why koans & absfg are good for you
Beerlet Dhiblang
dilemma,” or something that “helps you critically reflect on the
assumptions you’ve acquired..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
/l
zenworm
play
^worm
liaM
> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
> dilemma,� or something that �helps you critically reflect on the
> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> /l
Learning? Creation is the goal.
Lee Rudolph
>Le 1/5/2010 11:43 AM, Beerlet Dhiblang a �crit :
>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
>> dilemma,� or something that �helps you critically reflect on the
>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>
>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>
>> /l
>
>
>
>Learning? Creation is the goal.
D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
a rugby match going on?)
liaM
> liaM<cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>
>> Le 1/5/2010 11:43 AM, Beerlet Dhiblang a �crit :
>>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>>
>>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>>
>>> /l
>>
>>
>>
>> Learning? Creation is the goal.
>
> D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
> and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
>
> Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
> a rugby match going on?)
Go sit on a tack.. So you're an old judgmental guy whose
"achievements" are behind him, and if ever were fortunate enough
to deserve being hoisted and hung from a gallows in a far away land,
would have hardly a drop of jissom for the hangman.
Lee Rudolph
>Le 1/6/2010 1:18 AM, Lee Rudolph a �crit :
>> liaM<cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>>
>>> Le 1/5/2010 11:43 AM, Beerlet Dhiblang a �crit :
>>>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
>>>> dilemma,� or something that �helps you critically reflect on the
>>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>>>
>>>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>>>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>>>
>>>> /l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Learning? Creation is the goal.
>>
>> D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
>> and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
>>
>> Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
>> a rugby match going on?)
>
>
>Go sit on a tack.. So you're an old judgmental guy whose
>"achievements" are behind him, and if ever were fortunate enough
>to deserve being hoisted and hung from a gallows in a far away land,
>would have hardly a drop of jissom for the hangman.
Wait--wasn't that meant to be posted to Sanfy's Pirate Sex Manual?
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down, and
creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from the
Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
worldview. Ayan Rand reading libertarian assholes are the same.
Anyone with a glimpse of insight into strategy knows this is nothing new and
knows that attitude is the key to success. Thus, with lazy ease I demolish
PhDs and legions of self-styled think tanks without even trying. The problem
with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Kitty P
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gWT0n.22517$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodeca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> dilemma,� or something that �helps you critically reflect on the
>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>
>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down,
> and
> creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from the
> Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
> worldview. Ayan Rand reading libertarian assholes are the same.
>
> Anyone with a glimpse of insight into strategy knows this is nothing new
> and
> knows that attitude is the key to success. Thus, with lazy ease I demolish
> PhDs and legions of self-styled think tanks without even trying. The
> problem
> with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
Yes, I can only guess that it must be a very tiresome life being a legend in
ones own brain.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a “disorienting
> > assumptions you’ve acquired..."
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> > Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> > age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down, and
> creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from the
> Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
> worldview.
Hah! You're both right. Conflict can be a way to break out of your
view and enrich it, or it can be a way to focus on a "they" and
reinforce and dig in.
Watching political news in the U.S. on television is a fascinating
case of the latter. All of Charles' cynicism rings true in that
context. My left-wing friends watch the extreme left pundits every
night (MSNBC) and my right-wing friends watch the extreme right
pundits (FOX) every night. Both are entertaining, both make good
points on their sides, and both dumb people down, lock viewers into
their extreme ideology, reinforce an extreme them and us culture, and
even provide their viewers with simple comebacks and fortune cookie
answers to all of their opponents arguments, so that they never have
to consider a robust and thoughtful opposing view, and can bask in
complacency.
Btw, even with the polarization of political news and the most us and
them climate politically with Obama and his detractors that I've ever
witnessed in my life, if you want to do it, you can find an
alternative on TV (better to seek online sources though). My routine,
when I have the time, is (on East Coast time) to view the best of both
sides. At 6:30, I watch the Right, on Fox News, the "Special Report
with Bret Baier" where he has a panel of "Fox All-Stars" including our
local Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, or SauerKraut, as
I call him. You get serious, reasonable arguments, though they are
right-wing ones, and SauerKraut is the only serious conservative who
said of Palin's "Death Panel" nonsense, "if we want to discuss Health
Care seriously, first we have to politely ask Sarah Palin to leave the
room." Then at 7pm, I switch to MSNBC and watch Chris Matthew's
"Hardball". Chris is very liberal, but he's fair and asks great
questions of his guests. That combination gives me the best of the
evening stuff.
Best of all is "Morning Joe" from 6-9 a.m. weekday mornings on MSNBC.
While they are the left-wing network, in the morning they have a group
of folks, led by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, and
they have a balance of liberals and conservatives. Unlike the night
shows, they all get along, and discuss their differing views without
insults and with friendly banter. You can stream it if you don't get
up early (I sometimes watch the first hour before I'm off to work).
This is more informative than all the rest combined, but it's the only
place on cable TV I've found where you can get views to rub up against
each other and you can try to see the big picture without the us or
them stuff.
Now back to this article about exercising the geezer brain.
I think it makes a lot of sense, and though the pitfall Charles speaks
of is real, and you can see it on this list, nonetheless, exposing
oneself to differing views and trying to assimilate them is the best
thing to do, whether when you're grown up or still a kid in school.
What I liked best about my philosophy exams in college were that they
were in three parts: (1) defend the side of the argument you agree
with; (2) make the best and strongest case against your view from an
opponent; and (3) now defend your position in (1) in light of the
argument your presented in (2). Most folks did badly, even if they did
great in (1) because psychologically they couldn't get themselves to
make a good case for the opposition so they presented a silly
caricature in (2) and then refuted it in (3), what's known as knocking
down a 'straw man'. We learned instead, after many classes and such
essays, to develop the ability to make a strong case against our own
views, and then, while we had to admit the many flaws in our own view,
could better and more strongly explain why we still preferred it to
really good opposing arguments. While this article basically is
advocating that same style of learning, I'd say that it should be
implemented at the start, and not just in middle age!
Here's the part I found most appealing in the article:
<<The brain, as it traverses middle age, gets better at recognizing
the central idea, the big picture. If kept in good shape, the brain
can continue to build pathways that help its owner recognize patterns
and, as a consequence, see significance and even solutions much faster
than a young person can.
Teaching new facts should not be the focus of adult education, she
says. Instead, continued brain development and a richer form of
learning may require that you “bump up against people and ideas” that
are different. In a history class, that might mean reading multiple
viewpoints, and then prying open brain networks by reflecting on how
what was learned has changed your view of the world.
“There’s a place for information,” Dr. Taylor says. “We need to know
stuff. But we need to move beyond that and challenge our perception of
the world. If you always hang around with those you agree with and
read things that agree with what you already know, you’re not going to
wrestle with your established brain connections.”
Educators say that, for adults, one way to nudge neurons in the right
direction is to challenge the very assumptions they have worked so
hard to accumulate while young. With a brain already full of well-
connected pathways, adult learners should “jiggle their synapses a
bit” by confronting thoughts that are contrary to their own, says Dr.
Taylor, who is 66.
Such stretching is exactly what scientists say best keeps a brain in
tune: get out of the comfort zone to push and nourish your brain.>>
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6c371c70-de73-4937...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 11:01 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>
>> > Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>> > age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>
>> Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down,
>> and creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from
>> the Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
>> worldview.
>
> Hah! You're both right. Conflict can be a way to break out of your
> view and enrich it, or it can be a way to focus on a "they" and
> reinforce and dig in.
>
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense, and though the pitfall Charles speaks
> of is real, and you can see it on this list, nonetheless, exposing
> oneself to differing views and trying to assimilate them is the best
> thing to do, whether when you're grown up or still a kid in school.
I wouldn't say I'm just taking the other side. I'm looking at the strategic
underpinnings and saying how it's nothing new and attitude matters. That's a
level above the right and wrong aspects of his presentation.
Britain is supposed to be good at "invention" but lags behind in
implementation. This is because the culture (politics, business, and
society) is based on power and tribalism. The outcome is we're awash with
marketers but have no industry worth speaking of.
"Change" is the big mantra today and I hear Cameron is banging on about
bringing in a less divisive form of politics while stroking the egos of the
so-called third sector". This, from a man who shakes with faux-anger at
PMQ's and would put welfare recipients on workfare.
While I believe Labour have been more rudderless and weak than they
should've been the Tories have not earned government. They are bullish and
selfish. The same old unreformed nasty party who actively opposed many
positive polices is playing kick the victim in the hope nobody notices.
I'm guilty of saying that Brown would effectively destroy Toryism and that
may have invigorated the Tories to fight back. However, Cameron's claim to
stand for progress and consensus is tainted by stealth Tory plans to
gerrymander party financing and boundaries.
Labour is on "dead ground" and the payback is going to be a bitch.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6c371c70-de73-4937...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 11:01 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > assumptions you’ve acquired..."
>
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> >> > Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> >> > age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> >> Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down,
> >> and creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from
> >> the Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
> >> worldview.
>
> > Hah! You're both right. Conflict can be a way to break out of your
> > view and enrich it, or it can be a way to focus on a "they" and
> > reinforce and dig in.
>
> > Now back to this article about exercising the geezer brain.
>
> > I think it makes a lot of sense, and though the pitfall Charles speaks
> > of is real, and you can see it on this list, nonetheless, exposing
> > oneself to differing views and trying to assimilate them is the best
> > thing to do, whether when you're grown up or still a kid in school.
>
> I wouldn't say I'm just taking the other side. I'm looking at the strategic
> underpinnings and saying how it's nothing new and attitude matters. That's a
> level above the right and wrong aspects of his presentation.
Well, you came over the top with one of your usual cynical comments,
and then added that "No surprise, then, that someone from the Buddhist
newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their worldview."
And that was the funniest thing I read all day.
I mean, take a look at this crap:
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader
And while it's true in some cases, it's only a small portion of them,
and that I agreed with the article as well, as you seemed to (wrongly)
imply that only the worst can come from conflict. And will that was
funny, I think the article is insighful and right in other contexts,
and being able to see and understand the strongest and most compelling
arguments for views you don't like is a really, really valuable skill.
So I just wanted to articulate that.
> Britain is supposed to be good at "invention" but lags behind in
> implementation. This is because the culture (politics, business, and
> society) is based on power and tribalism. The outcome is we're awash with
> marketers but have no industry worth speaking of.
>
> "Change" is the big mantra today and I hear Cameron is banging on about
> bringing in a less divisive form of politics while stroking the egos of the
> so-called third sector". This, from a man who shakes with faux-anger at
> PMQ's and would put welfare recipients on workfare.
>
> While I believe Labour have been more rudderless and weak than they
> should've been the Tories have not earned government. They are bullish and
> selfish. The same old unreformed nasty party who actively opposed many
> positive polices is playing kick the victim in the hope nobody notices.
>
> I'm guilty of saying that Brown would effectively destroy Toryism and that
> may have invigorated the Tories to fight back. However, Cameron's claim to
> stand for progress and consensus is tainted by stealth Tory plans to
> gerrymander party financing and boundaries.
>
> Labour is on "dead ground" and the payback is going to be a bitch.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
All the politics I read and watch on TV is about Americans, and I know
nothing of the current debates between Labour and the Tories; the only
thing I read from the U.K. is "The Economist" and I tend to like what
they say and find it to be an excellent magazine, though it's focused
on the world and not on the U.K., so I don't have any opinions one way
or the other on the politics in Britain, though I'd like to be
informed enough to be able to know the basics so I won't get lost in a
discussion.
Even in American politics, while folks argue about the issues, I'm
fascinated by the psychological reactions and I notice that people
don't think about their own reactions and psychological behavior, but
they only focus on the behavior of the most rude of the far-end of the
opposing view. Eight years ago, there was bitter hatred everywhere of
George Dubya Bush. From the first day, whining about "stealing the
election" and yeah it basically came down to a coin flip, but
following the rules he won, but he was hated from day one. After the
9/11 attack, the country united for a few months, but then the hatred
set in. A so-called "Buddhist teacher" at a gathering babbled how he
could see the "hatred and anger" on Bush's face. I watched the same
thing, and while he looked sort of dumb and blank to me, there wasn't
any anger or hatred, and he'd even walked into a mosque and said
"Islam means 'peace'." People projected their shit onto Dubya
endlessly and made him out to be a monster. The "energy healing
therapist" down the street from me swears that Dubya planned and
secretly ordered the 9/11 attack so he'd have an excuse to start wars.
(Believe in "energies" and political conspiracy theories are next, you
see. But I'll save that for another thread.)
And now it's exactly the same with Obama, just people in the other
party saying equally mean things, that they don't trust him, that he's
an egomaniac who will destroy the country -- I heard an intelligent,
educated otherwise cool person, a kind church-going fellow, say the
other night "Obama, Osama, what's really the difference?" They compare
our Nobel-prize winning Ivy League scholar President to a murderous
thug! It's insane, and it's insane equally on both sides. It's simply
that the ugliness of the party out of power is the one that's in the
limelight at any one time.
Me? I think they're both (W. and O.) nice guys who tried and are
trying their best, though they both seem to spend and spend
recklessly, even though I'd rather spend money on health care and
cleaning up the environment than blowing things up. I don't question
any of their intentions. My favorite recent political quote is from
Joe Biden, in fact, where he talks about his feelings toward Jesse
Helms (who was the most extreme and hated Senator of the opposing
party) which I'll post below, and which reflects my values.
--DharmaTroll
<<I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield, a former
leader of the Senate, said to me one day -- he -- I made a criticism
of Jesse Helms. He said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms
and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real
need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk." He said, "Joe, understand one
thing. Everyone's sent here for a reason, because there's something in
them that their folks like. Don't question their motive." I have never
since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another
member of the Congress or Senate with whom I've disagreed. I've
questioned their judgment. I think that's why I have the respect I
have and have been able to work as well as I've been able to have
worked in the United States Senate. That's the fundamental change
Barack Obama and I will be bringing to this party, not questioning
other people's motives.>>
-Joe Biden, U.S. Vice-President
Charles E Hardwidge
> Well, you came over the top with one of your usual cynical comments,
> and then added that "No surprise, then, that someone from the Buddhist
> newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their worldview."
> And that was the funniest thing I read all day.
>
> I mean, take a look at this crap:
> http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader
>
> And while it's true in some cases, it's only a small portion of them,
> and that I agreed with the article as well, as you seemed to (wrongly)
> imply that only the worst can come from conflict. And will that was
> funny, I think the article is insighful and right in other contexts,
> and being able to see and understand the strongest and most compelling
> arguments for views you don't like is a really, really valuable skill.
> So I just wanted to articulate that.
>
> All the politics I read and watch on TV is about Americans, and I know
> nothing of the current debates between Labour and the Tories; the only
> thing I read from the U.K. is "The Economist" and I tend to like what
> they say and find it to be an excellent magazine [...]
>
> Even in American politics, while folks argue about the issues, I'm
> fascinated by the psychological reactions and I notice that people
> don't think about their own reactions and psychological behavior, but
> they only focus on the behavior of the most rude of the far-end of the
> opposing view.
>
> And now it's exactly the same with Obama, just people in the other
> party saying equally mean things, that they don't trust him, that he's
> an egomaniac who will destroy the country -- I heard an intelligent,
> educated otherwise cool person, a kind church-going fellow, say the
> other night "Obama, Osama, what's really the difference?"
I really should do a proper essay on strategy, reason, and outcomes but if
people can't grasp the basic principles of karma already it looks like a
waste of time. In any case, I'm too braindead and lazy to do it, and have a
hard enough time getting over my own shit.
The Anglo-Saxon model is similar enough in the US and UK that things are
interchangeable on a simplistic level. Moving on from the Democrat versus
Republican ding dong (which is an equivalent of Labour versus the Tories),
the "Tea Party" sounds like a Libertarian Party equivalent.
Arguments like the Obama "What's the difference" thing are heard over here.
I suspect, this is mostly to undermine the Democrat win, policy initiatives,
and voter loyalties. Indeed, bad fighters and marketers close the gap with
the enemy with race to the bottom strategy like this.
I've commented on leadership and (not for the first or last time) led a
media article on the calibre of British political leadership and how it
influences society. Brown's insecurities led to Labour imploding and polls
sinking while Cameron's bullying led to unrest and economic loss.
In today's Independent (and other media) Lord Mandelson argues that the key
to success is aiming for innovation and growth to rebuild Britain and move
beyond the recession. Compare this to Eric Pickle's mere rubbishing and
negativity. I know which story I prefer and what ending I'd like.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
>
> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a “disorienting
> > assumptions you’ve acquired..."
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> > Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> > age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down, and
> creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from the
> Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
> worldview.
"I resemble that remark." -- Groucho Marx
> Ayan Rand reading libertarian assholes are the same.
Now *they* on the other hand....
Contiguous "other" abounds.
From within or without.
> Anyone with a glimpse of insight into strategy knows this is nothing new and
> knows that attitude is the key to success. Thus, with lazy ease I demolish
> PhDs and legions of self-styled think tanks without even trying. The problem
> with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan
Swift
"My valve! My valve!!" -- Ignatius J. Reilly
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in messagenews:gWT0n.22517$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>
> >news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> >> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a “disorienting
> >> dilemma,” or something that “helps you critically reflect on the
> >> assumptions you’ve acquired..."
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> >> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> >> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> > Conflict often just reinforces established bullshit, dumbs people down,
> > and
> > creates a them and us culture. No surprise, then, that someone from the
> > Buddhist newsgroups death cult would seize on this to justify their
> > worldview. Ayan Rand reading libertarian assholes are the same.
>
> > Anyone with a glimpse of insight into strategy knows this is nothing new
> > and
> > knows that attitude is the key to success. Thus, with lazy ease I demolish
> > PhDs and legions of self-styled think tanks without even trying. The
> > problem
> > with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
>
> > --
> > Charles E Hardwidge
>
> Yes, I can only guess that it must be a very tiresome life being a legend in
> ones own brain.
A legend in his own mind.
/l
Lee Rudolph
>> Anyone with a glimpse of insight into strategy knows this is nothing new
>> and
>> knows that attitude is the key to success. Thus, with lazy ease I demolish
>> PhDs and legions of self-styled think tanks without even trying. The
>> problem
>> with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
>>
>> --
>> Charles E Hardwidge
>
>Yes, I can only guess that it must be a very tiresome life being a legend in
>ones own brain.
Well, not necessarily; but probably so, when (in addition) one's own
brain has, thanks to years of intensive lazy ease and immersion in
gamer culture, been turned into a first-person shooter.
Lee Rudolph (by the way, isn't Lazy Ease a cattle brand, or something???)
zenworm
one of the brands at the OK corral...
shoot'em up tarbaby!
^~
Kitty P
=======
I'm just trying to stay on the topic. After reading several posts from
alt.zen, I see that there is no concept of mind. Just a brain, and one that
functions with total logic - ignoring things like appreciation for the
intrinsic or holding more than one thought at the same time.
Kitty
DT
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodeca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c5597c87-23c0-4775...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 11:21 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> messagenews:gWT0n.22517$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
I was just amazed at how quickly the discussion went from "keeping your
brain healthy" to politics.
DT
Wilson
"Kitty P" <pain...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mb01n.13195$w21....@newsfe17.iad...
Don't get bogged down with the details. It's all brains, all the way
down.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Keynes
wrote:
>
>Even in American politics, while folks argue about the issues, I'm
>fascinated by the psychological reactions and I notice that people
>don't think about their own reactions and psychological behavior, but
>they only focus on the behavior of the most rude of the far-end of the
>opposing view. Eight years ago, there was bitter hatred everywhere of
>George Dubya Bush. From the first day, whining about "stealing the
>election" and yeah it basically came down to a coin flip, but
>following the rules he won, but he was hated from day one. After the
>9/11 attack, the country united for a few months, but then the hatred
>set in. A so-called "Buddhist teacher" at a gathering babbled how he
>could see the "hatred and anger" on Bush's face. I watched the same
>thing, and while he looked sort of dumb and blank to me, there wasn't
>any anger or hatred, and he'd even walked into a mosque and said
>"Islam means 'peace'." People projected their shit onto Dubya
>endlessly and made him out to be a monster. The "energy healing
>therapist" down the street from me swears that Dubya planned and
>secretly ordered the 9/11 attack so he'd have an excuse to start wars.
>(Believe in "energies" and political conspiracy theories are next, you
>see. But I'll save that for another thread.)
Have you read the PNAC document?
(Written before 2000, and signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney,
and W.Kristol, editor of the Weekly (Double) Standard.)
It recommended attacking Iraq and pre-emptive wars (on
Terra presumably), but lamented that it wasn't politically
feasable without an attack on the USA and public panic.
WMD mushrooms and all that.
Dubya, the king of woo woo economics, and a born again
crusader for the heavily armed baby Jesus, has destroyed
the constitution and the economy. Look it up.
Fair mindedness is a good thing. But be aware of spin and
flim flam. Which party lies all the time and flips 180 degrees
regularly without batting an eye, and which party occasionally
states the facts? Which party is slanderous and spiteful as
a matter of political policy? (I'm assuming you're not
aware of Gingrich's book on fighting dirty 24/7.)
Kitty P
"Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:cOWdnbsZdKtJPdnW...@supernews.com...
> http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
OICTWTCIN
Wally Chapman
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodeca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c5597c87-23c0-4775...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 11:21 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> messagenews:gWT0n.22517$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c47b76e-72d6-4cff...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
Staying on topic is discouraged in alt.zen
Wally
zenworm
"intrinsic"?
To what does this refer?
^~
liaM
> Yes, I can only guess that it must be a very tiresome life being a legend in
> ones own brain.
>
:))))))))
Lee Rudolph
>Staying on topic is discouraged in alt.zen
If you meet the topic in the newsgroup, change it.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
news:hi32r3$s51$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Wally Chapman <shel...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Staying on topic is discouraged in alt.zen
>
> If you meet the topic in the newsgroup, change it.
That's not Zen. It's just your own BS politics, trolling, and kiddy level
power and relationships games.
It's funny how there's a similarity between Thatcher style recessions and
how the Buddhist newsgroups look like a smoking crater.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:26:37 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
Clinton had plans to attack Iraq too, Nutter-Dude. And since you're a
whack job who doesn't even think cats exist and that you'd be a laptop
without your woo-woo soul, I'm not about to discuss geopolitics with
you, as it's just going to be conspiracy theory and demonizing of us
and them, and your making up baloney like you do about physics and the
speed of light and everything else.
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
> Clinton had plans to attack Iraq too, Nutter-Dude. And since you're a
> whack job who doesn't even think cats exist and that you'd be a laptop
> without your woo-woo soul, I'm not about to discuss geopolitics with
> you, as it's just going to be conspiracy theory and demonizing of us
> and them, and your making up baloney like you do about physics and the
> speed of light and everything else.
Keyne's comments on focus and tilt of the various players is about right.
It's notable that men tend to drive stock trading too high and, I suspect, a
similar mentality among right wing parties does a similar thing with policy.
If you left things to women nobody would ever get anything done and, I
suspect, this mentality is why the more left leaning parties squabble over
leadership and over-indulge minorities.
Also, both left and right have a percentage of members whose individual
mindset is opposed to the party mindset so that's another dynamic to take
account of. It's notable that the left have developed a position where
people demand policies before party loyalty, and the right is talking up
individual empowerment while snapping heels like the SS. Very few people
seem to grasp this much less crystallise the issue.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 10:09 am, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
The neocons tried to talk Clinton into it, but failed.
>And since you're a
>whack job who doesn't even think cats exist and that you'd be a laptop
>without your woo-woo soul, I'm not about to discuss geopolitics with
>you, as it's just going to be conspiracy theory and demonizing of us
>and them, and your making up baloney like you do about physics and the
>speed of light and everything else.
>
>--DharmaTroll
Ad hominem all over again.
You're getting lamer and lamer every day.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
There are actually a lot of interesting things here about politics,
but I like more to discuss the differing views and where they come
from, rather than the bashing of some particular politicians, and
while Keynes may make good points, the discussion will probably
deteriorate with Keynes conjuring up preposterous conspiracy theories,
the way he does with doctors and medicine and everything else.
As for the statement:
> If you left things to women nobody would ever get anything done and, I
> suspect, this mentality is why the more left leaning parties squabble over
> leadership and over-indulge minorities.
I've notices that the "right" tends to think like a man, like a
father, the tough rugged individualism, the focus on military
strength; the 'left' tends to think like your mother: nurturing, that
the government should take care of people, cooperation over
competition, and so forth. American liberals and conservatives see
each other as lacking values or common sense, but merely differ on
which values or aspects of common sense they prize most highly:
liberals tending to esteem fairness and care and conservatives leaning
toward loyalty, respect, and purity. I think of Dick Cheney and Nancy
Pelosi as the exemplars of this, as Cheney has that same macho sense
that Keynes here has, and will never admit he's ever been wrong about
anything, and thinks Obama is a sissy for bowing to the Japanese
emperor; whereas Pelosi is the kind granny who might smother and
bankrupt us with too much kindness and good intention. Cheney would
torture anyone if there is a chance it might help stop our enemies;
Pelosi would serve our enemies tea and cookies, and say that if we
just play nice and listen to people, then everyone will love us and be
our friends.
Secondly, they look in different temporal directions for their ideals.
Those on the right look backwards to an ideal "good-old-days" when
people were moral, when people got what they deserved in a meritocracy
from hard work, where large families and religious communities were
the backbone of society, which is being corrupted by modernism and the
breakdown of the family and or morality. Those on the left look
forward to a Star Trek-like utopia of the future, where the atrocities
of the past, such as slavery, religious and class oppression, bigotry,
and so forth were the status quo, and the individual will be maximally
free. Hence, gay marriage is seen as a threat to the right as a
breakdown of the traditional family structure, where it is freedom to
the left, where one isn't constrained by bigotry and can marry who
they wish and express themselves authetically.
Then, third, there is the type of freedom and role and government
where they differ. Those on the right want economic freedom, and
taxing the individual is the worst form of oppression, whereas they
want to control personal freedom, telling you who you can screw and
what you can smoke. The left want individual freedom and liberties
that the right want to control, but the left wants to limit economic
freedom, and tax the rich more to redistribute the wealth to some
extent at least, in the name of fairness, and provide health care as a
right and not a privilege, etc.
And fourth, there is the concept of agency. The right sees people as
responsible for their actions, and so deserving and earning what they
get; the left sees people as victims, and that their fate is a
function of their circumstance and culture. Of course this is why the
right wants to lower taxes and the left raise them, as for the right,
the individual who works hard is being punished for his success and
being made to support free-loaders; whereas for the left, the rich
have gained their money by being in the right place at the right time
because of where they were born, etc, and that the money should be
distributed to the less fortunate who happened to be born in poor
families, etc.
Of course, with each of these four variables, the extreme ends are
false, and the truth is in the middle, but which direction you lean
determines your political stance. Anyway, I made up these four
variables off the top of my head, so there may be more, but I think
that these cover a lot of what it means to be on the left or right,
and rather than demonize those on the other side, I find it more
productive to discuss the merits of the two sides of each of these
variables.
Anyway, with the invasion of Iraq, while I don't want to discuss
particular political issues here as I think people just take emotional
'us versus them' attitudes and don't want to look at the geopolitical
underpinnings, I'll say oh what the hell, and say that I thought that
the idea of going into Iraq and taking out a the worst dictator to set
an example and stand up to Islamo-facists seemed like a damned good
idea at the time. And we rolled over the bastards in Iraq War I when
we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and then in Kosovo, it was like a
Hollywood movie and we didn't lose a single man, and when one plane
malfunctioned and went down, we sent in our special forces in silent
helicopters or whatever and retrieved him -- so I thought we were
invincible and could just march in and take down Saddam the way I beat
up on the nutters on this list. I was wrong. D'oh!
In retrospect, I think it might have still been ok if we had the UN
behind us and didn't go at it alone and had three or four times the
firepower, and it was a colossal waste of money and lives. I don't
blame Dubya, as he had a tough decision, and his cheerleaders, like
Rumsfeld, sounded really convincing. Anyway, my sentiments went with
Thomas Friedman, whose column in the NYTimes I read.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html
And his argument was I think the real reason that we invaded Iraq (the
weapons of mass destruction was an excuse for the public, but
everyone, even the far left folks, believed that Saddam had'em, the
way he was evasive with the U.N. inspection teams, so it was a
reasonable story to sell to the public). Anyway, here is what Tom
Friedman said, and I think this made sense:
<<The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst
what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during
the 1990s. This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too
many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to
plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli
pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and
donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to
be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of
the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too,
are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know,
it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the
neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held
accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—
period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war:
Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.>>
Anyway, that was before I knew how incompetent Bush and Cheney and
Rumsfeld were, and that they were going to tear up the Geneva
Convention and torture folks and spend years and a trillion bucks for
nothing. But I think Friedman's reasoning made a lot of sense at the
time, but the taking out of Saddam was horribly botched and then there
was using terrorism as an excuse to tear up the Geneva convention and
torture people, and so on and so forth.
--DharmaTroll
possum
are you fucking nuts?
possum
i'm sorry for this outburst. i feel terible now. i'm stunned that
you would write this...stunning post...rofl
Lee Rudolph
>On 7 Jan, 04:19, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
>are you fucking nuts?
The 2010 Rhetorical Question Competition is now officially open.
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
No, just hot chicks, whenever they let me.
> i'm sorry for this outburst. i feel terible now. i'm stunned that
> you would write this...stunning post...rofl
Say what? Are you really, really drunk or something?
Stunned by something I wrote? Hah.
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Jan 6, 9:39 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Keyne's comments on focus and tilt of the various players is about right.
>> It's notable that men tend to drive stock trading too high and, I
>> suspect, a similar mentality among right wing parties does a similar
>> thing with policy. If you left things to women nobody would ever get
>> anything done and, I suspect, this mentality is why the more left leaning
>> parties squabble over leadership and over-indulge minorities.
>>
>> Also, both left and right have a percentage of members whose individual
>> mindset is opposed to the party mindset so that's another dynamic to take
>> account of. It's notable that the left have developed a position where
>> people demand policies before party loyalty, and the right is talking up
>> individual empowerment while snapping heels like the SS. Very few people
>> seem to grasp this much less crystallise the issue.
> There are actually a lot of interesting things here about politics,
> but I like more to discuss the differing views and where they come
> from, rather than the bashing of some particular politicians, and
> while Keynes may make good points, the discussion will probably
> deteriorate with Keynes conjuring up preposterous conspiracy theories,
> the way he does with doctors and medicine and everything else.
Some good points but apart from the strategic aspects of systems and
personalities, lots of entities in between like companies and marriages barf
up. Language, products and marketing, and the internet has dipped in
measureable quality as "freedom" and the number of players, or power and
scope, has increased. However, global economic fundamentals remain sound and
leaders are developing at the margins so the overall direction is positive.
One notable thing about Thatcher was the economic improvements she is
alleged to have brought around aren't that noticeable when compared to
Labour over a similar cycle, and the changes most people take for granted
would've happened anyway due to internal political and external trade
pressures. However, Britain has only *just* managed to rebuild its core
infrastructure and get fair society back on the agenda for, wait you guessed
it, the Tories to pull the same BS as last time. This is not change.
I just thought, if it weren't for a limit on the American Presidential term
it's possible that Clinton would've gone down the tubes like Blair over Iraq
or, more likely, the whole stupid thing would've been avoided and Clinton
and Blair would still be in office. This would've left a big question mark
hanging over the right who've shown a dogmatic refusal to change in any
meaningful way. The fact that the Republicans and Tories are so brazen and
able to easily con so many with politicking and marketing would be
remarkable if it wasn't so utterly dumb.
If any American company with a British subsidiary wishes to donate about $10
million to Labour's election warchest now would be a good time. Why? Because
only Labour have a strategy for emerging technologies and more cordial
relationships with Europe and Asia. Oh, and that's a good reason for Tata
Industries and Sony to scrape around their biscuit barrel fund as well.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DT
Wow, Lee, I'm impressed! BS politics, trolling, and kiddy level power
and relationships games, all disguised to look like a mildly-amusing
inside joke. And in only ten words! You really know how to make that
language work for you.
DT
Lee Rudolph
Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night, for to get
their wages.
Though I confess that these days it's mostly the health insurance they're
after.
Lee Rudolph (p.s. that's ten words AND TWO PUNCTUATION MARKS, bud)
DT
It's all in knowin' where to put 'em, innit?
DT
possum
of course i wasn't drunk. i was a little stoned.
and struck by your skillfulness, you rat bastard.
i'm may still be a little concussed by the number of handy boxes your
system uses.
when you think about it, it's inconvenient that the earth isn't
flat... or more accurately, cube shaped...it would make storage very
much easier...but i digress..
i have to be honest with you, and tell you that i think you might want
to consider more carefully what tang has pointed out to you. it's
easy to say that you are this or that, or that someone else is this or
that, as the case may be, but you know very well that saying it
doesn't make it so.
my moral parsnip score is 71%, but i messed up i of my answers which
may or may not have skewed it. also besides the point.
thanks for the Trollyworldview. i can't tell you how inspiring it
was... : ) i can feel some really bad taste jokes coming on, whicjh
will later embarrass me, so i'll leave it there while i take a few
minutes to try to compose myself...
possum
DharmaTroll
Me, too! (Stoned, not struck my by skillfulness -- I'm much to humble
for that!) But, hey, thanks for the compliment.
> my moral parsnip score is 71%, but i messed up i of my answers which
> may or may not have skewed it. also besides the point.
Then take it again, silly.
--DharmaTroll
DT
>>>>> what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during
>>>>> the 1990s. This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too
>>>>> many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to
>>>>> plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli
>>>>> pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and
>>>>> donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to
>>>>> be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of
>>>>> are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know,
>>>>> neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held
Hey, the heck with composing yourself; I'm sitting here waiting for you
to compose some bad taste jokes!
DT
Ali
>Le 1/6/2010 1:18 AM, Lee Rudolph a �crit :
>> liaM<cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>>
>>> Le 1/5/2010 11:43 AM, Beerlet Dhiblang a �crit :
>>>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
>>>> dilemma,� or something that �helps you critically reflect on the
>>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>>>
>>>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>>>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>>>
>>>> /l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Learning? Creation is the goal.
>>
>> D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
>> and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
>>
>> Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
>> a rugby match going on?)
>
>
>Go sit on a tack.. So you're an old judgmental guy whose
>"achievements" are behind him, and if ever were fortunate enough
>to deserve being hoisted and hung from a gallows in a far away land,
>would have hardly a drop of jissom for the hangman.
Jesus, Liam. Just....
Ali
<shel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Kitty P wrote:
>> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodeca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c5597c87-23c0-4775...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> with genius is by definition you're surrounded by idiots.
>>>> --
>>>> Charles E Hardwidge
>>> Yes, I can only guess that it must be a very tiresome life being a legend
>>> in
>>> ones own brain.
>>
>> A legend in his own mind.
>>
>> =======
>>
>> I'm just trying to stay on the topic. After reading several posts from
>> alt.zen, I see that there is no concept of mind. Just a brain, and one that
>> functions with total logic - ignoring things like appreciation for the
>> intrinsic or holding more than one thought at the same time.
>
>Staying on topic is discouraged in alt.zen
>
>Wally
*We* doan need no steekin topic!
liaM
>>> liaM<cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Le 1/5/2010 11:43 AM, Beerlet Dhiblang a �crit :
>>>>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a �disorienting
>>>>> assumptions you�ve acquired..."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
>>>>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> /l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Learning? Creation is the goal.
>>>
>>> D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
>>> and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
>>>
>>> Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
>>> a rugby match going on?)
>>
>>
>> Go sit on a tack.. So you're an old judgmental guy whose
>> "achievements" are behind him, and if ever were fortunate enough
>> to deserve being hoisted and hung from a gallows in a far away land,
>> would have hardly a drop of jissom for the hangman.
>
> Jesus, Liam. Just....
Look in the tent, Ali.
zenworm
> Le 1/8/2010 7:07 PM, Ali a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:29:16 +0100, liaM<cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "...adults learn best if presented with what he calls a “disorienting
> >>>>> dilemma,” or something that “helps you critically reflect on the
> >>>>> assumptions you’ve acquired..."
>
> >>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/education/edlife/03adult-t.html
>
> >>>>> Actually a good article on keeping the old duramatter working as we
> >>>>> age. The solution: Keep learning novel stuff.
>
> >>>>> /l
>
> >>>> Learning? Creation is the goal.
>
> >>> D00d, he's already created "duramatter"--a portmanteau of "dura mater"
> >>> and "[gr[e|a]y|white] matter", I suppose. Cut him some slack.
>
> >>> Lee Rudolph (and what is this "goal" business, anyway? is there
> >>> a rugby match going on?)
>
> >> Go sit on a tack.. So you're an old judgmental guy whose
> >> "achievements" are behind him, and if ever were fortunate enough
> >> to deserve being hoisted and hung from a gallows in a far away land,
> >> would have hardly a drop of jissom for the hangman.
>
> > Jesus, Liam. Just....
>
> Look in the tent, Ali.
frozen chickens!
^~