The tenets of eco-cosmology vs current empirical/analytical philosophy.

Please note that I’m being very specific with eco-Cosmology, but i'm stereotyping empirical philosophy, as no-one is totally empirical in their thinking.

Eco-Cosmology VS Empirical philosophy.
--------------
1…Comprehensive VS Analytical
2…Pursuing wisdom VS Pursuing information
3…Environmentally
and ecologically conscious VS Environmentally and ecologically oblivious.
4…Related to the economics of the
Quality of life VS Related to the economics of material progress{ now vulgarized into consumerism}

5…Polically aware VS Politically indifferent.
6…Socially concerned VS Socially unconcerned.
7…Vocal about individual responsibility VS Mute about it.
8…Tolerant of transphysical phenomena VS Intolerant of it.
9…Mindful of health VS Mindless of health.
10..Life orientated VS Language orientated.
11…Committed VS Objective{detached}
12…Spiritually alive VS Spiritually dead.

Eco-Cosmology signals the beginning of a new epistemology. Pluralistic, life rooted, cosmos-orientated in contradistinction to the present one which is matter rooted and mechanism orientated……where do you think transplanting our consciousness into a machine comes from?

Now excuse me for thinking that consumerism, social Darwinism, continual episodes of ecological devastation, and continual environmental degradation fall into the realm of empirical philosophies lap.
If scientism and empirical philosophy are the superior modes of knowledge, how is it we arrive at major ecological, social and individual pathologies.

The belief that only science can deliver supreme knowledge is doubtful at best, science deifies FACTS at the expense of intuitive wisdom. Facts are imperious judgements on behalf of the emperor called the Physical Paradigm of Reality… to obey facts is to obey the theory and world view which those facts serve and which they exemplify and articulate.


E F Schumacher says…” Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful”.

I credit this post to the genius Henryk Skolimowski.
Btw, anyone who acts the fool will receive no reply.

I'm interested in what set of beliefs you are referring to as "eco-cosmology".

Is this new-age tree hugging, or something more?

Eco-Cosmology signals the beginning of a new epistemology. Pluralistic, life rooted, cosmos-orientated in contradistinction to the present one which is matter rooted and mechanism orientated…

Pluralistic in what sense?
Life rooted how?
Cosmos oriented - what does that mean?

Now excuse me for thinking that consumerism, social Darwinism, continual episodes of ecological devastation, and continual environmental degradation fall into the realm of empirical philosophies lap.

You are excused.

If scientism and empirical philosophy are the superior modes of knowledge, how is it we arrive at major ecological, social and individual pathologies.

How do you think it happens?

The belief that only science can deliver supreme knowledge is doubtful at best, science deifies FACTS at the expense of intuitive wisdom.

Which FACTS does science deify?
Which "intuitive wisdom" does it ignore at its peril?

Facts are imperious judgements on behalf of the emperor called the Physical Paradigm of Reality…

I thought they were shared agreements about the nature of the world.

to obey facts is to obey the theory and world view which those facts serve and which they exemplify and articulate.

Aren't fact and theory separate things?
How can you "obey" a fact? A fact is a piece of knowledge, not a dictating entity. Isn't it?

E F Schumacher says…” Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful”.

Fair enough. E.F. Schumacher is entitled to his or her opinion.

I credit this post to the genius Henryk Skolimowski.

That's nice. Who's Henryk?

Btw, anyone who acts the fool will receive no reply.

Ooh... better be careful not to contradict you too much then, hadn't I? You seem a bit touchy.

That was a masterful and typical display of being a wanker James.
Don't expect me to bother with you, you're obviously threatened by my truths at a subconscious level, this forced you to do a psychological profile on me at a subconsious level, and the end result was you reacted like a small child.
That's ok, you were made like that, society constructed you, it's not really yoúr fault that you're immature.

Don't tell me. You're boombox, right?

You're the moderator tough guy, check IP's and emails.

Well, I struggle to see how asking some perfectly reasonable questions amounts to being immature, David. All I've done is to request that you clarify what you mean, so that we can all have a useful discussion.

Maybe I am threatened by your truths at a subconscious level. Who knows? We don't even know what your truths are yet.

It seems to me much more likely that it is <b>you</b> who is being immature here. And I haven't even criticised any of your claims yet, because I haven't established exactly what they are yet.

Did you start this thread for a reason, or just to be petulant?

James, I discuss philosophy with those who prove themselves to be wise, ie, people who pursue ongoing amounts of proper knowledge.

Your post was rude and arrogant....you can't pretend you would speak face to face like that with anyone and expect them to take you seriously, so why do you think you get that privilege on net?

The fact is you "could" have witheld your snide remarks, formally engaged me, and sought clarification.....but you couldn't, the reason you couldn't is because the words got into your psyche and compelled you to react, your reaction was the evidence I need to reject you.

David,

James, I discuss philosophy with those who prove themselves to be wise, ie, people who pursue ongoing amounts of proper knowledge.

Clearly you haven't read many of my posts on such topics, then.

Your post was rude and arrogant....you can't pretend you would speak face to face like that with anyone and expect them to take you seriously, so why do you think you get that privilege on net?

Hmm.. let's review my comments.

I said:

I'm interested in what set of beliefs you are referring to as "eco-cosmology".
Is this new-age tree hugging, or something more?

Fair question, I think.

I also asked:

Pluralistic in what sense?
Life rooted how?
Cosmos oriented - what does that mean?
How do you think it happens?
Which FACTS does science deify?
Which "intuitive wisdom" does it ignore at its peril?
Aren't fact and theory separate things?
How can you "obey" a fact? A fact is a piece of knowledge, not a dictating entity. Isn't it?
Who's Henryk?


I expressed opinions on three points:

I thought [facts] were shared agreements about the nature of the world.
E.F. Schumacher is entitled to his or her opinion.
You seem a bit touchy.


You have to admit, I hit the third one on the head, didn't I?

Then, there was the line where I said:
You are excused.

Now that's arrogant, I'll grant you. But look what I was responding to. Do I hear a kettle calling a pot black, somewhere?

The fact is you "could" have witheld your snide remarks, formally engaged me, and sought clarification..

Snide remarks aside, I did exactly that. In reply, you chose to make a petulant personal attack instead of responding on-topic to your own thread.

..but you couldn't, the reason you couldn't is because the words got into your psyche and compelled you to react, your reaction was the evidence I need to reject you.

Funnily enough, David, I'm not particularly worried about being rejected by you. I think I'll get over it. It's a pity you chose to judge me so quickly. You might have gained something from discussing your thoughts with me.

Well, never mind. Good luck to you.

I'll take my arrogance elsewhere.

"You have to admit, I hit the third one on the head, didn't I?"

Sorry James, your attempt at portraying me as emotional won't work.
If you don't care whether we converse, then I certainly don't.

REJECTED....LOL.

James R: I can’t believe you bothered to engage in a thread with David Mayes! He will provide you with tremendous fun – as long as you realize he is the Messenger sent by the Goddess Gaia, who has named him the <b>Protector and Savior of the Planet</b>. by David: James, I discuss philosophy with those who prove themselves to be wise, ie, people who pursue ongoing amounts of proper knowledge. He does not only discuss philosophy as if he was Plato’s teacher, but will also discuss physics, climatology, chemistry, and other sciences, armed with a mighty powerful weapon: the <b>Invincible Ignorante Fallacy</b>, that can be defined as: The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In effect, the argument says, <b>"If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound."</b>.

There is no way you can rebate him on any field – on his own view, of course – and he will always react to any doubt you might have about his arguments as a deliberate insult to his intelligence.
But you can have lots of fun with David: once you set him in the right track, he will overflow the thread with huge amounts of obnoxiousness extracted from some Encyclopedia of Humane Stupidity. Just for sheer curiosity, you should go this thread and see for yourself, while casting your vote in the poll David has there.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29085&goto=newpost

Have fun!

BTW, David: Giggle, giggle, chuckle, ha, ha!…

Just in case you've forgotten Edufer!!

Nutjob...I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm an eco-philosopher, this philosophy is superior to typical hardcore analytical empirical philosophies, it's includes knowledge of science, philosophy of science and so on and so on.

I'm not a climatologist, but have read enough on the subject to know that you still don't understand that GW is the globally averaged temps, and those temps are up....it doesn't matter what the US's record might be or any other reigion, only the TOTAL, as in the globe, leading to global averaging.

And GHG theory is UNDISPUTED, it can only be disputed by a superior competing one which both explains and predicts better...where is that theory??
Disputation by a crank who has consistently used Junk science websites by exposed junk scientists{regardless of their past performances} invalidates the totality of his commentary.

I've made comments on the state of the world including the failure of capitalism, if you have any rational comments regarding my statements, I suggest you contradict me with them, otherwise your snide comments are just increasing your resume of ad hominens.

Edufer expects us to believe that the IPCC, the WMO, the NAS, the CSIRO, NOAA, the 1700 scientists of the Warning to Humanity Statement are all cranks....LOL, it's become more than apparent that Edufer is the crank.

Edufer:

Thanks for the tip. I've seen David in action in a few other threads, actually.

Dave:

This thread is going well so far, don't you think?

Don't worry James, I know exactly what I'm doing at this "type" of forum.
And I posted this thread for Edufers benefit, I felt sorry for him after I busted him up on his anti-GW views and deflated his science slaying ego.

Have you figured out what you have to do yet?

Pander to your ego?

Rudeness is a sign of certainty and immaturity, this was how you introduced yourself to me, as such, I couldn't be bothered re-discovering what you proved in your opening post.

I'm interested in wise people James, not intellectuals educated beyond their intelligence limit.
And I've noticed you tried the same trick with Wanderer, LOL, he must have a lot more patience/tolerance than I have.

Rudeness is a sign of certainty and immaturity, this was how you introduced yourself to me, as such, I couldn't be bothered re-discovering what you proved in your opening post.

I don't require your approval, David.

I'm interested in wise people James, not intellectuals educated beyond their intelligence limit.

Now who's being rude?

And I've noticed you tried the same trick with Wanderer, LOL, he must have a lot more patience/tolerance than I have.

I'd be careful of throwing in your lot with Wanderer. I don't think you'll come out of that looking good.

I'll check back with this thread tomorrow to see if anybody else has found it engaging enough to respond to yet.

Have a nice day.

I don't require your approval, David.

For any serious discussions James, you actually do.

Now who's being rude?

What, you don't like it?


I'd be careful of throwing in your lot with Wanderer. I don't think you'll come out of that looking good.

Wanderer is relatively wise, but seems enraged{which is fair enough considering the destructive paradigm he finds himself in}....I don't agree with everything he says and you obviously don't.

Now be a man James.

It appears that he is being the man here.

Unlike the child who runs and hides behind the excuse of 'ignorance' when questions are raised. Your posts have been more rude than anything JamesR has said.

But, to avoid this thread actually living, I'm not going to bother to answer after you call be a 'wanker'... which is inevitable seeing as how I disagree with you.

But, to avoid this thread actually living, I'm not going to bother to answer after you call be a 'wanker'... which is inevitable seeing as how I disagree with you.

You're welcome to disagree as I'm welcome to reject unecessary rudeness.
An individuals behaviour exposes aspects of their psyche, if their psyche is undeveloped and by definition contaminated with nonsense, why would I bother entering into a hardcore discussion with them as they've exposed themselves as irrational.

Rationality demands conforming to reason and being civil, if either of that dual aspect is beyond you, then get back to your investigations on dildo's.