"Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
news:2N6dnUTTF-LRKxDVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:wqadnVpIm5u-UhHVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> None of that refutes Caesar's observation that Gauls lived in squalor and
>> heavy debt to their "nobles" nor does it in any way support your claim
>> that my statement largely concurring with Caesar was a projection of
>> modern values on an ancient culture. Caesar may not have been very
>> complimentary but you have not established that he was "spouting
>> propaganda in the worst way" nor that he and I were relying on 20th
>> Century standards to judge the Gauls' life-style.
>>
>
> First of all, there were more than three classes of Celtic society. There
> were slaves at the lowest class. There were people who were pretty much
> like indentured servents (to repay debts). There were simple farmers and
> herdsmen. There were larger farmers. There were warriors. There were
> crafts people.
It's clear that Caesar was generalizing, but he was a pretty sharp guy and
the likelihood that his observations were largely accurate is very good. Of
course there were all sorts of people doing this and that, but the mere
existence of divisions of labor does not refute the allegations about the
standard of living for the majority of Gauls.
> Read the *books* of references I provided to refute this.
One way to duck an argument is to suggest that a person cease the argument
until they read some obscure books. That effectively ends the argument
until the person finishes finding and reading those books. By then, of
course, the argument goes very stale and nobody is interested in continuing
it. No, I will not be forsaking my position in order to go find and read
the books on your suggested reading list. If there is something in those
books that refutes my position, quote the relevant passages.
> Caesar relied on his own wits and social outlook to paint a bad picture of
> Celtic society, just as you are relying on your own. Neither of you is
> correct.
Caesar relied on his own eyes and ears and the reports of people under his
command that he knew and trusted who had themselves observed with thewir own
eyes and ears. You, on the other hand, are relying on what you're being
told by people who disagree with mainstream scholarship and have their own
personal agenda in promoting the glories of a semi-mythical by-gone age that
*they* haven't seen any more than you have. I repeat: He was there, you
were not.
>> It may have been a surpise to some historians that the Celts, whose lower
>> class was backwards in so many ways, may have been better farmers than
>> one might expect, but that doesn't mean they were all that good at it in
>> comparison with other cultures nr that they were in any way to be
>> considered "prosperous". Having dog skins and straw as one's only
>> furniture must have seemed pretty destitute to the Romans. As for the
>> Romans learning road-building and metal work from the Celts, that's as
>> laughable an absurdity as any you've offered yet.
>
> The roads of Gaul and Britain were already there before the Romans came.
Meandering dirt tracks were what passed for roads prior to thr coming of the
Romans. The Roman road system was the envy of the entire world. They
didn't learn it from the Celts. They had been building world-class roads
all over their empire for at least two hundred years before they expanded
into Celtic territories. While it's likely that they incorporated good
ideas from everyone they met, the routine for building a great road was
already well established at the time of the Gallic Wars.
> The Celts invented chain mail and were among the first to work with iron.
> It's archaeological and historical fact:
What is a historical fact is that the weapons and armor of the Celts were no
match for the weapons and armor of the Romans. If they were, the Celts
would not have been conquered.
> Read the *entire* book.
There you go again. That's a cheap ploy to avoid having to support your
arguments on the spot.
It seems that you're out of ammo and are now referring the argument to
others who you think have something more to say.
> The point was to show that the Celts existed along side of the Romans and
> Greeks for quite some time. I've done that regardless of the Roman
> attitude about genocide or not.
And my point is that genocidal impulses previously lacking in the Romans
seem to have been a quality that the Celts contributed to the mix and
resulted in the almost completely successful attempt to destroy natives of
North America.
> That's why it makes no sense. The Roman Church and its armies were not the
> least bit Celtic or Druidic (though there were secret pockets of such
> folks within the Celtic Church).
You are eager to say that the Romans were unaffected by the Celts when it
comes to any of the subsequent negative manifestations but more than willing
to try to take credit for anything good that might have come out of the
mixture, including a ludicrous attempt to claim that the Romans learned
road-building from the Celts. It's very selective of you. That's been my
criticism all along. You are cherry-picking your evidence in order to
support your romantic fantasy of an idyllic past.
>>> King of Mysteries, Early Irish Religious Writings, John Carey, For
>>> Courts Press, Portland, Oregon,1998. "The Pseudo-Historical Prologue to
>>> the Senchas Már, pp. 139-144.
>>>
>>> "The story predictably resolves this rivalry in Patrick's favor; but it
>>> is significant that it does so in a way which allows for the retention
>>> of as many as possible of the old ways, and indeed provides divine
>>> ratification of their value."
>>
>> What "rivalry"? The king and Padraig were working together. The king
>> picked six brehons who weren't so prejudiced against writing that they'd
>> refuse to serve as sources for a codex. They weren't anybody's "rivals"
>> either. In fact, the only "rivalry" I can see is this romantic
>> revisionist fighting with mainstream scholarship using rhetorical ploys
>> instead of historial evidence.
>
> The tale is 500 years older than the people you're referencing. It was
> *made up*. Get it?
The tales *you* tell reference events that are far older, but you're willing
to credulously accept *them* as factual. It all depends on whether or not
the tale conforms with your fond beliefs or contradicts them. If it
supports your beliefs, the story must be true but if it does not support
them, the story must be "made up". Get it?
>>>> Everyone has their own truthiness, not their own truth. Truth does not
>>>> vary from person to person. Truthiness does, though. Lots of people
>>>> fail to understand the difference.
>>>
>>> I think you must be one of those people who fail to understand the
>>> difference.
>>
>> I just explained the difference. Did you miss it?
>>
>
> Let's get this straight. I talked about each person having their own truth
> and you denied that.
I challenged your claim.
> Then you try to redefine personal truth as being "truthiness."
I pointed out the difference between truthiness and truth and then pointed
out that "personal truth" has exactly the qualities of truthiness.
> Why do this at all except to attempt to redefine truth especially within
> this discussion?
We agree on the definition of truth. Truth is what is.
> Truth is determined based on facts, reasoning and within established
> boundaries.
This is the point at which we disagree. Truth is not determined. Belief is
determined. Belief is what we think might be the truth, but we know that
whatever we believe is not going to be exactly right due to our limited
perspective and ability to conceptualize. We may experience what is true,
but we cannot determine nor have the truth. Any attempt to assert our
belief as truth is an example of truthiness.
Truth is not "based on" fact. Truth *is* fact. Truth is what is. A
selection of this or that fact as a basis for belief is not truth because we
cannot have access to all the facts. To the extent that we remain ignorant
of anything, our theories and beliefs are distanced from truth.
> There is no difference except in your own mind. The invented term
> "truthiness" is unnecessary and weak.
That pitiful rationalization that "everybody has their own truth" renders
nothing true at all. Reality is reduced to a mere exercise of the
imagination. It's very nice to offer some respect for others beliefs by
declaring that truth is some sort of figment of each person's imagination,
but ultimately it's a denial that truth exists at all.
> Truth in society is seen in its definitions, its codes and its laws.
What the leaders of the culture want people to believe is reflected in its
codes and laws. What any person believes to be true is not the same as what
is true.
> Otherwise members of societies would be consciously living lies.
It wouldn't be a conscious lie if they, like you, cannot perceive the
difference between what they believe and what actually is. Do you really
think that every belief is true and every person is infallible in their
estimation of reality? If so, then none of us would ever be surprised by
anything and we would never make even the slightest mistake or encounter any
unintended consequences. If everything we believe is true, we are
omniscient. Are we all omniscient and infallible, in your opinion?
> I thought we'd already established that most people don't consciously live
> a lie.
> Sure thing Tom. You saying something doesn't make it true.
That's exactly my point. Just because a society says something is true does
not make it true.
> What is the truth of society Tom?
That it's there.
>>>> Society does not "have" a truth and nobody "decides" the truth and I
>>>> never said anything that even remotely sounds like that.
>>>
>>> Now you're saying that you didn't say what you said that contradicts
>>> itself.
>>
>> There is no contradiction whatsoever in what I said. It is not a
>> contradiction to say that societies and individuals cannot "have their
>> own truth" if truth is not something one can have. It is not a
>> contradiction to say that truth is not someone decides if truth is not
>> something that can be decided.
>
> I thought you were into "truthiness" as being personal truth? Now you're
> saying indviduals can't have truthiness.
The word "truthiness" does not appear in the paragraph above at all. I do
not mean truthiness when I say the word "truth". I've been making that
point consistently and here you are missing that point completely.
> Can people have truth and can societies have truth?
Where the hell is your attention? I have given you the answer to this
question repeatedly andnever once varied it. Nobody can "have" truth.
> Confusion and contradiction will not win the day.
Then unconfuse yourself and read what's there instead of what you merely
imagine might be there.
>>> Truth is simple. *It is*. People decide for themselves *what is*
>>> regarding themselves and the reality around them. This is their truth.
>>> Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
>>
>> I grasp that people want to presume that whatever they believe is
>> "truth", especially when they are trying to indoctrinate others into
>> their societal beliefs. I don't agree with that presumption, though, for
>> reasons I have very clearly stated. Truth is what is, it is not what we
>> choose to think it is or tell each other it is.
>
> I haven't said that personal truth is based on beliefs. This is something
> you are introducing that is new to the points being discussed. I've said
> that people decide what is true for themselves. Most of the time, I've
> been saying that truth is established through trial and error, logic
> within a system of facts or that it is seen as being self-evident through
> experience, senses and other forms of evaluation. Nowhere have I said that
> truth is belief.
And this is the crux of your error. "Personal truth" is entirely what one
believes and nothing more.
>> You can tell all the stories you like and believe them as you may, but
>> none of it is truth. Truth is not a story. Everybody has different
>> stories, but nobody has the truth.
>>
>
> I agree with that which is why I've not been discussing beliefs.
When you reference a societies laws, codes, and traditions, you are talking
about what they believe. There is no truth to laws. They are negotiated
agreements about how the local authorities believe people should act. One
can choose to ignore those agreements and, if the violator is sufficiently
clever or powerful, those laws have no effect at all. So laws and codes are
not truth. They do not exist independently of the people who choose to
believe them. To quote the thoughtful author Philip K. Dick, "Reality is
what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
> Why do you feel it necessary to confuse truth with belief?
That's uttelry bizarre. I have consistently pointed out that they are *not*
the same. It is you who confuses societal rules, which are no more than
belief, comprise a "truth".
>> People jabber to each other all the time about why their personal beliefs
>> equate to truth. They use all sorts of rhetorical ploys to justify them.
>> However, jabber is not truth either, no matter how cleverly one jabbers.
>> Flattering yourself that your state of consciousness is "higher" than
>> somebody else's is just more jabber.
>
> I'm talking about higher states of consciousness among people and not
> about beliefs (remember that is your ploy of introduction to confuse the
> issue).
Any labeling of a state of consciousness as "higher" is a matter of belief
alone. What makes a state of mind is superior to another? What standard
are you using?
> People can attain to their own truths more efficiently when their minds
> are empowered to see more facts with clarity and to work without the
> distractions of outside confusion and purposeful obscuration by others. I
> could just as well be discussing a university education in terms of higher
> states of consciousness as any technique based on meditation, mantra or
> other esoteric art. Why fear a clear mind and solid facts?
Where did this notion of fear come into it? I did not say I was afraid of
those things. You have been objecting to my introduction of new terms into
this discussion and here you are attributing my position as being motivated
by fear of clarity, which is ludicrous.
I'm saying that our beliefs, exemplified by social conventions and tall
tales, are not the same as truth. Perhaps it's *you* who fears to let go of
the emotional comforts of conformity by admitting that your society may be
wrong about a great many things. Afer all truth is what is. So, if your
society has a convention asserting something that does not conform to the
way things really are, that convention is not truth. If someone can get by
equally well without that exact convention, then that convention is not
truth but merely belief. But if it's merely belief, then anybody can flout
it which may be very scary for you. Why else assert it as truth when its
not?
So, what sort of guesses shall we make about how craven others are for not
believing the same thing as you do?
> The introduction of "jabbar"
Jabber. Not "jabbar".
> to an otherwise lucid discussion is also unworthy of you and your attempt
> to support you points.
Your attempt to deflect the label "jabber" by introducing the term "lucid
discussion" is unworthy or you.
> It points to a loss of intellectual options and substantive facts to shore
> up your positions.
I think you're pretty stupid too.
> If jabbar
Jabber, not "jabbar".
> "Beliefs equate to truth" is very funny. :-)
Do you realize that you're mocking your own position here?
