Surviving Progress

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

That's the title of this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc

All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"

It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
bike in peace?

"Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
survival and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 17, 1:53 pm, cycler <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

> TibetanMonkey wrote:
> >That's the title of this documentary:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
>

> Looks to be a bit of drama
> posing as fact.

>
> >All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >consumption, revolution... We are in trouble
>

> You and your dog are in trouble?
> You mean the super-volcano?
> You mean the asteroid?
> The next ice age?
> Your Red Giant?

>
> >and it asks the most
> >important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>

> Well, you see, your planet, that you call Earth
> is geologically active. Super-volcanoes explode
> and at times a mass extinction occurs.
>
> Earth, as you call it, is also bombarded at times
> by what are called meteors. Some large space rocks
> are also known as asteriods. The collide with your planet
> and sometimes a mass extinction occurs.
>
> When the dinosaurs got wiped out, about 65 million
> or so years ago, there appear to have been both
> perfectly natural events happening at the same time.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
>
> Your planet also experiences Ice Ages regularly.
> At present, your species enjoys an inter-glacial period.
>
> This period will last for a spell, then ice will again
> cover a large portion of the surface, totally crushing
> your species' building projects. New York City, last time,
> was buried under about a mile of ice.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
>
> Eventually your star, the Sun as you may know it,
> will expand into a red giant sphere, envelope the Earth
> and wipe out everything that remains on the surface.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant#The_Sun_as_a_red_giant
>
> Anything you and your dog do in between these events,
> all of which are very likely to occur, basically amounts to
> spinning your wheels without getting traction.
>
> You appear to have a very narrow focus.
>
> A sort of tight-knit mental framework
> within which your operating system
> falls rather short, kinda flat, on its face.

>
> >It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet?
>

> I have no idea why you and your dog
> would do something like that. Maybe you
> and he are reckless destroyers of your world-
> view as you see fit to see it.

>
> > Why can't we ride a bike in peace?
>

> That's probably a mental situation.
>
> Many if not most of us cyclists are able to.
>
> Why you are unable to
> may have something
> to do with your attitude. Your outlook.

>
> >"Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> >survival
>

> Guess what. You're not going to survive.
> Not in your present physical form.
>
> Each day
> what was before
> is no longer. Yesterday survives
> only in recent memory.
>
> Your body is different now
> than it was when you were born.
> Your old young baby-body survived
> and survives after a fashion of thought.
>
> When you perish thoughts of survival
> you may learn to live and to thrive
> rather than merely survive.
>
> Perhaps then you will be able to bike in peace.
>
> Maybe even with a thrill of adrenaline
> rushing thru your body in traffic.
> Never know tho, bouts you.

>
> >and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
> >end.
>

> Sounds a bit bleak to me.

>
> > Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> >and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
>

> That hope appears somewhat doubtful.
> In your particular case in particular.
>
> You do not appear to have the capacity
> to transcend basic dualistic n'oceans.
>
> Unable to sea
> you don't ride the waves.
>
> The surf is up
> but you don't have a board.
>
> You could body-surf
> if you were able to get beyond
> identification with your bodily form.
>
> As a Flat-lander your perceptions tend
> to be extremely limited in perspective.
>
> Looks to be a movie out now.
>
> http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/
>
> The Trailer has been hitched.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8oiwnNlyE4
>
> Metaphor mites elude you.

You know, you could make a lot of money working for the corporations
that try to confuse the public. But you only succeed in making
yourself and the Buddhist philosophy look bad.

Someone as smart as I am posts this comment to the video above:

'This is not Progress, on the contrary, it's just called this way but
we are actually destroying ourselves. Evolution and progress means
helping the World and this way ourselves to live better. Destroying
everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
evolving. This is just a lie of the governemnts run by the giant
corporations (petrol industry, for example) That's what it's all
about...'

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
> then your species and many mammals would not have
> evolved into what you are now.
>
> If you think it's progress, then that's your thought.
>
> The dinosaurs might not agree.
>
> Or perhaps they took
> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
> extinction event. The destruction of everything
> they had about 65 million years ago.

Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution. Feathers
existed before the asteroid. It was the mammals that launched their
revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.

If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.

[cycler]

TibetanMonkey wrote:

> cycler wrote:
>> TibetanMonkey wrote:
>
>> > Destroying
>> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
>> >evolving.
>>
>> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
>> then your species and many mammals would not have
>> evolved into what you are now.
>>
>> If you think it's progress, then that's your thought.
>>
>> The dinosaurs might not agree.
>>
>> Or perhaps they took
>> flight and grew feathers, as a result of the mass
>> extinction event. The destruction of everything
>> they had about 65 million years ago.
>
>Sorry, I didn't know you were totally ignorant of evolution.

Total ignorance is one of my spacial talents.

> Feathers existed before the asteroid.

And, your point is?

http://www.flwildflowers.com/birdsdinosaurs/

"With the complicity of a devastating asteroid, volcanism, and nest
predation in a million-or-so-year span, extinction of the dinosaur was
almost completely accomplished at the end of the Cretaceous about 65
million years ago. No dinosaurs were left on earth, except birds that
had swam to polar lands and birds that had flown to safer havens than
bare ground and had developed stratagems, in groups or in pairs, to
protect their eggs and young.

Worldwide, the asteroid collision contributed almost entirely to the
discontinuance of flightless aquatic birds -- except for the penguin
and its northern black-and-white flightless counterpart, the great
auk, ... "

> It was the mammals that launched their
>revolution after the stupid dinosaurs were gone.

You think you are smarter than a dinosaur?
Silly human. You think you will survive the asteroid?
Do you think you'll survive the super-volcano?

>If we follow your logic atomic bombs are welcomed.

Maybe by roaches.

After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
to fill the niches opened up.

Evolution will continue.
What it has in store for you, you have no clue.

Do you think that by slowing climate change
that you can affect the next ice age?

For all you know, a warmer climate
may be the answer to the next ice age.
By trying to not allow it to occur
you might only hasten your demise.

You may think what you call pollution is bad.

For all you know it might actually be good
and by trying to scrub yourself clean
you are only making yourself weak
and subject to dis-ease.

You will not be assimilated.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 19, 6:44 am, cycler <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:
> > cycler wrote:
> >> TibetanMonkey wrote:
>
> >> > Destroying
> >> >everything we have in the name of a so called "progress" it's not
> >> >evolving.
>
> >> If the asteroid and volcanoes didn't wipe out dinosaurs
> >> then your species and many mammals would not have
> >> evolved into what you are now.
>

> >> If you think it'sprogress, then that's your thought.

You make so sense. Roaches would love humans --if you did a survey--
because they eat more thanks to us. It's an educated guess that the
population of roaches, rats and raccoons would crash after the big
one. They will survive though.

Cats will become a super predator and fat cats will be no more. But
the cats already rule around here, so they must be planning the
takeover.

>
> After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
> whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
> to fill the niches opened up.
>
> Evolution will continue.
> What it has in store for you, you have no clue.

You are changing evolution in ways similar to a catastrophic asteroid
or volcano. All in the name of "progress."

>
> Do you think that by slowing climate change
> that you can affect the next ice age?
>
> For all you know, a warmer climate
> may be the answer to the next ice age.
> By trying to not allow it to occur
> you might only hasten your demise.
>
> You may think what you call pollution is bad.

Yes, try sleeping in your car while the engine is running in a closed
garage.

Then get back to me.

>
> For all you know it might actually be good
> and by trying to scrub yourself clean
> you are only making yourself weak
> and subject to dis-ease.
>
> You will not be assimilated.

Listen to this man of science saying the same thing I'm saying. He
calls you an animal, but I'm sure you'll take no offense like the
people of Texas did. But this scientist doesn't consider us a smart
animal. Only the philosopher and the man of science are smart. The
rest just follow or try to survive in a way dictated by the economy
and a sick concept of "progress."

It's a long video so grab a cup of tea and enjoy the show...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2b7SpLpN5A

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 18, 10:31 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> On 11/18/2012 9:59 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
> > That's the title of this documentary:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
>

> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing

> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most

> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>

> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget

> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> > bike in peace?
>
> You make false assumptions;
>
> (1)  Are we destroying the planet?  I say NO.
> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO

Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.

>
>
>
> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> > survival
>

> This is true, finally you actually tell the truth...  but life is always
> about survival, you are just a single snapshot in time.  You don't see
> beyond you, it's mildly narcissistic.

You just make it more dangerous than it should be. My idea of fun
doesn't include fighting traffic.

>
> >  and it will be more and more so as we progress toward the
> > end.
>

> Maybe as you progress toward your end you will see it more and more
> because that's what you look for.

We only got one planer. If you are wrong, future generations pay the
price. Well, NYC is already paying the price.

>
> >  Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> > and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
>

> The cage is your small frame of reference.
>
> That makes life more like the Occupy movement where we will have to
> ignore the powers that be and elect to live under anarchy through
> PASSIVE RESISTANCE.

That's the only way to go. We must be smart.

In order for your theory to work you have to move to the Moon and try
surviving in a hostile environment. The rest of us --those who believe
in prevention-- stay here on Earth.

>
> --
> *Rumination*
>  #30 - Socialism will eventually run out of other people's money and
> collapse.\

Close all those parks and libraries already "occupied" by the
homeless. Drop the war on drugs. Cut down Medicare. Sorry, that's the
Holy Cow.

[cycler]

Not even ultra-violet nor infra-red?

> Roaches would love humans -

I'm sure they'd miss your species
after your atomic bombs destroyed your kind.

>-if you did a survey--
>because they eat more thanks to us.

Perhaps they could eat your carcasses.

> It's an educated guess that the
>population of roaches, rats and raccoons would crash after the big
>one. They will survive though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-6cIy_s8pQ

>Cats will become a super predator and fat cats will be no more. But
>the cats already rule around here, so they must be planning the
>takeover.

I don't know about the mammals.
Other bugs do better than roaches.
Maybe you have data for your rats,
cats, and racoons.

>> After the asteroid or super-volcano impacts your planet,
>> whatever is left alive will have room to expand,
>> to fill the niches opened up.
>>
>> Evolution will continue.
>> What it has in store for you, you have no clue.
>
>You are changing evolution in ways similar to a catastrophic asteroid
>or volcano. All in the name of "progress."
>>
>> Do you think that by slowing climate change
>> that you can affect the next ice age?
>>
>> For all you know, a warmer climate
>> may be the answer to the next ice age.
>> By trying to not allow it to occur
>> you might only hasten your demise.
>>
>> You may think what you call pollution is bad.
>
>Yes, try sleeping in your car while the engine is running in a closed
>garage.
>
>Then get back to me.

What is bad for you
may not be bad for Earth, nor for Life
not found on your planet. Nor perhaps
for your offspring, if any survived
the asteroid or super-volcano.

>> For all you know it might actually be good
>> and by trying to scrub yourself clean
>> you are only making yourself weak
>> and subject to dis-ease.
>>
>> You will not be assimilated.
>
>Listen to this man of science saying the same thing I'm saying.

I have no idea what you are saying.
You appear to be afraid to ride a bike.

> He calls you an animal,

He knows me?

> but I'm sure you'll take no offense like the
>people of Texas did.

As an animated form of Life,
Life of'ten-k calls its'elf by many names.

> But this scientist doesn't consider us a smart
>animal.

You and your dog may not be
the brightest bulbs in the drawer.

> Only the philosopher and the man of science are smart.

That's it? Musicians aren't smart?
Artists in general aren't smart? Nobody
except philosophers and men of science, eh?
What about mathematicians? Historians?
Students of literature? Are you sure?
Surely you are but a troll.

> The
>rest just follow or try to survive in a way dictated by the economy
>and a sick concept of "progress."

Without leaving your planet
your species is doomed to perish.
If not by asteroid or super-volcano,
your Red Giant will jolly well gobble you
akin to a turkey without giving thanks.

>It's a long video so grab a cup of tea and enjoy the show...
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2b7SpLpN5A

Does he plan to leave your planet?
If not, his plans are short-sighted.

Perhaps he will or will not be assimilated.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 19, 5:56 pm, traveler <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:

> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >> TibetanMonkey wrote:
>
> >> > That's the title of this documentary:
>
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
>

> >> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing

> >> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most

> >> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>

> >> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget

> >> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> >> > bike in peace?
>

> >> You make false assumptions;
>
> >> (1)  Are we destroying the planet?  I say NO.
> >> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
>
> >Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.
>

> To minimize in some tiny impact crater
> does not do much to save your planet.
>
> Your planet will be fine without you however.
> Life will go on. Earth, as you call it, will survive.
>
> Mass-extinctions are perfectly natural.
>
> Cycles of boom and bust are natural cycles.
> Seasons change and go round and round.
>
> Spring does not progress into summer
> nor does summer progress into autumn.
>
> To revolve around a star, to make one complete
> revolution is to spiral out, in the arms of a galaxy.
>
> If you stay on your planet, you are doomed.
> Your planet will survive. Your species will not survive.

>
> >> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about
> >> > survival
>

> >> This is true, finally you actually tell the truth...  but life is always
> >> about survival, you are just a single snapshot in time.  You don't see
> >> beyond you, it's mildly narcissistic.
>
> >You just make it more dangerous than it should be. My idea of fun
> >doesn't include fighting traffic.
>

> Then why not go where there is no traffic?
>
> You seem to insist on not having fun
> by fighting traffic. Perhaps it is dense
> where you live, inside your head, traffic-wise.
>
> If you want to have fun, then go where traffic is not.
> That only makes sense. Do you have more than five?

This sounds like fun...

http://www.quickrelease.tv/pix/lionbike.jpg

Our drivers are much worse.

[pi]

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:

https://www.coursera.org/course/sustain

One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
overview of known kinds of religious thinking.

I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M

pi

[thinkeringing]

pi wrote:

>One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
>overview of known kinds of religious thinking.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you thinking in terms of monotheisms, polytheisms,
pantheisms, panentheisms and other forms of theism
along with deism and deisms?

You may need to define what you mean by, "religious"
as well as the term, "thinking" for clarity.

For me, religion connotes how world-views are tied
or retied, with the term supposedly arising from Latin,
re-legare, to re-bind. As if one's view came apart
and had to be stitched back into a whole cloth.

If, in that sense, one holds to a scientific view
as if that view actually is the way things are,
then that could be called a form of religion.

So too with agnosticism, skepticism, or any position
held to be how one thinks, whenever the view is clung
to through and through, including nationalism,
environmentalism, alcoholism, etcetera.

If a person can be said to think without words,
and behaves in a regular way, so much so that his
or her actions could be predicted in various circumstances,
along with, perhaps, some ritual stuff, akin to the empty
cans of kerosine kicked around by a primate, then
that kind of religious thinking may be known.

>I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M

Interesting video.
Thanks.

[pi]

thinkeringing wrote:
> pi wrote:
> >One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
> >overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.

Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
quote Pinker to express what I really meant:

"Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
other purposes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JILvK_fLTuY

I am sorry if I'm mixing knowing, believing and thinking (all of which
have precise technical meaning with which I am not yet familiar). What
I think I meant by "kinds of religious thinking" was some kind of
typology of the uses across history of this cognitive ability to
conceptualize of agency which transcends ours, plus some kind of
systematization of inheritance of traditions in this regard. "World
religions for atheists" or something like that :)

> Are you thinking in terms of monotheisms, polytheisms,
> pantheisms, panentheisms and other forms of theism
> along with deism and deisms?

Right.

> You may need to define what you mean by, "religious"
> as well as the term, "thinking" for clarity.

Absolutely. I realized that once I've read your post.

> For me, religion connotes how world-views are tied
> or retied, with the term supposedly arising from Latin,
> re-legare, to re-bind. As if one's view came apart
> and had to be stitched back into a whole cloth.

Great, thank you :)

> If, in that sense, one holds to a scientific view
> as if that view actually is the way things are,
> then that could be called a form of religion.

I guess the above is just about the only thing which can be said with
absolute ;) certainty.

> So too with agnosticism, skepticism, or any position
> held to be how one thinks, whenever the view is clung
> to through and through, including nationalism,
> environmentalism, alcoholism, etcetera.

Right.

> If a person can be said to think without words,
> and behaves in a regular way, so much so that his
> or her actions could be predicted in various circumstances,
> along with, perhaps, some ritual stuff, akin to the empty
> cans of kerosine kicked around by a primate, then
> that kind of religious thinking may be known.

I couldn't agree more.

> >I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
>
> Interesting video.
> Thanks.

My pleasure, thank you :)

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:
>thinkeringing wrote:
>> pi wrote:
>
>> >One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
>> >overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>Oh, I am sorry, this is just my clumsy English again. Please let me
>quote Pinker to express what I really meant:
>
>"Religious belief is not likely to be a biological adaptation itself,
>but rather a by-product of cognitive faculties that have evolved for
>other purposes."

Views from the inside out
or from the outside in,
from the material
to the spiritual
or from the spiritual
to the material,
may tend to differ a bit.

This morning
I got up
and sat down.

Sitting and meditating
thoughts arose pertaining to life,
and revolved around organisms.

Each cell in one's body
is said to have a life of its own.
Each is a single-celled organism.

It's doubtful if any single cell
is able to comprehend the being
of which it is but a singular cell.

Each organ of a larger organism is
more likely than a single cell
to be in a position to feel
more of what the organism feels.

It's fashionable now-a-daze
to think the brain comprehends.
It's less fashionable to center oneself
in the heart region of the body.

Yet it may be said how the heart knows
or how the gut knows. And perhaps they do.

It's a fashion of thought to think in terms
of nation-states, of countries, cities, towns.

It may appear to one how each designation
is a type of organism, taking on a life
of its own in various ways.

They are born, grow, are fed, expand,
and eventually pass away. They have,
or could be said to have, cells, organisms,
people, within them, few of which are aware
of the state as a whole in all of its parts.

Awareness tends to be limited.

An individual species
might be thought of as being
an organism in and of itself.

This type of thought stretches
the fabric of fashion down its walkway.

And yet, to a single cell in one's body,
the body as a whole, you, are as a god.

You might be aware of a single cell
or a group of cells, as a whole.

To a corporation or a body-politic,
a boss or a king might be as a god
who is normally unconcerned with any
single worker-cell within itself.

And yet, he or she could be.

There could be, at times, a realization,
which might be said to be adaptive,
and not just a byproduct of cognition,
where a cell or an organ becomes aware
of higher orders of organization
within a particular organism.

For all people know,
a planet or a solar system
might be as a cell or an organ
in a larger organism. And that larger
organism could have some form of awareness,
of consciousness, be as a god
to its individual cells.

A realization of such a situation, an experience,
might be scoffed at, just as if a blood cell,
be it red or white, were able to communicate,
as might one flat-lander to another, of a sphere,
or some other higher order geometry.

Religious experiences
may be attempted to be put into thought,
into words. Such thinking may be bound
to fall short, on deaf ears, unable to be
seen by those without eyes
able to sea.

[kamerm]

oldie (but free) http://www.bartleby.com/196/

-k

[{:-])))]

kamerm wrote:
>>> pi wrote:
>
>>>> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is
>>>> an overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>>>
>

>oldie (but free) http://www.bartleby.com/196/

Reflectinkering with religious types of views,
it dawns on me how a view to the east
is not particularly wrong. Nor is a view to
the north, or to the west or south.

A view, looking up, reveals a sight.
With a view, looking down, one may see
something or things on the ground.

It's not uncommon for some folks to sum up
their thinking in terms of the material or physical.

They may suppose, for example, that schools
of thought arise from the brain. As if the grey
matter is what matters.

Such thinking might suppose, then,
that it is the physical, the material components
of a geographical area which give rise to
empires, to China, to the States, etc.

As if it were the buildings in New York City
that are, at root, why thoughts are thought
within that particular region.

As if mind arises from structures
rather than structures arising out of spirit.
As if there are differences. Other than of view.

It is a strange facet of language, perhaps,
that people may think and feel
as if they have or are
a body.

One might say, for instance, one has a flat,
as if one is a car. Or one may think or feel,
rather, that one has a car, as one has
an arm or a leg, a heart or a lung.

People may feel, and think, as if
they are members of a family, or a nation,
and take it very personally if their group
is perceived as being attacked.

As if they are more than simply
individuals, brains, material entities.

Words tend to have lots of meanings.
Thought might be fashioned to carry
meanings along its streams or in trains.

On the banks, off the rails,thoughts might
run the course of deltas or along parallel
or skewed lines of change or reason.

A long many aWay -

[inventor]

>>>> pi wrote:
>>
>>>>> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is
>>>>> an overview of known kinds of religious thinking.

Some may say
self is an illusion.

Some may say
self is an appearance.

Sew two with mind.

An individual, for sum, is
said to be a body, with mind
a type of product of the body
out of which a mind emerges.

A country, for sum, may be
seen to have a mind of its own,
in a manner of thinking, of speakinging.

Nonsense, some may say. A country
has within it people. The land has no mind
aside from the people who live within
its borders.

Just so, may say some, a body
has within it neurons. The body has no mind
aside from the neurons that live within
its borders.

A country could be said to be of many minds.
As well, a body, even a brain, can be seen
to have many minds, many groups
of neurons within it.

One may wonder, given kings and rulers
of great measure, if a small group, a cluster
of neurons might be in control at some time.

Or if one, could be said to be in charge,
leading the way, as energy cascades,
among the many, neurons, within
the borders of a body.

Spreading as ripples throughout,
larger bodies may feel it. Countries
going to war. Wars within one's body.
Within one's mind, between minds
found within one's brain.

Illusions. Appearances.
Known kinds of religious thinking.

Tinkering and reflectinkeringings
of ideas at length, in depth, as cubic
roots, perhaps of a minus one.

Complex systems can be said to be
sensitive to initial conditionings.

- as the butter flies
inflection points -

[pi]

Right, thank you :)

https://www.coursera.org/course/bioelectricity

pi

[pi]

kamerm wrote:

> oldie (but free)
> http://www.bartleby.com/196/
>
> -k

Super, thank you :)

I've done some research and it pretty much seems this was one of the
two texts (the other one being the Darwin's Descent of man) which lead
to Freud's Totem and taboo :)

Again, thank you very much :)

pi

P.S. Another really nice work in the above spirit I recently consulted
was Bronowski's Ascent of man.

[pi]

I've never thought of myself as anything much more than a temporary
flux of energy, a coincidential occurence on the outskirts of the
world, a speck of foam on the waves of history.

https://www.coursera.org/course/wh1300

https://www.coursera.org/course/modernworld

I mean, if I lived just 100 miles further to the east, my chances of
learning of the existence of alt.zen or Coursera would be down by 95%.
It's luck, that's what it is on my part.

pi

[kamerm]

so much anthropology, mainstream and fringe to choose/browse among re.
evolution and/of religion :-)

you asked for simple (but academically sound), online, and free. free tends
to mean old (with the notable exception of these marvelous MOOCs like
Coursera, but you'd already hit the MOOCs). also hunted for some Carl Jeung
(also an oldie), but nothing jumped out at me online (lots of his paper
books for free in any decent community library).

"Know Thyself" :-)

-k

[pi]

All noted, thank you very much :-)

pi

P.S. Actually, it was the MOOCs that hit me through their effective
CNN and TedTalks marketing :-)

https://www.coursera.org/course/friendsmoneybytes

All I *ever* did was sit here in front of my computer and look at the
screen :-)

Again, 100 miles farther to the east and the probability of there even
being a screen would be down by 95%

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 19, 5:56 pm, traveler <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >> TibetanMonkey wrote:
>
> >> > That's the title of this documentary:
>
> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
>
> >> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> >> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>
> >> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> >> > bike in peace?
>
> >> You make false assumptions;
>
> >> (1)  Are we destroying the planet?  I say NO.
> >> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
>
> >Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.
>
> To minimize in some tiny impact crater
> does not do much to save your planet.
>
> Your planet will be fine without you however.
> Life will go on. Earth, as you call it, will survive.
>
> Mass-extinctions are perfectly natural.
>
> Cycles of boom and bust are natural cycles.
> Seasons change and go round and round.
>
> Spring does notprogressinto summer

> nor does summerprogressinto autumn.

>
> To revolve around a star, to make one complete
> revolution is to spiral out, in the arms of a galaxy.
>
> If you stay on your planet, you are doomed.
> Your planet will survive. Your species will not survive.

That's the whole idea behind the movie "Wall-E." Humans escape after
trashing this planet, and Wall-E --the little robot-- goes to the
rescue. The automatic pilot has taken over, everybody is fat and they
barely remember the Earth.

Nice Utopia for you.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 19, 11:40 pm, pi <pi65...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > That's the title of this documentary:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
>
> > All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> > consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> > important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
>
> > It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> > to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> > bike in peace?
>
> > "Surviving" is the perfect word because life nowadays is about

> > survival and it will be more and more so as weprogresstoward the

> > end. Hopefully a revolution will make things right before that happens
> > and the monkey will be happy out of the cage once again.
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> https://www.coursera.org/course/sustain
>
> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which I am missing) is an
> overview of known kinds of religious thinking.
>
> I guess it all started way ... way before 10,000 BC:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
>
> pi

The irrational following of a supreme leader --god-- is pure monkey
thinking. "Monkey see, monkey do."

[x]

who do you follow?

[x]

i thought you followed monkies...

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

This is South Africa --assumed to be the most progressive country in
Africa-- and yet having no bicycle culture or infrastructure. Other
countries being poorer perhaps rely more on the bike and less on the
car. Good for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I348QN5Ml5Q

Notice the old lady --84 four years old-- who can barely walk but she
rides a bike. Is that the secret to health and longevity? Is the
bicycle the key to real progress in Africa? Of course it is.

Many things are wrong in Africa, including the type of bike they use --
some unreliable Indian bike-- but there's hope before "progress" --
read Western consumption-- destroys communities and lives.

All those goals and more are to be faced by the Bike Revolution --a
revolution in mobility and freedom.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

I make my own path.

Others --often without even thinking about it-- follow some leader or
idea. It's their monkey instinct.

[pi]

TibetanMonkey wrote:

> The irrational following of a supreme leader --god-- is pure monkey
> thinking. "Monkey see, monkey do."

https://www.coursera.org/course/stats1

Ok, I am not going to push my luck another further around here. Please
let me try to wisen up before posting again :-)

Statistically (that is, all spirituality aside), what you really need
to be is a multi-model thinker:

https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking

All IMVHO, OC :-)

pi

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Oh, what a surprise!

I thought I had to study this lady...

http://www.janegoodall.org/

But I tell off hand, we need bananas for all monkeys for them to be
happy. And then we must enforce the distribution. Mind you, no
equality is sought.

Just make sure the alpha-males don't manipulate the bananas and wage
war to control even more bananas!

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 22, 11:38 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 10:58 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 3:04 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> >> On 11/19/2012 1:36 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 18, 10:31 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> >>>> On 11/18/2012 9:59 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>> That's the title of this documentary:
> >>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuampumYoc
> >>>>> All the ingredients are there: the monkey, pollution, China embracing
> >>>>> consumption, revolution... We are in trouble and it asks the most
> >>>>> important faced by philosophers: "WHY?"
> >>>>> It turns out that the monkey never asks why and we humans often forget
> >>>>> to. Why are we recklessly destroying the planet? Why can't we ride a
> >>>>> bike in peace?

> >>>> You make false assumptions;
> >>>> (1)  Are we destroying the planet?  I say NO.
> >>>> (2) Will Bicycles save the planet? I say NO
> >>> Yes, bicycles minimize the impact of humans.

> >> So walking and using donkey carts and going back to the stone age is
> >> your progressive plan?
>
> >> Shutting down Coal electric and sitting in the dark isn't really that
> >> much of a plan.    Rolling black outs and food shortages and destroying
> >> the medical care is NOT really progress.
>
> >> --
> >> *Welcome to Socialism*
>
> >> -Kum bay ya-
> > This is my vision, no donkey carts:

>
> > This is South Africa --assumed to be the most progressive country in
> > Africa-- and yet having no bicycle culture or infrastructure. Other
> > countries being poorer perhaps rely more on the bike and less on the
> > car. Good for them.
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I348QN5Ml5Q
>
> > Notice the old lady --84 four years old-- who can barely walk but she
> > rides a bike. Is that the secret to health and longevity? Is the
> > bicycle the key to real progress in Africa? Of course it is.
>

> Then do it if you believe in it, but why force me to believe in your
> beliefs?
>
> --
> *Welcome to Socialism*
> -Kum bay ya-

I believe in it and I try to do something about it, but you don't let
me!

I ride a bike, I come under attack. I must ride on sidewalks in order
to survive and I can't avoid many close encounters with cars and
pedestrians. Would you give me space to practice my belief?

You believe in waste and the car to motivate the economy. I believe in
frugality and the bike as the vehicle of liberation. You control three
lanes of traffic and you leave 3 feet of sidewalk for bikes and
pedestrians.

That's the lion's share, right?

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 23, 11:47 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:42 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> > > "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com>  wrote :
>
> > >> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> > >> messagenews:pEBrs.8915$OJ2....@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > >> <...>
>
> > >>> You want to tax all my money away.....
> > >> Name one rich person who's been taxed into poverty.  Ever.
>
> > >> Idiot.
>
> > Name one Nation that was ever taxed into prosperity.....
>
> > If taxes make us rich then lets tax everyone 100% so we can all live the
> > life of luxury.

>
> > --
> > *Welcome to Socialism*
> > -Kum bay ya-
>

> Don't you call France and Germany prosperous?

Smart taxation can make a nation prosperous too!

"The simple fact is that we cannot afford to wait any longer before
making the intellectual and capital investment on retooling how we
produce and consume energy. Germany is a case in point. It produces 25
percent of its electricity needs from wind and solar. By 2022 it
expects to produce 50 percent of its power needs with renewables.
Germany has accomplished this with an added tax on electricity bills.
That alone should be enough to persuade us of this needed change, but
heaven forbid that a U.S. politician should ever advance this line of
thought."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/31/3076529/miami-beach-sinking-beneath-the.html#storylink=cpy

***

Brilliant, simply brilliant. But it takes honest politicians and a
smart population to make it happen.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 24, 2:14 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 7:23 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> >> So it isn't really a viable source of energy.  It must be subsidized.

>
> >>> That alone should be enough to persuade us of this needed change,

> >> Change to a less efficient source of energy?
>
> >> They don't have 300 million people do they?
>
> >> Start by changing your city.  Why do you have to force everyone to live
> >> like you  FEEL is the right way,   YOU are worse tan any Jesus freak
> >> preaching the Bible.

>
> >>> but
> >>> heaven forbid that a U.S. politician should ever advance this line of
> >>> thought."

> >> NOT your JOB to tell us how we SHALL live or think is it?

>
> >> --
> >> *Welcome to Socialism*
> >> -Kum bay ya-

> > Germany is looking into the future and wants to stay out of trouble.
> > China and America seem to be the dinosaurs, and they will have to
> > fight for dwindling oil reserves sooner or later.
>
> That's like saying North Dakota is looking to the future and producing
> oil to stay out of trouble and that  the other 50 States should do
> exactly the same thing.

There's a saying out there that still is true: "Pray for the best, be
ready for the worst."

France and Germany have both smart energy policies, but we can not
speak of any American energy policy. Perhaps the only motto is "The
more waste the better."

Ironically France and Germany have opposing strategies, and I dare say
the German approach is better. They are simply playing it safe.

Now, one question: If socialism doesn't work and France is socialist,
why they have a clean record on nuclear energy? I think socialism can
mean waste but it can also mean cooperation.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 24, 12:19 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> I once saw a septic tank pumping truck that had a sticker on it that said;
>
>        *YOUR WASTE IS OUR GAIN*

>
> --
> *Welcome to Socialism*
> -Kum bay ya-

OK, let me share an idea I saw last night. All the water that goes
down the toilet is wasted water but it's good water. Solution???

Easy, water from the bathtub, dishwasher, etc, goes to this tank and
from the tank to the toilet! That's what I call being smart. Frugality
is the way to go and the Germans are far ahead of us. Recycling is
barely visible in my area and I'm talking about a recognized city in
America. Well, I say my community is full of shit, but that's another
story.

Waste is all around me. The lights of this beach path are lit in broad
daylight and nobody gives a shit.

[bright]

TibetanMonkey wrote:

>OK, let me share an idea I saw last night. All the water that goes
>down the toilet is wasted water but it's good water. Solution???
>
>Easy, water from the bathtub, dishwasher, etc, goes to this tank and
>from the tank to the toilet! That's what I call being smart.

Why not add ten tanks in between?

> Frugality
>is the way to go and the Germans are far ahead of us.

How many tanks do they have?

> Recycling is
>barely visible in my area and I'm talking about a recognized city in
>America. Well, I say my community is full of shit, but that's another
>story.
>
>Waste is all around me. The lights of this beach path are lit in broad
>daylight and nobody gives a shit.

Electricity, once generated, is going, going,
and gone no matter if it's used or not.

If you give a shit, find the switch.

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> People may feel, and think, as if
> they are members of a family, or a nation,
> and take it very personally if their group
> is perceived as being attacked.

The tragedy comes when their group is attacked by another group, and the
only issue at stake is membership in the group. It's fun when football
teams do it, not so fun when countries do it.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Each cell in one's body
> is said to have a life of its own.
> Each is a single-celled organism.

There were some cells in my right breast that asserted their free will
and made their own society once. They refused to listen to the signals
from the rest of my body when they were told it was time to die. They
sought their own immortality. I had to have them exiled, for they would
have hastened the mortality of my entire body, and by extension, themselves.

[{:-])))]

Linuxgal wrote:
>{:-]))) wrote:
>
>> People may feel, and think, as if
>> they are members of a family, or a nation,
>> and take it very personally if their group
>> is perceived as being attacked.
>
>The tragedy comes when their group is attacked by another group, and the
>only issue at stake is membership in the group. It's fun when football
>teams do it, not so fun when countries do it.

When one's physical body is attacked
that might not be fun at all. It's a bout
as real as real gets.

When one thinks one has been attacked
out of a sense of identity with a group,
a family unit, a body politic, a body of
Christ or some other religion, etc., that too
might not be fun at all. However, the reality
could be said to be a bit more abstract.

Differences may be noticed
between a punch in the nose
and a punch in the knows.

In that sense,
what niunian was talking about,
in terms of instinctive knowledge of good
might have grains of truth in it.

If someone burns a Quran or a Bible
or a DDJ or a Zz, a violation of the sacred
may have taken place.

If someone burns a house
on the other side of the planet
or down the street or next door
I might feel more or less inclined
to take it personally.

When one thinks in terms of my
me or mine, house, family, neighborhood,
country, planet, solar system, one's train
of thoughts might run away with one.

Tragedy can be funny.
I have a warp-drive sense
of humor. It could be more than
a sixth or seventh.

With memberships members hips
and member ships sail and do
hip stuff and ship stuff.

What's at stake
may pierce one's heart.

[{:-])))]

Linuxgal wrote:
>{:-]))) wrote:
>
>> Each cell in one's body
>> is said to have a life of its own.
>> Each is a single-celled organism.
>
>There were some cells in my right breast that asserted their free will
>and made their own society once. They refused to listen to the signals
>from the rest of my body when they were told it was time to die. They
>sought their own immortality. I had to have them exiled, for they would
>have hastened the mortality of my entire body, and by extension, themselves.

Did you change anything else
along your way, during the process?

Reason I ask has to do with factors.

A product, such as uncontrolled growth,
could be seen as an outgrowth of factors
which, when multiplied, go beyond a norm.

Stress tends to be a common denominator.

One's outlook may be involved with what is
going on without an inlook.

I was told that I got too much sun. Was out in
the Sun too long. A couple of my basal cells
went haywire and divided up and got ugly.

It's possible that I've been out in
the Sun too long a great many times.

It's also possible that the symptoms
had something to do with something else.
Cancer might be a symptom.

When a thing works
everything is working.

Cancer works without working.

When any one thing is removed
or too much of one thing is added
then the original one thing may work
in a different way than it did before,
and sometimes won't work at all.

Did you take time off?
What changes did you make,
or were made, aside from removing
what appeared to be the problem?

In order to keep the chaos
from returning to your order
of things.

- taking surveys

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> If someone burns a Quran or a Bible
> or a DDJ or a Zz, a violation of the sacred
> may have taken place.

If it was an original document maybe. If you burned the Constitution
that's on display at the National Archive, the one Jefferson and
Franklin signed, that would be a violation of the sacred. But if you
burned a hardcopy of constitution.pdf, not so much. There are some who
would mar that constitution to forbid flag burning, another assault on
the abstract.

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> Did you take time off?
> What changes did you make,
> or were made, aside from removing
> what appeared to be the problem?

The hard chemo took two months, and I did take that time off. The
rearguard chemo was easier, but more expensive, and it took a year.
There was also a daily requirement to be zapped with photons with
wavelengths shorter'n an atom nucleus, resulting in a permanent tan on
my chest and my back, and I'm already as brown as a mocha. All in all,
the experience was not as bad as I feared it would be, but I did have
the scariest, most aggressive kind, Inflammatory Breast Cancer, with the
lowest survival rate, and it was late state three before I started
treatment. My long straight hair is gone, replaced by short curly hair.
And my chest is 50% off. But I am in a unique position to calm the
fears of other women who are diagnosed with the same. As for the cause
of this little adventure? Simple replication error in the DNA. Not
punishment from God.

[{:-])))]

Linuxgal wrote:
>{:-]))) wondered a bout:
>
>> What changes ...

>
> I am in a unique position to calm the
>fears of other women who are diagnosed with the same. As for the cause
>of this little adventure? Simple replication error in the DNA. Not
>punishment from God.

No. Not punishment.
Nor was Je-tzu punished.

One's ministry is one's calling.

Those to whom one ministers
are able to hear one's voice.

Otherwise deaf-ears ring tones
far and wide in the order of the day.

Jargon cans
Be everTing

Being in the missionary
is not the only unique position.

In terms of schools
of thought and other
wise what one thinks,
many fish are happy.

[{:-])))]

Linuxgal wrote:
>{:-]))) wrote:
>
>> If someone burns a Quran or a Bible
>> or a DDJ or a Zz, a violation of the sacred
>> may have taken place.
>
>If it was an original document maybe. If you burned the Constitution
>that's on display at the National Archive, the one Jefferson and
>Franklin signed, that would be a violation of the sacred. But if you
>burned a hardcopy of constitution.pdf, not so much. There are some who
>would mar that constitution to forbid flag burning, another assault on
>the abstract.

Mea Culpa!

What would play-dough think?

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 25, 8:07 am, energy <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:

> >Now, one question: If socialism doesn't work and France is socialist,
> >why they have a clean record on nuclear energy?
>

> If capitalism doesn't work and the States are capitalistic
> then why is the USA the most powerful nation
> to be found on your planet?

In one word: PREDATION.

The Soviet Union was also very powerful and then it crumbled.

>
> >I think socialism can
> >mean waste but it can also mean cooperation.
>

> Words can mean anything you want them to mean.
>
> If socialism means waste
> and also means cooperation
> then cooperation means waste.
>
> If a=b and b=c then a=c.

Socialism means cooperation *or* waste, depending on what you mean by
it.

Scandinavian countries are among the least corrupt countries in the
world. Here hardcore capitalism means waste. The more the waste, the
better for contractors and corporations.

And the worse for the people.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Nov 25, 8:32 am, bright <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:

> >Waste is all around me. The lights of this beach path are lit in broad
> >daylight and nobody gives a shit.
>
> Electricity, once generated, is going, going,
> and gone no matter if it's used or not.
>
> If you give a shit, find the switch.

Really? Maybe they generate more electricity and burn more coal to
meet the demand.

You always seem to be wrong.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

There's a lot of fun in shooting an RPG and hitting the target.

But the fun is gone with a drone.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

The security forces in your body fought back the terrorist cells and
won.

Congratulations!!!

[Linuxgal]

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

So far.

[Linuxgal]

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

At least with a drone you can do it from Langley with a slice of pizza
in the other hand.

[Linuxgal]

TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

> Scandinavian countries are among the least corrupt countries in the
> world.

So the Stieg Larsson books are based entirely on fiction.

[dimmer]

TibetanMonkey wrote:

> bright wrote:
>> TibetanMonkey wrote:
>
>> >Waste is all around me. The lights of this beach path are lit in broad
>> >daylight and nobody gives a shit.
>>
>> Electricity, once generated, is going, going,
>> and gone no matter if it's used or not.
>>
>> If you give a shit, find the switch.
>
>Really? Maybe they generate more electricity
>and burn more coal to meet the demand.
>
>You always seem to be wrong.

The way a market system can work
is first generate the demand.

Then create a product
to meet the demand generated.

With electricity,
once it's generated, it's gone.

Water can be held in storage
but once the turbines begin to spin,
any electricity unused goes unused.

It isn't sold in stores.
Except for minute amounts
e.g. AAA, AA, C and sometimes D.

If you give a shit, find the switch.

Why sit ye on your can?

Are you related to Nero?

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Would you care to do a commercial for Pizza Hot?

[kamerm]

that calls for a vintage Taoast!

"Master Ssu, Master Yu, Master Li, and Master Lai were all four talking
together. "Who can look upon nonbeing as his head, on life as his back, and
on death as his rump?" they said. "Who knows that life and death, existence
and annihilation, are all a single body? I will be his friend!" The four
men looked at each other and smiled. There was no disagreement in their
hearts and so the four of them became friends.
All at once Master Yu fell ill. Master Ssu went to ask how he was. "Amazing"
said Master Yu. "The Creator is making me all crookedy like this! My back
sticks up like a hunchback and my vital organs are on top of me. My chin is
hidden in my navel, my shoulders are up above my head, and my pigtail points
at the sky. It must be some dislocation of the yin and yang!" Yet he seemed
calm at heart and unconcerned. Dragging himself haltingly to the well, he
looked at his reflection and said, "My, my! So the Creator is making me all
crookedy like this!"
"Do you resent it?" asked Master Ssu.
"Why no, what would I resent? If the process continues, perhaps in time
he'll transform my left arm into a rooster. In that case I'll keep watch on
the night. Or perhaps in time he'll transform my right arm into a crossbow
pellet and I'll shoot down an owl for roasting. Or perhaps in time he'll
transform my buttocks into cartwheels. Then, with my spirit for a horse,
I'll climb up and go for a ride. What need will I ever have for a carriage
again? "I received life because the time had come; I will lose it because
the order of things passes on. Be content with this time and dwell in this
order and then neither sorrow nor joy can touch you. In ancient times this
was called the `freeing of the bound.' There are those who cannot free
themselves, because they are bound by things. But nothing can ever win
against Heaven that's the way it's always been. What would I have to
resent?"
Suddenly Master Lai grew ill. Gasping and wheezing, he lay at the point of
death. His wife and children gathered round in a circle and began to cry.
Master Li, who had come to ask how he was, said, "Shoo! Get back! Don't
disturb the process of change!" Then he leaned against the doorway and
talked to Master Lai. "How marvelous the Creator is! What is he going to
make of you next? Where is he going to send you? Will he make you into a
rat's liver? Will he make you into a bug's arm?"
Master Lai said, "A child, obeying his father and mother, goes wherever he
is told, east or west, south or north. And the yin and yang how much more
are they to a man than father or mother! Now that they have brought me to
the verge of death, if I should refuse to obey them, how perverse I would
be! What fault is it of theirs? The Great Clod burdens me with form, labors
me with life, eases me in old age, and rests me in death. So if I think well
of my life, for the same reason I must think well of my death. When a
skilled smith is casting metal, if the metal should leap up and say, `I
insist upon being made into a Mo yeh!' he would surely regard it as very
inauspicious metal indeed. Now, having had the audacity to take on human
form once, if I should say, `I don't want to be anything but a man! Nothing
but a man!', the Creator would surely regard me as a most inauspicious sort
of person. So now I think of heaven and earth as a great furnace, and the
Creator as a skilled smith. Where could he send me that would not be all
right? I will go off to sleep peacefully, and then with a start I will wake
up."

Good Luck to you, Ruby :-)
-k

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Dec 8, 12:42 pm, Linuxgal <teres...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
> > Scandinavian countries are among the least corrupt countries in the
> > world.
>
> So the Stieg Larsson books are based entirely on fiction.

I want to hear more about the Vikings.

Erik the Red would behead those caught in corruption.

Or perhaps he would strike them with an axe to the heart.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Why not use the sun? The wind? Even nuclear energy?

I think it has to do with Big Oil.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Dec 8, 10:45 pm, economidst <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey wrote:

> Think as you think if that's what you think.
>
> The market thinks with its fields of green.
> Except green can mean more than one thing.
>
> There is a point,
> it's found on a graph,
> it goes by the name
> of diminished returns.
>
> Perhaps you've heard of it.
>
> WhenEver that point is reached,
> the market turns its back,
> turns the other way,
> returns to its fields of green.
>
> It only makes dollars and sense.

You always seem to be confused. Are you a follower of ConfuTius?

Following one's own path has many advantages. I ride a bike for fun
and for the environment. I fight to keep the streets clean and the
lights off in the daytime. Frugality is a way of life.

I'm doing what Buddhism has failed to do.

[Tang Huyen]

On 11/19/2012 11:40 PM, pi wrote:

> One of the things they haven't got just yet (which
> I am missing) is an overview of known kinds of
> religious thinking.

Philippe Capelle, Philosophie et théologie dans le
pensée de Martin Heidegger, second edition, Paris:
Le Cerf, 2001, 97: "le texte religieux en général,
tolère-t-il, de par son institution même, d'être
lu exclusivement à partir des (et dans les)
circonstances qui ont entouré sa constitution
matérielle?"

Louis Cognet, Histoire de la spiritualité
chrétienne: Tome IV, L'essor de la spiritualité
chrétienne (1500-1650), 121: "dans quelle mesure
la métaphysique peut-elle rejoindre des données
expérimentales, et dans quelle mesure aussi
peut-on dissocier l'expérience mystique du
contexte religieux et philosophique dans lequel
elle a été vécue?"

The late Father Cognet served as Dean of the
famous l'Institut catholique de Paris. Father
Capelle is Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at
the same institution.

They ask a fundamental question: are religious
texts tied to their context? Can they be
understood only from within the circumstances
of their production? Or can they be interpreted
from some more universal norm, less bound to
their material production, perhaps not bound
to it at all, but floating above all local
specifics? One example, to me, would be pure
reason, which is totally independent of any
empirical factor (for example, one empirical
factor is Jewish mythology).

Father Capelle asks also: can metaphysics
rejoin experiential givens? Which means, can
the theories proffered on religion, especially
on mysticism, even by the religious people and
the mystics themselves, be faithful to the
religious and mystical experiences?

For me, with my interest in pure reason, the
question can be rephrased: can an abstract
theoretical norm, especially a theory of
theories (at the second level) like pure
reason, be faithful to religious and mystical
experiences? And if such a universal norm can
render account of religion and mysticism in
disregard to local circumstances, then are
local circumstances even relevant to an
understanding of religion and mysticism? To
be more cautious: if such a universal norm
can render account of (much, though perhaps
not all) religion and mysticism in (relative)
disregard to local circumstances, then are
local circumstances relevant (but to what
extent?) to an understanding of religion and
mysticism? Are religion and mysticism, to
some degree (to be assessed), universal, and
do they relate to some human nature (to be
determined) in general, in (relative)
independence from specifics of existing
forms of religion and mysticism? Can Eckhart,
John of the Cross and Madame Guyon as
European mystics be plucked right out of
their circumstances and be made to harmonise
with Asian mystics, like the Buddha and the
Old One (Lao-zi)? If so, are the local
flavours (relatively) fungible? Are there
exceptions to such universal norm, who are
bound more tightly to local flavours?

Those are fundamental questions, which
should precede any overview of known kinds
of religious thinking. The former frame
the latter. (If I may put it so, the a
priori frames the a posteriori, though
there can be exceptions).

Tang Huyen

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Dec 9, 3:22 pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:02:37 -0800, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 12:42 pm, Linuxgal <teres...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> >> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>

> >> > Scandinavian countries are among the least corrupt countries in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> So the Stieg Larsson books are based entirely on fiction.
>
> > I want to hear more about the Vikings.
>
> > Erik the Red would behead those caught in corruption.
>
> > Or perhaps he would strike them with an axe to the heart.
>

> Interesting that you should pick on a great explorer, and first European
> settler of Greenland rather than a warrior...

Guan Yu vs. Erik the Red...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvpSm1jbs0g

>
> I had one of those illuminating moments watching, of all things, the
> closing titles of a current affairs TV show (one of BBC Scotland's best
> shows, called "Eorpa") unusual in that it was made entirely in Gaelic.
>
> And there it was, the word "Rannsach", the Gaelic word for research, or
> exploration.
>
> Which turns out to derive from the old Norse "Rannsekjr", or exploration.
>
> And the same word made it into the English language. Though as they
> tended to be on the receiving end of the process, the connotations are a
> little different.
>
> They were ransacked...
>
> - Brian

The Vikings were the great ransackers of Europe or may I say raiders,
plunderers and rapists.

The fact that the Scandinavians are so tamed now tell us we can hope
to save the world.

[{:-])))]

Tang Huyen wrote, in p'art a bout:

>forms of religion and mysticism? Can Eckhart,
>John of the Cross and Madame Guyon as
>European mystics be plucked right out of
>their circumstances and be made to harmonise
>with Asian mystics, like the Buddha and the
>Old One (Lao-zi)?

They can,
if one cares to so can them.

> If so, are the local
>flavours (relatively) fungible?

They can be squeezed thru the same sifter,
pulvereized, homogenized, and concentrated,
with or without pulp, when blended.

In deriving an essence
they might lose their existence.
In the great grey fog of One.

And all taste the same.
So to speak.

>Are there
>exceptions to such universal norm, who are
>bound more tightly to local flavours?

An elephino is a form of what occurs
when an elephant and a rhino are thought
to be the same form.

>Those are fundamental questions, which
>should precede any overview of known kinds
>of religious thinking. The former frame
>the latter. (If I may put it so, the a
>priori frames the a posteriori, though
>there can be exceptions).

Dao ke dao,
sew sum say,
feigh chang dao,
white horse may
or may not be a.

[liaM]

Relevance is personal nowadays :)

[pi]

Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 11:40 PM, pi wrote:
>
> > One of the things they haven't got just yet (which
> > I am missing) is an overview of known kinds of
> > religious thinking.
>

> Philippe Capelle, Philosophie et th ologie dans le
> pens e de Martin Heidegger, second edition, Paris:
> Le Cerf, 2001, 97: "le texte religieux en g n ral,
> tol re-t-il, de par son institution m me, d' tre
> lu exclusivement partir des (et dans les)
> circonstances qui ont entour sa constitution
> mat rielle?"

Tang, thank you. Not only did you help me stay, you also made start
learning French. Rosetta Stone can work wonders, but one still needs
the time just to click, and click again. I am still a beginner, so...

Heidegger? Is this the keyword here? For all I know both Heidegger and
Husserl finally relinquished their ontology in favour of that provided
by analytic philosophy (as it was conceived of by Frege originally and
Goedel finally), which leads us to Hofstadter, GEB and Zen. I am
probably missing the point, but I really do speak French (just yet :)

> Louis Cognet, Histoire de la spiritualit

> chr tienne: Tome IV, L'essor de la spiritualit
> chr tienne (1500-1650), 121: "dans quelle mesure
> la m taphysique peut-elle rejoindre des donn es
> exp rimentales, et dans quelle mesure aussi
> peut-on dissocier l'exp rience mystique du

> contexte religieux et philosophique dans lequel

> elle a t v cue?"

>
> The late Father Cognet served as Dean of the
> famous l'Institut catholique de Paris. Father
> Capelle is Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at
> the same institution.

Ok, it was my dream ever since I remember to become a professor of
economics. Unfortunately, I failed to qualify to become a Ph.D.
student. Again, I am probably missing the point (which I usually do
and which is why I fail to qualify anywhere :) I am sorry.

> They ask a fundamental question: are religious
> texts tied to their context?

Right. noname once said to me "Why would you be surprise to see that
sage from various contexts come up with the same results?" Looked at
from a purely scientific POV, IMHO, our planet is a physical niche in
which we dwell. And that niche has sub-niches, kind of thing (I hope I
am expression what I mean clearly). Of course there will be common
patterns to all religions (since their creators occupy a common niche
called the Earth), and of course there will be differences, because
the subniches they occupy differ a bit (with respect to climate, above
sea elevation, types of fauna available for appropriation etc.)

Again, there will be similarities (or common patterns) on the top of
regional variation and these similarities may include pointers towards
the ultimate Truth. But, nevertheless, the maxim "What and what they
think it is otherwise" still holds, imho.

I know this is kindergarden level talk, but that's all I've got.

> Can they be understood only from within the circumstances
> of their production? Or can they be interpreted
> from some more universal norm, less bound to
> their material production, perhaps not bound
> to it at all, but floating above all local
> specifics? One example, to me, would be pure
> reason, which is totally independent of any
> empirical factor (for example, one empirical
> factor is Jewish mythology).

This is the closest to pure reason humanity has ever gotten:

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm101631476/frege-godel-jean-van-heijenoort-hardcover-cover-art.jpg

And it *is* HEAVY STUFF.

But there's also something to have a look at bedtime:

http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/logicomix.jpg?w=214&h=300

> Father Capelle asks also: can metaphysics
> rejoin experiential givens? Which means, can
> the theories proffered on religion, especially
> on mysticism, even by the religious people and
> the mystics themselves, be faithful to the
> religious and mystical experiences?

Here is my opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."

> For me, with my interest in pure reason, the
> question can be rephrased: can an abstract
> theoretical norm, especially a theory of
> theories (at the second level) like pure
> reason, be faithful to religious and mystical
> experiences?

Pure reason? Why do suppose Frege called his Begriffsschrift, i.e. "a
formula language, modeled on that of arithmetic, of PURE THOUGHT?" Why
do you think it ultimately became mainstream? Why did Russell and
Whitehead develop it? Do you suppose it was an accident that Goedel's
considerations of meta-properties of Frege's system are in concord
with what the Buddha actually said? This is all the subject of
Hofstadter's book (GEB).

I know Lee Rudolph said Hof's book is very simplistic, but let's leave
to gods what belongs to them :)

You're posing a very advanced question, imho. The answer is, I don't
know. I may suppose, and I suppose (having read a little of Frazer's
Golden Bough) since they're all trying to make sense of a data stream
from a common source, our shared ecological niche called the Earth, to
that extent they're arriving at similar conclusions. But variation
withing that niche will cause differences, of course. At the same
time, all data springs from the Tao, so wherever we are, we're getting
data from the Tao and what we're trying to make sense of is the Tao.

Sorry, it's just my nonsense. Thank you very much for giving me the
opportunity to spell it out.

Real magic, imho, is the Tao. It may or may not be reach, I don't
really know. Fundamentally, there's nothing which says it can't be
reached, again all IMVHO.

> Those are fundamental questions, which
> should precede any overview of known kinds
> of religious thinking. The former frame
> the latter. (If I may put it so, the a
> priori frames the a posteriori, though
> there can be exceptions).
>
> Tang Huyen

Yes, thank you very much :)

Again, math *is* hard, but it is the purest form of reasoning
(thinking) we've got.

And it's all about pure forms (= structures = ideas = patterns =
concepts, etc. etc. etc.)

IMVHO.

pi

pi

[liaM]

Le 12/10/2012 1:07 AM, Tang Huyen a écrit :

"Let me pass next to the Charity and Brotherly Love which are a usual
fruit of saintliness, and have always been reckoned essential
theological virtues, however limited may have been the kinds of service
which the particular theology enjoined. Brotherly love would follow
logically from the assurance of God's friendly presence, the notion of
our brotherhood as men being an immediate inference from that of God's
fatherhood of us all. When Christ utters the precepts: "Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," he gives
for a reason: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in
heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." One might therefore be
tempted to explain both the humility as to one's self and the charity
towards others which characterize spiritual excitement, as results of
the all-leveling character of theistic belief. But these affections
are certainly not mere derivatives of theism. We find them in
Stoicism, in Hinduism, and in Buddhism in the highest possible degree.
They HARMONIZE with paternal theism beautifully; but they harmonize
with all reflection whatever upon the dependence of mankind on general
causes; and we must, I think, consider them not subordinate but
coordinate parts of that great complex excitement in the study of which
we are engaged. Religious rapture, moral enthusiasm, ontological
wonder, cosmic emotion, are all unifying states of mind, in which the
sand and grit of the selfhood incline to disappear, and tenderness to
rule. The best thing is to describe the condition integrally as a
characteristic affection to which our nature is liable, a region in
which we find ourselves at home, a sea in which we swim; but not to
pretend to explain its parts by deriving them too cleverly from one
another. Like love or fear, the faith-state is a natural psychic
complex, and carries charity with it by organic consequence.
Jubilation is an expansive affection, and all expansive affections are
self-forgetful and kindly so long as they endure."


From lecture XVII "Mysticism" of William James's
"The Varieties of Religious Experience"

[Tang Huyen]

Alas! James is famous, but he is also one of those
white scholars in the humanities who cannot abstract
form from content. Above, he is talking purely in
content and not a all in form.

So, thank you for the quote, but sadly James
contributes nothing to a comparison in form and
not in content. He is very much in keeping with
the norm of white scholars in the humanities who
cannot abstract form from content.

Tang Huyen

[liaM]

Your critique of white scholars sounds tasty, but where's
the beef ? Care to give me a clue as to what "abstracting form from
content" means?

[pi]

liaM wrote:

> Care to give me a clue as to what "abstracting form from content" means?

In December 2012 it more or less means taking a competent introductory
course in math:

https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink

"What and what they think it is otherwise" translates as "Nobody knows
the perfect ideal Truth".

Math won't give you perfect ideal Truth, but it is on the farthest
outreaching point towards it that human's have so far gotten to
(again, this is of December 11, 2012).

pi

[Lee Rudolph]

My former (before our retirements) car-pool buddy, who
was much involved in a research program growing out of
James's theory of emotions, told me--on what authority
I do not know--that the James family in general, and
William in particular, got their own religious experiences
largely from drinking alone in their rooms on Sunday
afternoon: a classical "norm of white scholars in
the humanities" if ever there was one. (But I wouldn't
say James was in "the humanities", exactly; he started
out as a medical student, attending lectures on
physiology in Berlin, and thereafter took up really
quite "scientific" psychology in the best German
style before finding his own metier at Hahvahd.
Humanities was more William and Alice's thing,
no?)

At least, that's how I remember it.

Lee Rudolph

[liaM]

What's so great about Alice ???

[liaM]

And of course, you meant Henry and Alice in the last
sentence of yours :)

[i2i]

"pi" wrote in message
news:c4b59287-21fc-42fd...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

liaM wrote:

> Care to give me a clue as to what "abstracting form from content" means?

In December 2012 it more or less means taking a competent introductory
course in math:

https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink

"What and what they think it is otherwise" translates as "Nobody knows
the perfect ideal Truth".

============\\

no that's not what buddha meant.
he just meant that no matter what
you think it, it is beyond thinking.
"nobody knows the perfect ideal
truth" is a falsehood. everyone
knows the perfect ideal truth.
do you know that you exist?
that's it.

[liaM]

Break the stick and there is Jesus.

[Lee Rudolph]

liaM <cud...@mindless.com> writes:

...

>> My former (before our retirements) car-pool buddy, who
>> was much involved in a research program growing out of
>> James's theory of emotions, told me--on what authority
>> I do not know--that the James family in general, and
>> William in particular, got their own religious experiences
>> largely from drinking alone in their rooms on Sunday
>> afternoon: a classical "norm of white scholars in
>> the humanities" if ever there was one. (But I wouldn't
>> say James was in "the humanities", exactly; he started
>> out as a medical student, attending lectures on
>> physiology in Berlin, and thereafter took up really
>> quite "scientific" psychology in the best German
>> style before finding his own metier at Hahvahd.
>> Humanities was more William and Alice's thing,
>> no?)
>>
>> At least, that's how I remember it.
>>
>> Lee Rudolph
>>
>
>What's so great about Alice ???

Go ask the White Rabbit Scholar, I think she'll know.

Lee Rudolph

[liaM]

aaargh

[Wilson]

On 12/10/2012 7:16 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> Alas! James is famous, but he is also one of those
> white scholars in the humanities who cannot abstract
> form from content. Above, he is talking purely in
> content and not a all in form.
>
> So, thank you for the quote, but sadly James
> contributes nothing to a comparison in form and
> not in content. He is very much in keeping with
> the norm of white scholars in the humanities who
> cannot abstract form from content.
>
> Tang Huyen

"White scholars"? Are such generalizations any less racist than me
making sweeping statements about "poor black farmers" or "smart, selfish
orientals" or "war loving Arabs"?

--
Wilson

[pi]

i2i wrote:

> no that's not what buddha meant.
> he just meant that no matter what
> you think it, it is beyond thinking.
> "nobody knows the perfect ideal
> truth" is a falsehood. everyone
> knows the perfect ideal truth.
> do you know that you exist?
> that's it.

Even if I know for certain that I exist, the maxim "What and what they
think it is otherwise" meaning it's wrong to think one knows something
for certain, still applies.

Hence:

"Cutting your own head off with a chainsaw can be quite dangerous,
unless certain precautions are taken. I shall first demonstrate the
unsafe method, then show you how to do it safely."

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Cut_Your_Own_Head_Off_With_a_Chainsaw

pi

--

The Gateless Gate, by Ekai, called Mu-mon, tr. Nyogen Senzaki and Paul
Reps [1934], at sacred-texts.com

37. A Buffalo Passes Through the Enclosure

Goso said: "When a buffalo goes out of his enclosure to the edge of
the abyss, his horns and his head and his hoofs all pass through, but
why can't the tail also pass?"

Mumon's comment: If anyone can open one eye at this point and say a
word of Zen, he is qualified to repay the four gratifications, and,
not only that, he can save all sentient beings under him. But if he
cannot say such a word of true Zen, he should turn back to his tail.

If the buffalo runs, he will fall into the trench;
If he returns, he will be butchered.
That little tail
Is a very strange thing.

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>37. A Buffalo Passes Through the Enclosure
>
>Goso said: "When a buffalo goes out of his enclosure to the edge of
>the abyss, his horns and his head and his hoofs all pass through, but
>why can't the tail also pass?"
>
>Mumon's comment: If anyone can open one eye at this point and say a
>word of Zen, he is qualified to repay the four gratifications, and,
>not only that, he can save all sentient beings under him. But if he
>cannot say such a word of true Zen, he should turn back to his tail.
>
>If the buffalo runs, he will fall into the trench;
>If he returns, he will be butchered.
>That little tail
>Is a very strange thing.

Reminds me all
a bout talk
of One
to so-called others.

Those who do
may not know.

Those who know
there are no "others"
don't speak of One.

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

> ... noname once said to me "Why would you be surprise to see that

>sage from various contexts come up with the same results?" Looked at
>from a purely scientific POV, IMHO, our planet is a physical niche in
>which we dwell. And that niche has sub-niches, kind of thing (I hope I
>am expression what I mean clearly). Of course there will be common
>patterns to all religions (since their creators occupy a common niche
>called the Earth), and of course there will be differences, because
>the subniches they occupy differ a bit (with respect to climate, above
>sea elevation, types of fauna available for appropriation etc.)
>
>Again, there will be similarities (or common patterns) on the top of
>regional variation and these similarities may include pointers towards
>the ultimate Truth.

Assuming such a Truth exists.

> ... I may suppose, and I suppose (having read a little of Frazer's

>Golden Bough) since they're all trying to make sense of a data stream
>from a common source,

A reasonable assumption.

It may or may not be true
in all possible words.

Earth could be an intersection of sets
rather than the union of sets.

Not knowing where souls are from,
where they've been, if they exist,
or if they really are nothing.

>our shared ecological niche called the Earth,

That might be a common denominator.
It might not be the least common denominator.

Other factors may be involved.

> to that extent they're arriving at similar conclusions.

Or they "appear" to be arriving at similar conclusions.

An apple and an orange may appear to be the same.
So too with an elephant and a rhino.

One might easily superimpose one's view
of what appears to one to be One
when in fact, what the Sages were saying
was not congruent, nor similar.

Christianity might be an elephant.
Taoism might be an orange.

Far cries without crying
from or for each other.

> But variation
>withing that niche will cause differences, of course. At the same
>time, all data springs from the Tao,

An assumption.

> so wherever we are, we're getting
>data from the Tao and what we're trying to make sense of is the Tao.
>
>Sorry, it's just my nonsense.

It's not an uncommon sense.

To think there is a the
tends to arise from the definite article, the.

Tao, as Taiji, might be the One, Being.

NeoTaoists arrived at an other end
of a spectrum of thought.

For NeoTaoists, based on Fung's work,
it appears to appear they thought Tao was Wu.
Nothing. Nonbeing.

Even less than Wuji,
as if that's possible.

Such a non-source would not generate data.

> Thank you very much for giving me the
>opportunity to spell it out.

T'hats can be what folks w'ear
here at present, unfolding, now
waves at having eyes to sea.

>Real magic, imho, is the Tao.

The Zone is magical and mysterious to me.

Math is real magic too, without there being magic.

A simple equation. This equals that.
When this and that are seen at odds.
When this and that are seen as one.
There may be an axis, an hinge.
So to speak. Of nothing.
A pivotal point.

> It may or may not be reach, I don't
>really know. Fundamentally, there's nothing which says it can't be
>reached, again all IMVHO.

Interesting typo.

There's a story about a fly-whisk.
Whether or not it can reach.

Hsuan-hsueh. The chih.
Rationalists.

- fun!

[i2i]

"pi" wrote in message
news:03ffed24-0a35-4589...@ci3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

i2i wrote:

> no that's not what buddha meant.
> he just meant that no matter what
> you think it, it is beyond thinking.
> "nobody knows the perfect ideal
> truth" is a falsehood. everyone
> knows the perfect ideal truth.
> do you know that you exist?
> that's it.

Even if I know for certain that I exist, the maxim "What and what they
think it is otherwise" meaning it's wrong to think one knows something
for certain, still applies.

=========\\

no, you're still collapsing levels here.
thinking and knowing are different. you
know that you exist, that wordless feeling
of I amness, but anything you think about
is is simply conjecture abstractions.

[{:-])))]

I guess that might be true,
being on the farthest outreaching point.

Love might point within.
Far, far within. To an ideal point.

Some may say that is the Truth.

And for them, it may well be.

Very deep.

[{:-])))]

Wilson wrote:
>
>"White scholars"? Are such generalizations any less racist than me
>making sweeping statements about "poor black farmers" or "smart, selfish
>orientals" or "war loving Arabs"?

Reminds me of another horse story.

So many stories.
So little memory.

- sitting and forgetting

[liaM]

Le 12/11/2012 5:22 PM, {:-]))) a �crit :

> pi wrote:
>
>> >liaM wrote:
>> >
>>> >>Care to give me a clue as to what "abstracting form from content" means?
>> >
>> >In December 2012 it more or less means taking a competent introductory
>> >course in math:
>> >
>> >https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink
>> >
>> >"What and what they think it is otherwise" translates as "Nobody knows
>> >the perfect ideal Truth".
>> >
>> >Math won't give you perfect ideal Truth, but it is on the farthest
>> >outreaching point towards it that human's have so far gotten to
>> >(again, this is of December 11, 2012).

Hi Pi..

Let's see what Tang has to say about his use of the phrase (I'm sure
it won't involve hierarchies of boolean truth tables or some such)

[i2i]

"liaM" wrote in message news:ka7od8$enn$1...@dont-email.me...

========\\

no but you'll have to wade through
50 paragraphs of fenelon, hegel and
madame guyon just to get to the cut
to the chase moment of just relax and
be serene.

[Tang Huyen]

On 12/11/2012 12:01 PM, i2i wrote:

> no but you'll have to wade through
> 50 paragraphs of fenelon, hegel and
> madame guyon just to get to the cut
> to the chase moment of just relax and
> be serene.

Which means that I don't forget the
essential, right? The small fry can take
care of itself, I take care of the
essential.

You write:

<<no, you're still collapsing levels here.
thinking and knowing are different. you
know that you exist, that wordless feeling
of I amness, but anything you think about
is is simply conjecture abstractions.>>

Previously, you often write:

"just be, but don't be anything".

That is perfect nonchalance, total
permissiveness/laissez-faire, utter
care-free attitude. Isn't that "just
relax and be serene", dear?

Tang Huyen

[i2i]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
news:c_udnQh_GtcX9FrN...@supernews.com...

===========\\

maybe. it would depend upon
what's occurring while you're
just being. you could be planning
and carrying out world domination
while you're just being. that's not
really relaxing and being serene.

being is different from doing.

[liaM]

Le 12/11/2012 6:01 PM, i2i a �crit :

:) !

[liaM]

So.. let me guess. Abstracting form from content =
what's left after everything that can be experienced
or talked about is pushed aside.

[pi]

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mu-Essential-Writings-Important/dp/0861716434

Just found it.

pi

[pi]

This is still too difficult for me. "exist" is hard. Anyway, thank
you :)

pi

[pi]

Thank you :)

pi

[pi]

liaM wrote:
> Hi Pi..

Hi liaM :)

> Let's see what Tang has to say about his use of the phrase (I'm sure
> it won't involve hierarchies of boolean truth tables or some such)

Tang is a perfectionist. He wants PERFECTION.

He simply refuses to take math as the farthest reaching point towards
the perfect ideal Truth, he wants the ultimate thing.

I can't blame him, I want that too. But it is still ... December 11,
2012 just now, you see? That is the whole problem. Tang is fed up with
NOW, he wants TOMORROW, and he wants it right now.

I can't blame him, I want that too :) NOW.

pi

--

http://taometoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pooh-piglet.jpg?w=750

So, the thing is, imho, let's make NOW our favourite until TOMORROW
comes.

[Nobody in Particular]

> "pi" wrote in message
> news:00d32b86-45ac-488b...@n9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

How about "I AM" instead of "I exist"?
A subtle, but important difference.

[{:-])))]

pi linked to and noted:

>http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mu-Essential-Writings-Important/dp/0861716434
>
>Just found it.

Many times a koan
stops my train
of thoughts
in its tracks.

What train?
What tracks?

What was I thinking?

[{:-])))]

Reminds me of the mountains and the trees.
How they were before. And then. And then.
First they were. Then they weren't. Then were.

Levels and layers. Spirals and circles.
Cycling and recycling. Dao moves
without moving.

I know the keys.
They click and clack.
My fingers strike them.
At times they strike back.

Words appear upon the screen.
What do they mean? Anything?
Something? Different things?

Some folks would like to do away
with the word, is. They may prefer
to substitute, appears to be.
Or something else entirely.

Thinking there is a what
can be the beginning.

To begin with
is there really a what?

I think there is a tree outside.
What is it? Really?

It appears to me to be.
Tall or short. Is that just me?

From a plane, in 2D or in 4?
Over time, from above, from below?

What
and what I think it
is otherwise.

Cud be a poorly worded
translation of some clumsy idea.

Difficult to grab a hold of.

No idea what it really means.

Reminds me of water however.

In the palm of my hand, there it is.

Grasping after it, there it goes.

[pi]

Nobody in Particular wrote:

> How about "I AM" instead of "I exist"?
> A subtle, but important difference.

Right. Now, what does "What and what they think it is otherwise"
amount to if not "nobody knows anything for sure, not even whether
they are or exist, or whatever"?

I am only asking. Would you agree with the above "translation"?

pi

[niunian]

It only means the Truth of God is not what you can handle. You can't
imagine the Truth. You can't think of the Truth. You can't project and
describe the Truth. The Truth is a gift that has to be given to you
personally by God himself. If you have it, you are the living Christ. If
you don't, you are lost.

[pi]

Were you thinking this perhaps?

The body is the Bodhi tree;
The soul is like the mirror bright,
Take heed to keep it always clean,
And let no dust collect upon it. -- Xu Bing

The Bodhi (True Wisdom) is not like the tree;
The mirror bright is nowhere shining;
As there is nothing from the first,
Where does the dust itself collect? -- Hui-neng

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this
as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem
which it was intended to solve. -- Karl Popper

pi

P.S. I am not making a pretence of understanding the above, but it al
seems relevant as an answer to your most kind post.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation.html

DD loves Popper and I love DD :)

[pi]

Does this imply that we're slaves whose only role is to pull the
plough uphill only to be immediately terminated (on the completion of
the harvest) via an ugly transformation while whispering the farmer's
name lovingly?

I am only contemplating (I hope it's ok), please join me, if you
please :)

pi

[pi]

Thank you :)

> Words appear upon the screen.
> What do they mean? Anything?
> Something? Different things?
>
> Some folks would like to do away
> with the word, is. They may prefer
> to substitute, appears to be.
> Or something else entirely.

:)

> Thinking there is a what
> can be the beginning.
>
> To begin with
> is there really a what?
>
> I think there is a tree outside.
> What is it? Really?

Mu? Probably not. It's more likely Muu or Muuu (or Muuuu). 42? I don't
know. What was I saying?

> It appears to me to be.
> Tall or short. Is that just me?
>
> From a plane, in 2D or in 4?
> Over time, from above, from below?
>
> What
> and what I think it
> is otherwise.

It's all great, but this one is a killer :)

> Cud be a poorly worded
> translation of some clumsy idea.
>
> Difficult to grab a hold of.
>
> No idea what it really means.
>
> Reminds me of water however.
>
> In the palm of my hand, there it is.
>
> Grasping after it, there it goes.

Yes, and after all, isn't it better to relax and be serene. Tang?
Don't you think we better hold onto something more conrete?

https://www.coursera.org/course/drugsandbrain

To abstract from.

pi

P.S. I'm sorry, that's all I've got :) Thank you :)

[Nobody in Particular]

> "pi" wrote in message
> news:342af163-aa3e-41ea...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

It means that you can't get there by thinking.
"I AM" is not thinking, it is knowing.
Thinking says "I am my body", "I am my thoughts", "I am my soul", etc.
The truth is beyond words, beyond rational analysis - it is otherwise.

[Nobody in Particular]

> "pi" wrote in message
> news:cfb5f08f-2387-457a...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

If you assert "I am my body", "I am separate from god" and "I will resist
anything that does not fit this model", then you might imagine it that way.
But that scenario would be of your own construction, based on false
assumptions.

[i2i]

"pi" wrote in message
news:00d32b86-45ac-488b...@n9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

==========\\

your issue only arises in the waking
state. when you wake up you take on
the necessitation of the isness factor,
your sense of conscious presence.
everything occurs after that. without
the I amness nothing else could be
perceived. ask yourself; "am i?"
this gets you to look directly at
that basic function, the isness
of you.

[pi]

I see. But this is already too advanced for me. I am sorry.

pi

[pi]

Again, something very advanced which I don't really understand.
Anyway, thank you very much for sharing :)

pi