### - and well apparently it's touch and go folks between them, currently 49%
for sanity and a better world versus 48% for those just going for the money
coz in money we trust and screw god + screw the rest of the planet too coz
let's all feather our nests now, and screw the future! we're walking the line!
they tied his hands behind his back anyway even if obama gets through in spite
of the madness of a corporate world gone mad and getting worse, hurricane
sandy clearly intervening to reveal the way things are likely to go if the
world doesn't give itself this (probably) last chance to turn the tide of
ruin, stagnation and all out war everyone's addicted to...
call me a cynical old cunt if ya like but i really don't think we're gonna
make it, plus even if we did it would literally only be just in the nick of
time and right down to the line, a hail mary in the extreme doesn't
even describe it, nor the dreadful situation humanity is currently drowning in...
wake up world! judgement day is here, and it's a good day to die!
> ### - and well apparently it's touch and go folks between them, currently 49%
> for sanity and a better world versus 48% for those just going for the money
> coz in money we trust and screw god + screw the rest of the planet too coz
> let's all feather our nests now, and screw the future! we're walking the line!
There there buddy.
> they tied his hands behind his back anyway even if obama gets through in spite
> of the madness of a corporate world gone mad and getting worse, hurricane
> sandy clearly intervening to reveal the way things are likely to go if the
> world doesn't give itself this (probably) last chance to turn the tide of
> ruin, stagnation and all out war everyone's addicted to...
We'll see, innit ?
> call me a cynical old cunt if ya like but i really don't think we're gonna
> make it,
DOOOM!!!
Well, i did like castle wolfenstein, and doom is based on that game idea.
Doom 2 is actually a good game.
Later versions focus much more on graphics instead of gameplay.
> plus even if we did it would literally only be just in the nick of
> time and right down to the line
Well, at least you are considering the option that has already happened.
You're welcome ;)
> wake up world! judgement day is here, and it's a good day to die!
Well, days according to metatron are kinda longer than days according to Indra.
bassos wrote...
>> ### - and well apparently it's touch and go folks between them, currently
>> 49%
>> for sanity and a better world versus 48% for those just going for the money
>> coz in money we trust and screw god + screw the rest of the planet too coz
>> let's all feather our nests now, and screw the future! we're walking the
>> line!
> There there buddy.
### - i know i know, a sapian through and through ;)
>> they tied his hands behind his back anyway even if obama gets through in
>> spite
>> of the madness of a corporate world gone mad and getting worse, hurricane
>> sandy clearly intervening to reveal the way things are likely to go if the
>> world doesn't give itself this (probably) last chance to turn the tide of
>> ruin, stagnation and all out war everyone's addicted to...
> We'll see, innit ?
### - the blind will learn to see?? heh @ such idealistism dot com :)
>> call me a cynical old cunt if ya like but i really don't think we're gonna
>> make it,
> DOOOM!!!
> Well, i did like castle wolfenstein, and doom is based on that game idea.
> Doom 2 is actually a good game.
> Later versions focus much more on graphics instead of gameplay.
### - smile, the doom of mankind is something one shouldn't perhaps forget if
only to remain walking on the straight and narrow, complacency being the
alternative + a sure way to walk into lampposts (bonk! owwwch!:)
>> plus even if we did it would literally only be just in the nick of
>> time and right down to the line
> Well, at least you are considering the option that has already happened.
> You're welcome ;)
### - funny + i think bi-polar disease is what must be humanity's basic + real
problem thus them living in a swings and roundabouts perception of the whole
(or hole as is more likely the case, a very deep one;) plus always biting the
hand that feeds them, it was a close run thing but at least they voted to
continue with sanity, in a mostly sane world the republicans (iow the right
wing) would never ever get into office again... (shame about the uk then innit
immediately voting for hitler again when the financial crisis happened, go
figure ;)
>> wake up world! judgement day is here, and it's a good day to die!
> Well, days according to metatron are kinda longer than days according to
> Indra.
> What sorts of days are you referencing ?
### - oh nothing quite so complicated, just another day in the life in the
history of some mad monkey (called humanity) struggling to fight for his
sanity in the face of impossible odds + a tendency towards self destruction...
not easy to stand up straight on one's own 2 hind legs and maintain that
uncomfortable position, especially when it would all be so much easier to just
smash up the place instead in a fit of angst and self pity heh... but they
might make it in the end;)
### - like nick cave, my introduction to him being from the movie 'on the
beach' (probably a bit too dark for your tastes) the newer version not the old
B&W one, but then the old is perhaps just as good if not better (original is
always somehow better - "waltzing matilda waltzing matilda!" :)
> ### - like nick cave, my introduction to him being from the movie 'on the
> beach' (probably a bit too dark for your tastes) the newer version not the old
> B&W one, but then the old is perhaps just as good if not better (original is
> always somehow better - "waltzing matilda waltzing matilda!" :)
> "death (an awareness of) is the awakener" --bukowski
"... you know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to go with that? "
bassos wrote...
>> "death (an awareness of) is the awakener" --bukowski
> "... you know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like
> some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to
> go with that? "
### - (slider still humming: "...i'll sing it one last time for you")
well, i'd suggest you 'stop' w(h)ining and pay attention instead hehe
(wine/whining?;) nice vid though :)
i.e... a sure + certain + undisputed 'reality' of life is the fact that death
is a definite 'part' (plus condition) 'of' life...
there is no escape + no avoiding it, it's not gonna 'go away' any time soon,
in fact, it approaches more nearly and closer (to us) every day (every moment
actually, so it's even more urgent)
there is no being... 'saved' from it... one will not, for example, 'come back'
from the dead
and is something everyone (and everything) 'alive' will encounter as a direct
condition of 'being' alive in the first place and is as 'inevitable' as
anything can be... so there is no hiding from it, nor should one even try to
(not if one is intelligent anyway, whereas for the non intelligent ignorance
surely is bliss)
rather, the certain fact of one's temporary-ness in this life/world should be
'embraced' at least as much as one embraces being alive, basically coz
anything less is to not be living in full awareness of ourselves and the world
around us...
the only 'intelligent' option to finding oneself in such a situation and
circumstance as this, being to intelligently temper one (the awareness of
being alive) with the other (the awareness of soon not being alive) and
vice-versa... anything less than this being the obvious equivalent of not
living in full (and thus balanced) awareness of one's true life situation, a
situation of ignorance (and denial) that will otherwise most certainly give
rise to the making of endless mistakes and probably fatal errors, thus dying
before one even needs (or has) to anyway!
the only way to live a life of almost 'total illusion' (not recommended;) is
to allow oneself to live as though one's impending demise and departure from
this world isn't important and as though it's gonna last forever when it
absolutely wont (iow, this is why there is sooo much crap in the world + why
it's even tolerated at all)
in fact, to modify one's activities in the light of our soon passing, is the
'only' way to make sound decisions and so avoid living a crap life of
frustration and ultimate disappointment, and coz anything less is to be
literally lost in an unreal man-made world that isn't gonna do anyone any
good, ever... (not for real anyway, many indeed dream of accomplishing 'great
things' only none of it's actually true beyond their imagining of it and is
thus useless, both to them and to everyone else)
as a bonus, anyone living in such full awareness no longer needs teachers,
guides and/or instructors of any kind to assist them as they will be quite
capable + fully empowered to do absolutely everything they may ever need, for
themselves...
>>> "death (an awareness of) is the awakener" --bukowski
>> "... you know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like
>> some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to
>> go with that? "
> ### - (slider still humming: "...i'll sing it one last time for you")
> well, i'd suggest you 'stop' w(h)ining and pay attention instead hehe
> (wine/whining?;) nice vid though :)
> i.e... a sure + certain + undisputed 'reality' of life is the fact that death
> is a definite 'part' (plus condition) 'of' life...
> there is no escape + no avoiding it, it's not gonna 'go away' any time soon,
> in fact, it approaches more nearly and closer (to us) every day (every moment
> actually, so it's even more urgent)
> there is no being... 'saved' from it... one will not, for example, 'come back'
> from the dead
> and is something everyone (and everything) 'alive' will encounter as a direct
> condition of 'being' alive in the first place and is as 'inevitable' as
> anything can be... so there is no hiding from it, nor should one even try to
> (not if one is intelligent anyway, whereas for the non intelligent ignorance
> surely is bliss)
> rather, the certain fact of one's temporary-ness in this life/world should be
> 'embraced' at least as much as one embraces being alive, basically coz
> anything less is to not be living in full awareness of ourselves and the world
> around us...
> the only 'intelligent' option to finding oneself in such a situation and
> circumstance as this, being to intelligently temper one (the awareness of
> being alive) with the other (the awareness of soon not being alive) and
> vice-versa... anything less than this being the obvious equivalent of not
> living in full (and thus balanced) awareness of one's true life situation, a
> situation of ignorance (and denial) that will otherwise most certainly give
> rise to the making of endless mistakes and probably fatal errors, thus dying
> before one even needs (or has) to anyway!
> the only way to live a life of almost 'total illusion' (not recommended;) is
> to allow oneself to live as though one's impending demise and departure from
> this world isn't important and as though it's gonna last forever when it
> absolutely wont (iow, this is why there is sooo much crap in the world + why
> it's even tolerated at all)
> in fact, to modify one's activities in the light of our soon passing, is the
> 'only' way to make sound decisions and so avoid living a crap life of
> frustration and ultimate disappointment, and coz anything less is to be
> literally lost in an unreal man-made world that isn't gonna do anyone any
> good, ever... (not for real anyway, many indeed dream of accomplishing 'great
> things' only none of it's actually true beyond their imagining of it and is
> thus useless, both to them and to everyone else)
> as a bonus, anyone living in such full awareness no longer needs teachers,
> guides and/or instructors of any kind to assist them as they will be quite
> capable + fully empowered to do absolutely everything they may ever need, for
> themselves...
> and coz anything less... is pure sophist BS ! ;-)
>>> "death (an awareness of) is the awakener" --bukowski
>> "... you know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like
>> some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to
>> go with that? "
> ### - (slider still humming: "...i'll sing it one last time for you")
> well, i'd suggest you 'stop' w(h)ining and pay attention instead hehe
> (wine/whining?;) nice vid though :)
Cite was from the movie Ratatouille.
> i.e... a sure + certain + undisputed 'reality' of life is the fact that death
> is a definite 'part' (plus condition) 'of' life...
What is death ?
What causes death ?
> the only way to live a life of almost 'total illusion' (not recommended;) is
> to allow oneself to live as though one's impending demise and departure from
> this world isn't important and as though it's gonna last forever when it
> absolutely wont (iow, this is why there is sooo much crap in the world + why
> it's even tolerated at all)
Seems like the plan for eternity but act like there is no tomorrow.
IE: cheesy.
> in fact, to modify one's activities in the light of our soon passing, is the
> 'only' way to make sound decisions ...
> and coz anything less... is pure sophist BS ! ;-)
bassos wrote...
> What is death ?
> What causes death ?
### - might as well ask what is life?
what causes life?
well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a ton about life
and its diversity 'after' it appears but not how it appeared in the first
place, it's a mystery existing obviously beyond the range of the limited
rational mind that likes/prefers everything broken into two pieces for its
convenience alone but which in such a broken/divided state is then incapable
of seeing/perceiving the one from which all things actually emerge...
and because the two (sides) are not actually divided and are just the two
sides of the one coin, this is also why it's a mistake to emphasise one side
over the other until they 'appear' separate, the truth being that you can't
have one without the other lest one perceives only a one-sided pov of
everything all the time:)
>> the only way to live a life of almost 'total illusion' (not recommended;)
>> is
>> to allow oneself to live as though one's impending demise and departure
>> from
>> this world isn't important and as though it's gonna last forever when it
>> absolutely wont (iow, this is why there is sooo much crap in the world +
>> why
>> it's even tolerated at all)
> Seems like the plan for eternity but act like there is no tomorrow.
> IE: cheesy.
### - eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with, to see
patterns in the chaos is something only the rational mind does, and the next
thing one is seeing imaginary poodles and rabbits in the clouds where no such
things actually exist except the white noise of chaos moving about in
reason-less + purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>> in fact, to modify one's activities in the light of our soon passing, is
>> the
>> 'only' way to make sound decisions ...
>> and coz anything less... is pure sophist BS ! ;-)
> So your linkage and obfuscations are pure BS according to you.
### - well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies anyway, so we
can never take them or the descriptions they form-u-late as being accurate
beyond a point, thus the only honest thing to do under the circumstances is
take them all with a pinch of salt, realising from the beginning the very
limited (and thus distorting) tools they are and to never take them literally
lest one falls into the trap of descriptions and concepts... (the whole human
race fell into it and drowned)
### - i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the beginning, i
also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful towards someone who appears to
you to be not in a nice place... it's just that my whole struggle is against
precisely that joining of all the dots to make imaginary shapes and patterns
in the clouds... it's what everyone does and insists is the right thing to do
as though there is no other accepted or valid alternative to the
one-size-fits-all method of the rational mind + what can't be thus made/forced
to fit that criteria is automatically discarded until only the rational view
seems to exist...
but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and never the same
twice, the self-imposed limits and limitations fall away and the now freed
perception expands enormously, expotentionally and without limit... iow, the
fallen/divided atom regains its original entangled superposition and spin and
is again capable of feats of perception beyond the ability of a divided/fallen
state, but even these words are something less than how things really are and
as such are allusions only (not illusions but allusions) and should only be
taken as such, they are merely fingers pointing at the moon, so it is no good
to examine the fingers for anything important or meaningful beyond that which
they are pointing/alluding to (the moon:)
so, so much for words, language and the rational mind... which i realise
doesn't exactly leave us with very much in the way of tools to manipulate
perception with, but then who ever said/suggested it should all be manipulated
in the first place anyway! of course there is a lot of comfort in people
thinking they know what we're doing playing these games with themselves, it's
just that doing all that stops/blocks them from dealing with reality the way
IT is and wants to be and thus everyone is basically walking around in a dream
illusion of their own making, maybe coz it's a lot less scary that way :)
that while it may be acceptable for children to live in imaginary worlds of
santa and the tooth fairy, adults should be able to take reality more on the
chin even if the reality of it IS a bit scary (fucking scary in fact, maybe
even terrifying heh, reality is definitely not for the weak or the somehow
frightened and feeble, it takes guts and endless balls just to stand the sight
of it and live, yet it's in us to be able to do it - to find our original
innocence...
bassos wrote...
>>> What is death ?
>>> What causes death ?
>> ### - might as well ask what is life?
> Evasion noted.
>> what causes life?
> Movement.
### - gave you enough info to work it out for yourself, the answer (of which there isn't a rational one for either life or death) being implicit in the argument provided, to then provide a cogent rational explanation when it was just explained why there isn't one, is/was the real evasion :)
so then according to you, waving a hat about in the air (movement) is what produces a rabbit from it??
slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:
>### - might as well ask what is life?
>what causes life?
>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a ton
>about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not how it
>appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing obviously beyond
>the range of the limited rational mind that likes/prefers everything
>broken into two pieces for its convenience alone but which in such a
>broken/divided state is then incapable of seeing/perceiving the one
>from which all things actually emerge...
'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive evidence.
It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the 'limited rational
mind.'
>eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational mind does,
>and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles and rabbits in the
>clouds where no such things actually exist except the white noise of
>chaos moving about in reason-less + purpose-less motion...there's
>nothing cheesy about it:)
There may well be a path (though I doubt a consious plan) 'eternity'
takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous expansion etc.),
again only dolts make firm judgements on insufficient evidence.
>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only honest
>thing to do under the circumstances is take them all with a pinch of
>salt, realising from the beginning the very limited (and thus
>distorting) tools they are and to never take them literally lest one
>falls into the trap of descriptions and concepts... (the whole human
>race fell into it and drowned)
The human race is still alive....
>>Do you see the connections ?
>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful towards
>someone who appears to you to be not in a nice place... it's just
>that my whole struggle is against precisely that joining of all the
>dots to make imaginary shapes and patterns in the clouds... it's what
>everyone does and insists is the right thing to do as though there is
>no other accepted or valid alternative to the one-size-fits-all
>method of the rational mind + what can't be thus made/forced to fit
>that criteria is automatically discarded until only the rational view
>seems to exist...
These people who arei nsisting you think as they do... who are they
exactly? Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful)
patterns in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist? "I don't
know" is often a reasonable response.
>but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and never
>the same twice, the self-imposed limits and limitations fall away and
>the now freed perception expands enormously, expotentionally and
>without limit... iow, the fallen/divided atom regains its original
>entangled superposition and spin and is again capable of feats of
>perception beyond the ability of a divided/fallen state, but even
>these words are something less than how things really are and as such
>are allusions only (not illusions but allusions) and should only be
>taken as such, they are merely fingers pointing at the moon, so it is
>no good to examine the fingers for anything important or meaningful
>beyond that which they are pointing/alluding to (the moon:)
There are things that (under like circumstances) happen without fail.
If you doubt this hold a masonry mallet directly above your groin and
drop it enough times to make the evaluation that the result will never
be pleasant (perversions excluded.)
Bruce was way smarter than you IMO.
>so, so much for words, language and the rational mind... which i
>realise doesn't exactly leave us with very much in the way of tools
>to manipulate perception with, but then who ever said/suggested it
>should all be manipulated in the first place anyway! of course there
>is a lot of comfort in people thinking they know what we're doing
>playing these games with themselves, it's just that doing all that
>stops/blocks them from dealing with reality the way IT is and wants
>to be and thus everyone is basically walking around in a dream
>illusion of their own making, maybe coz it's a lot less scary that
>way :)
Step out of a high window and test if gravity works. There are rules
however much you fantasise they don't apply to you.
>that while it may be acceptable for children to live in imaginary
>worlds of santa and the tooth fairy, adults should be able to take
>reality more on the chin even if the reality of it IS a bit scary
>(fucking scary in fact, maybe even terrifying heh, reality is
>definitely not for the weak or the somehow frightened and feeble, it
>takes guts and endless balls just to stand the sight of it and live,
>yet it's in us to be able to do it - to find our original innocence...
Exactly... there are rational rules you can't escape.... scary? That's
kind of what we're supposed to decide for ourselves here. Revel in the
rational, it can seem miraculous.
>>> so then according to you, waving a hat about in the air (movement) is >>> what
>>> produces a rabbit from it??
>>> nonsense :)
>> ### - here's a better proof :)
>> one's bowels 'move' every day but produces nothing but... shit?
> Shit is manure, one can recycle shit into all sorts of usefull products, > oh yea of lousy metapharts.
### - (laughing:) well this is true enough i suppose...plus i did hear this rumour one time about macdonals; and the 'ultimate' in recycling? (of human waste that is lol:) thus having to 'eat shit' sometimes not always being 'just' a metaphor? (wouldn't surprise me 'that' much really innit;)
besides, one could always just bag it up and send it to the finns to consume seeing as they'll eat just about anything anyway (like still radioactive mushrooms for example, and this while advertising the place as being one of the now most healthy places in the world lol;)
>> heh heh heh
> Right back at ya; silent and insidiously.
>> (well i thought it was funny anyway ;-)
> Tsk, tsk, leave the thinking for people who Will.
> Love is never having to say you are sorry.
> Magick is never saying sorry.
### - this goes to deep(er) more dangerous ground innit hmmm, plus are you sure you wanna go there? i mean as i understand it AC wasn't exactly saying 'sorry' to anyone (or to a group of someones) at the time of creating it, was he? rather the opposite really, i.e. twas more like an 'up yours!' to that group of 'oh so respectable' someones (who'd rejected him) i mean, n'est pa? (i posted the architect sketch already some time ago)
(you don't have to answer that btw, i'm just saying)
dccxxvii wrote...
>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>what causes life?
>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a ton
>>about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not how it
>>appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing obviously beyond
>>the range of the limited rational mind that likes/prefers everything
>>broken into two pieces for its convenience alone but which in such a
>>broken/divided state is then incapable of seeing/perceiving the one
>>from which all things actually emerge...
> 'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive evidence.
> It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the 'limited rational
> mind.'
### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphamism for: we don't know:)
>>eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational mind does,
>>and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles and rabbits in the
>>clouds where no such things actually exist except the white noise of
>>chaos moving about in reason-less + purpose-less motion...there's
>>nothing cheesy about it:)
> There may well be a path (though I doubt a consious plan) 'eternity'
> takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous expansion etc.),
> again only dolts make firm judgements on insufficient evidence.
### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily) make it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on insufficient evidence" being the rationalists making such assertions/assumptions in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black thingy for sure;)
>>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only honest
>>thing to do under the circumstances is take them all with a pinch of
>>salt, realising from the beginning the very limited (and thus
>>distorting) tools they are and to never take them literally lest one
>>falls into the trap of descriptions and concepts... (the whole human
>>race fell into it and drowned)
> The human race is still alive....
### - if you can 'call' that... living??
"looks like it's dyin' and it's hardly been born -- bob dylan
>>>Do you see the connections ?
>>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful towards
>>someone who appears to you to be not in a nice place... it's just
>>that my whole struggle is against precisely that joining of all the
>>dots to make imaginary shapes and patterns in the clouds... it's what
>>everyone does and insists is the right thing to do as though there is
>>no other accepted or valid alternative to the one-size-fits-all
>>method of the rational mind + what can't be thus made/forced to fit
>>that criteria is automatically discarded until only the rational view
>>seems to exist...
> These people who arei nsisting you think as they do... who are they
> exactly?
### - well, a bunch of stuffed shirts in the royal scientific institution just for starters no? (loads of people were laughed/ridiculed right out of there for not thinking as the others did/do no? often people who actually turned out in the end to be even more correct than them!) - for everyone else it's just called: going to school :)
Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful)
> patterns in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist? "I don't
> know" is often a reasonable response.
### - i was saying/suggesting that all humanity's rational beliefs and cherished mores (polished turds more like;) are mere patterns they are finding/making in the proverbial clouds (of otherwise chaos) and then calling that reality... iow, everything deemed 'meaningful' we literally invented ourselves, while at the same time totally ignoring anything (everything else iow) that doesn't fit the (rational) criteria... you know, the other 99.9 recurring percent that we apparently know fuck all about and prolly never will and find that very hard to accept kinda thing?:)
>>but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and never
>>the same twice, the self-imposed limits and limitations fall away and
>>the now freed perception expands enormously, expotentionally and
>>without limit... iow, the fallen/divided atom regains its original
>>entangled superposition and spin and is again capable of feats of
>>perception beyond the ability of a divided/fallen state, but even
>>these words are something less than how things really are and as such
>>are allusions only (not illusions but allusions) and should only be
>>taken as such, they are merely fingers pointing at the moon, so it is
>>no good to examine the fingers for anything important or meaningful
>>beyond that which they are pointing/alluding to (the moon:)
> There are things that (under like circumstances) happen without fail.
> If you doubt this hold a masonry mallet directly above your groin and
> drop it enough times to make the evaluation that the result will never
> be pleasant (perversions excluded.)
### - ok so say maybe there's 1% (or much less) of the universe that actually fits that criteria, that's no justification for viewing said universe exclusively in those terms, is it?? yet that's exactly what we do while arrogantly assuming the rest! (e.g. there's a 95%+ hole in the standard model and yet they insist we view the world according to that holy model)
>>so, so much for words, language and the rational mind... which i
>>realise doesn't exactly leave us with very much in the way of tools
>>to manipulate perception with, but then who ever said/suggested it
>>should all be manipulated in the first place anyway! of course there
>>is a lot of comfort in people thinking they know what we're doing
>>playing these games with themselves, it's just that doing all that
>>stops/blocks them from dealing with reality the way IT is and wants
>>to be and thus everyone is basically walking around in a dream
>>illusion of their own making, maybe coz it's a lot less scary that
>>way :)
> Step out of a high window and test if gravity works. There are rules
> however much you fantasise they don't apply to you.
### - well perhaps now you'll review your above statment(s)/affirmations in the light of my reply? (they also once believed/insisted that the sun went around the earth too didn't they, like how wrong could they have been! was the clue;)
>>that while it may be acceptable for children to live in imaginary
>>worlds of santa and the tooth fairy, adults should be able to take
>>reality more on the chin even if the reality of it IS a bit scary
>>(fucking scary in fact, maybe even terrifying heh, reality is
>>definitely not for the weak or the somehow frightened and feeble, it
>>takes guts and endless balls just to stand the sight of it and live,
>>yet it's in us to be able to do it - to find our original innocence...
> Exactly... there are rational rules you can't escape.... scary? That's
> kind of what we're supposed to decide for ourselves here. Revel in the
> rational, it can seem miraculous.
### - heh at such dogma, like we can't escape going for a shit every day just as much but let's not go making a philosophy out of that either? ;-)
>> ### - gave you enough info to work it out for yourself
> Work IT out, by myself ??
> You really are suicidal...
### - more 'aware' than suicidal, actually...
i.e...
"There's no secret to Zen, except standing on the verge of life &
death." --some 14th century samurai warrior/war lord ;)
> Ohrrrr;
> There;
> ya missed a spot ;)
>> the answer
> Movement;
>> (of which there isn't a rational one for either life or death)
> For which then Life is a meaningles term unless defined, and once defined
> excluding all sorts of interacting systems within systems.
### - oddly enough things were alive even before all the 'definitions'
(which is nothing less than a mental form of limiting and/or limitation for
the purposes of cataloguing things + the convenience of that) were humanly
invented/came along? (iow, we literally made it all up as we went along!:)
meaning-less, now that's a beginning! (or is it an end, one can never be too
sure about these things sometimes;)
"a clever man learns something new every day, whereas a wise man tries every
day to 'un-learn' something he's previously learned" --(dunno whom, some wise dude:)
> And causing interaction does include movement, so i am closer in my answer
> than you in your evasion.
> So there; plfffft!
> (open mouth, stick out tongue, close lips: blow (hot) air!)
> Windmills still not tilting ;)
### - lol, oh so you watched all that then did you? well done! (great play +
arguably the first novel ever written, apparently;) a classic that's even
mentioned in that daft 9th gate movie of strange book collectors:)
slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:
>>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>>what causes life?
>>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a ton
>>>about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not how it
>>>appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing obviously
>>>beyond the range of the limited rational mind that likes/prefers
>>>everything broken into two pieces for its convenience alone but
>>>which in such a broken/divided state is then incapable of
>>>seeing/perceiving the one from which all things actually emerge...
>>'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive
>>evidence. It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the
>>'limited rational mind.'
>### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it
>being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphamism for:
>we don't know:)
My point is that a lack of conclusive evidence does not justify your
assertion that it is beyond the range of the limited rational mind, as
your helpful example of the overthrow of the geocentric model of the
solar system clearly shows. As more evidence became available the
'limited rational mind' figured out the more correct order of things.
Aristarchus had put forward the idea in the 3rd centuary BC. It was the
irrational superstitious minds of the religious that helped retard the
acceptance of the new model.
We have a fair idea of how abiogenesis could occur, our information
gathering may yet fill in the blanks.
>>> eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>> to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational mind
>>> does, and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles and
>>> rabbits in the clouds where no such things actually exist except
>>> the white noise of chaos moving about in reason-less +
>>> purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>>There may well be a path (though I doubt a consious plan) 'eternity'
>>takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous expansion etc.),
>>again only dolts make firm judgements on insufficient evidence.
>### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily) make
>it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on insufficient
>evidence" being the rationalists making such assertions/assumptions
>in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black thingy for sure;)
You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
that your assertion/assumption?
Examining the universe to see what we can find out about it without
making your assumption seems better to me.
As for your strained leap from scientists theorising about how the
universe works to seeing patterns in the clouds.... it seems to me that
it is the poetic, irrational side of us that sees those patterns. It
tends not to be scientists who see the face of Jesus in their slice of
toast, or the wood grain of their table.
>>>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>>>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>>>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only honest
>>>thing to do under the circumstances is take them all with a pinch
>>>of salt, realising from the beginning the very limited (and thus
>>>distorting) tools they are and to never take them literally lest
>>>one falls into the trap of descriptions and concepts...
So if you ordered duck a l'orange in a restaurant and were brought an
old shoe you wouldn't complain, right?
>>>(the whole human race fell into it and drowned)
>>The human race is still alive....
>### - if you can 'call' that... living??
>>>>Do you see the connections ?
>>>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>>>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful
>>>towards someone who appears to you to be not in a nice place...
>>>it's just that my whole struggle is against precisely that
>>>joining of all the dots to make imaginary shapes and patterns in
>>>the clouds... it's what everyone does and insists is the right
>>>thing to do as though there is no other accepted or valid
>>>alternative to the one-size-fits-all method of the rational mind
>>>+ what can't be thus made/forced to fit that criteria is
>>>automatically discarded until only the rational view seems to
>>>exist...
>>These people who are insisting you think as they do... who are they
>>exactly?
>### - well, a bunch of stuffed shirts in the royal scientific
>institution just for starters no?
I don't think they give much of a shit what you think, have they been
sending you letters ordering you to think the way they do?
>(loads of people were laughed/ridiculed right out of there for not >thinking as the others did/do no? often people who actually turned out
> in the end to be even more correct than them!) -
No, not often. Mostly people who are ridiculed are ridiculed because
their ideas are ridiculous. There are a few that have been proved right
and caused a paradigm shift. They are famous and because of this seem
more numerous than they are.
>for everyone else it's just called: going to school :)
What would you have taught in schools if not the curent findings of our
civilization?
>>Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful)
>>patterns in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist? "I don't
>>know" is often a reasonable response.
>### - i was saying/suggesting that all humanity's rational beliefs
>and cherished mores (polished turds more like;) are mere patterns
>they are finding/making in the proverbial clouds (of otherwise chaos)
>and then calling that reality... iow, everything deemed 'meaningful'
>we literally invented ourselves, while at the same time totally
>ignoring anything (everything else iow) that doesn't fit the
>(rational) criteria... you know, the other 99.9 recurring percent
>that we apparently know fuck all about and prolly never will and find
>that very hard to accept kinda thing?:)
>>>but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and never
>>>the same twice, the self-imposed limits and limitations fall away
>>>and the now freed perception expands enormously, expotentionally
>>>and without limit... iow, the fallen/divided atom regains its
>>>original entangled superposition and spin and is again capable of
>>>feats of perception beyond the ability of a divided/fallen state,
>>>but even these words are something less than how things really
>>>are and as such are allusions only (not illusions but allusions)
>>>and should only be taken as such, they are merely fingers
>>>pointing at the moon, so it is no good to examine the fingers for
>>>anything important or meaningful beyond that which they are
>>>pointing/alluding to (the moon:)
>>There are things that (under like circumstances) happen without
>>fail. If you doubt this hold a masonry mallet directly above your
>>groin and drop it enough times to make the evaluation that the
>>result will never be pleasant (perversions excluded.)
>### - ok so say maybe there's 1% (or much less) of the universe that
>actually fits that criteria, that's no justification for viewing said
>universe exclusively in those terms, is it?? yet that's exactly what
>we do while arrogantly assuming the rest! (e.g. there's a 95%+ hole
>in the standard model and yet they insist we view the world according
>to that holy model)
What, that meaningfully impacts your existence, do you feel is
unexplained?
>>Bruce was way smarter than you IMO.
>>>so, so much for words, language and the rational mind... which i
>>>realise doesn't exactly leave us with very much in the way of
>>>tools to manipulate perception with, but then who ever
>>>said/suggested it should all be manipulated in the first place
>>>anyway! of course there is a lot of comfort in people thinking
>>>they know what we're doing playing these games with themselves,
>>>it's just that doing all that stops/blocks them from dealing with
>>>reality the way IT is and wants to be and thus everyone is
>>>basically walking around in a dream illusion of their own making,
>>>maybe coz it's a lot less scary that way :)
>>Step out of a high window and test if gravity works. There are rules
>>however much you fantasise they don't apply to you.
>### - well perhaps now you'll review your above
>statment(s)/affirmations in the light of my reply?
Will you review your statement(s)/affirmation(s)? If you truly believe
words are lies then you are just asking me to replace one lie with
another, but you clearly don't really believe this
> (they also once believed/insisted that the sun went around the earth > too didn't they, like how wrong could they have been! was the clue;)
Like, um, it was rational minds that had to overcome the irrational,
wishful thinking superstitions that reinforced the geocentric model.
>>>that while it may be acceptable for children to live in imaginary
>>>worlds of santa and the tooth fairy, adults should be able to take
>>>reality more on the chin even if the reality of it IS a bit scary
>>>(fucking scary in fact, maybe even terrifying heh, reality is
>>>definitely not for the weak or the somehow frightened and feeble,
>>>it takes guts and endless balls just to stand the sight of it and
>>>live, yet it's in us to be able to do it - to find our original
>>>innocence...
>>Exactly... there are rational rules you can't escape.... scary?
>>That's kind of what we're supposed to decide for ourselves here.
>>Revel in the rational, it can seem miraculous.
>heh at such dogma, like we can't escape going for a shit every
>day just as much but let's not go making a philosophy out of that
>either? ;-)
>>>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>>>what causes life?
>>>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a ton
>>>>about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not how it
>>>>appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing obviously
>>>>beyond the range of the limited rational mind that likes/prefers
>>>>everything broken into two pieces for its convenience alone but
>>>>which in such a broken/divided state is then incapable of
>>>>seeing/perceiving the one from which all things actually emerge...
>>>'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive
>>>evidence. It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the
>>>'limited rational mind.'
>>### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it
>>being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphamism for:
>>we don't know:)
> My point is that a lack of conclusive evidence does not justify your
> assertion that it is beyond the range of the limited rational mind, as
> your helpful example of the overthrow of the geocentric model of the
> solar system clearly shows. As more evidence became available the
> 'limited rational mind' figured out the more correct order of things.
> Aristarchus had put forward the idea in the 3rd centuary BC. It was the
> irrational superstitious minds of the religious that helped retard the
> acceptance of the new model.
> We have a fair idea of how abiogenesis could occur, our information
> gathering may yet fill in the blanks.
### - and 'maybe' it wont? i.e. it's merely an (supposedly intelligent)
assumption that the blanks 'will' be filled in, and until that time
everyone's going on an assumption just like they did with the geocentric
model, which, incidentally, turned out to be completely in error (couldn't
have been more wrong!) and thus there were supposedly intelligent people in
that time walking around thinking that they knew what was going on only of
course they were almost completely mad...
the point being... so what's to say that the 'current' model is any more
correct or any less insane with all its 95+ percent blanks?
>>>> eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>>> to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational mind
>>>> does, and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles and
>>>> rabbits in the clouds where no such things actually exist except
>>>> the white noise of chaos moving about in reason-less +
>>>> purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>>>There may well be a path (though I doubt a consious plan) 'eternity'
>>>takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous expansion etc.),
>>>again only dolts make firm judgements on insufficient evidence.
>>### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily) make
>>it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on insufficient
>>evidence" being the rationalists making such assertions/assumptions
>>in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black thingy for sure;)
> You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
> that your assertion/assumption?
> Examining the universe to see what we can find out about it without
> making your assumption seems better to me.
### - i know it 'seems' like a worthy cause, but that's only because reason
per se figures that that seems the right (plus logical/rational) way to
proceed, even if 95+ percent of it is missing, iow reason (perforce
justifying itself and its own workings) assumes that the tiny bit of info
it's gathered so far (less than 5%) is gonna give us the key to the rest of
it...
also, there is no discernable path or patterns in the swirling + expanding
chaos that is the universe... i.e. chaos is chaos precisely because there's
no cohearance to it (which is what makes it chaos in the first place), to
then let reason find (or more correctly: make) patterns and paths in that
swirling cloud of chaos and say that they're actually meaningful is merely
reason lying to itself in order to justify its own continuation...
> As for your strained leap from scientists theorising about how the
> universe works to seeing patterns in the clouds.... it seems to me that
> it is the poetic, irrational side of us that sees those patterns. It
> tends not to be scientists who see the face of Jesus in their slice of
> toast, or the wood grain of their table.
### - one could say/observe that religion preceeded reason, in that it's
almost exactly the same technique that's being applied: that of 'making'
sense of things where no sense is actually to be found, in which case reason
is merely the upgraded version of the same old same old, it is merely
religion with bells and whistles on :)
iow, we have a mania (or rather: reason has a mania) of going around
thinking that it knows what's going on, basically because it derives an
enormous amount of comfort from thinking this about its own constructs, plus
it does this (plus obtains that very comfort) regardless of whether it's
actually correct or not, history repeatedly showing us that what seems most
sensible today is more than likely discovered to be total nonsense again
tomorrow...
>>>>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>>>>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>>>>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only honest
>>>>thing to do under the circumstances is take them all with a pinch
>>>>of salt, realising from the beginning the very limited (and thus
>>>>distorting) tools they are and to never take them literally lest
>>>>one falls into the trap of descriptions and concepts...
> So if you ordered duck a l'orange in a restaurant and were brought an
> old shoe you wouldn't complain, right?
### - well it would certainly be a bit different wouldn't it lol :)
the point being, that one shouldn't ever take the workings of said reason as
being gospel, else that would be to be treating reason as a faith (which is
precisely what it actually is, a belief:)
>>>>(the whole human race fell into it and drowned)
>>>The human race is still alive....
>>### - if you can 'call' that... living??
> Yes, were you expecting something more?
### - well then i'll let 'you' explain that to the kid that's just had all
its arms and legs blown off for nothing, ok? were you really expecting
something more kid?? (duh)
>>>>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>>>>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful
>>>>towards someone who appears to you to be not in a nice place...
>>>>it's just that my whole struggle is against precisely that
>>>>joining of all the dots to make imaginary shapes and patterns in
>>>>the clouds... it's what everyone does and insists is the right
>>>>thing to do as though there is no other accepted or valid
>>>>alternative to the one-size-fits-all method of the rational mind
>>>>+ what can't be thus made/forced to fit that criteria is
>>>>automatically discarded until only the rational view seems to
>>>>exist...
>>>These people who are insisting you think as they do... who are they
>>>exactly?
>>### - well, a bunch of stuffed shirts in the royal scientific
>>institution just for starters no?
> I don't think they give much of a shit what you think, have they been
> sending you letters ordering you to think the way they do?
### - then you're a bit slow? coz those particular bozo's are basically
calling all the shots for the rest of us plus dictating how everyone should
live + what they should or should not aspire to... was my point:)
>>(loads of people were laughed/ridiculed right out of there for not
>>thinking as the others did/do no? often people who actually turned out
>> in the end to be even more correct than them!) -
> No, not often. Mostly people who are ridiculed are ridiculed because
> their ideas are ridiculous. There are a few that have been proved right
> and caused a paradigm shift. They are famous and because of this seem
> more numerous than they are.
### - you're still missing the actual point here, in that anything that
tends to contradict the accepted (i want to say dogma) norm, is typically
rejected! and this regardless of whether it's correct or not (something
which has occured often enough anyway to make the point)
>>for everyone else it's just called: going to school :)
> What would you have taught in schools if not the curent findings of our
> civilization?
### - exactly! :) iow, regardless of how wrong it usually is (and has been
to date so far in countless civilisations before ours) it's nevertheless
always indocrinated into the populace as being ipso facto correct, often
upon pain of death for dissent, or more recently: upon pain of ridicule and
marginalisation for an equivilent heresy... (meet the new boss, same as the
old boss?:)
>>>Who is insisting that there are (I assume you mean meaningful)
>>>patterns in the clouds? Are you just assuming they exist? "I don't
>>>know" is often a reasonable response.
>>### - i was saying/suggesting that all humanity's rational beliefs
>>and cherished mores (polished turds more like;) are mere patterns
>>they are finding/making in the proverbial clouds (of otherwise chaos)
>>and then calling that reality... iow, everything deemed 'meaningful'
>>we literally invented ourselves, while at the same time totally
>>ignoring anything (everything else iow) that doesn't fit the
>>(rational) criteria... you know, the other 99.9 recurring percent
>>that we apparently know fuck all about and prolly never will and find
>>that very hard to accept kinda thing?:)
>>>>but take that (rational mind) away and everything is new and never
>>>>the same twice, the self-imposed limits
>>>>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>>>>what causes life?
>>>>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a
>>>>>ton about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not
>>>>>how it appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing
>>>>>obviously beyond the range of the limited rational mind that
>>>>>likes/prefers everything broken into two pieces for its
>>>>>convenience alone but which in such a broken/divided state is
>>>>>then incapable of seeing/perceiving the one from which all
>>>>>things actually emerge...
>>>>'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive
>>>>evidence. It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the
>>>>'limited rational mind.'
>>>### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it
>>>being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphamism
>>>for: we don't know:)
>>My point is that a lack of conclusive evidence does not justify your
>>assertion that it is beyond the range of the limited rational mind,
>>as your helpful example of the overthrow of the geocentric model of
>>the solar system clearly shows. As more evidence became available
>>the 'limited rational mind' figured out the more correct order of
>>things. Aristarchus had put forward the idea in the 3rd century
>>BC. It was the irrational superstitious minds of the religious that
>>helped retard the acceptance of the new model.
>>We have a fair idea of how abiogenesis could occur, our information
>>gathering may yet fill in the blanks.
>### - and 'maybe' it wont? i.e. it's merely an (supposedly
>intelligent) assumption that the blanks 'will' be filled in,
No, the intelligent *hope* is that the blanks can be filled in. If
people wish to devote time and effort in pursuit of that hope then I
fully support them.
Your argument is akin to saying "What is 2 + (another number we don't
know)" and deciding maths is beyond the "limited rational mind" if we
can't solve it.
>and until that time everyone's going on an assumption just like they >did with the geocentric model, which, incidentally, turned out to be
>completely in error (couldn't have been more wrong!)
They're going on a practically applicable best model not a baseless
assumption.
> and thus there were supposedly intelligent people in that time
walking > round thinking that they knew what was going on only of
course they
> were almost completely mad...
People who are incorrect are mad? That's a lazy and rather silly
assumption you're making there.
>the point being... so what's to say that the 'current' model is any
>more correct or any less insane with all its 95+ percent blanks?
The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on millions
of observations, making refinement much more likely that paradigm shift.
Our current model is good enough to be workable as we use it in the
launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.
As for 95+% blanks, so far all you've given me is 'why am I here?.' How
are you gauging the size of the blanks? Are you just assuming there are
huge amounts of things we don't know about? How do you know?
>>>>>eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>>>>to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational
>>>>>mind does, and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles
>>>>>and rabbits in the clouds where no such things actually exist
>>>>>except the white noise of chaos moving about in reason-less +
>>>>>purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>>>>There may well be a path (though I doubt a consious plan)
>>>>'eternity' takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous
>>>>expansion etc.), again only dolts make firm judgements on
>>>>insufficient evidence.
>>>### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily)
>>>make it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on
>>>insufficient evidence" being the rationalists making such
>>>assertions/assumptions in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black
>>>thingy for sure;)
>>You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
>>that your assertion/assumption?
>>Examining the universe to see what we can find out about it without
>>making your assumption seems better to me.
>### - i know it 'seems' like a worthy cause, but that's only because
>reason per se figures that that seems the right (plus
logical/rational) >way to proceed,
You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?
>even if 95+ percent of it is missing,
> iow reason (perforce justifying itself and its own workings)
>assumes that the tiny bit of info it's gathered so far (less than 5%)
>is gonna give us the key to the rest of it...
No it doesn't. It believes that trying to explore our environment is
more useful than wallowing in ignorance. Even if your assumed figure is
correct have you no interest in exploring and investigating the
remainder to our best ability?
>also, there is no discernable path or patterns in the swirling +
>expanding chaos that is the universe... >i.e. chaos is chaos precisely
>because there's no cohearance to it (which is what makes it chaos in
>the first place), to then let reason find (or more correctly: make)
>patterns and paths in that swirling cloud of chaos and say that
>they're actually meaningful is merely reason lying to itself in order
>to justify its own continuation...
Right, so we can predict the positions of hundreds of thousands of
stars and stellar objects at any given time in the future by.....
magic? Is that what you're saying. Planets don't rotate, revolve round
suns, there are no spiral galaxies revolving around a central point?
Stars change their course randomly in your world? Even you have
discerned the pattern of expansion.
>>As for your strained leap from scientists theorising about how the
>>universe works to seeing patterns in the clouds.... it seems to me
>>that it is the poetic, irrational side of us that sees those
>>patterns. It tends not to be scientists who see the face of Jesus
>>in their slice of toast, or the wood grain of their table.
>### - one could say/observe that religion preceeded reason,
No, reason preceded religion.
>in that
>it's almost exactly the same technique that's being applied: that of
>'making' sense of things where no sense is actually to be found,
Your blind assumption that there are no patterns and no sense
re-appears.
>in which case reason is merely the upgraded version of the same old >same old, it is merely religion with bells and whistles on :)
That's facile claptrap. Religions are, very generally, dogmatic and
believe they have all the answers that are needed. Rationality is
always open to revising it's models based on the availability of new
information. Religions are faith based reason is based on empirical
observation and logic.
>iow, we have a mania (or rather: reason has a mania) of going around
>thinking that it knows what's going on, basically because it derives
>an enormous amount of comfort from thinking this about its own
>constructs, plus it does this (plus obtains that very comfort)
>regardless of whether it's actually correct or not,
That's what you think you know, is it? That's what you assume is going
on?
>history
>repeatedly showing us that what seems most sensible today is more
>than likely discovered to be total nonsense again tomorrow...
As I've said, when rational people have more information they change
the model they work to. The current model of physics is clearly not
nonsense as it is proven useful in practical circumstances.
>>>>>well, yes and no... in that ultimately all words are lies
>>>>>anyway, so we can never take them or the descriptions they
>>>>>form-u-late as being accurate beyond a point, thus the only
>>>>>honest thing to do under the circumstances is take them all
>>>>>with a pinch of salt, realising from the beginning the very
>>>>>limited (and thus distorting) tools they are and to never
>>>>>take them literally lest one falls into the trap of
>>>>>descriptions and concepts...
>>So if you ordered duck a l'orange in a restaurant and were brought
>>an old shoe you wouldn't complain, right?
>### - well it would certainly be a bit different wouldn't it lol :)
>the point being, that one shouldn't ever take the workings of said
>reason as being gospel,
Living in your world must be scary, you can never be sure enough of the
reasonable and rational people who design boats and planes to get on
either. When you select TV channel 4 on your remote you must wonder
what channel will actually appear, assuming your telly doesn't turn
into a blue whale.
> else that would be to be treating reason as a faith (which is > precisely what it actually is, a belief:)
In your limited understanding of reason that may be true, you can join
the real world any-time.
>>>>>(the whole human race fell into it and drowned)
>>>>The human race is still alive....
>>>### - if you can 'call' that... living??
>>Yes, were you expecting something more?
>### - well then i'll let 'you' explain that to the kid that's just
>had all its arms and legs blown off for nothing, ok?
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position."
That kid isn't 'the whole human race.'
> were you really expecting something more kid?? (duh)
>>>>>>Do you see the connections ?
>>>>>i see exactly what you mean/intend and have done from the
>>>>>beginning, i also see that you are trying to be kind/helpful
>>>>>towards someone who appears to you to be not in a nice
>>>>>place... it's
dccxxvii ( the.imperfect....@gmail.com ) wrote to alt.magick:
>The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
>appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on
>millions of observations, making refinement much more likely that
>paradigm shift. Our current model is good enough to be workable as
>we use it in the launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.
*more likely _than_
---
>Well you're making even more assumptions there. It's been over 2,300
>years and probably more (anyone by a shoreline would have seen the
>curve of the earth just by looking out to see) since someone figured
>out we were living on a globe, what other Earth shattering discoveries
>are you talking about?
dccxxvii wrote...
>>>>>>### - might as well ask what is life?
>>>>>>what causes life?
>>>>>>well they still have no answers for that one, they can talk a
>>>>>>ton about life and its diversity 'after' it appears but not
>>>>>>how it appeared in the first place, it's a mystery existing
>>>>>>obviously beyond the range of the limited rational mind that
>>>>>>likes/prefers everything broken into two pieces for its
>>>>>>convenience alone but which in such a broken/divided state is
>>>>>>then incapable of seeing/perceiving the one from which all
>>>>>>things actually emerge...
>>>>>'They' have many possible answers, just a lack of conclusive
>>>>>evidence. It is clearly not, then, beyond the range of the
>>>>>'limited rational mind.'
>>>>### - a 'lack' of conclusive evidence is hardly 'evidence' for it
>>>>being 'in' range? (a lack of conclusive evidence is a euphemism
>>>>for: we don't know:)
>>>My point is that a lack of conclusive evidence does not justify your
>>>assertion that it is beyond the range of the limited rational mind,
>>>as your helpful example of the overthrow of the geocentric model of
>>>the solar system clearly shows. As more evidence became available
>>>the 'limited rational mind' figured out the more correct order of
>>>things. Aristarchus had put forward the idea in the 3rd century
>>>BC. It was the irrational superstitious minds of the religious that
>>>helped retard the acceptance of the new model.
>>>We have a fair idea of how abiogenesis could occur, our information
>>>gathering may yet fill in the blanks.
>>### - and 'maybe' it wont? i.e. it's merely an (supposedly
>>intelligent) assumption that the blanks 'will' be filled in,
> No, the intelligent *hope* is that the blanks can be filled in. If
> people wish to devote time and effort in pursuit of that hope then I
> fully support them.
### - well, "hopes" and "may yets" are hardly the rock solid ground you
imply in your argument/ "intelligent assumption" that seems to lend credence
to the 'belief' people (like yourself) harbour that those blanks 'will' in
fact be filled in?
Iow, if you are going to hold up hopes and/or may-yets as being some kind of
valid argument, then the opposite equally applies in that they also 'may
not'be able to fill in said blanks... i mean, one can certainly 'hope' that
that
will be the case, or even assume that will be the case if one is given to
having such faith in the abilities of reason to one day actually grasp it,
but it is by no means guaranteed that that will definitely be the case
(basically because to act in that manner would actually be papering-over the
(95+%) cracks in favour of an argument that can only currently support a
surface 5%)
Now if they already had 95% data and were only looking for the remaining
missing 5%, then i might have even agreed with you, but the reverse is
actually the truth here: i.e. you're 'assuming' the other 95% is going to be
similar to the 5% already gathered, and that's an awful lot of room for
error
> Your argument is akin to saying "What is 2 + (another number we don't
> know)" and deciding maths is beyond the "limited rational mind" if we
> can't solve it.
### - nonsense, the argument is merely suggesting that 5% isn't really
enough to decide the matter finally and thus that one should perhaps (i.e.
intelligently) keep a more open mind to some of that missing 95% (the vast
majority after all) maybe even totally contradicting the little we think we
do know, and coz anything less would be sheer arrogance that is virtually
guaranteed to make dreadful errors, perhaps even fatal ones
>>and until that time everyone's going on an assumption just like they
>>did with the geocentric model, which, incidentally, turned out to be
>>completely in error (couldn't have been more wrong!)
> They're going on a practically applicable best model not a baseless
> assumption.
### - right, a best model that is only 5% complete, which although not
'totally' baseless due to that 5%, is still actually assuming an awful lot
about what it can't see and then processing that huge unknown to fit around
the minority (like that's always worked out so well before, ever?)
>> and thus there were supposedly intelligent people in that time
> walking > round thinking that they knew what was going on only of
> course they
>> were almost completely mad...
> People who are incorrect are mad? That's a lazy and rather silly
> assumption you're making there.
### - heh well people who are incorrect aren't exactly right in the head are
they? (grin)
i.e. 'insanity' in that sense is to not know what one is actually doing,
and/or to 'think' one does know what they are doing except they're not
actually correct & don't realise it hehehe...
the only leeway i can give you there being that 'deluded' people aren't
always necessarily totally/hopelessly insane, they might just be deluded (in
which case it might be curable, but until it is they're basically definitely
off their trolleys innit!)
>>the point being... so what's to say that the 'current' model is any
>>more correct or any less insane with all its 95+ percent blanks?
> The geocentric model was based on one observation - that the Sun
> appeared to go round the Earth - the current model is based on millions
> of observations, making refinement much more likely that paradigm shift.
> Our current model is good enough to be workable as we use it in the
> launch and travel of space vehicles and probes.
### - one cannot deny that it functions... to a fashion... and that based on
that we've created the modern world... it's just some people (most of them
artists as it goes) are of the opinion/conviction that the so called modern
world is actually a travesty (if not a complete disaster) in the making?
So okay, we can send rockets to the moon! Whoo-hoo! But did we really have
have to poison everyone and everything on earth in order to do it, plus if
true, would that not be a form of madness to have done so? (i may speak in
extremes to make my point but you surely still understand what i'm
saying/suggesting no?)
> As for 95+% blanks, so far all you've given me is 'why am I here?.' How
> are you gauging the size of the blanks? Are you just assuming there are
> huge amounts of things we don't know about? How do you know?
### - oh yea of so little short term memory? heh... i.e. this was all said
in direct reference to the 'standard model' of which the majority is
currently made up of dark energy and dark matter (euphemisms for we dunno
wtf it could possibly be coz it's nothing we've looked at so far) all we do
know being that there's a feckin' big something there that we just don't
understand (even as much as maybe 95% of the whole) a kind of 'dark hole'
(heh:) that like black holes, we may never actually be 'able' to see into
due to the nature of it, and wherein physics as we know it could be
completely different, or even completely off the map!
>>>>>>eternity has no plans and never did have any to begin with,
>>>>>>to see patterns in the chaos is something only the rational
>>>>>>mind does, and the next thing one is seeing imaginary poodles
>>>>>>and rabbits in the clouds where no such things actually exist
>>>>>>except the white noise of chaos moving about in reason-less +
>>>>>>purpose-less motion...there's nothing cheesy about it:)
>>>>>There may well be a path (though I doubt a conscious plan)
>>>>>'eternity' takes (repetitive expansion/contraction, continuous
>>>>>expansion etc.), again only dolts make firm judgements on
>>>>>insufficient evidence.
>>>>### - calling something a path doesn't actually (or necessarily)
>>>>make it one, the "dolts making making firm judgements on
>>>>insufficient evidence" being the rationalists making such
>>>>assertions/assumptions in the first place? (a pot-kettle-black
>>>>thingy for sure;)
>>>You seem to be saying there is definitely no path, no pattern, isn't
>>>that your assertion/assumption?
>>>Examining the universe to see what we can find out about it without
>>>making your assumption seems better to me.
>>### - i know it 'seems' like a worthy cause, but that's only because
>>reason per se figures that that seems the right (plus
> logical/rational) >way to proceed,
> You would prefer ignorance and a lack of curiosity?
### - no, if anything i would prefer intelligently/more honestly walking the
tightrope/watershed that exists between the two above extremes (there isn't
anything else;)
>>even if 95+ percent of it is missing,
>> iow reason (perforce justifying itself and its own workings)
>>assumes that the tiny bit of info it's gathered so far (less than 5%)
>>is gonna give us the key to the rest of it...
> No it doesn't. It believes that trying to explore our environment is
> more useful than wallowing in ignorance. Even if your assumed figure is
> correct have you no interest in exploring and investigating the
> remainder to our best ability?
### - don't you ever think it odd then how "exploring our environment" has
correlated with destroying our environment? (e.g. sending rockets to the
moon while people here on earth are actually staving to death, i mean,
doesn't that strike you as being oh just a tinge of being totally fucking
insane??)
>>also, there is no discernible path or patterns in the swirling +
>>expanding chaos that is the universe...
>>i.e. chaos is chaos precisely
>>because there's no clearance to it (which is what makes it chaos in
>>the first place), to then let reason find (or more correctly: make)
>>patterns and paths in that swirling cloud of chaos and say that
>>they're actually meaningful is merely reason lying to itself in order
>>to justify its own continuation...
> Right, so we can predict the positions of hundreds
### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial dust :)
woah yea of such short attention span heh, how can anyone of so little
concentration ever hope to climb the walls of so-called 'progress' and
escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies beyond the
invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man to a dungeon hell
of his own creation and from which there is no escape but that of death?
oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)
evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring wands
with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating in such a
fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know they are dreaming
(awww sad:)
but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe, the
keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it least, in the
very things one perforce takes for granted and never questions...
slider ( sli...@anashram.com ) wrote to alt.magick:
>### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial
>dust :)
Yet another one? Bites the dust? Do you often just give up like this?
Oh well, never mind.
>woah yea of such short attention span heh,
You could change that about yourself if you wanted to.
>how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb the walls
>of so-called 'progress'
There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very good
at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more and more.
>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies
>beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man
>to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which there is no
>escape but that of death?
Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel the
same? Do you *want* to believe other people are confined to a dungeon
of hell?
>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)
You have freedom now.
>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating
>in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know
>they are dreaming (awww sad:)
You're confusing yourself with bullshit.
>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
>somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe,
>the keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it
>least, in the very things one perforce takes for granted and never
>questions...
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWPOIbsldE
This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.
He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold you
a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.
He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
for granted he's right about that.
He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.
>the science delusion! (science set free :)
More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'
You start off denigrating rationality and support that position with a
video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a totally
slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to support his
Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the feeble-minded that
science is a religion too.
His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just about
anyone who understands science, and he argues against this view of his
own creation.
A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.
He's a boring speaker though.
>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider
You too.
>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)
Keep taking the meds dude.
-- ========
dccxxvii
========
I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.
dccxxvii wrote...
>>### - oh well, looks like yet another one has bitten the proverbial
>>dust :)
> Yet another one? Bites the dust? Do you often just give up like this?
> Oh well, never mind.
## - ahem, you were the one who stopped replying, not me :)
>>woah yea of such short attention span heh,
> You could change that about yourself if you wanted to.
>>how can anyone of so little concentration ever hope to climb the walls
>>of so-called 'progress'
> There are no walls to climb, It's more like riding a unicycle toward
> the horizon. You can never reach the horizon but you can get very good
> at riding the unicycle, and even get to enjoy the view more and more.
### - walls, unicycles, call it whatever ya want coz there's absolutely
nothing like that at all literally, words beings allusions only and
poetry/metaphors at best it matters not the words or the way they are
employed but the message conveyed thereby to those with the ears to hear it
(iow, you really shouldn't take yourself so seriously all the time and try
to be a little more... open-minded;)
>>and escape to erm, whatever it is people call it these days that lies
>>beyond the invented rule and measure that has ultimately confined man
>>to a dungeon hell of his own creation and from which there is no
>>escape but that of death?
> Do you feel trapped and confined? Do you believe other people feel the
> same? Do you *want* to believe other people are confined to a dungeon
> of hell?
### - it's not a matter of 'belief' but of observation that humanity is all
locked up and the key thrown away, as an 'outsider' (you might have to look
that term from literature up;) i am anything but trapped or confined, but
having originally come from that hell myself i can certainly appreciate how
others still are and are forced to live like prisoners on death row, trapped
as they are in a prison-house... of ideas:)
>>oh yeah, freedom, that's what they called it heh, freedom! ;-)
> You have freedom now.
### - to know what is freedom first one must know/realise: what is the
prison, glasshopper ;-)
>>evil magicians have of course beguiled you's with their measuring
>>wands with which they have drawn down a veil of sleepiness, creating
>>in such a fashion the world of the sleepwalkers that don't even know
>>they are dreaming (awww sad:)
> You're confusing yourself with bullshit.
### - it's not bs to refer to scientists spreading their 'dogma' as being
evil magicians, you just don't personally get it is all (worse, you don't
want to coz you'd have to start over and you're just too proud to do so:)
>>but fear not oh my lost brothers (heh;) for a way still exists for the
>>somehow couragous and brave, or even just the terminally bored hehe,
>>the keys to that bolted door existing where one might suspect it
>>least, in the very things one perforce takes for granted and never
>>questions...
> This fruit loop just makes shit up and you swallow it whole.
> He tells you science has 10 dogma's and you believe it, bet he sold you
> a book with his fictitious portrayal of these pseudo-dogmas.
> He tells you everyone takes these things for granted and you take it
> for granted he's right about that.
> He gives you an excuse to be a lazy thinker and you grasp it.
### - nope, he merely puts what i have been arguing for into a nutshell for
you seeing as you've been having such a hard time understanding something
that's really quite simple and an established fact in history albeit talking
about previous so-called rulers of the world (prison officials), go figure:)
>>the science delusion! (science set free :)
> More like 'science misrepresented and delusion set free'
> You start off denigrating rationality and support that position with a
> video of Rupert Sheldrake trying to argue rationally (from a totally
> slanted point of view) against science. Doing his best to support his
> Anglican Christianity by trying to convince the feeble-minded that
> science is a religion too.
> His view of science appears to be one that isn't shared by just about
> anyone who understands science, and he argues against this view of his
> own creation.
> A pseudo-scientist selling a book, good for him.
### - he IS actually a scientist according to his qualifications, background
and training, and while i don't agree with 'everything' he says, he
nevertheless makes a good argument and case worthy of discussion and
examination, but if you're too afraid to look at that coz it makes you feel
so terribly threatened then perhaps your own argument and stance needs
urgent reviewing with perhaps a little more, shall we say... objectivity?:)
> He's a boring speaker though.
>>hohoho! and a very merry xmas to all from slider
> You too.
>>(well ya gotta watch out for that sanity clause innit ;-)
> Keep taking the meds dude.
### - ah so, the mask eventually beings to slip as we start to see the real
(angry) man behind the loud and eloquent voice eh? (suck it up good dude,
the language you've learned to parrot that makes you feel like you're
somehow actually superior to others who can't speak it, is just more sophist
bullshit that has been plaguing humanity since flim-flam and the con men
using it first appeared:)
> I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.
### - well how unimaginative and staid of you hehe, plus i'm using one right
now that can't been seen but basically means... you're a dickhead;)
---------------------
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present
moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one
fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and
nothing else to pursue." --from Hagakure, the book of the Samurai
