----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:37
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of
Human Effort
Howdy Keith,
My complements on not leaving this on a negative
note.
I assumed that you would have some idea of a
relationship between Social Credit and Christianity although it doesnt feature
much on this forum. So I stand corrected on that.
There was an excellent post by Phillip Butler a
few months ago on Social Credit being practical Christianity but you may not
have seen it and then of course it may have produced a number of questions
that may need answering first for some to be able to appreciate
it.
You mentioned the comment/ question by Bill
Ryan last year re english being my first or second language. I
wasnt convinced it had anything to do with discussion as no one on any forum
outside of this one has put such an issue as though it was of any
significance. Our supposed conflict of how we view things for example is
more an issue regards any difficulty in understanding rather than how perfect
ones language is. My native language is English. It was always my
poorest subject at school because outside of spelling and some basic grammar
there was no rhyme or reason or character ever taught that gave it anything to
learn about so I did a lot better at maths. Today it is a widespread
problem at universities in my country. Perhaps being the normal lanuage
it was taken for granted and became a lazy zone for teachers.
Authority of the scriptures is the scriptures
themselves as they contain a common language/ use of terms and provide the
keys to fathoming them. There are referrences within that talk
about studying and proving and searching indicating it isnt a an easy come
easy lost matter however the admonition to seek and you will find holds
true. Naturally a casual interest wont get the same returns as an
industrious student. Then of course there is the original words of
Hebrew, Arabic and Greek in concordances that given a more accurate
interpretation which often corrects popular teaching.
Religion, philosophy, science all have schools of
thought. The point I made was that it doesnt matter how popular any of
these schools of though are at any time the actual real truth remains
independant although discovered to any degree. For example the earth
didnt turn flat because everyone believed it was.
I am glad I now understand that you
have been trying to get your head around Douglas' concepts and that you have
been mystified sometimes by the supposed relationship between Social Credit
and Christianity because you having been around for so long and seeming very
familiar with much of what is discussed one easily thinks you understood
a lot more than you actually do. But it is typical that Social Crediters
prefer to talk about economics rather than the philosophy that is its policy
foundation.
I suggest you do a bit of reading from the man
himself and those who have a good grasp because much of the dispute between
Social Crediters and others of some other school of thought are really over
the philosophy behind the policy, thus it is easy for those who differ to
think we are narrow and inflexible etc.
It also needs to be pointed out that people who
claim or talk as Social Crediters may not in fact embrace the whole conception
and those who are only interested in finance and economics may be a
majority. You will have picked up from time to time responses by those
who intimate that others are not really Social Crediters like they
are.
I recommend you to the alor.org library (
Australian League of Rights) where you will find such works by Douglas as
"Nature of Democarcy", "The Approach To Reality", "The Policy of a
Philosophy"and "Realistic Constitutionalism" on line. All short
booklets. The article "Social Credit is as old as Man" would be a good
start.
Others like "Social Credit and Christian
Philosophy", "Essential Christian Heritage" by Eric Butler obviously link
the two as well as link into history and constitutionalism. This is the
background of the Christian Philosophy in relation to the English or
British culture and Social Credit, the heritage of the English speaking
Protestant peoples in general. The struggle over finance is not
unrealated to that over philosophy, culture and
heritage. Finance and economics are
but one policy section/ concern of what Douglas
embraces.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:31
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of
Human Effort
OK Peter, I will concede some failure to
comprehend:
You say:
"You know very well the relationship between
Social Credit and Christianity."
In fact, I do not. Since attempting
intermittently to follow these discussions for most of five years I
have been often bewildered and sometimes mystified by that relationship. If
it in fact entails an endorsement of Biblical mythology then your remarks do
take on greater meaning for me, especially your inferences that science and
truth can take divergent paths and that the authority of scripture is based
on something other than verbal repetition (the technique, incidentally, of
Islamic fundamentalists who promote the Al Qaeda solution).
If I have understood you correctly after these
efforts, then I have indeed been mistaken in having spent so much time
trying to get my head around the Douglas concepts.
And it all does prompt me to ask if you ever
did provide the answer to Bill Ryan's question: "Is English a second
language for you?" You may have answered, but I do not recall what it
was.
Keith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:40
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy
of Human Effort
Howdy Keith,
I liked your comments and the use of Sherlock
Holmes but you aught to know better that when you assume that evolution is
science to everyone and the Bible mythology likewise you punch yourself in
the nose.
You own yourself an apology. I
could say you aught to have done your post before getting into your beer
as well but that would be childish.
If my comments were incoherent to you
then it is no complement to you as they were in response to your
unwise assumption plus you were unable to comprehend.
I wont answer your howler question about what
determines scripture, your contempt makes it pointless.
You know very well the relationship between
Social Credit and Christianity.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy
of Human Effort
Peter,
I don't understand the relevance of your
comments.
My evocation of belief that species breed
true must certainly be one of the oldest examples of inductive
reasoning, as demonstrated by its presence in a very old myth. It is
neither anti-Biblical (unless you haven't awakened to the mythical
character of the Bible), nor is it a sneer on the practice of inferring
rules (especially causative ones) from the repetition of what seem to be
cause-effect series of actions.
Of what relevance, therefore, your comment
about throughbreds?
I did not argue that induction was
necessarily a poor procedure; I asserted that Sherlock Holmes stories
are not a good illustration of induction.
You say that "Science like truth isnt
deterremined by popularity or repetition." Did you think before
writing that, or do you really not understand the meaning of the
words?
Then this utter howler: "Same thing
goes for scripture." If it isn't popularity and repetition that
determine scripture, just what do you imagine is the
determinant?
I' do agree with your judgment this
far: It was an unfortunate choice of example because it seems to
have induced this incoherent reply. Why don't you try doing your
correspondence before getting into the beer?
Keith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Tragedy of Human Effort
Howdy Keith,
I though your choice of a
pro-psuedo-science anti-Bible example was rather unfortunate. The
whole Bible was a detterrent to Marxist theories of the 19th century
which was also a more complete understanding of how mankind should
live in this world, so what?
I notice the thoroughbred horse industry
hasnt been put out of stride due to theories that a horse might
breed a catipillar or a fish.
Science like truth isnt deterremined by
popularity or repetition. Same thing goes for
scripture.
I would suggest that the funniest side of
man has been in the way he has handled science and scripture and
theories about them, even funnier than economics. As I said it
was unfortunate you chose it.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006
3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Tragedy of Human Effort
Since no one else has come forward to
correct John's misconceptions about inductive versus deductive
reasoning, I contradict even though my resources for carrying
through are still a bit feeble.
I agree with John that just how Douglas
came upon his ideas and analysis is not critical in evaluating how
well they work.
But to say that Sherlock Holmes
represents inductive thinking is to get things in reverse. The
Holmes stories are examples of deductive logic. Inductive
reasoning is of the kind that infers from repetitive instances a
rule that the instances will continue to recur, because it is a law
of nature. It is the kind of reasoning that led the authors of
Genesis to infer that species breed true because God designed them
that way and therefore needed to save them in the Ark. This
kind of thinking was a deterrent to acceptance of more complete
theories of species and their evolution in the 18th and 19th
centuries.
Keith Wilde
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006
6:59 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit]
Tragedy of Human Effort
Believe it or not, the best example of inductive reasoning
comes from the Sherlock Holmes novels.
Collect date, organise it to make it better understandable, get
rid of the obviously wrong answers, and go and have a good sleep,
por play a violin, or indulge in hectic sport, or... The
subconscious mind will come up with ideas. Treat each
destructively to see if it can be eliminated. The one that
can't be is probably the best, until new data requires it to be
modified. It doesn't matter a stuff where Douglas' analysis
comes from or what are its likely causes. Treated
inductively it remains by far the best explanation of events last
century.
And I believe the various different definitions of money
invented by orthodox economists were attempts to get away from it,
but surprisingly each seems to confirm it more.
Refgards. John
R.
From: Triumphofthepast@aol.com
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: [socialcredit]
Tragedy of Human Effort
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:04:52
EST
"It can be tested inductively in that it
explains events over the last century that are inexplicable
using the alternative. . . . Nothing is proved by
induction. But the opposite stands clearly disproved."
(Joh n)
That's what I said, I think. However, I
thought it worth taking some trouble to identify (1) What is the
phenomenon to be explained? and (2) What exactly IS the
hypothesis?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
