Re: Teilhard de Chardin - new documentary

On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:25:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2024 10:01:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
 

[snip]

 

I did ask about
what Teilhard meant by "the physiology of nations and races" in the long
quote I provided from *The Phenomenon of Man* and you kinda didn't respond
to that.

 
You didn't ask me anything, you just remarked that you wondered about
it.
 

Right after I quoted Teilhard in a reply to you I said to you:
“I wonder what is “the physiology of nations and races”…as would I suppose
my doppelganger (or channeled by seance strange bedfellow) the late Nyikos,
because it is far easier to compare me to him than to actually address the
topics at hand.”
>
Which was my query about what “the physiology of nations and races” might
mean directed to you in a reply to you where I added the part where I’m
seancing with Nyikos since you’re fixated on comparing me to him.
>
I guess you would rather stonewall on this “the physiology of nations and
races” point too.

>
You snipped all the following and then have the neck to accuse me of
sonewalling. Projection, anyone?
>
=============================>[You asked:]

First off why need I ponder Slattery's qualifications versus Haught's?
Seems beside the point really. Is Slattery akin to Ron Dean?

>
[I answered:]
When I am considering the value of someone's opinion piece, I take
into account their qualifications relevant to the subject upon which
they are pronouncing; that, for example, is why I place less value on
Ron Dean's opinions of Darwin's motivation and character than I do on
our resident professor with his demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge
and expertise on the subject. That doesn't mean that the expert is
automatically right and the newbie wrong but I need good reason to
come down in favour of the newbie. Apparently, you find that to be an
objectionable form of "credentialism".
>
=============================>[You asked:]

And what two
aspects were you referring to? I seem to have missed those.

>
[I answered:]
When you quoted the lengthy extract from 'The Phenomenon of Man', I
asked you:
>
<quote>
OK, I have always struggled with Teilhard's tortuous prose so maybe
you can help me here. Where in that does he suggest that "the use of
methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social
exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by [him] to be
unfit"? [1]
>
Also, how does his aspiration that "a nobly human form of eugenics, on
a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and
developed" indicate support for eugenics as it was currently
understood at the time of his writing, the 1920s when support was at
its peak for eugenics as described in the NHI article I linked to?
>
[1]
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
>
</unquote>
>
==============================