TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Has Our World Been Dumbed Down?
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I believe anyone and everyone in this world can teach themselves to be a doctor, an engineer, or a financial analyst. It's just human knowledge and compendiums, which make the ceiling rather low--requiring though, ambition and desire and curiosity, all natural states of our form.

Though I have taught myself most of what I know about finance, it's the credentials that really matter when people are thinking about giving you their money to invest for them...or investing in a business venture.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Why? We've all got the same hardware.

That's like saying all cars have the same top speed because they all have engines. Some people are really gifted and probably don't require much input from outside, but to contend that such an ability is 'average' and similar to all human beings is simply ludicrous. The fact that people don't go through school getting 100% on all their tests, despite being taught how to manipulate the information, illustrates that people generally are incapable of teaching themselves all aspects of a subject.

And from a pragmatic standpoint your contention is laughable. How does one qualify to be a doctor if not through study and practice at university? You gonna let anyone with a love for youtube start giving injections or making diagnoses? Come on, let's be serious shall we? If there are no formal ways of distinguishing between different levels of experience, how do we identify the experts from the charlatans?

Again: if people like trancer-x and culorut and capitalizt are unable to develop a proper understanding of economics (despite their obvious attempts to do so), how can you argue that your average person on the street is capable of teaching themselves?

quote:

Again: if people like trancer-x and culorut and capitalizt are unable to develop a proper understanding of economics (despite their obvious attempts to do so), how can you argue that your average person on the street is capable of teaching themselves?

I like the dirty attacks PKC, shows your true colors.

By the way I agree that it is within us all to become doctors, engineers , etc.

All that is needed is education, time/experience and money. Money being the most important in this day and age.

For PKC's case giving blow jobs was the answer to success.





(thought I was not reading this thread troll?)

Has Our World Been Dumbed Down?

Yes especially since the introduction of PKC to this world.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut By the way I agree that it is within us all to become doctors, engineers , etc.

that's not the topic of the debate. reading comprehension isn't your strongpoint though, i understand.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut (thought I was not reading this thread troll?)

i dont care about you at all. really.

quote:

i dont care about you at all. really.

Then why smear myself and others you cannot contend with in other threads? Something must be bothering you?

Trying to downplay like you don't care is bullshit, you are just afraid to stand up like a real man.

The tell tale signs are so dam apparent in trolls it is almost fucking unbelievable at how worthless they really are.

These same trolls call themselves educated!

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Then why smear myself and others you cannot contend with in other threads? Something must be bothering you? Trying to downplay like you don't care is bullshit, you are just afraid to stand up like a real man.

i am merely using you as an example of those that believe youtube is a substitute for formal education, and that your errors in facts and in logic proves my point that average people are incapable of teaching themselves a subject to the same degree as an institution. it is not an attempt to "smear" anyone, just an example of what happens to people that arrogantly deem themselves as the ultimate arbiter of all knowledge whilst dismissing the real experts and professionals.

i doubt you or trancer or capitalizt would make the same errors if you each had a degree in economics.

And what apparently makes you believe that you are above myself, capatilizt , trancer-x or anyone for that matter?

Let me guess you are educated right? How the fuck do you know who all these members really are, their age, their experience and yes their education?

Give me a fucking break you piece of shit.

Your excuses are so fucking pathetic it is not even funny any more.

I lost count how many times you used "go get an education" with everyone and anyone who is actually making an effort for a real discussion on these boards.

And don't think I won't pull up all your posts making those same tired pathetic excuses because I will just to show your real colors.

Get a life, idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And what apparently makes you believe that you are above myself, capatilizt , trancer-x or anyone for that matter?

i never said i was "above" anyone (though it is painfully obvious i have a much better capacity for honest research than you for instance).

no, the reason i can make a judgement on you all is that you all tell lies or make repeated factual errors, even though numerous people have pointed out those errors to you. i don't see any economists in here making the same errors as you, so i posit that getting an economics degree gives one a better understanding than what you already have.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Let me guess you are educated right? How the fuck do you know who all these members really are, their age, their experience and yes their education?

no, has absolutely nothing to do with my education levels (or lack thereof). it is just obvious as i mentioned above, that you don't know what youre talking about. anyone can see it, educated or not.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I lost count how many times you used "go get an education" with everyone and anyone who is actually making an effort for a real discussion on these boards.

perhaps you should listen to my suggestion and get an education then? you consider yourself an expert in demolitions, engineering and now economics yet you have no real education or professional experience in any of them. your analyses are wrong, your ability to deduce the information you have is lacking, and your confirmation bias is blatantly unprofessional.

Simply put youre nothing but a child ill-equipped to perform the necessary levels of research required to adequately understand these topics you continue to rail about.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And don't think I won't pull up all your posts making those same tired pathetic excuses because I will just to show your real colors.

again, i really don't care about some uneducated net persona that shows every day that they are unsuitable for proper (honest) intellectual discourse. i will continue to mock your ignorant assumptions and highlight the lies that you tell, because that's the only impact you have on me: i am intolerant of liars. i ask you to get an education because i think that might help with your tendency to tell them, that's all. If you were half as knowledgeable as you thought you were, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself with all the factual errors you make.

high horse?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Though I have taught myself most of what I know about finance, it's the credentials that really matter when people are thinking about giving you their money to invest for them...or investing in a business venture.

Really?

I thought it was the idea that mattered most in a financial investment.

quote:

perhaps you should listen to my suggestion and get an education then? you consider yourself an expert in demolitions, engineering and now economics yet you have no real education or professional experience in any of them. your analyses are wrong, your ability to deduce the information you have is lacking, and your confirmation bias is blatantly unprofessional.

I don't claim I am an expert, this is exactly where you are lying troll. All I have used is a common sense approach to everything I have ever posted.

And by the looks of it, what I have done with it far exceeds what you believe only an education can tell you. I don't expect you to understand either, you completely lack common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I don't claim I am an expert, this is exactly where you are lying troll. All I have used is a common sense approach to everything I have ever posted.

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

Appeals to 'common sense';

Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And by the looks of it, what I have done with it far exceeds what you believe only an education can tell you.

jesus, you really are deluded. your "understanding" of these issues would fail you right out of school.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Really? I thought it was the idea that mattered most in a financial investment.

The idea? I don't know what you're getting at. But for me to even advise someone on their finances, or to sell them a particular stock, I'de have to be licensed to do so. Much like a doctor, but I wouldn't need a doctorate degree. To be certified, I must takes specific tests, such as the Series 7 test. To even be able to take that, I'de have to be sponsored by a financial institution who is willing to pay for me to take the test. For them to hire me and want to pay for my certification, I would need to have studied a relevant subject (i.e. finance major), in a institution of higher learning. Contrary to what some in this thread are trying to shove down our throats, I can't go to work for a Goldman Sachs or Raymond James, by simply telling them, "oh, i didn't go to university, but I read a lot of articles on the internet! I know how to do people's finances! Trust me on this!" It's not going to happen..

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i am merely using you as an example of those that believe youtube is a substitute for formal education, and that your errors in facts and in logic proves my point that average people are incapable of teaching themselves a subject to the same degree as an institution.

To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency.

If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...)

Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability.

I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships.

To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise...

Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view.

On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about.

Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.)

This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency. If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...)

Whilst you are certainly correct in your argument that they might be more than "able" to, I think its rather difficult to separate the confirmation bias from the person. What I mean is that learning institutions serve as a countering force to unsubstantiation, and that many indiviuals bereft of that countering force are liable to find themselves unable to learn adequately by themselves. So to argue that they could research subjects that they did not have a prior emotional investment is technically correct, it is also possible that their levels of logic have always been suspect, and devoid of any overarching 'supervision' like one receives via formal education, it is likely they will merely extend their lack of knowledge or logic to another field of interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability.

Touche however there are many indivuals in the PDD (for instance) that I would consider higher than average intelligence, as well as possessing a higher than average degree of intellectual curiosity. Obviously both these assessments could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships.

No, but that is still in line with my position. I don't advocate university as a catch-all for all knowledge or vocations, but rather an education of some sort that relies on more than one individual's opinion/experience (which is basically my main point). Education, be it at school or as an apprentice or various 'on the job' training levels is often (though not always) superior to an individual attempting to understand a subject on their own. Which ive just noticed you've said right here:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise�

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about.

Its like youre reading my mind today!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.)

Exactly, and this is the crux of my entire position. The only real difference between studying say, economics at university and reading an economics texbook in your spare time, is that you have others around you who will pass judgement on your work and make you justify your position(s). The process itself is virtually identical, but I would argue the results can be different by orders of magnitude. As you rightly identify, there is a real problem with one person presuming himself the expert when there is only ever one person judging the quality of the work that comes from the study. I would contend that we learn an awful lot from our failures, but if we are not aware of such failures, then our abilities for improvement are sorely diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The idea? I don't know what you're getting at. But for me to even advise someone on their finances, or to sell them a particular stock, I'de have to be licensed to do so. Much like a doctor, but I wouldn't need a doctorate degree. To be certified, I must takes specific tests, such as the Series 7 test. To even be able to take that, I'de have to be sponsored by a financial institution who is willing to pay for me to take the test. For them to hire me and want to pay for my certification, I would need to have studied a relevant subject (i.e. finance major), in a institution of higher learning. Contrary to what some in this thread are trying to shove down our throats, I can't go to work for a Goldman Sachs or Raymond James, by simply telling them, "oh, i didn't go to university, but I read a lot of articles on the internet! I know how to do people's finances! Trust me on this!" It's not going to happen..

Yeah. I think we're just in totally different dispositions on life, and that's cool and fine. That's what makes shit work in the first place.

Well, keep believing what you believe, there's certainly nothing I can fault you on necessarily regarding it, especially in the current sphere of intelligence regarding our current world and its immediate future.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I haven't read that much of Hall's work but I know he's recognized in esoteric circles as a genius by many.

Passing the Lamp - The Life of Manly P. Hall



[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency. If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...) Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships. To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise... Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view. On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about. Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.) This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

Your post reminded me of a Video that I watched in which Manly P. Hall said,

quote:

Mental division leads to ... weakness and it leads to the elevation of the functions of the mind above the purposes of the mind. We develop the thinker for the sake of the thinking and not for the sake of the thought. We develop the individual who writes beautiful words but never means anything. We see the grammarian who can construct a sentence perfectly but the sentence never contains anything that will change the course of history. It is skillful but not purposeful.

Anyhow, I find it difficult to understand how so many extremely bright people are able to justify using their intelligence to safeguard what appears to be a dangerously unhealthy degree of ignorance. Just because people watch and post videos doesn't mean that YouTube has formed the foundation of their knowledge but I'm sure that you knew that and were just hoping to beguile us here.

The way that I see it, if someone wants to honestly make the claim of being non-biased then they better be taking an interest in EVERYTHING and not just that finite amount of information that can be found in a normal academic environment.

And since you seem to be such a paragon of rationality and reason I figured that you of all people would agree that it's good to think outside of the box especially when simultaneously pursuing diverse fields of knowledge.

Now of course in all of your wisdom I'm sure you know that things aren't always as rational or as simple as they appear and that there are often strange and vaguely comprehensible things which occur in our world. I mean, it's not exactly a conspiracy theory to say that there are people in high places who engage in activities such as the occult worship of (what could be regarded as) spiritual or otherwise inorganic beings such their Virgoan goddess Isis (AKA Inanna, Ishtar, Minerva, Hecate, Selene, Artemis, Luna, Diana, Columbia, etc.) and her consort Osiris and son Horus.

The fact that Capitol Hill was modeled after Capitoline Hill in Rome, where the Capitoline Triad was worshipped (link) is one reason to raise an eyebrow to that effect but then if you realize the fact that Washington, D.C. actually sits upon a plot of land that once bore the name of Rome, Maryland and you have what amounts to be more than just a coincidence.

I'm sure you knew all about that and I figure that you probably also know all about the occultic admixture of geomancy and necromancy that they seem to hold so dearly which is evidenced by the many obelisks, fountains, sculptures and other architectural significances across the world from Washington, D.C. to the Vatican.

Anyway, I'm beginning to think that it's time to start cracking this sh*t open in order to further illuminate the fraud that has been (and continues to be) perpetuated upon mankind.

Are you down?

Edit: Link Fixed

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

The Teacher's Unions hold sway over our educational system. What needs to happen is our schools need to be allowed to compete, like Belgium's schools which are far superior to ours.

it is truly amazing how every single topic can be reduced to 'socialist world government'.

Is there any wonder why my grandfather's neighbor, George Wackenhut, had so many names listed in his dossier on American Socialists?

quote:

Wackenhut's main office featured a pair of chairs shaped like elephants, which he called "Republican chairs," that had real tusks, as well as an autographed photo of Wackenhut shaking hands with George H. W. Bush (whom Wackenhut used to call "that pinko", according to Spy Magazine).

Here's a brief article discussing the latest educational trend here in America. It's pretty scary if you ask me.

quote:

CHEMTRAIL SUNSCREEN TAUGHT IN US SCHOOLS by William Thomas A is for Apple. B is for Boy. C is for Chemtrails. At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet. Anyone with question about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids." The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme. The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen". The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air". "I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?" Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky. "Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air." You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing! ... WHAT JANE AND DICK DIDN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL TODAY In a country whose self-appointed regime routinely censors scientific studies, at least some 7th grade science are more focused on indoctrinating kids with risky techno "quick-fixes" than conscious conservation and common sense. Forget science. SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate "IronX" experiments did indeed trigger plankton "blooms" that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor. But � oops! � his kid's science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading "dead zones". [Chemtrails Confirmed '04] Where are the picture, SmT wonders, "of people planting trees, or turning down thermostats, or bicycling, or any of the other ways not to add to the problem?" Though his family gave up the idea of home schooling, he says, "it's perhaps time to reconsider." Perhaps it's also time to reconsider state-sponsored brainwashing. And other escalating consequences of our carbon addiction, as well. Centrepoint Science 1 textbook http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrail..._US_Schools.htm

More on Chemtrails (Documentary: Aerosol Crimes)

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I haven't read that much of Hall's work but I know he's recognized in esoteric circles as a genius by many.

His knowledge extended much further than just esotericism alone. He was also rather well versed in mythology, among other things, and used that knowledge to better understand various ancient mysteries.

His own personal library was so extensive that according to several sources,

quote:

Carl Jung, when writing Psychology and Alchemy, borrowed material from Hall's private collection.

and I'm pretty sure that it was at least partly from Hall's own library that Carl Jung was able to derive knowledge such as this:

quote:

The alchemical symbols: orphan, widow and moon, are related to the images found in classical mythology, the Patristic writings, and the Cabala. A link between the precious stone, orphan, found in the writings of Albertus Magnus and the lapis Philosophorum mentioned in Carmen Helviodori, Petrus Bonus and Dom is established. This analysis of orphan leads to" discussion of the term widow as a symbol of alchemic prima materia, mother of the lapis philosophorum. Parallels are drawn between the myth of Isis and the synonyms used for prima materia or the feminine principle in alchemy. The paradoxical joy/bittemess; destroyer/healer roles of both are emphasized and related to the Christian belief in transubstantiation, as well as to Aztec and Egyptian myths. It is shown that alchemy replaced the sponsus/sponsa Christian image with one of material and spiritual totality personified by Mercurius, the union of Sapientia and matter (feminine) with the Holy Ghost and the devil. The Cabalan Malchuth is recognized as having been assimilated into the alchemical imagery of the widow as was the Patristic sponsus/sponsa symbol. The paradoxical symbol of the moon as source of light and also destroyer of light (sol, sun) is traced through alchemical writings, the writings of Augustine and motifs from Aztec and Egyptian writings. The motif of wounding, associated with the eclipse, with Christ and the Church, Hecate and Persephone, and the writings of Zosimos and Philaletha, show that the goal of the alchemist was to root out the original sin with the balsam of life, a mixture of natural heat and radical moisture. This "redemption" was to be accomplished through the art of alchemy. Further elucidation of this redemptive role, accomplished by kinosis (emptying), is provided by quotations from Rahner, St. Ambrose, and St. Hilary, with a reference to the alchemical text of the Scrutinium. - Carl Jung, Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 14. http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php...4&Itemid=40#513

I really wish that I had access to such a library because I've been desperately searching for a copy of the Hieroglyphica of Merkbeelden der oude volkeren by Romeyn de Hooghe.

ahhhh, chemtrails.

is there a single conspiracy theory that you DONT buy into? jesus christ

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.