به ما کمک کنید تا درباره آینده این سایت تصمیم بگیریم.
آینده بحث آزادی بیان
نکات برجسته
به سمت چپ بروید و مطالب مشخص شده را بیابید.
بحث آزادی بیان یک پروژه تحقیقاتی برنامه دارندرف است در مطالعات آزادی در کالج سنت آنتونی دانشگاه آکسفورد
به ما کمک کنید تا درباره آینده این سایت تصمیم بگیریم.
نگاهی بیاندازید به اصول مشخص شده ای که به این مقاله مرتبط هستند
به سمت چپ بروید و همه ۱۰ اصول را بیابید
به سمت چپ بروید و مطالب مشخص شده را بیابید.
بحث آزادی بیان یک پروژه تحقیقاتی برنامه دارندرف است در مطالعات آزادی در کالج سنت آنتونی دانشگاه آکسفورد
reply report Report comment
The world does not begin with a clean sheet of creation everyday, it is in a process of creation over time, 4.5 billion years for this planet so far. Narrowing down the field to that of human existence the same principle applies. I am interested in knowing why religion exists and what humans are from a scientific perspective, which means understanding the human world in terms of this natural creative process. Your responses seem to be always conditioned by an abstract principle which ignores this material reality, and seeks to make mental processes independent of any such natural conditions, as if ideas were real in themselves, so that one person’s idea might be as real as another, indeed you keep repeating this idiotic mantra, despite it being perfectly obvious that many ideas are fictional, and many true. Hence you keep applying the professional philosophical method of treating ideas as if they were something real in themselves that can be analysed as such. My whole point is to indicate that ideas are biological phenomenon, created by nature, not by people, so that knowledge is an extension of the human genome into the social domain, and as such knowledge is only to be understood according to the principles of scientific method that identify the physical reality that knowledge relates to, that of the human animal as superorganism.
Reality exists, without agreeing to this there is where to go, although some have attempted to deny even this much. This wilful ignorance will always exist because the control of knowledge delivers power that individuals crave as part of their biological nature, which is why we are ruled by knowledge that is rubbish in terms of describing reality, as in religion, which is part of reality, not a description of reality.
You are determined to defend nonsense, I am determined to destroy nonsense, there is no point of contact between us except the point of antagonism where I seek freedom and you seek to prevent my attaining it.
I do not mean to insist that you act in this malign way intentionally, I resolve such issues of ‘wilful’ dishonesty by recognising that individuals do not exist as independent beings, they are programmed and act in accordance with the programme and other variable conditions, that include a quotient of individual personality. Only you can shed light on whether or not you are being deliberately antagonistic. But the point is that it is immaterial to the end result what anyone’s intentions are, the only outcome that ever occurs is that the superorganism exists, and that all people serve its existence no matter how they behave. Your behaviour is exactly as it should be, mine is exactly opposite to how it should be, and that is reflected in the fact that your reactions are the norm, I find them everywhere, while mine are as rare as hen’s teeth, I have never come across their like, and this is because yours are preserved and taught, while mine are denounced and destroyed.
reply report Report comment
“I have discovered the ultimate knowledge of human existence, which allows me to know all things, perfectly.”
Howard Hill January 10, 2014 at 8:16 am
“It occurs to me to touch base in this exchange, for otherwise I wonder why I am bothering to take part in it.”
Howard Hill January 15, 2014 at 1:37 pm
It might just be me, mate. But were the first statement to be considered reasonable, would that not still result in an antinomy? Yet if one be true but the other not, which is which? Is there a copy of the rules of this pastime somewhere, or are they forever in a state of perpetual reprint? Even mine-own flawed rendition, such as it is with one fallible owner, embodies a precautionary implicit condition. That all, particularly those who might unwisely warm to it, must continuously challenge it in its entirety. Humanity has tried the other way, and frankly it seldom ends well.
“You are the problem, not the solution.”
Howard Hill November 8, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Meaningful in association with that enigma delineated in the January 15, 2014 at 1:37 pm quote.
For all of us could indeed continue formulating and putting forward palliatives for what ails our species’ strategies for survival, evermore. (Should we endure that long). We would however, only have to devise and deploy a complete cure for that malady the once. Has it occurred to many, that other individuals could believe in their incorrect personal unique understandings of reality just as vehemently as they do in their own correct one? Well there’s the rub, not to mention the rubric, to that rhetorical question.
“I recognise the idea of truth (refer to * below) and have no interest in questioning it because it is self evidently beyond question, if it were not then the world would be utter chaos.”
A definitive definition of truth might be: the only noble notion able to withstand full immersion in query. Differentiating it from untruth, which dissolves rapidly. In case no one has noticed, the world is not exactly well ordered. Precisely because untruth is, sans appraisal with assaying questions, being accepted and traded as pure truth. We easily conjure up notional money, in the form of quantitative easing. Anyone care to demonstrate the same process with foodstuffs? (Manna included in this offer).
“Why would anyone want to deny the existence of absolute truth”
Might it be because, that is the real demonstrably practical truth? As opposed to unquestioned untested-assumption.
“self evidently vile ideas like belief in God”
should not be questioned either then? As they too, are considered a special case by some. Why would any ideology fear the testing, of what would then merely be reaffirmed by investigation?
“absolute truth”
is whatever (insert title of entity) says it is, maybe? Or alternatively, that which absolute truth itself cannot discredit?
“anyone who is interested in reality”
and mistakenly told that a family member has expired. Or not told, when a family member actually has expired. Might wonder where that ‘reality’, to which they are erroneously emotionally responding, is located.
“your remit is to refute the possibility of truth”
that would intentionally and inexplicably fight shy of definitive testing. Even when the infallible format of such experiments as may be required for incontrovertible validation, are left open to the ingenuity of the proposer.
“allowing authority to persist”
is a factor of (a) asking questions, or (b) never asking questions?
“religion is a form of slavery”
with silenced enquiry as it’s cell mate?
“I have paid for this”
Socrates didn’t exactly get off Scot free either, mate. Read up, and think on what a perceived need to suppress questioning does. ’Though don’t give too much credence to contemporaneous explanations of what he was actually doing. Since either diarists couldn’t comprehend, and/or they didn’t want to reveal they did and suffer the same fate.
“Just because you can think it, does not make a thought valid (see * above).”
If a genuine truism, would that not make it universally applicable with no partisan dispensations whatsoever?
“You have to have some structure guiding the process of reasoning if you are at all interested in the product of your thinking be actually true to reality”
So would (1) full spectrum questioning or (2) restricted spectrum questioning, tend to make for the least shaky support frame?
A Tale of Two Planets.
Once upon a time, (only pretending), there was a duality of worlds. On both of which, in regard to road etiquette, each group of lifeforms applied their own ideologies. On the Sphere, each individual could apply their own unique personal mental rendition regarding which was the correct side to drive on. Even if that changed every few minutes, or was claimed to be dictated by an invisible supernatural entity. (Via self-elected intermediaries). On the Orb all individuals possessed an open invitation, to endlessly debate which side of the road was the correct side to drive on. So propositions such as the necessity of having one’s sidearm hand free, when weapons were no longer carried, could be discussed. But with the caveat that, until someone could produce the one single definitive practical resolution, they would in the interim all pick one side and stick to it. This worked well, and even facilitated notional traffic roundabouts at intersections. Which were nothing more than a blob of white paint and tacit agreement. Meanwhile on the Sphere, every day witnessed the same ritualistic repletion of catastrophic coming-togethers. So best beloved, the question is, which planet do you live on?
reply report Report comment
Felicitations Howard. How is your abdomen off for epidermal blemishes?
“I have come upon an idea by my own efforts”
I may be mistaken, it’s a bit of a gift really, but let me share this observation with you. I daily detect clues indicating that my ‘reality’ isn’t actual reality (amassed evidence available on request). Plus whenever I hold internal rendition and external reality up to that illumination afforded by query, those two dioramas are invariably to some degree asynchronous. Thus investing belief in a fake, even were it one created by a master forger, appears to involve guilt by association. From this I suspect, that your ‘reality’ might not be actual reality either. Thus we will get nowhere comparing reproduction against reproduction and arguing over which is real. Instead we desperately need to locate, in order to view and inspect closely, the original masterpiece. Definitive truth exists out there. Not inside human cerebral circuitry.
“superorganism”
Leave us consider a hypothetical scenario. Suppose some mythical practitioner of the scientific method, stumbled across a manifestation of cold fusion. To better broadcast awareness of this astonishing happenstance, it might be decided to deploy a technique beloved of that ideology. One known to it as ‘repeatability’. This touchstone consists of itemising the procedure that was being undertaken, when the revelation occurred. So that peers may attempt ‘replication’ of that event. An alternative to this would consist of keeping the precise practical details of that serendipitous activity secret. Then just chanting the term ‘coldfusion’ over and over again to anyone who would listen. Much in the manner of a religious mantra, as might be utilised to suppress the faculty of critical analysis in supplicants. The question being, if questions are permitted, which interpretation of the term ‘repeatability’ is more likely to convince any perceptive peers? Consider this: If ‘coldfusion’ existed in reality, and both ‘discoverer’ and peers were simultaneously experiencing reality, no explanation of any kind would be necessary. But if peers are experiencing something other than reality, and genuinely believing that this other something is reality when it is not. Then convincing them of this situation might prove a utile precursor. Notwithstanding that, wouldn’t the mere possibility of humans mistakenly basing their belief system in personal renditions of reality, rather than in reality itself, also potentially apply to the cerebral computations of the ’discoverer’? If so would not that seer be performing a personal disservice, if not including said possibility in their calculations?
If the summation of a proffered matriculation contrasts with what might be expected, and/or cannot previously be known with absolute infallible certainty. The next best checksum could be to inspect the working-out. If no working-out is available, was the answer arrived at via some mystical means such as divine inspiration? Which if no divinity exists to bestow that gift, would be somewhat counter intuitive. Were unsubstantiated claims of a comprehension to be given automatic credence in all and every circumstance. Then would not reality be constrained to extend that courtesy to all mental materialisations, even religious ones? If reason has to be ‘modified’, when applied to different deliberations, in order to achieve the ‘right’ answer. Might not that formulation of reason, be the item most in need of reappraisal from first principles?
“knowledge sanctioned by authority”
is vulnerable to questioning? Could that be a clue as to why it must be suppressed or evaded? In the inconvenient event, that only absolute truth is uniquely incapable of running out of answers.
“Knowledge is”
irrelevant without purpose? So, what is the nature of that purpose? Given that we have to be here to discover that.
“the human animal requires a complex hierarchical structure”
For their own peace of mind, better not apprise castaways of that.
“we cannot live without religion”
So Adam, or his scientific analogue, was ‘born’ wearing a god-collar? And there was me thinking that humans might have originally existed san religion or science. As neither of the latter, exhibit any demonstrable ability whatsoever to exist without the former.
“As to Darwinism, don’t get me started on that.”
According to that scientist, were we not all started on that? What occurs to me is, if a potential exists for the animate to autonomously emanate from the inanimate. Why is the supernatural, a stretch of the imagination too far?
Some ‘see’ things, that are not ‘there’.
Like numbers floating in the air.
Which if discussed prompts piteous stare.
Brain ‘cross-wiring’ ’s no concept for today.
Forcing silenced ‘afflicted’ to wish experience away.
reply report Report comment
It occurs to me to touch base in this exchange, for otherwise I wonder why I am bothering to take part in it. This site is of interest to me because it concerns the idea of free speech, an idea that I have long cherished as the most precious aspect of my English culture, something I treasure because my values are all concerned with opposing authority, and seeking freedom invested in the individual. So I have come to the views that I have by following a definite path. I recognise the idea of truth and have no interest in questioning it because it is self evidently beyond question, if it were not then the world would be utter chaos. Why would anyone want to deny the existence of absolute truth in a mundane sense of the word ? Given that its mundane existence is undeniable on any rational basis.
As long as we think we are individuals we are stuck in an impossible quandary over such issues, because, on this basis, what one person says is ultimately as valid as what any other person says. Leaving us stuck with the fact that self evidently vile ideas like belief in God rule our world, as something we must endure if we do not like it.
Once we discover the ultimate truth about who and what we are however, we have the ability to make sense of all things, and absolute truth can be extended to understanding ourselves according to a mundane view of human nature that proves God does not exist by showing what God is, the superorganism. We find that individuals do not exist and only the sum of their actions are relevant to our reality. So now we can make sense of nonsense ruling our world, and see why people would want to deny the existence of real knowledge and defend the existence of false knowledge, as you are so concerned to do.
It is futile communicating with people who have diametrically opposite ideas about what is of interest to them. My interest in trying to communicate with people is to locate anyone who is interested in reality, since I have, to my amazement, discovered the mundane scientific truth that I had always wanted all my life, that I would like to share with anyone else who is interested in truth, in science indeed. Though I have not found anyone, nor do I expect to. Exchanging ideas is still of some value in terms getting input from other minds, but your remit is to refute the possibility of truth, and hence to negate everything that means anything to me. In so far as the denial of truth has any interest in freedom, this is a very miscreant interest, for it is about allowing authority to persist on the basis of the control of knowledge, which is the opposite of freedom. This antagonism towards freedom is vital to any who have an interest in the established order in society, for them slavery is freedom, and therefore the rule of autocratic authority is freedom. The contradiction seen here exists because individuals are cellular units of superorganic being that evolved to be organised by a flux of linguistic information, called ‘knowledge’, and so it is that individuals welcome submission to autocratic authority because that is where their biologically given interests lie. Thus we find books about religion claiming that freedom is vital, meaning freedom of religious expression, even though religion is a form of slavery, in that religion is false knowledge that exists to possess people as a form of imposed identity.
My interest in truth is alien to this natural interest in false knowledge, in authority that is. My attitude is a perversion of human biological nature, and I have paid for this with a life spent alienated from society, where I hold onto my interest in truth, and will take its fruits to my grave. I have just been a bit over obsessive in my interest in the authorised cultural idea of truth, so that everything I object to is all very natural, and none of these matters are of any importance in the end, I just like the truth because that is who I am as an individual.
Lets take one of your questions :
“As to Darwinism, don’t get me started on that.”
According to that scientist, were we not all started on that ? What occurs to me is, if a potential exists for the animate to autonomously emanate from the inanimate. Why is the supernatural, a stretch of the imagination too far ?
Just because you can think it, does not make a thought valid. You have to have some structure guiding the process of reasoning if you are at all interested in the product of your thinking be actually true to reality, and obviously that guiding structure must consist of that which is already known to be real. That life has arisen from nonlife is self evident in a modern age of factual knowledge like ours, equally true is the fact that the existence of the supernatural is nonsense. The question is then, why does the idea of the supernatural exist ? This question is answered when we discover that the human animal is a superorganism created by language, wherefrom we know the human animal that we are caused to form part of through this knowledge that organises us. So that the supernatural does exist, but it is not what we think it is. The supernatural is not the divine, as knowledge represents it to be, it is the superorganic. So that the crux of your question here, is that in keeping with the only method of knowing anything truthfully, scientifically that is, we must always seek a continuity of mundane reality, of materiality. The fact that ideas of the supernatural rule our world and even science has been made the slave of this false knowledge, makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to see the truth however. I have achieved this by devoting my life to the task and just happening to get to the truth. This has been possible during my brief moment of existence because the truth is so obvious in our world and is only unknown because it is has been methodically erased from society, and replaced by Darwinism, and kept suppressed by even more malign forces of human corporate biological nature, as these forces seem to me, although of course they are exactly as nature intended them to be.
reply report Report comment
“ ‘delusion’ is functional”
up to a point. Some say it is a matter of survival of the fittest. But ‘fittest’ is associated with strength. So why aren’t gorillas in authority instead of us puny primates? What of, survival of the most adept? Such that if an arena facilitating existence for those life-forms strong in the arm and weak in the head fails, any other entities who can create a portable environment for themselves endure.
“the idea of a programme organising people to form a human animal means”
some definable purpose might be involved? The meaning of life is life itself, ensuring continuity of the species, maybe? Since that underpins any and all alternative endeavours that may be identified. In addition, if there really is some other fundamental purpose we would still need to be around to find it and follow it.
“linguistic programme”
or infinite number of unique individual mental renditions of reality, only ever synchronised to some superficial degree by the imposition of rote learning? Experiment: Exchange Jewish and Arab infants at birth, and discover if they grow up hating their own tribes.
“You are insisting upon following that programme by thinking”
On the contrary, my dear fellow. You are insisting upon following that programme by not thinking. Contradictions can be exposed by questions that get past a rendition’s blocking filter. Resulting in paradoxes, dualities, which cannot exist in actual reality. Since that constitutes a complete comprehension, without need for ‘dark makeweights’ to recover functionality. Thus the rendition (homemade working copy of reality) being genuinely mistaken for the real thing, could be destroyed. But more usually is poorly patched up, by an owner.
“superorganism”
Producing that term from the toolbox, as if it were a deity, does not constitute provision of a universal cover-all. Only to that person with just a hammer, does every form of fixing look a lot like a nail.
“science allows us to know many things”
Erratum: science allows us to (presume we) know many things? As no experiment can be completely comprehensive, we are constrained to extrapolate limited results as definitive. Alternative experiment: Intentionally insert the odd deliberate error in text books, and see if any students notice.
“There is nothing remarkable about claiming to know something perfectly”
Apart from simultaneously refuting existence of the infallible super-entity one would have to be, in order to achieve that?
“When speaking of adding up you”
point out that from inside contrived partial paradigms, the full breadth of the real external paradigm is not visible? So explanations are designed and devised merely to fit and function internal to a particular fabrication.
“You say you are open to all possibilities that”
are responsive to queries. For if questions are evaded, suspended disbelief is all that makes them work.
“fight for freedom”
Non-aggression trumps justification for a use of aggression to withhold it. We cannot overcome the insanity of sociopaths by aping them.
“at the heart of your questions”
is the implication that even an absence of answers is itself an answer?
“if we want freedom we must”
look up the meaning of democracy in a dictionary, and cease simply assuming we inhabit one?
“Science relies upon”
demonstrably flawed methodology, devised by fallible entities? Who would pump industrial silicone into female chests without considering the consequences? The same people who would pump we-are-not-permitted-to-know-what, into fracking Mother Earth?
“rational knowledge of reality”
consists of a Venn diagram. In which every unique individually invented rendition of reality is enveloped, by all that is encompassed by greater reality itself.
We can wake from a dream and realise, through the provision of a means for comparison, that we were being deluded. But we cannot awake from waking delusion, as reality has scant means of alerting us to itself. Other than excrement occasionally impacting the impeller. Nevertheless try reverse engineering in practical terms, how reality gets inside our heads. So a modicum of realisation might set in. We can’t all be right, but we can all be wrong.
reply report Report comment
Hi, I have come upon an idea by my own efforts which makes it entirely unique to myself, although this idea resonates through many parts of human history, an idea which I believe to be the correct scientific model of existence, as it applies to humans. The key to this model is the idea that humans are a mammalian species of superorganism, and my efforts to understand this idea over the last dozen years or so cause me to emphasise that the main counterpart to this science, which I call Atheist Science, is that individuals, people, you and me, are not human beings. Thus for you to respond to my statements explaining this position by comparing us to gorillas, in terms of our comparative feebleness, shows that all that I have said has gone straight over your head. Which is fine if that is what you want it to do, but until you get with the idea I am offering, if only for the sake of argument, I can only keep repeating myself by way of reply.
The reason false knowledge, which is the substance of individuals being deluded in a functional sense, is functional, is because the human animal is built up of persons who are organised by linguistic force, according to me, which is expressed in language, which culminates in knowledge sanctioned by authority. Thus knowledge is not supposed to be true in order to be functional, that idea is a delusion borne of the idea that we individuals are the human being, which we are not. Knowledge is not about satisfying our reason, it is about delivering social structure, which means biological, superorganic form.
The reason false knowledge trumps true knowledge is because the human animal requires a complex hierarchical structure, as does any living entity, and in order to obtain it people must be organised according to that need. Thus society, which is the body of the human animal, is structured along lines of identity, such as religious identity, which are more akin to colours acting as lines of demarcation than what we think of as knowledge. This is why we cannot live without religion, the power of our human biological corporate nature is expressed in religion, and this cannot be replaced by factual reason, or science, which would be monistic, as in uniform for all people, and as such useless for organising people into a living being, which is the purpose for which a speaking mammal, us, evolved.
As to Darwinism, don’t get me started on that.
reply report Report comment
“So many questions.”
We would probably concur that there is little to learn from sitting at my feet. Other than that odour eaters may not be nearly as effective as advertised. Or that although I am as dumb as soup, I am cognisant of that. Thus having forsworn, as far as is humanly possible, the strictures of all indefensible ideologies. There is little, if anything, left to defend. Except the right to question everything.
“from my personal point of view”
If we were not conducting this conversation remotely mate, I would endeavour to raise questions as and when the occasion demanded. So please do not decipher this clumsy alternative, or any inexpertly encoded comment of mine, as some intentional slight. I may merely be thinking out-loud.
“I am going to answer you according to my take on this question.”
Translation: I’ll describe my unique internalised rendition of reality to your unique internalised rendition of reality?
nb. Although we might be devoting our combined efforts, to quantify the nature of that single actual reality from which we may both be divorced.
“I have discovered the ultimate knowledge of human existence, which allows me to know all things, perfectly.”
Quandary: What is the similarity between belief systems subsumed by religious, scientific, or any other form of unchallengeable certainly? Might it be that those questions it should be asking and answering itself, are delegated to others?
“knowing how to add up”
1+1=2? And yet 1+1=10. Strange, but true. Think about it. Some invest reliance in the supernatural and some in the scientific. But what would happen if all religious tomes contained the following forewords: ‘This is all absolutely true, but acceptance is conditional on continual testing which must repeatedly reaffirm that’. Or if books detailing the Big Bang Theory, underlined the word Theory . In case the significance of that term escaped some followers. (Insufficient space here for an in-depth application of the scientific method to the scientific method).
“superorganism”
Personally, I don’t know whether there is a god or not. I also personally don’t know whether a postulated “superorganism” paradigm has validity or not. But without access to the itemised infallible methodology used to definitely validate either, a ubiquitous natural need to create an explanation for what we cannot explain shouldn’t currently be precluded by the open minded.
“The human animal is created by linguistic force”
So which came first? Since in the chicken and egg situation it was allegedly the egg, (in ovum form). Some say that the Universe came from nothing. However, an immutable scientific law states that effect follows cause. So did that law also not exist, to prevent nothing initiating everything? If so, the god explanation is beginning to look a lot less like clutching at straws.
“we ask fallacious questions such as yours that”
those ‘in the know’ don’t know how to answer? So like many priests, some scientists, and most politicians, the response offered doesn’t relate in any cogent way to the query posed. Example: I could tell you, but then I’d have to (complete as appropriate).
As far as verifying ideologies goes. Surely it would be a lot less enervating for any believer to simply produce the incontestable proof used to convince their own mind, than resort to interminable exculpation. I eagerly await arrival of that day. In the meantime, here is a thought experiment: A priest and a scientist are adrift in an open life-craft. The holy human knows, with absolute certainty, that the great spirit will send rescue. The human of science knows, with absolute certainly, that they are far from normal sea-lanes and unlikely to be found. If a belief, albeit fallacious, keeps the former alive for one second longer than the latter (to be happened upon by chance), hasn’t ‘delusion’ demonstrated undeniable purpose?
reply report Report comment
At the heart of everything I have said is the reality that ‘delusion’ is functional, that is what the idea of a programme organising people to form a human animal means.
Reading your response to what I wrote I immediately find myself picking up on the idea that we have unique points of view, which contradicts a stated first principle that we do not exist. All that exists is the human being we are part of, which is created by a linguistic programme that runs in our brains. You are insisting upon following that programme by thinking as if your individuality is real. It is only real in a most limited sense in terms of the questions you are asking about the nature of knowledge.
The first point to get across is that the human animal is a superorganism, a very normal creature that is well known in nature, bees, ants and termites being the famous examples. Humans are such creatures, and as individuals we are cellular parts of such a creature, so we do not have ideas anymore than our body’s cells have ideas. Of course this is not how it seems to us, the suggestion here is to use the idea of the macroscope which seeks to view ourselves from such a distance that individuals disappear from view and only the whole being they make up is seen. See Macroscope by Rosnay, 1979.
I realise that claiming to know all things perfectly seems brash, but science allows us to know many things with immense exactness and this proves that all things are amenable to such exactness, all we need is to know how. And the key to knowing how in relation to humans is to know what we really are as biological entities, which is superorganisms. Unfortunately I cannot fathom your response to this emphatic statement of mine. You say :
“Quandary: What is the similarity between belief systems subsumed by religious, scientific, or any other form of unchallengeable certainty? Might it be that those questions it should be asking and answering itself, are delegated to others?”
There is nothing remarkable about claiming to know something perfectly, many things are known perfectly, the question of false knowledge, as in religion, is another matter, and this comes under the subject of the programme creating the superorganism.
When speaking of adding up you again fall back upon the automatic programming that insists that individuals exist, when they do not. No one relies upon the supernatural while others rely upon science, that is like saying that some cells choose to be heart cells while others choose to be blood cells. We are all programmed, no person does anything, not you, not me, not anyone. We know this because we know the human animal is a superorganism and any appearance to the contrary must be an illusion borne of our proximity to ourselves.
Obviously the nature of language is crucial to this argument and, as you say, space is limited in this forum.
You say you are open to all possibilities that are not proven to be invalid, and such openness is the best stance. This sounds praiseworthy but it panders to an authority based upon false ideas, such as religion. I require a bit more aggression, based on the fact that we do not live in a free society, so that we are required to fight for freedom of expression, because we need free access to true knowledge to be able to express ourselves freely. Your position capitulates to a power that determines what passes for knowledge. This is the real subject at the heart of your questions. An authority rules over us and makes us engage in these debates by suppressing free access to true knowledge, as I know because I have discovered what has been suppressed. Your position again assumes that the individual is the real hub of authority, so that as long as individuals can say whatever they please then we have freedom of thought and expression. But this is not true because individuals do not exist and whatever ideas they have they are beholden to authority for, so if we want freedom we must ensure that authority is subservient to us. This is not possible of course, but if it were then we would know what I am telling you, because in basic terms what I am saying is the actual truth of our reality as it is.
I have decided to use the idea of linguistic force in my own efforts to construct ideas about humans as superorganisms, I understand that this idea means nothing to anyone else. I had better not expand upon it now.
With regard to the matter of asking fallacious questions, this simply concerns the question of human nature, as in, Are persons human animals, or is the human animal a superorganism ? Two mutually exclusive alternatives of which one is right, and one is wrong. Use the wrong one and everything you say will be wrong, use the right one and everything will have the possibility of being right.
As to proof determining veracity of ideologies. Science relies upon material demonstration, I guess the best I can offer here and now is to say that the fact that humans are superorganisms was well established prior to the first world war, but thereafter it has been taboo. That is a material fact, and as I said, this true knowledge must destroy our world, which is why our world destroyed this knowledge. The existence of religion is facile beyond any kind of reason, although it is functionl, yet you are prepared to give it room for consideration as rational knowledge of reality. That to me is a strong condemnation of anything you have to say, there can be no excuse for anyone tolerating religion as true knowledge of reality, save for the excuse I have provided, which is that no one really exists as ends in themselves, hence we can understand why the obscenity of religion rules our world.
reply report Report comment
“Suggest alternative approaches.”
Homo sapiens have been resorting to civilised argument for millennia, with debateable success. Might it now be time to approach that process from another angle? When discussing something, is it with the intention of replacing someone else’s erroneous notions with one’s own correct views? If so, who among us possesses a 100% accurate understanding of reality? Whoever claims to, should be able to answer correctly any question presented to them. If unable so to do, perhaps they might prefer to quantify what percentage of said understanding is specious. Although that would demand a degree of comprehension rendering the matter moot. A paradox, which reality arbours. Since only incomplete understandings of reality, and not reality itself, can accommodate them.
How about justifying, and hopefully imposing, the conditions pertaining to a concealed agenda? Some covert scheme that would not benefit from public perusal. One way to find out, would be to ask protagonists to register their motivations at the outset. Then as each aspect of contention was examined, the matter of whether it coincided or conflicted with the stated intent could be evaluated. If found not to concur, what occurred during formulation? Was the proposition flawed because the information on which it was based was incorrect, incomplete or biased? Did an experience, or the absence of experience, adversely impose influence? Was any pretence, being undertaken, too difficult to maintain? Or was there some other subliminal duality in play?
In essence, might the inclusion of monitoring ‘touchline’ technology end the era of debating gamesmanship? So that our deliberations really do convey us to where we need to go.
“I would love to hear how do you think language barriers can be broken best.”
Suppose we were to start from basics, and scratch-build a concept of sentience in regard to all those mechanisms relevant to our form. Would we end up with the same conceptual paradigm we use now? Is not language an audible or visual code which has no intrinsic meaning? Merely those inferences we each assign. Such that being cursed in a foreign tongue may have no discernable effect. Because the ability, rather than the inclination, to bestow power to that cipher is denied. As computers evolve, their translation algorithms will likely be refined. Not only to the level where intercommunication between citizens of the world can be perfected. But also to the extent, that those linguistic anomalies impeding the precise conversion of thought process, to transmittable code, back to thought process can be addressed. Would that avoidable misunderstandings were currently confined, to those conversing in different languages.
“in relation to my atheist philosophy”
In order to authenticate the premise for such a belief, would there not exist an inescapable need to be all-knowing? Yet by convention, the only entity credited with such a faculty would appear to be of supernatural form. Thus for anyone to know with absolute certainty that there was no god, would they not have to be the god they allegedly knew did not exist? Mercifully some kind soul has catered for this very circumstance, by devising the term ‘agnostic’.
Suppose we were to renounce the multiplicity of narratives we have inherited, and maybe even the belief system itself if need be. Then endeavoured to build a new framework for existence, up from a flawless (only that which cannot be contested) foundation.
“true knowledge”
That which from the moment of materialisation in consciousness to the end of Time’s timeline, is never successfully challenged? Although where is the allowance, for some failure to formulate a query capable of exposing erroneousness?
Might ‘truth’ be analogous to a surgical instrument, adopted and used for dissecting reality? Adequate until dulled, or superseded by something sharper. What we can say with demonstrable certainty is that, humanity cannot incise with cutting questions if not here to craft them.
“The age old war between religion and science continues unabated, is my point.”
Although allegedly, humanity existed before both. If the case, might they not be tools created by a creature to aid survival? Continuation upon which, to avoiding discontinuation, every subservient ideology is totally dependant. Consider communism and capitalism as such concepts. Did the USSR and USA truly epitomise the acme of either? Before a corruption of initial ideology could cause collapse, of those similarly perverted forms of people preservation.
reply report Report comment
So many questions. Lets take them one at a time.
When discussing something, is it with the intention of replacing someone else’s erroneous notions with one’s own correct views ?
The short answer to this question, is No. On the other hand, from my personal point of view, it would be, Yes. So I am going to answer you according to my take on this question. I have discovered the ultimate knowledge of human existence, which allows me to know all things, perfectly. This knowledge consists of knowing what humans are, from which position any question we can ask can be answered correctly. This is like knowing how to add up, so that we know that we can add any number whether or not we ever actually performed the operation, because we have the correct method. Humans are a species of superorganism, so that the human animal is a superorganism composed of people. As such people do not exist as ends in themselves. The human animal is created by linguistic force, which organises people through the expression of language. Hence when we debate our intention is not to change people’s ideas from false to correct, it is merely the biological operation of the human animal’s physiology organising people to form itself by delivering the identity programme. We individuals are oblivious to this fact and hence we ask fallacious questions such as yours that seem logical because we think we exist, when we do not. Having discovered absolute truth, I do actually wish to share it, but I have never found anyone remotely interested. This is because individuals do not exist (as ends in themselves), and they only want to receive the identity programme that incorporates them into the animal they are part of, that is what we evolved to do, and by doing this we have a good life, we thrive. And that is why most of what is said in debate is nonsense, yet valued immensely, even in a world so full of amazing factual knowledge. The one thing we cannot possess is true knowledge of ourselves, because, as you can see, if you have followed my argument, true understanding of ourselves must destroy the identity programme that organizes us, and thus destroy the human animal we are part of. We can access this truth, I have done so, but it cannot become the programme that organizes the living being, not without changing the nature of our kind.
reply report Report comment
Lucas, this is a belated response, and I am not going to try and locate the post you are responding to. 24 hours later and you have offered a further reflection on my posts, and both of them are exactly to the point.
I am very reluctant to do this, but I am going to tell you where you can wallow in my ideas to your heart’s content. I have been posting material online for some years now, last time I posted was last month, the stats said I had some 30 posts, and I had had some 10,000 reads. My reluctance is due to the inappropriateness of using this free speech site as the avenue of communication, and I am not signed up to public media sites, I am in the habit of making my ideas available, and letting anyone who cares to get on with it.
My ideas are not only self conflicting, as you would have it, they are extremely challenging and provocative, not gratuitously, but inevitably, given the stance I take, that you have already had some inkling of.
Go to Scribd, look for my name, Howard Hill, or look for one of my pieces of work, ‘There is No God’ should do it. Knock yourself out mate. All your questions should be answered there, unless my powers of expression are inadequate to the task I have taken on’
Howard.
reply report Report comment
Thanks for the response Howard.
I’ll be sure to have a look.
all the best
L
reply report Report comment
The lady in question would almost certainly be Claire Fox http://www.instituteofideas.com/people/claire_fox.html who I assume has no affiliation with Free Speech Debate.
I dislike how black and white your view is; religion seems to be the fount of all evil (untruth) and science the opposite. Whereas of course religions in the past have as often pushed forward science as they have held it back. Many of the greatest scientists were also believers in God and did not see their advancing science as being undermining religion or their faith as preventing their ability to advance science.
I worry when there is any arbiter of true knowledge at all, even if that arbiter is science as scientists can make mistakes and is constantly being changed and updated and is only beginning to attack the core idea that there is a God (ignore that all the fluff all religions put around the idea of God for the moment the core concept is yet to be disproved no matter how unlikely it seems). The problem really is that religion does not keep up with science any more rather than that the concept of religion is fundamentally incompatible.
You say you want to “make the social entity the sole authority” since you have dismissed the state and the ‘establishment’ what is the social entity? If it is ‘us’ as in everyone in the state then surely it is as likely to be misleading as any individual? (crowds can be gullible and easily lead, yet can also be wise) On the one hand we seem to have scientists like philosopher kings and on the other some kind of authority from society which would seem to be the opposite. Both have their problems and advantages but I am not sure you can have both at the same time. A more unconstrained approach without any authority would seem to work better than either kind of authority. Whenever there is some kind of authority there is always the risk you accuse religion of that the authority will hold back progress because they have already arrived at the truth.
I wonder if I am completely misunderstanding you…
reply report Report comment
Alex, thank you for your response. You are having difficulty making sense of my arguments, all the right difficulties I might say. I know what I have in mind, but my ideas enter into areas that no one else enters, this is why you find their first indications discomforting. I could easily begin at the beginning, and you have brought me to the point where I must, so that did not take too long really. But we are talking about a full-blown philosophy here, one that would turn the world upside down, one that is there to be discovered by loose canons like myself because this knowledge has been suppressed. I condense this act of suppression into the ‘war of religion against science’, because expressed in common language this is what it is. Although in reality it is nothing of the sort, but it would take a little explaining to indicate why common understanding is blind to reality in this way.
You referred to the heliocentric versus geocentric models of the cosmos as examples of a total inversion of our view of reality. You evidently see this as an innocent historical event, but it was no such thing, and while I know some people do wish to make this ‘innocence’ argument out, it amazes me that no professional academics ever get the true significance of these histories. What we have here are two alternate pivots of observation, one false, upon which all social knowledge and all social power was based, religious knowledge that is ; and on the other hand we have the truth. The truth was suppressed in order to preserve the power base of society, which is religious, if this is not a war of religion against science then I do not know what would be !
The exact same condition prevails today. We have two alternative pivots of observation from which reality can be interpreted, they are that of the individual, the person that is, and that of the ‘social entity’, as I have called it, for now. With the advance of scientific ideas, a little over two centuries ago, this matter was coming to head. Religion ruled, it said God was the power in our lives, and the individual was made in God’s image. When science began to be applied to humans as parts of nature, there was immense resistance. Again, you think this was all sweet and innocent. It was not !!
If we want to understand humans as part of nature, then we must have a view of humans as part of nature that encompasses humans in their entirety. Conversely, if we wish to avoid such a view, then we need an idea of humans that circumscribes nature in such a way that humans can be kept separate. In order to embrace humans within a natural model, society must be included in that model, as part of the natural phenomenon of human existence. Conversely, if we want to avoid this naturalistic model we must therefore exclude society.
We live in a world ruled by so called science that excludes society, surprise surprise. Oops! How did that happen ? Never mind, guess what, stroke of luck, this means religion can go on existing. It does mean that science is powerless to explain what humans are, but hey, give it another millennia or two and it will all pan out, and who cares anyway ? Did it harm the world having the knowledge that the earth went around the sun suppressed for a couple of millennia ? Not a bit.
What is the ‘social entity’ ?
Explaining human existence in purely biological, scientific terms, is very easy. If we lived in a free world, where there was free access to true knowledge of reality, we would all know this, only it would be a very, very, different world to the one we live in. It is clear from the mere fact that humans speak, that they are evolved to form social orders, therefore the individual is evolved to be a ‘sentient brick’ unit, or a cell, of a social being. This kind of animal is normally called a ‘superorganism’, and that is what humans are. The idea of ‘God’ refers to this reality, that is where this idea gets its power from, from being true to reality, but only in a mythological, functional way, not in the scientific way of representing reality ‘as it is’.
Enough for now. I think I have answered the points you raise, and this idea that I am presenting to you, in which I say humans are mammalian superorganisms, where our true animal cousins are creatures like bees and termites, because we share a common biological nature with them, is now stated. You may wish to think about this, or not, but I am happy to elaborate upon any details that may occur to you as being in need of explanation. But in this model, which is real science, true knowledge, true to reality as it is, there is no such thing as an individual human, as in a person, existing as an end in themselves. The human animal is a superorganism, it is the true object of human evolution, and we are but cellular units of that organism. With this knowledge in hand the questions you ask about where authority lies, can be answered in a consistent manner, although perhaps not in a couple of sentences. And if that is not a more delightful image of what we are, than that provided by the religious pontificator, then I just give up, what more do you people want ?
report Report comment
It’s interesting to see that for someone who rejects the notion of the “individual” as the essence of human existence, you sure do have a lot of unique ideas, you even state “this is where my difficulty would lie with such a work, as indeed it does with all works, except those of my own creation”
You are in stark contrast to your own philosophy of society being the sum of human existence because you have ignored what society has said and have pitched your own unique idea.
The result is a situation where society is saying the essence of humanity is the individual and here we have an individual saying the essence of humanity is society and the individual doesn’t matter.
Which is to be believed?
report Report comment
He he he still unwavering i see Howard?
report Report comment
You have condensed some very complex issues into simpler versions of themselves, (I assume this is due to limited space to type). Could you elaborate on what you describe as the “war of religion against science”? You use the phrase and then very cryptically add ” Although in reality it is nothing of the sort”.
By ‘war of religion against science’ do you mean the current status quo vs new ideas, or do you literally mean religion is inherently opposed to scientific knowledge?
reply report Report comment
1) Hill is distinguishing between free speech as a means and an end in itself.
Sort of, though I would give it a more political form than this abstraction, because the struggle over knowledge is real. Social power relies upon the control of knowledge. This involves enabling false knowledge (religion), while suppressing true knowledge (science). The age old war between religion and science continues unabated, is my point. The problem with the idea of free speech simplistically stated is that it seems to take the stance that the academic establishment presents to the world regarding science, which is that science is free to develop knowledge anyway it pleases. This is not so. And I mean this in a major sense, not a piddling little way of a minor kind. This is why I place the need for true knowledge to be linked to free speech so high on the agenda I espouse.
2) Who is the arbiter of true knowledge ?
This question obviously lies behind all such attempts to discuss this issue. I think I tackled that in my brief post last night, when I tried to make science the arbiter of personal freedom, on the basis that science made the supreme authority of nature the real arbiter of knowledge. This does not remove the problem entirely, because the establishment soon realises that it must control science, and that is exactly where we are today. If this were not so then religion could not exist.
Science and religion cannot exist in the same society at the same time. If conditions suggest otherwise, then we know that science is nonexistent, and what passes for science is a sterilised form, made safe for religion by the establishment, over time. Please do not think of a ‘conspiracy’ when you read this remark, the subject is a good deal more involved than that.
3) Does the first principle cover my point about access to true knowledge ?
I dived straight into posting comments without studying the site, so it is nice to have my remarks referred to a specific principle, and I am pleased to see the gist of my concern is found therein. This principle as it is phrased misses my point however, because it emphasises the freedom of the individual as an authority in their own right, whereas I actually deny this status altogether, and make the social entity the sole authority. This is not presented as an ideal, it is a recognition of the reality we must face, and indeed I would say that this reality is what we are actually seeking to face up to when we have a debate like this about free speech.
4) Helling’s come back.
Of course free speech is essential to freedom in general. Just because I took the site to task for being ‘misconceived’ in not putting the nature of what it is that we are free to speak of, does not mean I am denying the importance of free speech itself.
5) I appreciate this thoughtful response very much and I am pleased that my contribution has been stimulating. I will check out the title you suggest, but saying it may not suit an atheist is off-putting for sure. More than that, the use of the phrase ‘Power and Powerlessness’ again leans towards an emphasis upon the individual, whereas my atheist philosophy is actually based upon the idea that the individual is not the true object of human existence, but rather the social order is. So I would imagine this is where my difficulty would lie with such a work, as indeed it does with all works, except those of my own creation.
Finally, what can I say ? I could of sworn the lady was introduced as being from the Institute of Ideas, that is why I ran a search and found you. Not to worry, its nice to be here, whatever gust of hot air blew me to your shores.
reply report Report comment
Yes of course, I expected this response, but the format does not offer much room for extended argument so I just wanted to kick things off in the rough direction I would like to take any discussion of free speech. I have two things in mind :
Firstly, we need to be confident that the knowledge we have freely available to us in society is true in the sense of not being impeded by any human imposed restraint, by any vested interests or overwhelming authority. After all this is the condition that any call for freedom of speech is really all about. If you call for freedom of speech as a goal without making free access to true knowledge a conjoined condition of this aim, then you merely licence anyone to say anything without advancing the true issue, which concerns the overall access to freedom. An overly naive idea of what free speech is only serves to place idiocy on a par with genius, and plays to the forces of social life that benefit from denying that truth really exists, and that anyone can assert the truth. A recent Channel Four Unreported World, showed how this works in America, where free speech on the airwaves leads to the most oppressive regime imaginable, it can scarcely be any worse in North Korea. The only people who have any voice are the right wing religious lobbies with all the money.
What use is it if people have freedom of expression if they are uninformed in what they are saying. A topical example could be drawn from the Jimmy Savile affair where until recently most people would most likely of expressed indifference towards the man or a positive opinion. All of sudden, being possessed of ‘true knowledge’ everyone is now bound to be either critical, or downright angry at the man. So ‘true knowledge’ is of crucial importance to the question of freedom of speech, if freedom of speech is to mean anything worth bothering about.
Your eleventh principle should state the necessity of this condition that public knowledge must be true for free speech to be possible, since the opposite case, in which public knowledge might be false, must make free speech meaningless. This condition recognises that real authority does not rest with individuals, but with the collective body, and therefore what we are really saying is that the collective body must in effect be free and untainted by bias, before any individuals within it can say anything of additional worth. So that our concern must always be with the veracity of public knowledge first and foremost, about which individuals might express opinions, afterwards.
Secondly, and far more significantly, is the question of freedom of expression in relation to knowledge as we have it in our supposedly free society. The reason I placed a comment on your site was because I caught the contribution made to Channel Four News last week in the ‘past on trial’ slot, in which someone from your organisation rejected as dangerous any calling into question of all established authority, as voiced by the previous contributor. So your representative was standing up for the establishment, warning us not to question its integrity across the board. How wrong she was cannot be overstated.
When registering to place a comment I also offered a note within the space provided for biographical details, stating that I am an atheist philosopher with a novel take on what society is, on what humans are indeed. So I myself have a point of view which is unique to myself, which challenges the basis of our society, which transforms the whole nature of the knowledge we live by, and which carries within in it some very searing ideas that most people would regard as horrendous ; the few I have tried them on are horrified. So while I love your expression of belief in freedom of speech, I do not believe it. I do not accuse anyone of dishonesty or insincerity even, I just say you have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I say you are the problem not the solution, because you look like a solution when in reality there is no solution out there in the public domain, as such you are what I call a ‘Gatekeeper’. You are making this call for freedom of expression from a position of blissful ignorance from whence you take comfort in the knowledge you have provided to you, and you have no idea what the real, real truth is. And, lets not have any talk of there being no such thing as truth, if that is where you are at, you may as well not bother. Just because we cannot know everything, does not mean we cannot know anything.
reply report Report comment
Quite a long reply so I dont have time to get into all of it. First I still think you would be better off with a definition of ‘true knowledge’ it appears to me that you mean cold hard confirmed facts – but where does that leave a discussion where there is nothing confirmed and proven? Why should freedom of speech not apply in such cases?
I dont think your 11th principle could work (though I would encourage you to go and suggest it at http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/suggest-a-principle/) simply because not all facts remain facts – probably the most obvious example is the idea that the sun revolves around the earth, it was fact and very few people would have even considered challenging it yet it turned out to be wrong. You would therefore be setting a very high bar for free speech to be considered to apply to a subject.
report Report comment
It is difficult to make out a distinctive argument briefly. This idea about ‘true knowledge’ has emerged from my own way of understanding the nature of our social condition in relation to my atheist philosophy. According to my reasoning there is no free access to true knowledge of reality in this society, therefore there can be no such thing as freedom of speech. True knowledge of reality equals science of course, so I am saying that there is no science in this society. I tried to illustrate this point by talking about Jimmy Savile, how people could not make meaningful statements about this celebrity without knowing important facts about him.
I can see that I am going to have address your specific points somehow, if I am to advance this argument. Let me see what I can do.
OK, lets take your example about the sun, it is a good one, I use it myself in relation to this subject. You say that “not all facts remain facts”, and this makes it impossible to make true knowledge a precondition of free speech’s existence. I do mean factual knowledge when I speak of ‘true knowledge’, but I normally say that :
Free speech is impossible without free access to true knowledge.
And this is the real point that I am trying to make, that free access to true knowledge is impeded, and removing obstacles is the first requirement of anyone who would obtain free speech. So, a religious person would claim that the right to freely disseminate their false knowledge requires freedom of speech, indeed this is where the idea of free speech really derives from, the struggle for religious freedom ; if that is not the grossest absurdity ever conceived of ! Clearly this is absurd, a right to propagate errant falsity is not a vindication of free speech, it is an abuse of it. People who are taught religion are being denied freedom of expression at the core of their being, their very essence as a person is being stolen from them by a particular social authority. This is important to all of us who love knowledge, because the propagation of false knowledge is what impedes the free expression of true knowledge that must be at the core of our concern over freedom of speech. Unless you are a slave of some religion, who seeks to protect your ‘right’ to freely propagate the misinformation you are enslaved to ? If, on the other hand, you want freedom of expression as an ideal associated with free access to true knowledge, then you must want to oppose the freedom to train people to believe false knowledge, otherwise what is your concern with freedom of speech ? If an adult Christian tells you they believe in Christ and they demand the right to profess this devotion, you cannot admit such a right, anymore than you would condone the perpetuation of any other abusive act. Yet that is what your unconstrained representation of free speech does.
How can a Christian speak freely if they have been taught falsely ? If you ask me if there is a God I will so “no”, this is the absolute truth. If a Christina answers the same question they will say “yes”, which is a total falsehood. Thus I will of spoken freely, while they would of spoken slavishly, so I will of exercised freedom of speech while they will not of done so. But ask them if this is so and they will deny it, even so we who believe in freedom of expression cannot allow their having been abused to misguide us. We cannot allow the individual to define free speech, for free speech to mean anything it must be unconstrained by any ruling or coercive authority, that is the point. It is not a question of whether ideas are factual or not, it is a question of whether the knowledge expressed is freely expressed in the true sense of the word, as illustrated by this example, or whether it is expressed through the direction of a hidden social power.
So the question of free speech revolves around where we locate the focus of free speech’s existence, in the person or in society. Free speech cannot be defined by the individual’s ability to say anything, anytime, as such a loose definition of free speech is worthless in practice because what is said only has meaning as a social phenomenon. Free speech as an ideal realised in the person is incumbent upon public knowledge being freely generated without constraint. From which condition individuals may derive freely generated knowledge, and then express it freely themselves, and reason freely in keeping with the absolute truth of what they have been programmed to believe, since no one can be an authority unto themselves in relation to knowledge. And it is only in relation to knowledge that the idea of free speech has any meaning.
reply report Report comment
I don’t know what you mean by ‘true knowledge’ (how can anyone ever hope to know everything and if that is not what you mean then what is it?) but I think I likely disagree with you when you say “you are putting the cart before the horse” as it is pretty self evident from even a brief look at history that free speech is a necessary precursor to the sharing of knowledge (principle 5 “We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge” seems to be about this) and therefore to anyone attaining true knowledge.
Moreover surely the whole point of free speech is to call into doubt that there really is such a thing as ‘true knowledge’ as if there was there would be no need for freedom of speech – there would be one truth and little need to deviate from it as anyone voicing a different opinion would be moving away from such true knowledge not towards it.
reply report Report comment
You are the problem, not the solution. Would you like to know why ?
Because you are promoting the establishment line by talking about freedom of speech in such naive terms, as if it were something real, when it is not. Before anyone can speak freely, they must have free access to true knowledge, agreed ? Since we all know that we do not live in a world where free speech exists, otherwise this site would be absurd, it follows that free access to true knowledge does not exist. Firstly then, you are putting the cart before the horse.
The existence of your site implies that there is a problem with regard to freedom that we can solve, thus implying that humans are in control of themselves. This is an ideal, and when you ask if anyone would like to question the whole basis of your organisation, I would say yes, I do, for as long as you pretend, along with the establishment, that all we need do is work together as individuals, you will never see the true nature of the problem where free access to knowledge, and therefore freedom of speech, is concerned. So that, as it stands your espoused objective of realising true freedom of expression, is indeed entirely impossible, precisely because it is, as you almost suggest, misconceived.
reply report Report comment
Super stvar, da projekt obstaja v širokem okvirju in omogoča debato v več jezikih. A ko na primer trenutno pišem v slovenščini, bo to razumela le peščica ljudi. Morda je prihodnost tega projekta res v čim večjem mednarodnem sodelovanju, a na žalost je nadvlada angleščine v mednarodnem prostoru tako velika, da le ta jezik omogoča konstruktivno debato. Žal.
reply report Report comment
Hi Ew
that is true, the dominance of English is a problem. We are trying to address is by including 12 very widely spoken languages. Your post I am able to read and reply to thanks to the Translate button. While the English language can be a barrier I think it can also act as a language that many people speak no matter what their native language is.
I would love to hear how do you think language barriers can be broken best.
reply report Report comment
I agree with turning the site in a more educational direction. Prior to the end of the active site, I’d recommend contacting universities and other educational institutions to promote the site being used as a forum for classes studying journalism/media/free speech, etc.
reply report Report comment
Ita:
Salve, sig. Carlo. Sono d’accordo con lei. Specialmente con quello che sta succedendo nel nostro paese, adesso.
Questo sito è fondamentale per diffondere la possibilità di parlare dei problemi importanti, senza urlare ne sminuire le verità.
Io sto diffondendo il vostro link con chi la pensa come me. Grazie per il servizio gratuito, come il diritto all’informazione.
Eng:
Hello, Mr. Charles. I agree with you. Especially with what’s happening in our country now.
This site is crucial to spread the opportunity to talk about important issues without shouting it detract from the truth.
I am spreading your link with those who think like me. Thanks for the free service, such as the right to information.
reply report Report comment
..per quanto mi riguarda, innanzitutto da italiano mi sento un poco offeso per non ritrovarmi tra quei paesi con l’accessibilità primaria di poter leggere il tutto nella mia magnifica e più completa… lingua; la forza di certe applicazioni non dovrebbe mai esimersi dall’importanza della qualità oggettiva a discapito della più semplificativa scelta di nicchia: la “quantità” di spettatori che si raggiunge non è mai… e non dovrebbe essere, sinonimo di “qualità”.
Per quanto concerne invece il dato che in discussione, credo che o il sito o altra applicazione, se regolate a dovere alla lunga daranno i loro frutti.
Certo, tutto dipenderà dalle capacità dei partecipanti che non abbiano, necessariamente solo spunti del tipo farsi notare per essere un poco più noti !!!
Carlo Moriggi
reply report Report comment
Apart from anything else, find ways in which the site – or at least sections of it, selected for accessibility – could be actively promoted in education. This whole debate goes to the heart of the kind of world that young people will live in, and so they should both be informed about the issues, and be able to contribute to the debate.
In that respect … I run a site for teachers of English in the International Baccalaureate programme (for interest – http://www.englishb-inthinking.co.uk/ ). I would like to get in touch with someone in your team so that I can find out how I could use materials from the site without infringing anyone’s rights. Links I can do, of course, but I would like to write teaching materials more directly based in actual texts.
You can contact me through the email address given in my registration.
reply report Report comment
thank you
http://www.feng.bu.edu.eg/feng/index.php/mech-eng-dep
reply report Report comment
An invaluable debate and web site. Let us hope that politicians throughout the world will read it regularly, for there is an inborn tendency among them to suppress information that they do not want to get out. If anyone ever has a doubt whether or not this or that item should be made public, let the doubt be resolved in favour of openness.
Du choc des opinions jaillit la lumière.