[quote]As you have stated that you are finished speaking with The Dogon, I will now step in to make a few points about things that have been bothering me with your arguments. I would ask that you do not reply to me by trying to vilify my stance as I believe the type of mudslinging that has been going on here is for the intellectually circumcised and I will not be responding to any post from you that aims for this objective.

Time you say does not exist. I don't know about you but I always understood time to be an expression of movement (as our ancestors did). Time is a representation of the movement between two points. To say time does not exist is to say that things do not move. The reason why it takes 24 hours for a day to pass here and 1140 on mercury, is simply because time on earth is measured by the movement of earth, which means relative to the movement of earth, mercury moves at a slower pace. Had humanity lived on mercury it would simply state that in a simgle Mercury day, earth has 47.5 days. To say time does not exist is the same as saying movement does not exist and it is one of the universal laws that all things move within this realm of existence. It is not possible to have anything in existence here that does not move. Time is merely a measurement of that movement. The concept is a representation of what The Dogon spoke to you of, the African being intuitive, not in the sence of being involved in that base instincts of other animals, but being in touch with our natural environment. We understood that things move and because of that we represented that within our scope of perception. I do not agree that time does not exist.

I will not go into this because to do so I would have to bring references that I do not have with me at the moment but I will say that I believe you are wrong about children not being able to understand abstract concepts. You chould check out some child psychology books, they will bring you a new perspective.

As for the abstract thought thing, you are using a definition based upon the language you use but what you're not realising is that there are certain cultural barriers because of this when it comes to understanding our ancestors. One such thing is that our ancestors would not have believed in a word such as abstract, which by whatever definition you use, implies that there is some type of lesser thought in existence. Our ancestors never separated "intellectual" persuits from spiritual ones and believed in Africans as cosmic beings, not in a sense that they are some type of aliens, but in a sense that we all are part of the cosmos, all connected and never able to be separate. It is the very attributes that you later in your post give to humans in an attempt to elevate us above the "lesser" animals, that our ancestors tried to escape so that we could be as the other animals are. Our goals were to simply exist alongside nature and thought was considered to be either rooted in nature or in indivisual physicality, not right or wrong. Abstract thought then becomes the incorrect terminology for what our ancestors did to achieve what they did. Their thought was natural, spiritual and indeed intuitive but not abstract.

Yes you are correct, animals do act intuitively, but I don't see what your point is. Humans are animals as well. I have explained that the goal of our greatest ancestors was not to think abstractly but to think in terms of nature, nature being the only thing that really mattered, the thing that our existences are governed by and created from. The science, art, politics of our ancestors are not understood properly in this day and age precisely because they were not rooted in abstract thought but natural thought. They cannot even properly understand the language of our ancestors because of the spirituality intertwined with the language, the feeling and natural leanings it has within it. As it goes, our ancestors laughed at the philosophers of the west, simply because they tried to escape nature, to escape feeling. I seem to remember, I think it was Imhotep, a great multigenius in the realms of science, mathmatics, politics among other things (all things you call abstract) who said "as for the philosophers of the west, their philosophy is the philosophy of children" and those are considered some o the most abstract works in existence. I believe you are looking at our ancestors with western eyes and not with the eyes of our ancestors. Even our great scholars of today will tell you that no African institution of the ancient world could separate spirituality (based in the intuitive) from science, politics or mathematics. May I ask, do you study our ancient spiritual systems by any chance?

I left out answering the conjecture and supposition involved in the rest of the post because I believe it to be beneath even your own understanding of the world. I ask that you do not attack me in the same way that you have The Dogon. Should you do so I will either not answer or I will pull out my copy of Yurugu to highlight certain things about that approach. I am aware that you believe yourself to be an intellectual and so I will only address you in the way I believe an intellectual behaves and understands. Insult hurling and vilifying to add weight to ones own argument is not that way.

RasRuben
The concept is a representation of what The Dogon spoke to you of, the African being intuitive, not in the sence of being involved in that base instincts of other animals, but being in touch with our natural environment).

Fist off Dogon had NO SUCH THOUGHT! His thoughts were made of dog cr@p and cat vomit NOTING ELSE!

RasRuben
I do not agree that time does not exist.

Boy this is going to be really 'abstract but here goes.............

Time is not movement and movement is not time!


We can measure time with movement and we can measure movement with time but we can also measure time with 'state'(ageing but this would be impractical. We can see the association between movement hence the movent of clocks and sand timers but this should not be taken as a rock solid fact that time in its self exists apart from our notion of it.

What is time....anything you want it to be. We can play around with it simply because it is an abstact concept and doesnt exist physicaly.or 'strictly'. 60 seconds in a minuet, 60 minuets in an hour, 24 hours in a day 365 days in a solar year, 25+million years in a galactic year!..how do the know this? Has someone been keeping time for millions of years...no of course not. They 'messure' the size of the galaxy and assign numerical values to the speed of objects floating by and then say 'Hey 225 million years.

But who says there are 60 seconds in a minuet? Why 60? Why not 7.16.30 or 120?

We could still function if these propotions were for instance, if we dicided that there were 120 minuets in an hour then there would have to be 12 hours in a day. A half hour becomes an hour and a quarter of an hour becomes half an hour..not a massive adjustment but all manageable because time is abstract! You would have no idea it if you did think beyond the physical.

In old England, a calendar used to have thirteen months and each month had 28 days, did that hamper them. No, because time isnt physical...it abstract! The only thing than needs to change is your perception of it.

A Chair is a chair you can see it and feel it but time is abstact..you can only see or feel it's effects be it by the movement of a hand of a clock or you greying hair and acheing bones. neither of things can be taken as acutal time its self, just it's effect.

Saying time is movement is incredibly simplistic.

You are mistaking a 'bi-product' for the 'product' itself. We are made up of 70% water and 70% of the earth in covered in water. All living things upon this earth contains water but how many of us would say 'Water is life?' Yeah you could say it in an 'abstract way' but we all know, water is not life, life is life and water is water the two are not the same thing! Life could be a bi-product of water, which is why astronomers are allways looking for signs of water on other planets but that's it.

Like wise time, while it dose exist, it also doesn't exist if we choose not to mesure it, we will only notice it's bi-product....changes in circustances.

The universe don't move because of time, it moves because of gravity and as all movement is due to gravity, for the movement of the entire universe to the smalles sub atomic particle and beyond, and all these movement works against gravity it would make more sense to say time = gravity but even this itself wouldn't help because garvity is just a subjective and abstract as time

Like time, we can only measure its (gravity) effects You can tunnel staight through the earth but you will never find the smallest pieace of gravity.


As for the abstract thought thing, you are using a definition based upon the language you use but what you're not realising is that there are certain cultural barriers because of this when it comes to understanding our ancestors. One such thing is that our ancestors would not have believed in a word such as abstract, which by whatever definition you use,


Definitons of abstract

1.thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2.expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
.

I see no reason why our ancestor wouldn't belive in this, if they were a spiritual people they would embrace it.
Whatever term our ancestors used, they would of been aware that what was going on inside their minds didn't have any tangible form outside of their minds untill/unless they make it a reality.

RasRuben
{this}implies that there is some type of lesser thought in existence.

There are lesser forms of thought in existance.

Obviously a baby thinks but does it think is the same way as you or I? Its brain isn't fully form nor is it trained or 'experienced'.... As a baby developes, so too does its ability to think and it become aware of 'self' usually this is around the age of two. hense the term 'The terrible twos'' The child realises that it is seperate from his enviroment and it parents and asserts themselves as thought patten become more sophisticated.

As for adult, we all know there are variances in 'quality' of thought from one person to the next and If you know anyone that has experienced a nervous break down but has 'recovered' you will know they are never quite the same again...a certain quality has been lost.

RasRuben
Our ancestors never separated "intellectual" persuits from spiritual ones.

It seems to me your the one thinking in those terms. You seem to of taken quite a disliking to the english word abstract but strangely enough you seem to of addopted the equally english word intuition.

....and believed in Africans as cosmic beings,
Sounds quite abstract.

not in a sense that they are some type of aliens, but in a sense that we all are part of the cosmos,

Again, sounding suspiciously abstract.

all connected and never able to be separate. It is the very attributes that you later in your post give to humans in an attempt to elevate us above the "lesser" animals, that our ancestors tried to escape so that we could be as the other animals are

There is no attemp to elevate myself above lesser animals...I am. I say this not out of arrogance but simpliy because I am capable...unlike lesser animals.

. Our goals were to simply exist alongside nature and thought was considered to be either rooted in nature or in indivisual physicality, not right or wrong. Abstract thought then becomes the incorrect terminology for what our ancestors did to achieve what they did. Their thought was natural, spiritual and indeed intuitive but not abstract.

Your playing semantics now!

You seek to 'alienate' a fundiMENTAL process to ALL humans for you own ends.
But no matter how much you try to 'twist' words to 'back up' Dogon, there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that for our ancestors thought in the abstract IT IS IMPOSIBLE YOU USE LANGUAGE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO THINK ABSTRACTLY!!!.

This entire page of words....ALL ABSTRACT!

Before you replyed to my post RasRuben You had to read it ABSTACT THOUGHT, you had to understand it ABSTRACT THOUGHT then you had to compose a reply ABSTRACT THOUGHT. By following this basic process you convey your thoughts to me. No intuition needed or practical.

Most peolple can read fine but place a sheet of paper full of numbers infront of them and they start to sweat and shake. mathematics is abstact is not natural to (most of) us to think in those terms, so it can not be intuitive.

Yes you are correct, animals do act intuitively, but I don't see what your point is.
My point is, whether philosophically african, or not.....I CONSIDER (note the capitals) myself 'more' that my daughters pet rabbit!

Anyone that considers themselves equal to a cat, a dog birds and rats etc are welcome to do so. But these animals don't give much regaurd to what you think or indeed what they think...all they do is feel.I do respect life and I don't kill animals or insects for the sake of it, but I certainly don't see them as my equals.

While I think it is important the we maintain much of our history and culture, some aspect of it lead to us being 'caught with our pants down'

If you indian or chinese, you can afford to induge yourself with such 'highbrow' abstract/intuitive notions but the world is a much much more hostile place for africans.

We have lost the vast majourity of our history and in many respects we are starting behind the starting post. We don't have time to be indulging ourselves as being 'feelers' nor are we doing our children an favours telling them this.

We are making the same mistakes our ancestors made, When they should of been 'taking care of business' and protecting themselves they were more concerned with living in harmony with animals and killing eachother!
Not really the way to do it..... is it?.

I'm a practical person that dont have time for such matters. Anything that would have a direct impact on our present postion.....count me in. But that which is impractiacal count me out.


Humans are animals as well. I have explained that the goal of our greatest ancestors was not to think abstractly but to think in terms of nature, nature being the only thing that really mattered,


And that would be the reason why we are all here today...because the europeans DIDN'T think that ''nature was the only things that mattered.''

Sometimes you have got to be prepared to fight fire with fire other time with water! We now have the benifit of hindsight, we can't affort to do that which out ancestors did.

The science, art, politics of our ancestors are not understood properly in this day and age precisely because they were not rooted in abstract thought but natural thought.

Semantics again! Both are diffent sides of the same coin.

They cannot even properly understand the language of our ancestors because of the spirituality intertwined with the language, the feeling and natural leanings it has within it. As it goes, our ancestors laughed at the philosophers of the west, simply because they tried to escape nature, to escape feeling.


The secret is knowing the right proportion of both. I never 'feel' to pay my bills, but I 'think' to. That 'thought' keeps my butt out of the world of troubles. Believing that we should 'think' less and 'feel' more is an extreamly dangerous notion. The world has changed a hell of a lot sinse the days of our ancestors....whether your on the continet or in the west we just cant affort to put 'feelings' ahead of our 'thinking'.

Whether you like it or not, it's 2007 the west is here right now....time to fire with fire!

I believe you are looking at our ancestors with western eyes and not with the eyes of our ancestors.
I hope I'm not the only one! Someone needs to understand how they think Send a theif to catch a theif!
Some in here think in vary westen terms, and these terms have no benifit to anyone except those that prey for us to fail.

Even our great scholars of today will tell you that no African institution of the ancient world could separate spirituality (based in the intuitive) from science, politics or mathematics.


The vary notion of 'the spirit' is abstact....it dosen't exist in a physical form! That too cannot be seperated, reguardless of your or Dogons wish to do so.

May I ask, do you study our ancient spiritual systems by any chance?
No, but I do but I am all in favour of africans following a african based belief system. I am no fan of christianity, Islam, buddhism etc. I do belive that these religons as with all religions should be brought up to date insofar as is practical.

I ask that you do not attack me in the same way that you have The Dogon.

Why would I attack you? I have never attacked anyone personally, unless they attacked me first. It wouldn't be in keeping with my aims.

I am aware that you believe yourself to be an intellectual and so I will only address you in the way I believe an intellectual behaves and understands. Insult hurling and vilifying to add weight to ones own argument is not that way.

No, my idea of interllectual is only concerned with attitude, and practical matters it has little to do with behavior! and intellectual and you understand it. As for insults I get no particular pleasure from insulting people but I have found that it's the only language a certain type of person understands.

[quote]I was unaware that you were privy to the thoughts going on in The Dogon's head. What I understood from what The Dogon said, an understanding I believe in this case to be accurate (correct me if I'm wrong Dogon) is the above. If you do not believe those to be The Dogon's thoughts, please don't come at me with a sub-sophomoric
attack on his person. You could have achieved the same thing by just saying you didn't believe him to have meant that.

Your analysis is something I do not at all believe to be abstract, despite the definition you hold. You have put up various definitions of why time is not concrete but not why it does not exist. You haven't factored in the fact that existence is not concrete. This is why I do not believe in dismissing concepts that are not concrete as non existent, because by those very same notions one could say existence is non existent. I will detail what your argument sounds like to me so that I can illustrate my point.

Weight doesn't exist. This is because weight (eg kilograms) can be used to measure the force (F) created by mass (M)+ gravity (G)and the F created by M + G can be used to determine weight. We could use anything to determine weight. 1000 grams in a kilogram, 1000 kilograms in a tonne. They look at buildings and measure the size of the building and the material that creates the mass and they tell you how much it weighs but has anyone really put those buildings on a scale, no!!! We could still function without these measurements. Why not have 100 kilograms to a tonne, why not 10 grams to a kilogram. In old England they used stones and pounds to measure weight but that didn't hamper them, because weight is not physical, it's abstract and the only thing that needs to change is your perception of it.

I hope you understand that what I just posted is arguing semantics and not the question of existence or non existence. You yourself have said in your post that time can be used to measure distance. You cannot escape using the terminology of time because it does exist and is not an abstract concept but a tool, a tool used to measure not just the distance between two points but more importantly as I said, movement, movement being an indisputable reality of all existence. 24 hours represents the earth spinning 360 degrees. You could call it 92 hours, if you want and even say the earth spun 980 degrees however it would still be a representation of the earth spinning from one point and returning to that point. The same way I could call a tonne a kilogram, but that would not change the fact that G + M will create F which humanity will percieve. Your arguement suggests that we do not have to call it an hour and we can dispute how many there are in a day, we could even extend a day to mean every time the earth spins half way and then name the full day something else. None of that changes the movement's existence. Your argument stands for language, but not for what time (a label like any other) represents.

I would like to ask you to now take your hand, wave it in front of your face once, record what you felt as that hand moved, then tell me how long it took for your hand to get from one side of your face to the other. Whatever you felt as your arm moved was time going by. As I type, I am feeling time go by, because I am moving, and time is a representation of movement. When you see the movement of the hand of the clock, you have seen time go by. The same way light bouncing off of that chair is interpreted by your brain to be a solid object with a particular colour and electrical impulses fed to your brain when your hand touches the chair is interpreted as solid by your brain, watching something move is recorded by your brain in the form of electrical impulses triggered by moving light and interpreted to be movement, time is but a label given to the speed of that movement. If I were to take your argument I would have to concede that I cannot see colour, because colour doesn't really exist, it is only electrical impulses sent to my brain from my eyes after light bent in different ways hit them. My brain interprets a certain wave of light to be red so it's not real. I can only see colour if light bends in a particular way. My shirt is red (theoretically) but it could look pink if I stood further away because of the bending light. So colour is not really colour, it is just the effect of light bending. Your mistake here is taking label to be concrete. Red is the name given to a certain bending light to identify it as time is the name given to movement to identify it. They are both real labels. You are over thinking this.

Nope, you're slightly off there, it is you who are mistaking parts for a whole. Human beings have 70% of their being made up of water. They could not exist without water nor could anything on this planet. Therefore one could say water is life because life does not exist without water. Life cannot be separeted from water so life cannot be life and water water, Life is life and life is water, water is water and water is life. Isolating components as if they exist without each other doesn't work. Life is not a bi-product of water, you are thinking like a westerner (individualist) I think like my ancestors. Life and water are both part of the cosmos as am I. We cannot exist without each other and so as equal parts of the cosmos, we are one. Think about that.

You sound confused. You are writing paragraphs to say it doesn't exist and now you are saying whilst it does, it doesn't exist if we don't measure it. You must remember you are not a diety and cannot chance it's existence simply by ignoring it. You cannot see the bi-product of something that does not exist. If it didn't exist there would be no bi-product to see.

I would like to see you jump off of a ten story building whilst saying gravity is subjective. Movement by the way stems from cause and effect not from Gravity. Gravity is not the root cause of all movement, it is merely a component in it. No matter how much you say these things do not exist, their by-product as you call it will still exist meaning that they themselves exist. You take Gravity to be a concept, but Gravity is a label given to a phemonenon which humans percieve which loosly is what goes up must come down. An imaginary point that all things move towards (imaginary only because we do not know where that point is). Follow my signature for me. Spit towards the sky and see if it falls in your eye. That will be gravity on your face.


They would not embrace it simply because what you call abstract thought they would see as simple representatives of natural phenomenon percieved in this realm of being. Justice, poverty and speed are representatives of things humans percieve. That we percieve them means they exist. Humans can do no more than percieve.


This is where you and the ancestors would have to disagree. You have no idea of what a baby thinks, you however through your own perception have supposed ideas of what a baby percieves. You say that their thought is lesser. Our ancestors would tell you that it is different, and that if you are not the creator, you do not know truth, so your thought cannot be more than another's, only more rooted in nature. You do not think better than the baby does, only differently and more rooted in interaction with nature (only different because of the interaction with nature). It does not make the baby a lesser thinker because it has yet to experience certain perceptions, only different one.

[quote]Would you prefer I spoke to you in another language, or would you like me to explain it to you in a language you can understand. I amnot doing this to show you what I think, but to show you how to understand what I think. I can only do that in a language you can understand. I do not nor have I ever said I dislike the term abstract, I just believe it is a misnomer when you have used it. There's a difference.



Sound quite natural actually.

Again, just sounding quite like a representation of nature to me. If all can see this and live this everyday, how then is it abstract?

Which is why I have said I believe your thoughts to be firmly within the realms of western thought annot African thought. If you can get a hold of a copy, pick up Yurugu by Marimba Ani, and you may understand why you believe yourself to be better than other animals that are just as necessary as you are on this planet. They aren't lesser, they are different.



I am not playing semantics, I just understand language differently to you. Language is simply a way of communication by labeling percieved things with sounds (words). Each of these sounds has been given a complete being by using other sounds to define singular ones (this is meaning). I would like to ask you using your definition, how did humans create the word abstractly wothout naturally being able to think abstractly, observing the very phenomenon of thinking and labeling it abstract? One has to be intuitive before they can be abstract, they have to be able to witness phenomena and label it with sound which is a natural human thing to do based on intuition first. Where then do you believe humans learned language (well Africans who taught others). This is why thought is based upon intuition and interaction with nature first for our ancestors. Labels such as abstract do not even matter and can only be seen to be equal by our ancestors to thought which is further intertwined with nature than other thought. However where the word abstract and it's meaning fail is abstract connotes better where thought based on a closer relationship with nature connotes different; it is understood that one cannot exist without the other.

BTW, I am not here to back up The Dogon, he is a grown man and can back himself up, I had questions and disagreements with your conclusions and questioned them myself. Nothing to do with anyone else. That I agree with him in places is something I illustrated for you understanding so that you would have two points of reference. I am nobody's cheerleader and I do not expect anyone else to be mine.

Quote:

Before you replyed to my post RasRuben You had to read it ABSTACT THOUGHT, you had to understand it ABSTRACT THOUGHT then you had to compose a reply ABSTRACT THOUGHT. By following this basic process you convey your thoughts to me. No intuition needed or practical.

You asume that your post takes "abstract thought" to read. Firstly I am a young man with a firm understanding of this language and have no trouble reading a post. Secondly, understanding is not abstract. I touch fire, I understand it hurts and no longer touch fire. To believe that I must be involved with abstract thought to understand you is to presume that your thought is abstract, and I definitely don't believe it is. The belief in your thought being abstract is based solely on your own ego (using ego as a psychological term not as an insult) and if anyone else believed it to be, it would be based on their level of understanding of the world. I don't know how old you are and hope that you aren't too old because you would take this to be rude, but I have had all of the thoughts you have expressed and passed them when I was 16, I have moved far since. Thirdly, as I have said, I have already passed that stage in my walk and so I already knew through my past level of intuition what you were saying and how it relates to nature. It was very easy for me to formulate a reply as it is for me to formulate this one. You should be aware that I use my understanding of human nature to understand what your words means and the different emotions attached to them. Note human nature. Intuition is needed for all excercises to a certain degree.

Quote:

Most peolple can read fine but place a sheet of paper full of numbers infront of them and they start to sweat and shake. mathematics is abstact is not natural to (most of) us to think in those terms, so it can not be intuitive.

Sorry I disagree and you left the flaw in your own argument wide open. That it is not natural to most of us does not mean it is not natural. If it is natural to anyone it is natural. That humanity even began thinking in numbers shows that to some degree it was and still is a natural mode of thought. Complex mathematics however would involve honing ones natural ability. Many mathmaticians look to nature (as maths is seen as reality) to find the answers they seek. Mathmatics is a language like any other used to represent that which we percieve. It is just a language that we do not use to communicate daily things and is one like any other which if you do not continually practice, you forget (noted by my experience with it. I can't do basic math well now but used to be three years ahead of everyone in my class)

You forget the rest of my post to you. I said last I heard we were animals. If you do not find yourself equal to animals, then you do not understand their necessity to your existence. Anything I cannot live without I respect as equal in value to myself as I know it could not live without me. But I will rest this point because I cannot expect you to have the same spiritual leanings to me.

I should hope you are not talking about me

That statement only makes sense if you believe they are in a better position than us and as I am sure you are going to give me the reasons why they are, I'd like to ask you to also give me the reasons why those reasons actually matter in the greand shceme of things.

This statement presumes both that we have actually lost the history and that we are indulging ourselves by being 'feelers'. What you don't understand IMO is that all the western world is based on is what they feel. Most of what they do and say is not based on reality, but on what they believe reality should be. You would doom your children to think about what humanity thinks reality should be (like you saying if we don't measure it it doesn't exist) rather than them trying to be in tune with nature/reality and know what it is. If you say so. And BTW, the vast majority of our history is very much in tact, we just don't have access to it or people willing to work to get it in the mainstream. Just because you do not see it, it doesn't mean it is not there (something that the intuition of a 1 year old picks up)

This goes to show your lack of historical understanding of not only our ancestors but ancient warfare. If you had done your homework on the subject you would know that warfare was often done on a very small scale with trained warriors from each of the groups with a dispute. The idea of Africans living with nature and killing each other is one that is based solely on racist attitudes of caucasians and are myths with no grounding in the truth. Can I ask what book you read that in? And another thing; that our ancestors did not presume that a large amount of barbarians would approach them one day with the intent of wiping them out, I believe to be part of the nobility involved in their approach to humanity. That anyone would wake up in the morning and decide that they would one day have to kill hundreds and thousands of people and so prepare to do so with no reasoning, that is the height of all barbarism. It seems again you are thinking with the mind of the west, but this time of the western barbarian (in that you believe that we should have believed so little in humanity that there would be something like that to prepare for). In future I would like you to know that I do not accept your conjecture and supposition as fact (that we were killing each other). If you are going to assert that to me or anyone with the sense not to believe everything they hear, I'm sure this is the time when a book reference becomes necessary.

So who decides what is impracticle?

You seem to think our ancestors did anything but live with an understanding of humanity that came from their interactions with their own people. Had I lived in a civilised world and known no other, how am I to know that such barbarism exists? I am aware now through learning the nature of the western man that I will have to defend against it, but what about a people who had not the time to learn that nature?

You only believe I am arguing semantics because you believe in western thought over African. To you the abstract becomes something in the hands of the individual to learn and master in his mind, the abstract always coming from nature. To me nature is something that is always there for me to learn about and work alongside. Nature is not defined by humans or their words, it just is and cannot be mastered but lived with. In this way it is not something for humans to master, but something that is a part of us and all things that we have yet to realise. The difference is lost on a person who lacks a spiritual reference point.

They cannot even properly understand the language of our ancestors because of the spirituality intertwined with the language, the feeling and natural leanings it has within it. As it goes, our ancestors laughed at the philosophers of the west, simply because they tried to escape nature, to escape feeling.


I laughed when I saw this because you seem to think you can separate thinking from feeling. Yurugu is not only the book for you but the book that explains you. You are the epitome of western thought and Platonic influence. To feel and be intuitive does not mean one does not think, which is the reason why I who believe in the ancient African method, am here discussing on the same level as someone who sees themselves as just a thinker. Did you ever take that into account, that I can reel of as many "abstract" concepts as you and as meny book references and as much historical knowledge, but I do not believe in the same thing as you. You argument is based upon your assumptions. I think you need to rethink some of them.

Someone could also say send a fool to argue with a fool, what ensues is a foolish argument. Why not send a wise man to interact with the fool. See what happens then. I won't lower myself to a state of barbarism to be free. Sorry. You remind me of something a nam once said to me. "you cannot war your way out of a warzone, because you will only be left with more war". I will not become the very problem I seek to end, I will learn to be better than it.



That's where I would beg to differ. You should study a bit about our ancestral spirituality because what it will tell you is that they would study for all their lives to understand the spirit, only to come to the realisation that it is so simple. Where you say abstract i often say Natural and this is one of those places.

Quote:

May I ask, do you study our ancient spiritual systems by any chance?

True spirituality is based in reality. Along with reality we find many universal truths. These truths do not change despite human behaviour changing. What you find impracticle, many people live with day to day just fine and they don't have problems. Again I ask, who defines practicality because you seem to think it's you?

Why attack at all? I myself have attacked others, only to regret it because my attacks were based solely upon my emotions and needn't have been. They only served to have me viewed in the same light as the person who first insulted.

Good. Rest assured that it won't help in a discussion with me.

The Dogon wrote:
RLB has consistently labeled everyday African methods or traditional African disciplines as being anti-intellectual. G and I believe that to be a lie. And one of the primary reasons for the divide.

Thank you for sharing this background. If there is a deeper history surrounding some of the issues confronted in this thread, I am unaware of it. Moreover, if your conclusions about RLB are true than make no mistake, he and I would be in sharp disagreement.

The Role of Traditional African Methods and/or Disciplines

To be more specific, RLB and I agree that the “intellectual” is a necessary and highly beneficial part of any society, African or otherwise. Where we may disagree, based on your analysis, is on the role and place of traditional African methods and/or disciplines. Personally, I have not read any disparaging remarks about African ways in this thread from RLB, but he can speak for himself.

I do not really consider myself an Afrocentrist or a Pan-Africanist. Nonetheless, I know that there are some things about my psyche that are very African. The ways in which I regard seniors and my ancestors, the manner in which I view community, the generally held belief that, before I can look forward, I must look back, all lead me to believe that, in spite of being a few hundred years removed from Africa, there is still Africa in me.

This point is only important if you understand my view on culture. I believe that the individuals who have the greatest chances for upward mobility in foreign societies are the ones who have a good foundation in their own cultures. To be stripped of one’s culture is to experience what the sociologist Orlando Patterson calls “social death.” Culture is the fabric of life. Yes, it is what we do, but perhaps more than that, it is how we feel about what we do. It is the notion of what is “good” and it is the lens through which we filter the meaning of day-to-day life and life overall. I try to consider culture and society through an intellectual lens. I have never before in my life referred to myself as an intellectual before this thread (and I am not likely to do it again). I prefer the title (if one must be assigned to me) of “Cultural Critic.”

My work does not occur on a level where I believe that I am above my peers or that my peers need to see the error of their ways; rather, I am informed by the everyday belief of Africans at home and in the Diaspora. I have learned as much in the barbershop as I have learned in the classroom.


The Dogon Wrote:
Being an "intellectual" for me isn't just about being rational and reasonable. It is also about being emotional and spiritual. Because Human Beings are not solely rational. So why try to critique the Human Experience by thinking solely in the abstract? Africans have never done that and I see no reason to do that now. I see no way that such a philosophy can bring benefit.

Good point. I receive it. But, I will add one thing. To say that we should not do it because it has never been done that way, regardless of whether or not it is true, does not discourage me. Today, in our current condition worldwide, should we not consider new things?

On the Emotional/Spiritual Dimensions of Intellectual Thought

One more thing, I believe that your idea of what it means to be an “intellectual” has profound implications for life and this thread. You are right, it is about being “emotional and spiritual.” Some of the most brilliant minds in this forum (and I do not lump myself in this category) are very emotional. Also, many of the most interesting posts in this thread are deeply spiritual and emotional. And, I might add that, intuitive readers will find my so-called “rational” posts to be infused with great emotion as well. My emotion is my strength; my spirit is my guide. The question is, can we establish some solid ground rules for emotional/spiritual intellectual discussion in an electronic format?

Thank you.

Mr. RasRuben,

Welcome to the “Pro Black” / Meaning of Who You Date or Marry/ “Black Intellectual” debate. You probably don’t remember me (Posts: 37) but I remember you (Posts: 439).

If I were foolish enough to allow my bravado to betray me and simply fire on your condescending remarks in a blaze of egotistical glory, I would deserve the cyber wrath that would surely unfold upon me in the days to come. Moreover, I am not so “intellectual” that I do not know that, due to my previous writings in this thread and elsewhere in the village, there are others praying that the Feather of Ma’at will outweigh my heart and that I will be introduced to a beautiful black can of internet whoop ass. Nonetheless, I do not believe that that will happen anytime soon.

Gifts become Talents and Talents become Skills

Remember that kid you met at school who always dreamed about being a jet-airplane mechanic? You remember that fool, he was always working on a model airplane, or boat, or car. At a very basic level, he was actually quite gifted in spatial and aeronautical engineering, but there was one problem, his family was dirt poor. His natural gifts were never harnessed to become a skill. Today he works at a grocery store. Gifts or inherent abilities become talents when practiced, and talents, with the proper training, can become skills.

You are correct Mr. RasRuben Sir, skills are something that you learn but can anyone deny that some people learn certain skills faster and more thoroughly than others? This is because they were gifted and talented in certain areas from birth. Consequently, some people are better than others at math, science, singing, athletics, etc. I am not saying anything deep or revolutionary here. The real point of contention in this thread, as far as the “Intellectual” is concerned, is the question of her “practical value.”

Let’s review. Remember (Thread Page 10, post #231, under the section entitled, “The Dilemma of the Black Intellectual”), I am concerned with:
. . . a suppressed form of intelligence that schools do not teach and that the American establishment is afraid of. This is the mental frame of the Cultural Critic. He/she is an assessor of culture and society and of all of its institutions (i.e., social practices). This form of thinking is also known as Critical Social Theory, which can be defined as: social theory or analysis that seeks to bring about human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.”

By the term “intellectual”, I only mean to say that I was born with a certain way of looking at the world. My training and experiences in life have transformed my gifts into a kind of skill. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to me that some may not be familiar with this kind of intelligence. It is not taught.

“Platonic” or “African” intellectual?

I’m afraid that you got me all twisted up with somebody else. I am neither. I’m just a brother tryin’ to figure it all out. And, I have been trying to figure it out for a very long time. Echoing RLB, I do not sit around a desk all day, with a white shirt, bow tie and plaid pants, spewing armchair solutions at people confronting hands-on dilemmas. No, I am an ordinary person with a day-to-day job that is not necessarily conducive to my intellectual leanings. So, in this respect, I am not an Intellectual by profession but rather, by my own personal thought processes.

I hope this sheds some light on my use of the term "Intellectual."

Thank you for reading.

Peace!

RasRuben wrote:
1. You say dating/marrying "black" has no proven practical value. I should hope you are not suggesting that this then means one has reason to go and be with any other group, because that wouldn't be very intellectual of you.

No, I NEVER said or even implied this. Please re-read my post (Thread Page 7, Post #158). Thank you.


Ras Ruben wrote:
And the notion that there has to be a plan rings alarm bells for me. You sound like a platonic intellectual rather than an African ("black") one. Interesting. I hope you will explain what you consider to be proof of practicality and also who you think will be the one who will create this plan you think we need. Just so you know, speaking in your terms, there is no proof of practicality in the belief that we need "a" plan IMO.

Please read Thread Page 11, post #264. I give clear examples of what I consider to be practical and strategic.

My analysis above is plain and available to anyone who wishes to read it. I have already gone on record with views on “practicality,” “the difference between a strategist and a tactician,” and on “what it means to be an intellectual.” You are asking me to defend my positions without offering counter-positions.

Present your case and I will respond accordingly.


RasRuben wrote:
2. Where do you get the idea that dating/marrying black is a tactic at all?

Good question. Please read RLB’s post, Thread page 8, #190. There, he brilliantly lists 22 things that people might do to be considered “Pro-Black.” It was I who called them “tactics.” The whole discussion about tactics and strategy is in response to that post and not a generalization about what dating/marrying black represents for us as a people.


RasRuben wrote:
I would like to know that. 90% of the world's population dates and marries within their own ethnic grouping. The numbers were higher further in the past. It could be said that the higher number of people dating and marrying outside of their ethnic group is as a result of new age ideology that is going against natural desire (evidenced by mass mixing happening within places that seek "multiculturalism"). This suggests that it is not practical or a tactic but a natural human desire to be with someone of your own ethnic group. I needn't address your analogy as I think what I wrote above suggests I believe your assumptions to be wrong and therefore your conclusions in this case.


Good points. I agree.


RasRuben wrote:
May I also ask for the proof of the practicality in Africans banding together under strategists.

I don’t believe that strategy development is unique to any particular race or ethnic group. If you have evidence to the contrary please let me know. But, if you believe that you have already taken the legs out from under my chair with your critique of “tactics” then this is a moot point. Still, if you are interested, please read RLB’s post (Thread Page 8, #190), and my reponse (Thread Page 8, #191). I have provided the link for you. can you be considered pro Black if you are with a partner from another culture?

On strategy: The African Union met in Accra just a few ago to discuss a “strategy” for uniting Africa. This strategy will naturally involve a host of mini-strategies. They will meet again at the end of the year in Dakar to discuss more strategy. And, I have been led to believe that they intend to discuss “strategy” twice a year for some time. At present, I am devising a strategy to save my money, take off of work and go to the next meeting. This will only be possible with a plan.


RasRuben wrote:
if as you say the chicken can never take pride in it's chicken-ness due to the mode of evaluation being grounded in duck-ness, would you say that your mode of intellectualising the African struggle is devoid of all duck-ness? Do you think you have come to a rational conclusion based on the necessities, and complexities found within chicken-ness alone? I ask because I believe your method to be solely rooted in duck-ness rather than chicken-ness.

Mr. RasRuben Sir, my conclusions may very well be rooted in duck-ness as you say but you have provided no substantive arguments to that effect, so there is very little I can say or respond to. To say that my method is rooted in duck-ness is one thing, to show me how this may be so, is another. Make your case and I will respond accordingly.


RasRuben wrote:
I don't care what beef you have with other posters and I am not trying to create any of my own, I just wanted to have this discussion as most of the conjecture and supposition has left along with the posters who posted it and this is now becoming an interesting conversation to me.

We are on the same page here.

Holla!

Can i say at this point how refreshing it is to see posters who have enough character, conviction and intelligence to stand by their opinions, without being railroaded by certain villiagers, who given the chance will nonchalantly chat shit with the expectation that you should join them. (I thought i was the only one to object to this....lol)

RLB you are wasting your time with "the Mad Scientist". He is part of the "Perfect Race Idealogists". I particualary liked your response to his NOI nonsense. Yeah i remember this condescending character trying to railroad me on the same subject elsewhere. As if being a "response" could ever justify the colour red being better defined as being blue. Trust me, it does get worse which im sure you won't have to wait long to find out.

What the hell are you all talking about? You all have totally and completely gotten off topic.

[quote]

In my posts to RLB, I explain that I am nobody's cheerleader nor do I wish anyone to be mine. I do agree with aspects of your posts, but telling you what I agree with doesn't help me learn from you. It is in my disagreement, where if I find a sound argument in an opposed opinion, that is where I will learn something new. This is why I ask questions. My final paragraph was not intended to be a swipe at anything. I have a specific belief in what constitutes an discussion of the wise and if I do not believe I will definitely get that I will do my best to bring the discussion to a place where I can get it. I do not often find people my age whom I can discuss these things with and so whilst I have the opportunity, I will do my best to make sure I can get as many of these conversations as I can. I am glad however that you asked these questions. People usually just attack. Should you find anymore of the tonality in my post to be disrespectful, I will be glad to (try and) explain why it was said and what was meant by it in a fashion closer to my intention.

Quote:

The “Proof” is Already in the Pudding On four occasions you ask me to provide “proof” as if I were somehow on trial or as if my ideas were in doubt. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am “right” all the time by why would I feel compelled to prove things that are not refuted by examples. I will probably never ask anyone in this village for “proof.” Just make your case, be specific and use examples. It is the least anyone should be required to do.

I asked the questions because you spoke in a manner that I believed to be knowing. I asked because you said there is no evidence... Maybe I should have said have you any evidence to suggest otherwise. In saying there is no evidence to suggest... it sound like you are by your definition refuting it's possibility as impracticle. you said this:

Quote:

1) Dating/Marrying Black Exclusively Has No Proven Practical Value (please see Thread Page 7, Post #158) Dating/marrying Black means nothing because it has no practical connection to a plan that will liberate Africans world-wide. Absent any value for the plan, it is nice, preferred and desirable but, it operates outside the realm of the plan, and therefore, it has little impact on the “cause” as the “cause” must invariably be connected to some kind of plan.

The emboldened is what I was challenging. I expressed it is a natural desire of a human to be with their own ethnic group so that it would be known that it need not be a part of a plan to mean something, it is natural and so means more than anything else IMO. I then went on to ask about how you knew we needed to be united under a plan and or a strategist. These things beg the questions, who creates the plan? under what ideology does it run? how do we get people with differing ideologies to follow this plan? etc and so I asked as I thought you may have at least some idea of how thise would come about judging by the, i believe, appropriate tone I added to your post (meaning what I believed to be your intended tone. If I misjudged your position I apologise.

I haven't anything to prove, my questions are an inquiry into your post. I am a seeker of wisdom. I enjoy when my words, my conclusions come under question, this is how I learn. In the defence of my opinions I find angles I had never looked at before. It helps me to strengthen/refine my position. I haven't any answers for you otherwise I would have posted them as I have done for RLB. I do however have questions and so I posted them for you. If you cannot or do not want to answer just say so and answer what you will. I do not mind, I have seen enough already and do despite not posting it respect parts of your opinion.

Let's Keep this Train on the Right Track

Quote:

The overall tone of your response seems to follow the pattern of your third sentence, “I should hope you are not suggesting that . . .” (Thread Page 11, Post 267). This kind of preface is what twisted the discussion in the thread above. Posters read the description of what others dreadfully hoped Neferkare was NOT saying, as the things that Neferkare actually said. Whenever you argue what “you hope a person is not saying,” you usually end up arguing something they never said or intended to say. Consequently, the substantive integrity of the thread gets lost in a sea of confusion and no one really knows what anyone really said or was trying to say. If this is your style of debate then I will not waste my time with you. I would prefer to simply flesh out ideas that will help my people.

Oh no, I think you have misunderstood me here. When I say I should hope you are not saying...I am asking are you saying this. You simply say you aren't as you have done and I am happy. The crux of my thread was not based around that it was based around the above paragraph of yours that spoke of marriage within our own groups as unnecessary.

Quote:

You Don’t Know Me . . . Yea, yea, yea, I know, who the hell is this guy Neferkare to tell me about me and my intentions . . . yawn . . . just for the record, I do not propose to know you or anyone else in this forum. All I know is the fictitious and electronic person who writes under a pseudonym and flexes behind digital avatars. Whatever that person writes electronically, that is who they are electronically. Likewise, you will never know me, but let me introduce you to Neferkare; the 36 or more posts that precede this one are a view into his world. Anything written in this forum is fair game.

I agree to a certain extent. I simply stay away from making judgements about a persons thinking outside the body of their posts or about their personal lives. What is written here is fair game, as long as people stick to what is written here.

Quote:

Of course, I Could Be Wrong In the interest of peace and harmony, I will go ahead and assume that I have misunderstood you. Your future response to my post, if you feel so inclined, will tell me whether I am right or wrong. I understand that you may feel slightly disrespected by my commentary and if that is the case, I will humbly endure the next round of back-handed slaps in the face that are likely to come my way. But after that, let’s get down to some real debate. I promise to be on my best behavior. And, more importantly, I look forward to learning from you and your view of the world. Really! Holla!

You don't have to worry about ever recieving any backhand slaps from me. I will calmly eject myself from this thread should things get to that. You judge whether or not you feel you have misjudged me. I will be back to respond to your otehr post later on. I do think I am going to enjoy this discussion, but unfortunately I can only respond to the answers to my questions as I do not know what we should do to sort out our mess. I can only speak on what I know to be my truth.

Hotep.

Part1
RasRuben
I was unaware that you were privy to the thoughts going on in The Dogon's head. What I understood from what The Dogon said, an understanding I believe in this case to be accurate (correct me if I'm wrong Dogon) is the above. If you do not believe those to be The Dogon's thoughts, please don't come at me with a sub-sophomoric attack on him

I was unaware that you were not privy to the fact that The Dogon is full of shite and vomit.

I am more that happy to debate any issues that you feel to debate (insofar as there is a point)but I see no reason why you should be concerned if I insult 'the bag of shite formerly know as Dogon' (espacially as he attacked me personally first.

He is not an innocent victime here and is more than capable of defending himself. He has access to a wide repertoire of insults. Little gems such as coon, gollie-wog, nig-nog, blackie, n!gger, sambo, uncle tom, bush monkey, spear chucker and let's not forget the 'stealth bomber' of insults NEGRO! So you see, he isnt as defensless as you seem to think he is! Great guy!

P.S, you might want to talk to him and his and his 'posse' about that kind of thing.....it's really not good for the spirit and demeans us all when it.is used,,,,,,second thoughts foget it.....they are just execising their right to 'feel'.

Your analysis is something I do not at all believe to be abstract, despite the definition you hold. You have put up various definitions of why time is not concrete but not why it does not exist. You haven't factored in the fact that existence is not concrete. This is why I do not believe in dismissing concepts that are not concrete as non existent, because by those very same notions one could say existence is non existent. I will detail what your argument sounds like to me so that I can illustrate my point.

As I said, it is difficult to explain, what I mean because time is so abstract so all I can do is give small examples to illistarte.

(Question) What is 'IS'?
(Answer) 'IS' is a engilsh word and part of english gammar, used to discribe a 'state'.
(Response)No....that 'is' its definiton, but that 'is' not what 'IS' itself really 'is'.

(Question) What is 'IS'?
(Answer) IS', is the letters 'I' and 'S' placed in that order to make the word!
(Response) NO..that 'is' the simbolic representtation of 'IS' (just as movement or numbers are the symbolic representation of 'time'.) but 'I' and 'S' is not/are not 'IS'.

(Question) What is 'IS'?
(Answer) Errrrr........it 'IS'....difficult to explain!''
(Response) Because 'IS' is an abstact concept the does not really exist ouside of a persons awareness of it just like time.

Now you may think I am going way off course and 'IS' is a simple word but I am going deeper that the everyday use of it. If a spiritual person asked you the question :-
'WHAT IS?
The is the sense that I am using for this annalogy.

Many languages have no 'or atleast' had not equivilent to 'IS'. For theses people, 'IS' dose not exist. It exists for us, but only because we are aware of it and only insofar as we chose for it to.....much like the tooth fairy.

(Question) Does the 'tooth fairy' exist?
(Answer) Hundreds of thousands of children throughout history believe so, so yes!
(Questio) But does that mean that the tooth fairy actually exists?
(Answer) Well parents place money under the pillows of children so ....in a sense...yes 'she' does exist...to small children that finds the cash.
(Question) 'In a sense' means on a certain level 'she' does exist, but does that mean it exist?
(Answer) Well most children could discribe the 'tooth fairy' to you.
(Question) Most children could draw a picture of her too. Look on google, thousands of differnt pictures there, but does the mean that she actually exists?
(Answer) Ok, she exist in the minds of those who choose to belive that she does, but independantly...she does not exist.

Just like time!

Weight doesn't exist. This is because weight........

Your preaching to the converted. Read my reply about time.

Weight = gravity = time= abstract = idea = no real existanse outside of the person perceiving it...only effects!

I hope you understand that what I just posted is arguing semantics and not the question of existence or non existence. You yourself have said in your post that time can be used to measure distance.

What you saiy in jest to prove a point, is in fact correct!

You yourself have said in your post that time can be used to measure distance. You cannot escape using the terminology of time because it does exist and is not an abstract concept but a tool, a tool used to measure not just the distance between two points but more importantly as I said, movement, movement being an indisputable reality of all existence.

Time only exist to me because I choose for it too.

Lets us a random bush man as a example. If we were to as him if time exist to him. He may tell us that when the sunrises he wakes up and works for the day, then when the sun sets he goes to bed. Now I know that you will say 'He is using movement as time'' ,where as I would say 'He is using circumstance (as in dawn, morning afternoon evening and night ) as a marker of a type of time.While we know that these changes are due to movement, he isn't watching the positon or the movement of the sun...just the changes in the circumstances of light and dark. 4:35pm November 4th 1987 will not have the slightest meaning to him because that is our concept of time and he may think it quite odd to look at life in this way because that kind of thinking doesnt exsist to him.

Just because we use time as a tool, that doesn't mean that the tool actually exsits in a real sense out side of our selves? If man has a sexual need and his wife isn't around, he could create a fantasy woman with big chest and more ass than stormfront. ''Together'' they can work at relieving him of these 'oh so wicked urges'...but does that mean that the fantsy woman actually exist?

Time = 'fantasy woman'
'sexual urge' = our need to get to work on time or watch a TV program etc.
'sexual orgasm'. = actually getting to work on time or watching News at Ten.

Tools are tools some actually exists and others exist in our minds but only if we have a need/desire for it to.

I would like to ask you to now take your hand, wave it in front of your face once, record what you felt as that hand moved, then tell me how long it took for your hand to get from one side of your face to the other. Whatever you felt as your arm moved was time going by.

All that, that proves is that we can use time as a tool to measure movement, as you pointed out to me, that doesn't prove time exists!

As I type, I am feeling time go by, because I am moving, and time is a representation of movement.

Yes time can be represented as movement, and movement can be represented of time...is that proof of its actual existance?

time is but a label given to the speed of that movement.
FINALLY!!! HE AGREES WITH ME!!!!!
Time is but a label...an idea...a concept....a notion....a tool....it dosen't actually exits. it is 'but a lable' that we choose to exist because it is convinient for us to have it exist!

I cannot see colour, because colour doesn't really exist, it is only electrical impulses sent to my brain from my eyes after light bent in different ways hit them. My brain interprets a certain wave of light to be red so it's not real. I can only see colour if light bends in a particular way. My shirt is red (theoretically) but it could look pink if I stood further away because of the bending light. So colour is not really colour, it is just the effect of light bending. Your mistake here is taking label to be concrete. Red is the name given to a certain bending light to identify it as time is the name given to movement to identify it. They are both real labels. You are over thinking this.

Colour doesn't exist!
In its natural state...without energy (light)....everything is black. (barring in mind, that black isn't actually a colour but a shade) When energy(light) is introduct to an object it causes the paticles to vibrate at a paticular rate and that vibration is pecieved as colour. This is why, when you turn you bedroom light off before getting into be, everything reverts to its natural shade...black. Diffent people perceive differnt rates of vibration hence colour blindness.

In its natural state...there is no colour. In its natural state...there is no time. Only our percetion of both.


Nope, you're slightly off there, it is you who are mistaking parts for a whole. Human beings have 70% of their being made up of water. They could not exist without water nor could anything on this planet. Therefore one could say water is life because life does not exist without water. Life cannot be separeted from water so life cannot be life and water water, Life is life and life is water, water is water and water is life. Isolating components as if they exist without each other doesn't work. Life is not a bi-product of water, you are thinking like a westerner (individualist) I think like my ancestors. Life and water are both part of the cosmos as am I. We cannot exist without each other and so as equal parts of the cosmos, we are one. Think about that.

Nope, you're way off there,
You can rip a mans heart out of his chest and he cannot exist without it...but his heart is his heart and he is himself I can't live without oxigen, but I am not oxigen and oxigen is not me!...quite simple.But I do agree that we are all connected to each other and the cosmos!

part 2

You sound confused. You are writing paragraphs to say it doesn't exist and now you are saying whilst it does, it doesn't exist if we don't measure it. You must remember you are not a diety and cannot chance it's existence simply by ignoring it. You cannot see the bi-product of something that does not exist. If it didn't exist there would be no bi-product to see.

Colour exits but it doesn't! It all depends as to the state of existance you attribute to it. In its real state 'natural' it does not exist! While in its unatural state it does because you can perceive it.
It's an abstract thing....don't worry about it!

I would like to see you jump off of a ten story building whilst saying gravity is subjective.

It is! You can drop a spider off the Sears Tower and it would land and scurry away and you could life an elephant from a two meter hight and kill it!

An imaginary point that all things move towards (imaginary only because we do not know where that point is.
So does that 'imagineary point exist?

Follow my signature for me. Spit towards the sky and see if it falls in your eye. That will be gravity on your face.
Errr, no, that would be spit on my face!

They would not embrace it simply because what you call abstract thought they would see as simple representatives of natural phenomenon percieved in this realm of being. Justice, poverty and speed are representatives of things humans percieve. That we percieve them means they exist. Humans can do no more than percieve

We can do more than that, we can create that which we perceive...and we have. I perceive my thoughts abstractly and share them with you....physically-ish on the net!

This is where you and the ancestors would have to disagree. You have no idea of what a baby thinks, you however through your own perception have supposed ideas of what a baby percieves. You say that their thought is lesser. Our ancestors would tell you that it is different, and that if you are not the creator, you do not know truth, so your thought cannot be more than another's, only more rooted in nature. You do not think better than the baby does, only differently and more rooted in interaction with nature (only different because of the interaction with nature). It does not make the baby a lesser thinker because it has yet to experience certain perceptions, only different one.

And some of us, on meeting a person with schizophrenia would say their thinking is 'lesser' some would say their thinking is 'different' some would say they are mentally well fcuked up.

Using this acceptance, we could say that certain types of european that wish to wipe us off the face of the earth are neither good nor bad.....just 'different!

Would you prefer I spoke to you in another language, or would you like me to explain it to you in a language you can understand. I amnot doing this to show you what I think, but to show you how to understand what I think. I can only do that in a language you can understand. I do not nor have I ever said I dislike the term abstract, I just believe it is a misnomer when you have used it. There's a difference.

As english is the only language I speak, I am rather limited in the vocabulary that I can use explain my thoughts. This is an age old problem with language so you really shouldn't of had a problem with me useing it. 'Abstract' embodies exactly what I mean. If you wanted to include 'intuitive too, that fine by me but you just seem quite hardcore that our ancestors never thought abstactly. Someone else could say, our ancestors never felt things intuitively because that which they practices was so deep, was so, pure that no mear english word could even beguin to discribe it.

not in a sense that they are some type of aliens, but in a sense that we all are part of the cosmos,
Again, just sounding quite like a representation of nature to me. If all can see this and live this everyday, how then is it abstract?

What you have seen the cosmos? With your own two eyes? If not then you only have an idea of it, so it is only 'ABSTRACT'!

Which is why I have said I believe your thoughts to be firmly within the realms of western thought annot African thought. If you can get a hold of a copy, pick up Yurugu by Marimba Ani, and you may understand why you believe yourself to be better than other animals that are just as necessary as you are on this planet. They aren't lesser, they are different.

Aside from the fact that most of them look rather good on my plate and taste even better, I'm not really ready to put myself on par with gerbles which essential is what you are saying. I know that, that is a vary westen way of looking at it, but you gotta give a guy a brake! I did grow up in the west, can't expect to change such attitudes over night, if at all.

I would like to ask you using your definition, how did humans create the word abstractly wothout naturally being able to think abstractly, observing the very phenomenon of thinking and labeling it abstract? One has to be intuitive before they can be abstract,

I have never said that we didn't 'feel' before we could think. My only issues are that 'Africans shouldn't/don't think abstractly' and 'Africans should place 'feeling' above 'thinking'. dangerous notion!

You asume that your post takes "abstract thought" to read. Firstly I am a young man with a firm understanding of this language and have no trouble reading a post.

The fact that you are able to tranfrom the 'symbols' on you monitor into though and ideas means whether you like it or not...you are engaging in abstracts. The things that I am trying to dicribe to you are not physically on your monitor, yet you know (not understand or agree with) what I am saying. The leap from a symbol the and idear is more that a 'conditioned response'.

Secondly, understanding is not abstract. I touch fire, I understand it hurts and no longer touch fire.
And when I call the family cat, it comes running. Does it understand language, does it think in abstracts?...No, that is a 'conditioned response'. The cat has learned that it either gets food or stroked when a certain sound is made. That is the same with your 'fire' analogy.

There isn't a creature on the face of the earth that would go near fire.....not a single one! Do the have the higher intelligence of humans no, they just know...fire hot, we call that intuition! All animals have it.

I don't know how old you are and hope that you aren't too old because you would take this to be rude, but I have had all of the thoughts you have expressed and passed them when I was 16, I have moved far since. Thirdly, as I have said, I have already passed that stage in my walk and so I already knew through my past level of intuition what you were saying and how it relates to nature. It was very easy for me to formulate a reply as it is for me to formulate this one. You should be aware that I use my understanding of human nature to understand what your words means and the different emotions attached to them. Note human nature. Intuition is needed for all excercises to a certain degree.

Nope sorry....MINES IS BIGGER!
Your are an intelligent guy, but nothing you are saying would make me think that you are 'beyond' me nor behind me in any 'area'. You just see things 'differntly'. Our differnce is the result of a 'spiritual feeler' conversing with a 'practical thinker'


Sorry I disagree and you left the flaw in your own argument wide open. That it is not natural to most of us does not mean it is not natural. If it is natural to anyone it is natural. That humanity even began thinking in numbers shows that to some degree it was and still is a natural mode of thought. Complex mathematics however would involve honing ones natural ability. Many mathmaticians look to nature (as maths is seen as reality) to find the answers they seek. Mathmatics is a language like any other used to represent that which we percieve. It is just a language that we do not use to communicate daily things and is one like any other which if you do not continually practice, you forget (noted by my experience with it. I can't do basic math well now but used to be three years ahead of everyone in my class

You answered your own statement.
Time and maths go hand in hand. That fact that we don't practise maths to the complex degree you mentioned means it isn't nature. Deficating and urinating, that's natural. No matter what you do, you have got to got the to toilet at some point. Eating, that's natural, you gotta give you body fuel the live. Speaking is natural, no man is an island, we need to interact, particularly with females to pass on our genes. Sex that's nature, from virgin to super stud, place a attracive woman in front of a man, and he will know exactly what to do.

Me and maths are not the best of friends, I need a level of it for my job, but where possible I will avoid it because it is un-natural to think in those terms.

All computers come with a calculator pre-installed but not all have a dictionary! Maths is only something that is needed in a 'complex' enviroment. In a tribe of hunter gathers, it has little real meaning.

Part 3

You forget the rest of my post to you. I said last I heard we were animals. If you do not find yourself equal to animals, then you do not understand their necessity to your existence.

We went to a BBQ yesterday, if you had seen my plate you would of known I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT STEAK BURGERS AND CHICKEN MEANS TO MY EXISTANCE!!

Anything I cannot live without I respect as equal in value to myself as I know it could not live without me. But I will rest this point because

I am pretty certain the bull and chickens could and would of survied without me, but their sacrifice was not in vain. Just becaus I don't see myself as equal to non humans, does not mean I don't respect animals or the food they provide me and my family.

I cannot expect you to have the same spiritual leanings to me.
Vegitarian and vegans would have differnt slant on your 'spiritual leanings, just a you do to me. We are all different!

{qouteRLB}While I think it is important the we maintain much of our history and culture, some aspect of it lead to us being 'caught with our pants down'
I should hope you are not talking about me

No, our ancestors.

{quoteRLB}If you indian or chinese, you can afford to induge yourself with such 'highbrow' abstract/intuitive notions but the world is a much much more hostile place for africans.
That statement (above)only makes sense if you believe they are in a better position than us and as I am sure you are going to give me the reasons why they are, I'd like to ask you to also give me the reasons why those reasons actually matter in the greand shceme of things.

If you believe that, africans living in poverty, starving, being murdered, dying of disease, being diliberately infected with aids, being mentally, physically, verbally, and emotionally abusted on a daily basis, being incarcerated etc,ect,ect, isn't that much of a big deal in the greand shceme of things then congratulations on you spiritual control, but me.....I'M P!SSED AS HELL.

Other races may experience some of the above, but not to the extent that we do.

...and that we are indulging ourselves by being 'feelers'. What you don't understand IMO is that all the western world is based on is what they feel. Most of what they do and say is not based on reality, but on what they believe reality should be.

I have no problems with 'feeling' I have a massive problem with being told that we should place 'feeling' above 'thinking', why is that so hard to understand. The ideal, is to beable to do both equally well depending on the circumstances.

You would doom your children to think about what humanity thinks reality should be (like you saying if we don't measure it it doesn't exist) rather than them trying to be in tune with nature/reality and know what it is. If you say so.

No, I will save my children by teaching them to feel and thinck, just because your right handed doesn't mean you shouldn't use you left hand when needed.

This statement presumes both that we have actually lost the history.....And BTW, the vast majority of our history is very much in tact, we just don't have access to it or people willing to work to get it in the mainstream. Just because you do not see it, it doesn't mean it is not there (something that the intuition of a 1 year old picks up

If I cant find my wallet and have no idear where it...it is lost.

that our ancestors did not presume that a large amount of barbarians would approach them one day with the intent of wiping them out, I believe to be part of the nobility involved in their approach to humanity.

Nobility....! That's one way to look at it.

It was their job to 'presume' the possible dangers that suronded them and their family. Now many here seem to think that I am so kind of european fan because I don't seem to bare them (europeans)much hostility. The way I see it is if you put you hand in a pit full of rattle snakes, its not the snakes fault if your bitten.

Europeans have spent a much of their history invading each others countries, building weapons, and pushing outwards, it comes as no surprise to me that they graduated to invaiding africa.

What does come as a surprise is that africa wasn't prepared. Ignorance is no excuse.

Feeling more than thinking IMO will leaves that particular door wide open to that invasion.

That anyone would wake up in the morning and decide that they would one day have to kill hundreds and thousands of people and so prepare to do so with no reasoning, that is the height of all barbarism.

In my opnion, better to be a barbarian than the victim of one, I know you will no agree with that!

In that you believe that we should have believed so little in humanity that there would be something like that to prepare for

I have a burgalar alarm, and a number of locks on all the indernal doors of my house....that's how much faith I have in humanity!

In future I would like you to know that I do not accept your conjecture and supposition as fact (that we were killing each other). If you are going to assert that to me or anyone with the sense not to believe everything they hear, I'm sure this is the time when a book reference becomes necessary.

LOL! watch the news. I know CGI works wonders, but I don't think it's that good!

So who decides what is impracticle?
The person making the comment, and willing to supply manpower, if you want to know the views of my neigbour, I'll go get him!

You seem to think our ancestors did anything but live with an understanding of humanity that came from their interactions with their own people. Had I lived in a civilised world and known no other, how am I to know that such barbarism exists? I am aware now through learning the nature of the western man that I will have to defend against it, but what about a people who had not the time to learn that nature?

Their decendents are in this forum debating.....why don't we try to adopt an attitude that will ensure our decendents have no need for such boards in years to come.

You only believe I am arguing semantics because you believe in western thought over African. To you the abstract becomes something in the hands of the individual to learn and master in his mind, the abstract always coming from nature. To me nature is something that is always there for me to learn about and work alongside. Nature is not defined by humans or their words, it just is and cannot be mastered but lived with. In this way it is not something for humans to master, but something that is a part of us and all things that we have yet to realise. The difference is lost on a person who lacks a spiritual reference point.

I like walking around in vest and shorts but the climate here (UK) is not so accomodating. As a result, I have to addapt by covering up or freeze my balls off. Like wise the social climate here (in the west) is equally not so accomodating, we have to mentally adapt, or freeze

Evolving is a natual part of life, we are born babies and hopfully, die elderly, The year is 2007, the world has changed some what, from the time before the african holocust. We too need to change, but only as far as needed to ensure our survival. Us being feelers over thinks is not adapting to the hostile enviroment.

I am fine living alongside nature, but if I have to annihilate every rabbit, tree frog and little fluffy kittens on the face of this earth, to ensure my familes survival, the be sure I will do so.

Part 4

I laughed when I saw this because you seem to think you can separate thinking from feeling. Yurugu is not only the book for you but the book that explains you. You are the epitome of western thought and Platonic influence. To feel and be intuitive does not mean one does not think, which is the reason why I who believe in the ancient African method, am here discussing on the same level as someone who sees themselves as just a thinker. Did you ever take that into account, that I can reel of as many "abstract" concepts as you and as meny book references and as much historical knowledge, but I do not believe in the same thing as you. You argument is based upon your assumptions. I think you need to rethink some of them.

You need to stop being such a etymological 'nazi'.
I think about my family all the time, be under no doupt that those thoughts come with extreamly strong feelings. As you have said, thinking an feeling cannot be seperated. All I have ever said is the 'feeling should not be placed above thinking.

Show me where I have EVER said I was just a 'thinker'? Show me where I have ever said we should not 'feel'? you are the one that have an issue with 'abstract', I have not issue with intuition asides from that it shouldn't solely be relied upon or promoted over other aspects of ourselves.

Someone could also say send a fool to argue with a fool, what ensues is a foolish argument. Why not send a wise man to interact with the fool. See what happens then. I won't lower myself to a state of barbarism to be free. Sorry. You remind me of something a nam once said to me. "you cannot war your way out of a warzone, because you will only be left with more war". I will not become the very problem I seek to end, I will learn to be better than it.

Some could also say the wise man that interacts with a fool, is the most foolish fool of all the foolish fools!

If our ancestors had an understanding of the european mind, would any of us be here.

Keep your friends close........


That's where I would beg to differ. You should study a bit about our ancestral spirituality because what it will tell you is that they would study for all their lives to understand the spirit, only to come to the realisation that it is so simple. Where you say abstract i often say Natural and this is one of those places.

Abstract...nature....it's all sermantics!

True spirituality is based in reality. Along with reality we find many universal truths. These truths do not change despite human behaviour changing. What you find impracticle, many people live with day to day just fine and they don't have problems. Again I ask, who defines practicality because you seem to think it's you?

To answer you question yes it's ME that decides what is or isn't practical!

What is practical for me, is not necessarily practical for you. We all define what is practical for ourselves. Defineing what is practical for your best mates, sisters husbands brothers sons school friend....isn't really practical now...is it?

Why attack at all? I myself have attacked others, only to regret it because my attacks were based solely upon my emotions and needn't have been. They only served to have me viewed in the same light as the person who first insulted.

Where was you intuiton then?

I think before I 'attack' so I don't regret attacking anyone, because they would of been asking for it like a transvestite at a Buju Banton concert.
If you think things through instead of acting on your feeling, you will rarely put yourself in a position that you end up regreting.

This is why think should no be dissmise in favour of 'feeling'.

Good. Rest assured that it won't help in a discussion with me

Keep it civil and I'm sure we will not have to exchange any harsh words.

one can be who ever/what ever they perceive themselves to be...no one can tell anyone else where their loyalty lies...jmo

[quote]This is why it bothers me. When I speak of what The Dogon has stated, it would be adult of you to address my points and keep your argument with The Dogon out of it. I in no way care about your mudslinging and prepubescent antics with The Dogon. If you both would care to argue, go ahead, but it would make my conversation with you a lot more pleasant if you would refrain from insulting him in your posts to me, it has nothing to do with the conversation we're having.


I emboldened a passage for you. Nothing exists outside of a persons awareness of it. A human in this sense is a sum total of all experiences percieved within their lifetime. By your argument, none of this really exists, none of these words are anything but reflections of things humans are aware of. But this is where you awry in your argument and why I will stick firmly to being a intuitive cosmic being. All of these things as you are saying and have said, are reflections of human perception. Full stop they exist. If they did not exist, you could not feel their effects and your argument so far has been, they don't exist only their effects. Tell me, how does a non existent thing have an effect? The tooth fairy does exist, as a concept used by parents to show children that they can gain from loss (or just as part of tradition for some). You could only say the tooth fairy doesn't exist if at one time you actually believed the tooth fairy to be more than that concept, I know the tooth fairy to be a concept, and so it exists as a concept. If ytou believe the tooth fairy to be an actual being, then it does not exist. Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Again, the concept of nonexistence, cannot create an effect, otherwise it would be in existence.

If time can be used to measure distance, then how is it non existent. If it doesn't exist it cannot measure anything. I am addressing your contradictions.

So why are you arguing it doesn't exist. Even if you denied it's existence your whole life, you would grow old, you would move and you wouldn't be the same age you were when you first denied it's existence. You call that it's effects. I call it existing despite human belief that they can control nature, that they are in fact it's master and not the other way around. When you age, that is nature telling you to know your place my friend.

None of this negates the fact that the day goes by, time is movement and movement happens regardless of what it's called and finally, all people have a concept of time, whether they name it time or not. This is because all people observe that things move. If it did not exist, nothing would move, he would not age, the sun wouldn't look as if it's moving across the sky and he wouldn't be able to talk about the day he had (had being past tense, past being the concept of time gone by, movement that has already happened).

You are forgetting that the tool (in this case, a label, nothing more than a representation of an existent thing) is not supposed to exist, but to represent something. In this way, time does exist, as this is the accepted terminology in the language we use for the phenomenon of continual movement. If I tell you that the time is 6pm, you understand I am speaking about an actual physical psoition in the earth's rotation and in the cosmos as a whole. I am not saying that the language used exists, because it is a language, a communication tool. If the word fungus was used to be time, and everybody understood that to be the case within this language, the fungus exists inasmuch as the movement exists. You are arguing semantics, not realities.

God complex.


All that, that proves is that we can use time as a tool to measure movement, as you pointed out to me, that doesn't prove time exists!

What you are not understanding is that you are arguing that language is fluid, not that reality is. The reality is that your hand in front of your face was in one position and then in another. This is what is called time. When I say time exists I am talking about the reality that is movement (of course if you want to argue semantics movement doesn't exist either) but you are arguing about the terminology of time (not that any of these words you type or I type mean anything because by your definition they do not exist). You arguement however ignores the fact that this is how human communication works, and IMO your argument is impracticle and is in essence a superfluous excercise in flexing unnecessary brain muscle. To try and scrap a whole concept is wrong on so many levels just to think in the "abstract" (and if this is what abstract thought gets you, I'm sorry but I definitely don't want it). If you had said the language used to represent the phenomenon of time is fluid and non existent I would have agreed, but you are confusing language with reality. Time exists because we will always feel movement, but we could call that movement anything we wanted so the label time doesn't exist.


As I type, I am feeling time go by, because I am moving, and time is a representation of movement.

Yes time can be represented as movement, and movement can be represented of time...is that proof of its actual existance?

First of all time represents movement, movement does not represent time. Movement is a universal truth and does not represent anything, it is represented by things. Humans only know what they can percieve, if movement is percieved humans by their nature will label it to communicate, the label is time. It's that simple. There is no such thing as something that does not move in this cosmos. Down to the most minimal spec of matter, it will be moving. time represents the movement, it doesn't work the other way around. As we percieve the movement and the label time, time exists until such a time as the label changes, but the movement will always happen (until such a time as that label changes and then we'll call the phenomenon of movement something else).

The label is manifest and exists as long as humans use it to represent that phenomenon. I don't agree with the rather sloppy way you've presented your argument here because it is assuming too much and is quite disingenuous. The argument of an intuitive person seeks to be lacking a disingenuous slant. Even if today you choose not to aknowledge time, movement will still happen, and other people will aknowledge time. It still exists both in reality and as movement and as a part of human communication, a label for time. I honestly don't see where you have a case.


Colour doesn't exist!
In its natural state...without energy (light)....everything is black. (barring in mind, that black isn't actually a colour but a shade) When energy(light) is introduct to an object it causes the paticles to vibrate at a paticular rate and that vibration is pecieved as colour. This is why, when you turn you bedroom light off before getting into be, everything reverts to its natural shade...black. Diffent people perceive differnt rates of vibration hence colour blindness.

In its natural state...there is no colour. In its natural state...there is no time. Only our percetion of both.

Yes, there is our perception of both, and so it exists, full stop. The only reason why you can type is because you have percieved the presence of the keyboard, percieve the image on this screen, percieve an understanding of my words and respond according to your movements, which you percieve happening. Things are brought into existence by our perception. Trying to minimise the role of perception is not necessary. Colour exists because we percieve it to exist. That is probably the only argument Aristotle or any western philosopher ever made that I agree with (and it is an argument that had been learned from Africans) That which we percieve is our reality. I will not go into actual reality because I fear you will not understand me.


Nope, you're way off there,
You can rip a mans heart out of his chest and he cannot exist without it...but his heart is his heart and he is himself I can't live without oxigen, but I am not oxigen and oxigen is not me!...quite simple.But I do agree that we are all connected to each other and the cosmos![/quote]

You are not getting it. His heart is his heart and his heart is his life. His life is his life and his life is his heart. His heart is his heart and his heart is his life. This is the nature of interconnectedness. If his heart is simply his heart and his life his life, are they really connected? All things in the cosmos are connected. All of them are and so they are related, life doesn't exist without a heart for a human life and heart are one in the same not separate things.

I'm busy sothe rest I will reply to tomorrow.

I can only see those black people who are already in interracial relationship whether dating or married, or those who date outside their race who believe that a black person can be proud and still marry out of their race and help water down the black race and act like it is nothing. I don't see a proud black person giving someone from another race a time of day when it comes to sex, dating, or marrying. Other races who are proud don't date out of their race. Black people are the only people who is preaching you can be proud and still make half black babies and change the make-up of the black race.

amononi, you are so right. I said this a few pages back. It really doesn't make sense for someone to be pro-black and see black as beautiful but be in an interracial relationship. Like I said a pro-black person would want to marry someone who is black and have black children instead of trying to taint their bloodline with another race(s).

You are quite the "dramatic".

I am not sure what this has to do with yesterday, but it would be a shock to see you post something of value.

This is what I mean. You have to post something relevant. How is the NOI a "Black" supremacist organization? Would it exist. . .without "White" supremacy? Would the word "Black" exist? Would even the word African exist?

You really need to go and do a bit of studying on African Cultures, the origin of "White" supremacy, and basic anthropology.

Like I said, you invent these definitions and think we need to play by your silly rules. Not many "intellectuals" agree with such nonsense. Racism is the belief in the supremacy of a race of people. It has nothing to do with hate. I have met "Whites" who were the nicest people on this planet. . .and yet they were as racist as you are insane.