Re: Government Develops Strategy to Fight Autism

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>Kaiden wrote:

>

>

>>Good to hear!

>>

>>

><snip>

>

>

>>I just wish the government would stop using violent

>>metaphors, such as " fighting " autism. How about

>> " helping " autists? Naw... " helping " sounds so wimpy.

>>

>>

>

>At least they're being truthful, because " fight " is

>just what they mean to do.

>

Particularly since they seemed to be focusing entirely on drugs

and behaviour modification " therapy " . EEwwwwww!

> It will be as though the

>entire system were fighting with each lone child, in

>the attempt to eradicate his/her natural self. Lots

>of people will earn their living through applying

>ABA theories to change autistic behavior,

>

So instead of religious dogma, we have pseudo-science to justify

abusing us for stimming and otherwise being autistic. Aaaack! Pffft!

> but that's

>about the most will happen. I want acceptance first,

>and then they can help.

>

>Clay

>

>

You want help? Not from *these* doctors, you don't.

They're like the men in white coats in " The Prisoner " .

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

> So instead of religious dogma, we have pseudo-science to justify

> abusing us for stimming and otherwise being autistic. Aaaack! Pffft!

One thing I've learned from the study of history (where I have a useless

degree)...

People make paradigms and adjust reality to fit into those paradigms. When

a paradigm APPEARS to shift, it rarely does on the level of pragmatic

behavior. For example, men were thought to be smarter than women because

they had bigger brains. When comparative anatomy allowed for the

measurement of brains compared to the size and mass of bodies, it turned out

that women had bigger brains. Of course, babies had MUCH larger brains

compared to the rest of their bodies. So, men were thought to be smarter

because they had smaller brains. On the surface, it looks like a paradigm

shift... but in reality it's just a shift of explanations for what

" everybody knows, " that men are smarter than women.

The phrase I use to remind myself of this is, " this king bee has ovaries. "

Before anyone really bothered to find out what sex the bees are, (and,

amazingly, most people look at me funny when I refer to a bee as " she, " ) bee

society was seen as a model for human society, with the King Bee at the top.

It was a divine proof of God's Plan, that we should " give unto Caesar " and

not challenge the authority of our kings or question our lot in life.

Because of this, the bee was often used as a symbol for royalty. When the

king bee turned out to be a QUEEN bee, people stopped using the analogy, and

queen became a metaphor while king had been somewhat literal.

There's a wonderful scene in the science-fiction book " The Difference

Engine " that shows this attitude with amazing humor. A detective says to a

paleontologist, " it's God's plan. " The paleontologist becomes visibly

perturbed at this statement. The detective corrects himself, saying, " I

mean, it's the clear course of evolution.

[Guest guest]

Kaiden wrote:

> There's a wonderful scene in the science-fiction book

> " The Difference Engine " that shows this attitude with

> amazing humor. A detective says to a paleontologist,

> " it's God's plan. " The paleontologist becomes visibly

> perturbed at this statement. The detective corrects

> himself, saying, " I mean, it's the clear course of evolution.

I haven't read this book, but of the two statements here,

I don't see any difference. To me, the two are one.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay, " The Differnce Engine " is set in a sci-fi version of 19th century

London, where Babbage's designes for computers caught on much

quicker, thus ushering in the " information age " much faster, but still quite

19th century.

The difference between " evolution " and " God's Plan " was quite a heated

discussion back in that time.

[Guest guest]

Kaiden wrote:

> The difference between " evolution " and " God's Plan "

> was quite a heated discussion back in that time.

It still is. Practically everyone believes that it's

one or the other, and they're mutually exclusive. I

believe that evolution is the means by which His plan

is fulfilled. Some people would ask, " Why didn't He

just create the world (and people) in it's end form,

i.e., perfect? " Because that wouldn't prove anything.

Clay

[Guest guest]

> It still is. Practically everyone believes that it's

> one or the other, and they're mutually exclusive.

OK, perhaps I used the wrong example. Let's use a more absurd example.

" You ought to give me all your money, because I came in through the back

door " vs. " You aught to give me all your money, because I came in through

the front door. " Although the JUSTIFICATIONS are 100% opposite, the

RAMIFICATIONS are the same.

THAT is how most people think throughout history. The way things appear to

be is the way they are, and the while explanations may change, things still

" are what they are. " Ultimately, the explanation is " that's life. "

[Guest guest]

>

> > The difference between " evolution " and " God's Plan "

> > was quite a heated discussion back in that time.

>

> It still is. Practically everyone believes that it's

> one or the other, and they're mutually exclusive. I

> believe that evolution is the means by which His plan

> is fulfilled. Some people would ask, " Why didn't He

> just create the world (and people) in it's end form,

> i.e., perfect? " Because that wouldn't prove anything.

>

> Clay

Taking this as true, i wonder what the opposite of perfect is, and

what he is trying to prove.

All the best,

Gareth.

[Guest guest]

This message from gareth arched across the cosmos:

>Taking this as true, i wonder what the opposite of perfect is, and

>what he is trying to prove.

Maybe it's all just a big Sim game. ;-)

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

> Taking this as true, i wonder what the opposite of perfect is, and

> what he is trying to prove.

The opposite of perfect is *differentiated.*

Think of perfect symetry. Not just the symetry of the pool cue, but a

symetry so perfect that it is the same before and after, the same inside and

out, the same in literally all dimensions. *That* is singularity, and that

is a " perfect universe. "

God, the Grand Archetect of the Universe, is a craftsman. The artist must

take the perfection of the blank canvas and add inperfection to it in order

to create ART. The singer must also break the perfection of silence, and so

forth through all acts of human creation. And cosmic creation is no

different. The Grand Archetect uses the tool of *entropy* much like a

painter uses paint. That is why, as time goes on, the universe has more

entropy and never less.

Thank you, Clay, for giving me such an elegant concept to work with as " the

opposite of perfect. "

[Guest guest]

> > Taking this as true, i wonder what the opposite of perfect is, and

> > what he is trying to prove.

>

> The opposite of perfect is *differentiated.*

>

> Think of perfect symetry. Not just the symetry of the pool cue,

but a

> symetry so perfect that it is the same before and after, the same

inside and

> out, the same in literally all dimensions. *That* is singularity,

and that

> is a " perfect universe. "

>

> God, the Grand Archetect of the Universe, is a craftsman. The

artist must

> take the perfection of the blank canvas and add inperfection to it

in order

> to create ART. The singer must also break the perfection of

silence, and so

> forth through all acts of human creation. And cosmic creation is no

> different. The Grand Archetect uses the tool of *entropy* much

like a

> painter uses paint. That is why, as time goes on, the universe has

more

> entropy and never less.

>

> Thank you, Clay, for giving me such an elegant concept to work with

as " the

> opposite of perfect. "

*********

You wrote that really well. I was going to tell you that, and then

right at the end, you attributed the " opposite of perfect idea " to

Clay, but it was my small sentance at the end.......... not that i

can take any credit for what you did with it. I think ill save your e-

mail, it was beautifully written.

All the best (you should write poetry)

Gareth.

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> > It still is. Practically everyone believes that it's

> > one or the other, and they're mutually exclusive. I

> > believe that evolution is the means by which His plan

> > is fulfilled. Some people would ask, " Why didn't He

> > just create the world (and people) in it's end form,

> > i.e., perfect? " Because that wouldn't prove anything.

and Gareth asked:

> Taking this as true, I wonder what the opposite of

> perfect is, and what He is trying to prove.

The " opposite of perfect " is a fallacious assumption, as we're

speaking of a progression toward perfection through time. And

yet, each stage, from beginning to end, is/has been perfect in its

own right. At one time, the earth was a perfect sphere of flaming

mass, then a perfect volcanic setting. The algae who first popul-

ated the earth were perfect little algae, well-suited to their environ-

ment, and containing the essence of all succeeding life. The

dinosaurs were perfect creatures, whether they were adapted

towards eating vegetation, or eating those who did. There was

nothing that could have stopped them from procreating endlessly

and forever dominating the earth, except a well-aimed meteor that

brought their days to an end.

If we're speaking of mankind, I would have to say that each model

of mankind was perfect in its own right, well-suited to its environment

for the best chance at survival. We, as homo sapiens, might think

that the preceding forms of man lacked certain essential qualities,

but the fact is that, for their time, they were the best thing going.

If our ancestors chanced upon them, they probably would have lost

individual skirmishes to them.

Someone, (Doug), said that modern man has been unchanged for

50,000 years. From what can be ascertained through fossils, that

may be true; with the small exception that I've read that our teeth

are smaller than they were just a few thousand years ago. But

fossils cannot show what were the mental capacities of mankind

50 G years ago. We didn't make much progress, didn't show any

signs of civilization, until 10,000 years ago. Those 40 thousand

years were spent in caves and perhaps rudimentary huts, in small

familial groupings, because only the bond of family was any protect-

ion against deadly violence, and sometimes not even then. The

people of those times more closely resembled the social patterns

of the wolf. It took time, endless experiences, and mutations to

develop the mental capacities that we take for granted, because

they are now ingrained into man's psyche. Did those men, from

50 to 10 G years ago, have logic, reasoning ability? Did they have

a conscience, and could they feel guilt? To what extent could they

love, and would they sacrifice themselves for their loved ones?

Could they plan for the future; do without something in the now,

because they would need it later? Could they think in the abstract,

develop theories about life and its meaning? Hello, I don't think so.

Around 10,000 years ago, a few groups began to get together, and

see themselves as a people, instead of as a tribe. They began to

build things for the use of everyone, and to work together for the

good of all. For many, many, centuries, they had to build walls

around their cities, for there were barbarians outside the gates.

Those who had not yet learned the benefits of community living.

Those who were not as yet touched with the spark of truly modern

humanity, which was received through the genes. Eventually,

humans beings what they are, even these were finally brought into

the fold.

That brings us to *our* part in all this. We are some yeast to be

folded into the mix. Everyone is perfect as they are, and as they

were meant to be, but the result of all this mixing will bring about

another kind of perfection.

Someone wrote: " The opposite of perfect is *differentiated*. " But

I would not agree with that. It implies that the definition of " perfect "

in this instance would be to have everyone be the same. That would

have been so easy to do, that it wouldn't have been worth doing. No,

as in all His mysteries, the answer is far more complex. Imagine a

field of daisies - I'm talking 40 acres of daisies standing shoulder to

shoulder in the sun. They may all look the same to us, but not one

IS the same as the other. Each one has a different parentage, and

the links to parentages in their past are so different to the daisies

standing next to them that they share little genetic similarity. In the

story of man, the perfect ending will be that we get along as well as

those daisies, despite our differences.

Clay