responsible for "the immortal
>> nature of the body is sacrificed to the eternal mind". :)
>
>In the crucifixion, Jesus attempted to force the arrival of the immortal
>Kingdom by rejecting the original sin of Eve, which was believed to be
>responsible for the Fall. This 'fall' is still with us as ecocrisis and
>genetic holocaust. All monotheistic patriarchal religions: Judaism,
>Christianity, Islam, Krishna etc. believe that there is another bodyless
>heaven where the imperfect 'world' is left behind. This causes us to
>fail to take responsibility for the living world in which we exist,
>perpetuating the fall, through patriarchal belief in dominion over
>nature - a sky-father earth-mother fallacy which nearly brought nuclear
>death and could yet destroy is all.
Ho ho! You believe that the heaven promised in the bible
will be physically manifested on earth. An interesting notion,
but very difficult to prove. Please tell me in what way a
monotheistic matriarchical religion would be any better, and
even more importantly why our belief systems would have any
effect on the physical world. Since you are "choosing" to
believe in whichever God(dess) you feel like, it follows that your
God(dess) is just made up. How in hell will this effect whether or
not a person is physically immortal? Regarding your nuclear
comments, how the hell do you tie that in?
>
>2. > The atoms of my body including those in my DNA
>> have been parts of other things in the past, (such as plants,
>> animals, and other people). ... The DNA structure which
>> represents my physical characteristics did not exist at any time
>> before my conception. Changes do occur, through mutation, and
>> you need to start to seriously consider evolution.
>
>I am an evolutionary biologist with published work in Genetica and the
>Journal of Theoretical Biology. Neither atoms nor exact genetic
>structures persist - ALL is flux, but the biosphere has no fixed
>lifespan, and each of us exists in an unbroken generative web from the
>source. By understanding how we fit with this immortal web we become an
>integral part of it and can promote the unfolding evolutionary future
>and rejoice emotionally, because as conscious beings we can also
>experience the eternal conscious mind and understand the divine
>connecting principle of creation across space-time - transactional
>supercausality, the ultimate Tao of physics.
>
Were your works published before or after your mental
breakdown? Evolution abandoned us the moment we started
taking care of our weaker members, (and good riddance I
say as we can doubtless finish the job better anyway!)
Who told you there was an "eternal conscious mind"?
Define "transactional supercausality".
Nobody will argue that we are part of our
biosphere, and that we shouldn't "shit where
we eat". There are rational reasons for this
which don't involve Gods, Goddesses, or silly
notions of "whole earth" organisms.
>3. > Our immortality cannot be destroyed, because it never
>> existed - period.
>
>Our collective immortality does exist, but not for long given our
>current destructive attitudes. It is the pathetic fallacy of
>mechanistic materialism which doesn't actually exist in the implicate
>order of quantum mechanics (See Bertrand Russell's quote at the end).
>
Our collective immortality certainly does NOT
exist. It is far from certain that we humans
won't be wiped out by diseases sent from "the
earth mother", or by our own tools. Regardless,
we will doubtless perish once conditions in the
universe become uniformly inhospitable to life.
Deal with it.
Your next comment was very humorous. There is nothing,
NOTHING, in quantum mechanics which supports your view
that we have destructive attitudes. You are spouting
nonsense. The only thing quantum mechanics explicitly
states is that we cannot hope for a perfect clockwork
model of reality due to our inability to determine the
exact initial conditions.
So, we have to settle for a small error in our
calculations... Big deal. Nothing will stop our
complete domination of the earth! :) Muahahahah!
>4. > Hah! From what ancient sea-scroll did you dig this gem
>> from? This is pretty loony, except for the shouted part
>> in the middle. I'm sure that all men agree when waiting
>> for their dates to finish getting ready that "THE FEMALE
>> ABIDES AND CANNOT BE HASTENED"
>
>Another defensive male. He who insults Robert Graves insults poetry
>itself. He who insults the White Goddess will become the 'stuff of
>nightmares'. The time is long overdue for men to stop regarding
>womankind as - 'their dates', 'their possessions' or the passive
>receptacle of male fertility.
>
Actually, I'm not defensive... I just have a sense of humor
whereas you do not! :) I sensed you'd be touchy on that
subject and decided to see how you'd react if prodded. You
behaved exactly as expected. Do you not see your own stereo-
typical reactions? I must caution you that one of the signs
of insanity is being unable or unwilling to try examine yourself
objectively.
Stuff of nightmares? Cool!
Regarding some men's treatment of women as possesions, do you
not acknowledge that some of the responsibility for these
actions falls squarely on the shoulders of women? Their behavior
dictates how we relate to them just as much as ours does. Anyway,
your perfect Goddess made us as we are and thus we cannot be
inherently flawed, can we? :) We just wanna be loved too!
>5. I am posting this to sci.sceptic because I am aware of the pathetic
>fallacy of materialism as noted by Bertrand Russel - and its resolution:
>
>"Such in outline, but even more purposeless, more devoid of meaning is
>the world which science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if
>anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the
>product of causes that had no previson of the end they were achieving;
>that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his
>beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that
>no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve
>an individual life beyond the grave, that all the labours of the ages,
>all the devotion, all the inspirations, all the noon-day brightness of
>human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar
>system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably
>be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things,
>if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no
>philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the
>scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding
>despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. ... Brief
>and powerless is man's life, on him and all his race the slow, sure doom
>falls pitiless and dark ... "
Uhhh, you should read this again. He says that science presents
a world without meaning, but he never explicitly contradicts that!
In fact he says of science, despite its bleak outlook, that:
>all these things,
>if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no
>philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand
Therefore, the materialistic, scientific view of the world
has no serious competition, bleak as it may be.
All this means is that instead of the world providing a ready
made reason for our existance we need to provide our own. The
most difficult thing is probably the choice. There are so
many worthy pursuits out there that it is difficult to decide
on one. It seems the most noteworthy human beings consist of
those who actually made the choice rather than refusing to
decide. (Or something)
Me.
Subject: Re: Egyptians not black or white but Egyptian...
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:20:43 -0600
The Hab wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >The Hab wrote:
> >>
> >> Saida wrote:
> >> >I wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The ones who have brought up the subject and forced the rest of us to > >> >use these terms are the Afrocentrists, themselves, who are
so > >in love > >> >with the term "black" even though the extreme ends
of the > >color spectrum > >are difficult to apply to human beings. I
prefer > >> >anthropological > >terminology as "caucasoid" and
"negroid". Now THESE > >are words used in > >Egyptology. Yet I daresay
some people > >would object > >to such terms as > >well. I am not fond
of this sort of > >discussion, but > >I don't like others > >applying
what I regard as > >false labels to the > >ancient Egyptians. As for >
>the modern > >Egyptians, each one has the > >right to call himself what he > > >>likes--but no one has the right--even
> >> >the US Census--to tell him what > >category he should fall under.
> >> >
> >> >The Hab:
> >> >> It's interesting that a non-Egyptian seems to think that we "call > >> >> [ourselves] what we like"...We are Egyptian like our
ancestors > >> >> nine thousand years before us.
> >> >
> >> >Well, there seems to be some difference among you, at least in this > >> >newsgroup, as to what your racial type is. I snipped most of
your post > >where you quoted a man named Brace as having said Egyptians
were > >> >non-white. Since he is not an Egyptian, how can he,
according to your > >criteria, be in a posiition to comment on the
ethnicity of the > >> >Egyptians?
> >>
> >> [snip garbage]
> >>
> >> You seem to fail in the realization that I am not commenting on ethnicity > but political/social terms like "white" and "black"...these
> >do not apply > to us...never have and never will.
> >
> >What is this crap? In another thread running concurrently you told a
> >gentleman named Assad that Egyptians couldn't possibly be considered
> >white. It seems to me that you are, indeed, dealing in that
> >terminology. I am contradicting you by saying that it is my belief that > > many Egyptians are caucasian people. Call that white, beige,
pink, > >yellow or whatever you like. But it's not black.
>
> Ignorant boy, Caucasian is a racial term and "white" is
> social/political...We may be Caucasian (in that we are closest physically > to Caucasians than non-Caucasians) but we certainly aren't
"white". Try > to understand this point.
I am not a boy and I don't think I'm ignorant. There are only so many
racial groups. Try to figure out which one you belong to and let the
other Egyptians do the same for themselves.
>
> > Further, the scientific studies that I
> >> accept are the ones that COMPARE rather than CLASSIFY...for example, > >> ancient population A is not significantly different that
modern > >> population B...therefore, population A and B are similar.
> >
> >I go for that.
>
> Then GIVE ME ONE anthropological comparison study that claims we are
> different than the ancestors.
Which ancestors? The ones before any of the foreigners came to Egypt?
Who were they? Nobody seems to know but you--so tell us all exactly
what sort of people they were.
>
> > YOU, on the
> >> other hand CLASSIFY...You make a false assumption that Egyptians of today > are different and work from there.
It is you who are assuming an assumption on my part.
> >
> >Different from what? Which Egyptians have I classified? I gave you the > >opinions of scientists and you called it "garbage". Excuse us
all if we > >don't bow down to your superior knowledge. The man called
you a > >"mixture of arrogance and ignorance", something like that. I
can't > >think of a better description.
>
> Ignorance has never been a friend of mine. If you think that I claim some > sort of superiority, you are in fact reflecting upon yourself. It
is you > who has some sort of inferiority complex...why do you assume
that I think > I am superior than you?
Leave me out of it. I quoted scholarly opinion to you and you called it
garbage. That is the sort of arrogant "superiority" I am talking about.
>
> >> Realize the difference and deal with it.
> >
> >I fully realize the difference between you and myself and can only be
> >grateful for it.
>
> Again, you insult me. Why do you feel the need to?
You insult everybody at will. That is why.
>
> >Long live the true Egyptians.
> >>
> >> The Hab
> >
> >I notice every time you get on the subject of Egyptian ethnicity, you
> >start this flag-waving "long live the Egyptians" stuff like you, living > >in Toronto most of your life, were the expert on all things
Egyptian and > >anybody who disagrees with you is against Egyptians.
>
> Everyone who denies the Egyptian continuity is against Egyptians. And
> Toronto has nothing to do with my Egyptian identity.
>
> >Who is supposed to
> >be impressed by this? You treat the Egyptians like they were ignorant > >old-time fellahin in the fields, like they didn't know a
thing, couldn't > >think for themselves, and need you to tell them
what's what. Every time > >you cry "long live the real Egyptians" they
should rally behind you like > >a bunch of blind followers with you, the
big shot, as their leader. I > >don't think you've been elected king
yet, ya faret el habs. Ya Misriyye, > >Allah yahfazek! Whomever you
feel that you are, let no man tell you
> >otherwise.
>
> I feel that I am Egyptian and no man shall tell me otherwise.
>
> The Hab
So if other Egyptians want to say they are white, blue or green, what is
it to you, anyway?
