"Such an authority, operating on a scientific basis and on the basis of international achievements, should organize the school system and establish criteria for its requirements."
What if science itself is broken? Won't we just get a different form of pathocracy?
I'm reminded of something I read from Langan the other day: "In the right hands, science can be a boon and a credit to mankind. The problem is that it is presently in the wrong hands, and its accelerating misuse is literally killing us." If this were a single policy - with no other considerations taken into account - I'd be more inclined to agree that it was hopeless. But fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective - it's a package deal.
I have a question, which I hope Łobaczewski addresses in Chapter 20 (when we get there).
Suppose we have a separate science and education power, such as Łobaczewski describes. How can it be designed and constructed to be resistant to the kind of "long march through the universities" that the Frankfurt School did for 50 years, insinuating their schizoid ideologies into the "independent power" and subverting it like the universities have been subverted in our day?
I'm interested too. In the meantime, I guess we would have to figure out what weaknesses allowed this to happen in the first place. I think it would've taken leadership to say no from the beginning to all the so-called studies departments, as anti-scientific and anti-academic in nature. An explicit ban on activism. The only place for Marxism, for instance, is in a class on history of ideologies. There's nothing wrong in principle with "black literature", as another example, but merely as one of a number of special classes, e.g. African lit, Irish lit, closeted homosexual lit, etc. The academy was weak to allow nonsense to take on the aura of knowledge.
Mark I think you just answered the previous comment.
It is therefore necessary to establish independent education in science and all areas that when the time comes have the capacity to fill an independent branch of the Logocracy
Perhaps in the re-organizational stage of post revolution when the criminals who have corrupted our national identity are swinging from the gibbet and this nation has been brought fully back to the ideals that its founders envisioned, the ideas put forth by Lobaczewski can be implemented. Until then, this discussion in my view is purely academic as it will never be realized while the current power brokers maintain even the slightest level of control.
Yep, which is one of the reasons why Lobaczewski initially proposed this as a solution to be implemented after the collapse of communism, which presented what could have been something like a clean slate. It would probably require such conditions again.
"One of the problems leading to emergency in our health services system is that too many people without genuine expertise and understanding, without genuine lived and worked experience, have had and retain too much influence. Too many consultants and officials and politicians (and yes, board members) who think they know best constructing plans for others to follow. Some of these are elegant and at some level many are sound and aspirational. But few are grounded in current genuine experience."
Read the whole article. Most countries with public health services are in the same pickle.
he's also got a report: "The UK Health System: An International Comparison of Health Outcomes." Looked interesting, basically an attempt to find what actually works and what doesn't.
Even before reading this, I have been fond of the number 5 when it comes to decision making.
All things considered, I think 5 is a splendid number and I've gone on the record with this in regards to my thoughts regarding the #5 both 2-dimensionally and 3-dimensionally if you can imagine that.
~~~~~these were my thoughts then~~~~~~~
OK, I'm back here to try - it is 41820. Here is the thing about "5" - 5 is essentially ALWAYS a relationship between 1 in the "middle" and two 2's in the vicinity. It is not simple because those in the groups of 2 can seem as if they are each 1 individually and often they will be in a moment. But take the moments together and you have at any given moment, 1 proton and 2 groups of 2 protons. I just don't think the 1-3-1 setup lasts even longer than a moment - it is too unstable. Probably the more important thing is that the 2 groups of 2 aren't really independent because they are supportive of each other. It could be a supportive proton has different properties, but that is speculation so take it with a grain of salt, but this could also have something to do with why neutrons do not exist. Regardless, the 5 protons in boron find the most stable configuration naturally because it comes easy. On a two dimensional plane there are so many shapes this way - can you envision it? Here is an example that is basically 1-dimensional (even though it isn't): ** * ** . Here is another // * \\ So, move those outside stars or slashes around as you please - on and off the page if you want, but just keep things balanced. It is easy and there are many shapes. If there are many shapes 2-dimensionally, then imagine how many more there are once you go into the next dimension. But don't forget that 5 is an absolute number - also, I think for now, there is no point in breaking things down more than just the proton (and of course the balancing electron) unless we want to play with forces we don't understand.........that is risky and history has demonstrated that it leads to a dead end.
"Such an authority, operating on a scientific basis and on the basis of international achievements, should organize the school system and establish criteria for its requirements."
What if science itself is broken? Won't we just get a different form of pathocracy?
I'm reminded of something I read from Langan the other day: "In the right hands, science can be a boon and a credit to mankind. The problem is that it is presently in the wrong hands, and its accelerating misuse is literally killing us." If this were a single policy - with no other considerations taken into account - I'd be more inclined to agree that it was hopeless. But fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective - it's a package deal.
I have a question, which I hope Łobaczewski addresses in Chapter 20 (when we get there).
Suppose we have a separate science and education power, such as Łobaczewski describes. How can it be designed and constructed to be resistant to the kind of "long march through the universities" that the Frankfurt School did for 50 years, insinuating their schizoid ideologies into the "independent power" and subverting it like the universities have been subverted in our day?
I'm interested too. In the meantime, I guess we would have to figure out what weaknesses allowed this to happen in the first place. I think it would've taken leadership to say no from the beginning to all the so-called studies departments, as anti-scientific and anti-academic in nature. An explicit ban on activism. The only place for Marxism, for instance, is in a class on history of ideologies. There's nothing wrong in principle with "black literature", as another example, but merely as one of a number of special classes, e.g. African lit, Irish lit, closeted homosexual lit, etc. The academy was weak to allow nonsense to take on the aura of knowledge.
Mark I think you just answered the previous comment.
It is therefore necessary to establish independent education in science and all areas that when the time comes have the capacity to fill an independent branch of the Logocracy
Perhaps in the re-organizational stage of post revolution when the criminals who have corrupted our national identity are swinging from the gibbet and this nation has been brought fully back to the ideals that its founders envisioned, the ideas put forth by Lobaczewski can be implemented. Until then, this discussion in my view is purely academic as it will never be realized while the current power brokers maintain even the slightest level of control.
Yep, which is one of the reasons why Lobaczewski initially proposed this as a solution to be implemented after the collapse of communism, which presented what could have been something like a clean slate. It would probably require such conditions again.
Relevant to this week's topic:
Rob Campbell outlines the problems with the health system and what needs to change (New Zealand)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/rob-campbell-outlines-the-problems-with-the-health-system-and-what-needs-to-change/BOTVLOSQDBBDTJ4FZRJK5R2POY/
Here is the "money quote":
"One of the problems leading to emergency in our health services system is that too many people without genuine expertise and understanding, without genuine lived and worked experience, have had and retain too much influence. Too many consultants and officials and politicians (and yes, board members) who think they know best constructing plans for others to follow. Some of these are elegant and at some level many are sound and aspirational. But few are grounded in current genuine experience."
Read the whole article. Most countries with public health services are in the same pickle.
Nice. That reminds me... In one of my random searches I came across this book by Kristian Niemitz (author of Socialism: the failed idea that never dies): https://iea.org.uk/publications/universal-healthcare-without-the-nhs/
he's also got a report: "The UK Health System: An International Comparison of Health Outcomes." Looked interesting, basically an attempt to find what actually works and what doesn't.
Thanks HK.
Consider history. Every empire, political system, religion. ALL Control systems.
All manipulated & controlled by Rothschild & their acolytes.
Even the Romans?? ;)
All of them!
Even before reading this, I have been fond of the number 5 when it comes to decision making.
All things considered, I think 5 is a splendid number and I've gone on the record with this in regards to my thoughts regarding the #5 both 2-dimensionally and 3-dimensionally if you can imagine that.
~~~~~these were my thoughts then~~~~~~~
OK, I'm back here to try - it is 41820. Here is the thing about "5" - 5 is essentially ALWAYS a relationship between 1 in the "middle" and two 2's in the vicinity. It is not simple because those in the groups of 2 can seem as if they are each 1 individually and often they will be in a moment. But take the moments together and you have at any given moment, 1 proton and 2 groups of 2 protons. I just don't think the 1-3-1 setup lasts even longer than a moment - it is too unstable. Probably the more important thing is that the 2 groups of 2 aren't really independent because they are supportive of each other. It could be a supportive proton has different properties, but that is speculation so take it with a grain of salt, but this could also have something to do with why neutrons do not exist. Regardless, the 5 protons in boron find the most stable configuration naturally because it comes easy. On a two dimensional plane there are so many shapes this way - can you envision it? Here is an example that is basically 1-dimensional (even though it isn't): ** * ** . Here is another // * \\ So, move those outside stars or slashes around as you please - on and off the page if you want, but just keep things balanced. It is easy and there are many shapes. If there are many shapes 2-dimensionally, then imagine how many more there are once you go into the next dimension. But don't forget that 5 is an absolute number - also, I think for now, there is no point in breaking things down more than just the proton (and of course the balancing electron) unless we want to play with forces we don't understand.........that is risky and history has demonstrated that it leads to a dead end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.carbon-tax.us/
~~~~
Looking forward to Chapter 16 if there is one.
Ken
Just to be fair I've cross-posted this here:
https://www.sott.net/article/480400-Judge-delivers-ruling-on-Trump-deposition-in-Peter-Strzok-Lisa-Page-lawsuits#comment462443
BK