Onasander

Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity: Porphyry of Tyre and the Pagan-Christian Debate (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity) Hardcover is 84.15, the kindle is 124.99.... which makes NO SENSE! If you charge more, charge more for the hardcover. I guess I'm just gonna wait this one out, despite its a topic I've actively studying. Its the insane high prices for philosophy books of this time period, especially primary texts that keep people out.

I haven't played this game in years, just got it in the mail. I'm playing the Venetians, and have a bit of a empite, but the pope excommunicated me. I'm under siege in Damascus by the Mongols, and crusaders keep showing up in Constantinople, despite my holding Sophia/Sofia (however it is spelled) and every country west of Milan and Genoa keeps shoeing up. I have/had a near complete monopoly on the cardinals, but the Vatican is all pooie right now, rarely promoting mine. I vaguely recall years back solving this issue by storming Rome, but if I recall it doesn't kill off or subjugate them, but rather pisses them off more, I had to give the Carthage back then to be nice again. Is there anything I can do to make the Vatican start liking me again? I can't even recall ever trying to assassinate the pope, so don't much know if it is possible. If my cardinals are excommunicated, I don't understand how they occasionally get promoted. Will I get to vote in the next elections, or permanently out till hell freezes over? They should be nicer to me, as I'm the only one converting the Turks and Egyptians. Also, I recalled playing the Byzantines. I think all I gotta do is complete the campaign and they are added, right?

Oh, I nearly went to bed without mentioning, we created machines that use syllogisms to meet our own needs, based out of our logic. We have software and hardware engineers trained in logic (I dated one, and know another who translated the Isagogue) who only know to detect problems using standard forms of logic, and in cases of hardware, if the stuff doesn't compute software as it is needed, it gets chucked. Computers are a extension of mankind. I think it was Issac Asimov who pointed that out in one of his works, prior to first contact, mankind never really came across a truely alien consciousness, closest we had was machines, but they were merely golem like extensions of ourselves. Likewise animals, who are related to man. This applies to ourselves in the present. God (in your case the Gods, likely Roman gods of a inspecific era) would be related to us, animals, out tools, offspring, etc. I'm not devaluing artificial intelligence, or denying Butlerian (Samuel Butler, Erewhon) style machine evolution like in Frank Herbert's Dune, or The Terminator, or Transhumanism, but the basis it would evolve from (Say Butlers intelligent trains spontaneously evolving from the complexity of the transportation system) from the initial formulas given in the human needs to rationalize the logistics and economies of said systems. It would still essentially be human, like the future aliens in Steven Spielberg's A.I. ..... We would essentially leave a fossil record of ourselves imprinted on all future intelligence. Aspects could be removed, but not all. If they use our number system, even binary base code, their rules of logic would allow for patterns similar to our theory of chaos to emerge whenever they seek to organize certain tasks we first taught and implanted into them, such as logistics. If they abandoned our inheritance for logistics and coding, and went truely alien, then they would lose our humaness. A hypothetical future machine society would only have to analyze its way of thinking to come to conclusions about its predecessors a creators mind and way of thinking. Its very approach to things would carry behavioral assumptions and technological biases which would point to creatures very similar to us, even if we created such intelligence unintentionally. In Christianity, the tree of knowledge was merely knowledge of the world outside of eden, an idea whose qualities was alien to us, but not alienated to the world itself.... but it wasn't the world either, or the total sum of it. It was a product of God. Knowledge of the tree, did it involve Nouns? Undoubtedly, if it was knowledge, but Adam was already engaged in naming things without partaking of the fruit. He was interpersonal with God. There is therefore, no reason for me to presume hierarchial rules built of a priori knowledge necessarily lead to knowledge being built into the Ontological Oceans of the universe, IT/They being the thing that holds the universe together. It is said merely in a temporal beginning, there was the word. Such a thing, its self referent back to God. I don't see a basis of a systems of logic existing before everything if it existed only in reference to itself. It runs into Conservation of Mass issues, if mass is based on rules verbalised adsurdum unto itself. The Laws of Nature built the Laws of Nature, and thus held the universe for man together? And we further this compact with the a priori rules via a compact of creating in our own image Logical Fallacies, a covenant of sorts? Its difficult to say how accurate any creation myth is. The current scientific model has been in freefall collapse since Steven Hawkings admitted he was wrong with the Big Bang, and we've come to realize collectively accepting it leads to a impossible condition that three fundamental laws of nature contradict themselves.... but every long lasting or at least well debated system has its strengths. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, save for thinkers similar to you like Bishop Berkeley, we don't have much of a reason to proceed on such a basis. We had a period during the enlightenment from Newton to the near modern where that was accepted, but not any more. Our modern system of science has Babylonian and Akkadian roots, but spent its most productive years under the aegis of christianity. I doubt very much most of our modern knowledge therefore, as inherited, needs accept your position. I certainly have no reason to proceed, but can accept technological or methodological benefits from your seemingly crazy approach on a utilitarian basis, even works your flaws into the greater discourse in "The Republic of Science". But I don't have a inherent reason to accept it. I have free will, and I can rationalize enough to know I get things right often enough, as I'm still alive three decades after birth, despite wars and daily hazards. I can't be too far off the mark rationally if I've survived by my wits alone as a Cynic many times over. No pressing reason to accept your position, but your position, however flawed, still exists. It goes a great way in affirming my own, and weakening your own. If you prove yourself right, you prove me right by proving your position wrong. However, if I prove you totally wrong, you win, as I invalidate a central position of my own. Notice this whole time we've been pussyfooting around the Objective-Subjective paradox, and its implications? Operand-Operator, we can take a dip into classical arguments here. Or you can choose another route. Doesn't matter. I accept them all. A love of the dialectic.

Abstraction and concrete does not exist independent of reality, again, you aren't aware of the processing error underlining the awareness and integration of causality, as I mentioned in a previous post here in this topic, it goes left to right hemisphere. Secondly, there are neither A Priori nor Posteri Rules to Nature, and neither rules nor axioms hold nature together, only, like with Bishop Berkeley (which gets so voriciously attacked by any and all) his awareness of it (he thought Gid was holding it together). Its a very bad Solipsist argument, and if I was a shithead, I would start pointing out Solipsist and Sceptical fallacies here and hit you up on it, folding your argumentment up asymmetrically in a manner that successively undermines your every claim to fallacy listed. But as you claim to be a biologist (I've known several, and much of my work currently involves Etiological theory pulled from Epidemeology) I'll go back to my original point, emphasizing "There are no logical fallacies" and will note the dialectics WE JUST ENGADGED IN, and could potentially engadge in, more or less proves my point. I can show how every "Fallacy" you position is conditional on a series of paradoxes that can nullify or, If I'm inclined, supported. Yes, that's a rhetorical, and indeed Sophistic point, I can narrow down the antiquity of it in fact to Prodicus of Ceos, In Praise of Agriculture. We never got deep enough here yet on this site to discuss him, but he appears to of developed (or at least continued from earlier unnamed sources) a rational skepticism regarding the etiology of phenomena, but the skepticism wasn't a refutation of the underlining validity of the ideas, which is a ancestor of my position (fifth of it, I can point to Gorgias, William James, and Cynics and Ramon Llull too, I'm a bit of a eclectic). Hus basic idea was (and it was mistaken as Atheistic) that he thought man took their various powers of discernment and intellectual capacities as Gods, and such gods were NOT REAL. I believe it was this thread where I added the quote of Balbus from John of Salisbury- he took a later stance that evolved to accept the indo-european pantheon, but it still had the earlier naturalistic formula to it. I won't say Prodicus was the ancestor to this late Republic outlook, as they don't exactly aline, but later christian authors defending the "theism of atheists" point out they weren't really atheists, they just didn't accept the rules and formulas built around these gods. The neon Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists later evolved (mutated) this formula further. I'm opposed to the Sophists on two grounds, they charged for providing instruction, and they standardized it. It allowed thinkers who's personality is based in the Thalamus to eventually flood and stagnate philosophy. But Prodicus' attachment to the finesse and exactitude of words, though a irritant, did allow technical formulas to evolve.... likewise Dialectics, and therefore SYLLOGISMS. It is a common rhetorical exercise to argue a position, and counter-argue against it. I did this once in a debate in San Francisco, where I successfully argued there was more than nothing than something. This came from a stronger grasp of the Ontology of Operand-Operant thinking. I took every category of being brought up, and broke it down to English language and cultural dualisms, and nullified it. At the time, I had a fascination with the Banach-Tardski Paradox (still my favorite) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox and noticed medieval Scholastic categories of being (based on earlier, ancient ideas) and books like the Hamsa Gita which list several dozen dualism of aspects we process, underline the underlining mechanics of how we thought. You inevitably choose a aspect of a dualism, and favor ir .... you operate off its line of thinking, go through its modes of thought, accept its prejudices and limitations. Our very best theories, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, accept it. Most ideas don't realize the fundamental paradoxes inherent in every choice. We just build on it, and when they are affirmed, IRS pragmatically useful, and thus valid. In the common approach to teaching etiology, I've noticed a lot of theorists conflate validity and precision as merely lacking qualities of random error and bias (a minimally trained philosopher could crush this argument). If I know a feedback loop, or series of them, underlines complex thought on a operators operand basis at every reducible conjunction, and that lateral operations between the hemisphereas and areas of the mind are processing (Dialectics), then I know we as thinkers are favoring (and thus disfavoring) ways of thinking otherwise. A logical fallacy seeks for whatever reason to cancel this out. Sometimes positively, due to an awareness of a eminent danger (as in real, not the harmless intellectual danger of free thinking, which I'm abhorrently opposed to preventing). As the vast majority of logical fallicies do not seek to prevent immediate harm, I do not mind them. Reason why is: 1) Its a biologically valid way of thinking, and as man is a philosophical creature, as he is intelligent, I position thinking men are not born without an innate sense of philosophy, be we created or evolved. Impulse to react via a thinking approach matters more to me than impressing formal rules diminishing the course of thought. 2) As all thought is dialectic (by default), and all precise thinking is rhetorical and rule based (based on neurology, not rules imposed on neurology DERIVED from neurology observing neurology (which is perception x apperception x perception of apperception (perceiving/judging), making for your weak earlier arguments), all arguments will be paradoxical. It really doesn't matter to me if the paradox is conscious or unconscious, arrives early or later in the discussion. You can't have a position unless paradoxes are present, every statement eluding to a greater holism or hierarchy possesses them. 3) Even when "wrong" in many senses, people still argue and think. If there was a sense of moral relativism, or even its near opposite, absolute right or wrong (you argue the latter here, if I get you right) you would think a sense of intellectual economization would exist that would allow men to naturally disengage from invalid points of thought. Heck, yould think we would of evolved to prevent them from arising. But we haven't, quite the opposite, they are so predominate in man it suggests they are a natural part of our way of thinking, and in truth, are more essential and necessary to our survival than highly isolated academic logicians can ever claim. Did our logical fallacies evolve? If so, what positive functions do they provide? Is it safe to remove them? Should I start informing army Snipers, scouts, and foreword observers to reduce the use of logical fallacies when conveying SALUTE reports, when their own eyes and reasoning says otherwise, however odd? Should I tell Intel units to accept only the Orthodox, and not Unorthodox data? Should deception, disinformation, and camoflague be discouraged? If they see a Centaur, so be it. I'll report a Centaur.... let command debate if I just misidentified calvary. It gives them insight, and they can query MY STATE OF MIND, and possible observational and linguistic paradoxes. 4) No Position is immune to dialectic exchange. Anything can be built upon, and negated. We have always done this, and hopefully always will. Though both hemispheres are largely symmetrical and symbiotic, the symbiosis is asymmetrical, favoring one aspect of mind at a particular turn of thought. Many ideas can be approached from many directions, though at the same time most are quite limited the initial few steps. If someone finds a different way, more power to them. I find exploration, the thinking outside of the box, real or intentional, great. Doesn't always work. We only know it doesn't work however due to our wiring, not external floating abstractions that exist outside of the body holding spacetime together as in your apparent point of view. I can claim a few fallicies on your part here, but your logical fallacies allow you to assert your logical fallacies in the first place, and I'm okay with your warped way of thinking as neurology obviously allows you to inhibit the thinking process. You started this argument, and continue it under false conditions, but yet.... continue to argue it. You may in time even assert scientifically ascernable facts from these "false ways of thinking", which supports my fundamental position..... No matter how very wrong you are Lupus, you are still human, and are therefore a philosophical animal. Your willingness to overlook your own paradoxes here is perfectly natural. You can't possibly be consistent in asserting every logical fallacy (to do so would surely lead to advocating for death to self and all), as your assertions are also prone to dependencies on other fallacies. That's okay, that's just dialectics. That's rhetoric. That's the mind at work. What matters is our pragmatism here, and how we let it effect our thinking. Your argument sucks, but your midway through it. You might get somewhere. I may nullify it (if I care to) or I may accept it, and build on it, in parts or whole. Theory of Mind Stuff. My common saying is "You gotta trust in the Dialectic". It runs the polytheistic fallacy in getting persona to a impersonal phenomena, but I'm okay with that as it gets the point across on many levels. It suggests the long running of the man, of the ideas of mankind stretching out to infinity past the individual perspective, the rivers and streams crisscrossing experience and the reflection of the ages. Your going to have a near impossible task of convincing 21st century thinkers that laws of nature hold the universe together, and that ideas are external things in themselves. Your rejection of Lateral Inhibition rules out the Pre-Cartesian Hypnogogic theories of vision (such as Aristotle had), so I'm very interested in knowing where your going to take this. I got my popcorn ready to go. More than likely you'll be wrong, but as you know, I see validity in wrong answers. I'm a bit like Wittgenstein in this regard, it excites me. Shows another way of thinking. Another way foreword. It excites me when done in earnest. I sometimes wonder if a theory of everything is only possible by mapping out our every mistake, which would be our total sum of positive knowledge, as a root system. Yould likely get a map of the mind! Every junction or divergence a minimum or two fallacies.

I can tell from the title it is a "Questions and Replies" format, the Erota aspect is the old sexual pedo component of education, where a senior would "instruct and guide" a younger student/protege. We still use this form, just our professors inappropriately molest their students at a lower frequency these days. However, what the questions and replies are, I don't know. The Pseudo aspect merely signifies someone at some point (perhaps that author himself) presumed it belonged to a historical figure other than the real author, a case of mistaken identity. It doesn't deny or lessen the importance of the text, though it does unfortunately give the work a unwarranted stigma, as they tend to go untranslated. None the less you can often date a text, and know its subject matter. Like I said, only stuff I can find is in German, nothing legible.

I was doing background research on "The Tablet of Cebes" (think I figured out the origins of the tablet, but hardly the interpretation around it), and I came across in my googling Psuedo-Kaiserios..... near everything is in German about him, so it hasn't been translated yet into a modern language. The very little I could find suggests he lived shortly after Julian the Apostate. Is he even q Roman, or some medieval European writer?

Chinese Emperor Fu Xi in 2852 BC started it. This being said, Fu Xi was a half fish, borrowed culturally from Mesopotamia, so it might of been a really early invention of Iraq.

Good news

To Caldrail.... Tiberius was adopted. Caesar's dynasty mostly adopted. I figured something fertility related, like the lead pipe theory for Rome's decline, was at play. But it wasn't uncommon prior to Caesar for this to happen. Adoptions happened in other Royal lineages. Were now arguing a semantic variable so low I don't particularly care to fight it, as "as good as a monarch" more or less equals Monarchy, when you consider the variables inherent in monarchies around the world.... no monarchy is exactly the same, and the Romans didn't exactly use Salic Law. They were using a system borrowed from the republic to establish status via wealth and lineage, and this model came from a system of nobility from the Etruscans. As a Monarchy, they had a generally universally held right of royal houses to set their own inheritance laws. I do recall (the name escapes me) one of the Julian-Claudian dynasty had to be locked up because he was excessively mad or brutal, more or less denied the post. And the Senate could think whatever they wanted, they only had control of things to the extent the emperors wanted. I recall Marcus Aurelius reassuring the Senate they had Fiscal powers. That's a sign to every senator present that "hey, this guy will not interfer in us debating and enacting fiscal duties". Its not assured till the big guy says so, and if he changes his mind, you got a good excuse for pass actions. A near modern parallel example, Soviet leaders, like American, always put on a insightful philosophical bent to their papers. Bush and even Obama did this, trying to express timeless principles of government, history, in the context of the present and the (respective) revolutions, and the ideas of the leaders before them. We had this trait in common. In the Soviet Union however, freedom of speech wasn't in existence, and even some of Karl Marx's works were banned and suppressed. Generally, philosophers were employed by the state, and had the very hard position of trying to figure out how to come up with new ideas without antagonizing the leadership by accident. So.... they would follow the great leader's writings, and follow suit, expanding on ideas. It was relatively safe. Well, Stalin became the head guy, and Stalin put nothing out. He wasn't a theorist on much of anything, so Soviet Philosophy during his years more or less ceased, save for state directives to produce this or that kind of propaganda, or challenge the westerners on X, Y, and Z. There was only one exception, Stalin wrote a few papers on language. So, there was a explosion, in this very narrow area. It was the only area people felt safe to publish and openly debate about. You gotta get your cues from the big guy, or at least have his go ahead, support for you or your clique. Romans didn't have much in the way of stable regulations and separations of powers, and as I've noted before, the emperors treated the senate like a occordian, expanding and contracting membership at will, sometimes violently.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/salvage-excavations-start-in-bodrum-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=81361&NewsCatID=375

To Lupus: Syllogisms cannot operate without a neurological basis, your arguing Epistemology without Ontological awareness. In the beginning, before Syllogisms were solidified into rationalizing the order of axiomatic rules for predication, it roughly meant a lateralization of Abstract Ideas (Non-Visual) to Visual. Your basic PowerPoint sideshow embraces this, or elementary constructs in Algerbra, mixing numerics with geometry. This is Ye Old Fashione Platonic Dialectics, and has its roots in the Pythagorean tradition. Your making projections of dead matter in your case, which already underwent Syllogistic encoding in your mind, and tried to show that syllogist rules apply to syllogisms (which can be correct, but often is wrong depending on the teleology, which in your case I doubt your aware of any beyond completion of this argument). The very syllogistic rules you proposed as always right and always wrong can easily be be shown to be incorrect, and prone to unintended paradox (a paradox exists in every idea, its just how our brains process information). Say I made a pun, or used a word with a dual meaning, or substituted a emotional response inspired by my wording of a phrase to add to the syllogism (I threw a cup in a debate once at a moderator once in a debate to prove a point). Or I referee to a Noun by a characteristic, say "White" for Horse..... it was debated for centuries in China if something could be "Horse" and "White" at the same time.... the way nouns are categorized in a language determines syllogistic rules, and no language is perfect in this. Due to knowing the abstract to visual spectrum of Syllogisms, I know they are price to pattern recognition falsification, known as Lateral Inhibition. The rules you just presented are a example, they appear congruent and stable, but why? Honestly, why? There is a lateralization process in our visual process that staggers like to gradients of unlike yet similar, effecting depth and haptic assumptions, and thus our spacial thinking. We inhibit further (using neural inhibitors) so we can process the info back through our visual cortex from right to left to rework its abstract properties. Have you ever asked yourself why a rule begins or ends? There is a neural inhibitor at work, as well as constraints in neural processing the information in packets. You can structure Syllogisms via a system similar to molecular geometry, using Di-Polar Spheres. The rule base is much larger and less restrictive than they thought possible in the 19th and 20th century. It is neurologically based. In the mind, not outside of it. Even in pure mathematics. If anything, they are more aware of this, and try to figure out methodologies to break out of logical paradoxes by finding feedback loops that break out of the syllogistic rules of earlier forms of logic. There are several million dollar prizes for anyone able to do this if your interested, people actively speculate on this. When in doubt, ask yourself this: "If I am thinking, and my mind isn't thinking, what is? My elbow, chin, foot, a external object like a rock for me?" And to eliminate a misunderstanding, Chryssipus didn't declare one a formal logical fallacy. The concept of logical fallacies was embryonic back then, just starting to come into vogue. He was very much opposed to the idea that one is a number (as am I). My point was that HAD he (and he would of been just as justified as anyone else who constructs and declares them) we wouldn't have the kind of mathematics we do today. The fundamentals of accounting and statistics would shift to accomidate just his style of thinking, everyone would say a individual using one to count was a uneducated fool, etc. We simply wouldn't tolerate it, and would have logical arguments to explain the justifications. However, his number theory list out (and not on the merits), so we approach numbers differently. I do not claim he actually did declare a formal fallacy, so please no one say that. I just used a classic philosopher and his idea as an analogy. Greeks and Romans did this very thing often.

Honestly, if anyone is aware why fringe historians are switching from the old Marxist arguments back to the Nietzschean-NeoNazis end of the spectrum, please tell me. I've seen much worst than Maty. Its not the universities, as most who argued ten years back for Marxist or Anarchist positions on history or philosophy were not university trained, and this modern breed of Neo-Nazis almost never is university trained. They start our small, then snag a few members on a forum on some absurd idea taken from the 1930s, talk about pagan gods, then art, then whipping women, German history, but get very upset and defensive if someone calls them a Nazi or mentions Storm front. None of their historical takes pan out, its based off 19th century theories of sociology. Like Arminius. I'm honestly at a loss. I don't know how the Neo-Nazis came back into influence. I don't even know if Maty is aware of his positions paralleling theirs. People become influenced without being told where the ideas come from. They always gotta be so damn secretive. Its a massive intellectual swing. So many are doing it. Its really starting to get to me. It was what, 70 some years ago World War II was fought to end this, and here it is again, trying to go mainstream. I don't understand the underlining mechanism of why people embrace this during THIS decade but the latter in the former. I'm seeing far too much of this. I understand the attraction to violent ideologies, and denouncing a status quo religion. But this pendulum shift back and forth between the MarxistMarxist/Anarchist being in Vogue vs the Nietzschean/Nazis isn't making much sense. I gotta be missing something. Does it start off as a Meme? Maty, when did this idea first enter your head? Your not original, so no, you didn't invent it. It came from somewhere. How aware were you of its overall scope (being Neo-Nazis) when you first started this debate. You said you used this when giving speeches to groups. You got it from a source. What was that source, and what made it stick in your mind? Did you have reservations when promoting these ideas when it first occurred to you you were arguing for the use of force on minorities, or denying genocides and persecutions? Roughly in your opinion, who far along are you in terms of acceptance and non acceptance of Roman Persecutions, or in modern times the holocaust? Do you symphasize with the positions of holocaust deniers, or reject them still but accept other forms if violence just below genocide as just or necessary? What us your view on Categorical Imperatives (Kantian). Did you just read they were wrong, or do you have early memories from your childhood long before you started reading and developed your udeas that suggested this point if view? From now on I'm doing questionnaires. I want to know why so many turn to the far left and bounce between Marxism then Nazism every few years. It has to be a pact mentality of some sorts organizing this. Why this in particular? Maty, were the Khmer Rouge right for killing people for lacking "right belief"? They fall perfectly center between the communist and Nietzschean sphere.... what's your take on them?

The people and the rulers were clearly NOT in agreement, hence the necessity of the pogrom. Its your classic "big brother" strategem, well diagnosed in modern philosophy. Cursing does have a legitimate Ontological root that effects Epistemeology, theories of mind in debate. I use it a lot, learned the value from the Cynics in discourse when appropriately timed. You should ask yourself why it bothers you, actually bothers you. I don't know much in all honesty about the rites Cicero carried out (not from lack of investigation). Yes, rebelling against a tyrant matters here. See Seneca Pumkinfication for a simple Roman era specific reference for this dynasty in particular. I was thinking of a much earlier event, but won't go into it right now, as it leaves a bloody taste in the mouth. Only philosophy I can point to where you have even a chance of being right that was popular amongst the Romans Cicero on till Christianity would be the Stoa, and they went out of their way to ignore and disregard tyrants, and what harm they could bring. If I recall, there is a French Canadien up in Montreal on ITunes years back who made a series of podcasts on this, but I use Android right now. Specific cases where the founder was disregarded in particular? Rome. Remus wasn't worshipped. Romulas wasn't worshipped till much later on when this philosophy under discussion here became vogue. I never found evidence of a temple to Dido in Carthage, best I could find to adherence to anything she supposedly did is not expand beyond the city line she laid down with the hide. Now that I come to think of it, most countries rather rejected their founding deities, at least those they recorded. Was was just looking at the history of Delphi the other day, it flipped gods several times. The gods were presented in a lineage from founders to successors, and it was almost always violent or treacherous. I'm lucky I just read Numenius, or else I wouldn't have the Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic perspectives fresh in my mind. They were disgusted at the myths, and riduled the myths as being lies, as the gods couldn't possibly be that fucked up (a far worst exemplative should be used here, but choose to leave it at the F word as a mere marker). Further, lots of people ENFORCED belief. Hence the Christian persecutions. I'll reiterate the use of the word idiotic here, Christians aren't going to suddenly forget the pogroms and persecutions for refusal to sacrifice, and I already mentioned Justin Martyr's trial with the Stoic and Cynic. What kind of scam are you pulling here? Are you going to convince me that the historical sources are wrong, and that you are right, because you read the truth on a Mormon tablet only you can read? I'm talking about Roman history, what civilization are you referencing too? Does it exustvin a parallel universe? Last time I have seen an argument like this, was by Sauwelios (Google him, a Dutch Neo-Nazis posing as a Hindu spiritualist preaching Nietzsche, he is very easy to track on the net) who used the writings of Savitri Devi to argue similar points. No, I'm going to say this once.... a "mob" isn't perfectly in the right to whip, beat, mutilate, coherse, or punish others because its on a momentary high. This isn't evidence of will to power, or of a healthy community. Its evidence of a Libertine mentality that's inherently Sadist. I already noted the early Stoa model based off of "Live" leads to absolute hate, rape and pedophilia. The Spartans used this very system, the philosophers from Socrates on took them as an example. The Nazis (some at least) were trying to resurrect a modified Spartan model of society. I don't know if you intentionally set out to parallel his positions (Sauwelios and Savitri Devi). I'm sure he us bound to Google his name and show up eventually. Not all Pagans are Nazis, but there is a very nasty, Psuedo-Nationalistic pocket of them active on the net pushing this agenda. You might of just echoed it unintentionally by mixing Nietzsche with your knowledge of Rome. So no, I completely and one hundred percent denounce your position, as I've already been exposed to it, and know what it leads directly to. The case of the Atheist being thrown overboard comes from Diagoras of Melos, a Theodorian (school is extinct, but is very closely related to the Cynic and Hendonist schools). From his wiki page: "And Cicero goes on to give another example, where Diagoras was on a ship in hard weather, and the crew thought that they had brought it on themselves by taking this ungodly man on board. He then wondered if the other boats out in the same storm also had a Diagoras on board." How can you explain the sailors being right in this situation? Its absolutely absurd. Its nonsense to say the sailors were right to want to do this. Its not an action that can possibly benefit them, leaves them trapped in a superstition instead of rationalizing their situation and seeking to make adjustments to positively effect their outcome in terms of surviving. Throwing a atheist overboard to appease the gods isn't effective seamanship in the face of a storm.... pulling in the rigging and oars, facing the onsetting waves, accounting for leaks and bailing water, and setting wirkcrews to specific ad hoc tasks are. Do you think they should sacrifice a goat and row harder instead? Socrates.... Killed. Aristotle, nearly killed for the same ignorance. Diadorus sent into exile. Theodorus. Seneca exiled. Its not healthy for a state to solve its "problems" ISIS style, by killing, exiling, launching pogroms, or conducting genocide on its most productive elements, or against harmless groups with new methods of worship. Its very poor and backwards thinking, and its much better to intergrate all elements into society without pushing them to ideological breaking points that forces them to resist and rebel. Even the Iranians grasp this. The best state is a pluralistic state, as it allows freedom of conscious, allows for innovation, and encourages productive growth with the investigation of new ideas. The might makes right of mob politics doesn't lead to more tolerance or enlightened thinking. During the 20th century, we found out the hard way when the world fought the Axis powers. I'm getting tired of all these Nietzscheans trying to rewrite history. I said it on this site a while back, I miss the days when you could just argue against Marxists, the climate of pop philosophy has been turning increasingly back to the Neo-Naxi pole. I don't know why they do this to themselves. Usually at this point, the Nietzscheans start quoting Aristotle and his Ethics. Feel free, I've had thus debate a few times in the past already. Your nothing new. The administrator of this site speaks German, he can find undoubtedly better sources on this annoying subject than me. There is definitely a subculture on the net that argues as you do, but I do hope its just a short sighted acceptance of Nietzsche and not full fledged Neo-Nazis spiritualism. I really don't care to see another image of Devi's Urn in Wisconsin (or Minnesota, one of the cold boring states at New Been). And I really don't want to be told about Arminius again if you got that up your sleeve. I've heard it all before. Its very bad history. I don't get the motivation for people to engadge in thus foul history making. Anyway, I'm well seasoned in refuting this stuff, so if you insist.... just its lame and tiring in the Groundhog Day sense of a never ending continuum. You win a string of debates, they slouch off offering some excuse, and a new one pops up in their place. Its never original.

That's the word I was reaching for in my brain,confarreatio. Mark Anthony didn't have senatorial status, and thus couldn't become priest of the cult, because his former marriage wasn't conducted by that rite. That's the word I remember reading. Are you sure you want to argue the validity of sylligisms? The reason they state that is because of Boolean processing of linguistic information prior to its casual ordering. Certain personality types, like INTJs (which I am one) have a way to root around this using comedy or explemptive language. Its why Zizek is so successful, as well as a few French philosophers like Badiou. Furthermore, your position on the Semiotic emphasis on logic (sign and signal) falls apart on the Theoria-Theosis axis, which is a Roman era philosophy. Einstein often expressed his ideas at their most profound operated at a level without words. There was in fact a hugh medieval debate if Da'at linked up with the right hemisphere at all in Jewish caballah circles. We now know the pathways of the cranial nerves do link up in consciously in certain personality types, but is present in all types unconsciously and effects the thinking style of everyone. And I didn't say anything about arbitrary logic. Logic is always neurological based, even in pure mathematics. I'm a student of Ramon Llull, he was a pioneer of communications theory and logic in the medieval period, also built primitive computers built on logic. What your trying to corner are precise points of the brain where we process information as accurate or not to a predetermined mental template. I don't refute this, I refute the limitations of debate to JUST these paths at the expense if denying explorations of alternatives. Say Chryssipus declared a logical fallacy on counting one as a number. He would have justifications to do as (as justified as any supposed logical fallacy). Everyone who counts one as a number would be ruled invalid from the start. Accounting would of evolved differently.

You need to study up on the English Civil War Caldrail, Henry 8th policies directly impacted Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania severely here on EXACTLY that line, and caused severe problems for Parliament from Plymouth to Ireland. It was at root a dynastic succession issue. Its where the Church of England can point to for origins. It had a very big impact here (not literally here, it was Indian land, but the families who migrated here came from those three states). I can give you history books and stories from various genealogies. His decisions were built around marriage concepts inherent in the Catholic Church of that period (his new church was pretty much a clone of the catholic customs, wasn't protestant yet). You fast forward to bloody Mary and then the glorious revolution, you can see how English society began to radically separate. This lead to indefinite opposition that would eventually culminate into the American Revolution and Ireland leaving the empire. England absolutely needed those two colonial bases for its manpower to keep the empire going. After WW2, it was the US that gave the English loans to avoid bankruptcy (the English almost collapsed in Greece), it was our liberty ships that kept England fed. It was our Navy that held the defensive lines for Australia and New Zealand. We could very easily of remained Neutral and the empire would of collapsed. Bose and his Fascists would of held India. We didn't, so England floated for a while.... but whenever the US refused support, such as in English colonies in Africa, the Empire fell apart. Had the US remained a colonial possession, it wouldn't of been a issue. The British Empire could of had access to our taxes, bases, and manpower. It didn't, and the root cause was..... Henry 8th. Chief person to blame. He more or less killed the empire at its earliest beginnings. This is one of those nasty side effects of marriage. It effects the concepts of property and alliegance, responsibility, etc in ways a society not built on feudal relations wouldnt. I'll reply to the other two posts here soon, at work, its a physically intensive job.

Please, they thought merely transporting an atheist by ship caused storms at sea. Both you and Caldrail manage to miss one another. In Caldrail's place, he believes there was NO civic cults. This is of course wrong, they used active temples as government buildings, imported gods, and trained military commanders as priests. They had several "orders" of priesthood. But they never had aonopoly, and as I've pointed out with the Balbus fragment, the imperial cults built around the emperor never quite gained total acceptance, we go from that era into the Christian fathers era with similar ideological strands of dissent. And no, of course the Roman "authorities" were not right to enforce the imperial cults of sacrifice. That in itself is idiotic and backwards by Roman and Greek political philosophy, as the subject was still quite up to debate as to what constituted a real God, if the Gods were even real, and the nature of cults and mysteries. Take Aristotle's statecraft.... did you know his school was ordered around religious principles? I myself didn't grasp this until I read The Fragments of Theophrastus. The Platonic Academy was built around a Greek hero shrine in Plato's Garden. The Stoa worshipped Love, an impersonal diety of sorts. The early Romans lacked a founding cult- alters and holy spots existed in Rome prior to the Romans, and if I recall, they like the Japanese maintained the thatch house of Romulas for centuries (Japanese did so of the founding dynasty' house (a female shaman) for a long time. But they didn't worship him till late. To what degree were legal aliens and slaves required to worship in state cults during the republic? Its a very valid question. Were the cults similar to caste religion in India, where the lower castes were kept outside of the temple and services? If they were originally senatorial and plebians only, or only expected that they would CE, or join when office was acquired (or joined when office was desired like in the cult of Mithras), then the later pogroms against the Christians (and other groups too, we didn't have a monopoly on this) was built on I'll advised logic, and poor rationality. Some classical theories did promote the idea of a state theologically centered around kinds of belief (I just did a book review on a Neo-Platonist view from Justinian's era), or a continuation of traditions, but others sought a radical departure from this. Take the killing of Socrates. It was the Cynics who first sought out vengeance against the Athenians for the killing. Their academy was kept OUTSIDE of the city walls (by choice or forced upon them is up to debate, we obviously didn't continue the tradition of educating in dedicated structures). The Cynics developed a political theory during Plato's lifetime. It effected later schools. The debate was already there, were the temples even necessary? Arius Didymus and Seneca were both Stoics, Augustus dynasty took a Hugh dose of this outlook early on. The judge of Justin Martyr was a Stoic, yet he accepted the imperial cult of the emperor. Was he right by Stoic standards? No. Lots of precedent exists in Zeno of Citrum's standards and that of Chrissypus that the Christians lacked vice and embraced classical stoic virtues, and thus were healthy to a state, and not a liability. The ultimate reason whybhe was executed was a claim of atheism on his part for refusing the sacrifice. The emperors never were able to prove their cults were legitimate (due to Cicero and his popularity, we intact know the completely made up Genesis of that idea was made up by him). It wasn't necessary to worship godmen during the republic. Would the Romans be right to execute a resurrected Cincinnatus or Scipio because they would reflexively balk at the idea? What justification could the empire offer to earlier Romans this was universally necessary? None. They would naturally know otherwise, as they had lived otherwise. Certain things conferred roman citizenship. I recall a group of twelve slaves on their own volition once rescued idols from a burning temple in Rome, and we given manumission and citizenship for this. Holding Gods in esteem therefore seemed to of been a sign of romaness in earlier eras. How well did this carry on when Rome became a swelling cosmopolitan capital is questionable, especially with foreign cults popping up left and right. Those foreigners got rights and in time citizenship. Its really hard to take your position Maty when we know the classical sources would dispute it. It wasn't automatically right. The rightness of the act had to be demonstrated, and obviously failed to do so, as it eventually succumbed to the counter arguments. It did though, enjoy a frictioned yet largely free reign for a few centuries. Obviously the ideology wasn't working as well as the best persecuting emperors themselves had hoped, as they apparently built their statecraft around this. It was always a stupid idea, there is in political philosophy more to suggest the legitimacy or resisting a autocrat, even upon the pain of torture and death, than accepting the tyrant wholesale. This predates Christianity by centuries, and the Romans had access to such ideas, even embraced them in a earlier era. Why do you think Caesar was stabbed? Rethink your position. Caldrail, you got another wiki battle on your hands, feel free to convince everyone else on the biography your right and they are all wrong in regards to Mark Anthony, I will follow that battle of wits with great interest.

It is quite possible for society to control non-marital offspring, natural born sons and daughters. It has a long precedent going back to Greek days. Its harder to detect admittedly if the father wasn't frank about it, but with laws primogeniture could be enforced on the proper children. I'm not in a position to affirm or refute Maty's input. I'll take the serial monagamy (Brazilian style apparently) under advisement. Faulty reasoning? Reconsider what your saying here. Show me evidence of blunt trauma or mental retardation, or severe malnutrition, and I might agree there are hardware specs at fault in the individual. Shirt if this, I don't presume faulty reasoning, except on the part of a moderator or academic, or enforcer of presupposed parliamentary procedure. Can you tell me how many synapses are in the brain? How many water molecules in your arm? Hairs on your ass? We don't know ourselves, we make projections of being. A very faint simulacrum is all we have of personhood. We apply logic, if its voluntary, from this perspective. If person A can debate person B with a argument largely judge by a panel of experts to be exquisite, lacking in logical fallacies, it would prove nothing except a systematic bias (which they likely would agree to, begrudgingly). However, what are they actually judging? Let's say thus exact argument between A and B was exactly the same, save person A was a schizophrenic, and B was a illusion. Still no logical fallacies? Of course they begin to pop up, as knowledge is as much about our understanding if the other and ourselves as the argument at hand. Anyone trying to argue certain kinds of knowledge is immune to this, such as a discussion of pure mathematics, mearly wittles the argument to aspects of mind, to which my point lays. A logical fallacy presupposes aspects of mind are universal, and carries an ideology in regards to how argumentation should unfold A Priori. We already have a A Priori system, its our neurology, its our brain's architecture. If I accept logical fallacies, I have to allow for an alien set of restrictions to favor set feedback loops in the brain over others. This is in and of itself disadvantageous to philosophy and the dialectic, and Socrates spent half of each debate just feeling this out before progress could be made. Note I don't rule out restrictions CAN'T be made, and rules to kinds of debate can't be followed, to methodologically produce stable systems of logic, but I won't presume for a second they are full proof, or even very efficient even if they have been worked on for centuries. I'm well known for turning logic systems upside down on their head (cynic trait). If a discussion naturally drifts towards logical fallacies, there tends to be a reason, and we should be very open to understanding why the gravity of the debate keeps pushing in that direction. Though the first order of logic might essentially fail, secondary and subsequent orders might be naturally and intuitively linked by nature or learning. I don't presume in the debate, even when I feel it in my gut and can predict where itvis going in advance, that I know every possible twist and turn anyone engaded in can take. I more or less farm the possibility of new ideas and possibilities in myself and in others, and so have very little tolerance when someone shouts "logical fallacies". Unless it can be shown a Categorical Imperative is violated, such as putting others at risk by a known route of reasoning (such as debating the validity of the National Electric Code's safety rules, or allowing arguments of genocide against a clearly peaceful people), I largely dismiss it. I see it as a certainty of mental disease worthy of a straight jacket and repeated beatings by hairy Russian men wielding large stream caught fish in a insane asylum. It's a just punishment that fits the crime of furthering this silky, outdated academic cult. One idiot professor published on Kindle a book of over 300 logical fallacies, many if which he claims he alone "discovered". I question if such a man after a while can even tie his shoe without violating a rule against his own consciousness. Logical Fallacies occupy that same intellectual space as a Fatwa, they only apply to the scholar who pronounced the advice, and no one else, and a second opinion can always be reached. We have 16 ceainial nerves in the brain, and multiple layers per part, and the parts interconnect to one another. There tends to be multiple ways around in a discussion without the folly of an imposed detour. Most people don't even question the origins of logical fallacies. They just blink and accept. Its very unnerving how programmable people become by teachers after a while. Teachers don't know where they come from either for the mist part, though a few learned how to explain the idea to a combative student unwilling to accept one. Its absolutely sick. And legality didn't invent mating, or the need for community. The law doesn't make a society, its a outgrowth of it. Marriage, its most obvious traits, what most can (this would qualify as a logical fallacy in se systems, but I dare you to denounce it) reduce it to its bare essential elements, governs fucking and child rearing, near universally among human societies that use it. Those who don't marry still do the fucking and the child rearing, just not in a recognizable order or predictable parents (biological). There are communities in Israel based on this idea, that kids are brought up by the community. There was a sex cult (can't remember the god, think Hermes) where a husband or wife would leave the marriage for a year, head off to the temple, and be coupled with a stranger, and make a baby. I presume the child stayed (or not) after the mother returned home. Romans did that. Cults in Carthage and Phonecia where parents would kill their children. Same here with abortions. These are our rules from one age to the next. Sometimes we embrace marriage, sometimes not. Given the sickening rate of abortions (we kill more in any year of last year from abortions than the entirety of the US lead Iraq Wars), perhaps marriage isn't worth much any more. Children in very socialistic, atheistic countries see their parents split earlier and earlier, causing psychological trauma and a devaluation of the worth of themselves, their potential sex partners, and of the idea of family. Such societies are also the quicker to intellectually stagnate, and unnervingly quick to repress minorities (whereas they didn't before). But us a perfectly stable monogamous society without faults, or even those faults? Not always. We have blunders across history. The British destroyed any long term chance of making a univied empire in the very beginning, when Henry the 8th started executing his wives. He had to start his own church, thus alienating the Catholics and radicalizing his population. It ensured the US and Ireland wouldn't be a part of the empire at a crucial man power shortage mid twentieth century. Didn't quite work out in anyone's favor, those be headings and need to make "legitimate" male children. That's just one dynastic mishap, I can point to many more across the world. So I put very little stock in advoiding this by saying different definitions. Its simply not the case. The Romans definitely had at the very least a very widespread sub culture of orgies and swinging for a considerable chunk of its history. This doesn't remove from them the counter that they also built up the idea of marital loyalty and monagamy in its true sense. Its at root all about who is diddling who, and given most people in high school and university are of the prime diddling age, and find themselves suddenly free to do so without seeming repercussion, they are loathe to do accept outside restrictions. Professors want to look cool, and keep their jobs by not offending the students, so in many ways preach this morality. It seems unwise, as they aren't weighing the risks to benefits for society on a long term sociological platform. I see at least the single dualism of Aristotle vs the Stoa in Aristotle, but as educators they should be aware of much more. Kids should have informed knowledge. There is definitely benefits to a classical 1950s style marriage, to the individuals and society as a whole.

You are correct, I misspell everything, just like Plotinus and Wittgenstein (good company). Intact, if anyone is ever so lame someday as to need to authenticate a notebook of mine, its the very neat printing and horrible spelling that would signify it's authentic. Pogrom is a pogrom in terms of underlining psychology, sanctioned by a authority or not. I severely doubt in the "violence node" of the mind that we will ever find a path for government approved violence versus non-government. Its using parallel hardware almost the same way. Romans merely exploited this phenomena, whereas we try to suppress it today, save 9-11, or the recent French Attacks, then we rehabilitate it a while. I'm guessing when fear (dopamine) rises, Noradrenaline (Anger) and Serotonin (Self Worth) plummets. We find ways in this social activity to raise the other two. Lonely guys just seeth in rage, but groups communicate it to one another, then get inventive as to what the solution should be, and such thinking is almost universally assed up and disturbing. There is a reason corporate charters for corporate 500 companies don't adopt this model of internal governance, it is just really bad, and gives HR a serious headache afterwards in sorting the mess out after. I'd like to say acetylcholine plays a part, but I didn't see it in the faces of the people in Iraq. They were partially reasoning, a storyline was going. I don't think it was "faith" persay, but another function of the mind that referenced to faith but wasn't present at the same time. It be hard to claim faith hates if you have solitary monks seeking solitary living and enlightenment soaked in it. Different phenomena, not sure you can do both at the same time, but maybe someone can convince me otherwise. I don't have a absolute stance here, and am open to ideas.

I guess the more or less sanctioned violence against Isis in Rome, though behaviorally the same as a lynchmob, wouldn't be considered one as it was more or less encouraged? I really doubt we can point to any single religion as the originator of this practice. People in Egypt used to get killed of they were thought to of killed a cat by a mob, and of course, cults built around scapegoats, sacrificing them are little more than the ritualization and orderly control of the mob mentality to kill, and did so in a rather intellectually complex fashion. Just pick one guy, and give him the receiving burden of every psychological impulse the community has negatively. I don't care to make a exhaustive list of the phenomena, listing its traits relative and differing in a family tree of sorts. Just best not to do any sort of it, we've been progressively moving away from such mentalities, and got rid of some of the worst and most twisted traditions. In a sense, the Christian religion was built around a lynch mob, condoned and directed, and implemented by the state. It wasn't a execution stemming from rational laws of universal customs and ethics, but stemmed from and played upon the passions of the locals, and the Romans willingness to harness and be seen by the common man as being the champion of such backwards biases, in a manner that would hopefully bind the esprite of the romans and Jews together. It was an organized lynch mob, even Pilot stood back and laid the irrationality and necessity fully on meeting the passions of the local population whim that day in court. Its why in the US we used to have a constitutional clause that stated we were a nation of laws, and not men. Its little more than a vestigial remain of a earlier era of thought, but it had a hugh cultural importance. It forced the KKK and Black Panthers into the underground and periphery of life, and gave great stability to our constitution, and effected our outlook on military and paramilitary ethics.

There is a tradition, but its modern and second hand, and that library is several timezones away and halfway across an ocean for a consultation. Most of my research on this subject was based in Hawaii, the island has a lot of histories related to early Buddhism and east Asian studies, but also occasionally South Asian. San Francisco had more histories, but they focused on later empires. All my area has is some ISKCON publications floating around, and they are.... not up to snuff. My town also started a Sikh cultural center/authority with a recent publication, but they came much later, and our only Arab historian left for Miami. It feels like the dark ages here in West Virginia, and the web likes to only hint at texts, but doesn't give translations. I'm almost certainly the first to get translations of certain kinds of knowledge ever around here. I really want a translation of the Sri Lankan Buddhist texts. I have a background in several schools of Buddhism, so navigating the logic and philosophy shouldn't be too difficult, guessing their a Theraveda sect. Hmmm.... I think the Vietnamese are too. There is a monastery out west, I'll try contacting them. I know a rather nutty Texan who goes there a lot. He hit a Chinese girl on a imported chinese scooter a while back, which is ironic, given this was in the Texan countryside. His name is Mayflow or something like that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia The scholar Martin Litchfield West writes that the Pythia shows many traits of shamanistic practices, likely inherited or influenced from Central Asian practices, although there is no evidence of any Central Asian association at this time.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/04/17/man-goes-exploring-with-metal-detector-finds-roman-era-grave/?intcmp=features Pretty much what I told Caldrail to do with the water temple.... big find here. Buh humbug....

I didn't prove your point, nor argue for or against it. Furthermore, and this isn't the first time I've stated this, I'm opposed to the concept of "logical fallacies", as it retards the nature of debate and favors only a handful of neuro feedback loops in the brain, usually favoring a handful of stable personality types, usually based out of the Thalamus. Its been argued that most teachers and professors are of this type, but those same theorists admit that they aren't the best teachers or even the smartest. My approach typically is to assume all men are naturally philosophical, and that all forms of thought are factually based, just the schema we present some facts in are incompatible with how we present other kinds of facts. Its why I put heavy emphasis on the anatomy of facts at the forefront of my understanding of rhetoric. I've been known to accept tangential arguments and outright lies as part of a debate even when others have declared fallacy on their part if for nothing more that to see how the dialectic unfolds. People tend to gravitate towards certain patterns of thinking, I accept this as a cosmopolitan aspect of philosophy. I'm very cautious of limiting replies, even when it turns to cursing and slurs. It took me several years to convince a moderator staff of this on a philosophy site, and only convinced them of it when I could show two guys fighting tooth and nail were using different neurochemicals in their arguments, but that the objections everyone offered to their mutual violence was uncalled for, since the neurochemicals they were so separate in are known to mix and make a positive attitude, in a higher level of thinking. They were in fact the best prescription for one another. That is debate, the dialectic, philosophy at its crux. Now, you see me as holding a singular position, proving or disproving. I was never of such a mentality. I take a aggressive and combative stance in debate, but its the natural style of rhetoric a Cynic always has taken. Name one enemy of Diogenes and Crates? None, yet they argued constantly. They were propelled foreward in search of a greater search for truth. In your case, I can point to several "fallacies", presuming several societies were or were not monogamous. A legal marriage does not equal monogamy if the husband and wife constantly fucks around. Greeks were not monogamous. Latins, its questionable. It seems they had this concept that we inherited the bias of, but how well? I seriously doubt they were truely monogamous till well after Augustus started his reforms. Christians undoubtedly jumped on that bandwagon, but can't say it was just him. Likewise, as I'm taking a cosmopolitan outlook, I can't rule out any society having these two traits I've put on Aristotle and the early Stoa.... it seems rather obvious to me Arius Didymus was the transmitter of the former idea to Octavian, but I can't say this wasn't a force already at play in every society. I expect some pharaohs to of been polygamist. I'm talking about Egypt as a whole, where son inherited the fathers land for generations, over thousands of years. A farmer civilization based on the Nile and barren desert. Not alot of degree for flexibility. I assume monagamy, but can be certain. I simply lack data, and your clearly not getting that marriage isn't the real of sexual mobagamy, its a reference to real fucking. If your a guy, and your mating with several women, in your household, you got multiple mates. All the marriage did was confirm transfer of property and status of certain offspring. This varied alot, from city to city, civilization to civilization. And Europeans in your definition doesn't match mine. I include all Europeans, not just romans. My position is studying the information and theorizing. I'll always seek out the contradictions and give evidence that might advance or negate a argument. I have a love of the dialectic itself. I rarely stop where everyone else feels statisfied that the end of an idea has come, I push on. There are a lot of cranial nerves in the brain, I like to know how a idea, fact, theory relates to the webbing of each one. I've given a duality for a stage of Roman history, and how it parallels in function today. But I still ponder how universal it is. Would this apply to the middle ages or a thousand years from now? I don't quite know. Just know it applied to the Romans then, and a great extent now. Still pondering it.

I just checked his wikipage, he apparently had five wives, so you were closer, but both of us were wrong. He wasnt a patrician till he became a priest, his family was plebian, says so right on his wiki. Both he and Octavian started out as plebs. His wiki claims he may of been a priest of some cult I don't recall hearing of, Lupercal. He was appointed also to the college of augers. This is a priestly office, but we don't have a equivalent for it in modern Roman Catholicism (Hugh emphasis on Roman there Caldrail). Also says he wasade high priest of Caesar's cult. His wiki doesn't mention however when he legally switched from Plebian to the Senatorial order, just links the close proximity to his remarriage chronologically. I'm late on my break, gotta get back to work. You got some explaining to do in how a Roman Catholic isn't gonna grasp the status of a officially appointed roman priest to a state cult. Christianity started off independent of the Roman state, but the religion definitely merged and adopted the features of the roman priesthood. Its quite a incredible stretch on your part.

Some of the philosophy of the Greeks survived, in the Mayahana tradition. Meander even has a Buddhist Sutra attributed to him, and Milarepa in his Songs has several outright formulaic Cynic sections. I know Sri Lanka recorded a lot of the Greek history post Alexander still extant, but I haven't found a good translation of this, but there are two excellent Sri Lankan websites in English on this topic. Just this early period looks murky to me. Thanks for the info. Will wittle it down a bit. Its a name that means nothing to many here, but storming Patiliputra is up there with sacking Athens, Baghdad, or Rome in terms of ancient history. Very important ancient city, it is 'the city' of India that mattered the most.