- Welcome to The Vestibule.
The Space Between the Sanctuary and the Street
Recent posts
#21
This World We're Living In / Some More Leo Tolstoy
Last post by Michael:D - Jan 17, 2019, 08:53 AMAs war and peace continues to entertain, I am taken by yet another chapter. This one offers thoughtful observations on the "science" of history.
If you have not ventured into this massive tome, please consider reading the following chapter for a taste of this infamous bit of literature...
WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy
BOOK Eleven: 1812
CHAPTER I
Absolute continuity of motion is not comprehensible to the human mind. Laws of motion of any kind become comprehensible to man only when he examines arbitrarily selected elements of that motion; but at the same time, a large proportion of human error comes from the arbitrary division of continuous motion into discontinuous elements. There is a well known, so-called sophism of the ancients consisting in this, that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise he was following, in spite of the fact that he traveled ten times as fast as the tortoise. By the time Achilles has covered the distance that separated him from the tortoise, the tortoise has covered one tenth of that distance ahead of him: when Achilles has covered that tenth, the tortoise has covered another one hundredth, and so on forever. This problem seemed to the ancients insoluble. The absurd answer (that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise) resulted from this: that motion was arbitrarily divided into discontinuous elements, whereas the motion both of Achilles and of the tortoise was continuous.
By adopting smaller and smaller elements of motion we only approach a solution of the problem, but never reach it. Only when we have admitted the conception of the infinitely small, and the resulting geometrical progression with a common ratio of one tenth, and have found the sum of this progression to infinity, do we reach a solution of the problem.
A modern branch of mathematics having achieved the art of dealing with the infinitely small can now yield solutions in other more complex problems of motion which used to appear insoluble.
This modern branch of mathematics, unknown to the ancients, when dealing with problems of motion admits the conception of the infinitely small, and so conforms to the chief condition of motion (absolute continuity) and thereby corrects the inevitable error which the human mind cannot avoid when it deals with separate elements of motion instead of examining continuous motion.
In seeking the laws of historical movement just the same thing happens. The movement of humanity, arising as it does from innumerable arbitrary human wills, is continuous.
To understand the laws of this continuous movement is the aim of history. But to arrive at these laws, resulting from the sum of all those human wills, man's mind postulates arbitrary and disconnected units. The first method of history is to take an arbitrarily selected series of continuous events and examine it apart from others, though there is and can be no beginning to any event, for one event always flows uninterruptedly from another.
The second method is to consider the actions of some one man- a king or a commander- as equivalent to the sum of many individual wills; whereas the sum of individual wills is never expressed by the activity of a single historic personage.
Historical science in its endeavor to draw nearer to truth continually takes smaller and smaller units for examination. But however small the units it takes, we feel that to take any unit disconnected from others, or to assume a beginning of any phenomenon, or to say that the will of many men is expressed by the actions of any one historic personage, is in itself false.
It needs no critical exertion to reduce utterly to dust any deductions drawn from history. It is merely necessary to select some larger or smaller unit as the subject of observation- as criticism has every right to do, seeing that whatever unit history observes must always be arbitrarily selected.
Only by taking infinitesimally small units for observation (the differential of history, that is, the individual tendencies of men) and attaining to the art of integrating them (that is, finding the sum of these infinitesimals) can we hope to arrive at the laws of history.
The first fifteen years of the nineteenth century in Europe present an extraordinary movement of millions of people. Men leave their customary pursuits, hasten from one side of Europe to the other, plunder and slaughter one another, triumph and are plunged in despair, and for some years the whole course of life is altered and presents an intensive movement which first increases and then slackens. What was the cause of this movement, by what laws was it governed? asks the mind of man.
The historians, replying to this question, lay before us the sayings and doings of a few dozen men in a building in the city of Paris, calling these sayings and doings "the Revolution"; then they give a detailed biography of Napoleon and of certain people favorable or hostile to him; tell of the influence some of these people had on others, and say: that is why this movement took place and those are its laws.
But the mind of man not only refuses to believe this explanation, but plainly says that this method of explanation is fallacious, because in it a weaker phenomenon is taken as the cause of a stronger. The sum of human wills produced the Revolution and Napoleon, and only the sum of those wills first tolerated and then destroyed them.
"But every time there have been conquests there have been conquerors; every time there has been a revolution in any state there have been great men," says history. And, indeed, human reason replies: every time conquerors appear there have been wars, but this does not prove that the conquerors caused the wars and that it is possible to find the laws of a war in the personal activity of a single man. Whenever I look at my watch and its hands point to ten, I hear the bells of the neighboring church; but because the bells begin to ring when the hands of the clock reach ten, I have no right to assume that the movement of the bells is caused by the position of the hands of the watch.
Whenever I see the movement of a locomotive I hear the whistle and see the valves opening and wheels turning; but I have no right to conclude that the whistling and the turning of wheels are the cause of the movement of the engine.
The peasants say that a cold wind blows in late spring because the oaks are budding, and really every spring cold winds do blow when the oak is budding. But though I do not know what causes the cold winds to blow when the oak buds unfold, I cannot agree with the peasants that the unfolding of the oak buds is the cause of the cold wind, for the force of the wind is beyond the influence of the buds. I see only a coincidence of occurrences such as happens with all the phenomena of life, and I see that however much and however carefully I observe the hands of the watch, and the valves and wheels of the engine, and the oak, I shall not discover the cause of the bells ringing, the engine moving, or of the winds of spring. To that I must entirely change my point of view and study the laws of the movement of steam, of the bells, and of the wind. History must do the same. And attempts in this direction have already been made.
To study the laws of history we must completely change the subject of our observation, must leave aside kings, ministers, and generals, and the common, infinitesimally small elements by which the masses are moved. No one can say in how far it is possible for man to advance in this way toward an understanding of the laws of history; but it is evident that only along that path does the possibility of discovering the laws of history lie, and that as yet not a millionth part as much mental effort has been applied in this direction by historians as has been devoted to describing the actions of various kings, commanders, and ministers and propounding the historians' own reflections concerning these actions.
The Complete Book Has Been Made Available on Friends-Partners.org
If you have not ventured into this massive tome, please consider reading the following chapter for a taste of this infamous bit of literature...
WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy
BOOK Eleven: 1812
CHAPTER I
Absolute continuity of motion is not comprehensible to the human mind. Laws of motion of any kind become comprehensible to man only when he examines arbitrarily selected elements of that motion; but at the same time, a large proportion of human error comes from the arbitrary division of continuous motion into discontinuous elements. There is a well known, so-called sophism of the ancients consisting in this, that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise he was following, in spite of the fact that he traveled ten times as fast as the tortoise. By the time Achilles has covered the distance that separated him from the tortoise, the tortoise has covered one tenth of that distance ahead of him: when Achilles has covered that tenth, the tortoise has covered another one hundredth, and so on forever. This problem seemed to the ancients insoluble. The absurd answer (that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise) resulted from this: that motion was arbitrarily divided into discontinuous elements, whereas the motion both of Achilles and of the tortoise was continuous.
By adopting smaller and smaller elements of motion we only approach a solution of the problem, but never reach it. Only when we have admitted the conception of the infinitely small, and the resulting geometrical progression with a common ratio of one tenth, and have found the sum of this progression to infinity, do we reach a solution of the problem.
A modern branch of mathematics having achieved the art of dealing with the infinitely small can now yield solutions in other more complex problems of motion which used to appear insoluble.
This modern branch of mathematics, unknown to the ancients, when dealing with problems of motion admits the conception of the infinitely small, and so conforms to the chief condition of motion (absolute continuity) and thereby corrects the inevitable error which the human mind cannot avoid when it deals with separate elements of motion instead of examining continuous motion.
In seeking the laws of historical movement just the same thing happens. The movement of humanity, arising as it does from innumerable arbitrary human wills, is continuous.
To understand the laws of this continuous movement is the aim of history. But to arrive at these laws, resulting from the sum of all those human wills, man's mind postulates arbitrary and disconnected units. The first method of history is to take an arbitrarily selected series of continuous events and examine it apart from others, though there is and can be no beginning to any event, for one event always flows uninterruptedly from another.
The second method is to consider the actions of some one man- a king or a commander- as equivalent to the sum of many individual wills; whereas the sum of individual wills is never expressed by the activity of a single historic personage.
Historical science in its endeavor to draw nearer to truth continually takes smaller and smaller units for examination. But however small the units it takes, we feel that to take any unit disconnected from others, or to assume a beginning of any phenomenon, or to say that the will of many men is expressed by the actions of any one historic personage, is in itself false.
It needs no critical exertion to reduce utterly to dust any deductions drawn from history. It is merely necessary to select some larger or smaller unit as the subject of observation- as criticism has every right to do, seeing that whatever unit history observes must always be arbitrarily selected.
Only by taking infinitesimally small units for observation (the differential of history, that is, the individual tendencies of men) and attaining to the art of integrating them (that is, finding the sum of these infinitesimals) can we hope to arrive at the laws of history.
The first fifteen years of the nineteenth century in Europe present an extraordinary movement of millions of people. Men leave their customary pursuits, hasten from one side of Europe to the other, plunder and slaughter one another, triumph and are plunged in despair, and for some years the whole course of life is altered and presents an intensive movement which first increases and then slackens. What was the cause of this movement, by what laws was it governed? asks the mind of man.
The historians, replying to this question, lay before us the sayings and doings of a few dozen men in a building in the city of Paris, calling these sayings and doings "the Revolution"; then they give a detailed biography of Napoleon and of certain people favorable or hostile to him; tell of the influence some of these people had on others, and say: that is why this movement took place and those are its laws.
But the mind of man not only refuses to believe this explanation, but plainly says that this method of explanation is fallacious, because in it a weaker phenomenon is taken as the cause of a stronger. The sum of human wills produced the Revolution and Napoleon, and only the sum of those wills first tolerated and then destroyed them.
"But every time there have been conquests there have been conquerors; every time there has been a revolution in any state there have been great men," says history. And, indeed, human reason replies: every time conquerors appear there have been wars, but this does not prove that the conquerors caused the wars and that it is possible to find the laws of a war in the personal activity of a single man. Whenever I look at my watch and its hands point to ten, I hear the bells of the neighboring church; but because the bells begin to ring when the hands of the clock reach ten, I have no right to assume that the movement of the bells is caused by the position of the hands of the watch.
Whenever I see the movement of a locomotive I hear the whistle and see the valves opening and wheels turning; but I have no right to conclude that the whistling and the turning of wheels are the cause of the movement of the engine.
The peasants say that a cold wind blows in late spring because the oaks are budding, and really every spring cold winds do blow when the oak is budding. But though I do not know what causes the cold winds to blow when the oak buds unfold, I cannot agree with the peasants that the unfolding of the oak buds is the cause of the cold wind, for the force of the wind is beyond the influence of the buds. I see only a coincidence of occurrences such as happens with all the phenomena of life, and I see that however much and however carefully I observe the hands of the watch, and the valves and wheels of the engine, and the oak, I shall not discover the cause of the bells ringing, the engine moving, or of the winds of spring. To that I must entirely change my point of view and study the laws of the movement of steam, of the bells, and of the wind. History must do the same. And attempts in this direction have already been made.
To study the laws of history we must completely change the subject of our observation, must leave aside kings, ministers, and generals, and the common, infinitesimally small elements by which the masses are moved. No one can say in how far it is possible for man to advance in this way toward an understanding of the laws of history; but it is evident that only along that path does the possibility of discovering the laws of history lie, and that as yet not a millionth part as much mental effort has been applied in this direction by historians as has been devoted to describing the actions of various kings, commanders, and ministers and propounding the historians' own reflections concerning these actions.
The Complete Book Has Been Made Available on Friends-Partners.org
#22
This World We're Living In / Leo Tolstoy on Free Will
Last post by Michael:D - Jan 07, 2019, 08:57 AMI am about halfway through War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy and for the most part find it very enjoyable.
Chapter One of Book Nine (reprinted here) has proven to be a most excellent, insightful exposition on the concept of free will.
If you have not ventured into this massive tome, please consider reading the following chapter for a taste of this infamous bit of literature...
[/size]
WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy
BOOK NINE: 1812
CHAPTER I
From the close of the year 1811 intensified arming and concentrating of the forces of Western Europe began, and in 1812 these forces- millions of men, reckoning those transporting and feeding the army- moved from the west eastwards to the Russian frontier, toward which since 1811 Russian forces had been similarly drawn. On the twelfth of June, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the Russian frontier and war began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries, thefts, forgeries, issues of false money, burglaries, incendiarisms, and murders as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the law courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes.
What produced this extraordinary occurrence? What were its causes? The historians tell us with naive assurance that its causes were the wrongs inflicted on the Duke of Oldenburg, the nonobservance of the Continental System, the ambition of Napoleon, the firmness of Alexander, the mistakes of the diplomatists, and so on.
Consequently, it would only have been necessary for Metternich, Rumyantsev, or Talleyrand, between a levee and an evening party, to have taken proper pains and written a more adroit note, or for Napoleon to have written to Alexander: "My respected Brother, I consent to restore the duchy to the Duke of Oldenburg"- and there would have been no war.
We can understand that the matter seemed like that to contemporaries. It naturally seemed to Napoleon that the war was caused by England's intrigues (as in fact he said on the island of St. Helena). It naturally seemed to members of the English Parliament that the cause of the war was Napoleon's ambition; to the Duke of Oldenburg, that the cause of the war was the violence done to him; to businessmen that the cause of the way was the Continental System which was ruining Europe; to the generals and old soldiers that the chief reason for the war was the necessity of giving them employment; to the legitimists of that day that it was the need of re-establishing les bons principes, and to the diplomatists of that time that it all resulted from the fact that the alliance between Russia and Austria in 1809 had not been sufficiently well concealed from Napoleon, and from the awkward wording of Memorandum No. 178. It is natural that these and a countless and infinite quantity of other reasons, the number depending on the endless diversity of points of view, presented themselves to the men of that day; but to us, to posterity who view the thing that happened in all its magnitude and perceive its plain and terrible meaning, these causes seem insufficient. To us it is incomprehensible that millions of Christian men killed and tortured each other either because Napoleon was ambitious or Alexander was firm, or because England's policy was astute or the Duke of Oldenburg wronged. We cannot grasp what connection such circumstances have with the actual fact of slaughter and violence: why because the Duke was wronged, thousands of men from the other side of Europe killed and ruined the people of Smolensk and Moscow and were killed by them.
To us, their descendants, who are not historians and are not carried away by the process of research and can therefore regard the event with unclouded common sense, an incalculable number of causes present themselves. The deeper we delve in search of these causes the more of them we find; and each separate cause or whole series of causes appears to us equally valid in itself and equally false by its insignificance compared to the magnitude of the events, and by its impotence- apart from the cooperation of all the other coincident causes- to occasion the event. To us, the wish or objection of this or that French corporal to serve a second term appears as much a cause as Napoleon's refusal to withdraw his troops beyond the Vistula and to restore the duchy of Oldenburg; for had he not wished to serve, and had a second, a third, and a thousandth corporal and private also refused, there would have been so many less men in Napoleon's army and the war could not have occurred.
Had Napoleon not taken offense at the demand that he should withdraw beyond the Vistula, and not ordered his troops to advance, there would have been no war; but had all his sergeants objected to serving a second term then also there could have been no war. Nor could there have been a war had there been no English intrigues and no Duke of Oldenburg, and had Alexander not felt insulted, and had there not been an autocratic government in Russia, or a Revolution in France and a subsequent dictatorship and Empire, or all the things that produced the French Revolution, and so on. Without each of these causes nothing could have happened. So all these causes- myriads of causes- coincided to bring it about. And so there was no one cause for that occurrence, but it had to occur because it had to. Millions of men, renouncing their human feelings and reason, had to go from west to east to slay their fellows, just as some centuries previously hordes of men had come from the east to the west, slaying their fellows.
The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose words the event seemed to hang, were as little voluntary as the actions of any soldier who was drawn into the campaign by lot or by conscription. This could not be otherwise, for in order that the will of Napoleon and Alexander (on whom the event seemed to depend) should be carried out, the concurrence of innumerable circumstances was needed without any one of which the event could not have taken place. It was necessary that millions of men in whose hands lay the real power- the soldiers who fired, or transported provisions and guns- should consent to carry out the will of these weak individuals, and should have been induced to do so by an infinite number of diverse and complex causes.
We are forced to fall back on fatalism as an explanation of irrational events (that is to say, events the reasonableness of which we do not understand). The more we try to explain such events in history reasonably, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible do they become to us.
Each man lives for himself, using his freedom to attain his personal aims, and feels with his whole being that he can now do or abstain from doing this or that action; but as soon as he has done it, that action performed at a certain moment in time becomes irrevocable and belongs to history, in which it has not a free but a predestined significance.
There are two sides to the life of every man, his individual life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests, and his elemental hive life in which he inevitably obeys laws laid down for him.
Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action.
"The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord."
A king is history's slave.
History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.
Though Napoleon at that time, in 1812, was more convinced than ever that it depended on him, verser (ou ne pas verser) le sang de ses peuples * - as Alexander expressed it in the last letter he wrote him- he had never been so much in the grip of inevitable laws, which compelled him, while thinking that he was acting on his own volition, to perform for the hive life- that is to say, for history- whatever had to be performed.
* "To shed (or not to shed) the blood of his peoples."
The people of the west moved eastwards to slay their fellow men, and by the law of coincidence thousands of minute causes fitted in and co-ordinated to produce that movement and war: reproaches for the nonobservance of the Continental System, the Duke of Oldenburg's wrongs, the movement of troops into Prussia- undertaken (as it seemed to Napoleon) only for the purpose of securing an armed peace, the French Emperor's love and habit of war coinciding with his people's inclinations, allurement by the grandeur of the preparations, and the expenditure on those preparations and the need of obtaining advantages to compensate for that expenditure, the intoxicating honors he received in Dresden, the diplomatic negotiations which, in the opinion of contemporaries, were carried on with a sincere desire to attain peace, but which only wounded the self-love of both sides, and millions and millions of other causes that adapted themselves to the event that was happening or coincided with it.
When an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it?
Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue decays and so forth is equally right with the child who stands under the tree and says the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last navvy struck it for the last time with his mattock. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.
Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.
The Complete Book Has Been Made Available on Friends-Partners.org
Chapter One of Book Nine (reprinted here) has proven to be a most excellent, insightful exposition on the concept of free will.
If you have not ventured into this massive tome, please consider reading the following chapter for a taste of this infamous bit of literature...
[/size]
WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy
BOOK NINE: 1812
CHAPTER I
From the close of the year 1811 intensified arming and concentrating of the forces of Western Europe began, and in 1812 these forces- millions of men, reckoning those transporting and feeding the army- moved from the west eastwards to the Russian frontier, toward which since 1811 Russian forces had been similarly drawn. On the twelfth of June, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the Russian frontier and war began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries, thefts, forgeries, issues of false money, burglaries, incendiarisms, and murders as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the law courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes.
What produced this extraordinary occurrence? What were its causes? The historians tell us with naive assurance that its causes were the wrongs inflicted on the Duke of Oldenburg, the nonobservance of the Continental System, the ambition of Napoleon, the firmness of Alexander, the mistakes of the diplomatists, and so on.
Consequently, it would only have been necessary for Metternich, Rumyantsev, or Talleyrand, between a levee and an evening party, to have taken proper pains and written a more adroit note, or for Napoleon to have written to Alexander: "My respected Brother, I consent to restore the duchy to the Duke of Oldenburg"- and there would have been no war.
We can understand that the matter seemed like that to contemporaries. It naturally seemed to Napoleon that the war was caused by England's intrigues (as in fact he said on the island of St. Helena). It naturally seemed to members of the English Parliament that the cause of the war was Napoleon's ambition; to the Duke of Oldenburg, that the cause of the war was the violence done to him; to businessmen that the cause of the way was the Continental System which was ruining Europe; to the generals and old soldiers that the chief reason for the war was the necessity of giving them employment; to the legitimists of that day that it was the need of re-establishing les bons principes, and to the diplomatists of that time that it all resulted from the fact that the alliance between Russia and Austria in 1809 had not been sufficiently well concealed from Napoleon, and from the awkward wording of Memorandum No. 178. It is natural that these and a countless and infinite quantity of other reasons, the number depending on the endless diversity of points of view, presented themselves to the men of that day; but to us, to posterity who view the thing that happened in all its magnitude and perceive its plain and terrible meaning, these causes seem insufficient. To us it is incomprehensible that millions of Christian men killed and tortured each other either because Napoleon was ambitious or Alexander was firm, or because England's policy was astute or the Duke of Oldenburg wronged. We cannot grasp what connection such circumstances have with the actual fact of slaughter and violence: why because the Duke was wronged, thousands of men from the other side of Europe killed and ruined the people of Smolensk and Moscow and were killed by them.
To us, their descendants, who are not historians and are not carried away by the process of research and can therefore regard the event with unclouded common sense, an incalculable number of causes present themselves. The deeper we delve in search of these causes the more of them we find; and each separate cause or whole series of causes appears to us equally valid in itself and equally false by its insignificance compared to the magnitude of the events, and by its impotence- apart from the cooperation of all the other coincident causes- to occasion the event. To us, the wish or objection of this or that French corporal to serve a second term appears as much a cause as Napoleon's refusal to withdraw his troops beyond the Vistula and to restore the duchy of Oldenburg; for had he not wished to serve, and had a second, a third, and a thousandth corporal and private also refused, there would have been so many less men in Napoleon's army and the war could not have occurred.
Had Napoleon not taken offense at the demand that he should withdraw beyond the Vistula, and not ordered his troops to advance, there would have been no war; but had all his sergeants objected to serving a second term then also there could have been no war. Nor could there have been a war had there been no English intrigues and no Duke of Oldenburg, and had Alexander not felt insulted, and had there not been an autocratic government in Russia, or a Revolution in France and a subsequent dictatorship and Empire, or all the things that produced the French Revolution, and so on. Without each of these causes nothing could have happened. So all these causes- myriads of causes- coincided to bring it about. And so there was no one cause for that occurrence, but it had to occur because it had to. Millions of men, renouncing their human feelings and reason, had to go from west to east to slay their fellows, just as some centuries previously hordes of men had come from the east to the west, slaying their fellows.
The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose words the event seemed to hang, were as little voluntary as the actions of any soldier who was drawn into the campaign by lot or by conscription. This could not be otherwise, for in order that the will of Napoleon and Alexander (on whom the event seemed to depend) should be carried out, the concurrence of innumerable circumstances was needed without any one of which the event could not have taken place. It was necessary that millions of men in whose hands lay the real power- the soldiers who fired, or transported provisions and guns- should consent to carry out the will of these weak individuals, and should have been induced to do so by an infinite number of diverse and complex causes.
We are forced to fall back on fatalism as an explanation of irrational events (that is to say, events the reasonableness of which we do not understand). The more we try to explain such events in history reasonably, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible do they become to us.
Each man lives for himself, using his freedom to attain his personal aims, and feels with his whole being that he can now do or abstain from doing this or that action; but as soon as he has done it, that action performed at a certain moment in time becomes irrevocable and belongs to history, in which it has not a free but a predestined significance.
There are two sides to the life of every man, his individual life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests, and his elemental hive life in which he inevitably obeys laws laid down for him.
Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action.
"The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord."
A king is history's slave.
History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.
Though Napoleon at that time, in 1812, was more convinced than ever that it depended on him, verser (ou ne pas verser) le sang de ses peuples * - as Alexander expressed it in the last letter he wrote him- he had never been so much in the grip of inevitable laws, which compelled him, while thinking that he was acting on his own volition, to perform for the hive life- that is to say, for history- whatever had to be performed.
* "To shed (or not to shed) the blood of his peoples."
The people of the west moved eastwards to slay their fellow men, and by the law of coincidence thousands of minute causes fitted in and co-ordinated to produce that movement and war: reproaches for the nonobservance of the Continental System, the Duke of Oldenburg's wrongs, the movement of troops into Prussia- undertaken (as it seemed to Napoleon) only for the purpose of securing an armed peace, the French Emperor's love and habit of war coinciding with his people's inclinations, allurement by the grandeur of the preparations, and the expenditure on those preparations and the need of obtaining advantages to compensate for that expenditure, the intoxicating honors he received in Dresden, the diplomatic negotiations which, in the opinion of contemporaries, were carried on with a sincere desire to attain peace, but which only wounded the self-love of both sides, and millions and millions of other causes that adapted themselves to the event that was happening or coincided with it.
When an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it?
Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue decays and so forth is equally right with the child who stands under the tree and says the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last navvy struck it for the last time with his mattock. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.
Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.
The Complete Book Has Been Made Available on Friends-Partners.org
#23
Post Migration Recovery / TABLE OF NATIONS and the ORIGI...
Last post by Michael:D - Jan 05, 2019, 02:00 PMMany thanks to Tim Osterholm @ http://soundchristian.com/man/ for preparing this study and sharing it freely with the world.
#24
Post Migration Recovery / First Principles of General Kn...
Last post by Michael:D - Jan 05, 2019, 10:45 AMFirst Principles of General Knowledge (1883)
By S.M. Paull
There is a noticeable tie-in with biblical principles; something you don't normally see in text books of today (in non-parochial classrooms at least.) There is a lot of great information here that is just not being taught in schools any longer. No wonder the ancient world is such a mystery; when educators decide what is important much history is forsaken...
[embed=900,700]<iframe src="https://archive.org/stream/firstprincipleso00paul?ui=embed#mode/2up" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Download PDF: https://archive.org/download/firstprincipleso00paul/firstprincipleso00paul.pdf
By S.M. Paull
There is a noticeable tie-in with biblical principles; something you don't normally see in text books of today (in non-parochial classrooms at least.) There is a lot of great information here that is just not being taught in schools any longer. No wonder the ancient world is such a mystery; when educators decide what is important much history is forsaken...
[embed=900,700]<iframe src="https://archive.org/stream/firstprincipleso00paul?ui=embed#mode/2up" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Download PDF: https://archive.org/download/firstprincipleso00paul/firstprincipleso00paul.pdf
#25
Why Believe / Boss God
Last post by Michael:D - Oct 12, 2018, 01:33 PMI promised a follow-up article to "The Truth About God" and although I know (pretty much) the ideas I wish to convey, the approach to doing so has been somewhat elusive. With today being officially "Freethought Day," I figured it best to simply begin the task and work my way toward the end. To wit...
A proposed discussion of God will probably elicit eye-rolls from the vast majority of potential readers while a minority might actually be intrigued. Those with long-held traditional beliefs may have zero desire to explore what others of differing ideals would have to say on the subject of a "Supreme Being."
Religion is big business. There seem to be more religious based institutions and houses-of-worship than coffee shops, which suggests to me that folks must need their God as much as (if not more than) their coffee. Like coffee, God seems to be available in several popular flavors: from the trendy to the traditional, chances are somebody, somewhere has a God for you.
Him. So many talk about God in the third person; like "He" is somehow apart from mankind. Big Bossman God, watching over his creation just waiting for someone to screw-up his hard work. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake." Oh wait, that's Santa Clause... "meh, same difference," some would say. Me? I really don't think God is that cute or concise.
I say God is REAL. More properly God is Reality; God is the reason for Reality. So many believers speak of God as existing somewhere "out there" - separate from "His Creation" - This cannot be. For God to be the Supreme, "He" must encompass the outermost. (Now stick with me here...) If it were possible for God to create a dwelling place that existed apart from his own essence then the space which contains that place would be greater than He. Therefor, "Everything that exists does so within this Supreme Being." Any quest for truth must begin with this undeniable fact.
Another essential fact - often overlooked, surprisingly - is that our existence is a series of consecutive "NOW" moments in time. Nothing can ever be any different than it is in each moment. A recognition of expectation that the next moment "will be" is perhaps the quintessential, defining characteristic of humanity.
Science has made tremendous strides in defining the boundaries of our universal existence to the extent of our ability to perceive. Religious beliefs are a testament to many aspects of our reality which are beyond our ability to readily perceive. A recognition that we all exist within the Reality that is God will go a long way toward understanding the truth of human equality and should bolster the cause of "COEXIST" - as if it were even a choice.
A proposed discussion of God will probably elicit eye-rolls from the vast majority of potential readers while a minority might actually be intrigued. Those with long-held traditional beliefs may have zero desire to explore what others of differing ideals would have to say on the subject of a "Supreme Being."
Religion is big business. There seem to be more religious based institutions and houses-of-worship than coffee shops, which suggests to me that folks must need their God as much as (if not more than) their coffee. Like coffee, God seems to be available in several popular flavors: from the trendy to the traditional, chances are somebody, somewhere has a God for you.
It is this apparent discrepancy in God's identity that no doubt, turns many people away from a quest for the truth about God. With so many options on what to believe, many have determined the "safe bet" is to disregard the whole debate and live their lives like none of this matters. Others of course, will cling to their beliefs like nothing else matters. The fact of the matter is that God is Real whether we believe in Him or not .
Him. So many talk about God in the third person; like "He" is somehow apart from mankind. Big Bossman God, watching over his creation just waiting for someone to screw-up his hard work. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake." Oh wait, that's Santa Clause... "meh, same difference," some would say. Me? I really don't think God is that cute or concise.
I say God is REAL. More properly God is Reality; God is the reason for Reality. So many believers speak of God as existing somewhere "out there" - separate from "His Creation" - This cannot be. For God to be the Supreme, "He" must encompass the outermost. (Now stick with me here...) If it were possible for God to create a dwelling place that existed apart from his own essence then the space which contains that place would be greater than He. Therefor, "Everything that exists does so within this Supreme Being." Any quest for truth must begin with this undeniable fact.
Another essential fact - often overlooked, surprisingly - is that our existence is a series of consecutive "NOW" moments in time. Nothing can ever be any different than it is in each moment. A recognition of expectation that the next moment "will be" is perhaps the quintessential, defining characteristic of humanity.
Science has made tremendous strides in defining the boundaries of our universal existence to the extent of our ability to perceive. Religious beliefs are a testament to many aspects of our reality which are beyond our ability to readily perceive. A recognition that we all exist within the Reality that is God will go a long way toward understanding the truth of human equality and should bolster the cause of "COEXIST" - as if it were even a choice.
#26
Why Believe / The Truth About God
Last post by Michael:D - Sep 13, 2018, 09:47 AM
Do you believe in God? [ ]Yes [ ]No [ ]Unsure
Regardless of how you answer this question, mankind has found it desirable for you to be identified with one of these labels:
- If you answer "Yes" you are considered a Theist.
- If you answer "No" you are an considered an Atheist.
- If you answer "Unsure" you are considered Agnostic.
Given this reality:
- Many theist will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong
(or at the very least misguided.) - Many atheist will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong
(or at the very least misguided.) - Many agnostics will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong
(or at the very least misguided.)
This may actually be one religious "Trio" we can all agree on.
A realistic examination of a human being's existence will show that any one of these labels may well be applicable to an individual at any given moment. Labels can shift when the devout worshiper has a moment of doubt or a died-in-the-wool atheist is caused to wonder (if even for an instant,) when the agnostic feels a pull from one side to the other for instance. This is certainly a topic that has worked to shape human civilization throughout history and affects us all (for better or worse) on a daily basis.
One troubling aspect of the entire debate - if we can at least agree on the "debatability" of God's existence - are the great many defining characteristics ascribed to the role of a "Supreme Deity." Whether known as God, Allah, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Vishnu, Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, Allah, Xavier, Waheguru, Jah, Ngai, Baal or countless other "handles", people around the world have found at least some benefit in the recognition of forces that permeate the universe which appear greater than what can be entirely comprehended by mere mortals. Even the unbelieving atheist is not generally willing to disregard the fact that science, in its attempts to explain all that is, falls short in a great many troubling ways.
Many folks simply take it on "faith" that their God is real. Many claim to be looking for signs or proof before they will subscribe to such notions. Still others will entirely turn away from any such thoughts, preferring to live their lives devoid of any and all fruitless struggles and attempts to know the unmistakably, unknowable.
Another of those timeless human conundrums is embodied in the question, "Why are we here?" Any answer to this is undoubtedly going to be in "essay" form. In many ways the world's religious institutions owe their very existence to the persistence of humanity's desire for an answer to that very question. Whether the question is asked at the personal, internal level: "Why am I here?" or on a more cosmic scale: "What does it all mean?" any answer we are likely to come up with in our present situation - particularly if expressed in a global forum - is going to result in quintessentially unresolvable matters of opinion with an "agree to disagree" outcome at best. If only it were possible to actually and truly "agree" on our rights to "disagree" this world would be a far better place (of course you may disagree with this assessment.)
I believe in absolute Truth; that there is to be found a common, universal explanation for all that "was, is or ever will be." I intend to explore this reality from the standpoint that:
- we cannot all be right (but what if we are?)
- we cannot all be wrong (but what if we are?)
- we are all in this together (whether we want to be or not.)
- knowledge of Truth is a reasonable expectation (even if many of its aspects are ultimately, unknowable.)
Oh, and yes... God is Real.
To be continued...
#27
Post Migration Recovery / CounterThink
Last post by Michael:D - Sep 11, 2018, 10:43 AMCounterThink with Mike Adams
[attach name=CounterThink.jpg type=image/jpeg]108[/attach]
CounterThink with Mike Adams: Deep dive into Big Tech censorship
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://brighteon.com/embed/5831223535001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
[attach name=CounterThink.jpg type=image/jpeg]108[/attach]
CounterThink with Mike Adams: Deep dive into Big Tech censorship
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://brighteon.com/embed/5831223535001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
"Counterthink" video news launched by the Health Ranger
"I'm launching a new video news channel called "Counterthink," which challenges the dumbed-down status quo with intelligent, independent reporting and analysis on topics that matter for our world." - Mike Adams
For more Counter Think episodes, visit: http://CounterThink.com/ or https://brighteon.com/channel/counterthink
#28
Post Migration Recovery / Freedom of which?
Last post by Michael:D - Sep 07, 2018, 08:32 AMRemember when we were free to choose?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean _they_ are not after you.
#SocialMediaDistractions #WhatAreYouTalkingAbout #InformationOverlords
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://brighteon.com/embed/5831855529001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
original post: https://www.real.video/5831855529001
Now: https://brighteon.com/5831855529001
Twitter 9/6/2018:
Today, we permanently suspended @realalexjones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accountsââ,¬â,,¢ past violations.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean _they_ are not after you.
#SocialMediaDistractions #WhatAreYouTalkingAbout #InformationOverlords
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://brighteon.com/embed/5831855529001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
original post: https://www.real.video/5831855529001
Now: https://brighteon.com/5831855529001
Twitter 9/6/2018:
Today, we permanently suspended @realalexjones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accountsââ,¬â,,¢ past violations.
#29
Post Migration Recovery / Abandoning your STUFF
Last post by Michael:D - Aug 31, 2018, 12:55 PMAbandoning your STUFF during SHTF* - Thought UnCubed
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://www.real.video/embed/5826454651001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
https://brighteon.com/5826454651001
History shows that you have a 70% chance of loosing everything if SHTF and you need to move
*S#!7 Hits The Fan
[embed=600,337]<iframe width="600" height="337" src="https://www.real.video/embed/5826454651001" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
https://brighteon.com/5826454651001
History shows that you have a 70% chance of loosing everything if SHTF and you need to move
*S#!7 Hits The Fan
#30
This World We're Living In / The Fabric of Reality
Last post by Michael:D - Aug 31, 2018, 07:42 AMThe Mystery of Quantum Time Entanglement | ItM 130 - Josh Peck
[embed=560,315]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XYTvpw3PMU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Into the Multiverse with Josh Peck
Hosted by Josh and Christina Peck, Into the Multiverse by SkyWatchTV is a show that delves into the weird world of quantum physics for the layman.
[embed=560,315]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XYTvpw3PMU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]
Into the Multiverse with Josh Peck
Hosted by Josh and Christina Peck, Into the Multiverse by SkyWatchTV is a show that delves into the weird world of quantum physics for the layman.