Nonviolence: Give the Banana to the Lion!
donquijote1954
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
lion...
When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
monkeys survived him...)
This is what the smart monkey would do, based on this slogan...
MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR?
"Make love, not war," was not just a protest against the indifference
and lack of humaneness in Vietnam; it was also a positive statement
that love between parent and child, teacher and pupil, fiance and
fiancee, and husband and wife is an activity we should try to pursue in
the house when work is not necessary. It is the one real source of
truth, beauty, and salvation in a community where deceit, corruption,
and impersonality seem to be rampant. -Jerome Kagan
And what better way to make love than to give the banana to the roaring
lion? The monkey knows that the lion is more powerful than him, and
knows he better use his own weapons, so he decides to be funny, that
being his natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars:
"Monkey, I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right
now." And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's
doubtful as the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my
banana..." WHEN THE LION ROARS AT YOU, GIVE HIM THE BANANA!
"You Can Eat My Banana" t-shirts already in production!!!
more...
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40
THE BANANA PARTY!
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote85
George Cherry
"donquijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136913296....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, some innovative approach to nonviolence, based on this story...
>
> THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
> Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
> day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
> seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
> JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
> have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
> devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
> lion...
>
> When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
> for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
> indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
> the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
> monkeys survived him...)
>
>
> This is what the smart monkey would do, based on this slogan...
>
> MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR?
> "Make love, not war," was not just a protest against the indifference
> and lack of humaneness in Vietnam; it was also a positive statement
> that love between parent and child, teacher and pupil, fiance and
> fiancee, and husband and wife is an activity we should try to pursue in
> the house when work is not necessary. It is the one real source of
> truth, beauty, and salvation in a community where deceit, corruption,
> and impersonality seem to be rampant. -Jerome Kagan
There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war--which
motivated the middle class to rebell against the
war that could involve themselves or their children
getting conscripted and killed. I used to cross a
picket line of MIT students demonstrating against
the war in order to get to my office. Hey, now its all
poor kids who enlisted and get killed. The MIT students
couldn't care much less about them.
> And what better way to make love than to give the banana to the roaring
> lion? The monkey knows that the lion is more powerful than him, and
> knows he better use his own weapons, so he decides to be funny, that
> being his natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars:
> "Monkey, I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right
> now." And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's
> doubtful as the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my
> banana..." WHEN THE LION ROARS AT YOU, GIVE HIM THE BANANA!
>
> "You Can Eat My Banana" t-shirts already in production!!!
LOL. Sounds like a double entendre to me.
George
donquijote1954
Deep insight into the jungle. The only hope is that they run out of
"voluntary" conscripts, though economics (poverty) makes very hard to
resist...
HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY
One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances to
drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of
resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it
was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite words...
Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in
the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season the
little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the Lion
waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had
to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more importantly, the
little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as the quick way out
of poverty..."
And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle
--to the effect of exploring life in other planets...
Moral: "It is no use fixing our minds on higher things if we ignore
what is going on around us." (Moral of 'The Astronomer,' by Aesop...
http://www.fairytalescollection.com/Aesop_Fables/The_Astronomer.htm)
NOTE: THE LITTLE ANIMALS NEED THEIR OWN WELL (COOPERATIVES, UNIONS,
CREDIT UNIONS, SELF-EMPLOYMENT), BUT NO ONE WILL BUILD IT FOR THEM, BUT
THEMSELVES... (see the situation in America at
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/opinion/13437786.htm)
policy
democracy on the planet called America touted by american govt.
Right donquijote ?
If you are saying this law of jungle theory applies to america, do you also
think then that the monkeys should take up arms and kill the lion ?
"donquijote1954" <nolionn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136913296....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donquijote1954
policy wrote:
> This LAW OF THE JUNGLE applies to dictatorships and not to the greatest
> democracy on the planet called America touted by american govt.
>
> Right donquijote ?
>
> If you are saying this law of jungle theory applies to america, do you also
> think then that the monkeys should take up arms and kill the lion ?
Well, yes and no. YES to the first one, and NO to the second.
That it ain't a democracy, I don't think there's much argument about
it...
"Most of America's many political, economic, and social ills are
caused or aggravated by its most fundamental problem: America is not
really a democracy but a plutocracy essentially owned and operated by a
wealthy few. Our government is populated by and first and best serves a
wealthy elite that holds a perpetual hegemony of power and wealth
through the generations, much to the detriment of the rest of the
populace. Elections, offices, and the favors of government are bought
just like any other commodity. Most of the populace is effectively
disfranchised and powerless. Individual freedom and economic security
are increasingly crushed by the twin assaults of ever growing
government and corporate power."
http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/#intro
As for the second, I say no. Already the "violent monkeys" are working
at it but it may firstly STRENGHTEN the lion, secondly have innocents
killed, and thirdly being plain unnecessary. I'd follow this other path
that I call "taming the lion"...
Who will put the bell on the cat? Well, only you can:
-DO NOT FEED THE LION* (we are confronting a Hungry Lion, so he's most
vulnerable to this)
-VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (don't live with predators, don't work for
predators--if you can afford it--and that's why we need ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY)
-NONVIOLENCE IS BETTER** (don't dress as a lion--he loves to play the
victim)
-CRY LION! (the lion can only prey because of camouflage, so your alarm
may save others)
-NO LION NO PROBLEM!*** (do not accept the beast, physically or
mentally--mental slavery--in your life)
*see "The Role of Boycotts"...
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-24.htm & "Enough"...
http://www.enough.org.uk/index.html#cont
**"Violence used against oppression, Gandhi believed, was not only
wrong, it was a mistake."
(http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/india/satyagraha.html)
***"Fear makes us the instruments of Power. When we are afraid, we
obey." (http://www.fragmentsweb.org/fourtx/powfertx.html)
Fluidly Unsure
> policy wrote:
>
>>This LAW OF THE JUNGLE applies to dictatorships and not to the greatest
>>democracy on the planet called America touted by american govt.
>>
>>Right donquijote ?
>>
>>If you are saying this law of jungle theory applies to america, do you also
>>think then that the monkeys should take up arms and kill the lion ?
>
>
>
> Well, yes and no. YES to the first one, and NO to the second.
>
> That it ain't a democracy, I don't think there's much argument about
> it...
Very few claim it is. Read about the American constitution and why it is a
combination of Democracy and Republic. It protected both the minority and the
majority so Rhode Island couldn't be bullied by Virginia but the common man had
much more say than a monarchy. (Yes it was considered an option)
> "Most of America's many political, economic, and social ills are
> caused or aggravated by its most fundamental problem: America is not
> really a democracy but a plutocracy essentially owned and operated by a
> wealthy few. Our government is populated by and first and best serves a
> wealthy elite that holds a perpetual hegemony of power and wealth
> through the generations, much to the detriment of the rest of the
> populace. Elections, offices, and the favors of government are bought
> just like any other commodity. Most of the populace is effectively
> disfranchised and powerless. Individual freedom and economic security
> are increasingly crushed by the twin assaults of ever growing
> government and corporate power."
I seem to remember Will Smith talking about how people from the African
continent looked up to Africans in America. Less than 30% of the population and
they still have a say in governmental policies!
Just because a few think they are disenfranchised doesn't mean they truly are.
> http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/#intro
>
> As for the second, I say no. Already the "violent monkeys" are working
> at it but it may firstly STRENGHTEN the lion, secondly have innocents
> killed, and thirdly being plain unnecessary. I'd follow this other path
> that I call "taming the lion"...
>
> Who will put the bell on the cat? Well, only you can:
> -DO NOT FEED THE LION* (we are confronting a Hungry Lion, so he's most
> vulnerable to this)
Or when you are giving him a banana. He'll probably chomp about 3/4 of your arm
off and you'll perish because you can't get the hang of feeding yourself with
your other arm. With your lack of coordination every time you try to eat a
banana itself, it ends-up in your ear.
Both monkeys bearing bananas and hippies bearing flowers run into that problem.
> -VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (don't live with predators, don't work for
> predators--if you can afford it--and that's why we need ECONOMIC
> DEMOCRACY)
The open-market is the most democratic system that has ever existed on the face
of this earth. When people vote with their pocket books, they are deciding the
future of the market and shaping how it will evolve. Not only that but they are
probably balancing their needs to their abilities much wiser than a any
bureaucrat could. Hense, your pocket book is more important than your sex, race,
or physical/mental/nuerological inadequacies. Every one can be a soldier of
change and if someone becomes a tyrant, they are setting themselves up for
demise. The market will listen to both you and others.
[snip]
> -CRY LION! (the lion can only prey because of camouflage, so your alarm
> may save others)
Maybe, maybe not. But it will open you up to a greater threat. You will have a
greater chance of being eaten while your antics confused others to the point
that they are vulnerable to being the lions next meal. So you've just guaranteed
the Lion dinner for the rest of the week! (You're such a good guy/gal/other)
> -NO LION NO PROBLEM!*** (do not accept the beast, physically or
> mentally--mental slavery--in your life)
[snip]
> **"Violence used against oppression, Gandhi believed, was not only
> wrong, it was a mistake."
Only if you were completely willing to bear the consequences without hesitation.
Otherwise you are just a coward. (A summary of my understanding of his
philosophy and nonviolence/civil-disobediance/Satyagraha)
A few quotes on violence and the need for it occasionally:
"No doubt the non-violent way is always the best, but where that does not come
naturally the violent way is both necessary and honourable. Inaction here is
rank cowardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all cost."
- Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volume I, page 402
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad
"He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by
non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the
oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden."
- Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volume I, page 77
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad
"Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being
afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the
work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be
a member of a society of men and women."
- Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volume I, page 148
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad
Personally, I know I am not strong enough to perform what Gandi did. But neither
am I a coward who pretends to act with principles he can't live up to. If I am
confronted with violent oppressors I will use violence in my self-defense but
know it is because I am incapable of Satyagraha-- so far.
Besides, the Lion isn't the only beast in the jungle. I think the guy who
survived a chimp attack this last March is still in a coma. He did loose all the
fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of
his buttocks, his foot was mutilated, and his heel bone was cracked. All because
he was giving another chimp a birthday cake.
--
Liquid
death
"Fluidly Unsure" <drip...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ekIxf.542$F_3...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Maybe, maybe not.
profound
donquijote1954
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > policy wrote:
> >
> >>This LAW OF THE JUNGLE applies to dictatorships and not to the greatest
> >>democracy on the planet called America touted by american govt.
> >>
> >>Right donquijote ?
> >>
> >>If you are saying this law of jungle theory applies to america, do you also
> >>think then that the monkeys should take up arms and kill the lion ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, yes and no. YES to the first one, and NO to the second.
> >
> > That it ain't a democracy, I don't think there's much argument about
> > it...
>
> Very few claim it is. Read about the American constitution and why it is a
> combination of Democracy and Republic. It protected both the minority and the
> majority so Rhode Island couldn't be bullied by Virginia but the common man had
> much more say than a monarchy. (Yes it was considered an option)
Actually the government machine, the media and all those who most
profit from the jungle swear it is. And they even claim they are
bringing it to Iraq...
The little animals of the jungle wonder though wonder where it is...
HOW THE POLITICAL JUNGLE WORKS
Politics works like this: Big People of Big Country buy Big People of
Little Country, who, by the way, will be elected in "democratic
elections" thanks to big bucks; Big People of Big Country give big
loans to Little Country (of course, to buy "made in Big Country"); Big
People of Little Country pocket a big chunk and invest it in the Big
Country, without ever investing in real development (education, health,
the environment, etc); Little People of Little Country work for ever to
pay back what they never got; Big People of Little Country thank Big
People of Big Country in the name of Little Country, and promise to
repay the big debt; and Little People of Little Country get big
promises, just like Little People of Big Country. And they lived
happily ever after... (Moral: The Big Fish eats the Little Fish. Well,
unless the Little Fish get organized...)
>
> > "Most of America's many political, economic, and social ills are
> > caused or aggravated by its most fundamental problem: America is not
> > really a democracy but a plutocracy essentially owned and operated by a
> > wealthy few. Our government is populated by and first and best serves a
> > wealthy elite that holds a perpetual hegemony of power and wealth
> > through the generations, much to the detriment of the rest of the
> > populace. Elections, offices, and the favors of government are bought
> > just like any other commodity. Most of the populace is effectively
> > disfranchised and powerless. Individual freedom and economic security
> > are increasingly crushed by the twin assaults of ever growing
> > government and corporate power."
>
> I seem to remember Will Smith talking about how people from the African
> continent looked up to Africans in America. Less than 30% of the population and
> they still have a say in governmental policies!
Sure, to people in Africa it must seem awfully good. But not, say, to
the people in Canada, who wonder how on earth the American people chose
a lion for president.
>
> Just because a few think they are disenfranchised doesn't mean they truly are.
Many think so. Like feeling they got no healthcare available or many
other human needs that other people enjoy, again like in Canada.
"Many millions have never had health care while millions more have
joined them in recent years; millions have been swindled out of their
private pensions, investments, and life savings; and taxes are
routinely dumped by the wealthy unto the middle class. Both parents
working today struggle harder to finance a family than one bread winner
did decades ago. Hundreds of thousands of low-paid foreign technical
workers have been imported into America on special visas and millions
of others have been allowed to sneak across our borders to replace our
more expensive workers, suppressing the wages of most Americans,
(except, of course, those of the wealthy elite). Millions of good jobs
have been exported to cheap abused labor in countries that do not
protect the environment. One trade agreement after another helps
multinational corporations while destroying increasing numbers of
American workers. Our nation is now seven trillion dollars in debt and
the middle class is awash in a sea of debt while the super wealthy hold
many trillions of dollars of accumulation. In the last three decades
trillions of dollars have been taken from the middle class by the
wealthiest Americans. America has become divided into a relatively
small super wealthy class while the vast majority has found itself in
economic decline. And everywhere government-favored, super-sized
multinational corporations reign supreme. The corporate elite and the
members of both political parties work together against your
interests." (same source above)
>
> > http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/#intro
> >
> > As for the second, I say no. Already the "violent monkeys" are working
> > at it but it may firstly STRENGHTEN the lion, secondly have innocents
> > killed, and thirdly being plain unnecessary. I'd follow this other path
> > that I call "taming the lion"...
> >
> > Who will put the bell on the cat? Well, only you can:
> > -DO NOT FEED THE LION* (we are confronting a Hungry Lion, so he's most
> > vulnerable to this)
>
> Or when you are giving him a banana. He'll probably chomp about 3/4 of your arm
> off and you'll perish because you can't get the hang of feeding yourself with
> your other arm. With your lack of coordination every time you try to eat a
> banana itself, it ends-up in your ear.
I think it's better to give him the banana hanging with a cord.
>
> Both monkeys bearing bananas and hippies bearing flowers run into that problem.
Oh, banana-bearing monkeys are above flower-bearing hippies. To begin
with, all the lady monkeys prefer them, and must be wandering what are
they getting from a super-toothed hungry lion. A society where ladies
rule (like Scandinavia) would always be better than a lion-ruled
jungle.
There's no lion in Scandinavia, just maybe a lioness...
In this interview Ms Eisler argues that the "dominator model" is behind
both Capitalism and Communism, and that only in Scandinavia women have
reached a high standard of liberation. She argues that such system
could be followed in a "partnership model"...
(more...http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote9, at bottom)
>
> > -VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (don't live with predators, don't work for
> > predators--if you can afford it--and that's why we need ECONOMIC
> > DEMOCRACY)
>
> The open-market is the most democratic system that has ever existed on the face
> of this earth. When people vote with their pocket books, they are deciding the
> future of the market and shaping how it will evolve. Not only that but they are
> probably balancing their needs to their abilities much wiser than a any
> bureaucrat could. Hense, your pocket book is more important than your sex, race,
> or physical/mental/nuerological inadequacies. Every one can be a soldier of
> change and if someone becomes a tyrant, they are setting themselves up for
> demise. The market will listen to both you and others.
If people were organized as to punish a certain lion, yes. If not,
people just buy what they see on TV.
>
> [snip]
>
> > -CRY LION! (the lion can only prey because of camouflage, so your alarm
> > may save others)
>
> Maybe, maybe not. But it will open you up to a greater threat. You will have a
> greater chance of being eaten while your antics confused others to the point
> that they are vulnerable to being the lions next meal. So you've just guaranteed
> the Lion dinner for the rest of the week! (You're such a good guy/gal/other)
We are going to die because of the lions, so we may as well fight them.
At least die for a good cause. By the way, I'm a he-monkey with banana.
Monkey with banana uses nonviolence naturally. His job is to organize
or at least alert about the camouflaged beast.
>
> Besides, the Lion isn't the only beast in the jungle. I think the guy who
> survived a chimp attack this last March is still in a coma. He did loose all the
> fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of
> his buttocks, his foot was mutilated, and his heel bone was cracked. All because
> he was giving another chimp a birthday cake.
I know, but were talking VEGETARIAN MONKEYS here. Violent monkeys
dressed as lions may be considered lions...
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE II
After killing the monkey, the Lion --dressed in his best CAMOUFLAGE,
the lie-- gathered all the little animals of the jungle and announced:
"Today we have successfully eradicated one of the major threats to the
peace and order of our jungle... Yes, an evil lion, envious of us,
attacked without warning... Luckily, your sacrifice gave me strong paws
and teeth... And yes, these mighty weapons were so useful to me that I
finished him off without a sweat... Anyhow, now it turns out that some
of his accomplices are trying to attack us... So get ready for more
suffering and restrictions, if not for a catastrophe... But hey,
there's a place for you in heaven..."
Meanwhile, one of the little animals --who out of need kept grazing all
along-- asked another, "What did he say?" "I think he said something
about a new lion," answered the other. To which the first animal
replied, "Another one!?" (NOTE: We don't need lions or violent monkeys
that become lions. The hope lies in the little animals. No Lion No
Problem!)
donquijote1954
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> Besides, the Lion isn't the only beast in the jungle. I think the guy who
> survived a chimp attack this last March is still in a coma. He did loose all the
> fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of
> his buttocks, his foot was mutilated, and his heel bone was cracked. All because
> he was giving another chimp a birthday cake.
>
That was a chimp, we are bonobos... ;)
"At a juncture in history during which women are seeking equality with
men, science arrives with a belated gift to the feminist movement.
Male-biased evolutionary scenarios - Man the Hunter, Man the
Toolmaker and so on - are being challenged by the discovery that
females play a central, perhaps even dominant, role in the social life
of one of our nearest relatives. In the past few years many strands of
knowledge have come together concerning a relatively unknown ape with
an unorthodox repertoire of behavior: the bonobo."
'Love, Not War' (disclaimer: not responsible for explicit pictures,
just kidding)
Julian
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> > Besides, the Lion isn't the only beast in the jungle. I think the guy who
> > survived a chimp attack this last March is still in a coma. He did loose all the
> > fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of
> > his buttocks, his foot was mutilated, and his heel bone was cracked. All because
> > he was giving another chimp a birthday cake.
> >
>
> That was a chimp, we are bonobos... ;)
>
> "At a juncture in history during which women are seeking equality with
> men, science arrives with a belated gift to the feminist movement.
> Male-biased evolutionary scenarios - Man the Hunter, Man the
> Toolmaker and so on - are being challenged by the discovery that
That's WHY men make weapons.
death
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137178232....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
that's cuz their first weapon
don't have much effect
Fluidly Unsure
Thank you for noticing. I'm glad the subtlety wasn't lost as I was afraid it
might be.
--
Liquid
Fluidly Unsure
> Fluidly Unsure wrote:
>
>>donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>>policy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This LAW OF THE JUNGLE applies to dictatorships and not to the greatest
>>>>democracy on the planet called America touted by american govt.
>>>>
>>>>Right donquijote ?
>>>>
>>>>If you are saying this law of jungle theory applies to america, do you also
>>>>think then that the monkeys should take up arms and kill the lion ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, yes and no. YES to the first one, and NO to the second.
>>>
>>>That it ain't a democracy, I don't think there's much argument about
>>>it...
>>
>>Very few claim it is. Read about the American constitution and why it is a
>>combination of Democracy and Republic. It protected both the minority and the
>>majority so Rhode Island couldn't be bullied by Virginia but the common man had
>>much more say than a monarchy. (Yes it was considered an option)
>
>
> Actually the government machine, the media and all those who most
> profit from the jungle swear it is. And they even claim they are
> bringing it to Iraq...
I'm sorry, I was talking about the people who are worth listening to.
>
> The little animals of the jungle wonder though wonder where it is...
>
> HOW THE POLITICAL JUNGLE WORKS
> Politics works like this: Big People of Big Country buy Big People of
> Little Country, who, by the way, will be elected in "democratic
> elections" thanks to big bucks; Big People of Big Country give big
> loans to Little Country (of course, to buy "made in Big Country"); Big
> People of Little Country pocket a big chunk and invest it in the Big
> Country, without ever investing in real development (education, health,
> the environment, etc); Little People of Little Country work for ever to
> pay back what they never got; Big People of Little Country thank Big
> People of Big Country in the name of Little Country, and promise to
> repay the big debt; and Little People of Little Country get big
> promises, just like Little People of Big Country. And they lived
> happily ever after... (Moral: The Big Fish eats the Little Fish. Well,
> unless the Little Fish get organized...)
>
I don't see how it is any different anywhere else. Bullies exist. They always
have and always will. Their efforts may require different tactics in different
cultures, but the ends are the same. Both the bullys motivation, and the effect
on others around the bully.
>
>>>"Most of America's many political, economic, and social ills are
>>>caused or aggravated by its most fundamental problem: America is not
>>>really a democracy but a plutocracy essentially owned and operated by a
>>>wealthy few. Our government is populated by and first and best serves a
>>>wealthy elite that holds a perpetual hegemony of power and wealth
>>>through the generations, much to the detriment of the rest of the
>>>populace. Elections, offices, and the favors of government are bought
>>>just like any other commodity. Most of the populace is effectively
>>>disfranchised and powerless. Individual freedom and economic security
>>>are increasingly crushed by the twin assaults of ever growing
>>>government and corporate power."
>>
>>I seem to remember Will Smith talking about how people from the African
>>continent looked up to Africans in America. Less than 30% of the population and
>>they still have a say in governmental policies!
>
>
> Sure, to people in Africa it must seem awfully good. But not, say, to
> the people in Canada, who wonder how on earth the American people chose
> a lion for president.
>
I Assume I'm talking to a Canadian.
While we may disagree with the tactics, we do agree on the strategic plans. We
both want what we call a just and civilized society. But the way the other tries
to achieve it is not considered just or civilized by the other.
>
>>Just because a few think they are disenfranchised doesn't mean they truly are.
>
>
> Many think so. Like feeling they got no healthcare available or many
> other human needs that other people enjoy, again like in Canada.
So you enjoy the right to stand in line?
>
> "Many millions have never had health care while millions more have
> joined them in recent years; millions have been swindled out of their
> private pensions, investments, and life savings; and taxes are
> routinely dumped by the wealthy unto the middle class. Both parents
> working today struggle harder to finance a family than one bread winner
> did decades ago. Hundreds of thousands of low-paid foreign technical
> workers have been imported into America on special visas and millions
> of others have been allowed to sneak across our borders to replace our
> more expensive workers, suppressing the wages of most Americans,
> (except, of course, those of the wealthy elite). Millions of good jobs
> have been exported to cheap abused labor in countries that do not
> protect the environment. One trade agreement after another helps
> multinational corporations while destroying increasing numbers of
> American workers. Our nation is now seven trillion dollars in debt and
> the middle class is awash in a sea of debt while the super wealthy hold
> many trillions of dollars of accumulation. In the last three decades
> trillions of dollars have been taken from the middle class by the
> wealthiest Americans. America has become divided into a relatively
> small super wealthy class while the vast majority has found itself in
> economic decline. And everywhere government-favored, super-sized
> multinational corporations reign supreme. The corporate elite and the
> members of both political parties work together against your
> interests." (same source above)
>
I have never had health care as an adult either. For the last twenty years I've
survived off indigenous government programs, and university programs that
provide medical services of their residents (?) and for participants of R&D
programs.
The only people I know without medical coverage are those who are either covered
by the social safety net and those who willfully forgo the expense.
My experiences are that getting cared for in America is not as impossible as
others claim. I file their claims under "urban legends".
The big evil to me is the government who make it next to impossible for a
working class person to succeed. I only trust the Government with a few tasks
(protection from insiders, protection from outsiders, and umpiring fair play). I
don't trust Big Bro to know where not to stick its nose. And when it does, I
doubt if the nose is very clean.
The government and politicians are the 'evil king' and social advocates are the
evil kings concubine.
>
>>>http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/#intro
>>>
>>>As for the second, I say no. Already the "violent monkeys" are working
>>>at it but it may firstly STRENGHTEN the lion, secondly have innocents
>>>killed, and thirdly being plain unnecessary. I'd follow this other path
>>>that I call "taming the lion"...
>>>
>>>Who will put the bell on the cat? Well, only you can:
>>>-DO NOT FEED THE LION* (we are confronting a Hungry Lion, so he's most
>>>vulnerable to this)
>>
>>Or when you are giving him a banana. He'll probably chomp about 3/4 of your arm
>>off and you'll perish because you can't get the hang of feeding yourself with
>>your other arm. With your lack of coordination every time you try to eat a
>>banana itself, it ends-up in your ear.
>
>
> I think it's better to give him the banana hanging with a cord.
>
But if I don't have a cord, don't put me down for not feeding either the lion or
monkey.
>
>>Both monkeys bearing bananas and hippies bearing flowers run into that problem.
>
>
> Oh, banana-bearing monkeys are above flower-bearing hippies. To begin
> with, all the lady monkeys prefer them, and must be wandering what are
> they getting from a super-toothed hungry lion. A society where ladies
> rule (like Scandinavia) would always be better than a lion-ruled
> jungle.
>
I don't know. I haven't been there and I haven't studied it. But I do have to
ask why a leader (term used loosely) needs to be of one gender to be superior.
>
> There's no lion in Scandinavia, just maybe a lioness...
>
> In this interview Ms Eisler argues that the "dominator model" is behind
> both Capitalism and Communism, and that only in Scandinavia women have
> reached a high standard of liberation. She argues that such system
> could be followed in a "partnership model"...
> (more...http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote9, at bottom)
>
I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any society without some kind of
domination. Capitalism and Communism are just more honest than the others since
the "dominant" element is more obvious.
>
>>>-VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (don't live with predators, don't work for
>>>predators--if you can afford it--and that's why we need ECONOMIC
>>>DEMOCRACY)
>>
>>The open-market is the most democratic system that has ever existed on the face
>>of this earth. When people vote with their pocket books, they are deciding the
>>future of the market and shaping how it will evolve. Not only that but they are
>>probably balancing their needs to their abilities much wiser than a any
>>bureaucrat could. Hense, your pocket book is more important than your sex, race,
>>or physical/mental/nuerological inadequacies. Every one can be a soldier of
>>change and if someone becomes a tyrant, they are setting themselves up for
>>demise. The market will listen to both you and others.
>
>
> If people were organized as to punish a certain lion, yes. If not,
> people just buy what they see on TV.
>
You don't need a well organized effort to succeed. Al-Quedas cells proved that.
Businesses do change their ways when there is a substantial economic motivation
to do so. I think one episode that has recently started to unfold is Sonys DRM
software. But only one person started it (Mark Russinovich) and the individuals
and entities that cried foul. Sony claims they will mend their ways, but only
time will tell.
As far as people buying just what's on TV, no doubt that there are idiots who
can't think individually. But why is the modern media worse than yesterdays
grapevines?
Read my next comment.
>
>>Besides, the Lion isn't the only beast in the jungle. I think the guy who
>>survived a chimp attack this last March is still in a coma. He did loose all the
>>fingers from both hands, an eye, part of his nose, cheek and lips, and part of
>>his buttocks, his foot was mutilated, and his heel bone was cracked. All because
>>he was giving another chimp a birthday cake.
>
>
> I know, but were talking VEGETARIAN MONKEYS here. Violent monkeys
> dressed as lions may be considered lions...
I believe that was a "vegetarian" monkey. I believe a carnivorous monkey is rare
and I would expect the media to mention it. One day I may learn to quit
expecting the media to be reasonable.
>
> THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE II
> After killing the monkey, the Lion --dressed in his best CAMOUFLAGE,
> the lie-- gathered all the little animals of the jungle and announced:
> "Today we have successfully eradicated one of the major threats to the
> peace and order of our jungle... Yes, an evil lion, envious of us,
> attacked without warning... Luckily, your sacrifice gave me strong paws
> and teeth... And yes, these mighty weapons were so useful to me that I
> finished him off without a sweat... Anyhow, now it turns out that some
> of his accomplices are trying to attack us... So get ready for more
> suffering and restrictions, if not for a catastrophe... But hey,
> there's a place for you in heaven..."
>
> Meanwhile, one of the little animals --who out of need kept grazing all
> along-- asked another, "What did he say?" "I think he said something
> about a new lion," answered the other. To which the first animal
> replied, "Another one!?" (NOTE: We don't need lions or violent monkeys
> that become lions. The hope lies in the little animals. No Lion No
> Problem!)
>
But all animals show violence and domination towards something. Even cute
bunnies I know about have no problems destroying a living plant in the name of
hedonistic desires/needs. Every vegan on the face of the earth is killing
multitudes of organisms with every breath they take. How many insects are killed
with every step they take?
The law of the land can't be ignore, but it can be tamed to some degree. A good
analysis is John Lockes "2nd Essay".
Where we really disagree (I think) is whether the final answer lies in
individual or collective efforts. I don't trust the collective to be flexible
enough for differing individual situations. Its probably my own paranoia, but I
see collective efforts as if they are making sure lemmings don't fall off the
cliff when they are lonely.
To me the adherents of the collective model (statism) is just as bad as big
corporations that have left others (us) by the way-side. They are evil but
necessary for the wheels to work properly. In fact, we are all necessary evils
in the eye of the machine.
Getting back to both of our moral opponents; we need governments to provide a
counter to human threats, corporations to provide goods/services to partake in,
and advocates to watch others in case someone oversteps their boundaries.
Now that I'm done with this lecture/sermon/masturbation, I'll turn the lectern
over to you.
--
Liquid
Fluidly Unsure
Oops; "indigenous" should be "indigent"
death
fears are nothing to be glad about
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
"death" <de...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HD3yf.8021$%W1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
hi, why is your name death?
>
>
death
"Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger" <yyyiii...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:dqah06$crj$0...@pita.alt.net...
death is all there really is.
this temporary life shit that
you've taken upon yourself
will with certainty fade into
the primordial ooze just as
it has spontaneously arisen
and you will once again be
dead like you always have been
and always will be. it's not just that
my name is death, all is death,
always has been, always will be.
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
a node of reality is created at birth
after which our lives connected
through time and space we meet
depends on will and purpose we linger
upon finding weakness we adjust
passing inheritance through matches ;-)
from experiences to instructions
we translate life into a song
that lasts for nearly a century
almost longer than desirable
such thought is humanity's own
not for yours ripping into mp3
death is no joking matter
death threats shall be illegal
besides that's not your real name
and you are getting annoying
thus death shall be illegal
we'd all have a better life
to look forward to
...
>
>
death
you can't dislegitamize your true
nature by making laws against it.
your own deathness will laugh in
your face. you have taken on this
burden of being a human to fool
yourself into your countless disguises
to play out your grand masquerade
of fooling yourself into believing 'you'
are life, but without death there can
be no life. death however can remain
without the arising of any forms of life.
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
if you define life as goal of life
death being the by product
and if you live it hard while at it
you won't have the time for death
to prove the significance of life
go pick flowers or water plants
bend redneck upwards see sky
breath the wind and broken leaves
hit yourself in the face
kick nails with a bare foot
look around and get up
remind yourself no one shall see this
you are a bit crazy still medicines can help
>
>
death
> I'm sorry,
are you? is this a voluntarily
conscious decision related
to your death nature or does
it arise subconsciously,
spontaneously, and perhaps
short term shrifted? maybe
you need the long term
albatrossing agenda
packagings.
> I was talking
death tends to do that when
attached to form, gravitating as
it will to its genetic predispositions
in any particular form as such.
had you attached to the form of a rock,
you'd be significantly less nervous
right now doncha know.
> about the people who are worth listening to.
since all of it is simply death blabbing
away in countless forms it has decided
to take on just to temporarily fool itself
into believing it is 'alive'. whatever the
hell being alive is s'posed to mean, how
does one totem pole or albatross what
appears to be seperate slices of death
in differing life disguises?
death
death is not the by product, life is.
life is the temporary belly ache that
will soon leave you. don't fear death.
it is after all what you truly are. your
denial of it only impacts the occasion
of it for you.
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
there was first life then death
everything happens in life
parents wanted that you live
so that you continue their life
had you not the wisdom
to see life to death
as time to clock
better checkin and rest
>
>
death
death is always there. life
comes and goes. how could
life have been first?
it is only the experience and
survival addictions of the
consciousness itself that
wants to continue. even in
deep sleep with no perspective
of a sense of conscious presence,
you are still there, but at that time
you are much closer to your true
nature of death. death simply
means peace. why fight it?
in the end peace wins out
any way.
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
death only lasts a few minutes
then there came the void
give others a chance
time for other lives
all consciousness live on life
that's different from a book
real time decisions enabled
rush through streams of time
death doesn't prevail
one dies when life becomes not worth living
'we will all die' is a fallacy
the fact is that we all live
only a few die at a time
thus being dead is being left out
live a life when you are on it
>
>
Fluidly Unsure
> "Fluidly Unsure" <drip...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:VO0yf.635$or4...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>I'm sorry,
>
>
> are you? is this a voluntarily
> conscious decision related
> to your death nature or does
> it arise subconsciously,
> spontaneously, and perhaps
> short term shrifted?
I don't see anything "spontaneous". Every thing I've done "impromptu"
(music/comedy/public-speaking/etc) has been a mixture of previously conceived
ideas. In music you need to know the scales inside and out. In comedy you need
to have the skill to associate words and thoughts quickly. In public-speaking
you need to have skills needed to non-verbally convey a message (gestures, etc)
extremely well. (There is a tremendous cross-over between the three.)
Since we don't know what the sub-conscious truly is, we can't say it isn't a
direct reflection of the conscious mind. Hence, the difference may be a mute point.
Why is the nature of death anymore or less than the nature of life? You seem to
have a very dualistic approach that doesn't fit your "handle".
> maybe
> you need the long term
> albatrossing agenda
> packagings.
>
I let Starkist worry about that.
>
>>I was talking
>
>
> death tends to do that when
> attached to form, gravitating as
> it will to its genetic predispositions
> in any particular form as such.
> had you attached to the form of a rock,
> you'd be significantly less nervous
> right now doncha know.
>
So you're saying I'm talking to a rock?
>
>>about the people who are worth listening to.
>
>
> since all of it is simply death blabbing
> away in countless forms it has decided
> to take on just to temporarily fool itself
> into believing it is 'alive'. whatever the
> hell being alive is s'posed to mean, how
> does one totem pole or albatross what
> appears to be seperate slices of death
> in differing life disguises?
>
While everything we do leads to death, there is no reason to ignore the now. It
depends upon the perceived consequences. A young person who is detached from the
possible results of heavy partying is more likely to end up brunting those
consequences later.
What disguises you use depends on how you see the time after death. Are you
expecting to continue your journey as a soul on earth while striving for satori?
Or are you expecting rewards/punishment for your actions between birth and death?
We all use disguises. We all fool ourselves about a subject we know so little
about. People who claim otherwise are fooling themselves even more. Some claim
they have the knowledge because a bird/preacher/bible told them. Others cloak
their claims in dark beliefs that few have the nerve to question.
I have never seen a way to distinguish all truths from fallacies. We just have
to learn to accept this situation. We simply don't know.
But I do like politicical speaches being associated with "death babbling". Very
profound.
--
Liquid
Fluidly Unsure
Since we have no hands-on experience with death, why are you so sure on way or
the other?
>
> it is only the experience and
> survival addictions of the
> consciousness itself that
> wants to continue. even in
> deep sleep with no perspective
> of a sense of conscious presence,
> you are still there, but at that time
> you are much closer to your true
> nature of death. death simply
> means peace. why fight it?
> in the end peace wins out
> any way.
>
The difference between life and death is passing a truck on a curvy 2 lane
highway. Since I can't see the traffic ahead of me or behind me I'm going to act
as if there is something there. Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
that the truck is slower than I would like.
Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore afraid. It
is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about death.
BTW: When I say "no hands-on" I'm purposely ignoring Near-Death-Experiences
which could very well be a neurological phenomenon, and prove nothing other than
someone was probably stressed.
>
--
Liquid
Fluidly Unsure
Why are you so sure?
If the after-life is according to Judea/Xtian beliefs, it could be rather
crowded up/down there. How long has Heaven/Hell been accumulating souls? Junk
yards do get too big now and then.
If the after-life is according to Buddhist/Hindu beliefs, the void comes even later.
At this time in history there are more births than deaths, but that wasn't
always so. Comparing those who has ever experienced one phenomenon ("we all
live") with a limited number of those who experience another ("few die at a
time") is mis-leading.
>
>
>
>>
>
>
--
Liquid
donquijote1954
Maybe that classifies in that Saturday Night Live of "Deep Thoughts."
Or maybe not...
Fluidly Unsure
Ah... The "deep thoughts" of last Saturday nights episodes of "deep throat". How
did you know about them? Are you using ESP as a form of voyeurism?
--
Liquid
donquijote1954
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> > Maybe that classifies in that Saturday Night Live of "Deep Thoughts."
> > Or maybe not...
> >
>
> Ah... The "deep thoughts" of last Saturday nights episodes of "deep throat". How
> did you know about them? Are you using ESP as a form of voyeurism?
>
> --
>
> Liquid
I aint sure which one is deeper, deep thoughts or deep throats, but one
is spiritual, the other carnal. Be sure to experience both and then
compare.
donquijote1954
that of the lion (greed, war, control, ignorance, suffering...)
Epicurus and His Philosophy of Pleasure
>From N.S. Gill,
Ataraxia vs. Hedonism and the Philosophy of Aristotle
Wisdom hasn't come a step further since Epicurus but has often gone
many thousands of steps backwards.
Friedrich Nietzsche [www.epicureans.org/epitalk.htm. August 4, 1998.]
Epicurus of Samos (341-270 B.C.) and his philosophy have been
controversial for over two millennia. One reason is our tendency to
reject pleasure as a moral good. We usually think of charity,
compassion, humility, wisdom, honor, justice, and other virtues as
morally good and pleasure as, at best, morally neutral, but for
Epicurus, behavior in pursuit of pleasure assured an upright life.
It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and
honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably
and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is
lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though
he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a
pleasant life.
By Epicurus, from Principal Doctrines
Hedonism is what many of us think of when we hear his name, but
ataraxia, the experience of optimal, enduring pleasure, is what we
should associate with the atomist philosopher. He says we should not
try to increase our pleasure beyond the point of maximum intensity.
Think of it in terms of eating. If you're hungry, there's pain. If you
eat to fill the hunger, you feel good and are behaving in accordance
with Epicureanism, but if you gorge yourself, you again experience
pain.
The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain.
When such pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is
no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.
Ibid.
[Stoicism and Epicureanism moon.pepperdine.edu/gsep/
class/ethics/stoicism/default.html 08/04/98] According to Dr. J.
Chander in his course notes on Stoicism and Epicureanism, for Epicurus
extravagance leads to pain, not pleasure; and, therefore, should be
avoided.
[Hedonism and the Happy Life: The Epicurean Theory of Pleasure
www.epicureans.org/intro.htm 08/04/98]
Sensual pleasures move us towards ataraxia which is pleasing in itself.
We should not pursue endless stimulation, but rather seek out enduring
satiation.
All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are
unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing
desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce
harm.
Ibid.
Sources
While [Epicurus.Org www.epicureans.org/epicurus.htm 08/04/98] Epicurus
may have written as many as 300 books, we only have portions of
Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, three letters, and fragments.
Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch and Lucretius provide some information, but
most of what else we know about Epicurus comes from Diogenes Laertius
whose account shows great controversy surrounding the philosopher's
lifestyle and ideas.
Despite the loss of Epicurus' original writings, Steven Sparks
[Hedonists' Weblog www.epicurus.com/epitalk.htm. 08/04/98] says "his
philosophy was so consistent that Epicureanism can still be pieced
together into a complete philosophy."
[Epicurean Classics. www.creative.net/ ~epicurus/classics.html
08/04/98]
Works on Epicureanism by supporters and detractors: Epicurus, Diogenes
Laertius, Lucretius, Cicero, Horace, Lucian, Cornelius Nepos, Plutarch,
Lactantius, and Origen.
The Spread of Epicureanism
Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is
pleasure. The caretaker of that abode, a kindly host, will be ready for
you; he will welcome you with bread, and serve you water also in
abundance, with these words: "Have you not been well entertained? This
garden does not whet your appetite; but quenches it."
[Gate Inscription at Epicurus' Garden. www.creative.net/
~epicurus/history.html#A. August 4, 1998.]
According to The Intellectual Development and Spread of Epicureanism
[www.creative.net/ ~epicurus/history.html#B. August 4, 1998.], Epicurus
guaranteed survival of his school (The Garden) in his will. Challenges
from competing Hellenistic philosophies, notably, Stoicism and
Skepticism, "spurred Epicureans to develop some of their doctrines in
much greater detail, notably their epistemology and some of their
ethical theories, especially their theories concerning friendship and
virtue."
In 155 B.C. Athens imported some of its leading philosophers to Rome
where Epicureanism, in particular, offended conservatives like Marcus
Porcius Cato. Eventually, however, Epicureanism took root in Rome and
can be found in the poets, Vergil, Horace, and Lucretius.
More recently, Thomas Jefferson was an Epicurean. In his 1819 Letter to
William Short, Jefferson points up the shortcomings of other
philosophies and the virtues of Epicureanism. The letter also contains
a short Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus.
Fluidly Unsure
> This is the philosophy put forth by monkey. Notice how different from
> that of the lion (greed, war, control, ignorance, suffering...)
No I don't. I wasn't aware that the Lion was to be equated with Hedonism and I
don't see the implied similarity between Epicurus and the Monkey.
I was not assuming Capitalism (the Lion) to be greedy by nature. Some
participants are. But they end-up with the pain of being gloated. Even the
corporation I love to berate (Microsoft) is not without value. If we succeeded
in destroying MS, we would also destroy the biggest charity donators today.
I was emphasizing "good" capitalists and "bad" bureaucrats because so many
people assume the opposite (all capitalists are greedy bastards and all
government servants are selfless angels).
The monkey has nothing to do with what little I know about Epicurus. I do not
see how simply offering good intentions to opponents who want to do you harm is
a viable solution.
In fact, from what I see in your latest writings, a non-greedy lion is Epicurean
while both the monkey and the lion mentioned are out in left field.
[snip]
> Friedrich Nietzsche [www.epicureans.org/epitalk.htm. August 4, 1998.]
epicureans.org seems to have been seized by a predatory domain seller
(domaincars.com) and is being used for click-fraud via the pay-per-view engine
"googlesyndication".
Either that or there is a more metaphysical connection in potato salad than I
was aware.
I decided not to explore any deeper.
[snip]
> More recently, Thomas Jefferson was an Epicurean. In his 1819 Letter to
> William Short, Jefferson points up the shortcomings of other
> philosophies and the virtues of Epicureanism. The letter also contains
> a short Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus.
This one intrigues me. While his work did encompass many "schools", I don't see
how knowing about Epicurus makes him an Epicurean.
>
--
Liquid
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
Through reasoning with others. So far no failing.
>
> If the after-life is according to Judea/Xtian beliefs, it could be rather
> crowded up/down there.
Crowdedness is an humanly suffering.
>How long has Heaven/Hell been accumulating souls? Junk
> yards do get too big now and then.
May be ideals and reasonings are already accumulating. We call that
humanity. How big is humanity? I can't say it doesn't include the concerns
for the universe. Humanity also includes religion and spiritualities of
variety pack.
>
> If the after-life is according to Buddhist/Hindu beliefs, the void comes
> even later.
The void to you, is someone else's timeline. When two people are both live,
they share a timeline.
>
> At this time in history there are more births than deaths, but that wasn't
> always so.
That's only human population tho. It's impossible to count lives on earth.
>Comparing those who has ever experienced one phenomenon ("we all
> live") with a limited number of those who experience another ("few die at
> a
> time") is mis-leading.
Those proving "we all live" are living humans.
There are small percent of us died yesterday
For the living ones that's a small phenomenon
For the dead ones that's all the phenonmenon
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Liquid
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
The difference between life and death is greater than being a moron. Hehe.
But remeber you must keep three to five car lengths between you and the
possible collision point so that you can come to a complete stop. The point
of possible collision is where you and an fictious car that travels on
opposite direction with you but you two are on the same lane. Since you
can't see this fictious car, if distance between you and the furtherest
point you can see on this road is greater than the truck length + distance
the truck travels while you traval the distance of truck, you can make it.
The bonus back include the exit strategy: If you see a car suddently comming
while you are on it's lane, you could also try stop so that you can switch
to your lane AFTER the truck were going to pass unsafely. If the speed of
the other car is not so twice as fast as the truck, as long as you do this
before the car reaches twice (three times to be safe) of the truck length,
you can fallback behide the truck and be a lame driver!
And don't bother with calculating all these using your laptop. Your soul
will do that for you in every second when you need it to, which is an
essential benefit of being alive!
>Since I can't see the traffic ahead of me or behind me I'm going to act
> as if there is something there.
Then you are not dead yet.
>Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
> that the truck is slower than I would like.
The slower is the truck, the safer you could overtake it.
>
> Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore
> afraid. It
> is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about
> death.
Be prudent with death helps the chances to live longer. It's impossible that
any human does not have a life threatening experience. What one expect from
death helps preventing it most of time. But knowledge of death might have
lead to some unfortunate deaths.
Fluidly Unsure
I try not to be. But life could end up just being a very scary nightmare.
>
>>Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
>>that the truck is slower than I would like.
>
>
> The slower is the truck, the safer you could overtake it.
>
That was more of a comment for "Death".
By trying to stay alive I'm not denying that the existence after death could be
better. I stay behind the truck even though I'm impatient and want to be able to
get to my destination much quicker. In other words, I choose to stay in the
primodal ooze yet I know that death may well be much more enjoyable (?).
As far as the speed of the truck: The slower it goes the more chances that
someone behind me will get frustrated and try to overtake others. Thus
eliminating my escape path and making it even more unsafe.
>
>>Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore
>>afraid. It
>>is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about
>>death.
>
>
> Be prudent with death helps the chances to live longer. It's impossible that
> any human does not have a life threatening experience. What one expect from
> death helps preventing it most of time. But knowledge of death might have
> lead to some unfortunate deaths.
>
Again, targeted towards "death". He claims there is no reason to fight death
because it is peaceful. I'm saying there are other reasons to fight and that he
can't claim supremacy over us "survival addicts".
>
>>
>>
>>BTW: When I say "no hands-on" I'm purposely ignoring
>>Near-Death-Experiences
>>which could very well be a neurological phenomenon, and prove nothing
>>other than
>>someone was probably stressed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Liquid
>
>
>
--
Liquid
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
You can't think whatever you want when you are not dying.
>
>>
>>>Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
>>>that the truck is slower than I would like.
>>
>>
>> The slower is the truck, the safer you could overtake it.
>>
>
> That was more of a comment for "Death".
>
> By trying to stay alive I'm not denying that the existence after death
> could be
> better. I stay behind the truck even though I'm impatient and want to be
> able to
> get to my destination much quicker. In other words, I choose to stay in
> the
> primodal ooze yet I know that death may well be much more enjoyable (?).
Most people excercise reasonable care. When you cut it too close to death
because you think death is not fearful, you should stop your existing life
style and see if you can possibly like death better.
>
> As far as the speed of the truck: The slower it goes the more chances that
> someone behind me will get frustrated and try to overtake others. Thus
> eliminating my escape path and making it even more unsafe.
You are correct. If it were stationary on your lane, it'd be most likely
more a hazard than it were moving at all.
>
>>
>>>Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore
>>>afraid. It
>>>is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about
>>>death.
>>
>>
>> Be prudent with death helps the chances to live longer. It's impossible
>> that
>> any human does not have a life threatening experience. What one expect
>> from
>> death helps preventing it most of time. But knowledge of death might have
>> lead to some unfortunate deaths.
>>
>
> Again, targeted towards "death". He claims there is no reason to fight
> death
> because it is peaceful.
Is he's a goth death worshiper?
> I'm saying there are other reasons to fight and that he
> can't claim supremacy over us "survival addicts".
and you are a health freak kinda.
Fluidly Unsure
[snip]
Who decides what I can think?
>
>>>>Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
>>>>that the truck is slower than I would like.
>>>
>>>
>>>The slower is the truck, the safer you could overtake it.
>>>
>>
>>That was more of a comment for "Death".
>>
>>By trying to stay alive I'm not denying that the existence after death
>>could be
>>better. I stay behind the truck even though I'm impatient and want to be
>>able to
>>get to my destination much quicker. In other words, I choose to stay in
>>the
>>primodal ooze yet I know that death may well be much more enjoyable (?).
>
>
> Most people excercise reasonable care. When you cut it too close to death
> because you think death is not fearful, you should stop your existing life
> style and see if you can possibly like death better.
>
>
>>As far as the speed of the truck: The slower it goes the more chances that
>>someone behind me will get frustrated and try to overtake others. Thus
>>eliminating my escape path and making it even more unsafe.
>
>
> You are correct. If it were stationary on your lane, it'd be most likely
> more a hazard than it were moving at all.
>
That's why driving is so dangerous in LA. I can't get my State Senator to take
me seriously when I suggest we install the autobahn here.
>
>>>>Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore
>>>>afraid. It
>>>>is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about
>>>>death.
>>>
>>>
>>>Be prudent with death helps the chances to live longer. It's impossible
>>>that
>>>any human does not have a life threatening experience. What one expect
>>>from
>>>death helps preventing it most of time. But knowledge of death might have
>>>lead to some unfortunate deaths.
>>>
>>
>>Again, targeted towards "death". He claims there is no reason to fight
>>death
>>because it is peaceful.
>
>
> Is he's a goth death worshiper?
>
I think so.
>
>>I'm saying there are other reasons to fight and that he
>>can't claim supremacy over us "survival addicts".
>
>
> and you are a health freak kinda.
>
That's why I want the pastor to pass out granola and carrots at my funeral,
after the aerobic dancing/exercising session.
--
Liquid
donquijote1954
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > This is the philosophy put forth by monkey. Notice how different from
> > that of the lion (greed, war, control, ignorance, suffering...)
>
> No I don't. I wasn't aware that the Lion was to be equated with Hedonism and I
> don't see the implied similarity between Epicurus and the Monkey.
No, the lion is a hardcore Christian fundamentalist. It denies human
nature and voted against Kerry due to his permissiveness toward gays
and abortion. It has no second thoughts to kill though.
>
> I was not assuming Capitalism (the Lion) to be greedy by nature. Some
> participants are. But they end-up with the pain of being gloated. Even the
> corporation I love to berate (Microsoft) is not without value. If we succeeded
> in destroying MS, we would also destroy the biggest charity donators today.
The lion, by definition, hates competition. So if they destroy the
competion they are HUNGRY LIONS, if not they are VEGETARIAN LIONS.
>
> I was emphasizing "good" capitalists and "bad" bureaucrats because so many
> people assume the opposite (all capitalists are greedy bastards and all
> government servants are selfless angels).
Bureaucrats are just as bad as bad capitalists. They work for the lion
in exchange for the juicy scraps, which are many.
>
> The monkey has nothing to do with what little I know about Epicurus. I do not
> see how simply offering good intentions to opponents who want to do you harm is
> a viable solution.
Neither do I, so I think we better "give the banana" to the lion.
>
> In fact, from what I see in your latest writings, a non-greedy lion is Epicurean
> while both the monkey and the lion mentioned are out in left field.
Monkeys and vegetarian lions are OK. The problem is the ones that want
to control others because they got a lot of money. It happens very
often but not always.
>
> [snip]
> > Friedrich Nietzsche [www.epicureans.org/epitalk.htm. August 4, 1998.]
>
> epicureans.org seems to have been seized by a predatory domain seller
> (domaincars.com) and is being used for click-fraud via the pay-per-view engine
> "googlesyndication".
A lot of camouflage in the jungle, particularly be those who claim to
do the most good. Like this...
HOW THE VULTURES BENEFIT FROM ORGANIZING THE LITTLE ANIMALS
One day the Vultures, who depended on the lion's leftovers, got
together to organize the little animals... One of the birds started
saying: "We should organize the Sheep to worship a poor Shepherd, who,
because he tried to save them, was crucified by the lion; but who left
the promise of the obedient sheep going to Paradise, in which the lion
will be tamed..." Then another bird added: "Very sweet. Likewise, we'll
organize them to denounce the abuses against the poor little animals in
'other' jungles..."
Meanwhile, an Owl who had been observing the problems of the jungle,
and who had been invited by mistake, spoke this way: "The lion was able
to kill the poor Shepherd and thus keep preying on the little animals
because they did nothing. Why not do something to resist the lion?"
And that's why the Vultures warned the little animals of the jungle
against the 'subversive owls'...
>
> Either that or there is a more metaphysical connection in potato salad than I
> was aware.
We have to see the reason potato salad came to our table and we can
spend a whole night tracing the ingredients and how some are quite
nutritious while some are plain fattening. While you trace the eggs you
can a make a very metaphisical question: "Who was first the egg or the
chicken?"
>
> I decided not to explore any deeper.
Deep is relative. If you study the a shallow sea it may not look deep,
but if you get in a storm then you are in deep trouble.
>
> [snip]
>
> > More recently, Thomas Jefferson was an Epicurean. In his 1819 Letter to
> > William Short, Jefferson points up the shortcomings of other
> > philosophies and the virtues of Epicureanism. The letter also contains
> > a short Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus.
>
> This one intrigues me. While his work did encompass many "schools", I don't see
> how knowing about Epicurus makes him an Epicurean.
>
Wrong answer. In his own words...
"I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines
of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which
Greek and Roman leave to us."
Thomas Jefferson
Fluidly Unsure
> Fluidly Unsure wrote:
>
>>donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is the philosophy put forth by monkey. Notice how different from
>>>that of the lion (greed, war, control, ignorance, suffering...)
>>
>>No I don't. I wasn't aware that the Lion was to be equated with Hedonism and I
>>don't see the implied similarity between Epicurus and the Monkey.
>
>
> No, the lion is a hardcore Christian fundamentalist. It denies human
> nature and voted against Kerry due to his permissiveness toward gays
> and abortion. It has no second thoughts to kill though.
>
I may not be Xtian, but I didn't vote for Kerry because of his economic stances
and his connection with Dean. Now seeing how our poorly trained troops are doing
in Iraq, I wonder if I made the wrong decision.
A denial of human nature is offering a peace symbol (the banana) when standing
before an opponent. I'm sorry, but I reserve my good nature to people I know I
can trust. Even more to those I like. Even more to those I love.
>
>>I was not assuming Capitalism (the Lion) to be greedy by nature. Some
>>participants are. But they end-up with the pain of being gloated. Even the
>>corporation I love to berate (Microsoft) is not without value. If we succeeded
>>in destroying MS, we would also destroy the biggest charity donators today.
>
>
> The lion, by definition, hates competition. So if they destroy the
> competion they are HUNGRY LIONS, if not they are VEGETARIAN LIONS.
>
>
>>I was emphasizing "good" capitalists and "bad" bureaucrats because so many
>>people assume the opposite (all capitalists are greedy bastards and all
>>government servants are selfless angels).
>
>
> Bureaucrats are just as bad as bad capitalists. They work for the lion
> in exchange for the juicy scraps, which are many.
>
There are definitely bureaucrats that fall into your description, but they are
not the only ones I was calling "bad". I see those that put up good intentions
as camouflage (similar to your story later) the worst. I really don't care where
they get their booty. I think their lying is more of a concern.
>
>>The monkey has nothing to do with what little I know about Epicurus. I do not
>>see how simply offering good intentions to opponents who want to do you harm is
>>a viable solution.
>
>
> Neither do I, so I think we better "give the banana" to the lion.
>
Then I'm confused. (Yeah, yeah I know)
>
>>In fact, from what I see in your latest writings, a non-greedy lion is Epicurean
>>while both the monkey and the lion mentioned are out in left field.
>
>
> Monkeys and vegetarian lions are OK. The problem is the ones that want
> to control others because they got a lot of money. It happens very
> often but not always.
>
Humans & animals (if there is a difference) who want to control others, do so
for any benefit they deem worthy. It might be money or bartered goods, and
sometimes its just plain for the feeling of superiority. You can't trust them to
be to simple.
In my eyes, a non-vegan lion is as bad as a carnivorous monkey. They just use
different techniques.
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Friedrich Nietzsche [www.epicureans.org/epitalk.htm. August 4, 1998.]
>>
>>epicureans.org seems to have been seized by a predatory domain seller
>>(domaincars.com) and is being used for click-fraud via the pay-per-view engine
>>"googlesyndication".
>
>
> A lot of camouflage in the jungle, particularly be those who claim to
> do the most good. Like this...
>
> HOW THE VULTURES BENEFIT FROM ORGANIZING THE LITTLE ANIMALS
>
> One day the Vultures, who depended on the lion's leftovers, got
> together to organize the little animals... One of the birds started
> saying: "We should organize the Sheep to worship a poor Shepherd, who,
> because he tried to save them, was crucified by the lion; but who left
> the promise of the obedient sheep going to Paradise, in which the lion
> will be tamed..." Then another bird added: "Very sweet. Likewise, we'll
> organize them to denounce the abuses against the poor little animals in
> 'other' jungles..."
>
> Meanwhile, an Owl who had been observing the problems of the jungle,
> and who had been invited by mistake, spoke this way: "The lion was able
> to kill the poor Shepherd and thus keep preying on the little animals
> because they did nothing. Why not do something to resist the lion?"
>
> And that's why the Vultures warned the little animals of the jungle
> against the 'subversive owls'...
>
It is possible to be as observant as the owl without being as verbal.
>
>>Either that or there is a more metaphysical connection in potato salad than I
>>was aware.
>
>
> We have to see the reason potato salad came to our table and we can
> spend a whole night tracing the ingredients and how some are quite
> nutritious while some are plain fattening. While you trace the eggs you
> can a make a very metaphisical question: "Who was first the egg or the
> chicken?"
>
I usually just eat and ignore the questions of the universe. I'll let Douglas
Adams worry about that one.
>
>>I decided not to explore any deeper.
>
>
> Deep is relative. If you study the a shallow sea it may not look deep,
> but if you get in a storm then you are in deep trouble.
>
But the water was infested with cyber sharks. I didn't want to quantify it any
further.
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>More recently, Thomas Jefferson was an Epicurean. In his 1819 Letter to
>>>William Short, Jefferson points up the shortcomings of other
>>>philosophies and the virtues of Epicureanism. The letter also contains
>>>a short Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus.
>>
>>This one intrigues me. While his work did encompass many "schools", I don't see
>>how knowing about Epicurus makes him an Epicurean.
>>
>
>
> Wrong answer. In his own words...
>
> "I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines
> of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which
> Greek and Roman leave to us."
> Thomas Jefferson
>
Like I said, I'm intrigued. For the last few months my readings have been
focused on the Enlightenment era. Nothing I have on Jefferson or the era
mentions it. I need to look further. What would you suggest?
But Jefferson's use of "genuine (not the imputed)" is a red flag to me. As I
understand him, it probably means that he is using his own definition instead of
common usage (as imputed by others). He did the same with Jesus. While
commenting on how the bible degrades Jesus, he called himself a "real
Christian". The statement was misleading to many.
--
Liquid
donquijote1954
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
> Like I said, I'm intrigued. For the last few months my readings have been
> focused on the Enlightenment era. Nothing I have on Jefferson or the era
> mentions it. I need to look further. What would you suggest?
>
> But Jefferson's use of "genuine (not the imputed)" is a red flag to me. As I
> understand him, it probably means that he is using his own definition instead of
> common usage (as imputed by others). He did the same with Jesus. While
> commenting on how the bible degrades Jesus, he called himself a "real
> Christian". The statement was misleading to many.
>
I'm no expert on the subject but I found this to be quite
enlightening...
"I wish I could subjoin [to the Philosophy of Jesus (i.e., The
Jefferson Bible)] a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines
of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and
caricature of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the
philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and
fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival
sects." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thompson, 1816.
"I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of
our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you
are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that 'the indulgence
which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be
avoided.' Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a
suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference
to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and
hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which
the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know,
is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and
surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly,
too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our
road." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1819.
And this introduction to Epicureanism is great and got some addresses
in America...
http://www.e.millner.btinternet.co.uk/science/epicurusFAQ.html
Fluidly Unsure
> Fluidly Unsure wrote:
>
>
>>Like I said, I'm intrigued. For the last few months my readings have been
>>focused on the Enlightenment era. Nothing I have on Jefferson or the era
>>mentions it. I need to look further. What would you suggest?
>>
>>But Jefferson's use of "genuine (not the imputed)" is a red flag to me. As I
>>understand him, it probably means that he is using his own definition instead of
>>common usage (as imputed by others). He did the same with Jesus. While
>>commenting on how the bible degrades Jesus, he called himself a "real
>>Christian". The statement was misleading to many.
>>
>
>
> I'm no expert on the subject but I found this to be quite
> enlightening...
>
> "I wish I could subjoin [to the Philosophy of Jesus (i.e., The
> Jefferson Bible)] a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines
> of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and
> caricature of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the
> philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and
> fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival
> sects." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thompson, 1816.
>
One of these days I'm going to break-down and actually read the "Jefferson
Bible". It is too bad he wasn't able to add wisdom of the ancients and other
religions also. I don't think Jesus was the only wise man in Jeffersons eyes.
>
> "I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of
> our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you
> are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that 'the indulgence
> which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be
> avoided.' Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a
> suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference
> to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and
> hebetude of mind, the farthest of all things from the happiness which
> the well-regulated indulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know,
> is one of his four cardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and
> surmount difficulties; not to fly from them, like cowards; and to fly,
> too, in vain, for they will meet and arrest us at every turn of our
> road." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1819.
>
Sometimes his letters bordered on "nya nya nya nya nya, I'm better than you!"
>
> And this introduction to Epicureanism is great and got some addresses
> in America...
>
> http://www.e.millner.btinternet.co.uk/science/epicurusFAQ.html
>
Thank you, promptly bookmarked.
But that does seem to be a rather old web site ("Established 306 BCE")
--
Liquid
Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger
Logic, sanity, audience and profit?
>
>>
>>>>>Just because I stay put doesn't mean I'm denying
>>>>>that the truck is slower than I would like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The slower is the truck, the safer you could overtake it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That was more of a comment for "Death".
>>>
>>>By trying to stay alive I'm not denying that the existence after death
>>>could be
>>>better. I stay behind the truck even though I'm impatient and want to be
>>>able to
>>>get to my destination much quicker. In other words, I choose to stay in
>>>the
>>>primodal ooze yet I know that death may well be much more enjoyable (?).
>>
>>
>> Most people excercise reasonable care. When you cut it too close to death
>> because you think death is not fearful, you should stop your existing
>> life
>> style and see if you can possibly like death better.
>>
>>
>>>As far as the speed of the truck: The slower it goes the more chances
>>>that
>>>someone behind me will get frustrated and try to overtake others. Thus
>>>eliminating my escape path and making it even more unsafe.
>>
>>
>> You are correct. If it were stationary on your lane, it'd be most likely
>> more a hazard than it were moving at all.
>>
>
> That's why driving is so dangerous in LA. I can't get my State Senator to
> take
> me seriously when I suggest we install the autobahn here.
Driving shouldn't be dangerouse on freeway in L.A. Nobody is going anywhere.
>
>>
>>>>>Some people "fight" death because they don't know and are therefore
>>>>>afraid. It
>>>>>is not the best option, but it is no worse than rosy assumptions about
>>>>>death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Be prudent with death helps the chances to live longer. It's impossible
>>>>that
>>>>any human does not have a life threatening experience. What one expect
>>>>from
>>>>death helps preventing it most of time. But knowledge of death might
>>>>have
>>>>lead to some unfortunate deaths.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again, targeted towards "death". He claims there is no reason to fight
>>>death
>>>because it is peaceful.
>>
>>
>> Is he's a goth death worshiper?
>>
>
> I think so.
>
>>
>>>I'm saying there are other reasons to fight and that he
>>>can't claim supremacy over us "survival addicts".
>>
>>
>> and you are a health freak kinda.
>>
>
> That's why I want the pastor to pass out granola and carrots at my
> funeral,
> after the aerobic dancing/exercising session.
I support herbivores rights before human rights because it's easier to
satisfy them first.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Liquid