In reading about modern cosmology, one is struck by its similarity to phlogiston theory from the 18th century. Not only is inflation in the background, but you have dark matter and energy, which does not interact, but seems to exist. It seems like there is something right in front of us that we are missing. We're just waiting for what Kuhn called a paradigm shift...for a revolution.
A thought. Inflation was a massive explosion in the size of the universe. Is it possible this is simply a result of (1) Massive energy, unconstrained, as (2) the four forces that hold the universe together had not fully seperated, and as such were not holding the universe in place?
As is my wont, I was pondering the origins of religious extremism in our time. Prior posts have explored some directions - here is another. Like all reasons, this is complimentary with others...only a fool alludes something to one cause.
Although in recent years neoconservativism has been gaining strength, the intellectual trend of the past 150 years has been the death of the conservative intellectual / academic. Although there have always remained isolated examples, %90 of the academy is now thoroughly liberal, often far beyond the Democratic or even the Green party.
The one intellectual pillar which has remained is the intellectualism of the religious extremist. It alone offered one with a conservative mindset an intellectual position which supported their lifestyle / desires in life. The title many liberals give to themselves, "progressives," speaks for itself on the view of ideal society.
And so, in light of all this, bolstered by the revolution in public morality with roots in the 60s, many with a conservative mindset came into right-wing religion, whereas many had not been heavily involved with religion before. Funny how things backfire.
[name deleted]: "i was introduced to her in my witchcraft class at harvard."
In the course of my journey towards my current position vis a vis religion, I've tried to make a point of studying the torah, despite ad hominem assertions to the contrary by some. The sefer I spent probably the most time on was kohelet (ecclesiastes). Now, its message of fatalism certainly appealed to me, and I won't deny it. But I never had much patience for those who insist that that is the message of the work is this fatalism and the last two verses are merely tacked on. Rather, the last two verses state the work's thesis, only implicit until the end - There is no meaning without faith, so embrace faith and meaning.
There is nothing new under the sun. Things like the uncertainty principle and other factors spurred a shift in the philosophic outbook towards postmodernism. Nothing is knowable, and nothing, not even the distinction between male and female, is absolute - everything is subjective, even meaning, which as such cannot be absolute.
Shortly after the rise of postmodernism came the rise of fanaticism, in every major monotheistic religion. Although the argument has been made that postmodernism is antireligious, from the kohelet point of view, the opposite seems to be true, and there seems to be a historical correlation, mentioned above. In this case, the coda of "in sum, beleive in god" is tacked on by third parties, but the message is the same.
Just a thought. I'd love comments, assuming anyone reads this.
"Its kinda all my thoughts...I don't know what to do about that."
Well, I just got back from Phoenix. The weather was almost beyond nice (days in the mid-high 70s, with a breeze), and the people were entirely too nice. There were also a surprising number of Kosher restaurants, including a quite good pizza place.
And now, I'm back in Chicago, where 38 degrees is warm, and where I have to carry 4 casebooks around each day.
Point? Nah.
After International Law class, I got into a bit of an argument with the professor, Anthony D'Amato He took a fairly pro-Palestinian viewpoint in class, including stating that the Palestinian argument for a state is contrasted by the Israeli argument of a biblical mandate.
We talked after class, and I took him to task on the above point. However, two interesting things came out. Firstly, he was under the impression that the Israeli borders were the same pre-1967 as they were set forth in the UN Partition Plan of 1947. When he asked how it could be different so soon after independance, I pointed out that Israel was invaded by every arab country in the area at once the moment it declared independance. He was unaware of this as well.
Look at the guy's resume...I find it unbeleivable he didn't know this, and what does that say about the general public's knowledge?
And what does this say about me? I was on the left on Israel issues at YU, and I'm far right here. I don't think I've moved. What does that say about just about everyone then?