| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Douglas and original sin -- Wally responds | | Date: | Friday, May 13, 2005 11:57:33 (-0400) | | From: | Keith Wilde <keithwilde @.........ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1282 (written by Timothy Carpenter) |
A comment to Tim (with apologies for my e-mail software which often does
not reproduce even the complete text, let alone fancy fonts-work):
I am working on a partly conceived conjecture that Douglas brought up
notions like original sin and other religious themes as a means of linking
his political economic ideas to something that would be familiar to the
audience(s) he hoped to reach. I was helped along to this by the Norman
Webb article about Christian Ethics that Wally circulated earlier this
week. Webb observed that Douglas' ideas for a better social order stemmed
in part from an aspiration that they be founded on concepts appropriate to
a post-Newtonian and post-Darwinian worldview. It makes a lot of sense to
me that, as an engineer, Douglas was impatient with notions that could not
be shown to work in application. Ironically, however, he was trying to
engineer the social order, and without some means of actually putting his
design into practice, he couldn't make the demonstration. He therefore had
to exert a lot of effort to scan the landscape in search of notions that
might persuade enough people to exert political pressure for real change.
As an engineer, Douglas must have been aware that it is hard to build
reliable structures without sound science. But as current events in the
United States are demonstrating, it is difficult to reconcile sound science
with some hoary religious doctrines. The fundamentalists want to "eat" the
benefits of science-based technology and yet keep their "cake" of
truth-challenged prejudices. In my emergent conjecture, Douglas recognized
the nature of his pedagogic challenge and sought to meet it by giving a
novel spin to familiar notions like "religion" and "original sin", hoping
thereby to persuade a nation of churchgoers that he was really on their
side by giving new life to old words. The plan backfires when
traditionalists like Jim and Kierkegaard try to swallow a whole camel.
Ideas that seem quite defensible in the context of twentieth century
developments in social science (linked closely to biology) were carried
forward by camel eaters and became transformed into social credit argot
that initiates are required to memorize and regurgitate in orthodox fashion
in order to be understood by the faithful.
This developing conjecture is linked to my skepticism that the true
explanation for the slow (or no) progress of the social credit agenda is
deep disagreement with Douglas' "philosophy".
Keith
At 02:51 PM 05/13/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> Dear Wally,
>
> Tim in blue
>
>""<> wrote:
>
>
>>Comments in RED -- Wally
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>> From:<>
>>> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas and original sin
>>>
>>>""<> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But it is salvation.
>>>> "" (to the Christian).]
>>>>
>>>> the above was cut from his message and as such is verbatim. The full
>>>>passage is:
>>>>
>>>> But it is salvation.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>> Jew ;-).
>>
>> I do not accept the Pauline concept of Jesus being God or Son of God,
>>nor the immaculate conception for it appears irrational. It appears to be
>>more of a marketing ploy by Paul to allow gentiles to relate to the
>>movement. I also have no time for the idea of ‘original sin’,
>>nor of the concept that Jesus ‘died on the cross for us’ or
>>other such guilt-inspiring, manipulative and oppressive constructs. It is
>>a masterly, circular dependency which has rarely been surpassed but has
>>been far-outdone by the Holy Quran. I have no doubt Jesus the man existed
>>and was crucified. Did he die on the cross? Likely but possibly not, for
>>he may have appeared to others at a later date and in secret (hinting at
>>mortality and survival). Was he God made Flesh? Almost certainly not. And
>>before you say it, no, I have not read The daVinci Code.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> """" You should have noted Douglas's provision that all new
>>production should be financed by new credits--and not from savings,
>>because savings are required to liquidate old financial costs incurred in
>>earlier production.]
>>
>> Wally – I think I see your point, but then again it does nothing
>>to reduce my concerns as to the effects of the discount. As to the last
>>sentence, I shall be turning to this soon in my discussion with Jim, but
>>there is much in what you say that I agree in terms of retained earnings.
>>The solution, however, is another matter.
>>
>> Tim
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca To
>unsubscribe, send a message to socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com For
>more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Keith Wilde
Ottawa
keithwilde@sympatico.ca
613 990-8125
"The metaphor is probably the most fertile power possessed by man."
J. Ortega y Gasset
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message