True - and I'm all for people wanting to join in a common
   'something'. It's just when people band together to a point
   where one can start a sentence and another could finish it,
   word-for-word... it's just... creepy as heck. - Well, there's
   self-organizing systems as well, for a newer formulation of the
   idea. There's also saddle points for example, resting spots
   where similar things roll down together. "Gravity well" is an
   old term for it. - Organizations don't need heads or explicit
   structure from the outset. They can self-organize into a
   "something" even if, at their Fundamantalist level, they're not
   an organization. - Historical consensus has him as real. There's
   some fringe proofs showing he wasn't but in the world of
   historians it's not taken seriously. For me I let historians do
   history and fill in gaps however I can. As soon as someone says
   "agenda" or "historical revisionism" towards historians - when
   it's their JOB to do history... It's hard to take seriously
   although I always listen. - Oh he was a fine scientist just as
   Krauss is a fine string theorist with the dark energy and such,
   and Bill Maher was once a savvy and funny political humorist.
   But... Yeah well.. The political activism and the preaching from
   their respective pulpits kinda has been overshadowing that stuff
   for a while now. It's nice for those who already agree with them
   but for us on the outside the speaking with one voice about a
   singular issue and making it the be all focus kinda gets old and
   it makes it hard to maintain respect. I try to but it's hard
   cause they're so wrapped up in it these days it seems. I dunno.
   -- Quite so. Still good to consider the "whole person" as well
   though at times. I know people who won't touch Heidegger because
   he thought his time had come as supreme Philosopher ... and
   never renounced his Nazi card. Now for me, I don't have a
   problem with that. I like the man for his work in Philosophy.
   Yet, I also don't fault people who focus on his extra-Philosophy
   activities either. After all, that's _their_ focus, and if feel
   that a "purity of person" is critical, then by all means. To me,
   it's just another perspective to take into consideration. For
   me, the more perspectives, the better. I don't like singular
   perspectives much, or singular systems as having the only way to
   do things. It's up to us to weigh them out and decide for
   ourselves. -- Yeah, it's forced me to be agnostic (broad term -
   still useful as a broad term ) about a lot of things. I consider
   things from a pragmatic point of view: What's useful. Somewhat
   utilitarian although not exclusively so by any means. I like "I
   don't know"s because they allow me to have "working assumptions"
   that are nimble and changeable whenever necessary. Its not
   really shifting sands because you can feel where the sturdier
   piles of sand are, and where the quick sand is, to speak
   metaphorically. --