Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The philosopher with binoculars is the one with the best vision
4 views
Skip to first unread message
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Jul 28, 2012, 11:26:41 AM7/28/12
to
C'mon, not Buddha, not the Greek philosophers, not Jesus, not
Nietzsche... only myself and this no-less humble man are capable of
grasping the greatest truths of the Universe:
"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
among societies, rather than competition."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005121653
Very sharp observation. Brilliant! And that's because the greatest
tools available to the human race: monoculars, binoculars and
telescopes. They are instruments to observe the very far and very
small. We can further observe the virus and see the similitude with
our own species...
But great philosophers should not get too deep before having a cup of
coffee.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Nietzsche... only myself and this no-less humble man are capable of
grasping the greatest truths of the Universe:
"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
among societies, rather than competition."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005121653
Very sharp observation. Brilliant! And that's because the greatest
tools available to the human race: monoculars, binoculars and
telescopes. They are instruments to observe the very far and very
small. We can further observe the virus and see the similitude with
our own species...
But great philosophers should not get too deep before having a cup of
coffee.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Wet Paper Bag
Aug 2, 2012, 1:51:02 AM8/2/12
to
On 28 July, 09:26, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<i hope that is not too obtuse>
<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> C'mon, not Buddha, not the Greek philosophers, not Jesus, not
> Nietzsche... only myself and this no-less humble man are capable of
> grasping the greatest truths of the Universe:
"Holy fucking cool Monkey! It is the same now only BIGGER!"
> C'mon, not Buddha, not the Greek philosophers, not Jesus, not
> Nietzsche... only myself and this no-less humble man are capable of
> grasping the greatest truths of the Universe:
<i hope that is not too obtuse>
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 2, 2012, 1:23:12 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 1:51 am, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sorry, it's the OPTICAL INSTRUMENT that makes my vision sharper. I can
observe the ants with a power 10 monocular and say, "Gee, those
insects are smarter than humans!"
Maybe if I use the binoculars in reverse humans would look like
insects too! But we are more like roaches than ants. I mean less
social and more predatory than ants.
wrote:
observe the ants with a power 10 monocular and say, "Gee, those
insects are smarter than humans!"
Maybe if I use the binoculars in reverse humans would look like
insects too! But we are more like roaches than ants. I mean less
social and more predatory than ants.
Wet Paper Bag
Aug 2, 2012, 2:30:13 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 11:23 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
whatever. you are a monkey.
the current quantum conumdrum (sp), is that if i take a microscope at
power 100,000x and isolate a reasonable scale to arbitrarily assign a
value of 1, then turn to a telescope and, based on the same 100,000
power, find a second object that is equal to or matching the exact one
to one ratio, that i would have about as much chance of getting to one
as i would the other.
when i consider the first geometric expansion, one to a second one, i
am reminded of the physics of a observed world. i stand in a room that
is 8'x8'x8'... ten miles away is the same room. as i stand, you walk
to the other room. from my pov you are getting smaller. from your pov
the room is getting bigger. from separate pov's we see each other as
being in the same scale but not in the same space.
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
whatever. you are a monkey.
the current quantum conumdrum (sp), is that if i take a microscope at
power 100,000x and isolate a reasonable scale to arbitrarily assign a
value of 1, then turn to a telescope and, based on the same 100,000
power, find a second object that is equal to or matching the exact one
to one ratio, that i would have about as much chance of getting to one
as i would the other.
when i consider the first geometric expansion, one to a second one, i
am reminded of the physics of a observed world. i stand in a room that
is 8'x8'x8'... ten miles away is the same room. as i stand, you walk
to the other room. from my pov you are getting smaller. from your pov
the room is getting bigger. from separate pov's we see each other as
being in the same scale but not in the same space.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 2, 2012, 4:21:51 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 2:30 pm, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:
No doubt about it, we can have the best optical instruments but still
be ignorant of the human being. The question is whether we analyze the
ants, the roaches or the virus to understand humans.
http://staticloud.com/static/images/monkey-thinking.jpg
wrote:
be ignorant of the human being. The question is whether we analyze the
ants, the roaches or the virus to understand humans.
http://staticloud.com/static/images/monkey-thinking.jpg
Wet Paper Bag
Aug 2, 2012, 6:42:06 PM8/2/12
to
On 2 Aug, 14:21, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
whatever. that horse is a dead donkey monkey. that is not what i was
saying at all.
on the two dimensional line. a point to a point. since distance is a
matter of time... and! you insist nothing is moving, then you must
believe that the object is getting smaller and smaller but not
actually going anywhere. is that what you believe?
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
whatever. that horse is a dead donkey monkey. that is not what i was
saying at all.
on the two dimensional line. a point to a point. since distance is a
matter of time... and! you insist nothing is moving, then you must
believe that the object is getting smaller and smaller but not
actually going anywhere. is that what you believe?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 2, 2012, 7:30:33 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:42 pm, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:
I believe that the object gets bigger/smaller depending on what end of
the binocular you use.
Do you believe we are like roaches?
wrote:
the binocular you use.
Do you believe we are like roaches?
Wet Paper Bag
Aug 3, 2012, 9:50:27 AM8/3/12
to
On 2 Aug, 17:30, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
through, some sort of seeing device, to see if the roaches are
anything like us. a tool. something that makes small things bigger
instead of far things close. certainly monkey, we can not use
something that makes far things close, for a purpose, for which, it
was not created.
that would be like using that doctor current that suggests if we float
our boat in this bio-chemical genetic nature nurtured robotic
mechanism, we are limited by a restricted and determined amount of
predictable responses to elemental stimulus.
that is just my fancy way of saying that according to that
buffoonery... it would be impossible to find one's self standing in a
agonizingly long and seemingly endless point of indecision... hm...
should i remain still or fart a water buffalo?
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe that the object gets bigger/smaller depending on what end of
> the binocular you use.
> Do you believe we are like roaches?
wow. do you? it's too bad really. if only we had something to look
> I believe that the object gets bigger/smaller depending on what end of
> the binocular you use.
> Do you believe we are like roaches?
through, some sort of seeing device, to see if the roaches are
anything like us. a tool. something that makes small things bigger
instead of far things close. certainly monkey, we can not use
something that makes far things close, for a purpose, for which, it
was not created.
that would be like using that doctor current that suggests if we float
our boat in this bio-chemical genetic nature nurtured robotic
mechanism, we are limited by a restricted and determined amount of
predictable responses to elemental stimulus.
that is just my fancy way of saying that according to that
buffoonery... it would be impossible to find one's self standing in a
agonizingly long and seemingly endless point of indecision... hm...
should i remain still or fart a water buffalo?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 3, 2012, 10:03:25 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 9:50 am, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:
are usually used for long distance viewing and monoculars for very
close focus.
I can focus my monocular to 11"... enough to observe a cockroach
without invading her privacy. Next is the monocular that can power to
power 100 but the roach must be still, meaning dead.
They are scary, let me tell you.
They will be here long after we succeed in annihilating ourselves.
Perhaps God made them for a purpose.
wrote:
> On 2 Aug, 17:30, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe that the object gets bigger/smaller depending on what end of
> > the binocular you use.
> > Do you believe we are like roaches?
>
> wow. do you? it's too bad really. if only we had something to look
> through, some sort of seeing device, to see if the roaches are
> anything like us. a tool. something that makes small things bigger
> instead of far things close. certainly monkey, we can not use
> something that makes far things close, for a purpose, for which, it
> was not created.
Sorry, sorry, you are not an expert in optical instruments. Binoculars
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe that the object gets bigger/smaller depending on what end of
> > the binocular you use.
> > Do you believe we are like roaches?
>
> wow. do you? it's too bad really. if only we had something to look
> through, some sort of seeing device, to see if the roaches are
> anything like us. a tool. something that makes small things bigger
> instead of far things close. certainly monkey, we can not use
> something that makes far things close, for a purpose, for which, it
> was not created.
are usually used for long distance viewing and monoculars for very
close focus.
I can focus my monocular to 11"... enough to observe a cockroach
without invading her privacy. Next is the monocular that can power to
power 100 but the roach must be still, meaning dead.
They are scary, let me tell you.
They will be here long after we succeed in annihilating ourselves.
Perhaps God made them for a purpose.
Wet Paper Bag
Aug 3, 2012, 10:17:26 AM8/3/12
to
On 3 Aug, 08:03, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
strong is the same force that makes it weak. if we were to flip a
coin, that eye piece is much to expensive to be throwing around, and
if i were to look in the a side, and you by default the b, or the
other way around, would we see one? would what we see looking at one
another create an i2i? now you know the odds and thus i will balance
them in your favor... you may assign which end is a and which end is b
however you may not assign both a and b to one end.
> I can focus my monocular to 11"... enough to observe a cockroach
> without invading her privacy. Next is the monocular that can power to
> power 100 but the roach must be still, meaning dead.
the eye, in yoga and meditation is one's greatest enemy. it leads one
to falter when they disbelieve the body.
> They are scary, let me tell you.
no monkey. no. i am not your mama, get someone else to pick them out
for you or learn to groom yourself.
> They will be here long after we succeed in annihilating ourselves.
> Perhaps God made them for a purpose.
yes monkey. i told you and you have forgotten. one sphere does not
have the single point of origin. both spheres, as the matter, not the
form, of division exist. to prove that instinct from the point of a
view of a roach is thoughtless and perfect.
<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, sorry, you are not an expert in optical instruments. Binoculars
> are usually used for long distance viewing and monoculars for very
> close focus.
i am god monkey. of course i am an expert. from tao what makes strong,
> Sorry, sorry, you are not an expert in optical instruments. Binoculars
> are usually used for long distance viewing and monoculars for very
> close focus.
strong is the same force that makes it weak. if we were to flip a
coin, that eye piece is much to expensive to be throwing around, and
if i were to look in the a side, and you by default the b, or the
other way around, would we see one? would what we see looking at one
another create an i2i? now you know the odds and thus i will balance
them in your favor... you may assign which end is a and which end is b
however you may not assign both a and b to one end.
> I can focus my monocular to 11"... enough to observe a cockroach
> without invading her privacy. Next is the monocular that can power to
> power 100 but the roach must be still, meaning dead.
to falter when they disbelieve the body.
> They are scary, let me tell you.
for you or learn to groom yourself.
> They will be here long after we succeed in annihilating ourselves.
> Perhaps God made them for a purpose.
have the single point of origin. both spheres, as the matter, not the
form, of division exist. to prove that instinct from the point of a
view of a roach is thoughtless and perfect.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 3, 2012, 12:11:49 PM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 10:17 am, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:
From the viewpoint of the roach we may be nasty and stupid. They must
be wondering what are we doing here.
Kafka was the man that better understood this dilemma.
wrote:
be wondering what are we doing here.
Kafka was the man that better understood this dilemma.
Tim
Aug 3, 2012, 12:52:42 PM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 10:11 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> Kafka was the man that better understood this dilemma.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol. stupid monkey. how many roaches world wide? and how many with the
story of human ginormity?
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol. stupid monkey. how many roaches world wide? and how many with the
story of human ginormity?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 3, 2012, 1:11:56 PM8/3/12
to
There are 3 trillion roaches according to the latest statistics.
i2i
Aug 3, 2012, 1:30:03 PM8/3/12
to
"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher" <nolionn...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:2b8e66d4-21f7-4897...@c11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
or did they raise their hands and
sound off ?
Tim
Aug 3, 2012, 3:10:56 PM8/3/12
to
On 3 Aug, 11:11, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
human encounter?
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are 3 trillion roaches according to the latest statistics.
Yeah soooo... with those sorts of odds, what are the odds of a roach/
> There are 3 trillion roaches according to the latest statistics.
human encounter?
Tim
Aug 3, 2012, 3:11:15 PM8/3/12
to
On 3 Aug, 11:30, "i2i" <boo...@netzero.net> wrote:
> was it you who took the count
> or did they raise their hands and
> sound off ?
On 2 Aug, 16:20, Stupie <supervis...@justcloud.com> wrote:
> was it you who took the count
> or did they raise their hands and
> sound off ?
> Only when they fly.
"STOP!"... you know Stupie. That might just be the answer.
Hey Nome. That is pretty fucked up noe eh? How many years invested in
the library if you had invested to today. and all those awesome ideas
you forgot to bring up? that would have been a magor raise and with
all that voluteer experience, the sharing of ideas, some serious
retroactive considerations too...
SG
Aug 6, 2012, 5:17:29 PM8/6/12
to
On Aug 3, 10:11 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
forty-six million eighty-six thousand nine hundred and nine, seven
billion eight hundred and forty-six million eighty-six thousand nine
hundred and ten..."
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 6, 2012, 6:09:05 PM8/6/12
to
is a struggle for survival.
Go and find one the applications for tablets called "roach smasher" or
"roach motel" and start crushing them. The game keeps getting faster
as you think you are winning.
I vent my frustration with society that way. The frustration is about
denying me space to walk or ride a bike.
linuxgal
Aug 6, 2012, 8:49:11 PM8/6/12
to
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> I vent my frustration with society that way. The frustration is about
> denying me space to walk or ride a bike.
A bicycle tire has thirty spokes, but it is the bike lane that makes it
> I vent my frustration with society that way. The frustration is about
> denying me space to walk or ride a bike.
useful.
Tang Huyen
Aug 6, 2012, 9:01:44 PM8/6/12
to
linuxgal wrote:
> A bicycle tire has thirty spokes, but
> it is the bike lane that makes it
> useful.
The bike lane just lies there
> A bicycle tire has thirty spokes, but
> it is the bike lane that makes it
> useful.
and takes it, do the spokes
poke it?
Tang Huyen
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 6, 2012, 9:26:40 PM8/6/12
to
significance. But it's a worthless tool in most of the Western world
where democracy rules!
Now I got to smash more roaches!
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Aug 6, 2012, 9:27:33 PM8/6/12
to
Tim
Aug 7, 2012, 12:25:48 AM8/7/12
to
On 6 Aug, 19:01, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
hahaha...
put your faces to the spaces
and tell me the wheel
is empty.
wrote:
put your faces to the spaces
and tell me the wheel
is empty.
0 new messages