And this surprises who exactly? Had this pole been taken in Canada the same results could be expected. The Lieberals have shown anti-Semitic attitudes before even though Jewish people have historically voted Lieberal. Go figure, eh.

So true...

This study just follows what has been occurring during the last century.

The phrase "higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals" is explained by saying that the so-called higher tolerance only applies in theory if the ideology agrees. Just ask the black people that support the GOP.

"and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party's electoral coalition". The Jews were also significantly represented in the group of Bolsheviks that staged the coup in October 1917. This did not prevent the Bolshevik come Communists from practicing anti-Semitism. The most well known was the doctors trials in the late 40s and early 50s.

I can't believe this shit is still going on.

What the hell?
People truly are insane.

Michael Ross, former Mossad officer, offers up this interesting article.

{One of the most interesting footnotes to this story is that NDP deputy leader Libby Davies' spouse, Kim Elliot, is the publisher of rabble.ca,the very same website that so stridently accuses the CBC of a "pro-Israeli bias." Watching any species of animal devour its young is never a pretty sight but in this case it's just bizarre. Interestingly, Ms. Davies is one of those ahistorical souls who believes that Israel's occupation began in 1948, the year that the UN recognized Israel as a member state and a full 19 years before the Six Day War when Jordan, Syria and Egypt "occupied" Palestine.}

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/What+really+happened+Mavi+Marmara/3159900/story.html#ixzz0r3wkGFuI

Check the CBC discussion threads any time the state of Israel is mentioned. It is truly mindless.

@Boots - thanks for a VERY informative post! I had no idea that this Kim Elliot was either Libby Davies' spouse or the head of rabble. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about the NDP - a scary amount in fact.

I'll be sharing this info and the links with everyone I know.

cheers,
Michael.

Yes, racism is brutal period. Grouping people based on assumptions and non-values period is brutal...it's everywhere though.

I'm sure if you asked 'who's to blame for a recent crime wave' you'd get a large percentage of people who said 'the blacks' or 'the latino's'.

Ask any question connected to any typical stereotype and you're gonna have a trend towards said group.

Going the next step and pointing fingers at a generalized group for pointing fingers at a generalized group (which is essentially racism too) is going even further backwards.

Hey what does common sence have to do with anything when your talking to liberano's ....it is really mind blowing that they will buy into the jewish conspiracy before holding individuals accountable for there actions it goes to show you where they are at on the scale of common sence it seems to me that everyday that passes common sence is becoming less and less common and more and more uncommon ...what are we to do when the bad out numbers the good ? just think about that for a second .

What do we do whne the actual lies become the truth where are we to turn ? who ? or what do we find clarity in you know think of a woman imprissoned and raped her whole life in a basement and nobody hears her screams or anything there is no help for her ....what becomes her truth ? is her truth to be that she is a normal person and she is doing what is right ? or does that sence of "hey something is wrong here" override her life long reality ? sorry for using an extremely sad scenario but i just thought of that woman in austria who had seven kids at the hands of her father while being trapped in a basement i can't imagine like how ...you knwo it is like everything is the jews fault ....and everything is the muslims fault i here about all kinds of attrosities committed by jews but i have no idea weather they are true or not anymore no different than the muslims (only the muzzies are easier to beleive) but still it is like one side is commiting the crimes to there own and blaming theo ther or is the other side commiting the crimes? on both sides the jewish thing is such a quagmire it is really sad it is becasue i beleive that these people are doing good but why soo much opposition why do they constantly try to takem orel and from palistine literally we can see all of these different boarders over the many decades why ? why not draw a line and there that is it ? maybe i am nieve ,buti just don't get it ....i know the muzzies want the jews' wiped off the planet for rejecting the pedophile mohamedd i know that buti am talking here . here is your boarders there now leave it alone and set up cameras or satellite servalence 24/7 if anyone touches the fence hold them to account . ahhh sorry for the rant i guess it just can't be that easy can it ! Anyway have a great night everyone i will continue to search for the truth in as many situations as my brain can handle .

Paul in calgary.

BTJ - so we're racist towards Democrats, now, by noticing that they may tend statistically towards anti-semitism? I mean, Democrat is a race!?

And doesn't that slander in your last sentence against people "(g)oing the next step and pointing fingers..." make you,like, a triple backwards "racist"? Oh dear.

(p.s. what's a "non-value"?)

@BTJ - your definition of racism is bizarre to say the least. Judaism STILL isn't a race, and neither is pointing out the Judaeophobia inherent in ossified, head-up-arse leftism.

You seem to be angling for the "Listen To Me For I Am The Voice Of Reason" award here - you're missing by a mile.

Black Mamba, you beat me to it! :D

I'm not excusing any of these Israel-hating leftists and their bigotted union thug allies, but Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Goldman-Sachs, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and Bernie Madoff did rather raise prominent Jewish names in the crisis.

Just sayin'

Clinton, Bush, and several Congresses deserve most of the blame in my opinion.

"This difference is somewhat surprising given the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals"

Why do they continue to use this talking point when all their studies, including this one, consistently show the contrary?

I have only one more thing to add: "barbecue cat."

To our american friends: Google that + "Warren Kinsella" if that doesn't ring a bell.

BTJ wrote:
"Grouping people based on assumptions and non-values period is brutal...it's everywhere though."

What does this mean? Is this a definition of racism?! And - what's a 'non-value'?

Don't we normally categorize things and people, by assumptions? Can't those assumptions be valid?

And what's wrong with 'grouping people'? We do it by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, language, education, jobs, etc.

Then, BTJ wrote: "I'm sure if you asked 'who's to blame for a recent crime wave' you'd get a large percentage of people who said 'the blacks' or 'the latino's'."

Now, that's pure speculation about a 'large percentage of people'making such a claim. But after all, if the crime wave is real; if it's gang-related; if it takes place in a particular area of the city - then, the occupants of this gang could very well be members of one ethnic group as a definitive requirement for membership. What's wrong with such accuracy?

It is hopelessly naive to reject the reality that people do 'stick together'; they feel more comfortable with people who share, for example, cultural background or language or religion and so on. This can never, nor should it be, rejected. And I don't think we are ever going to, psychologically, rid our nature of a hesitation and distancing from 'the Other'. It's basic to our biological nature.

The persistence of Jew-scapegoating seems to be bolstered by their disproportionate presence in so many fields, e.g. arts/finance/cultural/scientific/entertainment. As we all know, Jews have received about 20% of the Nobel prizes while representing, what, 1/10 of 1% of world pop.

An old friend, with whom I correspond frequently, is a consistent/persistent Israel-basher and probably an anti-semite. When I send him links to good articles, it's downright uncanny how many times he informs me of the Jewishness of the author. And when he's not sure, he googles: Melanie Phillips, for example, is a Jew.

His reaction has caused me, a Judeophile, and a generally colour-ethnicity-blind person, to become conscious of Jewish authorship and even, sometimes, to demur when the author's Jewishness is obvious.

I've scratched my head over how to get him to see that over-representation does not indicate any kind of organized movement. One analogy I tried, without success, is: blacks and basketball -- how the sport is dominated by blacks, obviously not because of any form of organization, but rather because of cultural/historial reasons.

I should know better: you can't reason someone out of a position arrived at through UN-reason.

ET

"""And what's wrong with 'grouping people'? We do it by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, language, education, jobs, etc. """"

marketing people are expert at this:-))))

EBD, You brought this topic up in a way that could be easily misconstroood.

To avoid all hear-say and suspicion, one could use a sort of formula.

First, determine the true major criminals:

GoldmanSachs for one. Ex-executives from this powerful worldwide firm hold power positions in many top US government offices.

Then determine the numbers of Jewish employees ratio holding middle and top positions.

Consider the results, along with other data over time to form an understanding of whether any one ethnic group can be singled out.

Opinions without research are unconcious bias mixed with imagination..eh?
The results would be

Then

A little typo mess at the end there.. Youse guys are smart though, so no problem.

George Orwell suggested that it was a very legitimate question as to why anti-Semitism arises in all countries where Jews reside (in numbers) though there are few living in Arab countries nowadays, and antiSemitism is rampant in most. Try being Catholic and the accusations of being priest/guilt ridden, sexually abused, etc. Truth is, it is a sin to not accept the forgiveness of God in the Catholic Church. Jews on the other hand are quite rightfully happy to accept all the accolades they receive in the arts, science, health etc., and Bernie Madoff had no compunctions about ripping of his own. Who knows the answers to all this?

"so we're racist towards Democrats, now, by noticing that they may tend statistically towards anti-semitism? I mean, Democrat is a race!?"

"your definition of racism is bizarre to say the least. Judaism STILL isn't a race"

The thinking that leads to racism is the same with any type of grouping of people based on any irrational characteristics (such as race, culture, religion)...that includes judging people based on a very general political indication...and it also includes multiculturalism. The line between Democrat and Republican...liberal and conservative are pretty blurry...especially as of late. Someone who votes Republican may have more in common with a Democrat voter than another Republican.

What does this mean? Is this a definition of racism?! And - what's a 'non-value'?"

It is the essence of racism...the collectivist thought behind racism...grouping based on non-values (which are 'characteristics' that bare no value, or values that bare no association with the person..as in the case of culture). For example, skin colour does not determine a person's values (their means of thinking, their mental capacity, their 'character'), a person born into some culture with some set of values and a rich history does not automatically bestow those values and that experience/attributes/shortcomings, etc on that person.

"And what's wrong with 'grouping people'? We do it by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, language, education, jobs, etc."

Grouping people based on assumptions (generalizations) and non-values (race, culture) supports collectivism. You're not a collectivist are you? That is what is wrong with multiculturalism and affirmative action...it re-enforces 'racism' rather than recognizing it as a non-value (thereby ignoring it).

"...if the crime wave is real; if it's gang-related; if it takes place in a particular area of the city - then, the occupants of this gang could very well be members of one ethnic group as a definitive requirement for membership. What's wrong with such accuracy?"

How does it solve the problem? What makes that grouping productive? Should be teach one culture and/or race one thing and another something else? Should we re-enforce non-value based groupings? Or should we ignore them and treat everyone like people only.

"It is hopelessly naive to reject the reality that people do 'stick together'; they feel more comfortable with people who share, for example, cultural background or language or religion and so on."

I didn't say otherwise, to the contrary, I believe I supported that statement.

"This can never, nor should it be, rejected."

No? Are you for collectivism?

"It's basic to our biological nature."

So was living in trees at some point...but we came down to the ground for the best didn't we?

larben - when are you lot going to give back that Mortara kid?

Fascinatingly, the ADL condemned Rush Limbaugh as an "anti-Semite" earlier this year for making that exact point: that Democrats are anti-Semites AND they hate bankers, so some of them will latch onto the crisis as an excuse to bash Jews.

I have to continually remind myself that not all Jews are smart...

BTJ - You are ignoring a basic fact of our species, homo sapiens. That is, that our knowledge of 'how to live' (and this doesn't mean 'the best way to live') is learned. It is not genetic.

Therefore, your comment:
"The thinking that leads to racism is the same with any type of grouping of people based on any irrational characteristics (such as race, culture, religion)..." is incorrect.

Culture, religion, etc are not 'irrational' but are the product of human reason (which is not the same as a scientific and logical process). The various forms of cultural behaviour - eg, using chopsticks vs forks; wearing various clothing styles, marriage ceremonies and so on..are products of history and shared experiences. These are not irrational in the sense of something to be rejected but are attributes that link the biological being with the rational and social being.

You write: "It is the essence of racism...the collectivist thought behind racism...grouping based on non-values (which are 'characteristics' that bare no value, or values that bare no association with the person..as in the case of culture)."

What you are ignoring is that our species is not and cannot be just 'individual', because our knowledge base is not innate but learned. That means that it is developed and stored within the GROUP. Our knowledge base is 'collective'; we have to share it with others; we exist within a collective.

To define a 'non-value' as 'a characteristic that bears no value' is of course, a tautology and not a definition. Again, what is a non-value?

Yes, culture IS associated with the individual because of that basic fact; that we learn our knowledge base. What is unique as well about the human species is that we can CHANGE our knowledge base precisely because it is not genetic but created by man.

Skin colour is not knowledge. I'm completely against multiculturalism but, at the same time, I understand that our species does not function only as an individual unit but within a group. Again, that's because our knowledge base is not genetic but learned. The individual is born into a collective, goes through the nurturance and schooling system of that collective and learns the basic knowledge base of that collective.

In our modern era, the individual is going to be exposed to multiple knowledge bases - eg, he will be aware of different religious knowledge bases, he will be aware even, of different scientific bases (Darwinian vs non-Darwinian)..and so on. But we cannot ignore that our knowledge is always a group-based dynamic - it can be challenged by individuals who come up with new ideas (the world is NOT flat) but that knowledge rests within the group and is passed on to the next generation by that group.

With regard to crime, in order to deal with a gang-related crime, you cannot treat only the individual as 'people only' but you must understand their knowledge base - of their collective. If their gang requires that they wage constant war with another gang - then you'd better understand this collective rule.

The FACT that our species functions both as an individual AND as a member of a group or a number of groups - cannot be ignored or rejected.

No, our species did not live in trees at some point. Again, a key point is that our knowledge base is not genetic; we must learn it, and that knowledge is developed within and stored within - a collective. Again, this can be many collectives: religious, cultural history, local residence, national, ...our work profession. We, as both individuals and members of a number of collectives, have to work with both 'agendas'; that of the individual and the pressures of a group.

Hey, Me No Dhimmi

You were wondering about why da jooos are so over-represented in the professions. They weren't allowed to own land and they were often forced to flee with nothing but their professions. Or, if a bunch of kids are thrown overboard and some get life jackets and some don't the few surviving kids who had no life jackets, and the next two or three generations of their kids, tend to be excellent swimmers.

"You are ignoring a basic fact of our species, homo sapiens. That is, that our knowledge of 'how to live' (and this doesn't mean 'the best way to live') is learned. It is not genetic."

I don't believe I was ignoring that whatsoever, seems I was re-enforcing that. However, the capacity for knowledge is genetic, it is the development of knowledge and how to gain knowledge that is learned.

"Culture, religion, etc are not 'irrational' but are the product of human reason (which is not the same as a scientific and logical process)."

Uh no, they are definitely not the product of man's ability to reason...they are the product of a lower level of thinking.

I can't believe you just said 'religion is the product of reason'! Religion is the product of faith, and faith is the irrational/unreasoned product of perceptions (the collection of sensory information). It is reason that took people from kneeling before the skies to flying through the sky. I'm sorry but you're ass backwards.

"The various forms of cultural behaviour - eg, using chopsticks vs forks; wearing various clothing styles, marriage ceremonies and so on..are products of history and shared experiences."

And how is 'history and shared experiences' parallel with reason? There is no group brain, no group thought...shared experiences are only what each individual takes from them. Culture is a collectivist ideal, it bestows a 'way of living' that has nothing to do with reason, the individual, or values.

Do you think that all cultures are equally good, equally good ways of living, of learning?

"These are not irrational in the sense of something to be rejected but are attributes that link the biological being with the rational and social being."

Explain how culture and religion link human beings to their 'rational being'?

"What you are ignoring is that our species is not and cannot be just 'individual', because our knowledge base is not innate but learned."

We cannot get by on our own, no...but learning is an individual process...no two people share brains, no two people share the act of learning. Rational thinking is an individual act, creating ideas happens in your brain alone. We learn from each other, but new ideas..the product of reason...come from one person.

"That means that it is developed and stored within the GROUP."

It is not stored 'within a GROUP' anymore...an example is the method of story telling by Native Americans to pass on information. That was an inferior method of storing information, clearly. We now store information outside of the group...on paper, on electronics..with the products of rational thinking. Learning is still individual.

"Again, what is a non-value?"

It is a characteristics that bares no weight on the ability for rational thinking. Race, religion, culture, age (once you are free thinking/an adult), sex, seniority (as in union position), etc. It is a label, a grouping, an unearned attribute pretending to be a value.

"I'm completely against multiculturalism but, at the same time, I understand that our species does not function only as an individual unit but within a group."

We cooperate, but we live (or should live) for ourselves, we learn as individuals, we create in our mind as individuals, we advance as individuals. There is no human language even remotely complex enough to communicate with each other the way we communicate with ourselves.

"The individual is born into a collective, goes through the nurturance and schooling system of that collective and learns the basic knowledge base of that collective."

For the most part, these days, yes...this is true. This is also why we have stagnated in regards to ingenuity, have fallen to the state of tribes fighting over a piece of the pie. That is how culture works and why it is so morally equivalent to racism...it forces the individual by birth to be accredited a set of non-values, of unearned, unsought attributes.

"different scientific bases (Darwinian vs non-Darwinian)"

By a 'non-Darwinian' scientific base are you referring to 'creationism'?

"With regard to crime, in order to deal with a gang-related crime, you cannot treat only the individual as 'people only' but you must understand their knowledge base - of their collective."

You must treat them as individuals, everyone makes decisions as an individual...gangs are a prime example of the evil of collectivism...requiring a group with non-values in common in order to feel strength.

"No, our species did not live in trees at some point."

Our SPECIES did not no, but our ancestors did. Our 'biological nature' was once to be hunter-gatherers...does that mean we must always be? Does that mean we are wrong to give that lifestyle up?

BTJ- I don't agree with that linear evolutionary theory; that the monkey evolved into the hominid.

No, our biological nature was not to be hunter-gatherers. It's not a genetic trait.
Our knowledge base in the early days of the history of our species was low and that meant that we had not developed the knowledge to domesticate plants and animals and therefore, relied only on what was already growing/living.

ET wrote: "Culture, religion, etc are not 'irrational' but are the product of human reason (which is not the same as a scientific and logical process)."

BTJ wrote: "Uh no, they are definitely not the product of man's ability to reason...they are the product of a lower level of thinking."

No, I totally disagree. I don't know what you mean by a 'lower level of thinking'. They are the result of thought, which is a reasoning. It is not scientific analysis, but it most certainly is reasoning.

Yes, religion is a result of reason, of thinking about the metaphysical. It is not an unreasoning result of physical perceptions but a logical analysis of the metaphysical realm...such as why is life finite, when did it begin; how do people live and so on.

ALL knowledge is, in large part, based on faith. We each do not empirically assert, for example, that the earth is round; that its interior is molten lava; that water is composed of two chemicals..and so on. Our knowledge base which is developed within our community, must be accepted in large part on faith rather than individual experience.

I think you have a different view of 'reason' than I do. I said that there is such a thing as scientific analysis which requires empirical observation and logic. But, you cannot ignore that our brains 'reason', i.e., consider input data, evaluate this data and decide on our actions..everyday and every hour.

No, cultures are not equal. The medieval view that illness is caused by witches is not equal to the modern view of germs. The tribal political mode is not as constructive as the civic mode.

I agree - all thinking, innovation etc, is done by individuals. There is no such thing as a 'group brain'. BUT, our knowledge is collected, evaluated, stored..within the community.

The biological being of our species cannot exist without the knowledge base developed within the collective over time. We are born with no knowledge of 'how to live'.

BTJ wrote: "It is not stored 'within a GROUP' anymore...an example is the method of story telling by Native Americans to pass on information. That was an inferior method of storing information, clearly. We now store information outside of the group...on paper, on electronics..with the products of rational thinking. Learning is still individual."

I disagree; the oral method of collection and storage of knowledge was not inferior but extremely important and remains a basic mode in our species, ..eg, in families, in the neighbourhood etc.

No, storing information on paper and electronics remains a method WITHIN the group. Our technology was developed and is used within the group.

Furthermore, the selection of 'what is knowledge' and what should be stored, and what should be learned, is an action taken by the community. The methodology isn't the point, because that stored item, eg, in the microfiche or computer, still requires interpretation and analysis.

I disagree that we live or should live for ourselves.

Your rejection of knowledge, which is always communal, is strange. How do you think the child should learn if deprived of the community?

Culture is not 'morally equivalent to racism'. Culture is a set of normative habits developed by a particular group over time in a particular geographic domain. It's usually an adaptation to a particular environment - i.e., food habits, clothing habits, even economic habits. Culture is the knowledge base of this collective and since our species is not born with knowledge, culture is necessary.

No, my rejection of Darwinism is a rejection of gradual linear evolution. I prefer punctuated equilibrium evolution and reject both random mutation and natural selection as key agents in evolution; I prefer informative anticipatory networks...a complex argument that won't be outlined in this thread!

Nope - I disagree with treating people only as individuals. You have to understand their being embedded in a collective.

I disagree with your rejection of the group, of the collective. People will always form groups; that for example, is the basic cause of neighbourhoods - where people feel a common bond with a neighbourhood and help each other out. Your focus on the individual rejects this act of neighbourliness and 'reaching out' to others to share a commonality.

Neighbourhoods for example, develop their own 'niche styles'..rather as plants and animals and birds and insects also develop their local niches and types. We humans require this group-based bonding as well as our individual freedom.

"I don't agree with that linear evolutionary theory; that the monkey evolved into the hominid."

Wow..first it's not 'linear'...second..what do you believe? And I stress BELIEVE.

"No, our biological nature was not to be hunter-gatherers. It's not a genetic trait."

Yes it is actually, we were hunter and gatherers for long enough for it to become part of our genetic make-up. Is it a coincident that the female cycle is the same length as the moon cycle?

"I don't know what you mean by a 'lower level of thinking'."

:) I won't say it. We used to only perceive, through one or more of our senses, and then react, with little to no REASONING involved. We became hunter gatherers and then farmers by learning how to use our brain, by learning how to acquire knowledge through experience, by learning how to make connections between knowledge when perceiving things, by connecting the knowledge of past experiences with the present perceptions thereby creating the first glimpse of reason. We learnt how to rationalize, analyze, predict, however, the world was still a very confusing place and we did not have a strong understanding of how to organize experiences and thoughts, how to fully reason. So, for all those things we couldn't fully reason with and explain (like the stars, fire, animals, sun and moon, seasons) we stopped at an intermediate thought process...faith. Perceiving things with our senses and not having enough know how to explain them, instead, we made irrational, unreasonable, unjustified, unprovable, yet very creative, conclusions...the gods, the animal spirit, astrological stories, etc. We are creative by nature, and we are rational and reasonable by nature...but creativity must be nurtured and encouraged and free and rational, reasonable thinking must be nurtured and built from ground up.

"Yes, religion is a result of reason"

Christianity is the result of reason? Really? Mormonism is the result of reason? REALLY? Islam is the product of reason?

"ALL knowledge is, in large part, based on faith."

Maybe yours is...if it's faith it's not really knowledge.

"Our knowledge base which is developed within our community, must be accepted in large part on faith rather than individual experience."

If you just blindly listen to statements, sure...but if you empower yourself with the ability to think, to organize knowledge in your mind, to make logical connections, to build a epistemological foundation...then you can gain knowledge, you can rationalize, you can take perceptions and draw conclusions. Otherwise everything you know must come from someone else learning, creating, discovering for the first time.

" consider input data, evaluate this data and decide on our actions..everyday and every hour."

Making choices is not 'reasoning' necessarily. One can make choices based on perceptions and not put one ounce of reasoning into the process. Reasoning is being able to take in information and make rational, logical connections to existing knowledge, and creating new thoughts and ideas, making informed decisions.

"BUT, our knowledge is collected, evaluated, stored..within the community."

You just said knowledge (learning) is individual, and they you said 'our' knowledge. There is no 'our' knowledge. There's the things you KNOW and the things I KNOW. There are information sources, which are created by individuals.

"We are born with no knowledge of 'how to live'."

And that's what makes us so special compared to animals...we are born with the ability to learn how to live...in millions of different ways...some not yet created/thought up.

"the oral method of collection and storage of knowledge was not inferior but extremely important and remains a basic mode in our species, ..eg, in families, in the neighbourhood etc."

What creations and advancements has the oral method of information storage/collection supported and what has the writing/recording method supported. What allows us to have cars, tv's, airplanes, books, newspapers, the house you're in, computers, movies, phones, and just about everything else around you?

"I disagree that we live or should live for ourselves."

Really...yet you call out 'lefties', and are against multiculturalism? Who should we live for? For others? for the collective?

"Your rejection of knowledge"

What ARE you talking about? I'm doing the opposite of rejecting knowledge! You are coming close to it though..linking knowledge with faith.

"How do you think the child should learn if deprived of the community?"

What's 'the community'? Sounds a lot like 'communist'...as in you don't know anything unless the state (community) tells you so.

"Culture is a set of normative habits developed by a particular group over time in a particular geographic domain."

No, it's a set of ideals, habits, etc passed down by birth and set in a collective. It does not represent the state of that new born human, only what has been accrued upon him.

"I prefer informative anticipatory networks"

Ya...in short...Creationism...the 'intelligent design' argument. I'm familiar. It's based on faith, not reason.

"You have to understand their being embedded in a collective."

Why? Why do you have to put someone else in a collective..even against their will?

"People will always form groups"

Weak minded people join groups for strenth.

"Your focus on the individual rejects this act of neighbourliness and 'reaching out' to others to share a commonality."

No it does not. Neighbourliness, social bonding, is an act of individualism...it is to learn and share with others to feel good. It is for self, if it is for any other reason it's not actually neighborliness, it's to feel stronger, more powerful than others by being apart of a group, it's to be accepted by others in order to feel accepted by yourself, it's to sacrifice for others for belief that you as an individual are not enough.

whew, btj - I don't know where you get your opinions from but they aren't scientific!

No, it is not a genetic trait to be hunters and gatherers, and length of societal usage does not make it a biological trait. Have you found the gene for hunter-gatherer activity? Where do you get these assumptions? If it were genetic, then, we would still be prone to behave that way..and this is not the case.

What the heck does the female biological cycle have to do with an economic mode of life, i.e., hunting and gathering?

Sorry - but I totally and completely reject your linear evolutionary model of cognitive thinking. I've never heard of such a bizarre analysis. Hunting and gathering requires reason. So does farming. Agriculture wasn't a result of advanced reasoning but a change in climate about 10,000 years ago.

Yes, Christianity is the result of reason. My view is that Christianity is a religion (and religion deals with the metaphysical primarily) that emerged within a particular economic mode that required the rejection of isolate tribalism and a movement into a market economy and 'people getting along with each other'.

Yes, knowledge is based on faith. Don't try to convince me that you have, yourself, explored every aspect of biology, of chemistry, of physics, all by yourself, to prove to yourself that the accumulated knowledge in these fields is 'right'.

The oral method of communication is found in populations lower than a million; in large populations, you must move to a more stable referential system of storage. This has nothing to do with creativity or innovation which are not based on the method of storing information. Technological advances are found in populations that require such innovations; if a population's sustenance is stable and able to maintain that population, you won't get innovations. Nothing to do with the method of storing knowledge.

No, anticipatory information networks have nothing to do with creationism, which requires an agential intentionality. I strongly doubt that you have any knowledge of the theories of hyperincursion and anticipation.

Nope - I don't think you have much understanding of societies and their operation. Our species requires both being an individual and being a member of a collective. And I don't accept your definition of 'neighbourliness' as 'being more powerful than others'. That's your view. Not mine.

Black Mamba - Don't know whereof or whom you speak,
and am not curious enough to look into it; should you care to expand, do so, if not, so be it.

ET, I always appreciate your thought-provoking posts. BTJ, You surprised me with a very polite and well spoken argument. I will have a lot to think about, and for that I thank you both!

" I don't know where you get your opinions from but they aren't scientific!"

I didn't know we were having a scientific based debate.

"No, it is not a genetic trait to be hunters and gatherers, and length of societal usage does not make it a biological trait"

No because you say so, or no because you have a rational explanation for it not being?

Yes, the length of usage does work to make it a biological trait. How do you think genes are manipulated? Natural selection...if a group of living beings lives under some form of genetic selection (being able to hunt and gather, being able to hunt at night, eating a certain diet, etc) than the genetic makeup will tend to move to meet those selection demands. It is the basic premise of Darwin's evolutionary theory...oh, wait, you put your faith in 'intelligent design'.

" If it were genetic, then, we would still be prone to behave that way..and this is not the case."

No? People don't have an inherent tendency to go hunting, to collect things, to travel?

"Sorry - but I totally and completely reject your linear evolutionary model of cognitive thinking."

What's your alternative theory?

"Hunting and gathering requires reason. So does farming. Agriculture wasn't a result of advanced reasoning but a change in climate about 10,000 years ago."

H&G requires a very primitive level of reasoning...it certainly isn't the type of thinking that makes cars.

So the climate shifted and all of a sudden people just knew how to farm? There was no volition by people, it just happened for outside reasons? I don't find that a very sufficient explanation.

"Yes, Christianity is the result of reason. My view is that Christianity is a religion (and religion deals with the metaphysical primarily) that emerged within a particular economic mode that required the rejection of isolate tribalism and a movement into a market economy and 'people getting along with each other'."

Christianity is a tribe! Christianity is based on believing what is unprovable, based on a book of somewhat random stories that has been altered over the last couple thousand years. That's using reason? That's using the kind of thought that makes airplanes fly and computers work?

"Don't try to convince me that you have, yourself, explored every aspect of biology, of chemistry, of physics, all by yourself, to prove to yourself that the accumulated knowledge in these fields is 'right'."

I didn't say I know every aspect of biology, etc. I know how to evaluate scientific knowledge, I know how to reason using readily available information..that leads to my knowledge. I don't call accepting whatever you read without truly understanding 'knowledge'...it's faith. That's why I haven't said 'I KNOW every aspect of everything'.

"The oral method of communication is found in populations lower than a million; in large populations, you must move to a more stable referential system of storage."

I would argue that it is the level of thinking, the level of rationalizing, the level of advancement that requires a more advanced method of information collection/storage...not the sheer number of people.

"Technological advances are found in populations that require such innovations; if a population's sustenance is stable and able to maintain that population, you won't get innovations. Nothing to do with the method of storing knowledge."

Technology is found in populations that sought it, not that 'require' it. Technology is striving for advancement, for more, for the better...not 'to get by'. A stable, sustainable population without innovation is another way of saying a primitive way of living that accepts the power of nature over man...such as with tribes. No population that seeks to make life better by manipulating nature through reasoning can be stable or sustainable without further advancements.

" I strongly doubt that you have any knowledge of the theories of hyperincursion and anticipation."

Nope...likely because they are questionable, irrational theories based on faith rather than reason.

"And I don't accept your definition of 'neighbourliness' as 'being more powerful than others'. That's your view. Not mine."

I encourage you to go back and read my statements again...I have a feeling you misread. I said that being neighbourly because you have a need for the strength and power of collectivism IS NOT TRUELY NEIGHBOURLINESS.

May I suggest some reading for anyone who is interested in a deep level of the philosophy of individualism and conservatism....'The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution' by Ayn Rand. It is a collection of her essays. For anyone who see's more similarities in the beliefs and philosophy of liberals and conservatives these days it is a well grounded look into the cause and the true philosophy of the individual, freedom, and conservatism.

BTJ- no, collecting something is not akin to hunting and gathering. And 'natural selection' is post hoc enforcement of a trait. A characteristic does not move from ad hoc societal behaviour into a genetic mode. I'm not into Lamarkianism.

No, when the climate changed, this enabled a different type of plant growth with more stable plants, longer periods of plant growth and more stable animal domains and enabled men to domesticate both plants and animals. There was no innate 'volition-to-farm'.

Christianity is not tribal but emerged as a rejection of tribalism.

No, I reject your supposition that 'the level of thinking' evolves. The oral method of communication and storage of knowledge is not a less-rational method but is based on population size.

I also disagree with you that technology is found in populations that 'sought it', for that requires existent agendas of ' getting a better technology'. I reject that view, ie. the 'progressive view'. It is utopian, eg, marxist linear progress of societies and fascist utopian view of the perfect society. If a population's current technology is sufficient to maintain that population, they will not change their technological base. This non-progressive mode was in place for most of the world history of manking. The notion of change began with the upsurge in population found in the European biomes.

The theories of hyperincursion and anticipation are theories of mathematics, physics and biology and refer to work in complex systems - primarily in computing anticipatory systems, in analysis of chemical and biological interactions, and in the role of anticipation in physics, eg electromagnetism. As I said, you obviously are not aware of this field, and thus, you mistakenly define this area as 'intelligent design'. No - nothing to do with that.

Black Mambo - Many questions left open here, was the boy being abused, why was he sick, did his parents care? Times were different then, there was odd politics happening. Pio Nino was a wonderful man. Did the man he became reject his vocation in the priesthood? Don't know. Here is one for you.
Why did the chief Rabbi of Rome convert to Catholicism after the second WW? He said it was because of the actions of Pious XII and his attempts to save Jews from the Nazis. Pius is today condemned by many Jews as "Hitler's Pope" What's that all about?

" no, collecting something is not akin to hunting and gathering."

I'm having a reoccurring problem here, you repeatedly make statements and counter arguments without providing any logic or rationale for them. It's not very stimulating or productive.

"And 'natural selection' is post hoc enforcement of a trait. A characteristic does not move from ad hoc societal behaviour into a genetic mode."

How does that counter any argument I've made? You haven't put natural selection as an influence on genetic makeup into question, you only clarified the relationship between selection and genetics. Of course the gene is present before selection on it occurs. The degree to which that gene is expressed can be significantly influenced by selection pressures, and it's the expression of the gene that makes all the difference.

"when the climate changed, this enabled a different type of plant growth with more stable plants, longer periods of plant growth and more stable animal domains and enabled men to domesticate both plants and animals. There was no innate 'volition-to-farm'."

I understand that the change in climate made agriculture physically possible, but it was not responsible for shift in thinking and action carried out by humans. I'm not sure where you got the word 'innate' from, I never mentioned that...but it certainly took volition for agriculture to develop. Do you think it just happened over night?

"Christianity is not tribal but emerged as a rejection of tribalism."

I'm having difficulty finding the rationale behind your rejection of said religion as a faith based collectivism. Can you describe the differences between believing in Christianity and being part of a group of people practicing said belief and a tribe in a jungle somewhere practicing a religion based on unprovable stories?

"The oral method of communication and storage of knowledge is not a less-rational method but is based on population size."

Can you give me a logical argument for why the method chosen for communication and storage of knowledge is solely dependant on the population size?

What are the benefits of the oral method compared to the benefits of writing, reading, computers, etc?

If you had to build a car, and you had the method for doing so in two forms...either you could rely on a oral-story passed down through a multi-generational game of phone tag...or you could rely on a diagrams, blueprints, books, and videos which would you choose?

" for that requires existent agendas of ' getting a better technology'."

For sure it does, that is what humans strive for...to learn, to create, to advance, to do what others haven't, to use your abilities....a stagnant mind often leads to primitive behavior.

"eg, marxist linear progress of societies and fascist utopian view of the perfect society."

That is a baseless comparison...it's a cheap attempt to paint me 'left'..I wish you wouldn't do that. The only thing in common is 'linear progress'...lots of things have a linear progress. Lots of manufacturing is linear...is it all 'marxist'? If I drive straight to my destination rather than taking detours is that a 'marxist' route?

"If a population's current technology is sufficient to maintain that population, they will not change their technological base. This non-progressive mode was in place for most of the world history of manking."

That's an early and inferior way of thinking. That's how we approached the world in the days of living in caves...sustenance and maintaining our population was all we strove for, we also lived half the life span, had a rough and uncomfortable lifestyle and were at the whims of nature. Humans strove to develop knowledge, and for the ability to conceptualize in order to make life better, in order to use the great attribute of the mind we have been born with. It sounds like you're questioning the legitimacy of this advancement.

"The notion of change began with the upsurge in population found in the European biomes."

I beg to differ, you have it backwards...it was the upsurge of ingenuity that made population surges possible. The ingenuity of medicine and vaccines, of food and cleanliness that allowed humans to survive longer, stay healthier, and have more children (live).

"The theories of hyperincursion and anticipation are theories of mathematics, physics and biology and refer to work in complex systems - primarily in computing anticipatory systems, in analysis of chemical and biological interactions, and in the role of anticipation in physics, eg electromagnetism."

I am somewhat familiar with complex systems and anticipatory systems. Please expand for me, I would appreciate a better understanding of your position and how it fundamentally differs from Darwinian evolution.

BTJ - we'll have to continue to differ. And I don't think this thread is the place to hold a long argument on these issues. I'll try to reply briefly.

I don't think that there is a gene for 'collecting' or 'travelling'. These are societal modes of behaviour and thus, not 'natural'.

No, agriculture didn't happen overnight, but it wouldn't have occurred without the climate change that increased plant and animal life in a domain and enabled population increases..which then required a change in technology.

Communication functions by moving data from site A to site B, with as little noise as possible over both time and space. If your domain, where the communication takes place becomes too large, then, noise will overpower the data. Therefore, you must move to a method that reduces the noise to data ratio..eg..a method such as writing that prevents noise (i.e. multiple different people saying different things) from intruding on that data. That's the reason for the role of population size in analyzing modes of communication.

A literate method requires a multi-level govt system that oversees the integrity of the communication system. If your population base is low, where you don't use multi-level govt systems, you won't get the literate method. You can read various books on this. Walter Ong, Albert Lord.

You don't build a car in an oral society, so it's an irrelevant example. But, you can readily explain how to track an animal in the hunt...and probably far better using oral communication than written text.

The notion of linear progress, which you seem to hold, in your view of the evolution of reason (primitive hunters, old and inferior way of reason...), and your view of the innate 'desire to progress' is utopian. And thus, is indeed 'leftist'.

It can't be compared with the mechanical process which is linear. But, suggesting a linear evolution in type from 'inferior..to..superior' is linear. And utopian.

Ahh, so you are into Hobbes 'brutal savage' imagery? I suggest that you are quite wrong in this view of the pre-industrial world. You could try reading up on this; Try Richard Lee's book on the Dobe !Kung or Man the Hunter.

No, humans strive to know, but are not inherently geared to 'progress'. That view, of progress, emerged in Europe in the 13th-14th c, and was due, I maintain, to the richness of that biome that enabled population explosion, but, this population was periodically decimated by the lack of technology to sustain the higher numbers. So, gradually, the era's rejection of reason, of questions, of change..was changed. You could check out the philosophical changes in this era and the movement to individualism and human observation.

The topic of anticipation is far too deep for this thread. You can check out 'computing anticipatory systems' and go from there to the various articles.

My views against neo-Darwinism, which I consider simple mechanical processes, are published but are not for this thread. However, you can check out David Brooks, Stu Kauffman, Jesper Hoffmeyer and biosemiotics.

larben - off topic on a dead thread, so I'll try to keep it shortish. I have no particular opinion about Pius XII and whether he did enough for the Jews in WWII because I've never taken the time to read up on the subject. I've skimmed the book you mention, as well as Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's willing executioners, which struck me as being rather (tragically) unbalanced.

What the Chief Rabbi did was his own concern.

The Edgardo Mortara case was the scandal of Europe in the mid-19th century: Unspeakably arrogant ignorant feudalism facing off against sanity, justice and basic humanity; rightly so; reading about it now makes my flesh crawl. Certainly the kind of ultra-reactionary, theocratic Catholicism it brought into relief is now essentially a historical artifact, at the very least for obvious political reasons - the Vatican only has token territorial power today - and you'd have to delve pretty far into the bowels of the internet to find any Catholic who'd scare up a defense for Pius IX on this subject. I don't think it can be used as a stick to beat conservative Catholics with; only Catholic anti-semites.

You ask "was the boy being abused"? and "did his parents care?" If you're implying "abuse" by his own family, no. If you mean was he "abused" by the Catholic authorities, and you consider kidnapping and brainwashing a six-year old abuse, then yes, he was.

"(W)hy was he sick?" Little kids got sick a lot in the 1850s. Germ theory hadn't really taken off and vaccination was just a glint in Louis Pasteur's eye.

His parents did care, and the case only became infamous because his father, Mamolo, refused to write off his kidnapped child but persued him in the teeth of implacable state authority faithfully for well over a decade until the boy was an adult and nothing more could be done.

Now if anything I'm pro-Catholic but I loathe anti-semitism - I'm not Jewish, I'm just a fan - and your "Try being Catholic and the accusations..." attitude might be a little more touching if you took into account what the Jews, who have contributed more to civilization than any small and politically powerless group of people ever have, have been through lo these many centuries.

I guess I should mention that I have the same opinion re. Danial Goldhagen's Hitler's Wiling Executioners that I have towards his A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair.

I will offer a final rebuttle:

There doesn't have to be a 'travel' gene...genes act in coordination with each other. Natural selection would tend to select for genes involved in characteristics that are beneficial in regards to the selection force. Ie. if some shape of foot allows for better running ability, the genes responsible for that foot would likely be selected for over time.

So you're saying that agriculture required no technological advances? Only population increases 'makes' people create and invent? Seems like it's not a volitional act in your view.

"You don't build a car in an oral society, so it's an irrelevant example. "

Actually, that is the perfect answer right there...it's completely relevant for that very reason...you don't build a car in an oral society..because you can't...you don't have the level of epistemology, of knowledge, of reasoning ability, of conceptualization. You require a more sophisticated, more advanced way of organizing, recording, and tracking knowledge. Otherwise you are arguing that western civilization is no more advanced, no more rational than tribes over a century ago. It's like the Industrial Revolution never happened?

I'm not sure of your rationale behind linear progress being utopian?? Utopian and 'Leftist' are equal? I'm not too sure of your reasoning there either. Again, I don't appreciate the irrational labeling. You can't just say two words are equal without any explanation.

"Ahh, so you are into Hobbes 'brutal savage' imagery?"

No, not at all...but you can't suggest that any pre-industrial level of thinking, of advancement, of conceptualization, of reasoning compares to the leaps and bounds that took place in the free-est society ever, the US for about 3-4 decades or so.

The advancements made during that era were made possible by the freedom to think and conceptualize as an individual.

Why can't it be from inferior to superior? We live more than twice as long as we did a short time ago.

"No, humans strive to know, but are not inherently geared to 'progress'."

I agree with the former, the latter definitely not. What makes us able to strive for knowledge? What differentiates us from other animals?

You make it sound like the 'biome' is some garden of eden.