Jayhawker Soule

What does "purposeful appearance of cultural history" mean? Does it apply to the Mitanni and the Hittites? What of the Edomites? How about the Etruscans and Parthians and Visigoths and Ostrogoths. Maybe your speaking of the Vandals or the Franks? What about the Aztec and Hopi? This is a joke!

Ojuice5001

I did not mean all cultures; I don't know where you got that idea. The two I mentioned were the modern West and the Roman Empire. They are not the only two--others include the Indo-Chinese civilization and Saudi Arabia but those I refer to are in the minority. The universe is an elitist place, and not everything is equally important. Are you really reading everything you criticize?

Edited to add: Of the cultures you mentioned, I don't know much about most of them. The Aztec and Hopi were the chosen people (to put it in Jewish terms) of their respective pantheons. The Etruscans played a vital role in forming the culture of Italy. And the Franks? I had specifically mentioned that they were not an elect culture. That goes to show, you weren't reading.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, every inane, baseless assertion.

Your polytheism makes sense to you because of the "purposeful appearance of cultural history" of the victors. Your polytheism no doubt makes sense to you because of the 'purposeful disappearance of cultural history' of the losers. This makes precisely as much sense as the claim that the Gods exist because bonobo culture works.

As for an "elite universe", this is nothing more than anthropocentric bullpuckie. Feel free to prove an 'elite universe' at your convenience.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Typhon

OJ,

I'm sorry to say that your strange theory about "elite" and/or "elect" cultures is one of the most, well, factually inaccurate and philosophically unstable applications of history that I've seen.

As a life long student of history, I have to say that there is no such thing as you appear to describe. I'm sorry, but history just does not bear your theories out as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, how on earth can you possible determine what is and is not a historically "elect" culture, if you are ignorant of many civilizations/historical cultures?

You really haven't presented any evidence to back up your theories here, not even enough to make most of us take this seriously. Perhaps you really have some better arguments for this, but you shouldn't just suggest we re-read your posts when we point out, that the evidence for your claims is not there. We've read them. We're not lying. It really isn't there. I admit, I'm a little puzzled at your responses.

Anyway, thanks for sharing all the same. It's an interesting approach I suppose, if nothing else. I'll give you some points for pure imagination, but I think this thread is now in the wrong place. It probably belongs in the Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy forum.

Cheers,

.T.

MadMordigan

Great. Another 'God(s) want(s) me to be rich' apologetic.

Finding 'meaning' in past events is a simple exercise in imagination. Try applying it to the future, and you'll see it for the mental mastrubation that it is.

GunnerJ

Am I being ignored... again? <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Ojuice5001

Okay, one last attempt to prove that some things in the world are more elite than others. I got this idea, BTW, not from history but from biology, as with this argument.

First I need to explain exactly how the elite is special. The elite (higher) has all the characteristics of the lower and more. For instance, social insects have all the characteristics of pupating solitary insects (beetles, flies, butterflies, and solitary wasps) and more. Pupating solitary insects have all the characteristics of other arthropods and more. Arthropods have all the characteristics of worms and more.

Now, there are more pupating solitary insects than social insects in the world. (Note: All these statements refer to the number of individuals, not the number of species.) There are more miscellaneous arthropods that pupating solitary insects. (Remember, most of the world is an ocean where crustaceans and worms predominate.) There are more worms than miscellaneous arthropods. The higher is always rarer than the lower. This also applies to stars (most are small, stable K and M stars, rather than large stars that have unusual radiation and supernova properties) and atoms (most are hydrogen and helium, rather than heavier, more complex elements). That's why the universe should be seen as elitist rather than a formless collection of objects. Elite entities include social insects, warm-blooded animals, humans, large stars, heavy elements, life itself, and the Roman Empire.

Philosoft

Ojuice, your categories are certainly bizarre. I guess your premise is something like, "all elite x are rare instances of x"? In which case, you must first define what is meant by "rare instances." Also, a scale by which to determine which characteristics are important would be nice because it is demonstrably untrue that all individuals of an elite group have all characteristics of all individuals of a lesser group. And the Roman Empire, an entity built largely on conscious efforts doesn't seem like it belongs in your list.

Honestly, it sounds like you've co-opted the creationists' pseudo-definition of 'kind' in order to make this argument because I can see all kinds of potential taxonomic problems with your presumed hierarchy of animal elitism.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

GunnerJ

Long story short...

th3 un1v3r$3 i$ l337 n th3 g0dz r h@x0rs!!!

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Typhon

Sorry, but this is not true, and it shows a very mistaken view of biology, evolution, astronomy, and history. It is also completely arbitrary and artificial, in what is a leet and what is not, your explanation aside.

The naturalistic world is not a grouping of "higher" and "lower" items. Vertebrates do NOT have all the characteristics of arthropods for just one example. Mammals and birds do share all the characteristics of each other, no matter which one you want to place as the "lower" or the "higher." I could go on all day, but I do not feel like it is my duty to educate you on basic biology. I would recommend a beginning university course and/or a standard, introduction to biology textbook, or even a beginning zoology course.

Life and the evolutionary process is not a simplistic progression from simple to complex, but rather a diversification of life. I would recommend you read Stephen J. Gould's book, Full House which touches on this and other points of evolutionary theory.

I am not an astronomer, but your description of the ordering of stars in the universe does not appear correct with what I do know of standard astronomy. Perhaps a more learned astronomer can set you further to rights here.

Again, as for history. Your approach to "elite" societies is baseless. Furthermore, it smacks disturbingly of racism and a simplistic, juvenile mis-understanding of history. Your fixation on the Roman Empire borders a bit on the unhealthy side IMO.

I do however, appreciate you volunteering your reasoning, as this is what I at least asked for here. However, I'm even more convinced now, that your strange polyglot of religious and philosophical views, are neither sound nor arise from factual sources. I am loathe to say it, but your worldview has less to support it then even most other theists, including those of the Abrahamic, monotheistic sort.

Thank you again, for sharing your views.

.T.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>