the only real love is the love of existence.
Appledog
>
> >> the only real love
> >> is the love of existence.
> >> [jen -ed]
>
> > I would say that love is the state of being free of
> > self-clinging, and that things are joyful and unattached at that moment.
> > don't confuse existing and loving at the same time with the love of
> > existing.
>
> > robert
>
> > = = = = = =
>
> show me one thing you can love
> without being in existence. you can deny this if
> you like but you're not being honest and your
> argument doesn't prove that love is not merely
> the love of existence. look at an insect when you
> move your finger towards it. it recoils because of
> its love of existence. actually, it is the consciousness
> itself that loves existence, not you. there is no you
> to begin with.
What robert may be picking up on as the real problem with what was
said is that there is no analogy with which to create a rule, pointing
to a repeated presence of that rule as proof. What has been missed is
simply that saying there is no love of anything other than love of
existence because one cannot love anything without existing (the law)
is fundamentally equivalent to saying that love is a result of natural
selection (evolution) and hence, thermodynamics (as has been
previously discussed).
Since the problem is then a generalization of the laws of
thermodynamics, the law can be stated in macro non-reversible form: We
love (any particular thing) not simply because we exist but because it
aids in our existing. That is, we are successful beings because we
love (i.e. human beings have evolved to love, that it is an
evolutionary imperative to love, and so forth) and that we will
continue to love, and refine our emotion and feeling of love directed
at objects, because this is actually something of prime importance to
our continued existence, on whatever level this is relevant to our
existence. Perhaps, as such, the fundamental problem here all along
was merely that assumptions were made about the nature of reality -
that there was a level of reality where thermodynamics was non-
forwardable, for example. That is to say, laws at the micro level
(i.e. particle physics) are fully reversable but this does not stand
at the macro level - the so called arrow of time being then defined as
the non-reversability of the macro level, which would then include the
level on which we exist, and love.
The explanation for the disagreement is then that you're both just
looking at two sides of the same coin - that the actual law being
discussed by both of you is most efficiently and applicably stated
without any assumption placed onto the direction of time. In that way
both what you say and what robert says can be combined into a single
self-evident law. As shown, in assigning direction to time (whatever
direction that may be) in the application of the law, the fundamental
(*) reality of the law has been missed and the statements won't agree
with each other (even though they may all be self-evidently true in
and of themselves).
On that more fundamental level(*), this is an application of the
Buddhist Eightfold Path "Right View". Although of course, on the level
it's being discussed it doesn't really have anything to do with
Buddhism in particular. But as a common point of reference (this being
alt.zen) -- In Right view, observations are made about surroundings,
information being received, the universe - as it really is, and to
that degree personal thoughts, ideas or emotions are not assigned to
what is viewed. In that way a "correctness" or "reality" can be taken
to what is observed - a sort of philosophical "objectivity" which is
of course the essence of Right View and a keystone of the realization
of enlightenment. That is, of course, why it was noted above that this
didn't have to have anything to do with Buddhism. You can still reject
personal enlightenment or anything buddhism has to say, as long as you
separate the actual observation of the law jen stated from your
personal emotions or ideas of what it may mean.
Isn't it fascinating that in this way every disagreement robert has
with what you said can be resolved? The disagreement, caused by the
presence of a duality, is solved by reducing the duality into a
singularity via the simple application of the eightfold path's Right
View. After all, you're both just talking about the exact same thing
in different ways. So not only can a higher truth be achieved - but
all disagreements/problems can be solved, AND done so in line with
what you've both said here. What a wondrous inherited treasure!
-
^@%>---*=#**
"Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe5a8caa-6559-4246...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
love and natural selection are not synonomous
simply because of thermodynamics. love has
developed over the milleniums due to the repeated
conditioning of life in its many forms. thermodynamics
was there before the conditioned response of love
of existence developed.
> Since the problem is then a generalization of the laws of
> thermodynamics, the law can be stated in macro non-reversible form: We
> love (any particular thing) not simply because we exist but because it
> aids in our existing. That is, we are successful beings because we
> love (i.e. human beings have evolved to love, that it is an
> evolutionary imperative to love, and so forth) and that we will
> continue to love, and refine our emotion and feeling of love directed
> at objects, because this is actually something of prime importance to
> our continued existence, on whatever level this is relevant to our
> existence. Perhaps, as such, the fundamental problem here all along
> was merely that assumptions were made about the nature of reality -
> that there was a level of reality where thermodynamics was non-
> forwardable, for example. That is to say, laws at the micro level
> (i.e. particle physics) are fully reversable but this does not stand
> at the macro level - the so called arrow of time being then defined as
> the non-reversability of the macro level, which would then include the
> level on which we exist, and love.
you're splitting hairs here in defining love of existence
and the love of maintaining existence. there 's really no
difference in the two.
> The explanation for the disagreement is then that you're both just
> looking at two sides of the same coin - that the actual law being
> discussed by both of you is most efficiently and applicably stated
> without any assumption placed onto the direction of time. In that way
> both what you say and what robert says can be combined into a single
> self-evident law. As shown, in assigning direction to time (whatever
> direction that may be) in the application of the law, the fundamental
> (*) reality of the law has been missed and the statements won't agree
> with each other (even though they may all be self-evidently true in
> and of themselves).
this is a language problem since language itself
has been formulated out of the conceptual
trappings of limited perspectives in the first
place and most times language itself contradicts
itself.
> On that more fundamental level(*), this is an application of the
> Buddhist Eightfold Path "Right View". Although of course, on the level
> it's being discussed it doesn't really have anything to do with
> Buddhism in particular. But as a common point of reference (this being
> alt.zen) -- In Right view, observations are made about surroundings,
> information being received, the universe - as it really is, and to
> that degree personal thoughts, ideas or emotions are not assigned to
> what is viewed. In that way a "correctness" or "reality" can be taken
> to what is observed - a sort of philosophical "objectivity" which is
> of course the essence of Right View and a keystone of the realization
> of enlightenment. That is, of course, why it was noted above that this
> didn't have to have anything to do with Buddhism. You can still reject
> personal enlightenment or anything buddhism has to say, as long as you
> separate the actual observation of the law jen stated from your
> personal emotions or ideas of what it may mean.
you're collapsing levels here between what
actually is reality and formulated opinions of
such which are not reality.
> Isn't it fascinating that in this way every disagreement robert has
> with what you said can be resolved? The disagreement, caused by the
> presence of a duality, is solved by reducing the duality into a
> singularity via the simple application of the eightfold path's Right
> View. After all, you're both just talking about the exact same thing
> in different ways. So not only can a higher truth be achieved - but
> all disagreements/problems can be solved, AND done so in line with
> what you've both said here. What a wondrous inherited treasure!
what a load of bullshit.
zenworm
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
is "love of existence" the same as
'gratitude for existance'?
does "love of maintaining existence"
contain a component of clinging
to personal survival that is
absent in "love of existence"?
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Appledog
>
> >> show me one thing you can love
> >> without being in existence.
>
> simply because of thermodynamics.
So? Love and existance are not synonymous because you claim so,
either :)
> love has
> developed over the milleniums due to the repeated
> conditioning of life in its many forms.
Why?
> thermodynamics was there before the conditioned response of love
> of existence developed.
So?
Doesn't that imply, by the same logic that the only love possible is
the love of existance, that the only repeated conditioning possible is
the repeated conditioning due to thermodynamics?
Of course it doesn't. I am so glad you have understood the true
meaning of my words ;-)
> ...love of existence and the love of maintaining existence.
> there 's really no difference in the two.
I'm glad we agree.
> this is a language problem since language itself
> has been formulated out of the conceptual
> trappings of limited perspectives in the first
> place and most times language itself contradicts
> itself.
>
> > On that more fundamental level(*), this is an application of the
> > Buddhist Eightfold Path "Right View".
>
> you're collapsing levels here between what
> actually is reality and formulated opinions of
> such which are not reality.
Sure -that's what right view is all about - actual reality versus
formulated opinions of such (which, as you fully agree, is not
reality).
> > Isn't it fascinating that in this way every disagreement robert has
> > with what you said can be resolved? The disagreement, caused by the
> > presence of a duality, is solved by reducing the duality into a
> > singularity via the simple application of the eightfold path's Right
> > View. After all, you're both just talking about the exact same thing
> > in different ways. So not only can a higher truth be achieved - but
> > all disagreements/problems can be solved, AND done so in line with
> > what you've both said here. What a wondrous inherited treasure!
>
> what a load of bullshit.
What? That it isn't wondrous? Well, whatever. It's still true.
Appledog
>
> is "love of existence" the same as
> 'gratitude for existance'?
>
> does "love of maintaining existence"
> contain a component of clinging
> to personal survival that is
> absent in "love of existence"?
>
lol i was agreeing with her and she still wants to argue
-
zenworm
what is gratitude for love without any attribution?
Charles E Hardwidge
news:fe5a8caa-6559-4246...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> Isn't it fascinating that in this way every disagreement robert has
> with what you said can be resolved? The disagreement, caused by the
> presence of a duality, is solved by reducing the duality into a
> singularity via the simple application of the eightfold path's Right
> View. After all, you're both just talking about the exact same thing
> in different ways. So not only can a higher truth be achieved - but
> all disagreements/problems can be solved, AND done so in line with
> what you've both said here. What a wondrous inherited treasure!
Your comment is only half correct but is a mile ahead of the porn the losers
are spewing out.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Appledog
wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Of course it's only half correct, mainly due to the fact that while it
CAN be resolved, it won't be. As we've seen many times including very
recently, jen (and likely robert) will attempt to argue or disagree
even when you agree with them. ;-)
Although if you are onto something else I wouldn't mind an
explanation.
-
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Oct 13, 10:23 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fe5a8caa-6559-4246...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Isn't it fascinating that in this way every disagreement robert has
>> > with what you said can be resolved? The disagreement, caused by the
>> > presence of a duality, is solved by reducing the duality into a
>> > singularity via the simple application of the eightfold path's Right
>> > View. After all, you're both just talking about the exact same thing
>> > in different ways. So not only can a higher truth be achieved - but
>> > all disagreements/problems can be solved, AND done so in line with
>> > what you've both said here. What a wondrous inherited treasure!
>>
>> Your comment is only half correct but is a mile ahead of the porn the
>> losers are spewing out.
>
> CAN be resolved, it won't be. As we've seen many times including very
> recently, jen (and likely robert) will attempt to argue or disagree
> even when you agree with them. ;-)
>
> Although if you are onto something else I wouldn't mind an
> explanation.
I was thinking, earlier, of British politics and how Labour List imploded
straight after I quit posting. By coincidence I was sorting through some
books and took a look at "A Random Walk Through Wall Street" which I've had
for some time but never got around to reading until now.
I've been peddling focus and change with Labour for some time, and was the
guy who popularised discussing politicians in terms of their "stock value".
Meanwhile, the bigshots are looking nervous about investment and the Tories
polls are beginning to look like Wiley Coyote hanging in the air.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8303930.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/12/cameron-australia-1993-cake-feral
Steve Richards comments that parliament isn't corrupt but mediocre. I
believe he's generally correct (hence my claim that I'm surrounded by
idiots). However, doing less but better, and being more engaged but less
distracted can help direct and improve focus.
Being credible and charming is a skill many people lack between the
inexperience of youth and the ruin of old age. Likewise, Tang and Bob are
extremes in competition in a collapsed market. Quietness, scarcity,
competence, and sociability can help grow capital and lead the market.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
^@%>---*=#**
> Love and existance are not synonymous because you claim so,
>either :)
to see it any other way is
disintegrous.
>> love has
>> developed over the milleniums due to the repeated
>> conditioning of life in its many forms.
>Why?
why not ? would you think that the
evolution of life would be resistant
to conditioning ?
>Doesn't that imply, by the same logic that the only love possible is
>the love of existance, that the only repeated conditioning possible is
>the repeated conditioning due to thermodynamics?
>Of course it doesn't. I am so glad you have understood the true
>meaning of my words ;-)
your words mean you are collapsing
levels again and making absolutely
no sense whatsoever.
>> ...love of existence and the love of maintaining existence.
>> there 's really no difference in the two.
>I'm glad we agree.
we don't. stop being glad. you just
180'd your previous statement which
is why there is no reason to exchange
posts with you. you contradict yourself
with each new post.
>Sure -that's what right view is all about - actual reality versus
>formulated opinions of such (which, as you fully agree, is not
>reality).
right view is not reality, it is
merely a conceptual perspective.
concepts are not reality.
^@%>---*=#**
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1afa8b0e-270f-4f97...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
========================================
how wouldn't love of existence contain
a clinging to survival ?
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
how would love of existance contain
a clinging to survival?
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
harmonic resonation of benevolent enthusiasm
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
unattributed cognition of imperterbable serenety
unconditional acceptance of unlimited abundance
unmentated awareness of Moment unfolding
NOW
^@%>---*=#**
===============================
can you legitimize your feelings?
do you have evidence that just
because you feel something that
that alone makes it real ?
Appledog
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Of course it does. Love of existence is equivalent to clinging to
survival. But that isn't what was being proposed originally :)
-
Appledog
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:68388c61-2326-47b9...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Love and existance are not synonymous because you claim so,
> >either :)
>
> to see it any other way is
> disintegrous.
So you can't see it any other way, so what? I can, so what? Look at
how you're arguing it. You're minimizing the fact that I can see it
another way, and claiming that is actually impossible. To you what I
say represents an untruth so you demonize what I say and insult me as
a way to try and discredit me. Just relax, jen, and fess up that you
might not be the wisest and most intelligent, most spiritually
developed person here.
Of course your small, little mind will naturally assume I am making
such a claim, but I never have. Merely because I see things in a way
different than you do does not mean I am better than you. It doesn't
even mean my mind is bigger or better in the way yours is small and
little. Point of fact my mind may be (and probably is) just as small
and little as yours is. In fact let's just state it as a truth.
When you can work through this I can sense you will be able to achieve
great things. Right now though you're stuck trying to sell a chicken
to buy a carrot. Something's not right, the plan isn't working, but
everything is getting accomplished. You don't have to take a second
look. There's lots to do. Just keep rowing.
> >> love has
> >> developed over the milleniums due to the repeated
> >> conditioning of life in its many forms.
> >Why?
>
> why not?
Because of thermodynamics and entropy. Life seeks to maximize the
entropy, and apparently an emotion with no real purpose other than to
cause people to run in circles as some sort of code in order to have
sex (versus simply walking around with your hand up in the air until
you meet someone of the opposite sex with their hand in the air, then
fucking on the spot) has been deemed an evolutionary imperative. The
question then, why not, is the same as why. And I asked first. If you
can't work through this, unfortunately, telling you the answer won't
help. You'd find some flaw or word game to support a duality based
disagreement and the farce would continue. You're just going to have
to treat it like a koan and solve it by yourself.
> would you think that the
> evolution of life would be resistant
> to conditioning ?
Certainly not on the scale we're discussing in that you are responding
to me in the context of my post. Conditioning is not something that
can be resisted in a direct way. Conditioning will always be there,
but how lifeforms respond to that conditioning in essence is indeed an
attempt to resist it. For example, "gravity". We have a
musculoskeletal structure. Okay, but gravity is still there.
> >Doesn't that imply, by the same logic that the only love possible is
> >the love of existance, that the only repeated conditioning possible is
> >the repeated conditioning due to thermodynamics?
> >Of course it doesn't. I am so glad you have understood the true
> >meaning of my words ;-)
>
> your words mean you are collapsing
> levels again and making absolutely
> no sense whatsoever.
All I'm saying is that this has resulted from a failure to apply the
buddhist notion of Right View. If that makes no sense to you, then
there's naught much I can do - try reading up on the four noble truths
and the eightfold path. Not that I am trying to prosthetylize buddhism
to you - I've already mentioned that the principle itself has nothing
to do with buddhism. It's just a simple self-evident truth found in
many schools of thought - religious, philosophical, or otherwise. I
was only mentioning buddhism because this is alt.zen. In that regard,
you and you alone are responsible for "doing your homework", as you
yourself chose to come here and post.
> >> ...love of existence and the love of maintaining existence.
> >> there 's really no difference in the two.
> >I'm glad we agree.
>
> we don't.
Oh yes we do. You said the love of any particular thing is really the
love of existance. Now, if you want to backtrack and claim you meant
something else, whatever - but I agree with what you SAID. If you NOW
mean to change your words, of course I wouldn't agree with what you
were saying at that moment. But no one is talking about that except
you - I am merely stating my agreement with the only context known at
the time, which is what you said.
> stop being glad. you just
> 180'd your previous statement which
> is why there is no reason to exchange
> posts with you.
Then stop.
> you contradict yourself with each new post.
You're just like robert. You will say and do anything to avoid
supposing anything I say, even if only by hypothetical example.
The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
> >Sure -that's what right view is all about - actual reality versus
> >formulated opinions of such (which, as you fully agree, is not
> >reality).
>
> right view is not reality, it is
> merely a conceptual perspective.
> concepts are not reality.
I'm glad we agree.
-
Appledog
Fascinating. I'm currently working through Seth Klarman's "Margin of
Safety Risk-Adverse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful
Investor", a particularly rare and difficult book to find. Copies
often retail on amazon and ebay for over $1,000 - if you can even find
one.
Ahh, but your point must be separated from the context it is couched
in. Of that I am well aware. As it is a self-evident fact I will say
no more on that issue, for now.
> I've been peddling focus and change with Labour for some time, and was the
> guy who popularised discussing politicians in terms of their "stock value".
> Meanwhile, the bigshots are looking nervous about investment and the Tories
> polls are beginning to look like Wiley Coyote hanging in the air.
>
>
> Steve Richards comments that parliament isn't corrupt but mediocre. I
> believe he's generally correct (hence my claim that I'm surrounded by
> idiots). However, doing less but better, and being more engaged but less
> distracted can help direct and improve focus.
Another very interesting point, which raises an interesting question;
Can we trust Steve Richards? In essence, you could in fact remain
surrounded by idiots, while the parliament itself would be corrupt.
The parliament itself could go so far as to employ idiots in an effort
to hide their corruption - which they certainly would do, being in
character with their supposed corruption.
This is the reason why I've asked if you can trust him: in that they
may be corrupt and may be not corrupt there is no real way to tell.
Therefore, how can we trust Steve Richards? How does he know?
Therefore, can we trust him? Apparently, either he doesn't know and is
just guessing, or he is in on it and blowing smoke. How could he come
by the information he is relaying and we couldn't? It boggles the
mind.
> Being credible and charming is a skill many people lack between the
> inexperience of youth and the ruin of old age. Likewise, Tang and Bob are
> extremes in competition in a collapsed market. Quietness, scarcity,
> competence, and sociability can help grow capital and lead the market.
My father used to work for an aerospace company early in his career.
This was back in the early days of the scientific calculator. My
father had seen some of the other Engineers using their scientific
calculators - nothing special, along the lines of a 33C,
Mathematician, TI-30, or Lloyds Accumatic. But to someone who used a
slide rule as was customary at those times it was very interesting and
important to him. So he went out and bought one. I can't remember
anything about it except the red digit display and colorful buttons
which I found amusing as a child. So I think it was a Lloyds or a TI
model. Anyways, so the day after my father bought it he strolled into
his bosses office and they were having a conversation. So after a
while he pulled out his scientific calculator, which at the time would
have been one of the better models. He slapped it down on the desk and
said 'What do you think about that?' and much to my father's suprise
the boss said "<name>, I have people to do that for me." The response
suprised my father. What he was told that day changed his outlook
forever and after a few more years working there and in other large,
well known companies he took his connections he made and started out
on his own with his own Engineering company. He was quite successful
and all of it may have arose because of what he was told that day. "I
have people to do that for me." I'll never forget that story or the
importance, urgency.. nay, respect in his voice those times when he
told it to me.
-
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Oct 13, 1:29 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>>
>> Steve Richards comments that parliament isn't corrupt but mediocre. I
>> believe he's generally correct (hence my claim that I'm surrounded by
>> idiots). However, doing less but better, and being more engaged but less
>> distracted can help direct and improve focus.
>
> This is the reason why I've asked if you can trust him: in that they
> may be corrupt and may be not corrupt there is no real way to tell.
> Therefore, how can we trust Steve Richards? How does he know?
> Therefore, can we trust him? Apparently, either he doesn't know and is
> just guessing, or he is in on it and blowing smoke. How could he come
> by the information he is relaying and we couldn't? It boggles the
> mind.
>
>> Being credible and charming is a skill many people lack between the
>> inexperience of youth and the ruin of old age. Likewise, Tang and Bob are
>> extremes in competition in a collapsed market. Quietness, scarcity,
>> competence, and sociability can help grow capital and lead the market.
>
> What he was told that day changed his outlook forever and after a few more
> years working there and in other large, well known companies he took his
> connections he made and started out on his own with his own Engineering
> company. He was quite successful and all of it may have arose because of
> what he was told that day. "I have people to do that for me." I'll never
> forget that story or the importance, urgency.. nay, respect in his voice
> those times when he told it to me.
I've met plenty of people who are mistaken and take their eye off the ball,
and this rarely goes well. Steve's comments fit roughly with what I know of
decisions and the general environment. What he's saying doesn't come as a
shock. It's just a bit more perceptive than the more common whining.
I've opened my big mouth in business and got shot down in flames for saying
things more than once. Some of those businesses no longer exist and some of
the individuals got their asses burned. That's the difference between
telling someone what they need to hear versus what they want to hear.
I've got a good record in calling policy and popularising stuff. As an
example: you've used the word "nay" in your comment. This was unknown in
modern discussion until I used it on Nick Robinson's blog. Usage of that
term exploded not long afterwards. Where's my royalty cut?
The point I'm circling around looks similar to the one Steve and yourself
have made. Goals and engagement are great but there's a point where saying
to hell with it and taking on the role yourself is more rewarding both in
terms of achievement and attracting people, and making a profit.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Appledog
wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0547af6f-a3e5-43b8...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 13, 1:29 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>
Exactly. I couldn't tell you the number of times a business went bust
because they pissed me off. I have a rule. Three years. Nine times out
of ten - and thats being honest - because sometimes it takes four
years.
> I've got a good record in calling policy and popularising stuff. As an
> example: you've used the word "nay" in your comment. This was unknown in
> modern discussion until I used it on Nick Robinson's blog. Usage of that
> term exploded not long afterwards. Where's my royalty cut?
Information is power.
> The point I'm circling around looks similar to the one Steve and yourself
> have made. Goals and engagement are great but there's a point where saying
> to hell with it and taking on the role yourself is more rewarding both in
> terms of achievement and attracting people, and making a profit.
Yep. When someone finally finds the truth there's nothing left to say.
-
^@%>---*=#**
>So you can't see it any other way, so what? I can, so what?
didn't say i can't see it any other way
i said any other way was disintegrous.
see how you always imagine what
someone says and not what they
actually say?
> Look at
>how you're arguing it. You're minimizing the fact that I can see it
>another way, and claiming that is actually impossible.
again i never said that. this is for
the umpteenth time your childish
imagination exaggerating.
> To you what I
>say represents an untruth so you demonize what I say and insult me as
>a way to try and discredit me.
if something i say insults you that is again
simply your imagination.
> Just relax, jen, and fess up that you
>might not be the wisest and most intelligent, most spiritually
>developed person here.
projection noted.
>Of course your small, little mind
and now who's doing the insulting?
adios asshole.
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Oct 13, 11:48 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>> I've opened my big mouth in business and got shot down in flames for
>> saying things more than once. Some of those businesses no longer exist
>> and some of the individuals got their asses burned. That's the difference
>> between telling someone what they need to hear versus what they want to
>> hear.
>
> Exactly. I couldn't tell you the number of times a business went bust
> because they pissed me off. I have a rule. Three years. Nine times out
> of ten - and thats being honest - because sometimes it takes four
> years.
>
>> I've got a good record in calling policy and popularising stuff. As an
>> example: you've used the word "nay" in your comment. This was unknown in
>> modern discussion until I used it on Nick Robinson's blog. Usage of that
>> term exploded not long afterwards. Where's my royalty cut?
>
> Information is power.
>
>> The point I'm circling around looks similar to the one Steve and yourself
>> have made. Goals and engagement are great but there's a point where
>> saying to hell with it and taking on the role yourself is more rewarding
>> both in terms of achievement and attracting people, and making a profit.
>
> Yep. When someone finally finds the truth there's nothing left to say.
I can't disagree with the basic shape of that.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Appledog
>
> >So you can't see it any other way, so what? I can, so what?
>
> didn't say i can't see it any other way
> i said any other way was disintegrous.
Exactly, you can't see it as anything but disintegrous.
> see how you always imagine what
> someone says and not what they
> actually say?
No, you actually said that.
> > Look at
> >how you're arguing it. You're minimizing the fact that I can see it
> >another way, and claiming that is actually impossible.
>
> again i never said that.
Yes you did - you said that any other way was disintegrous. That's not
the truth, it's merely your opinion, and you're wrong.
> this is for the umpteenth time your childish
> imagination exaggerating.
Actually you are the one who is imagining things.
Not that I have anything against that. But you seem to have something
against me mentioning it. Look at how you're acting. You can't stand
to fess up to the truth.
> >Of course your small, little mind
>
> and now who's doing the insulting?
You are.
> adios asshole.
You couldn't stop replying to me if you were paid to do so. You're a
pathetic, fucking little rat trapped in a cage. That's the TRUTH.
Maybe you'll wake up to it and just stop? Although much more likely,
you will reply trying to sound more intelligent than I am. That's why
you fail, Jen. Because you try.
-
Charles E Hardwidge
> Actually you are the one who is imagining things.
I've seen games like this played in other newsgroups. All you have to do is
swap the subject and names around and it's identical. Similarly, top
companies are full of assholes, churches are full of hypocrites, and the
caring professions are full of wankers lining their own pockets. The short
name for this is "office politics".
I don't read most of what's in here because it's the same formula today as
it was last year, and the year before. There's better written articles and
media out there which are more interesting and cover a greater variety of
subjects with less grief. And that's before we get into the clicking and
scrolling, and 10,000 post long bullshit threads fucking the screen up.
This week I just got a new widescreen display. It's got colour management
issues, a hot pixel in the centre of the screen, and has braindead aspect
ratio handling so all my old games are fucked up. I've already RMA'd it
under the distance selling regulations and getting a different one.
Exploring that is more useful and fun for me than some argumentative
pseudo-koan teasing crap that I'll never remember and don't care about.
In fact, I'm so tuned out by the shit in here I've got near zero interest in
starting a new topic that *I'm* interested in or *I* enjoy because it will
turn to shit within ten minutes. And I don't read 10,000 word posts that
haven't been snipped or scan past the second, maybe third, screen unless
something compelling grabs me before then.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> Of course it does. Love of existence is equivalent to clinging to
> survival. But that isn't what was being proposed originally :)
I never read any of the bollocks that came before this post.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Déjà Flu
Well, the bollocks that came *after* it didn't do any better.
You can expect and reflect and get caught up there, in a game
loop that will never break out into a "win". But there's no point
in joining some "planning board" whose sole intention is to write
you out of it.
Good challenges are hard to find. Most problems are so easy that
it barely takes a few moments to solve them, whilst the rest of the
class sweats bullets and you're done with it.
Between the two of you, anything that requires discussion has
already been discussed, so you're pretty much talking to one
another here. It's a great example - almost replicating the
Pali Canon - and very useful for those who can decipher it.
Please continue. And if you don't mind, could we have a bit of
International Law, and Philosophy of Culture just to spice things
up? I'd be quite willing to contribute a few pages of: <"Return
To Stupidity" - the history of the last 20 years of global politics.>
Of course, as Zen says, 'there is nothing to return and nothing
to return to', so I'm simply making a clumsy joke - which be obvious.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:9eSdnRFT6qlLnUjX...@posted.toastnet...
> You can expect and reflect and get caught up there, in a game
> loop that will never break out into a "win". But there's no point
> in joining some "planning board" whose sole intention is to write
> you out of it.
...
> Please continue. And if you don't mind, could we have a bit of
> International Law, and Philosophy of Culture just to spice things
> up? I'd be quite willing to contribute a few pages of: <"Return
> To Stupidity" - the history of the last 20 years of global politics.>
I'm more focused on ditching the BS and what other people are handwaving
about. Spent enough time with that over the years, so BS arguments and
politics are grabbing less of my attention. Plus, if I'm unlucky I'll be
going into the same hole as John Daido Loori. It's one of those things can't
get worse, oh yes they fucking can things. (My attempt at a lame joke).
So, anyway. I had this plan and it took a left turn, now I'm at another fork
and wondering if it's going to take another left turn. But, the way I see it
is things subjectively wind up in a similar place whatever happens.
Embracing life or death are melding into one, and whatever happens I needed
a kick up the pants. I figure, I owe it too myself.
I made some mistakes and hung around the wrong people for a long time, and
unwinding that legacy is taking a while. I'm not in a position to say but
I'm plotting a different course and hope it turns out better. If things go
well I'm hoping the second half goes better than the first half. If it
doesn't
that's another story and someone else can pick up the slack.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
AdvocatusDiablo
You are.
> adios asshole.
----------------
you two are like a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror.
"that's corn...
no it's not, it's candy corn....
no it's not, it's peanuts!"
fucking dullards.
^@%>---*=#**
"AdvocatusDiablo" <instant...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tq-dnUO9re6UskjX...@insightbb.com...
no it's not. yes it is.
> no it's not, it's candy corn....
yes it's not. no it is.
> no it's not, it's peanuts!"
hey ! that's what i work for.
> fucking dullards.
got your pussy wet.
john lennon
> "AdvocatusDiablo" <instantkarma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tq-dnUO9re6UskjX...@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
the elephants get drugs too.
>
> > fucking dullards.
>
> got your pussy wet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
zenworm
do you mean emotions (the physiological reaction to thoughts)
or feelings (presence sensing resonation)?
^@%>---*=#**
------------------------------------------------
all is feeling. we feel through physical
eyes to see, feel through physical ears
to hear and so on. emotions are feelings
as are tactile sensations upon the skin.
what gives you proof or evidence that
your feelings are real or even substantial?
the main argument people have for this
physical manifestation is that they can feel
a brick dropped on their toe so they then
conclude that reality must be real because
they can "feel", completely missing the idea
that the feelings, the toe and the brick are
inclusive in the illusion notion.
Appledog
We do not need proof that they are substantial and we are fully free
to consider them insubstantial. But the admission of what they are is
the admission that they are all we have to work with. So, if there is
no internal discontinuity there is no problem. By internal
discontinuity I mean, for example, the world looks flat - until you
have triangles with excess internal angles or circles with excess
radius.
Or spheres with too much volume (area). Weird little things like that.
Then you know something is not right with the world. But in all other
cases, there's no validity in the assertion that feelings are
unreal :)
-
Appledog
>
> > I never read any of the bollocks that came before this post.
>
> Well, the bollocks that came *after* it didn't do any better.
How ironic:
> You can expect and reflect and get caught up there, in a game
> loop that will never break out into a "win".
(unless your goal is not so dualistic as to make everything into a
game which you need to win)
> But there's no point
> in joining some "planning board" whose sole intention is to write
> you out of it.
(unless you can admit you need help because you're not an egomaniac
who can't admit when he is wrong or when he doesn't know something, or
possibly because you are trying to "let go")
> Good challenges are hard to find. Most problems are so easy that
> it barely takes a few moments to solve them, whilst the rest of the
> class sweats bullets and you're done with it.
>
> Between the two of you, anything that requires discussion has
> already been discussed, so you're pretty much talking to one
> another here. It's a great example - almost replicating the
> Pali Canon - and very useful for those who can decipher it.
In that what was said is essentially self evident and we have already
ended the discussion, it was really more for the others than for us.
But you're right - the probability that any one else but the three of
us understood what it really was approaches zero.
> Please continue. And if you don't mind, could we have a bit of
> International Law, and Philosophy of Culture just to spice things
> up? I'd be quite willing to contribute a few pages of: <"Return
> To Stupidity" - the history of the last 20 years of global politics.>
Opportunity cost. You can't "request" it. You can capture it as it
happens. Like a fireworks display or a supernovae. If you want to turn
it on and off, it ends up costing you yourself time and energy; make
it easy on yourself and convert all that to money. The accepted medium
of exchange. In the case where you don't assign it any fungible value,
what you really say is that you do not value it at all, and even only
in that case I wouldn't waste my time on you.
> Of course, as Zen says, 'there is nothing to return and nothing
> to return to', so I'm simply making a clumsy joke - which be obvious.
A lot of people say a lot of things. And most of what's said in zen is
simply wrong. Sure, it helps beginners. Sometimes. Well, most
beginners anyways. So I suppose it's a net good. But there are enough
non-beginners and special needs students, even here, that if you
blindly follow that road with everyone you meet you will simply be
ignored. After all, no CEO needs a secretary to tell him how to run
his company. That isn't what this is about.
-
Appledog
wrote:
>
> This week I just got a new widescreen display. It's got colour management
> issues, a hot pixel in the centre of the screen, and has braindead aspect
> ratio handling so all my old games are fucked up. I've already RMA'd it
> under the distance selling regulations and getting a different one.
> Exploring that is more useful and fun for me than some argumentative
> pseudo-koan teasing crap that I'll never remember and don't care about.
Yeah, and monks are not enlightened. That's why they're monks. because
they've dedicated themself to the path. Most people here have some
real fucked up priorities. They compare the enlightened to the seekers
in robes and they claim the enlightened are not, and they shit all
over themselves in the process. And then they begin to stink, and you
don't want to be near them at all. It stinks really bad. This is the
real meaning of being a bodhisattva. Wading into shit when you could
have just had a V8. But, I digress.
-
Appledog
wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Right-O. All are one, and jen stinks like shit. I would willingly do
same-action to help jen.
And so it goes.
-
zenworm
Does 'proof' or 'evidence' require some
theory to prove or disprove?
If theories are being held up against 'reality'
is this mentational evaluating/comparing
a resisting of Moment?
Without identifying with(ownership of):
belief, labels, theory, speculation,
there is no need to resist what is.
There appears to be an experiencing of
the appearences of form.
This is it.
What need to make it anything else?
Here is Now.
AdvocatusDiablo
And so it goes.
-------------------
toilet paper always gets flushed with the shit.
halfawake
nobody gives a shit what you read or don't. quit wasting space.
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - -
halfawake
in that case, bugger off, old chum.
robert
halfawake
actually you don't digress. that's what you and Hardwedge are all about
- being better than everyone else. You're as blown up as an inflatable
balloon.
Robert
zenworm
are you the prick?
ZN
no one is enough
john lennon
i bought a poster of the king to use for darts back home. i told my
ex that i am the prick that hates the king, and without us both she
would be better fulfilled. it is difficult to get beyond the anti
nature within me with so much to hate around.
zenworm
get beyond?
ZN
Isness is enough
^@%>---*=#**
>get beyond?
why bother. look how well hate worked
for hitler, manson, idi amin, milosovic,
sadam hussein, bin laden, ayatollah khomeini,
attila, moe howard and wiley coyote.
^@%>---*=#**
"john lennon" <kosmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f369fbd-7d00-4f5b...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------
embrace your inner serial killer.
he will bring you many rewards.
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
relax and be present
ZN
what is, is enough
^@%>---*=#**
>relax and be present
so you hate being nervous
and living in the past ?
>what is,
so you hate what isn't ?
> is enough
so you hate not having enough ?
keep hating. you're doing fine.
Charles E Hardwidge
--
Charles E Hardwidge
^@%>---*=#**
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ez_Bm.3917$KR3...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Can you pair add something useful or fuck off and start your own thread?
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
you just can't get that hate
thing going can you ?
zenworm
wrote:
> Can you pair add something useful or fuck off and start your own thread?
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
sure:
Possetion is not an issue without ownership.
The concept of ownership causes the suffering
associated with possetion.
For example the concept that you own this thread
can give rise to the sense of entitlement that causes
you to scwerm and spew in the face of 'apparent
pointless innanities'.
Everything is Awareness but you can not own it.
Allow it to rest in your hand like a sunbeam.
When you see the hand is not you...
you may see there is not anything that you are not.
P. S. this is only useful if you are paying
attention to this Moment now
ZN
Charles E Hardwidge
here for a while so a couple of decent posts rack up among the 38456348756
posts of bollocks.
I'm going out for a walk. Just because of you I might punch some random
pedestrian in the face. It's easy, you just hit 'em as you walk past and
nobody sees it. It's not as if you care, right?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
^@%>---*=#**
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>I never read your stuff
that's only passive agressive hate.
try harder.
>so I'm just going to quit looking at the shit in
> here for a while
for never reading it but deciding
that it's shit i give you 4 points for
proxy passive agressive hate. not
much of an improvement but i guess
we gotta start somewhere, eh ?
> so a couple of decent posts rack up among the 38456348756
> posts of bollocks.
good thing you're keeping score.
tang used to keep track of things
but he's gotten all fluffy lately.
> I'm going out for a walk.
long walk off a short pier ?
> Just because of you I might punch some random
> pedestrian in the face.
whee dogies !!!
>It's easy, you just hit 'em as you walk past and nobody sees it.
charles the face hater ! i tink
you're finally catcghing on to
this hate thing but your reactions
may soon have you in the crowbar
hotel doncha know.
> It's not as if you care, right?
of course i care charles. punch two or three
dozen in my name if it will make you feel
better. aim for those in uniform.
Lee Rudolph
>I'm going out for a walk.
May you be some time?
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
>of course i care charles. punch two or three
>dozen in my name if it will make you feel
>better. aim for those in uniform.
What have you got against nurses and Catholic schoolgirls?
Lee Rudolph
Keynes
wrote:
*Somebody* has to punch them.
(Surely you can see that.)
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 5:26 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >>This week I just got a new widescreen display. It's got colour management
> >>issues, a hot pixel in the centre of the screen, and has braindead aspect
> >>ratio handling so all my old games are fucked up. I've already RMA'd it
> >>under the distance selling regulations and getting a different one.
> >>Exploring that is more useful and fun for me than some argumentative
> >>pseudo-koan teasing crap that I'll never remember and don't care about.
>
> > Yeah, and monks are not enlightened. That's why they're monks. because
> > they've dedicated themself to the path. Most people here have some
> > real fucked up priorities. They compare the enlightened to the seekers
> > in robes and they claim the enlightened are not, and they shit all
> > over themselves in the process. And then they begin to stink, and you
> > don't want to be near them at all. It stinks really bad. This is the
> > real meaning of being a bodhisattva. Wading into shit when you could
> > have just had a V8. But, I digress.
>
> > -
>
> actually you don't digress.
So you are saying an analogy of bhodisattvaism relates directly to the
general state of monks (i.e. unenlightened)? Because it doesn't.
> that's what you and Hardwedge are all about
> - being better than everyone else. You're as blown up as an inflatable
> balloon.
Lol, are you ever going to shut up about that? I mean come on - you
keep saying it, over and over, like a mantra. Are you trying to
convince yourself? Surely you know you're not going to convince ME.
Right? Are you planning to say it on your deathbead? Do you want to
them to write it on your tombstone? Advice: STFU and listen, you might
figure out that higher state you've been searching for.
-
Appledog
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in messagenews:Fc%Bm.3930$KR3....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Jen: "I care = punch more people"
Jen, you're stupid.
-
Appledog
Stated ownership is the same as unstated ownership. Anyone who
pretends to own the truth will fall flat on their face and start
spreading hate. Look at the examples; herbzet, robert, tang, jen (^@
%>---*=#***), nobody in particular, and so forth. They pretend they
own some social right to badmouth people and look what happens. They
pretend they are better than someone and look what happens. It's sad,
really. By acting as if they own something they end up owning nothing
at all - worse, what little they may actually have had is taken away
from them. Poor fucks.
-
^@%>---*=#**
john lennon
> "john lennon" <kosmicg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
last time in thailand i was lucky i didn't murder people but i find
that i am not ruffled so easily anymore. if i were a serial killer it
would not be completely impulsive reactionistic, but more of a playing
of a part in context of the world i must be a part of. although i do
find the venom in me is still "real" and can amp it up on things.
^@%>---*=#**
-----------------------------------------------------------------
embrace your inner snake then.
everybody's got one.
john lennon
mine's bigger.
Noah Sombrero
>> P. S. �this is only useful if you are paying
>> attention to this Moment now
>>
>> ZN
>> jubilation for no reason owned by no one
>
>Stated ownership is the same as unstated ownership. Anyone who
>pretends to own the truth will fall flat on their face and start
>spreading hate. Look at the examples; herbzet, robert, tang, jen (^@
>%>---*=#***), nobody in particular,
Once again, I am left out.
> and so forth. They pretend they
>own some social right to badmouth people and look what happens. They
>pretend they are better than someone and look what happens. It's sad,
>really. By acting as if they own something they end up owning nothing
>at all - worse, what little they may actually have had is taken away
>from them. Poor fucks.
>
>-
Noah Sombrero
Hidden Draggin
Has anyone noticed that everything is about Charles?
His annoyances...his leadership of the Labor Party...
his strategies...his commentaries.
We all better shape up or Charles will be disappointed.
After all, we only exist for his amusement.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
zenworm
wrote:
you see it
ZN
one is too many
^@%>---*=#**
>mine's bigger.
death certainly hasn't stifled
your wit john.
^@%>---*=#**
"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:vu9hd5dv1bfkooi1k...@4ax.com...
> Appledog <oliver....@gmail.com>,
>
>>> P. S. this is only useful if you are paying
>>> attention to this Moment now
>>>
>>> ZN
>>> jubilation for no reason owned by no one
>>
>>Stated ownership is the same as unstated ownership. Anyone who
>>pretends to own the truth will fall flat on their face and start
>>spreading hate. Look at the examples; herbzet, robert, tang, jen (^@
>>%>---*=#***), nobody in particular,
>
> Once again, I am left out.
ya gotta learns to hate better do0d
Charles E Hardwidge
news:b26feb9f-5838-4fc3...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Jen: "I care = punch more people"
>
> Jen, you're stupid.
Yeah, same goes for the other spastic crap that kicked off again in this
thread. Somewhere, someone might have had their day ruined but it wasn't
them so it's okay.
I learned this lesson years ago. Violence gets peoples attention. The only
hassle is keep your mouth shut and don't get caught. Heck, you can glass
someone in a crowded nightclub and walk away.
That's an idea...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> Lol, are you ever going to shut up about that? I mean come on - you
> keep saying it, over and over, like a mantra. Are you trying to
> convince yourself? Surely you know you're not going to convince ME.
> Right? Are you planning to say it on your deathbead? Do you want to
> them to write it on your tombstone? Advice: STFU and listen, you might
> figure out that higher state you've been searching for.
Word.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Hidden Draggin
Apparently, you have an active fantasy life that involves
violence. You sound like one of those football toughs
trying to convince themselves of their masculinity all
the time.
Charles E Hardwidge
There's some comments at the top of the thread about added value and the
fact I might only have a year or so to live, and you think I give a fuck for
what some random anonymous cunt on the internet has to say?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
comment? You're just some big mouth anonymous internet fuckwit as far as I'm
concerned - no different to the million other instantly forgettable ones
that fill a million forums. Sez it all.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Noah Sombrero
The mistake would be to think this guy is kidding. What is the
appropriate response to somebody who announces that he hurts people?
Noah Sombrero
Hidden Draggin
I am sorry you only have a year to live.
Does this mean I should excuse you for acting like a jackass?
Hidden Draggin
Well, the difference being that by your account, I will
be here in a year and you will soon be forgotten.
The people who count know who I am.
Appledog
No, you missed the point.
-
Ron Fuller
news:mr6Cm.4094$KR3....@text.news.virginmedia.com:
and you are going to spend that year doing what ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@cainsquestion.org
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
Déjà Flu
Was that as in presidents or popes?
herbzet
Truthfully, I don't know why people are pissed off with you. I don't see
what you've said that's so annoying. Actually, I have no idea why you
post to buddhist ng's at all.
I sincerely wish you well with any health problems that you may have.
--
hz
zenworm
presence and dopes
ZN ;D
happy for no reason
Mort
i am not afraid of dying but i am afraid of being killed by somebody
resembling an ape. i would come back only to kill them back, not
because i am attached to living.
Charles E Hardwidge
> No, you missed the point.
It's just a word game to some people. They think babble and emotional
manipulation is insightful but we've been here before. It's nothing that
Right Click->Catch Up can't solve.
Uganda isn't known for its high art and technology industries for a reason.
These newsgroups are no different. The sneering dictators and bullshitting
voodoo merchants are the same wherever you go.
Life is cheap to some. Comment is even cheaper to others. Go away for a year
and come back and it's the same hardcore running around in circles, in a
petty backwater the smart money moved out of years ago.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee Rudolph
>Life is cheap to some. Comment is even cheaper to others. Go away for a year
>and come back and it's the same hardcore running around in circles, in a
>petty backwater the smart money moved out of years ago.
But you're in a different case: if you go away for a year, you won't come
back!
Have you considered a trip to Zurich?
Lee Rudolph
zenworm
wrote:
> "Appledog" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Your fear is understandable.
What help can be offered?
ZN
what is, is enough
Beerlet Dhiblang
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> > Who are you and why should I care?
>
> > There's some comments at the top of the thread about added value and
> > the fact I might only have a year or so to live, and you think I give
> > a fuck for what some random anonymous cunt on the internet has to say?
>
> I am sorry you only have a year to live.
> Does this mean I should excuse you for acting like a jackass?
Other people have. I don't get it but I really don't give a dam
either.
/l
halfawake
> Can you pair add something useful or fuck off and start your own thread?
>
that was useful.
robert
halfawake
> On Oct 16, 9:30 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Can you pair add something useful or fuck off and start your own thread?
>>
>>--
>>Charles E Hardwidge
>
>
> sure:
>
> Possetion is not an issue without ownership.
>
> The concept of ownership causes the suffering
> associated with possetion.
>
> For example the concept that you own this thread
> can give rise to the sense of entitlement that causes
> you to scwerm and spew in the face of 'apparent
> pointless innanities'.
>
> Everything is Awareness but you can not own it.
> Allow it to rest in your hand like a sunbeam.
> When you see the hand is not you...
> you may see there is not anything that you are not.
>
>
> P. S. this is only useful if you are paying
> attention to this Moment now
>
>
> ZN
> jubilation for no reason owned by no one
>
>
If Charles were to do that I think we'd all explode.
robert
= = = = = = = = =
halfawake
>
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Fc%Bm.3930$KR3....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>> I never read your stuff
>
>
> that's only passive agressive hate.
> try harder.
>
>> so I'm just going to quit looking at the shit in
>> here for a while
>
>
> for never reading it but deciding
> that it's shit i give you 4 points for
> proxy passive agressive hate. not
> much of an improvement but i guess
> we gotta start somewhere, eh ?
and then the Munchhausen's begins...
>
>> so a couple of decent posts rack up among the 38456348756
>> posts of bollocks.
>
>
> good thing you're keeping score.
> tang used to keep track of things
> but he's gotten all fluffy lately.
too much nirvanacise.
>
>> I'm going out for a walk.
>
>
> long walk off a short pier ?
>
>> Just because of you I might punch some random
>> pedestrian in the face.
>
>
> whee dogies !!!
>
>> It's easy, you just hit 'em as you walk past and nobody sees it.
>
>
> charles the face hater ! i tink
> you're finally catcghing on to
> this hate thing but your reactions
> may soon have you in the crowbar
> hotel doncha know.
>
>> It's not as if you care, right?
>
>
> of course i care charles. punch two or three
> dozen in my name if it will make you feel
> better. aim for those in uniform.
I'd rather aim for the unformed, thank you very much,
but then again, there's nothing to hit there.
My cousin ran around Taiwan and China meeting all the still-living old
Chinese T'ai Chi masters. He's a bit of an advanced adept himself,
having won international push-hands several times, etc., and they were
all happy to see him. One old guy kept inviting my cousin to hit him,
and everytime my cousin, who again is very advanced, threw a punch, the
guy didn't move but the punch didn't land anywhere. He could not figure
out what the guy was doing. This would make the old guy happy and he
would nod his head and say "Hit me again, hit me again!" We speculated
that in T'ai Chi terms, the old man no longer had any "hard spot" in his
body, and thus nowhere for a punch to land.
For DT and others, footnote: this is not mystical horseshit or
anything, it just means the guy is too soft to hit, sort of like fluff.
[That should hold them off for a while...]
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =
Robert
halfawake
> "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>of course i care charles. punch two or three
>>dozen in my name if it will make you feel
>>better. aim for those in uniform.
>
>
> What have you got against nurses and Catholic schoolgirls?
>
> Lee Rudolph
THAT is a long story which "^@%>---*=#**" doesn't have time or space to
tell......
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -
halfawake
> On Oct 16, 12:27 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Appledog wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 14, 5:26 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>This week I just got a new widescreen display. It's got colour management
>>>>issues, a hot pixel in the centre of the screen, and has braindead aspect
>>>>ratio handling so all my old games are fucked up. I've already RMA'd it
>>>>under the distance selling regulations and getting a different one.
>>>>Exploring that is more useful and fun for me than some argumentative
>>>>pseudo-koan teasing crap that I'll never remember and don't care about.
>>
>>>Yeah, and monks are not enlightened. That's why they're monks. because
>>>they've dedicated themself to the path. Most people here have some
>>>real fucked up priorities. They compare the enlightened to the seekers
>>>in robes and they claim the enlightened are not, and they shit all
>>>over themselves in the process. And then they begin to stink, and you
>>>don't want to be near them at all. It stinks really bad. This is the
>>>real meaning of being a bodhisattva. Wading into shit when you could
>>>have just had a V8. But, I digress.
>>
>>>-
>>
>>actually you don't digress.
>
>
> So you are saying an analogy of bhodisattvaism relates directly to the
> general state of monks (i.e. unenlightened)? Because it doesn't.
no that's not what I was saying.
>
>
>> that's what you and Hardwedge are all about
>>- being better than everyone else. You're as blown up as an inflatable
>>balloon.
>
>
> Lol, are you ever going to shut up about that? I mean come on - you
> keep saying it, over and over, like a mantra. Are you trying to
> convince yourself? Surely you know you're not going to convince ME.
> Right?
There's always a chance.
Are you planning to say it on your deathbead? Do you want to
> them to write it on your tombstone? Advice: STFU and listen, you might
> figure out that higher state you've been searching for.
I'm always listening, and trust me, I hear plenty of nothing.
Try harder, and I'll listen closer.
Best,
halfawake
> On Oct 16, 10:02 pm, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 16, 9:30 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can you pair add something useful or fuck off and start your own thread?
>>
>>>--
>>>Charles E Hardwidge
>>
>>sure:
>>
>>Possetion is not an issue without ownership.
>>
>>The concept of ownership causes the suffering
>>associated with possetion.
>>
>>For example the concept that you own this thread
>>can give rise to the sense of entitlement that causes
>>you to scwerm and spew in the face of 'apparent
>>pointless innanities'.
>>
>>Everything is Awareness but you can not own it.
>>Allow it to rest in your hand like a sunbeam.
>>When you see the hand is not you...
>>you may see there is not anything that you are not.
>>
>>P. S. this is only useful if you are paying
>>attention to this Moment now
>>
>>ZN
>>jubilation for no reason owned by no one
>
>
> Stated ownership is the same as unstated ownership. Anyone who
> pretends to own the truth will fall flat on their face and start
> spreading hate. Look at the examples; herbzet, robert, tang, jen (^@
> %>---*=#***), nobody in particular, and so forth. They pretend they
> own some social right to badmouth people and look what happens. They
> pretend they are better than someone and look what happens. It's sad,
> really. By acting as if they own something they end up owning nothing
> at all - worse, what little they may actually have had is taken away
> from them. Poor fucks.
>
> -
we all experience poor fucks at times; but then, practice makes perfect.
halfawake
>
> "john lennon" <kosmi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:890b7726-e348-4ee9...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 8:38 pm, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "john lennon" <kosmicg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7f369fbd-7d00-4f5b...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 15, 11:09 pm, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 16, 12:27 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Appledog wrote:
>> > > > On Oct 14, 5:26 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>> > > actually you don't digress. that's what you and Hardwedge are all
>> > > about
>> > > - being better than everyone else. You're as blown up as an
>> inflatable
>> > > balloon.
>>
>> > > Robert
>>
>> > > - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> > are you the prick?
>>
>> > ZN
>> > no one is enough
>>
>> i bought a poster of the king to use for darts back home. i told my
>> ex that i am the prick that hates the king, and without us both she
>> would be better fulfilled. it is difficult to get beyond the anti
>> nature within me with so much to hate around.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> embrace your inner serial killer.
>> he will bring you many rewards.
>
>
>
> last time in thailand i was lucky i didn't murder people but i find
> that i am not ruffled so easily anymore. if i were a serial killer it
> would not be completely impulsive reactionistic, but more of a playing
> of a part in context of the world i must be a part of. although i do
> find the venom in me is still "real" and can amp it up on things.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> embrace your inner snake then.
> everybody's got one.
when it goes outer it's embarrassing.
robert
===========================
^@%>---*=#**
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hbfgc8$vi9$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
so size does matter ?
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> "halfawake":
>
> > ^@%>---*=#**:
>
> >> embrace your inner snake then.
> >> everybody's got one.
>
> > when it goes outer it's embarrassing.
>
> so size does matter ?
You should be able to shoot hoops
around the globe.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
Catholic school girls and nurses are Hot!
john lennon
john lennon
endurance is an important partner of strength. my friend and i are
opposite extremes, his build and ability to "hold" in a fight are
difficult to overcome, but so is my flexibility and complimentary
craftiness. he has said we are like yin and yang together, and people
are interested in the contrast and how we are friends. we tried
playing "mercy" on each other. my hand can bend as far back as you
can make it, i just have to let it go and not resist... and then i
wait for the other to exhaust themselves and go in for the kill. ali
won one of his fights using this same strategy, right? and as for
max, i could not overcome his strength. and that's where i'd usually
wait for him to exhaust himself, but being well trained he is trained
in endurance and well aware of fatigue. so we were locked. of course
in the end i think (not)fighting him would exhaust him, but i am not
sure it is possible he could last forever with that strength if he is
very careful in preservation and use of energy. i have been run over
by a car and my leg only bent. i haven't met anybody as physically
bendable as i am. that's where the taoist myth of imortality springs
from. but i'm always aware of it being an opposite to a something
else, a strong ego, a strong body, and being gumby is only what i am
best at in conflicts but not the ideal.
halfawake
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>>in here for a while so a couple of decent posts rack up among the
>>38456348756 posts of bollocks.
>>
>>I'm going out for a walk. Just because of you I might punch some
>>random pedestrian in the face. It's easy, you just hit 'em as you
>>walk past and nobody sees it. It's not as if you care, right?
>
>
> Has anyone noticed that everything is about Charles?
> His annoyances...his leadership of the Labor Party...
> his strategies...his commentaries.
>
> We all better shape up or Charles will be disappointed.
> After all, we only exist for his amusement.
>
I'm just glad I'm not in punching distance.
Robert
john lennon
halfawake
> "Appledog" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b26feb9f-5838-4fc3...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Jen: "I care = punch more people"
>>
>> Jen, you're stupid.
>
>
> Yeah, same goes for the other spastic crap that kicked off again in this
> thread. Somewhere, someone might have had their day ruined but it wasn't
> them so it's okay.
>
> I learned this lesson years ago. Violence gets peoples attention. The
> only hassle is keep your mouth shut and don't get caught. Heck, you can
> glass someone in a crowded nightclub and walk away.
>
> That's an idea...
>
why don't you cram some glass up yourself and put us all out of your misery.
halfawake
> Who are you and why should I care?
>
> There's some comments at the top of the thread about added value and the
> fact I might only have a year or so to live, and you think I give a fuck
> for
> what some random anonymous cunt on the internet has to say?
>
it's no excuse to be nasty, Charles.
I know a few people who have died recently and some that are going to
die soon, and none of them are acting like a blazing asshole like you.
why can't you be nice, like me?
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =