01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [731][732][733][734][735][736][737][738][739][740] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3109 |
Gravity-time and Gravity-space.
===
We speak the word »time« without concrete scientific definition. **
Therefore our knowledge about »time« is foggy.
But if we say »gravity-time« then the fog is disappeared because
for us there isn't another »time« expect the »gravity-time«. **
We don't use light- travel- time
(so- called 1 Astronomical Unit) in our daily life. **
The same »fog« is with the word »space«.
For us there isn't another »space«expect the »gravity- space«. **
We don't use another spaces in our daily life. **
The conceptions »time« and »space« are property of Gravity. **
Without gravity there isn't »time«, there isn't »space«. **
The discussion about »time« and »space« without Gravity is tautology. **
3110 |
Arminius wrote:
»If there are the following three categories: elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?« ** **
That's a false dichotomy fallacy. **
3111 |
So, Arminius' example is a false trichotomy whereas yours is a false dichotomy. **
3112 |
Your argument is a logical fallacy by definition of a false dichotomy .... **
3113 |
3114 |
3115 |
3116 |
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
Against theism | no | no | yes |
Against atheism | | no | |
Against antitheism | yes | no | no |
A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist. **
|
3117 |
Does the fact a human baby doesn't hold the belief that a god exists make it any more of a »human that doesn't hold the belief that a god exists« than a dog or a cat? **
So I can get a better understanding of where you're coming from .... **
Is a human being who holds the belief that a god exists a theist? **
Is a human being who doesn't hold the belief a god exists not a theist? **
Does non-theist mean the same as »not a theist« **
Does a newborn human baby hold the belief that a god exists? **
I have given the definitions of »theist«, »atheist«, »antitheist« in this thread and in many other threads; and I also have given a kind of table for the appropriate features and the appropriate lexemes:
Features | Lexemes | ||
»Theist« | »Atheist« | »Antitheist« | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
Against theism | no | no | yes |
Against atheism | | no | |
Against antitheism | yes | no | no |
Newborns and other children ar no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. A certain age of development, a certain spiritual maturity, a certain intellectuality, a certain experience as the main attributes are required for being a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist. Those who do not have these required main attributes do not fulfill the required preconditions / premises for a syllogism or for other logical constructions. ** **
99% of people agree with you Arminius (it is sound logic). **
Does non-theist mean the same as atheist? **
3118 |
What attributes would you say are required for one to be an atheist? **
What word would you use to describe a human who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists? **
Please indicate which definition or premise is false and why it is false. **
It sounds like you're saying some types of humans who hold the belief that a god exists are theists and others are not theists. **
Please explain how a human could hold the belief that a god exists and not be a theist. **
Likewise, it sounds like you're saying some types of humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists are not theists and others don't fall into the category of »not theist«. **
Please explain how a human could not hold the belief that a god exists and not be »not a theist«. **
Please answer the question. **
Line 1 - Not necessarily. A zebra is a being and it can't be a theist, atheist or antitheist. **
Line 2 - Again, I agree with you
Line 3 - A godbeliever can be a Antitheist
Line 4 - What do you mean by »Intellectual«? **
Line 5 - A child can be a theist, atheist or antitheist. All 3 of your choices are wrong. **
Line 6 - One who is against theism can be an atheist. **
Line 7 - What do the hyphens mean? **
BTW, one who is against atheism can be an atheist. **
Line 8 - One who is against antitheism can be an atheist. I know many of them. **
A newborn baby by definition is an atheist. **
Mutcer, you have to consider definitions and preconditions (premises) - as I told you several times. It is not allowed to connect newborns with »theists«, »atheists«, »antitheists«, because they can't be classified as such, the answer to the question of such a classification is always: NOT DEFINED! ** **
Features | Lexemes | ||
»Theist« | »Atheist« | »Antitheist« | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
** **
3119 |
Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist. **
3120 |
3121 |
3122 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist. **
The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.« ** **
Not to mention the 21 dictionaries that stated the requirement for disbelief that embryos and infants cannot have. **
3123 |
3124 |
Babies are pretheists if anything. **
3125 |
But let's say we created a dichotomy as follows:
(1) All humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists
(2) All humans who don't fall into #1
In this case, newborn babies would fall into #1 .... **
3126 |
|
3127 |
Please explain how a human could not fall into category #1 or category #2. **
Again:
(1) All humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists,
(2) All humans who don't fall into #1. **
or as a symmetric difference:
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a
belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god
exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that
god exists and who do not fall into #A.
3128 |
3129 |
3130 |
3131 |
3132 |
Nanorobot race.
In the same ways that technology development had the space race and nuclear arms race, a race for nanorobots is occurring. There is plenty of ground allowing nanorobots to be included among the emerging technologies. Some of the reasons are that large corporations, such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys, Northrop Grumman and Siemens have been recently working in the development and research of nanorobots; surgeons are getting involved and starting to propose ways to apply nanorobots for common medical procedures; universities and research institutes were granted funds by government agencies exceeding $2 billion towards research developing nanodevices for medicine; bankers are also strategically investing with the intent to acquire beforehand rights and royalties on future nanorobots commercialization. Some aspects of nanorobot litigation and related issues linked to monopoly have already arisen. A large number of patents has been granted recently on nanorobots, done mostly for patent agents, companies specialized solely on building patent portfolio, and lawyers. After a long series of patents and eventually litigations, see for example the Invention of Radio or about the War of Currents, emerging fields of technology tend to become a monopoly, which normally is dominated by large corporations. **
|
3133 |
3134 |
All babies have the belief that when they see a females nipple, milk will come out of it if they suck on it. ALL babies. That's a belief. **
3135 |
3136 |
I'm pretty sure that the intersection N makes no sense. **
3137 |
You already defined Z as being exclusive of Q+. **
... so the intersection must be empty. **
It's not that complicated. **
There is a universal set of all humans which contains 3 mutually exclusive subsets. There is a subset of humans who are capable and also believe in a god and a subset of those who are capable and lack a belief in god. The third subset consists of people incapable of forming beliefs - babies, the severely mentally ill and those unable to think because of physical damage. **
3138 |
Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book.«
Your objection is right but let me tell you that many religions tried to make up that deficiency by creating a certain wise and intelligent class, who can interpret scriptures for the folks. That is precisely what sages, gurus, sheikhs and molvies were supposed to do. That system also worked long enough, though now has been failed because that chosen class also intruded by vested interests. **
3139 |
3140 |
You're ignoring the fact that I said an atheist is a person (e.g. a human) who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. Are you aware that you are ignoring this? **
What definition did I present that is false and why is it false? **
When category #1 is all humans who hold the belief that a god exists and category #2 is all humans who don't fall into category #2, explain how a human could not fall into either category #1 or #2? What characteristics would such human have to not fall into one of those 2 categories? **
If those two categories are presented to you, how would you go about determining which of the two categories each human falls in? **
Do these humans you're talking about hold the belief that a god exists? If not, then they don't fall into category #1. **
And since category #2 is »humans who don't fall into category #1«, the humans who aren't capable of the belief that a god exists MUST fall into category #2. Does that make sense? **
Your set must be: »humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists«; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists«; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A«. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):
or as a symmetric difference:
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. »newborn humans are atheists« => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. »newborn humans fall into #2« => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise (»newborn humans are atheists« => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion (»newborn humans fall into #2« => false).
You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic. ** **
You're missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy. **
The population I'm dividing into a dichotomy is all humans, not all humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists. **
3141 |
3142 |
3143 |
|
3144 |
3145 |
There are two realms of existence (count them - »two«). There is the physical realm (the one you can't seem to think beyond). And there is the »Conceptual Realm« historically called the »Realm of the Divine, the realm of »things« like angels, gods, principles, ideas, strategies, and ... »laws of physics«. **
3146 |
3147 |
3148 |
And the »unmoved mover« is also a concept of no changing and thus, by definition, not a part of the physical universe. **
3149 |
That's not true. **
The »a« means »lack of belief in« not disbelief in .... **
... by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions... one is anti-theism and the other is Lack of belief in the God concept«.
Ecmandu wrote:
»That's not true. The a means lack of belief in not disbelief in ..., by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions ..., one is anti-theism and the other is lack of belief in the god concept. This means neither for nor against, no formulation, whatsoever. So, yes, by that definition that atheists give... all children are atheists. This is just definitions, Arminius ..., the answer to the op is yes ... they mean the same thing.« **
Why do you think that you have greater authority than 21 dictionaries that say otherwise? **
Ecmandu wrote:
»They can be that way because they are an oppressed culture, just like oppressed cultures wear bling ... or oppressed people. It's an ornament mostly, but some anti-theists (implying that the there theity to be anti towards... so the theists still win) are not about the ornateness.... they come from a place of What the fuck is this shit!? And honestly ..., you think there's a benevolent being behind all of this?! That's fucking psychotic! You smug fuckers!! Seriously!!. Atheists are treated like shit in the military ..., beat up constantly, because of these God fuckers ..., so yeah atheists are an oppressed minority.« **
Bullshit. **
3150 |
|
3151 |
Once again Mutcer, look up the definition of false dichotomy. No one is suggesting that you cannot divide humans into two categories (as you obviously are) - but it is a false dichotomy based on the definition of false dichotomy.
....
So if you believe it is child abuse to teach children religion then just discuss this as I am sure it will become a heated discussion. There is actually a lot of evidence that animism (hence religious tendencies) is the natural state (default position) for children (without being indoctrinated by adults or parents). Hence, the indoctrination is towards atheism and if indoctrination is inherently bad then all forms of indoctrination should be considered inappropriate. Indoctrinating newborns into selective indoctrination is bad and it forms the basis of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc). **
3152 |
Yes, in RM:AO, the Unmoved Mover is a concept and thus eternal. And it also represents the one point where the two realms come together. The Unmoved Mover is Impossibility itself, never changing yet responsible for all changing/physicality - never moved, yet responsible for all movement - ever present, all powerful, never fooled. **
3153 |
3154 |
The point Mutcer made (through his false dichotomy) was that atheism is the natural state (which evidence suggests it is not). **
3155 |
Yeah, I remember you contributed well in the Sloterdijk thread I made. Rage and Time shall be next. **
3156 |
3157 |
3158 |
Let's say you have a group of humans. Some of those humans hold the belief that a god exists(we'll call this sub-group 1). The ones who don't fall into the category of those who hold the belief that a god exists go into sub-group 2. Since all the humans in this group must fall into sub-group 1 or sub-group 2, there is no third option. If you contend there is a third option, then you're dealing with a different dichotomy and aren't responding to the argument or dichotomy I've presented. **
Mutcer wrote:
»Religious tendencies doesn't necessarily equate to believing that a god exists.« **
Once again Mutcer, if it is TRUTH then there can not be multiple dichotomies (unless they are false dichotomies).
1) There are people with blonde hair.
2) All other people not in category 1.
Therefore, I conclude that a blonde is the natural state. **
3159 |
3160 |
|
3161 |
An atheist is a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.
A newborn baby human is a person.
A newborn baby human doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist. **
3162 |
Do you consider newborn baby humans to be humans? **
Sauwelios wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
»Do you consider newborn baby humans to be humans?« **
This question is indeed what this whole discussion comes down to (though I must say Mutcer frames it suggestively here by using the word »humans«, on both sides of the equation).
The so-called pro-life people will of course say that newborn babies are human beings as much as grown-ups are, as they hold that a human ovum that is being fertilized is infused not only with a sperm cell but also with a soul ....« **
Please explain how a newborn human wouldn't be a human? **
3163 |
»Jr Wells wrote:
As I said, we all now it is a false dichotomy (including you).
Note: Religious tendencies also does not mean atheism is the neutral/natural state.« **
Burden of proof is upon you to show newborns do believe a god exists. **
3164 |
»During the late 1960s, with the transfer of these mature programs to the Services, ARPA redefined its role and concentrated on a diverse set of relatively small, essentially exploratory research programs. The agency was renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1972, and during the early 1970s, it emphasized direct energy programs, information processing, and tactical technologies.
Concerning information processing, DARPA made great progress, initially through its support of the development of time-sharing (all modern operating systems rely on concepts invented for the Multics system, developed by a cooperation among Bell Labs, General Electric and MIT, which DARPA supported by funding Project MAC at MIT with an initial two-million-dollar grant).
DARPA supported the evolution of the ARPANET (the first wide-area packet switching network), Packet Radio Network, Packet Satellite Network and ultimately, the Internet and research in the artificial intelligence fields of speech recognition and signal processing, including parts of Shakey the robot. DARPA also funded the development of the Douglas Engelbart's NLS computer system and The Mother of All Demos; and the Aspen Movie Map, which was probably the first hypermedia system and an important precursor of virtual reality.«
The individual inventor actually has zero chance of the old idea of getting rich by inventing ..., well ..., anything. When you hear that some women has recently invented ..., whatever ..., it is merely more PR for feminisation (same ole, same ole -- »Propaganda«). **
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet switching network and the first network to implement the protocol suite TCP/IP. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. ARPANET was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.
....
The first successful message on the ARPANET was sent by UCLA student programmer Charley Kline, at 10:30 pm on 29 October 1969, from Boelter Hall 3420. Kline transmitted from the university's SDS Sigma 7 Host computer to the Stanford Research Institute's SDS 940 Host computer. The message text was the word login; on an earlier attempt the l and the o letters were transmitted, but the system then crashed. Hence, the literal first message over the ARPANET was lo. About an hour later, after the programmers repaired the code that caused the crash, the SDS Sigma 7 computer effected a full login. The first permanent ARPANET link was established on 21 November 1969, between the IMP at UCLA and the IMP at the Stanford Research Institute. By 5 December 1969, the entire four-node network was established. **
»Once upon a time, if you wanted money to build humanoid robots, you basically had to get it from the military specifically, the high-risk, high-reward technology lab known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage.
That changed late last year when Googles own high-risk, high-reward technology lab Google X bought a string of companies that make robot legs, arms, eyes, wheels, and brains, with the apparent goal of building something like an android. Its a win for roboticists, who now have a nonmilitary patron with deep pockets. But two of Googles new rock star robotics companies, Boston Dynamics and Schaft, still have obligations to DARPA meaning Google and DARPA are entangled in a shotgun marriage, forced to share parental duties for at least a year.
Google and DARPA have a lot in common they both try to anticipate the future and make big bets on emerging technologies. Google even has a history of snapping up DARPA-funded technology the self-driving car came from a DARPA-sponsored competition and poaching its employees.
That doesnt mean the two innovation houses want to work together, however. Google isnt interested in taking money from DARPA because its ambitions are in the more lucrative consumer market, and any association with DARPA leads to headlines like, What the heck will Google do with these scary military robots? DARPA doesnt want to give Google money because it wants to use its $2.7 billion budget to fund startups with scarce resources, not Goliath tech companies, and its investments are supposed to seed technology that can one day be purchased by the Pentagon for national defense, which Google is unlikely to play along with.
The tension came to a head over the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), a $2 million competition for robot rescue workers that requires the machines to perform athletic feats like opening a door and going up and down a ladder. Google never signed up for the DRC, but its now intimately involved. Five of the eight teams that qualified through the DRC Trials in December are using Atlas, a humanoid made by Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics has a $10.8 million contract to provide Atlas robots and tech support for the DRC.
Google never signed up for the DARPA Robotics Challenge, but its now intimately involved.
Google also happens to own the team that is most likely to win the DRC. Schaft, a Japanese robotics startup that was founded explicitly to compete in the competition, got 27 out of 32 possible points at the qualifying round in December, beating the runner-up by seven. Schaft received $2.6 million from DARPA to compete.
It now looks like Google and DARPA are trying to extricate themselves from each other a little early, however. DARPA is considering adding more teams to a track in the competition where teams build their own robot without DARPA funding, and any newcomers will use a different platform such as NASA Johnson Space Centers Valkyrie robot instead of Atlas, in order to prevent further entanglement with Boston Dynamics. Google will also move Schaft to the unfunded track and forfeit future DARPA money, which will be reallocated to non-Google-owned teams.« **
Google actually gives DARPA a bit of a challenge in the field of human interface technology and information mining (the larger portion of AI). But DARPA is allowed to spy on Google and even covertly intervene. So in the long run, Google can never do anything that DARPA hasn't already permitted to happen. **
3165
DARPA took over the NASA projects and the issues between Google and DARPA are like the old issues between NASA and individuals attempting space flight. In the end, the governance controls all things (bunch of Godwannabes). **
3166
3167
|
3168 |
Arminius and Mutcer, do you agree with the following definition, which is based on the definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno, but edited to incorporate what Arminius has been saying? »An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.« **
Atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. **
An atheist is a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. **
A newborn baby is an implicit atheist. **
3169 |
Exactly, so I edited it:
»An atheist is a person [who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but] who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists.« **
Not a single post I have made suggests or implies that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists. **
You seem to think that a newborn baby isn't an atheist and isn't capable of NOT holding the belief that a god exists. **
An atheist is a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. Whether or not they are capable of holding the belief is immaterial with respect to whether or not they are an atheist. Please learn the difference between implicit atheist and explicit atheist. **
3170 |
3171 |
Well, if I'm not mistaken, 2) 2 statements .... **
According to you. **
The fourth statement is a conclusion from the first three statements. **
So if the first statement is false ..., then so is the last. **
3172 |
Logic has nothing to do with the truth value of statements--except indirectly, if the statements in question are implied by other statements. **
I think this is a case of a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last. According to you, that is. **
Please guess how many of them are false:
1) 1 statement.
2) 2 statements.
3) 3 statements.
4) 4 statements, thus: all statements. ** **
Yes, ... there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last. ** **
|
3173 |
3174 |
3175 |
3176 |
Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists. **
3177 |
Mutcer wrote:
»Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.« **
There is only fact in your posts that you are defining atheists wrongly. That is all. And, you know that too. **
|
3178 |
3179 |
Genie-Dichte ...im antiken Griechenland? Als fast jedes Dorf, jede Stadt ein Genie hervorbrachte? - Ingo Bading. **
Wäre dies nicht das einzig Notwendige, wäre womöglich nicht genau das jene »Mindestproduktion innovativen Wandels« ...? **
Ist nicht jede Tier- oder Pflanzenart für sich und jedes echte Kulturwerk, jede echte Kulturtat eine Genialität auf seine Weise? **
Dementsprechend auch ähnlich gefährdet wie alles Geniale in dieser Welt? **
Und kann dementsprechend nicht jeder Mensch ebenso genial werden als der einzigartige, nie wiederkehrende Mensch, der er ist? **
Sloterdijk geht nämlich realistischerweise davon aus, daß es in der Menschheit immer nur eine Minderheit von Menschen sind, die den Aufruf »Du mußt dein Leben ändern« ernst nehmen. Sie aber sind die eigentlichen Träger allen kulturellen Wandels und aller kulturellen Weiterentwicklung. **
==>
|