Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Rationalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 182016
 

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that “regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge”[1] or “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”.[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory “in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive”.[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth in other words, “there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience”.[4] Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism’s greatest rivals.[according to whom?]

Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position “that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge” to the more extreme position that reason is “the unique path to knowledge”.[5] Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive “Classical Political Rationalism” as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. Rationalism should not be confused with rationality, nor with rationalization.

In politics, Rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a “politics of reason” centered upon rational choice, utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion[6] the latter aspect’s antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology.[7][8]

In this regard, the philosopher John Cottingham[9] noted how rationalism, a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism: In the past, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term ‘rationalist’ was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook, and for a time the word acquired a distinctly pejorative force (thus in 1670 Sanderson spoke disparagingly of ‘a mere rationalist, that is to say in plain English an atheist of the late edition…’). The use of the label ‘rationalist’ to characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like ‘humanist’ or ‘materialist’ seem largely to have taken its place. But the old usage still survives.

Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist.[2] Taken to extremes, the empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us a posteriori, that is to say, through experience; either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. The empiricist essentially believes that knowledge is based on or derived directly from experience. The rationalist believes we come to knowledge a priori through the use of logic and is thus independent of sensory experience. In other words, as Galen Strawson once wrote, “you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.”[10] Between both philosophies, the issue at hand is the fundamental source of human knowledge and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know. Whereas both philosophies are under the umbrella of epistemology, their argument lies in the understanding of the warrant, which is under the wider epistemic umbrella of the theory of justification.

The theory of justification is the part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is “warrant”. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (probably) holds a belief.

If “A” makes a claim, and “B” then casts doubt on it, “A”‘s next move would normally be to provide justification. The precise method one uses to provide justification is where the lines are drawn between rationalism and empiricism (among other philosophical views). Much of the debate in these fields are focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

At its core, rationalism consists of three basic claims. For one to consider themselves a rationalist, they must adopt at least one of these three claims: The Intuition/Deduction Thesis, The Innate Knowledge Thesis, or The Innate Concept Thesis. In addition, rationalists can choose to adopt the claims of Indispensability of Reason and or the Superiority of Reason although one can be a rationalist without adopting either thesis.

Rationale: “Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.”[11]

Generally speaking, intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy; a form of rational insight. We simply just “see” something in such a way as to give us a warranted belief. Beyond that, the nature of intuition is hotly debated.

In the same way, generally speaking, deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more general premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Using valid arguments, we can deduce from intuited premises.

For example, when we combine both concepts, we can intuit that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Thus, it can be said that intuition and deduction combined to provide us with a priori knowledge we gained this knowledge independently of sense experience.

Empiricists such as David Hume have been willing to accept this thesis for describing the relationships among our own concepts.[11] In this sense, empiricists argue that we are allowed to intuit and deduce truths from knowledge that has been obtained a posteriori.

By injecting different subjects into the Intuition/Deduction thesis, we are able to generate different arguments. Most rationalists agree mathematics is knowable by applying the intuition and deduction. Some go further to include ethical truths into the category of things knowable by intuition and deduction. Furthermore, some rationalists also claim metaphysics is knowable in this thesis.

In addition to different subjects, rationalists sometimes vary the strength of their claims by adjusting their understanding of the warrant. Some rationalists understand warranted beliefs to be beyond even the slightest doubt; others are more conservative and understand the warrant to be belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rationalists also have different understanding and claims involving the connection between intuition and truth. Some rationalists claim that intuition is infallible and that anything we intuit to be true is as such. More contemporary rationalists accept that intuition is not always a source of certain knowledge thus allowing for the possibility of a deceiver who might cause the rationalist to intuit a false proposition in the same way a third party could cause the rationalist to have perceptions of nonexistent objects.

Naturally, the more subjects the rationalists claim to be knowable by the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the more certain they are of their warranted beliefs, and the more strictly they adhere to the infallibility of intuition, the more controversial their truths or claims and the more radical their rationalism.[11]

To argue in favor of this thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a prominent German philosopher, says, “The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them”[12]

Rationale: “We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.”[13]

The Innate Knowledge thesis is similar to the Intuition/Deduction thesis in the regard that both theses claim knowledge is gained a priori. The two theses go their separate ways when describing how that knowledge is gained. As the name, and the rationale, suggests, the Innate Knowledge thesis claims knowledge is simply part of our rational nature. Experiences can trigger a process that allows this knowledge to come into our consciousness, but the experiences don’t provide us with the knowledge itself. The knowledge has been with us since the beginning and the experience simply brought into focus, in the same way a photographer can bring the background of a picture into focus by changing the aperture of the lens. The background was always there, just not in focus.

This thesis targets a problem with the nature of inquiry originally postulated by Plato in Meno. Here, Plato asks about inquiry; how do we gain knowledge of a theorem in geometry? We inquire into the matter. Yet, knowledge by inquiry seems impossible.[14] In other words, “If we already have the knowledge, there is no place for inquiry. If we lack the knowledge, we don’t know what we are seeking and cannot recognize it when we find it. Either way we cannot gain knowledge of the theorem by inquiry. Yet, we do know some theorems.”[13] The Innate Knowledge thesis offers a solution to this paradox. By claiming that knowledge is already with us, either consciously or unconsciously, a rationalist claims we don’t really “learn” things in the traditional usage of the word, but rather that we simply bring to light what we already know.

Rationale: “We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.”[15]

Similar to the Innate Knowledge thesis, the Innate Concept thesis suggests that some concepts are simply part of our rational nature. These concepts are a priori in nature and sense experience is irrelevant to determining the nature of these concepts (though, sense experience can help bring the concepts to our conscious mind).

Some philosophers, such as John Locke (who is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment and an empiricist) argue that the Innate Knowledge thesis and the Innate Concept thesis are the same.[16] Other philosophers, such as Peter Carruthers, argue that the two theses are distinct from one another. As with the other theses covered under rationalisms’ umbrella, the types and number of concepts a philosopher claims to be innate, the more controversial and radical their position; “the more a concept seems removed from experience and the mental operations we can perform on experience the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate for being innate than our concept of the latter.[15]

In his book, Meditations on First Philosophy,[17]Ren Descartes postulates three classifications for our ideas when he says, “Among my ideas, some appear to be innate, some to be adventitious, and others to have been invented by me. My understanding of what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is, seems to derive simply from my own nature. But my hearing a noise, as I do now, or seeing the sun, or feeling the fire, comes from things which are located outside me, or so I have hitherto judged. Lastly, sirens, hippogriffs and the like are my own invention.”[18]

Adventitious ideas are those concepts that we gain through sense experiences, ideas such as the sensation of heat, because they originate from outside sources; transmitting their own likeness rather than something else and something you simply cannot will away. Ideas invented by us, such as those found in mythology, legends, and fairy tales are created by us from other ideas we possess. Lastly, innate ideas, such as our ideas of perfection, are those ideas we have as a result of mental processes that are beyond what experience can directly or indirectly provide.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz defends the idea of innate concepts by suggesting the mind plays a role in determining the nature of concepts, to explain this, he likens the mind to a block of marble in the New Essays on Human Understanding, “This is why I have taken as an illustration a block of veined marble, rather than a wholly uniform block or blank tablets, that is to say what is called tabula rasa in the language of the philosophers. For if the soul were like those blank tablets, truths would be in us in the same way as the figure of Hercules is in a block of marble, when the marble is completely indifferent whether it receives this or some other figure. But if there were veins in the stone which marked out the figure of Hercules rather than other figures, this stone would be more determined thereto, and Hercules would be as it were in some manner innate in it, although labour would be needed to uncover the veins, and to clear them by polishing, and by cutting away what prevents them from appearing. It is in this way that ideas and truths are innate in us, like natural inclinations and dispositions, natural habits or potentialities, and not like activities, although these potentialities are always accompanied by some activities which correspond to them, though they are often imperceptible.”[19]

The three aforementioned theses of Intuition/Deduction, Innate Knowledge, and Innate Concept are the cornerstones of rationalism. To be considered a rationalist, one must adopt at least one of those three claims. The following two theses are traditionally adopted by rationalists, but they aren’t essential to the rationalist’s position.

The Indispensability of Reason Thesis has the following rationale, “The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience.”[1] In short, this thesis claims that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason.

The Superiority of Reason Thesis has the following rationale, ‘”The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience”.[1] In other words, this thesis claims reason is superior to experience as a source for knowledge.

In addition to the following claims, rationalists often adopt similar stances on other aspects of philosophy. Most rationalists reject skepticism for the areas of knowledge they claim are knowable a priori. Naturally, when you claim some truths are innately known to us, one must reject skepticism in relation to those truths. Especially for rationalists who adopt the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the idea of epistemic foundationalism tends to crop up. This is the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths.[1]

Rationalism – as an appeal to human reason as a way of obtaining knowledge – has a philosophical history dating from antiquity. The analytical nature of much of philosophical enquiry, the awareness of apparently a priori domains of knowledge such as mathematics, combined with the emphasis of obtaining knowledge through the use of rational faculties (commonly rejecting, for example, direct revelation) have made rationalist themes very prevalent in the history of philosophy.

Since the Enlightenment, rationalism is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy as seen in the works of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza.[3] This is commonly called continental rationalism, because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in Britain empiricism dominated.

Even then, the distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved. Also, the distinction between the two philosophies is not as clear-cut as is sometimes suggested; for example, Descartes and Locke have similar views about the nature of human ideas.[4]

Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge. The philosophers who held this view most clearly were Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz, whose attempts to grapple with the epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practice for human beings except in specific areas such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book Monadology that “we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions.”[5]

Because of the complicated nature of rationalist thinking, the nature of philosophy, and the understanding that humans are aware of knowledge available only through the use of rational thought, many of the great philosophers from antiquity laid down the foundation for rationalism though they themselves weren’t rationalists as we understand the concept today.

Pythagoras was one of the first Western philosophers to stress rationalist insight.[20] He is often revered as a great mathematician, mystic and scientist, but he is best known for the Pythagorean theorem, which bears his name, and for discovering the mathematical relationship between the length of strings on lute bear and the pitches of the notes. Pythagoras “believed these harmonies reflected the ultimate nature of reality. He summed up the implied metaphysical rationalism in the words “All is number”. It is probable that he had caught the rationalist’s vision, later seen by Galileo (15641642), of a world governed throughout by mathematically formulable laws”.[20] It has been said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom,[21]

Plato also held rational insight to a very high standard, as is seen in his works such as Meno and The Republic. Plato taught on the Theory of Forms (or the Theory of Ideas)[22][23][24] which asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[25] Plato’s forms are accessible only to reason and not to sense.[20] In fact, it is said that Plato admired reason, especially in geometry, so highly that he had the phrase “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter” inscribed over the door to his academy.[26]

Aristotle has a process of reasoning similar to that of Plato’s, though he ultimately disagreed with the specifics of Plato’s forms. Aristotle’s great contribution to rationalist thinking comes from his use of syllogistic logic. Aristotle defines syllogism as “a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.”[27] Despite this very general definition, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms which consist of three categorical propositions in his work Prior Analytics.[28] These included categorical modal syllogisms.[29]

Though the three great Greek philosophers disagreed with one another on specific points, they all agreed that rational thought could bring to light knowledge that was self-evident information that humans otherwise couldn’t know without the use of reason. After Aristotle’s death, Western rationalistic thought was generally characterized by its application to theology, such as in the works of the Islamic philosopher Avicenna and Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonides. One notable event in the Western timelime was the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas who attempted to merge Greek rationalism and Christian revelation in the thirteenth-century.[20]

Descartes was the first of the modern rationalists and has been dubbed the ‘Father of Modern Philosophy.’ Much subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings,[30][31][32] which are studied closely to this day.

Descartes thought that only knowledge of eternal truths including the truths of mathematics, and the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences could be attained by reason alone; other knowledge, the knowledge of physics, required experience of the world, aided by the scientific method. He also argued that although dreams appear as real as sense experience, these dreams cannot provide persons with knowledge. Also, since conscious sense experience can be the cause of illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable. As a result, Descartes deduced that a rational pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality. He elaborated these beliefs in such works as Discourse on Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, and Principles of Philosophy. Descartes developed a method to attain truths according to which nothing that cannot be recognised by the intellect (or reason) can be classified as knowledge. These truths are gained “without any sensory experience,” according to Descartes. Truths that are attained by reason are broken down into elements that intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about reality.

Descartes therefore argued, as a result of his method, that reason alone determined knowledge, and that this could be done independently of the senses. For instance, his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum or “I think, therefore I am”, is a conclusion reached a priori i.e., prior to any kind of experience on the matter. The simple meaning is that doubting one’s existence, in and of itself, proves that an “I” exists to do the thinking. In other words, doubting one’s own doubting is absurd.[33] This was, for Descartes, an irrefutable principle upon which to ground all forms of other knowledge. Descartes posited a metaphysical dualism, distinguishing between the substances of the human body (“res extensa”) and the mind or soul (“res cogitans”). This crucial distinction would be left unresolved and lead to what is known as the mind-body problem, since the two substances in the Cartesian system are independent of each other and irreducible.

The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is a systematic, logical, rational philosophy developed in seventeenth-century Europe.[34][35][36] Spinoza’s philosophy is a system of ideas constructed upon basic building blocks with an internal consistency with which he tried to answer life’s major questions and in which he proposed that “God exists only philosophically.”[36][37] He was heavily influenced by Descartes,[38]Euclid[37] and Thomas Hobbes,[38] as well as theologians in the Jewish philosophical tradition such as Maimonides.[38] But his work was in many respects a departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many of Spinoza’s ideas continue to vex thinkers today and many of his principles, particularly regarding the emotions, have implications for modern approaches to psychology. To this day, many important thinkers have found Spinoza’s “geometrical method”[36] difficult to comprehend: Goethe admitted that he found this concept confusing[citation needed]. His magnum opus, Ethics, contains unresolved obscurities and has a forbidding mathematical structure modeled on Euclid’s geometry.[37] Spinoza’s philosophy attracted believers such as Albert Einstein[39] and much intellectual attention.[40][41][42][43][44]

Leibniz was the last of the great Rationalists who contributed heavily to other fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, mathematics, physics, jurisprudence, and the philosophy of religion; he is also considered to be one of the last “universal geniuses”.[45] He did not develop his system, however, independently of these advances. Leibniz rejected Cartesian dualism and denied the existence of a material world. In Leibniz’s view there are infinitely many simple substances, which he called “monads” (possibly taking the term from the work of Anne Conway).

Leibniz developed his theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza, because the rejection of their visions forced him to arrive at his own solution. Monads are the fundamental unit of reality, according to Leibniz, constituting both inanimate and animate objects. These units of reality represent the universe, though they are not subject to the laws of causality or space (which he called “well-founded phenomena”). Leibniz, therefore, introduced his principle of pre-established harmony to account for apparent causality in the world.

Kant is one of the central figures of modern philosophy, and set the terms by which all subsequent thinkers have had to grapple. He argued that human perception structures natural laws, and that reason is the source of morality. His thought continues to hold a major influence in contemporary thought, especially in fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.[46]

Kant named his branch of epistemology Transcendental Idealism, and he first laid out these views in his famous work The Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul. Kant referred to these objects as “The Thing in Itself” and goes on to argue that their status as objects beyond all possible experience by definition means we cannot know them. To the empiricist he argued that while it is correct that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore concludes that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge. In the same way, Kant also argued that it was wrong to regard thought as mere analysis. In Kant’s views, a priori concepts do exist, but if they are to lead to the amplification of knowledge, they must be brought into relation with empirical data”.[47]

Visit link:

Rationalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 3:42 pm  Tagged with:

Cook Islands Maori Dictionary | Free Online Dictionary of …

 Islands  Comments Off on Cook Islands Maori Dictionary | Free Online Dictionary of …
Jan 132016
 

Post navigation Tavake the red tailed tropicbird (Phaeton rubricauda). Photo by G. McCormack.

tavake, n

1. Red-tailed Tropic bird (Phaethon rubricauda).

Kua akamneaia tna pare ki te iku tavake. His hat was decorated with tropic-birds tail-feathers.

Tavake iku-tea, White-tailed Tropic bird.

2. Large variety of breadfruit with long-fingered leaves and fruit that resembles the kuru patea.

E tavake tn kuru. That breadfruit is a tavake.

[Pn. *taweke.]

spiritual entities

See New Zealand Law Commission, Mori Custom and Values, 2001: 30 for New Zealand Maori equivalent.

war cries. Savage, S., A Dictionary of the Mori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 19

Another meaning is sayings. Numerous totou (sayings) [New Zealand Mori whakatauk], identifying the connectedness of particular mountains, rivers or lakes, tribes and people, are constantly invoked to reaffirm anau tangata or unga tangata between people and their lands.

The ceremony and feast at the end of a battle was called akamoe-i-takau. Savage, S., A Dictionary of the Mori Language of Rarotonga, 1962: 16.

The word itoro which is sometimes used instead of ai tupuna is a coined word which shades it with a post LMS descriptive bias.

akateitei also means arrogant

vangeria, n. Gospel.

Kua ttia te vangeria ki te tene, the gospel was preached to the heathen;

kara ki te

ei1,

1. (-a, -ia). (Wear) a necklace, garland, wreath, chaplet, scarf.

T ei nei au i tku ei poe prau, Im wearing my pearl necklace;

Eia tou ei, put on your lei (necklace of flowers);

Nku te ei tiare mori, nou te ei ara moa, mine is the gardenia necklace, yours is the pandanus one;

Ei Ktorika, rosary;

Ei ttauro, cross (crucifix) worn round the neck;

T tui ei ra a Runa m, Runa and the others are making wreaths;

Nai tia pare ei? whose chaplet is this?;

E ei i t tei uruuru ki runga i t kak, wrap your woollen scarf around your neck.

2. v.i. Encircled, ensnared, trapped, caught (in net, web, noose, snare, trap).

Kua ei te ika ki roto i te kupenga, the fish were caught in the net;

Kua ei te moa taetaevao ki roto i te pereere, the wild fowl was trapped in a snare;

Kua ptakaiti te rango i te eianga ki roto i te pngverevere, the fly struggled, caught in the cobweb. (see ei, tei(ei)). [Pn. *sei.]

ei, ai, locative particle. (The form ai is used when the preceding word ends in a, when, in traditional orthography it was often written as i and suffixed to the preceding word. E.g. tuatua ai is written tuatuai in Bibilia Tapu). A particle which relates the verb preceding it to an adverbial (time, place, reason, cause, purpose, means) or nominal antecedent. The antecedent to which ei refers may have been placed ahead of the verbal particle of the ei-clause for emphasis; Or it may occur in (or comprise) a preceding clause to which the ei-clause is linked.

1. Ei occurs in a main clause where the antecedent is

(a) an adverbial phrase fronted for emphasis (interrogatives are often topicalised in this way).

te Varaire te pa e akaruke ei, its Friday that the ship leaves / Friday is when the ship leaves (cf. the unmarked word order

ka akaruke te pa te Varaire, the ship leaves on Friday);

N te matangi i kino ei te rkau, its the wind thats spoiled the tree;

N tna vareae i rutu ei aia iku it was out of jealousy that he hit me;

I naea krua i tuatua ai i tn manako?, when did you two discuss that idea?;

Ei ea tua kaikai ei?, where shall we have our meal?;

E aa te mea i tuaru ei koe iia?, what did you drive him away for?

(b) an adverbial clause:

iku e t ra, kite atu ei au i te pa, as I was standing there, I caught sight of the ship;

(c) an adverbial conjunction:

u te r k opu ei, before the sun sets;

Mri ake koe i akatikaia mai ei au, thanks to you I was given permission.

2. Ei occurs in a subordinate (relative) clause.

Ko tia nei te puka tau i apai ei?, is this the book you were carrying?;

Ko ai te tangata tau i p ei?, who was the person you struck?;

E painapa tku i kai ei, it was pineapple(s) that I ate;

Ko tea toa tau i aere ei?, which shop was it you went to?;

E tpito tna maki i noo ei aia ki te kinga, it was stomach-trouble that he stayed home with;

Te ngi i rave mai ei koe, the place you got it from;

Te mataara e tae ei ki runga i tr maunga, the path leading up that mountain;

T pat ra rtou i te taua i akaruke atu ei au, they were cementing the floor when I left;

Ko te tumu t reira i aere mai ei au, thats the reason why I came;

I akapeaia e koe te tamaiti i au ei, what did you do to the child to make him cry?

3. Indicating the sequence of action in the second of two clauses, the verbal particle often being omitted from the second clause, (and) then.

Kia tae mai au, ka rote ei tua i tau ngi, let me get there, then well start ploughing your place;

K noo ttou kia p, ka aere ei, lets stay till its dark and then go;

Aere mai ki runga i te moenga, takoto ei, come on to the mat and lie down;

E taritari mai i te pt kpara ki te pae tai, tuku ei, carry the sacks of copra down to the beach and put them down there;

T aere nei au e tangata k angaanga ai, Im going to go and work for someone else.

4. In the construction

n (ttai tangata) ei, (somebody) said.

Kvea mai taku uri, n P ei, bring me my spear, said P;

Nna ai k inu aia i te kava nani, he said hed have some orange liquor;

e vaine mnea tika ai koe, n P mai ei kiku. Aere ki k atu, nku atu ei, auraka koe e tparu mai iku. E tika ai nku, nna mai ei, You really are a good-looking woman, says P to me. Get away with you, says I, dont you go flattering me. I really mean it, he says. [Pn. *ai.]

enguengu, v.i., fq. engu, groan, q.v.

Kua kite au e moemoe nna i tna enguenguanga, I could tell that she was having a dream from her groaning;

Kia tae atu au, t enguengu u ra aia n te mamae, when I got there, he was groaning with the pain. [engu RR.]

engu,

1. v.i., n. Groan, moan, grunt, (make a deep throaty noise.

E aa koe i engu ua ai i roto i tau moe inap?, why were you groaning in your sleep last night?;

Kua rongo au i tna enguanga i te anga aia ki runga i te patu, I heard him grunt when he banged into the wall;

Kua rongo au i te engu i vao, kre r au i aere ana i te kara, I heard moaning outside, but I didnt go to look.

2. v.t. Hum.

T engu u ra aia i te mene, hes just humming the song. [Np. *fe

eeu, (-a, -ia, ua, euia). Draw back or remove (covering, screen or lid).

Kua purara mai te verovero o te r ki roto i te are i tku eeuanga i te rai mramarama, the suns rays burst into the house when I drew the curtains;

Kua eeu aia i te riki kaingkai, she removed the tablecloth;

Eeua ake te moenga kia purmuia te repo, lift up the mat to sweep the dirt out;

eeke, v.i., intens. of eke1. Flow copiously, descend.

Kua eeke ua te toto i te putaanga tna katu i te rkau, the blood gushed when the pole struck him on the head;

Kua eeke ua te vai n roto i tna kinga, the water poured through his garden;

I n konei rtou i te eekeanga, they scrambled down this way. [eke1 rR.]

eeke, v.i., fq. eeke. Flow, q.v.

, n. Boil, carbuncle.

Kre e meitaki kia viia tou , n te mea kre i para, it wont do any good getting your boil lanced, it hasnt come to a head yet;

Paraia ki te vairkau , put a boil poultice on it;

eaea, v.i., fq. of ea. Rise to the surface.

Kua pou rtou ki roto i te vai kua eaea ki ttai tua i te kauvai, they dived into the water and came up on the other side of the river;

Kua pupui te aronga ruku i t rtou ao i t rtou eaeaanga, the divers let their breath out with a rush as they surfaced. [ea RR.]

eaa, what? A spelling of e + aa, q.v.

e, interj. Yes? What is it? What do you want? (reply to a call, polite, cf. eaa? which is discourteous).

Read the original:
Cook Islands Maori Dictionary | Free Online Dictionary of …

 Posted by at 6:44 pm  Tagged with:

Singularity (Posthuman transcension) – Palaeos

 Posthuman  Comments Off on Singularity (Posthuman transcension) – Palaeos
Dec 202015
 

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not well-behaved, for example infinite or not differentiable. In the natural sciences, a point in spacetime where the laws of physics break down, for example where gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume (as in a Black Hole). In transhumanism and futurism, the end of history as we know it, the point (Technological singularity) at which accelerating change and technological progress becomes so rapid, or alternatively that an exponential growth of artificial intelligence surpasses human levels of intelligence, so that it becomes impossible to predict the nature of any post-singularity intelligence or technological civilization; see Acceleration Watch website for more. Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point and Sri Aurobindo’s Supramental transformation are metaphysical equivalents. The following provides a short and no doubt incomplete potted history of the theme of evolution and transcendence. MAK110419

German Idealism: a movement in philosophy, started with Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism, centered in Germany. Many prominent exponents include Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. See also Naturphilosophie. A prequel to Darwinian evolution. (Wikipedia glossary)

In the 19th century, universal histories proliferated. Philosophers such as Kant, Schiller and Hegel, and political philosophers such as Marx, presented general theories of history that shared essential characteristics with the Biblical account: they conceived of history as a coherent whole, governed by certain basic characteristics or immutable principles. For example, Hegel presented the idea that progress in history is actually the progress not of humankind’s material existence, but of humanity’s spiritual development. Concomitantly, Hegel presented a developmental theory of how the human spirit progresses: through the dialectic of synthesis and antithesis. Marx’s theory of dialectic materialism is essential to his general concept of history: that the struggle to dominate the means of production governs all historical development. (Wikipedia)

Russian cosmism: philosophical and cultural movement that developed in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. It entailed a broad theory of natural philosophy combining elements of religion and ethics with a history and philosophy of the origin, evolution and future existence of the cosmos and humankind (including advanced technology and space exploration). Incorporated many ideas that would later be adapted by transhumanism. (MAK, Wikipedia)

Sri Aurobindo: (1872-1950) Indian evolutionary philosopher, yogi, and poet, who worked for freedom from British rule before giving up politics and developing his own vision of human progress and spiritual evolution. Together with his co-worker the French mystic Mirra Alfassa he taught the evolution of consciousness culminating in the emergence of a future supramental species and transformation of the world (in this context, the technological singularity is a naturalist equivalent). His ideas have some intriguing parallels with those of Teilhard de Chardin, and he integrated evolutionary thinking with Eastern philosophy the way Teilhard synthesised evolution with Christianity. Neither rejected Darwinism, although in contrast to theistic evolution, both understood evolution panentheistically as the emergence of the Divine out of matter (rather than separate from and above matter). MAK110419

Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky: (1863-1945) Ukrainian interdisciplinary scientist; the father of Russian ecology. He helped establish the fields of geochemistry, biogeochemistry, and of radiogeology. His ideas of noosphere were an important contribution to Russian cosmism. His 1926 book The Biosphere developed Eduard Suess’ earlier 1885 concept of the biosphere into the idea of life as a geological force, similar to James Lovelock’s Gaia theory. This is very different to the watered down biosphere of popular thought which is nothing but a mere envelope clinging to the surface of the planet (Teilhard also seems to describe the biosphere in this way, as an envelope). He also developed the idea of the noosphere, which he interpreted as the third stage in the earth’s development, mind as a geological force; here we see obvious parallels with transhumanism. Vernadsky influenced Teilhard de Chardin and no doubt vice-versa, when they met in Paris when he Vernadsky was lecturing at the Sorbonne in Paris, although Vernadsky’s theory of Earth evolution was purely materialistic, in contrast to Teilhard’s Panentheism. (MAK, Wikipedia)

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre: (1881-1955) French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of both Piltdown Man and Peking Man. Teilhard conceived the idea of the Omega Point and developed the concept of Noosphere. He came into conflict with the Catholic Church, and several of his books were censured. His primary work The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He saw no contradiction between Darwinism and Theism, rejected traditional interpretations of a supernatural creator and creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a panentheistic teleology. Teilhard envisaged the “within” (consciousness) and the “without” (matter) as complementary, each subject to its own evolutionary principle, which he called radial and tangential energy respectively. The former corresponds to the ascent of consciousness and evolution to divinity, the latter to evolution as described by Darwinian science. To this day, Teilhard remains one of the very few individuals whose work seamlessly integrates both evolutionary science and theistic religion, not in a dualistic supernatural context of theistic evolution, but in a holistic and pantheistic manner.

Although the two never met, and neither knew of the other’s work, Teilhard’s ideas have some intriguing parallels with those of Sri Aurobindo (although in terms of W.C. Snow’s “Two Cultures”, Teilhard arrives at spirituality from the perspective of the sciences, Aurobindo from the humanities). His ideas are also very similar to those of A. N. Whitehead, both beings strongly influenced by Henri Bergson. Seems to have been one of the very few who integrated the “Two Cultures”. Teilhard’s cosmology, but not his strict anthropocentrism, have been strongly influential in the New Age movement, Transhumanism, the Universe Story, Integral Theory, and other contemporary advocates of evolution of consciousness, while his term complexification has been adopted by contemporary systems science.

Omega point: in Teilhard de Chardin’s pantheistic evolutionary theology, the personal and transcendent state of maximum complexification, towards which the Earth is evolving, and associated or identified with Christ; the end of history, or of history as we know it. Enormously influential (generally second or third hand) on the new age movement. Similar to Sri Aurobindo’s independently arrived at but more radical concept of Supramental transformation, and the Transhumanist Singularity (perhaps direct or indirect influence re the history of ideas). The mathematical physicist and cosmologist Frank J. Tipler developed a materialistic “hard science” version of Teilhard’s Omega Point.

Teilhard’s work has been strongly criticised by Stephen Jay Gould. For Teilhard, evolution tends to greater complexity and consciousness; for Gould, there is no such thing as ascent or progress, only random natural selection. While Teilhard’s strong teleological approach is anathema to mainstream naturalist science (with a few exceptions such as Conway Morris) Gould’s equally extreme but diametrically opposite blanket denial that evolution results in the emergence of greater complexity hasn’t fared much better; as well as being contrary to the findings of systems theory it is mostly also rejected even by other evolutionists. MAK110419

Transhumanism is emergent philosophy analysing or favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition. Dr. Robin Hanson describes it as “the idea that new technologies are likely to change the world so much in the next century or two that our descendants will in many ways no longer be ‘human’.” See also conscious evolution, singularity.(Wikipedia glossary)

Influences, precursors, and early developments can be found in the philosophy of Nietzche (the Superman who surpasses the current human species), the Russian Cosmism of Nikolai Fyodorov, the cosmology of Teilhard de Chardin, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane’s 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology, speculations on space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement by J. D. Bernal, futurologist FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, computer scientist Marvin Minsky, who wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s, the Alcor Life Extension Foundation of California, which froze recently deceased subscribers in the 1980s in the hope they would be revived by a future ultra-tech civilization, and the work of Eric Drexler, who in 1986 published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. In the late 1980s Max More and Tom Morrow (such eccentric names are not unusual here!) created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, called Extropianism and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism. Since then, many other forms of Transhumanism have emerged, including Posthumanism, Postgenderism, Singularitarianism, Technogaianism, Buddhist and Christian Transhumanism, and more. (From Wikipedia)

Integral to transhumanism is the idea of the Technological singularity, which refers to the postulated near-future emergence of greater-than human intelligence. The term was coined by mathematician and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes for the singularity. Since the capabilities of such an intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which the future becomes difficult to understand or predict. Nevertheless, proponents of the singularity typically anticipate such an event to precede an “intelligence explosion”, wherein superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds. The concept is popularized by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and widely expected by proponents to occur in the early to mid twenty first century. (From Wikipedia)

Of course, it could be argued that in describing accelerating change, the transhumanists haven’t taken into account the sigmoid shape of the logistic growth curve, as shown on the right (diagram from John Wilkins’ Evolving Thoughts blog). However if the growth curve does indeed go all the way back to the Big Bang, I find it unlikely that after thirteen billion years it the curve would just coincidentally flatten out in the next few decades. A stronger objection is that these sort of exponential cosmic growth curves are simply an artifact of logarithmic time; the closer to the present an event is, the more we know of it, and hence the more information (and record of change) there is. However, even if this is the case, this still does not negate the fact that the cosmos seems to organise itself in progressively more complex configurations of matter and consciousness, as observed by Teilhard, Erich Jantsch, and others. MAK111014

The value of Transhumanism, Singularitanism, and other such speculations is that they point to a possible future direction that post-biological and post-human evolution might take, a new kingdom of life or threshold of increasable complexity. Such speculations are a popular element in contemporary science fiction, especially “hard science” writers such as Greg Egan, Alastair Reynolds, and Charles Stross. Interestingly, these themes tie in with early twentieth century visionary metaphysical ideas such as the Omega Point of Teilhard de Chardin and the Supramental transformation of Sri Aurobindo. If 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution have brought us this far, this is a possible and very optimistic glimpse of the future. Of course, the human experiment might just as likely end with a whimper or a bang in an anthropogenic sixth extinction. (MAK110716)

images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?

page MAK110419, MAK111014, edited RFVS111203

More:
Singularity (Posthuman transcension) – Palaeos

The Age of Cryptocurrency | How Bitcoin and Digital Money …

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on The Age of Cryptocurrency | How Bitcoin and Digital Money …
Dec 172015
 

On Wednesday night, Feb. 11, we were part of a special night at the Museum of American Finance on Wall Street, a discussion on digital currency and the future of finance featuring former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers that took a look at the ways in which bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are going to effect, and be absorbed and adapted by, the financial system.

Nearly 300 people (the event sold out very quickly) filled the museums main exhibition hall to hear Summers, us, and a panel of experts talk about the future of finance, and digital currencys place in that future.

The museum occupies the old Bank of New York headquarters, a grand old Greek revival building on the corner of Wall and Williams street, a block away from Federal Hall and the New York Stock Exchange. That location and history made for a dramatic backdrop to what was decidedly a 21st century night of questions and discussions.

The media coverage ranged from the mainstream New York Times, which took a very straightforward angle with this write-up of Summers comments, to this decidedly cynical take from Animal New York. On Wednesday night, the Establishment wasnt afraid, Peter Yeh wrote. It was excited. Its members swarmed the CEOs after the panel ended to exchange business cards. Nothing is more traditional finance than that.

There was something to that take. This was one of the first times, if not the first, that the upstart cryptocurrency world met the staid traditional finance world on its own turf, and engaged it on its own terms. The night was less about disruption and more about evolution, and it seemed to us at least that at some point soon, theres going to be something in the museum to represent bitcoin, something that extends the line of history just one step further.

Continue reading

Publication Day!

Jan. 27 has arrived, and with it, the publication of The Age of Cryptocurrency (and a massive blizzard thats about to dump two feet of snow on the east coast, but thats another story). We are extremely excited to have finally made it to this day. The reception so far has been really quite positive, and were anxious to see how the book does now that its on bookshelves.

Our weekend essay in the Wall Street Journal is a good primer on the promise of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, if you havent read the book yet. It will give you a taste of the direction were going in.

Also over the weekend, the Washington Post gave the book a very strong review. To their ample credit, Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey, veteran Wall Street Journal reporters, resist the common temptation to hype their trendy subject, the finance writer Daniel Gross said. Theyve written a reported explainer that patiently documents bitcoins rise, acknowledges its flaws and highlights its promise. Smart and conscientious, The Age of Cryptocurrency is the most thorough and readable account of the short life of this controversial currency.

Heres an excerpt from our Journal essay:

No digital currency will soon dislodge the dollar, but bitcoin is much more than a currency. It is a radically new, decentralized system for managing the way societies exchange value. It is, quite simply, one of the most powerful innovations in finance in 500 years.

If applied widely to the inner workings of our global economy, this model could slash trillions in financial fees; computerize much of the work done by payment processors, government property-title offices, lawyers and accountants; and create opportunities for billions of people who dont currently have bank accounts. Great value will be created, but many jobs also will be rendered obsolete.

Continue reading

The book doesnt arrive for another two weeks, but today we published our trailer on YouTube. For this, we performed a relatively simple experiment: we went out into Times Square, and asked people, what is bitcoin? You can see for yourself what they said.

Yes, that is Mike Casey making an ever so brief cameo toward the end.

The Economist this week came out with its review of The Age of Cryptocurrency, saying, essentially, that its a serious book worth reading, one that digs deep into the reasons that bitcoin is significant as a topic, beyond all the manic stuff you read in the media.

Heres a clip, though wed recommend reading the whole thing:

For any book on bitcoin to be worth reading, though, it has to delve further: into the crypto-currencys ideological and technical roots, for instance, or what it adds to the narrative of money, or even what its economic and political impact may be. The currencys dollar price may be three-quarters down on its peak, but the underlying technology also provides plenty of intellectual fodderand is unlikely to go away. So there is plenty to write about if you are serious.

Paul Vigna and Michael Casey, two journalists at the Wall Street Journal, are certainly serious.

The tone is somewhat dismissive of bitcoin (The rise and fall of the crypto-currency is good news for authors at least), and it treats some of the other bitcoin books out there harshly. But it does highlight many of the big-picture issues we explore: the debate about the nature of money, and where cryptocurrencies lie within that; the potential to bootstrap the unbanked into the modern world, a slow-rolling revolution in finance. All in all, its a very positive review and were really pleased to get our first notice from such an august name.

Mike and I both received our first copies of the U.K. version of our book in the mail today, from our publisher The Bodley Head.

Our editor at Bodley Head, Stuart Williams, cut the title down to simply Cryptocurrency, (you can see the Random House page here) but otherwise its the same book. And, yes, that is a bullet on the cover. They really went for a statement with the title and imagery, which we like.

Weve seen a couple of the galleys of our U.S. edition, but this is the first actual copy Ive had in my hands. We put in an awful lot of work between the day we signed the contract and today. It feels very good to have the book arrive, to see the culmination of all that work here sitting next to me.

Here is the book on Amazons U.K. site. One nice little touch on the dust jacket is that they priced it in pounds, and bitcoin.

Cryptocurrency is available in the U.K. beginning Jan. 29 (and Jan. 27 here in the U.S.)

Publishers Weekly gave The Age of Cryptocurrency a starred review; heres what they had to say:

While many readers understandably have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept of non-government-backed currency, journalists Casey (Ches Afterlife) and Vigna, who blog about cryptocurrency at the Wall Street JournalsMoneyBeat blog, here use their considerable expertise to make the Bitcoin phenomenon accessible.

They take a thorough, multidisciplinary approach to the topic, including a fascinating examination of the origin of money. The authors are appropriately cautious, warning that despite increased public awareness of Bitcoin, it remains a niche product, and the jury is still out on how far and how quickly it and other digital currency will spread.

However, newcomers will gain a better understanding of the revolutionary potential of digital currency, especially for the roughly 2.5 billion people from Afghanistan to Africa to even America who have been shut out of the modern finance system. And the explication of the non-currency applications of the concepts behind Bitcoinsuch as tamper-proof records of verified informationwill be valuable to any reader. Agent: Gillian McKenzie, Gillian McKenzie Agency. (Jan.)

Anyone who doubts that bitcoin and its imitators are at the early stage of altering fundamentally the global payments systemif not the nature of money itselfwill find it difficult to resist Michael Casey and Paul Vignas admirably clear and judicious account. If the word blockchain makes you want to call a plumber, or if you think Satoshi is some kind of raw fish, you need to read The Age of Cryptocurrency today. If youre already a bit-convert, youll still learn a lot. Niall Ferguson, author of The Ascent of Money

Anyone who views bitcoin as a voodoo concept must read this totally comprehensible narrative outlining the history of money and how bitcoin might become a new and better currency. For those confused by bitcoin concepts, this clearheaded and readable book sets forth credible reasons why bitcoin might or might not be an evolving economic miracle. Arthur Levitt, 25th Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission

An invaluable book: a fascinating field guide to the phenomenon in which three of the most powerful forces shaping our world todaythe reform of finance, technological innovation, and the rejection of traditional politicsmeet. Felix Martin, author of Money: The Unauthorized Biography

The Age of Cryptocurrency not only demystifies and explains bitcoin, but also shows where it fits into the cultural zeitgeist and where its pointed, and what that may mean for our financial system. John Mauldin, New York Times bestselling author of Endgame

The thought-provoking Age of Cryptocurrency was a pleasure to read. The authors have successfully demystified cryptocurrencies like bitcoin so that even a traditionalist like myself can understand them and embrace their potential. And the references to money were so spot-on, they even taught this old dog some new tricks. Edmund C. Moy, 38th Director of the United States Mint, 2006-2011

Vigna and Casey unlock the mysteries of cryptocurrencies and their implications for the future of financial transactions in an engaging, lucid, and thought-provoking account. The technological developments described in this book will someday affect every one of us and I can think of no better guide to what the future holds. Eswar Prasad, author of The Dollar Trap

Even to a bitcoin skeptic like myself, Vigna and Caseys book is a fascinating journey into the cast of characters and oddballs behind the movement into the digital currency realm. Barry Ritholtz, CIO, Ritholtz Wealth Management

Thorough, multidisciplinary approach to the topic, including a fascinating examination of the origin of money newcomers will gain a better understanding of the revolutionary potential of digital currencyAnd the explication of the non-currency applications of the concepts behind Bitcoinsuch as tamper-proof records of verified informationwill be valuable to any reader. PublishersWeekly, starred review

Original post:
The Age of Cryptocurrency | How Bitcoin and Digital Money …

 Posted by at 5:43 pm  Tagged with:

Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …
Oct 032015
 

A powerful indictment of contemporary attacks on free speech, this book argues for a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence protecting even offensive types of speech. In recent years, political activists, academics, and legal specialists have attacked traditional notions of free speech protection as they concern hate speech, obscenity, and pornography. They have called for changes in Supreme Court doctrine in defining the First Amendment and have argued that the traditional view of free speech actually creates and perpetuates a society in which the weakwomen, minorities, the poorhave no voice. While recognizing their fears, Nicholas Wolfson argues that it is impossible to separate bad speech from good speech without fatally compromising the uniquely American concept of free speech, and that efforts to modify our concept of free speech for a greater egalitarian good can only result in undue state influence over private speech. In a keenly argued analysis, he finds that, in the end, the preservation of free and vigorous speech requires a strong First Amendment protection for even the most hateful of speech.

Go here to read the rest:
Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech: Nicholas Wolfson …

The Best Definition of Singularity

 The Singularity  Comments Off on The Best Definition of Singularity
Sep 082015
 

The term Singularity has many definitions.

The everyday English definition of Singularity is a noun that designates the quality of being one of a kind, strange, unique, remarkable or unusual.

For a more specific definition of Singularity we can search The Wiktionary where we get the following five Singularity definitions:

1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual 2. a point where all parallel lines meet 3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value 4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist 5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

What we are most interested in, however, is the definition of Singularity as a technological phenomenon — i.e. the Technological Singularity. Here we can also find a variety of subtly different interpretations of the definition of Singularity.

John von Neumann was quoted as saying that “the ever accelerating progress of technology … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.” His definition of the Singularity was that the Singularity is the moment beyond which “technological progress will become incomprehensively rapid and complicated.”

Vernor Vinge introduced the term Technological Singularity in his science fiction novel Marooned in Realtime(1986) and later developed the concept in his essay the Coming Technological Singularity (1993). His definition of Singularity is widely known as the event horizon thesis and in essence says that trans or post-human minds will imply a weirder future than we can imagine:

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. […] I think it’s fair to call this event a singularity. It is a point where our models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer and closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.”

I.J. Good, who greatly influenced Vinge himself, never used the term Singularity itself. However, what Vinge called Singularity Good called intelligence explosion and by that he meant a positive feedback cycle within which minds will make technology to improve on minds which once started will rapidly surge upwards and create super-intelligence. This definition of Singularity is also known as the intelligence explosion hypothesis.

Ray Kurzweil is associated with the third and most popular interpretation of the Technological Singularity, often referred to as the accelerating change thesis. In his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology Kurzweil defined the Technological Singularity as:

“… a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lifes, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself.”

Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired Magazine

Singularity is the point at which “all the change in the last million years will be superseded by the change in the next five minutes.”

James Martin, a world-renowned leading futurist, computer scientist, author, lecturer and, among many other things, the largest donor in the history of Oxford University.

Singularity “is a break in human evolution that will be caused by the staggering speed of technological evolution.”

Socrates

Since all of the above refer to the same broad occurrence, I will simply define the Technological Singularity as the event, or sequence of events, likely to occur at or after the birth of Artificial Intelligence. (especially when AI surpasses human intelligence)

If anything, it has to be clear that we really do not know what the Singularity is (or will be) so we are just using the term to show (or hide) our own ignorance.

For more on this topic check out 17 Definitions of the Technological Singularity

Do you agree or disagree with the content of this page? Do you want to improve it? Do you want to post some great singularity content of your own? Why not share it here at Singularity Symposium?!

Click below to see contributions from other visitors to this page…

THE singularitiy, not the tech one. Not rated yet I am puzzled that THE singularity is barely mentioned on this site – the singularity before which time, space, matter and energy did not exist – (not

Singuarity or Chaos?Not rated yet Perhaps it will be the time when the number of recongized, recorded & real-time shared “patterns” will be so unfathomably large that all around “us” will

Singularity And The Infinite InvisibleNot rated yet The Universe continues to expand from its point of origin (Alpha point) since its inception at the Big Bang. As such, time itself expands along with it,

D’Count Lessismore of Moran-OvaNot rated yet D&D’s take on all this is: That super AI equals human irrelevance. The soon to come very few super power leaders will voraciously control

The third factor of intelligenceNot rated yet I am thinking of a new theory. At least to me it is new. I am thinking of the point when artificial intelligence is measured as equal or greater than human

The SarkhhoobadNot rated yet Singularity is best explained by the “sarkhoobad”, a mysterious phenomenon which if unraveled would shed light on many of the difficult to explain questions

bliss to ignorance ratioNot rated yet singularity transcends human comprehension as a linear event, therefore if it occurs we will be incapable of detecting its existence. time, place and

Albert Not rated yet I agree that human evolution is heading in this direction, namely trans humanism. Earth will probably experience another extinction event, so humans should

Time TravelNot rated yet I do not believe that there is much more to be done technologically (in a vastly more incomprehensible way) than what has already transpired with the exceptions

Ananda Jaisingh, VedantinNot rated yet Singularity means Brahman, satyam gyanam anantam, brahman as it is the source of all knowledge and therefore must be conscious, without limit or boundary,

Noone ScientistNot rated yet Singularity is the initial point which everthing that exist, has existed and will exist, is acted upon by the magic magnetic first particle of matter,

singularityNot rated yet We would not be able to recognise a singularity in a future sense, we would experience the now or the present event prior to the singularity,then pass

Mr. Ronald finn.Not rated yet Singularity is where everything meets you, no matter where you are or whatever you are doing it still relates to you and only you. A single direction without

Dr.Not rated yet A singularity is a point in the future where an intelligence explosion takes place.

Splitting of the SpeciesNot rated yet Single body, many minds vs many bodies single minds. Singularity? Iit means individualism while joining with many others in a single unit. Single does

Margie Call ) artistNot rated yet If because of exponential growth, and thoughts are things it seems to me everything would get so entangled that there will be a big bang that converts

Paul BennettNot rated yet In the “Electric Kool-aid Acid Test” it is ‘said’ that you are either “on the bus” or “off the bus” in the event of a technological singularity you will

George Anstadt MD FACPMNot rated yet the Singularity: When the relentless drive of DNA to survive commands a being with the power of artificial intelligence.

Good, Bad, WeirdNot rated yet The Singularity, as defined above, is an unknown unknown. That means this whole thing is a random event. In the future there is a point, which statistically

Continuation of the Human RaceNot rated yet The essence of what we call the human race has to be evolved into a form of transmittable energy that will transcend the limits of the observable universe.

The Universal Grand IllusionNot rated yet This will be the point when the self-absorbed intellectual elites reach the apex of the Ego, becoming convinced that we have fully digested the essence

human beingNot rated yet singularity is the moment when we have the capacity to understand all knowledge from the past and from the future in the present

Click here to write your own.

Here is the original post:

The Best Definition of Singularity

 Posted by at 6:44 pm  Tagged with:

Review of Our Posthuman Future

 Posthuman  Comments Off on Review of Our Posthuman Future
Sep 072015
 

Francis Fukuyama, the well-known author of The End of History and the Last Man, takes on a subject far from his usual field of international political economy: biotechnology. Yet, in his introduction, he shows that there is indeed a link: his 1989 book met with a great deal of criticism, and one argument he found impossible to refute was that there could be no end of history unless there was an end of science. This new book takes that concept further, and considers the impact of modern biology on the understanding of politics.

Being a child of the 1950s, Fukuyama cites two books that were not only decisive in forming his worldview, and that of others growing up in the same period, but which act as templates for examining how our world might evolve. George Orwells 1984, which posits a world of centralized control, never came to be as such, partly because the Internet which developed is the opposite of the centralized system shown in this dystopia. But Aldous Huxleys Brave New World still gives us food for thought, as the biotechnology revolution gets underway. In Huxleys world, drugs were made to ensure that peoples every need and desire be met, essentially abolishing human nature. Fukuyama argues that, Huxley was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and move us into a posthuman stage of history.

Fukuyama seems worried more by the possibility that the biotech revolution will have political consequences rather than any specific effect on individuals. He sees the potential for class wars, as the rich have access to drugs and techniques that make them, and their children, smarter, stronger, and longer-living. This is indeed a different issue than the more basic moral questions than arise, and he is right to raise it. For what would happen in a world, which is already strongly polarized between haves and have-nots, when the haves not only enjoy better goods, food and living conditions, but also life, by purchasing extra years of living, new organs when the old ones break down, or by designing their children before their births.

As the floodgates of biotechnology open, there are several areas of exploration that, unfortunately, get conflated or confused. The main issues are not limited to human cloning, which has gotten by far the greatest amount of press. Other issues involve cognitive neuroscience, and the possibility of controlling behavior; neuropharmacology, and the creation of drugs that enhance certain emotions and repress others; genetic engineering, where new plants and animals can be created, or where humans can be modified; and the prolongation of life, either through the use of chemicals or transplants, or other, as yet undiscovered techniques.

What Fukuyama succeeds in showing in this book is the extent to which the biotechnology revolution can and will affect us. Far beyond the simple debate over human cloning and stem-cell research, which have led to distinct camps digging into the trenches, defending either scientific or religious beliefs, the myriad issues involvedsome of which are already present, others which may or may not exist, according to the success or failure of scientistswill have a great effect on the future of our civilization. But will the effect be greater than other revolutions, such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions? Fukuyama calls for common sense and the regulation of experiments and applications, so mistakes are not made through precipitation.

In short, this is an essential book, for two reasons. First, because its lucid, objective presentation of the issues and their context allows the reader to understand what is at stake without undue religious or racist leanings which have often, over the years, been lurking behind many of these questions. And second, because, like it or not, these issues exist, and choices will have to be made, and soon.

Kirk McElhearn

Kirk McElhearn (kirk@mcelhearn.com) is a freelance writer and translator living in a village in the French Alps. You can find out all about him at his web site, http://www.mcelhearn.com.

Read more:

Review of Our Posthuman Future

 Posted by at 7:49 am  Tagged with:

Astronomy | Define Astronomy at Dictionary.com

 Astronomy  Comments Off on Astronomy | Define Astronomy at Dictionary.com
Aug 292015
 

Contemporary Examples

Occult literally means hidden from view, which is why we use it both in astronomy and to refer to secret knowledge.

After To Die For, Affleck moved to New York and attended Columbia University for two years, majoring in physics and astronomy.

His specialty was astronomy, a subject in which he had made several major discoveries.

Cosmic ray observations are more challenging than many other forms of astronomy.

Muslims made many discoveries in mathematics, chemistry, physics, medicine, astronomy and psychology.

British Dictionary definitions for astronomy Expand

the scientific study of the individual celestial bodies (excluding the earth) and of the universe as a whole. Its various branches include astrometry, astrodynamics, cosmology, and astrophysics

C13: from Old French astronomie, from Latin astronomia, from Greek; see astro-, -nomy

Word Origin and History for astronomy Expand

c.1200, from Old French astrenomie, from Latin astronomia, from Greek astronomia, literally “star arrangement,” from astron “star” (see astro-) + nomos “arranging, regulating,” related to nemein “to deal out” (see numismatics). Used earlier than astrology and originally including it.

astronomy in Science Expand

astronomy in Culture Expand

The science that deals with the universe beyond the Earth. It describes the nature, position, and motion of the stars, planets, and other objects in the skies, and their relation to the Earth.

astronomy in the Bible Expand

The Hebrews were devout students of the wonders of the starry firmanent (Amos 5:8; Ps. 19). In the Book of Job, which is the oldest book of the Bible in all probability, the constellations are distinguished and named. Mention is made of the “morning star” (Rev. 2:28; comp. Isa. 14:12), the “seven stars” and “Pleiades,” “Orion,” “Arcturus,” the “Great Bear” (Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31), “the crooked serpent,” Draco (Job 26:13), the Dioscuri, or Gemini, “Castor and Pollux” (Acts 28:11). The stars were called “the host of heaven” (Isa. 40:26; Jer. 33:22). The oldest divisions of time were mainly based on the observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies, the “ordinances of heaven” (Gen. 1:14-18; Job 38:33; Jer. 31:35; 33:25). Such observations led to the division of the year into months and the mapping out of the appearances of the stars into twelve portions, which received from the Greeks the name of the “zodiac.” The word “Mazzaroth” (Job 38:32) means, as the margin notes, “the twelve signs” of the zodiac. Astronomical observations were also necessary among the Jews in order to the fixing of the proper time for sacred ceremonies, the “new moons,” the “passover,” etc. Many allusions are found to the display of God’s wisdom and power as seen in the starry heavens (Ps. 8; 19:1-6; Isa. 51:6, etc.)

See the rest here:

Astronomy | Define Astronomy at Dictionary.com

 Posted by at 5:44 am  Tagged with:

Freedom (Franzen novel) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedom (Franzen novel) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aug 292015
 

Freedom is a novel by American author Jonathan Franzen. It was published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux and released on August 31, 2010.

Freedom received general acclaim from book critics, and was ranked one of the best books of 2010 by several publications.

Freedom follows several members of an American family, the Berglunds, as well as their close friends and lovers, as complex and troubled relationships unfold over many years. The book follows them through the last decades of the twentieth century and concludes near the beginning of the Obama administration.

Freedom opens with a short history of the Berglund family from the perspective of their nosy neighbors. The Berglunds are portrayed as the most ideal liberal middle-class family, and they are among the first families to move back into urban St. Paul, Minnesota, after years of white flight to the suburbs. Patty Berglund is an unusually young and pretty homemaker with a self-deprecating sense of humor; her husband Walter is a mild-mannered lawyer with strong environmentalist leanings.

They have one daughter, Jessica, and a son, Joey, who early on displays an independent streak and an interest in making money. Joey becomes sexually involved with a neighborhood teen named Connie and begins to rebel against his mother, going so far as to move in with Connie, her mother, and her mother’s boyfriend Blake, making Patty and Walter increasingly unstable. After several unhappy years, the family relocates to Washington, D.C., abandoning the neighborhood and house they worked so hard to improve. Walter takes a job with an unorthodox environmental project, tied to big coal.

The second portion of the book takes the form of an autobiography of Patty Berglund, composed at the suggestion of her therapist. The autobiography tells of Patty’s youth as a star basketball player, and her increasing alienation from her artistically inclined parents and sisters. Instead of attending an East Coast elite college like her siblings, she gets a basketball scholarship to the University of Minnesota and adopts the life of the athlete. She meets an attractive but unattainable indie rock musician named Richard Katz, and his nerdy but kind roommate, Walter Berglund. After her basketball career-ending knee injury, Patty suddenly becomes desperate for male affection, and after failing to woo Richard, she settles down with Walter, who had been patiently courting her for more than a year. We learn that Patty retained her desire for Richard and eventually had a brief affair with him at the Berglunds’ lakeside cabin.

The novel then jumps ahead to New York City in 2004 and shifts to the story of Walter and Patty’s friend Richard, who has finally succeeded in becoming a minor indie rock star in his middle age. His hit album Nameless Lake tells the story of his brief love affair with Patty at the Berglunds’ lakeside cabin in Minnesota. Richard is uncomfortable with commercial success, throws away his new-found money, and returns to building roof decks for wealthy people in Manhattan. Walter calls him out of the blue to enlist his help as a celebrity spokesman for an environmental campaign. Walter has taken a job in Washington, D.C. working for a coal mining magnate who wants to strip mine a section of West Virginia forest before turning it into a songbird preserve of future environmental value. Walter hopes to use some of this project’s funding to hold a concert to combat overpopulation, the common factor behind all his environmental concerns, and he believes that Richard will be able to rally well-known musicians to his cause. Meanwhile, Walter’s marriage to Patty has been deteriorating steadily, and his pretty young assistant Lalitha has fallen deeply in love with him.

In parallel, the Berglunds’ estranged, Republican son Joey attempts to finance his college life at the University of Virginia by taking on a dubious subcontract to provide spare parts for outdated supply trucks during the Iraq War. While at college, he marries his childhood sweetheart but dares not tell his parents. After visiting his roommate’s family in the DC suburbs, he also pursues his friend’s beautiful sister Jenna and is exposed to her father’s Zionist, neoconservative politics. After months of pursuing Jenna, when she finally wants him to have sex with her, he cannot maintain an erection. Later he becomes conflicted after making $850,000 selling defective truck parts to military suppliers in Iraq. In the end Joey gives away the excess proceeds of his profiteering, reconciles with his parents, settles down with Connie, and moves into a sustainable coffee business with the help of his father Walter.

Now, Richard’s re-appearance destroys Walter and Patty’s weakening marriage. Richard tries to convince Patty to leave Walter, but she shows Richard the autobiography she wrote as “therapy”, trying to convince him that she’s still in love with Walter. Richard deliberately leaves the autobiography on Walter’s desk, and Walter reads Patty’s true thoughts. Walter kicks Patty out of the house, and she moves to Jersey City to be with Richard, but the relationship only lasts six months. Later, she moves to Brooklyn alone and takes a job at a private school, discovering her skill for teaching younger children. When Patty leaves him, Walter has a catharsis on live television, revealing his contempt for the displaced West Virginian families and his various commercial backers. Local rednecks respond by dragging him from the platform and beating him up. He is promptly fired by the environmental trust, but his TV debacle makes him a viral video hero to radical youth across the nation. He and his assistant Lalitha become lovers and continue their plans to combat overpopulation through a concert to rally young people in the hills of West Virginia. Lalitha is killed in a suspicious car accident a few days before the concert is due to take place. Shattered, and having lost both of the women who loved him, Walter retreats to his family’s lakeside vacation house back in Minnesota. He becomes known to a new street of neighbors as a cranky old recluse, obsessed with house cats killing birds nesting on his property.

After a few years living in Brooklyn, Patty’s father dies and she is forced to settle the fight that erupts within her family of spoiled bohemians as they attempt to split up the much-diminished family fortune. This experience helps Patty to mature. After a few years of living alone, she appraises the emptiness of her life and honestly faces her advancing age. She decides to hunt down Walter, the only man who had ever really loved her. She drives to the lakeside cabin in Minnesota, and despite his rage and confusion, he eventually agrees to take her back. The book ends in 2008 as they leave as a couple to return to Patty’s job in New York City, after turning their old lakeside vacation home into a cat-proof fenced bird sanctuary, named in memory of Lalitha.

After the critical acclaim and popular success of his third novel The Corrections in 2001, Franzen began work on his fourth full-length novel. When asked during an October 30, 2002 interview on Charlie Rose how far he was into writing the new novel, Franzen replied:

I’m about a year of frustration and confusion into it…Y’know, I’m kind of down at the bottom of the submerged iceberg peering up for the surface of the water…I don’t have doubt about my ability to write a good book, but I have lots of doubt about what it’s going to look like.[1]

Franzen went on to suggest that a basic story outline was in place, and that his writing of the new novel was like a “guerilla war” approaching different aspects of the novel (alluding to characters, dialogue, plot development etc.).[1] Franzen also agreed that he would avoid public appearances, saying that “…getting some work done is the vacation” from the promotional work surrounding The Corrections and How To Be Alone.[1]

An excerpt entitled “Good Neighbors” appeared in the June 8 and June 15, 2009 issues of The New Yorker.[2] The magazine published a second extract entitled “Agreeable” in the May 31, 2010 edition.[3]

On October 16, 2009, Franzen made an appearance alongside David Bezmozgis at the New Yorker Festival at the Cedar Lake Theatre to read a portion of his forthcoming novel.[4][5] Sam Allard, writing for North By Northwestern website covering the event, said that the “…material from his new (reportedly massive) novel” was “as buoyant and compelling as ever” and “marked by his familiar undercurrent of tragedy”.[5] Franzen read “an extended clip from the second chapter.”[5]

On March 12, 2010, details about the plot and content of Freedom were published in the Macmillan fall catalogue for 2010.[6]

In an interview with Dave Haslam on October 3, 2010 Franzen discussed why he had called the book Freedom:

The reason I slapped the word on the book proposal I sold three years ago without any clear idea of what kind of book it was going to be is that I wanted to write a book that would free me in some way. And I will say this about the abstract concept of ‘freedom’; it’s possible you are freer if you accept what you are and just get on with being the person you are, than if you maintain this kind of uncommitted I’m free-to-be-this, free-to-be-that, faux freedom.[7]

Freedom received general acclaim from book critics, particularly for its writing and characterization. Shortly after the book’s release, the front cover of a TIME magazine issue showed a picture of Franzen above the words “Great American Novelist,” making him the first author to appear on the front cover in a decade.

Sam Tanenhaus of The New York Times and Benjamin Alsup of Esquire believed it measured up to Franzen’s previous novel, The Corrections. Tanenhaus called it a “masterpiece of American fiction,” writing that it “[told] an engrossing story” and “[illuminated], through the steady radiance of its authors profound moral intelligence, the world we thought we knew.”[8] Alsup called it a great American novel. “[9] In The Millions, Garth Risk Hallberg argued that readers who enjoyed The Corrections would enjoy Freedom. He also wrote that they’re “likely to come away from this novel moved in harder-to-fathom waysand grateful for it.”[10] An editor for Publishers Weekly wrote that it stood apart from most modern fiction because “Franzen tries to account for his often stridently unlikable characters and find where they (and we) went wrong, arriving atincrediblygenuine hope.”[11]

Benjamin Secher of The Telegraph called Franzen one of America’s best living novelists, and Freedom the first great American novel of the “post-Obama era.”[12] In The Guardian, Jonathan Jones called him “a literary genius” and wrote that Freedom stood on “a different plane from other contemporary fiction.”[13]

Michiko Kakutani called the book “galvanic” and wrote that it showcased Franzen’s talent as a storyteller and “his ability to throw open a big, Updikean picture window on American middle-class life.” Kakutani also praised the novel’s characterization, going on to call it a “compelling biography of a dysfunctional family and an indelible portrait of our times.”[14]The Economist wrote that the novel contained “fully imagined characters in a powerful narrative.” The reviewer went on to say that it had “all its predecessor’s power and none of its faults.”[15]

Not all reviews were raving. Most lukewarm reviews praised the novel’s prose, but believed the author’s left-wing political stance was too obvious. Sam Anderson, in a review for New York magazine, thought the characterization was strong, but perceived the politics as sometimes too heavy-handed: “Franzen the crankmighty detester of Twitter, ATVs, and housing developments” occasionally “overpower[s] Franzen the artist […] but if crankiness is the motor that powers Franzen’s art, I’m perfectly willing to sit through some speeches.”[16]Ron Charles of The Washington Post also felt less favorably, remarking that it lacked the wit and “[freshness]” of The Corrections. Charles praised Franzen’s prose and called him “an extraordinary stylist,” but questioned how many readers would settle for good writing as “sufficient compensation for what is sometimes a misanthropic slog.”[17] In addition, Ruth Franklin of The New Republic believed the novel resembled a “soap opera” more than it did an epic, and that Franzen had forgotten “the greatest novels must […] offer […] profundity and pleasure.”[18]

Alexander Nazaryan criticized its familiarity in the New York Daily News remarking that the author “can write about a gentrifying family in St. Paul. Or maybe in St. Louis. But that’s about it. Nazaryan also didn’t believe Franzen was joking when he suggested “being doomed as a novelist never to do anything but stories of Midwestern families.”[19]Alan Cheuse of National Public Radio found the novel “[brilliant]” but not enjoyable, suggesting that “every line, every insight, seems covered with a light film of disdain. Franzen seems never to have met a normal, decent, struggling human being whom he didn’t want to make us feel ever so slightly superior to. His book just has too much brightness and not enough color.”[20]

Ross Douthat of First Things praised the “stretches of Freedom that read like a master class in how to write sympathetically about the kind of characters” with an abundance of freedom. Yet, Douthat concluded the novel was overlong, feeling the “impression that Franzen’s talents are being wasted on his characters.”[21]

Freedom won the John Gardner Fiction Award. Additionally, it was a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award for Fiction. The American Library Association also named it a notable fiction of the 2010 publishing year.

Oprah Winfrey made Freedom her first book club selection of 2010, saying, “this book is a masterpiece.”[22][23] US President Barack Obama called it “terrific” after reading it over the summer.[24]

See the original post:
Freedom (Franzen novel) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 5:42 am  Tagged with:

Illuminati – RationalWiki

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati – RationalWiki
Aug 232015
 

The Illuminati, originally called The Order of Perfectibilists, was a small freethinker society founded in 1776 in Bavaria by a man named Adam Weishaupt. Among the group’s goals were the opposition of prejudice, superstition, and abuse of political power. In the universe that rational people agree to recognize as reality, the Illuminati ceased to exist in 1787, when Karl Theodor, Prince-Elector of Bavaria, had the group banned for conduct inciting people to rebel against state authority after some of the organization’s writings were intercepted.

In the parallel universe where the likes of Henry Makow and David Icke hang their hats (and the snakes living therein), they not only have continued to exist, but have developed such enormous capacity for secrecy, power, and control that the complete absence of evidence for their existence, power, and control …proves their existence, power, and control.

The spread of the Illuminati legend and continued belief in them today can be traced back to the book Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robinson, a 1798 anti-Freemasonry book (the Freemasons and Illuminati are often regarded as one and the same by conspiracy theorists). Proofs of a Conspiracy has become a source of inspiration to many conspiracy theorists since its initial publication and has been reprinted by, among others, the John Birch Society. Many modern variations of the Illuminati conspiracy have them being a controlling influence in the New World Order. Another influential series was Mmoires pour Servir a l’Histoire du Jacobinisme by Abb Augustin de Barruel (1799).

The alleged continued existence of the “Illuminati” looms large in many conspiracy theories, tall tales by evangelical Satanic Panic-fakers like Mike Warnke and John Todd, crank anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic writings, pseudolaw theories, etc. Depending on which version of the “Illuminati” story one believes, they are either a Satanic, Masonic, Zionist, atheist, reptilian,[2] or secular financial conspiracy. Despite the many different versions of the conspiracy, each version claims to have evidence that they are correct. They secretly control world events and their symbol, the all-seeing eye, is on the back of the U.S. $1 bill. This belief, in whatever version, is patently ridiculous but it persists. When the Founding Fathers designed the Great Seal, the all-seeing eye was proposed by members of design committees who were not Freemasons (since conspiracy theorists regard Freemasons and the Illuminati to be practically the same). It was also not named the “all-seeing eye,” as the cranks believe, but rather the “eye of providence,”[3][4] a symbol for God[5].

Several 20th century conspiracy theory books such as those by William Guy Carr and Des Griffin combined John Robinson’s allegations about the Illuminati and Freemasonry with those of the hoax book, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, to come up with an explicitly anti-Semitic version of the Illuminati theory. Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera on the other hand promoted an anti-Roman Catholic variant of the theory, alleging the Illuminati was a creation of the Vatican.

Pat Robertson’s version, on the other hand, is just plain weird since it somehow touches on both the French Revolution and gay marriage.[6]

Robertson, it seems, has company among other theocratic media weirdos personalities. Rick Wiles is under the impression that the Illuminati is not only linked to the 9/11 attacks but that the new One World Trade Center is actually a tribute to what he terms the “Free Mason/Illuminati New World Order.”[7]

Mike Warnke and John Todd, mentioned above, are two fake “ex-Satanist” Protestant evangelists. They have both described the Illuminati as the highest level of Satanism. Warnke claimed he learned of the Illuminati when attending a high-level conference of Satanists and Witches, shortly before he dropped out of Satanism to join the Navy and convert to Christianity. Todd claimed to have been a member of the Illuminati himself, which he said was a high council of druids secretly working to destroy Christianity and make witchcraft the official religion of the United States. Belief in the Illuminati as a Satanic conspiracy continues to be held by many evangelical Christians, despite both Warnke and Todd being exposed as frauds.

To the true believer, exposing them as frauds only goes to show how far the Illuminati are willing to go to malign opponents.

To this day there are many Youtube videos of people claiming to be “ex-Illuminati” members, whistleblowers, etc. The only problem is why there are so many. Why doesn’t the Illuminati take these videos down? Oh, something as simple as an auto correct of “NWO” to “NOW” in the comments section will make people say the Illuminati doesn’t want people to know about the NWO, but they refuse to take down people who are blatantly saying they exist! Another problem is that all the stories have contradictions with each other. You would think these guys would be telling the same story, but no two stories are the same!

The Illuminati plays a role in books like Robert Anton Wilson’s Illuminatus! trilogy, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, and the joke religion of Discordianism.

It is also a kick-ass card game put out by Steve Jackson Games.

Not to mention video games that flat out depict the Illuminati as either an actual faction or even a playable one, such as Funcom’s “The Secret World”.

The Illuminati are “well-known” to be behind Hollywood[8] and the fnord Ford Motor Company.[9] It would seem that just about any organization you can name has been accused of being an Illuminati front.

They also have a “tendency” to put hidden symbols and clues to their existence around the world, and on money, for no apparent reason.[10] Nearly every popular culture icon, including television shows, politicians, musicians and any celebrity, are said to be somehow connected to the Illuminati in some way, from something as normal as a triangle[11] to a hand sign.[12][13] Maybe it’s because they want you to know their evil plans, or maybe it’s because they’re bored at their broadcasting job.[14]

Probably the best example of this would be Tupac Shakur, whose last album issued before his death, entitled The Don Killuminati: The Seven Day Theory, led to many theories.[15] The word “killuminati” (a portmanteau of the words “kill” and “Illuminati”) is interpreted as Pac saying that he is speaking out against them and killing Illuminati. The truth being that he heard about them in prison and used logic the majority of these conspiracy nuts lack, that is: “If this organisation is so secret, how the fuck does everyone know about it?”[16] There is also the claim that Tupac faked his death and will be coming back (since 2003[17])[18]. This is mainly because a while before he died, Tupac was planning on permanently changing his rap name to Makaveli after the 15-16th century writer Niccol Machiavelli.

An equally good example would be rapper Jay-Z, who is supposedly very high in the Illuminati’s hierarchy of celebrities. The hand gesture that he flashes has been cited as “proof” (in a very, very loose sense of the word) even though it’s meant to represent the diamond of Roc-a-fella Records and is thrown up as frequently as the “East” or “West” hand signs. Some has compared it to that Temple of Astarte logo.[19] He is also accused of selling his soul, amongst other things.[20] As with Tupac, theorists just turn to bullshit to prove their points, interpreting that the name of his newborn daughter, Blue Ivy, backwards (Yvi Eulb) is Latin for “Lucifer’s daughter,” even though there is nothing to imply this.[21] (Even the Church of Satan debunks this! [22] Jay Z has denied all these claims; his response to the conspiracy theorists can be heard in Rick Ross’s song “Free Mason.”[23]

It can be very difficult to find anyone who isn’t actually connected with the Illuminati. All of the claimed affiliations involve an occult symbol in a music video or photo (usually the “all-seeing eye,” the Star of David, or a Pentagram). This is most likely to get people talking and get publicity. For example, if Rihanna has a newspaper cutout that says “Princess of the Illuminati” in a music video, millions of people will go watch the video. In fact, there are even whole websites like this that are dedicated to finding pop stars who are part of the Illuminati. Basically, everyone.

Michael Jackson is a very interesting case. One faction of the conspiracy community considers him a member of the Illuminati, employed to brainwash the public. Another faction, however, says that Jackson was not a member, but actually was fighting to expose their control of the music industry and media. Jackson was supposedly killed for this very reason. Either way the theorists have all the bases covered.

Spelling Illuminati in reverse and entering it as an URL leads to the NSA website.[24] This is merely someone purchasing that domain and redirecting it to a government website as “inconclusive proof” even though anyone can do so.[25]

And finally, there is the trend of blaming the Illuminati for the death of apparently anybody with any degree of fame. This is usually explained as the assassination of those who were just about to expose the conspiracy, or as one of the Illuminati’s ritualistic, demonic “sacrifice.”[26]

Whenever so-called symbolism is refuted, the Conspiracy theorist usually says that the Illuminati “created” that refutation as a cover-up to make the symbolism less blatant.[27]

One has to wonder… If the Illuminati controlled all the media, why won’t they censor websites like PrisonPlanet and Vigilant Citizen? There are whole websites dedicated to “exposing” the Illuminati, but those are generally left alone!

There are many Youtube videos claiming that a popular singer like has “sold their soul” to the Devil. However, there are four major problems with this:

And the most obvious and common:

One popular type of Youtube video is to cherrypick what celebrities say in speeches, and shoehorn the Illuminati into it, even when the Illuminati have nothing to do with what they’re saying.[29]

If the UN even ACKNOWLEDGES a music video, then, that video is Illuminati.[30]

Celebrities are getting a lot of attention from this, so they’re getting less and less subtle with the imagery. Rihanna went as far as to have a music video with the words “Illuminati Princess”, and of course Mark Dice caught on to this before anyone else.[31] Lady Gaga is taking advantage of it to the point where she is starting to claim she’s having dreams about the Illuminati: though what she is exactly dreaming about varies.[32][33] Celebs are even going so far as to use terms such as “I swear to Lucifer” instead of “I swear to God”[34] and Katy Perry jokes about selling her soul to the Devil.[35]

When Amy Winehouse was killed, CTs made a big deal of how she made joke of refusing to “be molded into a triangle” in her last interview.[36] Of course, coincidences happen all the time, so this isn’t exactly proof on its own.

Often, theories will be made of symbolism over speculation. For example when Kim Kardashian was undecided on what to name her baby, everyone decided to throw in their shoehorning.[37] Only, they were blatantly wrong and didn’t even get the name right.

The Deus Ex series of games feature the Illuminati, though they are constantly fighting other shadowy organizations at the same time like the UN New World Order, or the Knights Templar, or a Corporate Takeover of Earth or something, or FEMA death camps (or were those run by the Illuminati?).

Unsurprisingly, whenever anyone tries to show evidence against the Illuminati, or refute bogus evidence for the Illuminati, said person is called a shill to spread disinformation,[citationneeded] or that the evidence against them was created by the Illuminati to keep people from believing they exist. This makes the theory unfalsifiable.

Youtube is the only website where you can blow the whistle and expose The Powers That Be without worrying about being assassinated. Due to this, it is advised that you only use Youtube[38] as a source, as you don’t have to worry about misinfo.

Seriously, though… Youtube is a horrible place to get evidence for… well, anything. It’s probably THE largest repository of crank videos, despite the fact that Google is often accused of being in the cahoots with the Illuminati. It’s a great place to find Conspiracy Documentaries and even lower-quality homemade ones. Some are as little as two-minute long montages of Mainstream Media[39], most stretch across about three hours of content, and a select few can be tens of hours long!

The bad thing about Youtube is that it actually gives nutjobs a way to get to otherwise sane, yet weak-minded skeptics. The type of “evidence” can range from a celebrity almost as crazy as them claiming the Illuminati Exist[40], those celebrities siblings claiming the same[41], and pretty much everything else. Expect every interview by the POTUS/Google/UN to be quote-mined, and expect a shitton of Illuminati whistleblowers too (And every other Conspiracy Theory too, actually).

Yes, these people can be fun to watch sometimes, but dear god, please tread lightly, don’t stay for too long, and make sure you aren’t logged in if you absolutely must watch these videos. And you’ll probably be better off if you steer clear from the comments, but that generally applies to any Youtube video that has comments anyway.

Continue reading here:
Illuminati – RationalWiki

Freedomtexas.org – Texas Secession, Texas independence …

 Freedom  Comments Off on Freedomtexas.org – Texas Secession, Texas independence …
Aug 172015
 

TEXANS, ITS TIME SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH

I know that this article will catch lots of grief and criticism, but I and millions of Texans are fed up with the rhetoric, misleading reporting, and just plain naivete or stupidity of the press in the handling of Obama and the present Islamist situation we have in this world.

Every day we actually watch the truth of the Muslim world on TV. My God, when you see it, how can you not believe it? Radical Islam has declared war worldwide! Now, from Bill OReilly to our local news reporters, everyone – including the retired generals interviewed about the subject – all say the same thing: We cannot understand why Obama does not do more about the violence from Islamist radicals. We dont understand why Obama will not engage. Why does Obama want to raise taxes and continue to write mandates through executive orders that harm America? All I hear is that he is a good family man, and nice guy, and maybe he just doesnt understand.

Fellow Texans, he not only understands, but he knows exactly what he is doing! Did you read his book Dreams From My Father? He hates America! He hates a red Texas. He is a supporter of the Muslim religion. He orchestrated the Arab Spring and covered it up with a move for democracy. Those countries wouldnt know democracy if they stepped in it! It was a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, and was supported by Obama. The political correctness and nice guy reporting must stop, and people better wake the hell up because we are sliding into a cesspool that we will never get out of.

Obama is a socialist, Islamist apologist, America-hating radical who is pulling off what he told all of us when he got elected the first time: We will fundamentally change America. Can everyone wake up and see that he is doing exactly that?

To the Governor of Texas, the legislature in Texas, the spineless Congress in Washington DC: I know the majority of you only care about power, money, and your next elected office, but you damn well better start telling the truth about Obama, his administration, and his ultimate goal of destroying America, or as they say in the not listened too part of America, the you-know-what will hit the fan! We common everyday folks can see through this like a glass door and will not stay quiet any longer!

When the SHTF scenario begins – and it will – all of you from the press to the sitting elected plutcocrats will have no one to blame but yourselves. We all know that you will label patriots as home-grown terrorists, right wing radicals, Bible toting gun lovers, but, in reality, they are good people who saw through the BS of this government a long time ago; people who will not give up their freedom and liberty at any cost. It will be the People who understand that Obama and his minions are evil!

We in Texas demand of those who can make a difference: stand up! Take care of Texas by getting us out of this situation. The next two years of this administration will cause the fall of all the states and the US government, or worse yet, a civil war that will make the Civil War of 1861 look like a skirmish!

Can we return to a small government led by and founded on the God-given rights as laid out by our Founding Fathers? Will you say the truth of the real evil that runs DC now? Will you stop lying to the people who know that what you say are lies? If not, people of Texas, it is time to get off the couch, take firm action with our elected leaders, and do not surrender our beloved home, our Texas, to those that lie and refuse to act!

Deny this if you will, but most know it to be true. Those that know will be enough to change things. I believe that, because there is nothing else left to believe in anymore!

God Bless Texas, Cary Wise Freedom Texas

Visit link:
Freedomtexas.org – Texas Secession, Texas independence …

 Posted by at 5:44 pm  Tagged with:

Jeremy Benthams Attack on Natural Rights | Libertarianism.org

 Misc  Comments Off on Jeremy Benthams Attack on Natural Rights | Libertarianism.org
Jul 222015
 

June 26, 2012 essays

Smith discusses the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and why it so alarmed the defenders of natural rights.

In my last four essays, I discussed the ideas of Thomas Hodgskin. No discussion of Hodgskin would be complete without considering his great classic, The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted (1832). But in order to understand and appreciate this book, we need to know something about the doctrine that Hodgskin was criticizing, namely, the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). I shall therefore devote this essay to Bentham and then resume my discussion of Hodgskin in the next essay.

Natural-rights theory was the revolutionary doctrine of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, being used to justify resistance to unjust laws and revolution against tyrannical governments. This was the main reason why Edmund Burke attacked natural rightsor abstract rights, as he called themso vehemently in his famous polemic against the French Revolution, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Burke later condemned the French Constitution of 1791, which exhibited a strong American influence, as a digest of anarchy.

Similarly, Jeremy Bentham, in his criticism of the French Declaration of Rights (1789), called natural rights anarchical fallacies, because (like Burke) he believed that no government can possibly meet the standards demanded by the doctrine of natural rights. Earlier, a liberal critic of the American Revolution, the English clergyman Josiah Tucker, had argued that the Lockean system of natural rights is an universal demolisher of all governments, but not the builder of any.

The fear that defenders of natural rights would foment a revolution in Britain, just as they had in America and France, alarmed British rulers, causing them to institute repressive measures. It is therefore hardly surprising that natural-rights theory went underground, so to speak, during the long war with France. Even after peace returned in 1815 a cloud of suspicion hung over this way of thinking. Natural rights were commonly associated with the French Jacobins Robespierre and others who had instigated the Reign of Terror so a defender of natural rights ran the risk of being condemned as a French sympathizer, a Jacobin, or (worst of all) an anarchist.

Thus did British liberalism don a new face after 1815, as an atmosphere of peace resuscitated the movement for political and economic reforms, and as many middle-class liberals embraced a non-revolutionary foundation for economic and civil liberties. The premier theory in this regard, which would become known as utilitarianism, was developed by Jeremy Bentham and popularized by his Scottish protg James Mill (the father of John Stuart Mill) and by many other disciples.

Bentham did not originate the utilitarian principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number; we find similar expressions in a number of eighteenth-century philosophers, such as Hutcheson, Helvetius and Beccaria. For our purpose, the most significant feature of Benthams utilitarianism was its unequivocal rejection of natural rights.

Natural rights, according to Bentham, are simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts So-called moral and natural rights are mischievous fictions and anarchical fallacies that encourage civil unrest, disobedience and resistance to laws, and revolution against established governments. Only political rights, those positive rights established and enforced by government, have any determinate and intelligible meaning. Rights are the fruits of the law, and of the law alone. There are no rights without lawno rights contrary to the lawno rights anterior to the law.

The significance of Bentham does not lie in his advocacy of social utility, or the general welfare, or the common goodfor this idea, by whatever name it was called, was regarded by many earlier classical liberals as the purpose of legislation, in contradistinction to its standard.

Continued here:
Jeremy Benthams Attack on Natural Rights | Libertarianism.org

 Posted by at 7:52 pm  Tagged with:

Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …
Jun 202015
 

Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting individual liberty and minimized government.[1][2] The Libertarian Party, asserts the following to be core beliefs of libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[3][4]

Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 17%- 23% of the US electorate.[5] This includes members of the Republican Party (especially Libertarian Republicans), Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and Independents.

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has spread beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, libertarian socialist intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward, and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is considered a synonym for social anarchism by the international community and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[23]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[24] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[25]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination were largely libertarian. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Original post:
Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free …

 Posted by at 7:40 pm  Tagged with:

The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom

 Misc  Comments Off on The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom
Apr 132015
 

Libertarianism the philosophy of personal and economic freedom has deep roots in Western civilization and in American history, and its growing stronger. Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the campaigns of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses have pushed millions more Americans in a libertarian direction. The Libertarian Mind, by David Boaz, the longtime executive vice president of the Cato Institute, is the best available guide to the history, ideas, and growth of this increasingly important political movement.

Boaz has updated the book with new information on the threat of government surveillance; the policies that led up to and stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis; corruption in Washington; and the unsustainable welfare state. The Libertarian Mind is the ultimate resource for the current, burgeoning libertarian movement.

He is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. The earlier edition of The Libertarian Mind, titled Libertarianism: A Primer, was described by the Los Angeles Times as a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas. His other books include The Politics of Freedom and the Cato Handbook for Policymakers.

His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate, and he wrote the entry on libertarianism at the Encyclopedia Britannica. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABCs Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNNs Crossfire, NPRs Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, The McLaughlin Group, Stossel, The Independents, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media.

Virginia: April 16 Hampden-Sydney College: The Libertarian Mind with Author David Boaz April 18 Young Americans for Liberty state convention, Blacksburg: http://www.yaliberty.org/convention/state/2015/va

Texas: April 22 Southern Methodist University: http://oneil.cox.smu.edu/events April 22 Americas Future Foundation, Dallas, TX: https://www.facebook.com/events/433923173452893/

Missouri April 30 St. Louis http://www.cato.org/events/cato-institute-policy-forum-st-louis-april July 7 or 8 Kansas City Public Library

Nevada July 8-11 FreedomFest, Las Vegas

Washington D.C. July 26 31 Washington D.C. Cato University http://www.cato.org/cato-university/2015

Read more:
The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom

 Posted by at 2:43 pm  Tagged with:

Download Analytical Use of Fluorescent Probes in Oncology Nato Science Series A PDF – Video

 NATO  Comments Off on Download Analytical Use of Fluorescent Probes in Oncology Nato Science Series A PDF – Video
Apr 112015
 



Download Analytical Use of Fluorescent Probes in Oncology Nato Science Series A PDF
Browse And Download This Book now. Download now at- http://bit.ly/1JoYLzT and Registration First.

By: Dijee Oppai

Read more here:
Download Analytical Use of Fluorescent Probes in Oncology Nato Science Series A PDF – Video

 Posted by at 6:54 am  Tagged with:

Synopsis | Tax Havens And Offshore Finance By Richard Anthony Johns – Video

 Tax Havens  Comments Off on Synopsis | Tax Havens And Offshore Finance By Richard Anthony Johns – Video
Apr 032015
 



Synopsis | Tax Havens And Offshore Finance By Richard Anthony Johns
THE SYNOPSIS OF YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =— Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9781472510273 Book Synopsis of Tax Havens and Offshore Finance by Richard Anthony Johns If you want to…

By: Tatsuru Hon

Here is the original post:
Synopsis | Tax Havens And Offshore Finance By Richard Anthony Johns – Video

Rahman holds up Rosmah as example of free speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Rahman holds up Rosmah as example of free speech
Mar 282015
 

Umno minister ignores Zunar harrassment, but cites Perkasa and Isma for ‘high blood pressure’

KUALA LUMPUR: Ignoring police actions against cartoonist Zunar, an Umno minister has held up criticism of Rosmah Mansor, the prime ministers wife, as an example of how free speech was existent in Malaysia.

Speaking at a students conference today, Abdul Rahman Dahlan said: What (is it that) you want to talk about that you cant? You want to talk about government inefficiency, corruption, scandals? You can talk about almost anything in this country, Malaysiakini reported.

In this day and age, everyone can talk, he was quoted as saying. You can even talk about the wife of the prime minister, and Rosmah has not done anything to you (in retaliation).

However, Abdul Rahman, who is housing minister, did not mention the series of police actions and frequent harrassment of political cartoonist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque), who has been one of Rosmahs most prominent critics and whose cartoon books frequently focus on Rosmah and Najib, linking them to political scandals and financial mismanagement.

In January, police seized more than 150 copies of a cartoon collection in a raid on his offices. In earlier raids, police seized more than 500 copies of his books in an action that also included bookshop raids across the country. He has also been arrested under the Sedition Act. Early this month police seized copies of his latest cartoon collection while they were being delivered to the book launch.

While also ignoring other police actions against free speech, such as arrests of activists ordered by the Inspector-General of Police based on remarks made on Twitter, Abdul Rahman also made a sarcastic response to the statements of Malay and Islamist rights pressure groups Isma and Perkasa.

He said: I think I will have high blood pressure if I think about Perkasa and Isma all the time.

Abdul Rahman then praised the prime minister, Najib Razak, and advised the students at the conference: I always believe the person you should listen to and take heed of is the prime minister himself. Nothing else matters.

Go here to see the original:
Rahman holds up Rosmah as example of free speech

 Posted by at 4:40 pm  Tagged with:

Synopsis | Travels On The Continent, Sicily, And The Lipari Islands (1829) – Video

 Islands  Comments Off on Synopsis | Travels On The Continent, Sicily, And The Lipari Islands (1829) – Video
Mar 142015
 



Synopsis | Travels On The Continent, Sicily, And The Lipari Islands (1829)
THE SYNOPSIS OF YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =— Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9781104513382 Book Synopsis of Travels on the Continent, Sicily, and the Lipari Islands (1829) by Richard Duppa…

By: Maminha Books

Read the original:
Synopsis | Travels On The Continent, Sicily, And The Lipari Islands (1829) – Video

 Posted by at 3:45 am  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism