The term medium, can be equated with mediocre, which sounds bad, but essentially means you walk to middle path between so-called good and bad. Not necessarily has any conotation with intellegence, or the normal standards people tend to jucge other people by, ie IQ, Religion, Colour etc. I am talking about character or the so-called soul, whatever you want to call it, but essentially it is there.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years3 months
Submitted by Edgar Ariete on Fri, 2005-12-02 04:37
Spent a year in Qatar, definitely not a black hole. The point about Good and Bad, in that they are not the only choices, there is also medium, which is not bad at all, and sometimes better than good, and all kinds of degrees in between, it depends on how your rating system works.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years3 months
Submitted by Edgar Ariete on Sat, 2005-11-26 12:02
Like your post, trying to think it through. I am not particularly scared of black holes, as David Hawking the original person who brought up the subject, now denies they exist, this is the way things work in physics, it is dog kills dog, and unless you have original thought you will be exorcised, but, you can change your mind. Unless your thoughts do not agree with the mainstream, then you can also be excorsized as in the case of Herr Dr Peter Plichta with his prime number theory, which actually holds great benefits in teaching children mathemathics. The point is that I am not worried where I am, and Clive probably as wel, but we think, and that is important.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Fri, 2005-11-25 10:46
Sorry to interrupt, but what are you trying to find out here? A life inside the Black Hole?
For example: Judgement Day!
A good man (like Philip?) & a bad man (like Clive?) stick together & goes near that black hole, will Philip agree that his soul will be eaten by the black hole & Clive will fly away with the angels?
What do you believe? is the black hole " playing dice in this world"?
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Thu, 2005-11-24 14:51
You pick the subject and we will discuss it. This is a planning website, so the the general issues are things like P3, MSP and the like, but I have said this before, let us discuss all issues, as I believe that as planners we have a lot to offer, to the world. If you remember I started this posting, to rev the moderators, who locked my previous one, as they could not handle the issues. So give it your best shot, and we will talk anything and everything. Waiting for it.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years
Member for20 years1 month
Submitted by Andy McLean-Reid on Thu, 2005-11-24 03:34
Nah - Yahweh is an Anglicanisation of the Hebrew YHWH having been run through various previous tranlations to boot. Used mainly by American evangelical types it is of no serious academic worth, although it does promote Jewish wry smiles when pronounced with vigour. A more accurate English translation would be Jehovah but some folk like to feel they are showing off.
Worth remembering that many ancicent Hebrew script saw the act of writing Gods name as blasphemy, even today many Jews write G-d when refering to such, so references are generally open to interpretation or euphemistic. Hence the references to Father.
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Wed, 2005-11-23 13:28
An interesting point of pre-judgement, how was Barabas released, the farisees obviously organised that they hed a electoral victory, which is easy if you have money.
The point is that I do not have a religion, but I can still understand what hapened.
Let’s go to Stephen Hawking, and how he he relates to us, ie PPer’s. He wrote a book "A brief History of Time" and as planners are all time related, I think it is an important book. This was the first man would could explain Einstein’s theory of relativity in a way that most people could understand.
The point is if you have a single dimension, which is impossible, explain it. Two Dimensions is a little bit easier, and three dimensions simpler. However, if you create a 3-dimensional object, it will always remain the same. So, Voila, there is a fouth dimesion, which is time?
How do we handle this? We think inside our heads ie our brains. This is very difficult as most people think within their boxes.
However, if you are prepared to expand outside that box, and go back to E=mc² you might find you understand life
Regards
Philip
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Thu, 2005-11-17 14:28
I believe you have some good points there, but bringing up the one about Jesus is interesting, as he was a simular to to Gandhi, although by all concepts he was a freedom fighter , the Romans refused to condemn him, and left the problem to the jews. The jews in their pursuit of trying to satisfy the sovereign (Rome), left him to the wolves. By the way I am not a christian. However, I believe in that which is right and that which is wrong. What I find interesting, is your observations on the American civil war, as it was brother against brother and the like, all for he sake of sovereignity. Interesting subject. You have given a good explanation against globilisation, in the current terms of which it is being sold. Remember to each his own, and let this work from the bottom up up, and not top down. Maybe this will lead to more agreements between, lets call it tribes, and ultimately result in some form of globilisation.
I find the discussion getting interesting by the day.
You know I find this statement "And this excessive attachment to non-violence, which anyway caused more deaths and destruction than what could have been in Civil war"
very controversial.
Its like listening to someone who has read the Da Vinci Code.
Im not really disagreeing with you on this because I dont have any proof to the contrary. Are you sure there are more people who die because of excessive attachment to non-violence than those who die because of civil war. Or are you only refering to one event in history?
One can not and one should not achieve “harmonious balance” between right and wrong, violence and peace since right is right and wrong is wrong, violence is violence and peace is peace. The only thing is who will decide what is right and wrong, violence and peace, conflict and harmony ….
In my view only “The Sovereign” can decide.
But where lies the Sovereignty….. who is Sovereign?? And this is the ultimate question to be answered and agreed by all. Once that is done then your right can’t be my wrong.
IMHO assassination could not be a “criteria” of success or failure and evaluation of greatness. Then I am afraid where you would place Jesus as he was crucified (not my belief).
Moreover Gandhi refused to accept any Power and Security Cordon in divided India which he did not wished but succumbed to pressure of leaders who wanted that, to avoid civil war unlike Abraham Lincoln who accepted civil war than division of country. And this excessive attachment to non-violence, which anyway caused more deaths and destruction than what could have been in Civil war, could be sited as a blot on Greatness of Mahatma Gandhi.
Razi Khan
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Wed, 2005-11-16 13:59
I agree with you in the sense of passive resistance, as this is what Gandhi taught, and what changed South Africa, putting Nelson Mandela in as the president, but people get old and as a result need replacements. In terms of what we are dicussing, lets say it is the man on the street vs the politicos. Gandhi never followed the path of violence, whereas Mandela did in his earlier years, but Mandela was the more successful of the two, as Gandhi was assinated, and Mandela is still alive. The question is how to achieve the harmonious balance between right and wrong, violence and peace, conflict and harmony?
An interesting subject as in Gandhis case it got him killed, and in Mandelas case gothim released from prison, and ensconced as the leader of a nation.
Regards
Philp
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years3 months
Submitted by Gordon Blair on Wed, 2005-11-16 07:01
It ciould be argued that there is no such thing as a silent majority, merely lots of silent minorities, who are far too tangled up in their own interests and agenda to coalesce into an entity large enough to make a difference.
It is only events such as the Poll Tax as alluded to by Chris that act as a Catalyst, a unifying event, that allow these silent minorities to become (all too briefly) a cohesive force for change.
It has been said that rebels couldnt overthrow and then run a democratic country, and to a certain extent this is true. Once the common enemy has gone, there is a depressing tendency towards in-fighting and squabbling.
Your Elitists, ruling classes, or dictators, on the other hand, they only have their own agenda to worry about, and consequently there is little ambiguity of purpose or in-fighting stopping them from organising and planning effectively.
We may not like what they do (was there ever such a thing as a truly benevolent dictator?), but they certainly have the capacity to get things done.
Member for
21 years 5 months
Member for21 years5 months
Submitted by Chris Oggham on Wed, 2005-11-16 03:49
Im afraid that I must disagree with your last posting. Just because they are silent, does not mean that the silent majority has surrendered. The silent majority only stays silent while it can tolerate the status quo. As soon as something happens that they cannot tolerate, then some remarkable things can happen.
If I can give you an example, some years ago in Britain, the Government introduced a new tax which was intended to fund local government activities. It meant a large increase in the tax payments for most people, without a matching increase in the services provided by local government. The visible result was rioting in the streets, but that wasnt the silent majority. The silent majority simply decided that they would not pay the new tax, local government authorities started to run out of money and couldnt function. The new tax was scrapped.
Most of the time the silent majority stays silent but when they decide to speak, authority or vested interest would do very well to listen.
It is hard core fact against which majority had already surrendered without any regret, quite few notice and bear the pain of helplessness and very few dare to challenge this status quo, like Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela.
Razi Khan
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Tue, 2005-11-15 13:18
But it is always "few minds" who control or regulate freedom of "everybody minds" and this will continue till man is governed by "Machiavellian Politics" where Self Interest of Individual or Nation is Supreme.
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the ElitistsÂ’
Hi Oscar,
It would appear so, in fact they are
Hi Edgar,
Not too seem judgemental, I believe it is
PKMB,
I have visited your site and found nothing of use. Probably answers Oscars question, there is people who know, but will remain silent.
Regards Guys,
Philip
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: The Silent Majority vs the ElitistsÂ’
Oscar, it would appear so.
Stacy
Participate at the Project Management Knowledge Base!
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Philip,
Character, is it measurable?
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Philip
Are the majority being silent????????????????
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi edgar,
The term medium, can be equated with mediocre, which sounds bad, but essentially means you walk to middle path between so-called good and bad. Not necessarily has any conotation with intellegence, or the normal standards people tend to jucge other people by, ie IQ, Religion, Colour etc. I am talking about character or the so-called soul, whatever you want to call it, but essentially it is there.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Philip,
What do you mean by medium? Is this where freedom applies?
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Edgar,
I have a telescope, but use it to observe the stars
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Herr Jonker & Herr Randall,
You both are honest. I just hope youre not using that big telescope to find out.
edgar
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Edgar,
Spent a year in Qatar, definitely not a black hole. The point about Good and Bad, in that they are not the only choices, there is also medium, which is not bad at all, and sometimes better than good, and all kinds of degrees in between, it depends on how your rating system works.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Philip,
You said you are not worried where you are. Would that mean you doesnt care at all? If youre really thinking, then whats your purpose of living?
At least there are two choices, Good & Bad, forget about the balance, its within the process.
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi edgar,
Like your post, trying to think it through. I am not particularly scared of black holes, as David Hawking the original person who brought up the subject, now denies they exist, this is the way things work in physics, it is dog kills dog, and unless you have original thought you will be exorcised, but, you can change your mind. Unless your thoughts do not agree with the mainstream, then you can also be excorsized as in the case of Herr Dr Peter Plichta with his prime number theory, which actually holds great benefits in teaching children mathemathics. The point is that I am not worried where I am, and Clive probably as wel, but we think, and that is important.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Phillip,
A agree with you considering our precious time.
Charlie
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Gentlemen,
Sorry to interrupt, but what are you trying to find out here? A life inside the Black Hole?
For example: Judgement Day!
A good man (like Philip?) & a bad man (like Clive?) stick together & goes near that black hole, will Philip agree that his soul will be eaten by the black hole & Clive will fly away with the angels?
What do you believe? is the black hole " playing dice in this world"?
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Clive,
You pick the subject and we will discuss it. This is a planning website, so the the general issues are things like P3, MSP and the like, but I have said this before, let us discuss all issues, as I believe that as planners we have a lot to offer, to the world. If you remember I started this posting, to rev the moderators, who locked my previous one, as they could not handle the issues. So give it your best shot, and we will talk anything and everything. Waiting for it.
Regards
Philip
Member for
20 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Nah - Yahweh is an Anglicanisation of the Hebrew YHWH having been run through various previous tranlations to boot. Used mainly by American evangelical types it is of no serious academic worth, although it does promote Jewish wry smiles when pronounced with vigour. A more accurate English translation would be Jehovah but some folk like to feel they are showing off.
Worth remembering that many ancicent Hebrew script saw the act of writing Gods name as blasphemy, even today many Jews write G-d when refering to such, so references are generally open to interpretation or euphemistic. Hence the references to Father.
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
I thought the term was Yahweh?
Member for
20 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
I always understood Abba to be Hebrew for Father.
It was the Sadducees that prosecuted Jesus rather than the Pharisees, and the Romans who executed Him.
You will always have sheep and you will always have wolves.
Please - WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Clive,
An interesting point of pre-judgement, how was Barabas released, the farisees obviously organised that they hed a electoral victory, which is easy if you have money.
The point is that I do not have a religion, but I can still understand what hapened.
Let’s go to Stephen Hawking, and how he he relates to us, ie PPer’s. He wrote a book "A brief History of Time" and as planners are all time related, I think it is an important book. This was the first man would could explain Einstein’s theory of relativity in a way that most people could understand.
The point is if you have a single dimension, which is impossible, explain it. Two Dimensions is a little bit easier, and three dimensions simpler. However, if you create a 3-dimensional object, it will always remain the same. So, Voila, there is a fouth dimesion, which is time?
How do we handle this? We think inside our heads ie our brains. This is very difficult as most people think within their boxes.
However, if you are prepared to expand outside that box, and go back to E=mc² you might find you understand life
Regards
Philip
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Sifredo,
I like your point about the Da Vinci code, but this is fancy literature, you have to dig deeper, and find out more, for the sake of humanity
Regards
Philip
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Razi,
I believe you have some good points there, but bringing up the one about Jesus is interesting, as he was a simular to to Gandhi, although by all concepts he was a freedom fighter , the Romans refused to condemn him, and left the problem to the jews. The jews in their pursuit of trying to satisfy the sovereign (Rome), left him to the wolves. By the way I am not a christian. However, I believe in that which is right and that which is wrong. What I find interesting, is your observations on the American civil war, as it was brother against brother and the like, all for he sake of sovereignity. Interesting subject. You have given a good explanation against globilisation, in the current terms of which it is being sold. Remember to each his own, and let this work from the bottom up up, and not top down. Maybe this will lead to more agreements between, lets call it tribes, and ultimately result in some form of globilisation.
Regards
Philip
Member for
24 years 5 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Razi,
I find the discussion getting interesting by the day.
You know I find this statement "And this excessive attachment to non-violence, which anyway caused more deaths and destruction than what could have been in Civil war"
very controversial.
Its like listening to someone who has read the Da Vinci Code.
Im not really disagreeing with you on this because I dont have any proof to the contrary. Are you sure there are more people who die because of excessive attachment to non-violence than those who die because of civil war. Or are you only refering to one event in history?
Se
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Philip,
One can not and one should not achieve “harmonious balance” between right and wrong, violence and peace since right is right and wrong is wrong, violence is violence and peace is peace. The only thing is who will decide what is right and wrong, violence and peace, conflict and harmony ….
In my view only “The Sovereign” can decide.
But where lies the Sovereignty….. who is Sovereign?? And this is the ultimate question to be answered and agreed by all. Once that is done then your right can’t be my wrong.
IMHO assassination could not be a “criteria” of success or failure and evaluation of greatness. Then I am afraid where you would place Jesus as he was crucified (not my belief).
Moreover Gandhi refused to accept any Power and Security Cordon in divided India which he did not wished but succumbed to pressure of leaders who wanted that, to avoid civil war unlike Abraham Lincoln who accepted civil war than division of country. And this excessive attachment to non-violence, which anyway caused more deaths and destruction than what could have been in Civil war, could be sited as a blot on Greatness of Mahatma Gandhi.
Razi Khan
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Razi,
I agree with you in the sense of passive resistance, as this is what Gandhi taught, and what changed South Africa, putting Nelson Mandela in as the president, but people get old and as a result need replacements. In terms of what we are dicussing, lets say it is the man on the street vs the politicos. Gandhi never followed the path of violence, whereas Mandela did in his earlier years, but Mandela was the more successful of the two, as Gandhi was assinated, and Mandela is still alive. The question is how to achieve the harmonious balance between right and wrong, violence and peace, conflict and harmony?
An interesting subject as in Gandhis case it got him killed, and in Mandelas case gothim released from prison, and ensconced as the leader of a nation.
Regards
Philp
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Razi,
It ciould be argued that there is no such thing as a silent majority, merely lots of silent minorities, who are far too tangled up in their own interests and agenda to coalesce into an entity large enough to make a difference.
It is only events such as the Poll Tax as alluded to by Chris that act as a Catalyst, a unifying event, that allow these silent minorities to become (all too briefly) a cohesive force for change.
It has been said that rebels couldnt overthrow and then run a democratic country, and to a certain extent this is true. Once the common enemy has gone, there is a depressing tendency towards in-fighting and squabbling.
Your Elitists, ruling classes, or dictators, on the other hand, they only have their own agenda to worry about, and consequently there is little ambiguity of purpose or in-fighting stopping them from organising and planning effectively.
We may not like what they do (was there ever such a thing as a truly benevolent dictator?), but they certainly have the capacity to get things done.
Member for
21 years 5 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Razi,
Im afraid that I must disagree with your last posting. Just because they are silent, does not mean that the silent majority has surrendered. The silent majority only stays silent while it can tolerate the status quo. As soon as something happens that they cannot tolerate, then some remarkable things can happen.
If I can give you an example, some years ago in Britain, the Government introduced a new tax which was intended to fund local government activities. It meant a large increase in the tax payments for most people, without a matching increase in the services provided by local government. The visible result was rioting in the streets, but that wasnt the silent majority. The silent majority simply decided that they would not pay the new tax, local government authorities started to run out of money and couldnt function. The new tax was scrapped.
Most of the time the silent majority stays silent but when they decide to speak, authority or vested interest would do very well to listen.
Chris Oggham
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Philip
It is hard core fact against which majority had already surrendered without any regret, quite few notice and bear the pain of helplessness and very few dare to challenge this status quo, like Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela.
Razi Khan
Member for
21 yearsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
Hi Razi,
Is that your view, a quotation or a rebel showing you do not agree with what you are saying?
Regards
Philip
Member for
21 years 4 monthsRE: The Silent Majority vs the Elitists’
But it is always "few minds" who control or regulate freedom of "everybody minds" and this will continue till man is governed by "Machiavellian Politics" where Self Interest of Individual or Nation is Supreme.