I think you've done well to find as many as three with any kind of question mark over them.BlindedWantsToSee wrote: I don't rely too much in the accuracy of the details of the story. Some of three details may not be right,
A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
Excuse me, I didn't proofread well enough. I meant to say that some of the details (told in the Sumerian texts) may not be 100% accurate.Albert Tatlock wrote:I think you've done well to find as many as three with any kind of question mark over them.BlindedWantsToSee wrote: I don't rely too much in the accuracy of the details of the story. Some of three details may not be right,
We have no way of knowing for sure; but to me they make sense in the aggregate because they could explain why our present is what it is, and their knowledge is consistent with scientific discoveries made only in the last few centuries (they described our whole solar system as seen from space, they described chromosomes and the DNA molecule, they described rockets, helicopter-like machines and other facts or objects of technology supposedly unknown at that time).
To me the only logical explanation for the Sumerians to know so much at that time is that they were telling the truth, or mostly the truth, regarding how they obtained that knowledge.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
Do you think it would be good for people to be able to do absolutely anything they want to do whenever they want to do it and never, ever have to worry about the consequences? How would that work? What effect do you think it might have on people? Have you got kids?I call this slavery. If it should be called something else, that's fine, but that is the condition of most people, and it is not good for them.
The Sumerians tell us that people from another planet came to earth about 400,000 years ago. They were looking to take the gold that was found on earth, to use it on their planet, to save their lives. About 300,000 years ago the working class of that alien civilization rebelled against the mining operations work they had to perform on earth. It was too tough. The leaders promised relief in the form of slaves that would take the place of those workers in the gold mines. About 200,000 years ago, after many trials, finally succeeded in creating a working slave (the homo sapiens species). They deed this by mixing their DNA with the DNA of a compatible creature from earth (neanderthal maybe). The males were killed, the females were raped by having their ovums extracted, artificially inseminated, an then being impregnated with the fertilized ovums. When they delivered their babies, they were killed too. Those baby slaves were the first human beings and reproduced, making more slaves to work for the invaders. Eventually those alien people got enough gold and left. Some of their offspring (hybrids between alien and human beings) stayed on earth to rule over it and over the earthlings. Those were the pharaohs, the kings, the priests, and the people of power in history. Nowadays those hybrids are hidden but use politicians, bankers, corporations, and other methods to rule the world. They figured out that if they can get people to believe they are free, then the people will not rebel against them, and therefore their profits will increase.
Taught them what? Is there anything there that they couldn't have made up? It's a fun story, but what makes you think it's anything more than that?To clarify, according to experts the texts were written approximately 6,000 years ago, but those texts describe events that occurred way before that. 400,000 years ago is supposedly when the alien people arrived to earth.
Who taught them?
I haven't read an accurate translation of the precise words that they used but I suspect that if I did I'd find something that could be interpreted a number of different ways. You and others who live in a world which knows about such things as DNA, rockets, helicopters and what the solar system would look like from a distance naturally see it through that lens. I don't know, but I suspect (for example) you see a description or a picture of something that looks a bit like a double-helix and say "aha! they knew about DNA!". We may well find that ancient civilization had already deduced some things that it took us until Kepler and Newton to discover. But there probably won't be anything that needed extraterrestrial help. Although obviously I'd be fascinated to be shown to be wrong about that.We have no way of knowing for sure; but to me they make sense in the aggregate because they could explain why our present is what it is, and their knowledge is consistent with scientific discoveries made only in the last few centuries (they described our whole solar system as seen from space, they described chromosomes and the DNA molecule, they described rockets, helicopter-like machines and other facts or objects of technology supposedly unknown at that time).
Yours is a natural enough reaction. Every age views both the past and the future by extension from its own age. You only have to look at any period drama or science fiction movie from the past to see that. Generally speaking, you can see instantly when they were created.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
That's my favourite line. I can relate to that.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
'But inferring the incompetence of others as proof of our own just makes us stupid. As I will say over and over, digging in our heels gets us nowhere. Or, is the words of Lewis Carol:'
This should read:
'But inferring the incompetence of others as proof of our own competence just makes us stupid. As I will say over and over, digging-in our heels gets us nowhere. Or, in the words of Lewis Carol:'
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
Being able to do absolutely anything that does not injure or infringe upon the rights of other living beings would be good for people, I think. This does not mean there are no consequences. The consequences teach people; that's fine in my view. However, the question that I am really interested on is: Does society, or individuals, really have the right to bring new members of society whose nature is such that they have to be enslaved (when this enslavement will create much suffering to their lives) in order for society to be safe and orderly? I don't believe so. Society and especially the rulers of society are exploiting the members of society (to their detriment), and we are none the wiser. This is wrong. We should not bring new slaves to this world. I don't have kids, as you might guess from what I just said.Steve3007 wrote:BlindedWantsToSee:I call this slavery. If it should be called something else, that's fine, but that is the condition of most people, and it is not good for them.Steve3007 wrote:Do you think it would be good for people to be able to do absolutely anything they want to do whenever they want to do it and never, ever have to worry about the consequences? How would that work? What effect do you think it might have on people? Have you got kids?
To me the fact that human beings do not have what they want in terms of their bodies, their mental abilities, their health, their surroundings, their jobs, and in almost all other aspects of their lives is hurtful to people. For the most part human beings live a life (or life experiences) they would prefer not to have to experience (even if they can change their conditions later, they are being forced to experience their current conditions against their will). This is slavery, and every human being that is produced is condemned to it. We should not do this to our children. We should not give them life and force them to experience the above, in all likelihood.
[/quote]Steve3007 wrote:I haven't read an accurate translation of the precise words that they used but I suspect that if I did I'd find something that could be interpreted a number of different ways. You and others who live in a world which knows about such things as DNA, rockets, helicopters and what the solar system would look like from a distance naturally see it through that lens. I don't know, but I suspect (for example) you see a description or a picture of something that looks a bit like a double-helix and say "aha! they knew about DNA!". We may well find that ancient civilization had already deduced some things that it took us until Kepler and Newton to discover. But there probably won't be anything that needed extraterrestrial help. Although obviously I'd be fascinated to be shown to be wrong about that.
Yours is a natural enough reaction. Every age views both the past and the future by extension from its own age. You only have to look at any period drama or science fiction movie from the past to see that. Generally speaking, you can see instantly when they were created.
Is it possible that the Sumerian culture obtained the knowledge they possessed on their own? Yes, it is. But is is likely? Definitely not, and if they did learn on their own, that would imply we really don't know as much as we think we know about the history of our planet and it's people (which is the case, actually). How did they obtain the knowledge? Where are their tools or technology? What would need to be true in order for this to be possible? Where is the evidence? I think if they are lying about extraterrestrial beings, it would be to cover up something even more weird or unlikely or evil, and why would they want to do that (this makes no difference to them. They are dead)? So, yes, I partially agree with you, but find the scenario very unlikely.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
You're advocating an extreme and impossible form of Libertarianism here, I think. For one thing, you have to define what those "rights" are and why you think people have them. Are they naturally occurring or are they given to those people/living things by other people/living things? If so, what have they done to earn those rights? Does every right come with a corresponding obligation?Being able to do absolutely anything that does not injure or infringe upon the rights of other living beings would be good for people, I think.
And next, you have to face the fact that it's physically impossible to live without infringing on the rights of other people/living things.
What form does this suffering that you speak of take?Does society, or individuals, really have the right to bring new members of society whose nature is such that they have to be enslaved (when this enslavement will create much suffering to their lives) in order for society to be safe and orderly? I don't believe so.
From your previous posts, the slavery you speak of here appears to be the terrible ordeal of living in a society (i.e. a bunch of people) which provides us with food, shelter, clothing and medical care even if we do nothing to earn it. As opposed to living in what might be regarded as a more natural state: Perpetually on the brink of starvation, trying to scrape food from the frozen ground or catch a rabbit. Dying from, or living in agony with, easily curable diseases and injuries. Being eaten by wild animals. That kind of freedom.
In the cases of some members of society I can see why you might regard this as a kind of slavery, but only in the sense that all of existence is slavery. Only in the same sense that I'm a slave to the law of gravity because I can't fly. I have the right to fly! It's outrageous that the oppressive law of gravity deprives me of this right!
For most people it isn't slavery. If you don't like the structure of the society which currently supports you, and you can afford a moderate air fare, you are free to go a remote part of the world with no people in it and attempt to live in freedom, off the land, with no other humans telling you what to do. The only thing telling you what to do then will be the remorseless laws of nature. You'll be free to attempt to catch/grow your own food, build your own shelter and fix your own medical problems. Not beholden to anybody. No sinister government to oppress you.
This is a common refrain. As many people do, you seem to give the rulers of our societies more organisational credit than they deserve.Society and especially the rulers of society are exploiting the members of society (to their detriment), and we are none the wiser. This is wrong. We should not bring new slaves to this world. I don't have kids, as you might guess from what I just said.
The main reason I asked why you have kids is because my experience of raising them is that people don't function well if they're taught from an early age that they can do anything they want whenever they want. They ultimately harm themselves and others. One of the basic lessons we teach our children is deferred gratification - eating that big pile of Trick Or Treat candy may seem like a great idea now, but with the benefit of hindsight you'll come to regret it. That kind of thing (on a more sophisticated level) applies to us all.
Since you've got no real way of knowing that human beings do not have what they want in the way you describe here, I suspect you're really just talking about yourself. You are unhappy with your own life and are projecting that unhappiness onto the human race in general.To me the fact that human beings do not have what they want in terms of their bodies, their mental abilities, their health, their surroundings, their jobs, and in almost all other aspects of their lives is hurtful to people. For the most part human beings live a life (or life experiences) they would prefer not to have to experience (even if they can change their conditions later, they are being forced to experience their current conditions against their will). This is slavery, and every human being that is produced is condemned to it. We should not do this to our children. We should not give them life and force them to experience the above, in all likelihood.
As I've said, I haven't seen any of the actual words that were used by these Sumerians. I'd be interested if you could quote some here. Then we can assess whether it seems likely that they possessed some knowledge that they couldn't have worked out for themselves and for which the most likely explanation is extraterrestrial help. Again, I suspect that the desire to believe such things stems from personal unhappiness. A longing for the extraordinary to combat the mundanity of life.Is it possible that the Sumerian culture obtained the knowledge they possessed on their own? Yes, it is. But is is likely? Definitely not, and if they did learn on their own, that would imply we really don't know as much as we think we know about the history of our planet and it's people (which is the case, actually). How did they obtain the knowledge? Where are their tools or technology? What would need to be true in order for this to be possible? Where is the evidence?
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
I heartily second your final remark. Going to the source is the only remedy for textual claims. Symbolic representations are not meant to be misread. But there are many symbols we do not know how to read, and guessing is taking license the authors have not supplied the language. For instance, does the text in question read: deoxyribonucleic acid? In what language? Latin? Did the Sumerians have x-ray crystallography, the method used to discover DNA? Pretty sure we modern humans came up with that all on our own, and it's pretty impressive. Impressive enough to credit humanity with all the smarts needed to defeat the claim that we did not develop on our own wits and hard work.
On the other hand, I regard your sociology as conventional elitist dogma, of the sort used throughout the ages to deny human social and civil rights. The fact is that people make all sorts of choices that never confer with others at all but aggregate into an edifice of oppression. Racism is a prime example. Workhouses used to report child deaths from starvation as "failure to thrive". The moral inversion such attitudes represent is a scandal that always gets obscured somehow. Freedom for some seems to mean others must be kept under control at all times. Is necessary for some but dangerous for others. Thrift for the poor, extravagance for the rich. It is a perverse market that motivates the buyer to pay more than the thing is worth and the seller take less. Free marketerism is a corrupt system and doctrine.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
It looks here as if you disagree with something I said in my previous post, but I'm not exactly sure what it is that you disagree with. In the rest of the paragraph you seem to go on to say that unfettered free markets do not result in an ideal society. I certainly don't dispute that. I've argued the same thing with the poster called GE Morton on another thread. and I've also argued it previously.On the other hand, I regard your sociology as conventional elitist dogma, of the sort used throughout the ages to deny human social and civil rights...
My central point in my post to BlindedWantsToSee was that living in a society, such as the ones in which we live, does not really fit the definition of "slavery". That's not the same as saying that our societies are perfect. They're clearly far from perfect. But if we decide to define ourselves as slaves then we de-value the horrors of genuine slavery. The inmates of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen were genuine slaves. The inmates of North Korean concentration camps are (it seems) slaves. There is even, disturbingly, some evidence of slavery existing in our societies for a small number of unfortunate people. But it would be absurd to say that we are a society of slaves.
As I said in that last post, the vast majority of people in our societies could probably choose to live outside of those societies if they wanted to. Even though the world now contains 7+ billion people, most of them choose to live close together in relatively small geographical areas. So there's still lots of almost empty space available. So if someone wants to try their luck at living without the cumulative benefits that they enjoy as a result of the development of human societies (safe plentiful food, clean water, shelter, clothes, healthcare, etc) they can do so. They can, as it were, put their money where their mouth is.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
I didn't say "accept society as it is currently run or leave it". As I said, society is far from perfect. We can all discuss ways in which it could be made better. What I was talking about was BlindedWantsToSee's apparent rejection of the entire concept of society, however it's run - the suggestion that everyone living in society is a slave. My point was simply that we are not slaves because, among other things, if we don't want to live in a society we don't have to.George H W Bush (Bush I) had a policy on welfare in which he advised those who felt it unfair or inadequate to "vote with their feet". I call it the "right" to get lost.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
I do not know if Blinded can be made to see the value of applying the rules and criteria of competent philological methods, but aside from that this discussion is at an impasse. There is more wishful thinking and dogmatism in the reading of ancient records (as there is in current affairs!) than there is competent interpretation. Any number of patently false conclusions can be assigned to taking liberties with the use of signs and symbols, and as often at the hands of hard-headed realists as with miraculous claims. I'm still at a loss as to how to get logical positivists to question their fundamental assumptions, but I do know that resolving Blinded's claim will require learning to read cuneiform, and I doubt even he's really prepared to do that. If we are at the mercy of the translators, and he gets to pick them, we will get nowhere.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am
Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life
You said, speaking to Blinded:
'From your previous posts, the slavery you speak of here appears to be the terrible ordeal of living in a society (i.e. a bunch of people) which provides us with food, shelter, clothing and medical care even if we do nothing to earn it. As opposed to living in what might be regarded as a more natural state: Perpetually on the brink of starvation, trying to scrape food from the frozen ground or catch a rabbit. Dying from, or living in agony with, easily curable diseases and injuries. Being eaten by wild animals. That kind of freedom.'
“Nasty brutish and short”? Actually, subsistence cultures are largely and surprisingly healthy and well fed. Much of the scarcity humans experience is the result of 'a bunch of people' creating privation so that some can have more than others. Hobbes was flatly wrong, and quite prejudicial, in his famous treatise. And I suppose that is why I had you pegged as something of a “neo-liberal”. And your remark after the one above conjured up a “spare-the-rod” mentality, though on second reading that impression may be too harsh. I seem, too, to remember a remark about getting all sorts of free, undeserved, stuff. Fact is, most of what is underserved in most modern societies is in the hands of those who have so much more than others this inhibits the prosperity of nations as a whole. It's certainly true here in America, and I suspect it's true in England too.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023