THE CRIFASIAN CLUTCHING AT *IFS*
February 2nd, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: THE CRIFASIAN CLUTCHING AT *IFS* :: THE CRIFASIAN CLUTCHING AT *IFS* :: THE CRIFASIAN CLUTCHING AT *IFS* :: this medicine has/has not been tested on human animals
Let us try another less naive form of emphasis rather than a fanatical
religious one shall we?
“Thus, there is a science distinct from these which is concerned with
separate and immovable being, IF INDEED there exists such a substance, that is, one
which is separate and immovable, as we shall try to show. And IF INDEED
there is such a nature in things, the divine, too, WOULD BE here if anywhere, and
this nature WOULD BE the primary and most dominant principle.” (a31-b2)
Jan:
Anthony, would this last sentence indicate that Aristotle is a pantheist
(cf. [insert: *IF INDEED there is…*] “such a nature *in* things”);
interesting, never thought of him that way.
Anthony:
Perhaps Michael can give us the Greek for that line - the only other
translation I have at hand says, “And IF THERE IS such a kind of thing in the world,
here must be the divine…”
Jud:
Oh God no! Find a genuine translation. Don’t invite a manqué member of the
metaphysical kakocracy for more wish-fulfilling interlingual translational
straw-clutching!
But next we must replace the mysterious disappearance of Aristotle’s
caveat which has been clumsily but deliberately omitted by Anthony…
Anthony:
i. e., “IF INDEED THERE IS SUCH A NATURE among all existing beings, there
WOULD BE also this kind of being (separate and immovable) in addition to
physical beings. Aristotle explicitly states that this “separate and immovable”
being is NOT a physical being (a being studied by physics).
Jud:
Nota bene: *Physics* does NOT study anything at all – it does not exist.
Only human physicists exist. There are those commentators with an
intellectual ability that always ensures the introduction of a qualification
concerning any theory, and those who clutch at any theoretical straw if it can be
twisted by improper emphasis or deliberate omission to support their dark
purposes.
I believe that all people are born with a genetical disposition towards
remote control which kicks in IF they are raised and influenced in an
environment which encourages the acceptance of a *dominant idea* or *father
figure* or *strong male influence* which makes their *moral* decisions for
them. Nietzsche in his particularizing, targeting and rejection of Christian
*values* referred to this imitative behaviour as *the herd instinct.*
There are those capable of rising above this form of mass social control, a
category of regulation and moral constraint ironically selected by nature to
encourage stability, but in effect acts in quite the opposite way by
engendering, discord and mass death, but such anti-religionist peace-makers are
ignored by the brutish mob.
How else can we explain the recent use of two Downs syndrome girls as
carrier moles, who were blown up in a crowded market by remote control? How else
could crazed religionists burn dissenters alive on bonfires, or like
Heidegger render enthusiastic support for Hitler and call for the elimination of
thousands? How else explain the grotesque mass killings in the Soviet Union
or China under communism? How else explain pilots screaming the name of the
Emperor as they aimed their Zeros at the decks of an American aircraft
carrier, or modern fanatics flying airliners into skyscrapers full of
thousands of innocent human beings?
Jud Evans.
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm_
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)
