World Map W/ Antarctica @ Center.

[MarathonTmatt]

Chin,
Below I have posted a link of a world map with Antarctica at it's center. This map also shows ocean currents, but it was the only map of it's kind I could find on the Net.

It is also important to note that the United States Navy (and probably other Navy's) use maps just like this, with Antarctica at the center. I do believe that by putting Antarctica in the center, the map shows a more accurate "bird's eye view" of the world we live in, rather than the maps we mostly use today, which have it's origins from European Colonialism, and seems to compartmentalize everything.

A few things become apparent when looking at this map-
#1) There is only ONE world ocean, things like the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, etc. go back to that compartmentalized mentality. Again, one world ocean.
#2) The tip of South America is close to the Antarctic.
#3) All of the continents are really just one continuous broken-up land mass.
#4) Antarctica can be seen as the natural naval, or center, of the world.
Here is the link:

http://rightbasicbuilding.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/north-edged-equal-azimuth.png?w=450&h=465

[MarathonTmatt]

Below is a link to the Wikipedia article concerning penguins. It is important to note that penguins do not strictly live in arctic zones. Indeed, there are species of penguin that live around the equator in South America, Africa and the Galapagos Islands.

I know other people may criticize me once again (while others will be as intrigued as I am/asking questions), but could the penguins living in Antarctica have at one time been tropical birds, like the rest of their species, who adapted successfully to a colder climate? If so, what does this say about the climate of Antarctica before the last Ice Age? (roughly 12,000 years ago.)

And here is where I address one of the same questions I had in my last thread (possible cultural links between Polynesian, Asian and American peoples): Could there have been a great, trans-continental human civilization before the last Ice Age? (more than 12,000 years ago.) I reject the evolutionary theory that our ancestors were brutish animals. But maybe people needed to start all over again. Think about it- if 90% of the population were wiped out, and say, the only human survivors were the members of this forum, we obviously couldn't live as we once did.

Anyway, I am certainly no professional. At the same time I have never been institutionalized or indoctrinated by the dominant culture, so I can look at this stuff with an open mind. The info on penguins is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin

[Faux Newbie]

Total amateur here. I like the idea that it is possible that civilization has ebbed and flowed, and certainly we are dependent on only what evidence can survive to today. The first examples of Chinese writing are of a completely developed language, but we know that was not the language at its beginning, it is just that the earliest examples come on materials that could survive (tortoise shells, bronze).

Additionally, we associate civilization and civilizing as a moderating process, when all evidence says it does the opposite. We have always grown more capable to express greater cruelty (generally speaking). The modern human's society has either expressed greater cruelty on their neighbors, or exported it even more greatly to distant neighbors. There is some reason to say that, when populations were smaller, groups had less reason to implement cruelty locally or distantly.

[Syn7]

Additionally, we associate civilization and civilizing as a moderating process, when all evidence says it does the opposite. We have always grown more capable to express greater cruelty (generally speaking). The modern human's society has either expressed greater cruelty on their neighbors, or exported it even more greatly to distant neighbors. There is some reason to say that, when populations were smaller, groups had less reason to implement cruelty locally or distantly.


I disagree. I think, over time, we have grown to be more capable to express anything. With that comes the good and the bad. So yeah, we found new and horrible ways to do harm, but we have also found new and amazing ways to do good. Human nature is rooted in self interest. When it serves ones interest to be good, they will. When it doesn't, they won't. The more capable we are, the more capable we are to assess what is good and bad for us. Turns out that we are better off when we work together, as a whole, but in keeping with our nature, we exploit that cooperation to our own benefit. That exploitation can have good or bad consequences for ourselves and others.

[Faux Newbie]

I disagree. I think, over time, we have grown to be more capable to express anything. With that comes the good and the bad. So yeah, we found new and horrible ways to do harm, but we have also found new and amazing ways to do good. Human nature is rooted in self interest. When it serves ones interest to be good, they will. When it doesn't, they won't. The more capable we are, the more capable we are to assess what is good and bad for us. Turns out that we are better off when we work together, as a whole, but in keeping with our nature, we exploit that cooperation to our own benefit. That exploitation can have good or bad consequences for ourselves and others.

Strictly speaking, you just agree, but feel that other expressions went through the same effect.:D

However, one could say that expressions of good are limited by what the civilization is dependent on, and, in fact, defined by them. Where we need overpopulation, good is "tending to the poor and starving," which is not the same as changing their conditions. One could certainly make the case that this good is dependent on, and limited by, the cruelty, and that it always lags behind it. That this is a more genuine or profound expression of good is questionable. I am not particularly aware of a moral thought unique to the modern age. The moral foundation of the world is predominantly ancient.

We feed the starving because we have fuel to move food, aided by artificially favorable access to fuel, fueled by conditions in certain countries where the few necessary to look to the interests of outside countries over their own cannot hold power domestically except poverty and authoritarianism.

People at the individual level can be moral, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but at the level of a civilization, one's actions are constrained by the civilization. I don't tend to see this producing a morality greater than that which existed before.

[Faux Newbie]

To clarify, I believe strongly in the tendency of any individual towards positive behavior, but I suggest that it is always limited by the requirements of their civilization, and the stronger their civilization, the more that their morality has moral costs, externalized to those not in power or those in other localities.

This is not a Luddite refutation of civilization, that would be an irrational refutation of the hegemonic power of civilization. It is merely an argument against morality as a technology that has improved due to civilization.

If we find more sustainable power (not meaning wind and solar, as they cannot fill the place of oil on their own), it would be interesting to see what ensued. Since infinite power would hold little profit capacity without artificial constraints, the economic changes could be sizable, which would remove some constraints on morality that we all accept as unavoidable.

[Faux Newbie]

Sorry to keep going on.

On the flip side, immorality in civilization is often decided on because of the constraints of civilization. So, proxy wars are necessary due to the cold war, driving arms sales. Mistreatment of women is based around entitlements of men based around societal depictions of manhood which are tied to the drive toward civilization in its broader sense. These entitlements are based around production needs of the society that require the absence of the father from the family, and the undervaluing of women's labor. The entitlements of women are the same. The victimization of women is predicated by their disarmament. Give every women a knife and the knowledge that its use for a human and a chicken is hardly different, and you would not see the same result. Murder is invariably tied to these or economic issues that do not exist without civilization as an enabling mechanism. What is to be gained is specific to the civilized.

On the flip side, what is good does not change at all, with or without civilization. Feeding someone. Kindness to a child. Kindness to anyone. These have not changed one iota, they are something that we are hardwired to do. Our survival mechanism is not wired to individual good, but to dependence on the group, even for nomads. Killing someone for food or stealing their food encapsulates stealing in general, except the civilized abstract this to more violence, while they have not managed to do the same to morality. For the good, not vacationing, never occurs to the first world individual who is recipient of this benefit. The cost of flying across the world constantly for activists would achieve more good used directly than most of their activism. Burma under China may as well be Guatemala under us.

[SoCo KungFu]

The stupid in this thread is at critical mass.

[SoCo KungFu]

Chin,
Below I have posted a link of a world map with Antarctica at it's center. This map also shows ocean currents, but it was the only map of it's kind I could find on the Net.

It is also important to note that the United States Navy (and probably other Navy's) use maps just like this, with Antarctica at the center. I do believe that by putting Antarctica in the center, the map shows a more accurate "bird's eye view" of the world we live in, rather than the maps we mostly use today, which have it's origins from European Colonialism, and seems to compartmentalize everything.

A few things become apparent when looking at this map-
#1) There is only ONE world ocean, things like the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, etc. go back to that compartmentalized mentality. Again, one world ocean.

No. "Ocean" is a categorical term designating arbitrary boundaries. It is a human construct. There are many oceans, but one connecting body of water

#2) The tip of South America is close to the Antarctic.
#3) All of the continents are really just one continuous broken-up land mass.

Tectonic plates would like to have a word with you

#4) Antarctica can be seen as the natural naval, or center, of the world.

And so could Dothan, Alabama. Its irrelevant.
Here is the link:

http://rightbasicbuilding.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/north-edged-equal-azimuth.png?w=450&h=465

123456789**

[SoCo KungFu]

Below is a link to the Wikipedia article concerning penguins. It is important to note that penguins do not strictly live in arctic zones. Indeed, there are species of penguin that live around the equator in South America, Africa and the Galapagos Islands.

I know other people may criticize me once again (while others will be as intrigued as I am/asking questions), but could the penguins living in Antarctica have at one time been tropical birds, like the rest of their species, who adapted successfully to a colder climate? If so, what does this say about the climate of Antarctica before the last Ice Age? (roughly 12,000 years ago.)

And here is where I address one of the same questions I had in my last thread (possible cultural links between Polynesian, Asian and American peoples): Could there have been a great, trans-continental human civilization before the last Ice Age? (more than 12,000 years ago.) I reject the evolutionary theory that our ancestors were brutish animals. But maybe people needed to start all over again. Think about it- if 90% of the population were wiped out, and say, the only human survivors were the members of this forum, we obviously couldn't live as we once did.

Anyway, I am certainly no professional. Oh that's quite apparent.
At the same time I have never been institutionalized or indoctrinated by the dominant culture, so I can look at this stuff with an open mind. Says the one that would rather follow the vomit of a barely cogent theologian as opposed to objectively validated science. You're an idiot is what you are.
The info on penguins is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin

So you come here asking questions yet reveal you have absolutely no value for evidence based on your dismissal of evolution. Nice box of contradictions you are. You are aware, of course, that those penguins you speak of are not one species. Of course you don't, you don't believe in evolution. You are also unaware that only one such species lives "around the equator," the Galapagos penguin. I know you are unaware of this because you don't seem to understand where the equator actually lies. You also seem to have no idea on ocean currents, land mass features, and water temps. See above on plate tectonics. Really, this isn't a hard matter to understand. You should have learned this in grade school life sciences. I'll give you a hint, up-welling currents are freaking cold.

And I'm not even going to go into how you contradict yourself by invoking a backwards idea of evolution, while at the same time denying evolution...

[MarathonTmatt]

So you come here asking questions yet reveal you have absolutely no value for evidence based on your dismissal of evolution. Nice box of contradictions you are. You are aware, of course, that those penguins you speak of are not one species. Of course you don't, you don't believe in evolution. You are also unaware that only one such species lives "around the equator," the Galapagos penguin. I know you are unaware of this because you don't seem to understand where the equator actually lies. You also seem to have no idea on ocean currents, land mass features, and water temps. See above on plate tectonics. Really, this isn't a hard matter to understand. You should have learned this in grade school life sciences. I'll give you a hint, up-welling currents are freaking cold.

And I'm not even going to go into how you contradict yourself by invoking a backwards idea of evolution, while at the same time denying evolution...

What makes you think I have no concept of where the equator lies, or ocean currents and land mass features? (At least with land mass features, I would say I pride myself in understanding more than most people.) Please back up your evidence for this claim with the available information on this thread. If not, I have to assume you are trying to discredit anything I do. You are the same person who started putting words in my mouth about UFO's (that is a subject you will never see me touch) in one of my last threads, even though I never posted anything about such things. In threads like this I am trying to take a closer look at human civilization and the world we live in. Until recently I had never seen an alternative map of the world before, and I am sure most other people hadn't either so I was inspired to share it, along with some other intuitive thoughts I had about Antarctica. Nothing wrong with that, and if you are going to put down a meek person for asking questions then you are an *******. Also it is time to understand that the world ocean is one body of water. The map I showed does a great job of pointing this out. Also, there has to be something to that map (Antarctica at center) if the US Navy ones like it.

I looked at your profile and it said that your interests were ecology, conservation and behavioral evolution. So then what are your interests in calling me an idiot? Why so hostile? Because it looks to me that you have an interest in discrediting anything I do, Mr. "Behavioral Evolution".

Grade school? I was a high-school drop-out. Life Sciences? Man, I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't know what that is. Sounds like something that has to do with the establishment that I should hate.

[MarathonTmatt]

SoCo,
I am going to put the strong language aside. I would rather respect other people for who they are and any insight they can offer, but respect is a two-way street, it works both ways. I would like to give you some real-world examples of a few things here, to back up my perspectives and maybe you will understand the angle I am coming from a bit clearer.

My kindergarten teacher recommended me for "special education." My parents did not want to place me there and in first grade I was in a normal classroom. In second grade I was placed in special education, although when they tested me I was at a 9th grade reading level (in 2nd grade) and everything else was probably normal, except maybe math. I think this is because I did not have patience for it. So my placement in spec. ed. had nothing to do with my test scores and IQ, rather it had to do with my behavior. (My parents did not allow them to give me any drugs, even today at almost 30 years old I can still count on one hand the number of times I have had any pharmaceutical medicine, even a tylonel or an Advil. I do not go to the western doctor's office, never have before, never gotten a shot and wasn't born in a hospital either, but one of my Tai Chi teachers is a Chinese doctor.) I would day-dream in class. When my parents first met w/ the kindergarten teacher he was saying I must have a learning disability. Well, I was there and my mother said "tell Mr. Green what you have learned." And I started rolling off about everything I had been learning in the class to the T, and the teacher was so surprised. So the lesson here is I am not stupid, I am a different kind of a learner than other people are. So as you can see, this kindergarten teacher was wrong.

This same kindergarten teacher also recommended I get a pair of glasses. My vision is okay, but not the best. Today, I wear them maybe 50% of the time, but I can function just fine in regular situation without them, I would not be a good sharp-shooter without my glasses though. One of my eyes was normal, the other would wander. It wasn't being cross-eyed, there is another word for it. In the traditional Native American culture (and other traditional cultures in the world) this feature is actually considered to be a mark of beauty and wisdom. In fact, I remember when I was young my grandfather would look at my birth marks and tell me I was special because of my marks (yes I have Native American ancestry.) Now, there was an eye doctor who at one point in my youth reset my eye so I no longer have that particular mark of beauty.

Anyway, starting from when I was a teenager I would not wear my glasses so often and I would try to strengthen my eye-sight naturally. I would stand a certain distance from a tree for instance and try to count all of the leaves on the tree. The next several times I went to the eye doctor he would prescribe a weaker and weaker prescription for me. I mentioned the leaf counting off-handedly, but did not tell him that was what I was doing. He scoffed at the idea, saying that kind of thing does not work (although I knew this is how my eyesight had slightly improved.)

Now, the moral of these stories is that the majority can sometimes be wrong about something. Even in the field of established science. Remember how we were taught that people supposedly used to think that the Earth was flat? Or how about what science knew about the planets 100 years ago compared with today. Science is always changing, and people come to new understandings. One thing about scientists though is that they have to follow a strict doctrine which is sometimes counter-productive to better understandings of things. I do not have a source for this, so this may not actually be the case, but I heard somewhere that Darwin, in his later life, rejected his own theory of evolution. I will have to see (or maybe someone else) if that can be sourced/validated.

Whether you know it or not, when you resort to name-calling and say I am an idiot, then you are no better than those eye doctors or that kindergarten teacher. Grade school is nothing more than an intensive 12-step program to indoctrinate people at a young age, and then it continues when they go to university in their college years. You need to ask yourself if that kind of schooling is true knowledge, or the knowledge somebody else wants you to know/think a certain way. I am lucky in a way that I did not fall prey to their programs and can think clearly for myself. Even if I am not on mark about some theories/insights/data, sometimes I am in the ballpark, so to speak.

People these days worship the intellect. But that is a bad thing, actually. It is good to have an intellect, but it is only a tool, it is also good to have a heart and a soul. Instead of thinking with your mind, try to think more with your heart.

Have a good day.

[Syn7]

:eek::eek::eek:

8522

[Syn7]

Strictly speaking, you just agree, but feel that other expressions went through the same effect.:D

I hear ya. Sorry for the late response. I don't have time to give you the response your words deserve, so I'll just say that we may not be on the same page, but we're on the same chapter. Peace :)

[Faux Newbie]

I hear ya. Sorry for the late response. I don't have time to give you the response your words deserve, so I'll just say that we may not be on the same page, but we're on the same chapter. Peace :)

You are clearly not giving this internet stuff the time it requires!

[Syn7]

You are clearly not giving this internet stuff the time it requires!

There is no amount of time that would satisfy "teh internetz"!!! It's a freakin rabbit hole!

Honestly, I could spend all my time just on STEM vids on youtube alone.


My days require me to be "thoughtful" all day long. By the time I get to the net, I'm pretty much looking for my off switch. Or I just woke up and have to leave soon.

[MarathonTmatt]

123456789**

Here is article about the South Pole (Antarctica):

*The South Pole, also known as the Geographic South Pole or Terrestrial South Pole, is one of the two points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface. It is the southernmost point on the surface of the Earth and lies on the opposite side of the Earth from the North Pole.

Situated on the continent of Antarctica, it is the site of the United States Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which was established in 1956 and has been permanently staffed since that year. The Geographic South Pole should not be confused with the South Magnetic Pole, which though geographically nearby, is defined based on the Earth's magnetic field.*

It is called the South Pole because it is one of two points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects, and is Earth's south magnetic pole. This does not happen in your Doltham, Alabama. That is why a map of the world showing Antarctica as a central point is actually relevant, but a map with Doltham Alabama and other such points is not.

Also the map w/ Antarctica at center shows a great unification of the one World Ocean, while the rest of the maps us common-folk use are straight out of a Euro-centric colonialism thinking, dividing everything into segments.

There have been tropical plant fossils found in Antarctica as well. As for evolution, adaptability and evolution are not exactly the same thing, when did I ever use evolution in my case (I know, the penguins, right), but adaptability is not the same, at least not the same school of thought.

[Syn7]

Here is article about the South Pole (Antarctica):

*The South Pole, also known as the Geographic South Pole or Terrestrial South Pole, is one of the two points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface. It is the southernmost point on the surface of the Earth and lies on the opposite side of the Earth from the North Pole.

Situated on the continent of Antarctica, it is the site of the United States Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which was established in 1956 and has been permanently staffed since that year. The Geographic South Pole should not be confused with the South Magnetic Pole, which though geographically nearby, is defined based on the Earth's magnetic field.*

It is called the South Pole because it is one of two points where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects, and is Earth's south magnetic pole. This does not happen in your Doltham, Alabama. That is why a map of the world showing Antarctica as a central point is actually relevant, but a map with Doltham Alabama and other such points is not.

Also the map w/ Antarctica at center shows a great unification of the one World Ocean, while the rest of the maps us common-folk use are straight out of a Euro-centric colonialism thinking, dividing everything into segments.

There have been tropical plant fossils found in Antarctica as well. As for evolution, adaptability and evolution are not exactly the same thing, when did I ever use evolution in my case (I know, the penguins, right), but adaptability is not the same, at least not the same school of thought.
First off, flat maps are always going to be inaccurate in one way or another. By compensating in one area, you distort another. It really comes down to which perspective best suits your needs. For example, the mercator projection is good for navigation, but really messes with the scale of land masses giving the northernmost and southernmost masses the appearance of being far larger than they are when compared to regions closer to the equator. My point is that different maps aren't better or worse in all context.

As you have said before, the maps we use are quite eurocentric. Why is this? Because europeans made a ton of maps and they became the norm for reasons that are probably obvious to those who have thought it through. But there is no reason why it can't change in the future. At this point, orientation is kind of arbitrary. In ancient times people didn't have the full picture. Upper egypt is actually south of lower egypt. Does it really matter at this point? Not really. If you want a different view in order to have a certain perspective for a specific reason, cool. For example, if you want to see the paths of human migration, it would make sense to look at a map with the north pole at it's center. But to reject the norm simply because of some anti colonial sentiment is kind of silly.

[GoldenBrain]

The reason we view maps with certain areas in the center as opposed to other areas is because those are the areas that the viewers live in. Flat maps in China normally show Asia in the center. At least that's what I've been told by some asian friends when this subject came up in the past. Having the local region in the center just shows a more pertinent area to the viewer. It wouldn't make sense for North Americans for example to view a flat map with the Antarctica in the center because the vast majority of North Americans will never step foot on that continent. However, it is likely that they'll travel around North America. With that said, I think it's totally cool to view maps from all angles. I'm a cartography nut so it's all good to me.

If you want to view a more realistic map then a globe is what you should be looking at. In case you're interested I've attached two size correct maps which show the continents in better proportion. Even with these size correct maps you don't get a good sense of what the poles look like so having one of each pole is a good idea if that's the region you are interested in.



8527

8528

[Kellen Bassette]

As you have said before, the maps we use are quite eurocentric. Why is this? Because europeans made a ton of maps and they became the norm for reasons that are probably obvious to those who have thought it through. But there is no reason why it can't change in the future. At this point, orientation is kind of arbitrary.


In the Eastern Hemisphere, it is common for the EH to be on the left side of a flat map; and the WH on the right side...arbitrary indeed...



In ancient times people didn't have the full picture. Upper egypt is actually south of lower egypt.

"Upper" and "lower" usually referred to elevations of river valleys, lakes and mountains. It becomes confusing as people now tend to think of "up" as north.

[Syn7]

If you want to view a more realistic map then a globe is what you should be looking at. In case you're interested I've attached two size correct maps which show the continents in better proportion. Even with these size correct maps you don't get a good sense of what the poles look like so having one of each pole is a good idea if that's the region you are interested in.

It also skews the shape of the land masses in order to compensate for proportion. It's always a give and take with flat maps. Unless you use the butterfly style, but then you lose that sense of continuity. And I agree, maps are fun! Most definitely something I could get into.



"Upper" and "lower" usually referred to elevations of river valleys, lakes and mountains. It becomes confusing as people now tend to think of "up" as north.

I never really thought about it that way with respect to Egypt. I guess it stands to reason that the Nile flows down from highlands. Good lookin' out Kellen. I should have reasoned that out on my own, but I didn't. Bias always creepin in. So... yeah... I done learned somethin! ;) Thanx.

[MarathonTmatt]

Thanks guys you bring up good points. I understand about the flat maps and the people in the region making them that way, it just makes sense.

I wouldn't say it's a anti-colonial view-point reason to ditch the flat maps altogether, more like liberating ourselves from that view point, since we now have a clearer picture of the world from those times. (And it makes sense to center these maps around the natural magnetic poles of the planet.) And suspiciously, all cultures around the world had their own version of the Chinese concept of Feng Shui before becoming Christianized Nation States from 2,000 years ago up through the colonial period and even modern day (and older than 2,000 years old if you count the pre-Christian/pre-Roman Hebraic conquests). But that is a whole other can of worms! (In other words, maybe people weren't so stupid a long time ago as modern archeologists/etc. make them out to be, ie the "stone age." In some ways they understood the world they lived in better than we do i.e. astronomy, astro-theology as it pertained to different belief systems, how to use natural resources, etc.) For instance in much of the Americas a lot of indigenous burial places face to the southwest, this was done by careful, deliberate design and related to the cosmology belief systems. Modern cemeteries and architecture as far as I am aware (there probably are exceptions) do not pay attention to such details by and large.

Thanks a bunch Syn7, GoldenBrain etc. for not calling me an idiot and engaging in some real conversation here! Currently being un-employed, living more in a rural environment than the city and not having such a great way of getting around (access to transportation) is making me think too hard about random stuff :D :D (although there are good benefits to these things as well.)

[GoldenBrain]

[QUOTE=Syn7;1268954]It also skews the shape of the land masses in order to compensate for proportion. It's always a give and take with flat maps. Unless you use the butterfly style, but then you lose that sense of continuity. And I agree, maps are fun! Most definitely something I could get into.

I couldn't agree more about the give and take with flat maps. I would have gone into that point more but you already said it so I didn't think I could add much to that.

I was always interested in maps and geography, but that interest amplified many times over when I learned how to orienteer. There's just something really cool about being able to find my way in foreign (to me) territory with only a compass and topo map. When I lived in the Appalachians and was seriously crazy into hiking I would sometimes go WAY off trail with a map, compass and GPS and try to find my way back. The GPS was never used unless I got lost and that only happened a few times out of thousands of miles. Even when I was lost I was never really lost because you can normally find some sort of civilization in this country if you just walk straight for long enough.

[GoldenBrain]

Thanks a bunch Syn7, GoldenBrain etc. for not calling me an idiot and engaging in some real conversation here! Currently being un-employed, living more in a rural environment than the city and not having such a great way of getting around (access to transportation) is making me think too hard about random stuff :D :D (although there are good benefits to these things as well.)


No problem MTM! I understand how easy it is to let the mind wander. Not only do I live in the country, but I've spent enough solo time in the woods that I've come up with some really crazy fantastic thoughts. I've also had some really crazy fantastic experiences for that matter. I like you, and it's obvious that you like to work out ideas through discussion so I say keep it up no matter what people say. Don't take it too personally because there's always going to be somebody who disagrees with you and some might do it more harshly than others, so take from it what you want and discard what you don't want. It's all a learning experience. I have several friends and family who are gifted with really high IQs. I've noticed that most of the higher end thinkers have trouble letting their minds wander outside of the provable, verifiable, peer reviewed facts and that's perfectly fine. They need to be grounded in fact in order to be successful in their respective fields of work/study. I really don't think anybody was calling YOU an idiot but rather taking issue with what was being discussed in this thread.


Edit: Or, I could be wrong. :eek: :D After reading the posts below I think you are being called an idiot. Don't sweat it though because opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. I think it's pretty harsh but I will give them this. Some of the things you say are a slap in the face to those who worked so hard before you to build this establishment, but yeah, that's pretty harsh fellas. Signed, the coddler. ;)

[SoCo KungFu]

blah blah blah

Grade school? I was a high-school drop-out. Life Sciences? Man, I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't know what that is. Sounds like something that has to do with the establishment that I should hate.

That line right there. That thermonuclear level of stupidity is why I will never give someone like you respect. It is stupid. You aren't ignorant. Ignorance is excusable. You are simply stupid. Because you willfully disregard the hard earned expertise of those far more capable than you, in favor of your bat guano stories that appeal to you fragile little emotions. In your little brain, you actually think what you are doing is noble. In reality, it makes you a moron. And while others here may feel some need to coddle your imagination, I find it disturbing. You come in here asking for answers yet so nonchalantly trash the very process from which those answers are derived. You have absolutely no respect for evidence. You certainly have no respect for the years of work that goes into the things you so lightly disregard. In your little, myopic worldview, you can't even understand how utterly revolting you are, how utterly disrespectful you are. So take your "anti-establishment" mentality and cram it.

[SoCo KungFu]

SoCo,
I am going to put the strong language aside. I would rather respect other people for who they are and any insight they can offer, but respect is a two-way street, it works both ways. I would like to give you some real-world examples of a few things here, to back up my perspectives and maybe you will understand the angle I am coming from a bit clearer.

My kindergarten teacher recommended me for "special education." My parents did not want to place me there and in first grade I was in a normal classroom. In second grade I was placed in special education, although when they tested me I was at a 9th grade reading level (in 2nd grade) and everything else was probably normal, except maybe math. I think this is because I did not have patience for it. So my placement in spec. ed. had nothing to do with my test scores and IQ, rather it had to do with my behavior. (My parents did not allow them to give me any drugs, even today at almost 30 years old I can still count on one hand the number of times I have had any pharmaceutical medicine, even a tylonel or an Advil. I do not go to the western doctor's office, never have before, never gotten a shot and wasn't born in a hospital either, but one of my Tai Chi teachers is a Chinese doctor.) I would day-dream in class. When my parents first met w/ the kindergarten teacher he was saying I must have a learning disability. Well, I was there and my mother said "tell Mr. Green what you have learned." And I started rolling off about everything I had been learning in the class to the T, and the teacher was so surprised. So the lesson here is I am not stupid, I am a different kind of a learner than other people are. So as you can see, this kindergarten teacher was wrong.

This same kindergarten teacher also recommended I get a pair of glasses. My vision is okay, but not the best. Today, I wear them maybe 50% of the time, but I can function just fine in regular situation without them, I would not be a good sharp-shooter without my glasses though. One of my eyes was normal, the other would wander. It wasn't being cross-eyed, there is another word for it. In the traditional Native American culture (and other traditional cultures in the world) this feature is actually considered to be a mark of beauty and wisdom. In fact, I remember when I was young my grandfather would look at my birth marks and tell me I was special because of my marks (yes I have Native American ancestry.) Now, there was an eye doctor who at one point in my youth reset my eye so I no longer have that particular mark of beauty.

Anyway, starting from when I was a teenager I would not wear my glasses so often and I would try to strengthen my eye-sight naturally. I would stand a certain distance from a tree for instance and try to count all of the leaves on the tree. The next several times I went to the eye doctor he would prescribe a weaker and weaker prescription for me. I mentioned the leaf counting off-handedly, but did not tell him that was what I was doing. He scoffed at the idea, saying that kind of thing does not work (although I knew this is how my eyesight had slightly improved.)

Now, the moral of these stories is that the majority can sometimes be wrong about something. Even in the field of established science. Remember how we were taught that people supposedly used to think that the Earth was flat? Or how about what science knew about the planets 100 years ago compared with today. Science is always changing, and people come to new understandings. One thing about scientists though is that they have to follow a strict doctrine which is sometimes counter-productive to better understandings of things. I do not have a source for this, so this may not actually be the case, but I heard somewhere that Darwin, in his later life, rejected his own theory of evolution. I will have to see (or maybe someone else) if that can be sourced/validated.

Whether you know it or not, when you resort to name-calling and say I am an idiot, then you are no better than those eye doctors or that kindergarten teacher. Grade school is nothing more than an intensive 12-step program to indoctrinate people at a young age, and then it continues when they go to university in their college years. You need to ask yourself if that kind of schooling is true knowledge, or the knowledge somebody else wants you to know/think a certain way. I am lucky in a way that I did not fall prey to their programs and can think clearly for myself--[Oh if you only could grasp the scale of the irony here...]. Even if I am not on mark about some theories/insights/data, sometimes I am in the ballpark, so to speak.

People these days worship the intellect. But that is a bad thing, actually. It is good to have an intellect, but it is only a tool, it is also good to have a heart and a soul. Instead of thinking with your mind, try to think more with your heart.

Have a good day.

Sweet, also irrelevant. So what we've learned from this long-winded bag of emotion drivel, is that you don't know the difference between near vs farsightedness, your parent's are responsible for your irrational fear of anything medical, you further affirm you have no respect for evidence, you cling to that which comforts you rather than what is validated (the tai chi teacher that feeds you unsubstantiated TCM), and you have the audacity to invoke the prattle about an always changing body of scientific understanding while so arrogantly defying the very mechanism from which this body of knowledge is derived (and seem to be willing to take full advantage of when suits your needs, like the computer you are typing on). You are a hypocrite. Funny though, a high school drop out seems to think he has a clue of what goes on in academia. Also pathetic; you've switched your brain off.

[Faux Newbie]

Sweet, also irrelevant. So what we've learned from this long-winded bag of emotion drivel, is that you don't know the difference between near vs farsightedness, your parent's are responsible for your irrational fear of anything medical, you further affirm you have no respect for evidence, you cling to that which comforts you rather than what is validated (the tai chi teacher that feeds you unsubstantiated TCM), and you have the audacity to invoke the prattle about an always changing body of scientific understanding while so arrogantly defying the very mechanism from which this body of knowledge is derived (and seem to be willing to take full advantage of when suits your needs, like the computer you are typing on). You are a hypocrite. Funny though, a high school drop out seems to think he has a clue of what goes on in academia. Also pathetic; you've switched your brain off.

Your entire existence is dependent on a huge number of people who will never have the opportunity or aptitude to do or understand what you can.

[MarathonTmatt]

Sweet, also irrelevant. So what we've learned from this long-winded bag of emotion drivel, is that you don't know the difference between near vs farsightedness, your parent's are responsible for your irrational fear of anything medical, you further affirm you have no respect for evidence, you cling to that which comforts you rather than what is validated (the tai chi teacher that feeds you unsubstantiated TCM), and you have the audacity to invoke the prattle about an always changing body of scientific understanding while so arrogantly defying the very mechanism from which this body of knowledge is derived (and seem to be willing to take full advantage of when suits your needs, like the computer you are typing on). You are a hypocrite. Funny though, a high school drop out seems to think he has a clue of what goes on in academia. Also pathetic; you've switched your brain off.

Hah... you are a funny man. I know the difference between near and far-sightedness. I can see just fine. In fact, close range, my eyes are superior than most people's (reading small fine print, etc.) Mid-range I am close to average. Far away I just have trouble seeing detail... which is why, I have a pair of glasses that I put on if I have to !! :)

I would only resort to something medical if it was an emergency. I train in Kung Fu, I have run a marathon/etc., and I am in great shape with no problems to worry about. Yes, life without a dependency on pharmaceutical drugs can be a glorious thing, if you take care of yourself. If somebody has needs to use drugs, I understand, but if there is no reason for it like in my case, than there is no reason for it IMO.

You think TCM is unsubstantiated? So you are saying that you train in Kung Fu, but you have no respect for the culture that it came out of? You sound like a bully-type to me. Personally I like herbal remedies, topical and ingestable. My tai chi teacher does not "feed" me anything unsubstantiated. Ginseng root grows wild in the Eastern United States for example, my grandfather would always point those kinds of things out to my family. Are you saying that the health benefits of Ginseng root are unsubstantiated? :confused:

Well, I used the example of a changing body of science to try and engage YOU to think, after all, it is your own paradigm, not mine. It sounds to me as if you are the pea-brained one.

Oh? How am I a hypocrite if I use a computer?? I don't get it. "Because it suits my needs." Really? :rolleyes: I have zero problems with appliances, cars, etc. My grandfather, after having been in the trade since his Navy days in WW2, started his own steel works company which my Uncle now owns, and he has won many awards for his work. Yeah man, I am a modern person. I may be pointing my finger towards certain subjects that are a bit out-of-the-box, but that is because these areas should be explored and understood better. You certainly aren't helping, and you have no respect.

Well, I am assuming I made my points about the original map I posted with my thoughts on it a little clearer and my case more tighter, so I am assuming you chose to personally attack me in lieu of the content matter of the subject. Great job- you throw it, son, because I'm gonna hit it right back at ya!

[MarathonTmatt]

That line right there. That thermonuclear level of stupidity is why I will never give someone like you respect. It is stupid. You aren't ignorant. Ignorance is excusable. You are simply stupid. Because you willfully disregard the hard earned expertise of those far more capable than you, in favor of your bat guano stories that appeal to you fragile little emotions. In your little brain, you actually think what you are doing is noble. In reality, it makes you a moron. And while others here may feel some need to coddle your imagination, I find it disturbing. You come in here asking for answers yet so nonchalantly trash the very process from which those answers are derived. You have absolutely no respect for evidence. You certainly have no respect for the years of work that goes into the things you so lightly disregard. In your little, myopic worldview, you can't even understand how utterly revolting you are, how utterly disrespectful you are. So take your "anti-establishment" mentality and cram it.

Maybe I simply typed that line spitefully. "Hate" is too strong a word. You are trying to look for any excuse whatsoever to shut down any thoughts on this matter. I should expect people like you to jump down my case for this, but somehow it is still surprising. This does not make me a moron. I am not trying to be noble either- I am simply pointing my finger at a global map I saw, with one of the magnetic pole ends at the center (which makes logical sense to do) and saying "hey guys, check this out, it makes a lot of sense in understanding the unity of the One World Ocean (or body of water as you call it) and understanding the true placement of the continental land masses, and therefore the world we live in. What a relief from the compartmentalized flat maps we are used to seeing!"

Everything is a circle, this is both a common sense, natural law knowledge and confirmed by science. The molecules in our body are circular, the Earth is a globe. So we have the microcosm which is ourselves, and the larger macrocosm of the stars, planets, astrology, etc. So this post is about harmony, something that you do not understand. Your job is obviously to disrupt harmony, you certainly got me going. But from now on I am not going to let you get under my skin, I will direct my point of attention and therefore my power, into more positive ways.

And another thing. I failed to inform you that I got my act together and attended college for awhile. You played the "I'm a high school drop-out card" to call me uneducated and uninformed, thus to try and dismiss my case. I know you have to defend your doctrine and the integrity of your scientific model, and I feel sorry for you. Your science is nothing but a religion and is a political, commerce-driven cult. You suppress alternative cancer treatments (plant based for example) so that billions of dollars can be poured into a monopoly known as cancer research (which is trademarked and copyrighted), and then milk the money from the sick and dying as they go in for their radiation-based treatments. You people make me sick. Go ahead, keep defending your precious science, and maybe one day it will hit you over the head that it is a monetized cult funded by political interest and commerce.

[SoCo KungFu]

Your entire existence is dependent on a huge number of people who will never have the opportunity or aptitude to do or understand what you can.

See that's the thing about "society." I'd be inclined to think the stronger argument is for the opposite.

Understanding. This is where the divide lies. See ignorance is forgivable. Lack of knowledge can be rectified. Its simply a matter of lack of fact, something which one simply needs the opportunity to be exposed. But this isn't a lack of understanding. You don't need to high level of education to understand. You don't need facts to understand the process. What we are talking about is simply a formalized iteration of basic, inductive reasoning; the crap we do every single day of our existence (the scientific method actually, is simply this). When someone doesn't understand, its not because they lack the knowledge, its because they cannot demonstrate proper reasoning. Or worse, they are unwilling because it violates the identity they've built for themselves. This latter scenario is the case here. In fact, many here. You see it with the anti-western med mentality of the alternative industry (which IS an industry, and everything that comes with that label), you see it with people like this guy who disregard evolution in favor of some whack-nut creationist view of some variety, you see it with the larpers that still rattle off about, "teh deadliez."

[Faux Newbie]

See that's the thing about "society." I'd be inclined to think the stronger argument is for the opposite.

Understanding. This is where the divide lies. See ignorance is forgivable. Lack of knowledge can be rectified. Its simply a matter of lack of fact, something which one simply needs the opportunity to be exposed. But this isn't a lack of understanding. You don't need to high level of education to understand. You don't need facts to understand the process. What we are talking about is simply a formalized iteration of basic, inductive reasoning; the crap we do every single day of our existence (the scientific method actually, is simply this). When someone doesn't understand, its not because they lack the knowledge, its because they cannot demonstrate proper reasoning. Or worse, they are unwilling because it violates the identity they've built for themselves. This latter scenario is the case here. In fact, many here. You see it with the anti-western med mentality of the alternative industry (which IS an industry, and everything that comes with that label), you see it with people like this guy who disregard evolution in favor of some whack-nut creationist view of some variety, you see it with the larpers that still rattle off about, "teh deadliez."

I understand your point, but sadly, the idea that the problem is solvable on the macro level is utopian. Our identity building is almost always, in some ways, predicated in ways that are based on ignorance, or outright avoidance of truth, because accepting and acting on the truth is too costly. It is only matters of degree, at which point the high road ceases to exist.

Additionally, everyone will die ignorant in one sense or another. There is no cure for being in some sense in a state of ignorance. Some have the luxury to fight more of it, but it is often a luxury, and often ignorance of the meanings of having that luxury becomes a necessary evil, even if that ignorance is only a posture.

The creationists, however, make it difficult to be nice sometimes, so I have to cede that point. Larpers don't really bother me, since historically, deadly humans are those with weapons, they aren't any further off the mark than many tough guys who can win an untrained brawl, imo.

[Alex Córdoba]

Melt all the ice. that's what we need. bye bye penguins and no more stupidity.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

[SoCo KungFu]

I understand your point, but sadly, the idea that the problem is solvable on the macro level is utopian. Our identity building is almost always, in some ways, predicated in ways that are based on ignorance, or outright avoidance of truth, because accepting and acting on the truth is too costly. It is only matters of degree, at which point the high road ceases to exist.

See I actually am not disagreeing here. This is exactly why, for instance, roughly only 12% of the population (US pop'n) grows up to become a different faith than that of their parents (not even specifying what they are switching to, just simply switching). Its why the greatest predictor of political affiliation at adulthood is the political affiliation of your parents. But that tells us something, doesn't it? It tells us that values are imprinted yes, but at some point early in development, they are malleable. It tells us that with proper education, if you can reach people early enough (not necessarily young, but chronologically before they become crystallized into one path of competing ideologies), they can be protected from that indoctrination before it sets in. Literally, bad ideas can be "vaccinated" against. And it doesn't take a lot of education. It doesn't require facts. It doesn't require teaching someone what to think. It simply means giving the tools on how to think. This is why its somewhat comical when people tell me I'm no more than a science "cultist." Its a "religion." I don't even care if people learn science. I care that they can simply demonstrate decent reasoning. I mean, does no one read Sherlock anymore? (Nevermind he's actually a logical fallacy, but I won't split hairs here). Critical thinking, its really not THAT hard.


Additionally, everyone will die ignorant in one sense or another. There is no cure for being in some sense in a state of ignorance. Some have the luxury to fight more of it, but it is often a luxury, and often ignorance of the meanings of having that luxury becomes a necessary evil, even if that ignorance is only a posture.

Certainly. Anything higher than basic physics makes my head ache. My understanding of economics is only because I've studied game theory in a biological context (game theory originates in economics), speaking of something else that makes my head scream, try reading some game theory...But ignorance is fine. All I ask for is that people be able to demonstrate that if given XX number of propositions, they can reasonably rule out the ones which are obvious nonsense. And then, when you have a few left that might seem reasonable, you have the reasoning to say, these ones really don't jive with evidence, regardless of how I personally feel about them. Not, on the other hand, lash out at fictitious evil doers because said evidence doesn't fit ones preconceived answers. And if you're going to call out a source, particularly those that are vetted by a field of peers (ie, experts), better have some good grounds to show why you can do so.

All this, I would think to most reasonable people, should be fairly obvious. But for some....

I just don't think my demands are really that...demanding. But I've learned, primarily from studying biology in the seat of southern baptism no less, that usually its more efficient to use these types of people as examples rather than trying to reach them. Never said it was nice.

[Faux Newbie]

See I actually am not disagreeing here. This is exactly why, for instance, roughly only 12% of the population (US pop'n) grows up to become a different faith than that of their parents (not even specifying what they are switching to, just simply switching). Its why the greatest predictor of political affiliation at adulthood is the political affiliation of your parents. But that tells us something, doesn't it? It tells us that values are imprinted yes, but at some point early in development, they are malleable. It tells us that with proper education, if you can reach people early enough (not necessarily young, but chronologically before they become crystallized into one path of competing ideologies), they can be protected from that indoctrination before it sets in. Literally, bad ideas can be "vaccinated" against. And it doesn't take a lot of education. It doesn't require facts. It doesn't require teaching someone what to think. It simply means giving the tools on how to think. This is why its somewhat comical when people tell me I'm no more than a science "cultist." Its a "religion." I don't even care if people learn science. I care that they can simply demonstrate decent reasoning. I mean, does no one read Sherlock anymore? (Nevermind he's actually a logical fallacy, but I won't split hairs here). Critical thinking, its really not THAT hard.



Certainly. Anything higher than basic physics makes my head ache. My understanding of economics is only because I've studied game theory in a biological context (game theory originates in economics), speaking of something else that makes my head scream, try reading some game theory...But ignorance is fine. All I ask for is that people be able to demonstrate that if given XX number of propositions, they can reasonably rule out the ones which are obvious nonsense. And then, when you have a few left that might seem reasonable, you have the reasoning to say, these ones really don't jive with evidence, regardless of how I personally feel about them. Not, on the other hand, lash out at fictitious evil doers because said evidence doesn't fit ones preconceived answers. And if you're going to call out a source, particularly those that are vetted by a field of peers (ie, experts), better have some good grounds to show why you can do so.

All this, I would think to most reasonable people, should be fairly obvious. But for some....

I just don't think my demands are really that...demanding. But I've learned, primarily from studying biology in the seat of southern baptism no less, that usually its more efficient to use these types of people as examples rather than trying to reach them. Never said it was nice.

Game theory has long been on my to-do list, took a graduate level poli-sci class on East Asia taught by someone whose research was grounded in it, and have wanted to learn more of it since. Some basic ideas from it really hit home, but they are not grounded in my having a solid understanding of the fundamentals of it.

And yes, developmental periods in life sure do seem to make a big difference in how well one can adjust. I think there needs to be a period in every life in which one realizes that some group-think we are part of is false, even if individuals taking part in it have some good qualities, often in spite of. I think that is a developmental period many people pass up on. And many do a faux version in which they are just switching from a demanding worldview to a convenient one.