h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

They wouldn't have disallowed or killed them just because they were creative. The two reasons that spring to mind are these: firstly, I'm very good at English and Philosophy. That doesn't mean I'm worse at History and Politics, except comparatively speaking, of course, I'm still as skilled at them (some unmodest people would say more so ) than the average person. Secondly, I'm good at maths (which, in some ways, is a poetic art). I can channel that creativity into being more efficient when I'm digging things by figuring out the best parabola to swing my spade in or whatever. I mean, if your argument held water, there wouldn't be anyone around today who isn't big, hairy, fast and strong; no intelligence, no numeracy.
Besides, it wouldn't have any impact on today anyway. There has been perhaps a millionth of a percent's evolutionary change between us and the earliest form of Homo Sapiens. Even if they did stifle the creative urge immediately after birth in every creature, whether you believe that it is hereditary or random, it would still reappear equally in each generation.

"They wouldn't have disallowed or killed them just because they were creative. The two reasons that spring to mind are these: firstly, I'm very good at English and Philosophy. That doesn't mean I'm worse at History and Politics, except comparatively speaking, of course, I'm still as skilled at them (some unmodest people would say more so ) than the average person. Secondly, I'm good at maths (which, in some ways, is a poetic art). I can channel that creativity into being more efficient when I'm digging things by figuring out the best parabola to swing my spade in or whatever. I mean, if your argument held water, there wouldn't be anyone around today who isn't big, hairy, fast and strong; no intelligence, no numeracy."

I think you have a point; I'm not sure what I was thinking when I thought up my earlier post.



"Besides, it wouldn't have any impact on today anyway. There has been perhaps a millionth of a percent's evolutionary change between us and the earliest form of Homo Sapiens. Even if they did stifle the creative urge immediately after birth in every creature, whether you believe that it is hereditary or random, it would still reappear equally in each generation."

I have to admit I think you're right.

"I think you have a point..."
"I have to admit I think you're right."
Well, that rather kills the conversation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What are your views on the occult, drugs, and meditating?
Oh yes, you said you'd revise your views on drugs. Have you done it yet?

"Well, that rather kills the conversation."

I'm sure we can find something else to disagree on. I could bring up sex again if necesary (not that I really want to do so any time soon).




"What are your views on the occult, drugs, and meditating?"

The occult: I suspect it is mostly just slightly insane in a different way than I am slightly insane. I don't find it really interesting and no basicly nothing about it.

Drugs: The same, but for different reasons. I haven't really had a chance to rethink my position on the issue (homework is life and I'm on my school's quiz show team). My main arguement against them is that a person should work to impove their mind and their insights on their own--it is cheating to look for chemical aids.

Meditating: I think it has some value as a relaxant and as a chance to look at things in new ways, but I rarely have time to meditate. I doubt it will let a person float, gain supernatural powers, or attain enlightenment, though.

I view the occult as a way to experiment with one's brain-state and a a result of the contrast, learn things about the original assumptions and reality that you had not previously known. After all, we all live in a different state of the occult; for example, I have the rather odd notion that other humans may very well not exist, and that the universe spontaneously came into being by itself.

Drugs have a similar effect; however, they also (or some of them do) allow one to get used to using the higher brain states. There is a little evidence already that higher-consciousness experiences activate usually unused areas of the intellectual brain, and that those produced by certain drugs are similar to OBEs etc that save people's lives while clinically dead in surgery and so on.

Meditation helps one acquire an impartial outlook on life. That is certainly a kind of enlightenment.

"I view the occult as a way to experiment with one's brain-state and a a result of the contrast, learn things about the original assumptions and reality that you had not previously known. After all, we all live in a different state of the occult; for example, I have the rather odd notion that other humans may very well not exist, and that the universe spontaneously came into being by itself."

I frankly don't know what the occult is.

I think that you'd be hard pressed to disprove the statement that the universe had no time dimention. I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to disprove.

The occult? Yah know what I mean. Most people would class the following as the occult: Satanism, Wicca, Kabbalah, in fact, most non-main religions that have a practical side to them.
We all have our own religions. And my religion agrees that the illusion of time is easily dispelled. Once I get rid of my religion altogether, then I shall truly be free; free from preconceptions and value-judgements, free from moral values.
Hmm, looking back over this thread I've been through some pretty radical and odd ideas. This reinforces my religion theory; someone from Utah who's religion was mostly Mormonism wouldn't find this acceptable; however, I find the creation and rejection of ideas quite normal.

Nothing you've come up with here is weirder than some things I've suggested.

I guess.

Just looking back over this conversation at the past, I noticed one particular thing you said stood out:

"I've heard that Blair wants the UK to start using the Euro, but most of the British population dislikes the idea. (Personally I think it is a bad idea because I'm not quite convinced the EU is stable in the long run, nor do I think it would necesarily be wise for the UK to get in a position where, if and when the EU makes a new constitution that makes it a soveirgn state, the UK has no choice but to surrender sovereignty. But that's just my opinion as an interested observer.)"

You have amazing political acumen. You may not have heard, but that's the current burning issue at the heart of politics over here: to vote yea or nay on the EU Constitution that guarantees itself sovereign powers. A test case has already established that it has sovereignty over Parliament now.
And, incidentally, I found out yesterday that over here the right to silence has been abolished recently.

Odd thing is, I haven't checked back here for a week, and when I do, I discover you posted something to me in the last 9 hours.



"You have amazing political acumen. You may not have heard, but that's the current burning issue at the heart of politics over here: to vote yea or nay on the EU Constitution that guarantees itself sovereign powers. A test case has already established that it has sovereignty over Parliament now.
And, incidentally, I found out yesterday that over here the right to silence has been abolished recently."

Actually I have heard--I've pretty much stopped trusting CNN and I rarely have time to watch the TV news, so basicly all my news (not related to special interest topic) comes from BBC and the Washington Post (though I do get news emailed to me by the New York Times and the Daily Telegraph, I rarely have time to read it).

Right to silence abolished by Parliment or by the EU?

And, just out of cureosity, what's your opinion on the EU constitution?

By Parliament, shamefully enough. And, no offence to your country, it says something about this government if we don't have a right here that they even have in *America*.

I haven't heard enough to form an opinion, but the general gist seems to give it a load more power, and personally, I think that the Liberals say that putting too much economic power in the hands of one group is dangerous, and the Conservatives say that putting too much economic power in the hands of one group is dangerous, and I agree with both. The more decentralisation, the better.

What's the political slant of the Washington Post?

"And, no offence to your country, it says something about this government if we don't have a right here that they even have in *America*."

No offence taken, I'm quite aware that the only rights the current US government cares about are those outlined in the Second Amendment (carry guns).

BTW, the US Supreme Court recently declared that if a police officer sees you on the street and asks your name without any reason to think you've committed a crime, you have to give it to them. They can send you to jail if you don't.



"I haven't heard enough to form an opinion, but the general gist seems to give it a load more power, and personally, I think that the Liberals say that putting too much economic power in the hands of one group is dangerous, and the Conservatives say that putting too much economic power in the hands of one group is dangerous, and I agree with both. The more decentralisation, the better."

I agree with you on that, power ought to be decentralized.



"What's the political slant of the Washington Post?"

The Washington Post is generally liberal, although it is mainline enough to be one of the three or four major US newspapers. In other words, it's liberal by US standards, but the rest of the world might not agree.



Sorry I haven't been online for months--computer troubles have kept me off the internet.

Not, of course, that they care about the Second Amendment in itself; probably more related to the fact that it takes several billion dollars to finance a run for president, and a lot of that is paid by gun companies.
Yes, I suspect that "liberal" in the US doesn't mean quite the same thing as in the rest of the world (although I hear it's actually an insult to left-wingers in France). Still, it can't be that bad - then again, I've been getting most of my information about the US from films like "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Medium Cool" recently, so anything'll seem better compared to the 1978 Democratic Convention fiasco.

"Not, of course, that they care about the Second Amendment in itself; probably more related to the fact that it takes several billion dollars to finance a run for president, and a lot of that is paid by gun companies."

I don't think that's entirely it, though it is certainly part of it. The other half is that the Republicans are trying to get the support of the anti-government people out west. There are a lot of people in the Rockies who believe that guns are important to protect them from the government.

I've never seen either of those films--I just don't watch movies that much.

I'm not sure what good a pistol would do against an army. Even a few thousand pistols. Would they seriously think that having a firearm or two would make them a threat against the biggest army in the world? Besides, it's a little silly to argue that firearms legislated for by the govt are a real tool against the govt.

There's a few good reasons to watch movies, actually. Firstly, there's the emotional experience you get from watching a good film. Secondly, there's the fact that some of the films out there are simply works of art; they are great, powerful, clever and subtle.
Is your thing of not watching movies a stance or just a habit?

"I'm not sure what good a pistol would do against an army. Even a few thousand pistols. Would they seriously think that having a firearm or two would make them a threat against the biggest army in the world? Besides, it's a little silly to argue that firearms legislated for by the govt are a real tool against the govt."

Well, it isn't just pistols--they have (or at least want) semiautomatic rifles, and there are probably some "militias" that have plenty of things that it's a felony to possess. Also, I suspect that they're thinking more in terms of guerillia warfare than anything else--the US is a really big country, and quite unpopulated in parts of the west--it probably would cost more than it would be worth to send the army to root out these people even assuming a dictatorial government. Anyway, these people may be crazy, but they can vote, and the Republicans don't care much if most of their votes come from a variety of lunatics--their major constituencies include quite a few types of loonies.


"There's a few good reasons to watch movies, actually. Firstly, there's the emotional experience you get from watching a good film. Secondly, there's the fact that some of the films out there are simply works of art; they are great, powerful, clever and subtle.
Is your thing of not watching movies a stance or just a habit?"

It's a habit--I don't hgave cable and I can walk to the library but not to any video rental places or theatres. I can get books for free--to get a movie I have to get my parents to drive me (I'm testing for my driver's liscence Wednesday) and it costs money. It just isn't worth the trouble, so I've seen only five movies in theatres and maybe 20 on rented video tapes. Other than that, I may watch one if one's on TV and my parents don't want to watch something else. It's not a stance, it's just convienience.

Fair enough; although your library might have some videos in (at least, they do in the UK.)

More later.

Only at one branch, Hyattsville--I have been there to get movies before, but it isn't in drving distance.

They do have a good selection there, though--only place I've ever seen a copy of _The Man Who Would Be King_ (got it at my dad's suggestion, but I think it is one of the best movies I've ever seen)--and I got a copy of _Stand and Deliver_ there to watch last night, that one was suggested by my math teacher last school year.

I meant it isn't walking distance--one has to drive to get there.