Warts and all kind of history

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me ask this: Why is it that when someone such as Kerry puts themself forward as a polymath, it just so happens that when they talk about something that I do actually know about, it becomes painfully apparent that the they do not know what they are talking about?

Should I assume a giant coincidence or might it be that those in other fields would notice the same thing should they take a look?

I've never known Kerry to "put himself forward as a polymath."

But, be that as it may, when you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on evert subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

[Tarski]

I've never known Kerry to "put himself forward as a polymath."

riiight. I guess neither did Nibley.

For my part, I never claimed to be a backyard professor (what shall we make of that name?).

But, be that as it may, when you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on evert subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

Actually I do know something about religion, just not from the point of view of the school of thought that you adhere to.

As in the case of the furor over the preColumbian horses, I am willing to talk to mainstream experts and check myself.

Go ahead and show me where I proved that I didn't know what I was talking about and I will gladly check myself in that manner.

I'm sure it's possible my judgments were wrong but you must tell me what it is specifically and in a way amenable to checking.

I have invited the ironically named E=mc2 to go over the quantum stuff and hash it out rationally and show what he's got.

[Bill Hamblin]

riiight. I guess neither did Nibley.

For my part, I never claimed to be a backyard professor (what shall we make of that name?).

Actually I do know something about religion, just not from the point of view of the school of thought that you adhere to.

As in the case of the furor over the preColumbian horses, I am willing to talk to mainstream experts and check myself.

Go ahead and show me where I proved that I didn't know what I was talking about and I will gladly check myself in that manner.

I'm sure it's possible my judgments were wrong but you must tell me what it is specifically and in a way amenable to checking.

I have invited the ironically named E=mc2 to go over the quantum stuff and hash it out rationally and show what he's got.

I note that you, as usual refused to answer my question. Tactics of distraction don't work very well.

But, be that as it may, when you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on evert subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

Care to answer? I suspect not.

Actually I do know something about religion, just not from the point of view of the school of thought that you adhere to.

And what "school of thought" on religion do I adhere to? Frazerian? Myth and Ritual? Freudian? Jungian? Atheistic? Perennialist? Marxist? Functionalist? Durkheimian functionalism? Theistic? Essentialist? Evolutionist? Psychopathological? Entrepreneurial? How did you come to this determination?

PS Kerry's wife called him the "Backyard Professor" when he was making YouTube videos in his backyard. That's how he got the name.

[Bill Hamblin]

I note that you, as usual refused to answer my question. Tactics of distraction don't work very well.

Care to answer? I suspect not.

And what "school of thought" on religion do I adhere to? Frazerian? Myth and Ritual? Freudian? Jungian? Atheistic? Perennialist? Marxist? Functionalist? Durkheimian functionalism? Theistic? Essentialist? Evolutionist? Psychopathological? Entrepreneurial? How did you come to this determination?

PS Kerry's wife called him the "Backyard Professor" when he was making YouTube videos in his backyard. That's how he got the name.

Tarski? ... Tarski? ... Anyone?

Why do you have such a penchant for refusing to answer very simple questions?

[Jason]

But besides an above average skeptical sense, my most precious resource in all of this is respect for mainstream thinking in the relevant fields--especially those with due respect for evidence and no obvious ties to fundamentalist religions, cults, or fringe organizations.

I'm curious as to why you would name "a respect for mainstream thinking" as your "most precious resoruce"?

Wouldn't good critical thinking skills be more precious than respect for the critical thinking skills of others?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Tarski, with all you can do, why in the world do you spend time on a Mormon discussion board? It frankly makes no sense to me that you like throwing rocks at us ignorant believers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tarski, with all you can do, why in the world do you spend time on a Mormon discussion board? It frankly makes no sense to me that you like throwing rocks at us ignorant believers.

I honestly can't find a good reason why he is here either. However I can't say that it is really a bad thing, which I am sure you will agree.

[Bill Hamblin]

Tarski? ... Tarski? ... Anyone?

Why do you have such a penchant for refusing to answer very simple questions?

Tarski? Why are you ignoring me? I await your answer to my questions with bated breath! Don't disappoint us!

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually I do know something about religion, just not from the point of view of the school of thought that you adhere to.

But you're an autodidact about religion, right? No degrees? No formal training?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily opposed to autodidactic study. Rather I encourage it. But if Tarski is going to dis the autodidactic opinions Mormons, he should refrain from expressing opinions on topics on which he is an autodidact. Which is it going to be, Tarski?

What matters is evidence and analysis.

[Tarski]

Tarski? ... Tarski? ... Anyone?

Why do you have such a penchant for refusing to answer very simple questions?

You are reading too much into my use of the words "school of thought". It was casual gesture toward what we both know--I do not approach religion from a faith based perspective.

But, since you want to turn this into something, I can answers as follows:

Frazerian? Not really. I haven't read the original literature. My impression is that it is not so much wrong as incomplete (where is the treatment of social or political aspects?) Surely something is correct in thinking about some aspects of religion as originating in a quest to understand the natural world, life and death etc.

Myth and Ritual? I have read Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and Profane". I find it somehow beautiful and his way of talking about sacred time and sacred space resonates with me on some level but I don't see a modern sense of methodological precision (nor did I expect it from that book).

Freudian? Definitely not.

Jungian? Double definitely not.

Atheistic? I don't see this as school of thought (others might) as such.

Perennialist? When I was young I was very much attracted to this view (as promoted by Huston Smith) but I unfortunately got too much of my information about it from people like Robert Masters, Jean Houston, and Alan Watts (it was the 60's, OK, well the seventies)

I have since been dissuaded from my early positive uncritical attitude toward perenialism in part by reading the book: Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (Steven Katz)

A very good read. He (Katz) certainly made me rethink my entheogen induced experiences.

Marxist? Not everything he thought was stupid--but, no.

Functionalist? No comment

Durkheimian functionalism? No comment

Theistic? You can guess.

Evolutionist? Yes. But this is really a project that is not quite off the ground in my view. Promising, but perhaps it cannot answer all the interesting questions in the short term. We certainly can't just do without thinkers like Eliade, or even Martin (I and Thou) Buber etc. They seem to be asking different questions than what I would expect the evolutionary folks are asking. Different projects, different needs etc.

Psychopathological? An interesting but one sided approach that may apply to some visionary experience. The very term psychopathological seems to beg the question of the value of visionary experience. Everyone should really become aware of The Spirit Molecule (look it up).

I also enjoyed Berger's "The Sacred Canopy" and the much maligned "The History of God (K. Armstrong)

as for scripture, I'm tentatively in the corner with "higher criticism" a la Robert Price.

I don't know enough to really "take sides" on the various schools (does anyone?). But, I acknowledge that I do not have rational warrant or sufficient evidence to assert a belief in the existence of God (specifically the God of Abraham or it's Mormon fully anthropomorphic variant.)

So my endeavors to think about religion are from an agnostic perspective.

[Bill Hamblin]

But, be that as it may, when you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on evert subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

This is one of the questions you didn't answer. Still haven't.

[Bill Hamblin]

You stated:

Actually I do know something about religion, just not from the point of view of the school of thought that you adhere to.

So I asked:

And what "school of thought" on religion do I adhere to? Frazerian? Myth and Ritual? Freudian? Jungian? Atheistic? Perennialist? Marxist? Functionalist? Durkheimian functionalism? Theistic? Essentialist? Evolutionist? Psychopathological? Entrepreneurial? How did you come to this determination?

Apparently confusing paradigm with "school of thought" (one can be a theist or an atheist and follow the same school of thought), you then tell me about your views on various schools of thought I mention.

But my real question was how do you know the "the school of thought that adhere to"?

This is the other question you didn't answer. Still haven't.

PS Playing dodge ball with you really isn't that much fun.

[e=mc2]

Tarski:

as for scripture, I'm tentatively in the corner with "higher criticism" a la Robert Price.

Eh..... it's a start. I honestly think there is far and away better however. Truly!

[Tarski]

This is one of the questions you didn't answer. Still haven't.

The false premise is that there is a significant extent to which I pontificate (say in videos or essays) on many fields or put myself forth as a polymath.

My observation that started this was one of probabilities. -- I could therefore be wrong in my suspicions. Think what you wish of me.

[Tarski]

You stated:So I asked:Apparently confusing paradigm with "school of thought" (one can be a theist or an atheist and follow the same school of thought), you then tell me about your views on various schools of thought I mention.

Semantic pedantry. I was being informal, almost tongue in cheek, in my use of the phrase "school of thought". But, OK, I will stipulate that I was guessing that your approach to religion was faith-based and guided by (or embedded in) a supernatural paradigm while mine is not.

Eh..... it's a start. I honestly think there is far and away better however. Truly!

Suggestions?

[Bill Hamblin]

Semantic pedantry. I was being informal, almost tongue in cheek, in my use of the phrase "school of thought". But, OK, I will stipulate that I was guessing that your approach to religion was faith-based and guided by (or embedded in) a supernatural paradigm while mine is not.

One man's "semantic pedantry" is another man's non-idiosyncratic, precise and accurate use of language. To each is own.

At any rate, when you said "school of thought" I thought that's what you meant. Silly me.

[Bill Hamblin]

The false premise is that there is a significant extent to which I pontificate (say in videos or essays) on many fields or put myself forth as a polymath.

My observation that started this was one of probabilities. -- I could therefore be wrong in my suspicions. Think what you wish of me.

Kerry doesn't pontificate on his videos. He shares his intellectual explorations with his friends. So? If you don't like it, don't watch his videos.

But be that as it may, you still didn't answer my question.

But, be that as it may, when you make statements on topics where it "becomes painfully apparent that [you] do not know what [you're] are talking about" I should assume that you don't what you're talking about on evert subject, right? With this logic, the fact that you don't know much about history or religion means you don't know anything about mathematics, too, right?

[Tarski]

One man's "semantic pedantry" is another man's non-idiosyncratic, precise and accurate use of language. To each is own.

You have a more rigid view of language than I do which is ironic given that you are in the humanities.

The way I said it was harmless and clear in context. You were only looking for a opportunity to find a perceived trip up on my part as part of your present project of trying to bully me (and I'm not feeling it).

I told you the spirit in which I was using the phrase (and it should have been obvious from the context).

Is there anywhere else you want to go with this?

Any more words from Confucius for me? BTW, I don't mean to match pedantry to pedantry, but are you sure it was Confucius with the glass houses thing?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Any more words from Confucius for me? BTW, I don't mean to match pedantry to pedantry, but are you sure it was Confucius with the glass houses thing?

Ben Folds apparently thinks the glass houses thing came from the Bible.

[Bill Hamblin]

You have a more rigid view of language than I do which is ironic given that you are in the humanities.

The way I said it was harmless and clear in context. You were only looking for a opportunity to find a perceived trip up on my part as part of your present project of trying to bully me (and I'm not feeling it).

I told you the spirit in which I was using the phrase (and it should have been obvious from the context).

Is there anywhere else you want to go with this?

Any more words from Confucius for me? BTW, I don't mean to match pedantry to pedantry, but are you sure it was Confucius with the glass houses thing?

When you said "school of thought" I thought you meant "school of thought." I know that's a serious flaw on my part from the perspective of the Humpty Dumpty school of linguistics.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

No Confucius didn't say it; it was a joke.

I note you still haven't answered my real question. But this type of obfuscation is pointless as ever.

[Tarski]

When you said "school of thought" I thought you meant "school of thought." I know that's a serious flaw on my part from the perspective of the Humpty Dumpty school of linguistics.

No Confucius didn't say it; it was a joke.

Oh that works for you but not for me huh?

When you said "Confucius" I thought you meant "Confucius". LOL

Like I said " I was being informal, almost tongue in cheek, in my use of the phrase "school of thought".

Try harder to remember this.

Goose/gander.

That a supposed intellectual would fixate in this way is quite strange ---sophomorpic actually.

[StillShell]

14 year olds married-please get real. 14 in the 1800's is not comparable to 14 in todays society which promotes extended childhood.

is so reasonable that I never questioned it.

Do you have evidence to support this?

From what I can see the average age for marriage in the 1800's was 28 years for a man and 24 years for a woman.

Currently in the United States: 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women, 26.1 final average.

It does seem coparable despite your claim.

[Jason]

Do you have evidence to support this?

From what I can see the average age for marriage in the 1800's was 28 years for a man and 24 years for a woman.

Currently in the United States: 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women, 26.1 final average.

It does seem coparable despite your claim.

What's your source for those figures?

[StillShell]

What's your source for those figures?

Here:

http://www.healthline.com/galeimage?conten...=eph_02_img0083

http://www.answers.com/marriage&r=67

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socde...how/table01.xls

[Bill Hamblin]

Oh that works for you but not for me huh?

When you said "Confucius" I thought you meant "Confucius". LOL

Like I said " I was being informal, almost tongue in cheek, in my use of the phrase "school of thought".

Try harder to remember this.

Goose/gander.

That a supposed intellectual would fixate in this way is quite strange ---sophomorpic actually.

Still refusing to answer my question I see. Do you really think these tactics of distraction are working?

PS Ever hear "Confucius says" [K'ung fu tzu yueh in Wade-Giles, or Kong fu zi yue in Pinyin] jokes? You understand the concept of joke, right?