Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Janet Jackson's Breast-Reloaded

Expand Messages
  • isenhart7
    Previously, I listed the twelve virtues-one for each month that correspond directly to the various Ahrimanic deceptions one may encounter. So here s some good
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Previously, I listed the twelve virtues-one for each month that
      correspond directly to the various Ahrimanic deceptions one
      may encounter. So here's some good news-the Virtues are out
      there-pretty mainstream stuff. Ben Franklin was into them, the
      Utne Reader includes them in their annual Urban Almanac, and
      there's the Virtue project that is going around the country in
      public schools. But maybe, maybe looking at these different
      indications/aspects grouped in this way you can get a glimmer of
      what wisdom there is in working consciously with a specific
      virtue each month. And maybe this is the oldest of news.

      Well, moving on then to what I didn't include-the next layer of
      dysfunction that can arise. Bradford's twins split up over a herd
      of cattle. It can happen. John Nash (born June 13, 1928) had
      schizophrenic breaks with reality.

      MATHEMATISM – Mathematism leads us to the hermetic point of
      view. After applying rational thought to physical phenomena we
      discover the imperceptible. Measuring, counting and weighing
      beyond the obvious. The dual nature of reality/not fighting flesh
      and blood.
      PERSEVERANCE – perseverance becomes faithfulness. As
      above so below. The visible and the invisible correspond.
      L – UNFAITHFULNESS, adultery to self. Diffusion of focus
      and energy with the pretense
      of being faithful.
      Rationalization that there is too much
      to do so why do anything. Fantasy of faith without will. A
      giving up due to
      PLAYING – joy of the world or distractions
      Thinking, feeling and willing free floating. Inability to integrate
      and prove their ideas. Eccentric orientation. Highly developed
      sense of play. Connect with developing ego to find others ego.
      Interested in higher moral world order. Tendency towards
      schizophrenia. Work with helping them bring something to
      completion. This will probable be a rather radical and
      unreachable idea. Their creativity will surprise you. Moves back
      and forth, side to side.

      So let's follow this particular dysfunction through the lens of
      Janet Jackson's Breast. At door number one, we had the
      prevelant and widely accepted full frontal view of personal
      self-interest based on greed, ambition, attention, etc. Secondly,
      we had the possibility arise that there could have been some
      other motive-maybe even a sacrifice on Janet's part , she could
      have been using her position and her coverage (100 million
      people to make a political statement). Her at door number two
      we have an either or choice. Thirdly, when the element of
      time-looking back into prior events, is added then a disturbing
      picture can arise. Now we don't have Janet acting out of her own
      personal self-interest or Janet acting on behalf of other's
      interest-here-at door number three we have other's acting
      through Janet to further their interests. This is where Nash went
      when he split.

      Specifically, Nash may have gone to UFO land-I don't know I only
      saw the movie and have not read Nasar's book yet. But before
      Nash split he had the question-you know-is the maximization of
      one's own self-interest the best strategy for advancement? IMO
      Nash got that IN REALITY economics are based on
      interdependence rather than competition in yeah, a bottom line
      kind of way. But he couldn't integrate this-he could only hold this
      piece-this incongruous piece-now he's looking at REALITY and
      the world he lives in and what's a guy to do?

      If the underlying economic premise is interdependence in a free
      society what else must be true? Where, ergo, goes
      freedom-freedom of the heretofore, priorly assumed (but
      suddenly disproved) free market?


      Paulo Freire

      So how do our colleges and universities operate-what underlies
      their function-looks like one giant "good old boy " network to me.
      "The Closing of the American MInd" by Bloom was a shot over
      the bow. But let's just take science-how does science operate?
      Yesterday, I was looking at the SETI website-just to see what
      these guys are up to now that Sagan's departed and they have
      an article on the possibility of cosmic quarantine-the possibility
      of big brother in the sky-and it includes this sentence below on
      one of the underpinnings of science (non-phenominological) as
      it is taught .


      "Astronomers understand perfectly well that the Drake Equation
      cannot prove anything. Instead, we regard it as the most useful
      way to organize our ignorance of a difficult subject by breaking it
      down into manageable parts. This kind of analysis is standard,
      and a valued technique in scientific thinking. As new
      observations and insights emerge, the Drake Equation can be
      modified as needed or even replaced altogether. But it provides
      the necessary place to start."

      And now this next article came out this summer when I
      personally was in deep navel contemplation so I may have
      missed its posting to this list. But it's interesting also if you are
      following the news that this "dissent" is really, REALLY not a
      dissent at all. It's an acknowledgement of the hard evidence that
      has been steadily presented in scientific journals and
      publications for the past several years.


      Over 400 Eminent Scientists Sign "A Scientific Dissent From

      SEATTLE, Washington, July 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) —
      Eighty years after the infamous Scope trials, more than 400
      scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of
      those who are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random
      mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of

      "Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of
      contemporary thought," said Dr. David Berlinski, a
      mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery
      Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "It is large,
      almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."

      Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from
      Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in
      PBS' "Evolution" series that no scientists disagreed with
      Darwinian evolution.

      "The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely
      skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,"
      said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. "We expect
      that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist
      evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at
      an even more rapid pace than we've seen this past year."

      In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have
      signed the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." The list
      includes over 70 biologists.

      The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir
      L. Voeikov, two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State
      University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and
      Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology an Honorary
      Professor at Moscow State University and a member of the
      Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

      "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, which is sold
      by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology,
      seriously hampers the development of science and hides from
      students the field's real problems," said Professor Voeikov.

      "Lately in the media there's been a lot of talk about science
      versus religion," said West. "But such talk is misleading. This list
      is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge
      Darwinian theory on scientific grounds."

      The list includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley,
      UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of
      Washington among others.

      Simultaneous with the public presentation of the list of scientific
      luminaries, Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti has published
      his book entitled "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" which maps what
      he depicts as a growing scientific case against neo-Darwinism.

      Sermonti challenges the myth that all critics of Darwinism are
      American religious fundamentalists and argues that since
      genetics does not explain even the present forms of life, genetic
      mutations cannot alone explain their origin.

      Dr. Leendert Van Der Hammen, a member with Sermonti of the
      Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, defended
      Sermonti's book. He said that by tying together insights from
      disciplines often studied in isolation—genetics, molecular
      biology, morphogenetics, physics, chemistry and
      mathematics—Sermonti was able to uncover new weaknesses
      in the modern theory of evolution.

      Sermonti is a retired Professor of Genetics at the University of
      Perugia. He discovered what is called genetic recombination in
      antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces and was Vice
      President at XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow,
      1980). He is Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia, one of the world's
      oldest biology journals still in publication.

      See the list of scientists:

      So, to conclude, I see the country, yes under the frontal assualt
      to the will through fear-that's clear but I think it masks something
      deeper. I think we, as a nation are deeper into dysfunction than
      we know which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What I'm saying is
      that we're alot farther down the road, maybe than we know. The
      fear factor, IMO, goes back to the Civil War as does the question
      of federal supremacy over the soveigntry of the states as does
      the supremacy of an industrial society over an agrarian one.
      These are not new themes. Only the names have been
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.