The Physicalist Error (Was Re: Compassion of the Buddha)
Dave K
> Lawson English wrote:
>
> > Do you believe that your thinking process isn't a reflection of your
> > nervous system and the other way around?
>
> Reflection? That wouldn't be the word I would use. I do think that the
> thinking process can be examined, in part, by looking at the various
> physical structures of the body - and that the physical structures of
> the body may even be influenced by our thinking. But whether thinking
> is reducible to the physical is something heavily debated by those in
> the field of consciousness studies. And nothing in my practice really
> turns on the results of that debate.
Out of curiosity, who is debating whether thinking is a physical
process?
I do not have a problem with a viewpoint that says we are basically
electrified meat. The problem with most theories beyond "the
physical" is that is that they tend to belong to people who really
"want to believe" in something, because electrified meat isn't good
enough for them. Many hold out great hope for something transcendent
and supernatural becuase the natural world just isn't exotic enough
for them.
I don't think the mistake is in the belief but in the motivation for
it. The physical world is absolutely, utterly fascinating and
beautiful. If we are a mere pile of atoms, then that's great. Atoms
are fascinating. They do wierd and neat things all on their own, and
people have spent decades looking at them. Then when you start to
combine them - whoah! They do some absolutely outrageous things, and
make wierd and neat things like people. The problem isn't thinking
that we are a "mere pile of atoms" but in thinking that a pile of
atoms is "mere." (I think Feyman himself said something to that
effect).
A physicalist might say that love is nothing more than a certain set
of hormones, neurons firing, electrical impulses, etc. This can be
hard to hear becuase love is so real to us. When we see the physics
behind, we can feel as if we are being played.
I don't see why this type of revelation should be bothersome. The
science we have is just the physical manifestation of the goings on in
the world, of which otherwise we have no clue. Some people really
resent the man behind the curtain. I think we should be grateful to
him for putting on such a good show.
-DaveK
Dave K
"If instead of arranging the atoms in some definite pattern, again and
again repeated, on and on, or even forming little lumps of complexity
like the odor of violets, we make an arrangement which is always
different from place to place, with different kinds of atoms arranged
in many ways, continually changing, not repeating, how much more
marvelously is it possible that this thing might behave? Is it
possible that that "thing" walking back and forth in front of you,
talking to you, is a great glob of these atoms in a very complex
arrangement, such that the sheer complexity of it staggers the
imagination as to what it can do? When we say we are a pile of atoms,
we do not mean we are merely a pile of atoms, because a pile of atoms
which is not repeated from one to the other might well have the
possibilities which you see before you in the mirror."
Richard Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics
Explained
by Its Most Brilliant Teacher (1995) "Atoms in Motion"
Tang Huyen
Dave K wrote:
> Dave K:
In the awakened state all concepts, views, opinions are
abandoned, though that is possible only in meditation.
In normal life, we need summaries of the world, and they
are our concepts, views, opinions. What is objectionable
is not them as such, but the clinging to them beyond the
mere usability of them, the getting carried away by them
and the taking them to be ultimate or absolute, to the
exclusion of everything else. This loss of balance and
perspective is what is objectionable (unskilful) about any
concepts, views, opinions, not the content of them per se.
Such concepts, views, opinions can have any content,
mentalist or physicalist or whatever, and they can be used
as mere tools (in which case they are merely useful
concepts, views, opinions, with limited scope and relative
validity and used for ad hoc purposes), but if one invests in
them as absolute or ultimate, in and of themselves, then
they become masters. They are good servants and bad
masters.
One instance is with Fu's bashing of Colin Hankin, a
mild-mannered British retiree who has never been abusive
to anybody. Fu went ballistic at him thus, 14 Dec 2004:
<<Well, *you* might just start with learning what's already
known about things, buddy. It's given you the ability to
express your neanderthal opinions on a global medium, eat
food that you don't grow, drink water from a magic faucet
with no knowledge of how it gets there and have heat when
you need to warm up your frozen brain cells.
You're a fukkin' jackass, chum, and I don't mind telling you
that. Now, take your quasi-scientific creationist
macrovitamins and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
That's right - in your mind...
Sid>>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.buddhism/msg/
ef92a1bbc69a077c?dmode=source&hl=en
Such incredibly rigid, shrill, unrestrained dogmatism is what
is objectionable, and it would be objectionable regardless of
its content. In this case the content happens to be physicalism.
Only the *mindset* behind the bashing is objectionable.
The view, by itself, would scarcely merit any objection if held
lightly, with humour, irony, levity, like a butterfly that floats
hither and thither in the golden breeze of Autumn. It would
merit even less objection if its owner was ready to drop it
to free his mind from all concepts, views, opinions, and walk
free of all of them, at least for the duration of his meditation.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
> with humour, irony, levity, like a butterfly that floats hither and
> thither in the golden breeze of Autumn. It would merit even less objection
> if its owner was ready to drop it to free his mind from all concepts,
> views, opinions, and walk free of all of them, at least for the duration
> of his meditation.
Naval gazers and handwavers can benefit from a little burning and slaying.
With a torch in one hand and a broadsword in another, one might cut a cocky
swathe. Ah, the smell of burning books in the morning and screaming virgins
at night. "Rape and pillage" you say? "Not I" says me. It is, merely, a
culling of fancy so civilisation might take root.
It's interesting reflecting on the similarities between Britain's Druids and
Japan's Shintoists prior to contact with the Roman Empire and its offspring,
the West. Both societies were fairly easy going but technologically
backward, and contact with the sharpness of rationality and force produced
internal change that led to increasing industrialisation, hierarchies, and
militerisation. Boom bang-a-bang.
Of course, one of the biggest ironies of all is the similarity between
Platonism and Buddhism in its contemplation of correctness. The two great
beasts of classical thought come crashing around the world and meet, first
in the East and, later, in the West. Focused haste and flabby indecision,
twirling like lovers on a summers night, skipping and dancing to the beat of
a tune beyond hearing. Saphhire and Steel on a mystery tour.
<<In Japanese contacts with the Chinese and Korean civilizations in the
fifth to ninth centuries, Kitagawa finds a threefold response: a welcome
introduction, integration and assimilation, and rejection or transformation.
This threefold process greatly enriched indigenous culture and tradition
through the assimilation and integration of Buddhism, Confucianism, and
Daoism. These contacts even stimulated the native religious tradition to
develop Shinto and gave birth to many new religions, including indigenous
forms of Buddhism. By this contact, Japanese culture and society was greatly
enriched.
Prior to direct contact with modern Western powers, various aspects of
Tokugawa feudal society were becoming modern. But the need to modernize took
on a whole new meaning and urgency after Japanese contact with the West.
When Portuguese traders and Jesuit Catholicism arrived in Japan, in the
initial phases they were welcome. Later on in the historical process,
however, Western culture could not be assimilated or integrated well because
the Catholic Church demanded wholehearted allegiance and the Western powers
had aggressive colonial interests. Thus, in a natural response, the Tokugawa
regime rejected Western culture and Christianity except for Dutch trade,
although many fragmental influences from Western culture remained.
The second cycle of contact with Western civilizations began in the late
eighteenth century. Since 1792 Russians repeatedly sent diplomatic missions
and battleships to Japan asking for the opening of trade. In 1808 England
sent a battleship to Nagasaki to take over the Dutch trading base there. And
when a team of administrators representing various clans visited Shanghai at
the time of the Opium War (1840- 1842) to investigate, they observed China
succumbing to British military power and discovered that most of the East
Asian coastal regions except Manchuria, Korea, and Japan had been colonized.
Fearing Western colonialism, they felt the need to build up power to protect
Japan. Many Dutch schools of medicine and schools of the feudal clans were
soon transformed into naval strategy research institutes and naval
academies. Then, in 1853, the four "black ships" led by Commodore Matthew
Perry, with their powerful cannons, appeared off the shore of Japan and
asked for the opening of Japanese ports.
The regime was forced to make treaties with the United States, Holland,
England, France, and Russia on unequal terms, granting extraterritorial
rights and giving up the right to levy tariffs. To avoid colonization and
attain equilibrium with the Western powers, leaders felt the need to plan
for enriching the nation and building up defenses. The whole country was
divided into two factions: one for the shogunate and the other for the
emperor, one for opening the country to foreigners and the other for
excluding foreigners. The peaceful country, suddenly surrounded by the
powerful military powers of the West, was thrown into an unprecedented
crisis. Thus began a new cycle of contact with the West. It was the
beginning of the perpetual fast changes in life and society that have
continued into the twenty-first century.
Out of the crisis, people searched for a new unity and new order for the
nation and ultimately chose to reinvigorate the country by reverting to the
ancient ideal of an emperorcentered religious, political, and national
polity. The design of the Meiji imperial regime was to construct a modern
nation- state by negating the recent past (the feudal Tokugawa tradition)
and restoring the monarchical rule of the eighth century, centered on the
traditional Japanese notion of a sacred emperor at the top of all
hierarchies. This was another phase of traditional Japanese "immanent
theocracy," to use Kitagawa's term. Meiji leaders followed the ancient model
of unity of religion and state (saisei itchi). In this new regime, the
former social hierarchy of warrior, farmer, artisan, and merchant was
eliminated, and all the people were now treated equally as the subjects of
the semidivine emperor.>>
Gale Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd Edition Volume 14 Page 9312.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Hollywood Lee
> On May 7, 4:36 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lawson English wrote:
>>
>>> Do you believe that your thinking process isn't a reflection of your
>>> nervous system and the other way around?
>> Reflection? That wouldn't be the word I would use. I do think that the
>> thinking process can be examined, in part, by looking at the various
>> physical structures of the body - and that the physical structures of
>> the body may even be influenced by our thinking. But whether thinking
>> is reducible to the physical is something heavily debated by those in
>> the field of consciousness studies. And nothing in my practice really
>> turns on the results of that debate.
>
> Out of curiosity, who is debating whether thinking is a physical
> process?
All sorts of people involved in consciousness studies.
Keynes
wrote:
If you don't like the navel gazers and hand wavers
why not join the muggers, cut throats and butt fuckers?
Oh. You already have?
Charles E Hardwidge
> why not join the muggers, cut throats and butt fuckers?
>
> Oh. You already have?
Some enjoy pointing guns in faces and seeing blood splatter over a wall. I
prefer planting seeds and smelling roses. The dark shadows and steel bars of
a prison is no substitute for the bright sun and blue sky, whether one is
speaking of metaphor or actualitié. Burn baby, burn.
Eye of the beholder, and stuff.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee Rudolph
>Naval gazers
Your second-order voyeurism upon rum, buggery, and the lash is
remarkably persistent. Why not upgrade to omphaloskepsis?
Lee Rudolph
Bill Pfeifer
>> The view, by itself, would scarcely merit any objection if held lightly,
>> with humour, irony, levity, like a butterfly that floats hither and
>> thither in the golden breeze of Autumn. It would merit even less objection
>> if its owner was ready to drop it to free his mind from all concepts,
>> views, opinions, and walk free of all of them, at least for the duration
>> of his meditation.
>
> Naval gazers and handwavers can benefit from a little burning and slaying.
Well, that excludes me. Haven't looked at any warships recently.
Keynes
wrote:
Speeling a reeson are just weppons of the self appointed
limp risted hand weavers here abouts. They are all idiots
and fairies except me and my penis - er - broadsoord.
I can hit. I can hit. Keep piching.
Dave K
Well that clears that up! :-)
Can you name something a tad more specific? It's not that I doubt
that such people exist, I am just curious to see who "they" are and
what they're saying.
I also wonder what constitutes "consciousness studies." Is this based
on observation and science or are we talking about philosophers
sitting around and just thinking stuff up?
It would be hard for somebody to convince me that consciousness went
beyond the physical, but I might have a pretty broad definition, as I
have said, of what is "physical." Even if there were such thing as
what people regard as "supernatural," then I personally believe that
it could be scientifically observed at some point, at which point it
would cease to be supernatural. Thus in my opinion there isn't a
supernatural world, just an unobservable and currently
incomprehensable one.
At one time a guy who was otherwise not too bright told me, with
regards to the supernatural, "I think there are two words. The seen
world and the unseen world." I thought it was a pretty obvious,
shallow and superficial statement at the time so I just smiled and
nodded. But it's actually pretty solid and can have some deep
implications.
I have been learning about string theory which, for the time being,
exists only as a mathematical theory. It has the advantage of being
very mathematically "elegant," as they like to say. It apparently is
thing of sheer beauty, mathematically speaking, to one who understands
it.
It has a really, really, really big problem though, in that right now
there is absolutely no way to test it. It's purpose is to describe the
physical universe, but the machinery available hasn't caught up with
it yet. If I have this right, is only regarded as science, just
barely, soley on account of it's mathematical elegance and almost
nothing else. It's kind of like letting a poor person into the
country club because they happen to have one really good suit.
I could see these "conciousness studies" folks to have some analogous
idea. But it probably isn't a science unless they've come up with
something pretty good. Feyman said (Yes, another one of my phases.
I'm having a physics thing now apparently) that becuase a thing isn't
science doesn't mean there's something wrong with it, just that it's
not a science. Math is in fact, not a science. So there you go.
-DaveK
Keynes
There are problems with the materialist position and
also with the mind-only position. Neither one is adequate
from a philosophical point of view. So why take a stand
on one position or the other? It isn't really necessary that
one understands much of anything. In fact it's got to be
a self-imposed limitation. Voluntary imprisonment.
Dave K
The problem with a lot of people who take either camp is the
motivation behind it. On the average, I find that "mind only" people
are those for whom the physical world isn't interesting enough, and
that physicalists are generally there for the sake of ruining
everybody's fun. These physicalists tend to be scarred by religion in
some way, (Case study: Christopher Calder) and are lashing out in
frustration about all the quackery they see around them. Physicalism
tends also to be the position of atheists, whose insistence on the non-
existence of God is usually fueled by their trauma, which doesn't
allow them to consider any larger perspective.
I don't see physicalism and "mind only" as two positions at all,
actually. I would probably take a physicalist position most of the
time, but it's within my own bubble of experience which could very
well all be in my head. I am an open minded skeptic, for the most
part. Skepticism is the default position of science, and works well
for Buddhism. But close mindedness is for people who are bitter, and
stubborn and have no soul.
-DaveK
Hollywood Lee
> On May 7, 11:40 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave K wrote:
>>> On May 7, 4:36 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lawson English wrote:
>>>>> Do you believe that your thinking process isn't a reflection of your
>>>>> nervous system and the other way around?
>>>> Reflection? That wouldn't be the word I would use. I do think that the
>>>> thinking process can be examined, in part, by looking at the various
>>>> physical structures of the body - and that the physical structures of
>>>> the body may even be influenced by our thinking. But whether thinking
>>>> is reducible to the physical is something heavily debated by those in
>>>> the field of consciousness studies. And nothing in my practice really
>>>> turns on the results of that debate.
>>> Out of curiosity, who is debating whether thinking is a physical
>>> process?
>> All sorts of people involved in consciousness studies.
>
> Well that clears that up! :-)
>
> Can you name something a tad more specific? It's not that I doubt
> that such people exist, I am just curious to see who "they" are and
> what they're saying.
Sure. See the over 2000 academic papers at
http://consc.net/online.html which is a website maintained by David
Chalmers, a philosopher who argues that "reductive explanation of
consciousness is impossible (alas!), and that if one takes consciousness
seriously, one has to go beyond a strict materialist framework."
> I also wonder what constitutes "consciousness studies." Is this based
> on observation and science or are we talking about philosophers
> sitting around and just thinking stuff up?
You can find both.
What they seem to have come up with is what philosophers down through
the ages appear to have come up with when critiquing a foundational
explanation of reality - that the foundational explanation breaks down
at certain points.
If you have to pick a side in the debate, it seems to me that the
materialists, represented by Dennett and others, get the better of the
argument, such as it is, but neither of the many sides really delivers
the killing blow tothe many competing explanations of consciousness.
Lawson English
> On May 7, 11:40 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave K wrote:
>>> On May 7, 4:36 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lawson English wrote:
>>>>> Do you believe that your thinking process isn't a reflection of your
>>>>> nervous system and the other way around?
>>>> Reflection? That wouldn't be the word I would use. I do think that the
>>>> thinking process can be examined, in part, by looking at the various
>>>> physical structures of the body - and that the physical structures of
>>>> the body may even be influenced by our thinking. But whether thinking
>>>> is reducible to the physical is something heavily debated by those in
>>>> the field of consciousness studies. And nothing in my practice really
>>>> turns on the results of that debate.
>>> Out of curiosity, who is debating whether thinking is a physical
>>> process?
>> All sorts of people involved in consciousness studies.
>
> Well that clears that up! :-)
>
> Can you name something a tad more specific? It's not that I doubt
> that such people exist, I am just curious to see who "they" are and
> what they're saying.
There's all sorts of lebels, with all sorts of people fitting those
labels. Take a look at the Consciousness symposiums that have been
popping up the last few decades around the world and the various
departments associated with them.
>
> I also wonder what constitutes "consciousness studies." Is this based
> on observation and science or are we talking about philosophers
> sitting around and just thinking stuff up?
Both, and both at the same time. PHysicists of all sorts are involved at
various levels. Hagelin launched the revival of Flipped SU(5)
superstring theory after philosophical discussions with Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi about what a Western theory of everything would have to be like to
be compatible with Vedic Cosmology, as a for instance.
Penrose and Hammeroff are constantly trying to prove the existence of a
Quantum Mechanics based Orch-OR mechanism in the brain (that's why the
Buddhist researchers are so addicted to gamma wave EEG-- Penrose and
Hammeroff predict that this will be based on gamma EEG).
Henry Stapp is into this stuff as well.
This website will help you find out more about this stuff:
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/
>
> It would be hard for somebody to convince me that consciousness went
> beyond the physical, but I might have a pretty broad definition, as I
> have said, of what is "physical." Even if there were such thing as
> what people regard as "supernatural," then I personally believe that
> it could be scientifically observed at some point, at which point it
> would cease to be supernatural. Thus in my opinion there isn't a
> supernatural world, just an unobservable and currently
> incomprehensable one.
>
> At one time a guy who was otherwise not too bright told me, with
> regards to the supernatural, "I think there are two words. The seen
> world and the unseen world." I thought it was a pretty obvious,
> shallow and superficial statement at the time so I just smiled and
> nodded. But it's actually pretty solid and can have some deep
> implications.
>
> I have been learning about string theory which, for the time being,
> exists only as a mathematical theory. It has the advantage of being
> very mathematically "elegant," as they like to say. It apparently is
> thing of sheer beauty, mathematically speaking, to one who understands
> it.
>
I'm still trying to get Hagelin to make his 1986 paper, "Is
conscioiusness the unified field?" available online. You might find it
fascinating or at least amusing.
> It has a really, really, really big problem though, in that right now
> there is absolutely no way to test it. It's purpose is to describe the
> physical universe, but the machinery available hasn't caught up with
> it yet. If I have this right, is only regarded as science, just
> barely, soley on account of it's mathematical elegance and almost
> nothing else. It's kind of like letting a poor person into the
> country club because they happen to have one really good suit.
>
'Branes and so on are the post-string darlings of the uber-theorists, I
understand. String theory DOES predict dark matter, I believe.
> I could see these "conciousness studies" folks to have some analogous
> idea. But it probably isn't a science unless they've come up with
> something pretty good. Feyman said (Yes, another one of my phases.
> I'm having a physics thing now apparently) that becuase a thing isn't
> science doesn't mean there's something wrong with it, just that it's
> not a science. Math is in fact, not a science. So there you go.
See the URL above for more info on the current state of consciousness
studies. There are smaller, less sexy conferences out there that don't
get front-page treatment on their website. Some of those are more 'down
to earth" in my opinion, but the big sexy ones are all listed on the
home page, as far as I know.
Robert Epstein
Hope your bat doesn't deflate. Makes for a lot of errors.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
Charles E Hardwidge
> materialists, represented by Dennett and others, get the better of the
> argument, such as it is, but neither of the many sides really delivers the
That's priests and politicians for you. Mow 'em down. As always it will be
an engineer who cuts through the crap. Of course, the same old game will
continue but in different clothes.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
Well, I suppose, a soft crash is better than a hard crash, or being anally
raped until you bleed, to put it more graphically.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Allen L. Barker
>
>
> In the awakened state all concepts, views, opinions are
> abandoned, though that is possible only in meditation.
> In normal life, we need summaries of the world, and they
> are our concepts, views, opinions. What is objectionable
> is not them as such, but the clinging to them beyond the
> mere usability of them, the getting carried away by them
> and the taking them to be ultimate or absolute, to the
> exclusion of everything else. This loss of balance and
> perspective is what is objectionable (unskilful) about any
> concepts, views, opinions, not the content of them per se.
> Such concepts, views, opinions can have any content,
> mentalist or physicalist or whatever, and they can be used
> as mere tools (in which case they are merely useful
> concepts, views, opinions, with limited scope and relative
> validity and used for ad hoc purposes), but if one invests in
> them as absolute or ultimate, in and of themselves, then
> they become masters. They are good servants and bad
> masters.
Up to this point you write extremely well, pointing
at what can only be pointed at. After this point, you
seem to be creating your own dogmatism. A post from
2004, a lecture about dogmatism, and an admonition to
"drop it"....?
Robert Epstein
>>Hope your bat doesn't deflate. Makes for a lot of errors.
>
>
> Well, I suppose, a soft crash is better than a hard crash, or being anally
> raped until you bleed, to put it more graphically.
>
Did you enjoy describing that? And the purpose was......?
Klaus Schmetterling
>> I also wonder what constitutes "consciousness studies." Is this based
>> on observation and science or are we talking about philosophers
>> sitting around and just thinking stuff up?
In other words, do they study what consciousness tastes like, what it
does to or for those endowed with it? I am only a consumer or an end
user of consciousness. And mostly I am not even aware of that when I am
consuming.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Charles E Hardwidge
>> anally raped until you bleed, to put it more graphically.
> Did you enjoy describing that? And the purpose was......?
Just being "testing" and "creative".
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Tang Huyen
"Allen L. Barker" wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
Leibniz, Discours de Métaphysique, 9, xiv :
<<Les substances créées dépendent de Dieu qui les conserve
et même qui les produit continuellement par une manière
d'émanation comme nous produisons nos pensées. Car Dieu
tournant pour ainsi dire de tous côtés et de toutes les façons le
système général des phénomènes qu'il trouve bon de produire
pour manifester sa gloire, et regardant toutes les faces du
monde de toutes les manières possibles, puisqu'il n'y a point de
rapport qui échappe à son omniscience; le résultat de chaque
vue de l'univers, comme regardé d'un certain endroit, est une
substance qui exprime l'univers conformément cette vue, si
Dieu trouve bon de rendre sa pensée effective et de produire
cette substance.>>
Buddhist wisdom consists in measure and proportion,
detachment and equanimity, balance and perspective, humour,
irony, levity, and its contrary is to lose measure and proportion,
detachment and equanimity, balance and perspective, humour,
irony, levity. Each concept, view, opinion can have its place, its
scope, its validity, from its point of view, but such scope and
validity are limited and not unlimited, local and not universal. To
transgress its scope and validity is to lose balance and
perspective and to commit hubris.
The above example is a shining example. When asked about his
physicalism, the above person in addition proclaimed that it was
"not a view". A stunning piece of mindfuck, up there with what
the Japanese Zen masters who were nationalist jingoists
proclaimed about birth and death, etc.
Tang Huyen
dt
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:16:51 -0700, Bill Pfeifer <billp...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>>>>The view, by itself, would scarcely merit any objection if held lightly,
>>>>with humour, irony, levity, like a butterfly that floats hither and
>>>>thither in the golden breeze of Autumn. It would merit even less objection
>>>>if its owner was ready to drop it to free his mind from all concepts,
>>>>views, opinions, and walk free of all of them, at least for the duration
>>>>of his meditation.
>>>
>>>Naval gazers and handwavers can benefit from a little burning and slaying.
>>
>>Well, that excludes me. Haven't looked at any warships recently.
It's your own fault. Churches have warship services at least once a week.
> Speeling a reeson are just weppons of the self appointed
> limp risted hand weavers here abouts. They are all idiots
> and fairies except me and my penis - er - broadsoord.
> I can hit. I can hit. Keep piching.
"Why must everybody laugh at my mighty sword?"-R. Newman
DT
Lee Rudolph
>Keynes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 13:16:51 -0700, Bill Pfeifer <billp...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The view, by itself, would scarcely merit any objection if held lightly,
>>>>>with humour, irony, levity, like a butterfly that floats hither and
>>>>>thither in the golden breeze of Autumn. It would merit even less objection
>>>>>if its owner was ready to drop it to free his mind from all concepts,
>>>>>views, opinions, and walk free of all of them, at least for the duration
>>>>>of his meditation.
>>>>
>>>>Naval gazers and handwavers can benefit from a little burning and slaying.
>>>
>>>Well, that excludes me. Haven't looked at any warships recently.
>
>It's your own fault. Churches have warship services at least once a week.
Servicing the warships is a sacrament in the Church of Hello, Sailor!
Lee Rudolph
Robert Epstein
I don't see anything redeeming about bandying such things about to no
specific purpose. It's bad enough that those things happen without
treating them casually.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
Charles E Hardwidge
>>>>anally raped until you bleed, to put it more graphically.
>>
>>>Did you enjoy describing that? And the purpose was......?
>>
>> Just being "testing" and "creative".
>
> I don't see anything redeeming about bandying such things about to no
> specific purpose. It's bad enough that those things happen without
> treating them casually.
Now you *are* being a pompous fart. While what you say can be true, here,
it's just more authoritative charisma. There's a context and intent you're
missing. Less talk, more walk, Jim Jones.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
wrote:
>>>>>Well, I suppose, a soft crash is better than a hard crash, or being
Bloody asshole.
Lee Rudolph
He'll only fart when he damn well can't help it, in that case.
Lee Rudolph
George Cherry
"Dave K" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178573980....@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 5:21 pm, Dave K <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 4:36 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Lawson English wrote:
>>
>> > > Do you believe that your thinking process isn't a reflection of your
>> > > nervous system and the other way around?
>>
>> > Reflection? That wouldn't be the word I would use. I do think that
>> > the
>> > thinking process can be examined, in part, by looking at the various
>> > physical structures of the body - and that the physical structures of
>> > the body may even be influenced by our thinking. But whether thinking
>> > is reducible to the physical is something heavily debated by those in
>> > the field of consciousness studies. And nothing in my practice really
>> > turns on the results of that debate.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, who is debating whether thinking is a physical
>> process?
>>
>> electrified meat. The problem with most theories beyond "the
>> physical" is that is that they tend to belong to people who really
>> "want to believe" in something, because electrified meat isn't good
>> enough for them. Many hold out great hope for something transcendent
>> and supernatural becuase the natural world just isn't exotic enough
>> for them.
>>
>> I don't think the mistake is in the belief but in the motivation for
>> it. The physical world is absolutely, utterly fascinating and
>> beautiful. If we are a mere pile of atoms, then that's great. Atoms
>> are fascinating. They do wierd and neat things all on their own, and
>> people have spent decades looking at them. Then when you start to
>> combine them - whoah! They do some absolutely outrageous things, and
>> make wierd and neat things like people. The problem isn't thinking
>> that we are a "mere pile of atoms" but in thinking that a pile of
>> atoms is "mere." (I think Feyman himself said something to that
>> effect).
>>
>> A physicalist might say that love is nothing more than a certain set
>> of hormones, neurons firing, electrical impulses, etc. This can be
>> hard to hear becuase love is so real to us. When we see the physics
>> behind, we can feel as if we are being played.
>>
>> I don't see why this type of revelation should be bothersome. The
>> science we have is just the physical manifestation of the goings on in
>> the world, of which otherwise we have no clue. Some people really
>> resent the man behind the curtain. I think we should be grateful to
>> him for putting on such a good show.
>>
>> -DaveK
>
>
> "If instead of arranging the atoms in some definite pattern, again and
> again repeated, on and on, or even forming little lumps of complexity
> like the odor of violets, we make an arrangement which is always
> different from place to place, with different kinds of atoms arranged
> in many ways, continually changing, not repeating, how much more
> marvelously is it possible that this thing might behave? Is it
> possible that that "thing" walking back and forth in front of you,
> talking to you, is a great glob of these atoms in a very complex
> arrangement, such that the sheer complexity of it staggers the
> imagination as to what it can do? When we say we are a pile of atoms,
> we do not mean we are merely a pile of atoms, because a pile of atoms
> which is not repeated from one to the other might well have the
> possibilities which you see before you in the mirror."
> Richard Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics
> Explained
> by Its Most Brilliant Teacher (1995) "Atoms in Motion"
Fine posts, Dave K. The mind does supervene on the physical,
but the mind is a fine and splendid thing, which does seem to
me marvelous with, well, emergent complexities, twists, and
surprises. It is not its physical substrate that drags down the
mind--it is vulgarity, ignorance, and selfishness.
George
Robert Epstein
well I still think you're talking in the mirror. There's no one more
pompous around here than yourself, and you seem to enjoy. It would be
weird if you didn't realize that this was the case. You're right that
the phrase "bandying things about" is pompous, but I think I'm picking
it up from you. :) Do your own independent analysis and I'll get back
to you tomorrow.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Tang Huyen
Klaus Schmetterling wrote:
> In other words, do they study what consciousness tastes like, what it
> does to or for those endowed with it? I am only a consumer or an end
> user of consciousness. And mostly I am not even aware of that when I
> am consuming.
As a person I don't feel a shot of adrenalin, don't
feel the level of serotonin, don't know whether the
parts that are presently activated in my brain
belong to primitive parts or recent parts of the brain.
In fact I don't feel my brain at all, period. My job in
alleviating my suffering involves gathering together
all parts of my mind (not my brain) and harmonising
them, adjusting them to themselves and aligning
them with themselves, as I can feel directly (not as
an inference) that harmony amongst the parts of my
mind give me calm and peace, whereas conflict
amongst parts of my mind give me stress and
suffering. I don't need any science to get myself to
feel better by harmonising myself with myself. In
fact, scientific knowledge about the universe, about
animal behaviour, about brain structure and brain
waves helps me not at all in alleviating my suffering
and optimising my happiness. Present-day
knowledge in the social sciences about human
behaviour scarcely helps me in the same task. I am
still left to deal with myself in the raw, to make
myself happy or unhappy. In that respect, I am not
in any better position in that task than the sages of
the past, though I am vastly less wise than they
were.
In fact, given that Buddhist cultivation largely
converges on stripping off artifice (mentation) from
the reception of what happens in the raw, without
interpretation, any scientific knowledge will count
negatively in that purview. In addition, given that
such stripping off involves the stripping off of all
norms and standards, including those of modern
logic, math and science, there is a good chance that
norms and standards of modern logic, math and
science, given their splendid show in effectiveness,
are harder to strip off (because of their cockiness)
than other, older kinds of norms and standards, like
social, legal and traditional religious norms and
standards, which are pretty much relativised and
even trivialised by modern life.
A few hours ago, I quoted Leibniz (one word was
missing, here restored):
Leibniz, Discours de Métaphysique, 9, xiv :
<<Les substances créées dépendent de Dieu qui les
conserve et même qui les produit continuellement
par une manière d'émanation comme nous
produisons nos pensées. Car Dieu tournant pour
ainsi dire de tous côtés et de toutes les façons le
système général des phénomènes qu'il trouve bon de
produire pour manifester sa gloire, et regardant toutes
les faces du monde de toutes les manières possibles,
puisqu'il n'y a point de rapport qui échappe à son
omniscience; le résultat de chaque vue de l'univers,
comme regardé d'un certain endroit, est une
substance qui exprime l'univers conformément à cette
vue, si Dieu trouve bon de rendre sa pensée effective
et de produire cette substance.>>
"The created substances depend on God who
maintains and even continually produces them by a
manner of emanation as we produce our thoughts.
Because God, turning so to speak on all sides and in
all manners the general system of phenomena that he
finds good to produce in order to manifest his glory
and looking at all the faces of the world in all possible
manners, because there is no relation that escapes his
all-knowledge, the result of each view of the universe,
as seen from a certain place, is a substance that
expresses the universe according to that view, if God
finds it good to make his thought effective and to
produce this substance."
Probably there will never be an overall system of logic
or science that could encompass all logics or science.
Each system will have its scope and validity, which are
limited and not unlimited, local and not universal. They
will forever be incomplete, singly and together. As the
Buddha says: "What and what they think it, it is
otherwise". In addition any norm and standard that we
use to measure reality (or unreality) will inevitably turn
around to measure us; we presumably use them to chunk
and bag reality (or unreality) but they will inevitably turn
around to chunk and bag us.
Liberation consists, amongst other things, in using them
as they are useful and dropping them when none is
needed. Otherwise they will be albatrosses that one
hangs on one's neck, unasked.
Liberation is free of name and form, of signs and marks.
How is science going to capture that? What it captures,
to the extent that it can capture anything of any use, is
going to be made up of name and form, of signs and
marks. How is that related to liberation? Liberation is
purely subjective, strictly sentimental, and not tied to
anything out there or in here (in your terminology, it is
end-consumerish all the way, and so much so that there
isn't any consumer left in there). How is science going to
pin that down? The harder it tries to pin liberation down,
the more it drives it away. Liberation is free of all points
of view, of all views (meaning intellective views). How is
science, which at best is a point of view and a view, going
to grasp that?
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
I used to have a friend like you. He got quite carried away with his
forensic examinations and bullish argumentation. It gets tiresome. You might
find changing the subject more often and relaxing less boorish. Still, I've
got plenty of rope to feed you when you awaken from your nap, old man.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Noel Friesen
"Charles E Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yVu0i.16365$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Boorish? Really?! You responded by getting vulgar and gross when he made a
joke.
Charles E Hardwidge
> a joke.
You guys still aren't getting what's going on here.
Aw, jeez. So easy.
*parp*
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Noel Friesen
Try not to be so annoyingly vague then.
Shirley Knott
>> Boorish? Really?! You responded by getting vulgar and gross when he made
>> a joke.
>
> You guys still aren't getting what's going on here.
>
> Aw, jeez. So easy.
>
> *parp*
>
Billy Connelly says that a fart is your arse applauding, though he's never
used the turn of phrase "one hole clapping" maybe this could be applied?
Robert Epstein
You never had a friend like me.
Robert Epstein
>>Boorish? Really?! You responded by getting vulgar and gross when he made
>>a joke.
>
>
> You guys still aren't getting what's going on here.
>
> Aw, jeez. So easy.
>
> *parp*
>
I think it's time for you to take a "self-congratulation" break. Let us
know when you get back.
Keynes
wrote:
>> Boorish? Really?! You responded by getting vulgar and gross when he made
>> a joke.
>
>You guys still aren't getting what's going on here.
>
>Aw, jeez. So easy.
>
>*parp*
Peewee Herman.
International man of mystery.
Charles E Hardwidge
>> forensic examinations and bullish argumentation. It gets tiresome. You
>> might find changing the subject more often and relaxing less boorish.
>> Still, I've got plenty of rope to feed you when you awaken from your nap,
>> old man.
>
> You never had a friend like me.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but libraries of books and experience are tucked into
the last handful of comments. If people are offended or drawn to hysteria, I
make no apology. The effort is entirely deliberate.
I believe, you next move is to knock me off balance, slap me down, and cut
my throat. The crows is already beating it's collective chest and screaming
hysterically from the margins, as your eyes burn bright.
Go on, you can do it.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Klaus Schmetterling
No quibble here.
I didn't know how to take your Leibniz quote the other day. I don't see
what you find appealing in it in this context. I have no problem
replacing God by Nature, to make it more palatable, but I find the
intentionality in this quote problematic.
> Probably there will never be an overall system of logic
> or science that could encompass all logics or science.
> Each system will have its scope and validity, which are
> limited and not unlimited, local and not universal. They
> will forever be incomplete, singly and together. As the
> Buddha says: "What and what they think it, it is
> otherwise". In addition any norm and standard that we
> use to measure reality (or unreality) will inevitably turn
> around to measure us; we presumably use them to chunk
> and bag reality (or unreality) but they will inevitably turn
> around to chunk and bag us.
Absolutely. By conceiving and dividing time (amongst other things), we
built our own torturing instruments.
> Liberation consists, amongst other things, in using them
> as they are useful and dropping them when none is
> needed. Otherwise they will be albatrosses that one
> hangs on one's neck, unasked.
>
> Liberation is free of name and form, of signs and marks.
> How is science going to capture that? What it captures,
> to the extent that it can capture anything of any use, is
> going to be made up of name and form, of signs and
> marks. How is that related to liberation? Liberation is
> purely subjective, strictly sentimental, and not tied to
> anything out there or in here (in your terminology, it is
> end-consumerish all the way, and so much so that there
> isn't any consumer left in there). How is science going to
> pin that down? The harder it tries to pin liberation down,
> the more it drives it away. Liberation is free of all points
> of view, of all views (meaning intellective views). How is
> science, which at best is a point of view and a view, going
> to grasp that?
“I know everything, but I do not understand any of it” (René Daumal, La
grande beuverie/ A night of serious drinking).
Shirley Knott
news:tvy0i.16371$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Why bother? You are managing nicely all by yourself.
Charles E Hardwidge
>> into the last handful of comments. If people are offended or drawn to
>> hysteria, I make no apology. The effort is entirely deliberate.
>>
>> I believe, you next move is to knock me off balance, slap me down, and
>> cut my throat. The crows is already beating it's collective chest and
>> screaming hysterically from the margins, as your eyes burn bright.
>>
>> Go on, you can do it.
>
> Why bother? You are managing nicely all by yourself.
Bullshit, I'm just fucking around and don't expect anything better from a
narrow minded and shrill nosey parker like you. I haven't come across anyone
as useless or sly for a long time. Go back to scrubbing floors and washing
dishes - you might learn something.
Burn! Burn them all!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Ben
Man, I love that you cut off the top, so I have no clue who you're
responding to.
It's like you're talking to everyone. Or no one.
(cue spooky music)
Lee Rudolph
He is talking to his Self. It is a very expansive Self; it
includes multitudes. It is a Self-raping Self. Luckily, it
is also a Self-lubricating Self. It scrubs itSelf and washes
itSelf. It is never narrow, never shrill. It is the perfectly
generous Self and shares itSelf endlessly with itSelf. It
cuts off its own top and regenerates from its own root. It
is perfectly empty and perfectly full, perfectly hysterical
and perfectly sterile. Its eyes burn bright and its teeth
are, individually and collectively, exemplars of their kind.
It is the perfect Leader and the perfect Follower. When it
farts, the world is reborn.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
>>
>>It's like you're talking to everyone. Or no one.
>
> He is talking to his Self. It is a very expansive Self; it
> includes multitudes. It is a Self-raping Self. Luckily, it
> is also a Self-lubricating Self. It scrubs itSelf and washes
> itSelf. It is never narrow, never shrill. It is the perfectly
> generous Self and shares itSelf endlessly with itSelf. It
> cuts off its own top and regenerates from its own root. It
> is perfectly empty and perfectly full, perfectly hysterical
> and perfectly sterile. Its eyes burn bright and its teeth
> are, individually and collectively, exemplars of their kind.
> It is the perfect Leader and the perfect Follower. When it
> farts, the world is reborn.
Any action attracts whiners and wannabes - a man who can't use a newsreader
and self-styled poet. I haven't seen such a useless and flatulant pair since
playschool. You're not fit to join a circus let alone an army. Sergeant,
hang these men in chains until the flesh drops from their bones and sell the
remainder of this sorry crowd into slavery.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Evelyn Ruut
"Charles E Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JmJ0i.16785$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Charles, I suggest you go read on alt.tasteless.jokes for a while and when
you have laughed till your sides ache, come back in a better mood :-)
Just think, tomorrow is Friday.....
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f1vqjj$jch$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Hi Lee,
For the record, Charles was talking to Shirley Knott..... and your reply was
so excellent I saved in in the newsgroup quotes list for 2007. A classic,
Lee :-)
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Charles E Hardwidge
> you have laughed till your sides ache, come back in a better mood :-)
> Just think, tomorrow is Friday.....
I'm in a great mood. Never has the narrow minded and pompous attitudes of
people stuck on books with pictures and big print been so much fun. And
sweetie, fapping over Friday is for flunkies. I'm alive, now, or did your
autistic mind forget that remedial step. Wasters...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Shirley Knott
Ha, ha, ha!! Do you have Tourette's?
Lee Rudolph
>self-styled poet.
You miscapitalized "Self-styled".
We must all try to get in touch with our Hardwidge-nature,
but it's not always easy. Still, we must try, try again.
Lee Rudolph
Evelyn Ruut
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f203ro$nn3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
He does this on a regular basis, you know. Suddenly goes all nasty,
disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
mood. Seems cyclical.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Charles E Hardwidge
> disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
> mood. Seems cyclical.
It's nice to see people rush in with their narrow minded vanities. The
gnashing of teeth and peacocking to the crowd is a spectacle, a
self-inflicted lesson in bullshit and charisma. Or do I have to paint a sign
by the edge of the cliff you're all falling over?
Dog see cat. Dog chase cat. See the dog chase cat. Oh, brother...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
stumper
Don't worry too much.
You would stop talking to yourself
about yourself sooner or later.
--
~Stumper
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> Don't worry too much. You would stop talking to yourself about yourself
> sooner or later.
And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti at the
wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so much bollocks
like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the carpet, using
Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct grade free school.
You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Tang Huyen
Klaus Schmetterling wrote:
Leibniz's God metaphysics says that God thinks up
various possibilities, and then chooses the one with
the greatest being to make real. That much doesn't
matter. What matters is that a viewpoint is a point of
view, that it creates a view from its perspective. It
captures the universe from its place, it grasps how
the universe expresses itself to it in its locale. Each
point of view offers a view that grabs the universe
from the perspective of the point of view, with
perhaps something captured clearly and the rest of
the universe captured dimly or not at all. To borrow
from another image of Leibniz, each viewpoint is
like an attempt to empty the ocean with a spoon.
This spatial, image-based metaphor of the point of
view can be taken as the central theme of Buddhism.
Each emotion, concept, idea, metaphor, metonym,
opinion, view, symbol, system of thought can be
taken as a way of grabbing the whole of the universe
and reducing the size and complexity of the input to
make it (the input, which points back to the whole
universe) suitable for our mental processing. Our
mental processing consists in cutting up the whole
input, which is the whole sense-field, into bits, and
then recombining the bits to make up various pieces
that populate our daily life, so that some bits can
recombine as a chair, some other bits can
recombine as a person, etc. The process of cutting
up can be called analysis, and the process of
recombination can be called synthesis, though both
go on simultaneously and influence and correct each
other. Our mental processing does not stop at such
primitive chunking and bagging, but goes right on to
bigger and bigger syntheses, which create bigger
and bigger wholes, generally called world-views
or ideologies. All such products of mental
processing, from the low-level concepts to the
highest comprehensive world-views or ideologies,
attempt to capture the whole universe and make it
mentally digestible to us, and serve as summaries
of the universe to us in our daily life to enable us to
handle the universe (what happens) in a quick and
timely manner.
If we were to go back to Adamic innocence, we
should have to build up such process of mental
processing from scratch and test it by trial and
error, which would scarcely make us able to live
a normal life.
Such accumulated mental processing helps us live,
but exacts its toll in that it becomes automatic and
runs on and on, regardless whether we like it or
not. Life goes on autopilot and loses its freshness
and alacrity. We become slaves to it. Instead of
serving us, it becomes our master.
> > Probably there will never be an overall system of logic
> > or science that could encompass all logics or science.
> > Each system will have its scope and validity, which are
> > limited and not unlimited, local and not universal. They
> > will forever be incomplete, singly and together. As the
> > Buddha says: "What and what they think it, it is
> > otherwise". In addition any norm and standard that we
> > use to measure reality (or unreality) will inevitably turn
> > around to measure us; we presumably use them to chunk
> > and bag reality (or unreality) but they will inevitably turn
> > around to chunk and bag us.
>
> Absolutely. By conceiving and dividing time (amongst other
> things), we built our own torturing instruments.
Buddhism jumps in to intervene here. Our mental
processing exerts its tyranny on us, and we want to
free ourselves of it, not that we want to get rid of it
completely (because that would mean suicide) but
that we want to use it in its place, and otherwise
quiesce it and deactivate it when it is not needed.
This is an issue of balance and perspective, not
with regard to some concept or world-view in
particular but with regard to the whole of mental
processing in general. We want to put the whole
of mental processing in its place, and make it our
servant rather than our master.
Each emotion, concept, idea, metaphor, metonym,
opinion, view, symbol, system of thought can be
taken as a way of grabbing the whole of the universe
and reducing the size and complexity of the input to
make it (the input, which points back to the whole
universe) suitable for our mental processing. Each of
them is like an attempt to empty the ocean with a
spoon. When all of them -- the whole mental
processing -- are quiesced, we open ourselves up to
the universe (what happens) without channelling it
through them but receive it directly, without
resistance and obstruction, and each and all of them
constitute resistance and obstruction.
> > Liberation consists, amongst other things, in using them
> > as they are useful and dropping them when none is
> > needed. Otherwise they will be albatrosses that one
> > hangs on one's neck, unasked.
> >
> > Liberation is free of name and form, of signs and marks.
> > How is science going to capture that? What it captures,
> > to the extent that it can capture anything of any use, is
> > going to be made up of name and form, of signs and
> > marks. How is that related to liberation? Liberation is
> > purely subjective, strictly sentimental, and not tied to
> > anything out there or in here (in your terminology, it is
> > end-consumerish all the way, and so much so that there
> > isn't any consumer left in there). How is science going to
> > pin that down? The harder it tries to pin liberation down,
> > the more it drives it away. Liberation is free of all points
> > of view, of all views (meaning intellective views). How is
> > science, which at best is a point of view and a view, going
> > to grasp that?
>
> “I know everything, but I do not understand any of it”
> (René Daumal, La grande beuverie/ A night of serious
> drinking).
Kant uses two sayings in Latin which pretty much
summarise Buddhism. One is dari, non intelligi,
"given but not intelligised". We are thrown into life,
and attempt to, not just survive, but also make it
intelligible to us, make it make sense to us, and we
build up fancy mental structures to justify ourselves
to ourselves and validate ourselves to ourselves --
to weave a story that we can live with. The
inconvenience is that such mental structures
overshoot their target, become hypertrophied and
dwarf us. Instead of serving us, they become ends
in themselves and use us as mere excuse.
Buddhism teaches us how to put them back in their
place, so that they become good servants rather
than bad masters. When they are not needed, we
want the sensible input to be merely given and not
intelligised.
The other expression in Latin that Kant uses is
sustine et abstine, "bear it and abstain yourself".
This is Stoic. It is not necessarily resignation, but a
positive attitude, of opening oneself up to what
happens and abstaining from messing with it. The
moment one so does, what happens transmutes into
grace unasked. That's how Mother Nature justifies
and validates herself. I don't know what Buddhist
insight is, because I haven't experienced it, but if I
was to venture a guess, that would be it.
With these two Latin expressions, one opens oneself
up in pure end-consumption, without attempting to
figure out how and why what is being consumed is
brought about, even less to make sense of it, but
merely receives it and accepts it in utter humility
and surrender, as if God himself is manifesting
himself to one in full in it (not through it, but in it).
But don't bother. It's all made up, it's all fluff, better
just relax and be serene.
Tang Huyen
Shirley Knott
>> Don't worry too much. You would stop talking to yourself about yourself
>> sooner or later.
>
> And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti at
> the wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so much
> bollocks like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the carpet,
> using Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct grade free
> school.
>
> You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
>
It's amusing watching you froth at the mouth in foamy rage, trying to incite
an inflamed response to your own venom. You are floundering about attacking
everyone now in desperation for that response. Why do you need this?
Do you still beat your wife?
stumper
That's the idea;
not to get mad or crazy in this world.
Be calm and serene for a change.
Do you think you can manage that?
--
~Stumper
Hollywood Lee
I find it more rewarding to beat the eggs and massage the wife. Mango pie!!
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Shirley Knott:
>
> > "Charles E Hardwidge"
>
> >> And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti at
> >> the wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so much
> >> bollocks like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the carpet,
> >> using Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct grade free
> >> school.
> >>
> >> You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
>
> > It's amusing watching you froth at the mouth in foamy rage, trying to incite
> > an inflamed response to your own venom. You are floundering about attacking
> > everyone now in desperation for that response. Why do you need this?
> >
> > Do you still beat your wife?
>
> I find it more rewarding to beat the eggs and massage the wife. Mango pie!!
Wow! You beat the eggs and massage the wife,
and get mango pie!! How does that work, dear?
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
For starters, you have to pick the fruit at the right time, then peel it
carefully.
Charles E Hardwidge
Nope, you still don't get it. Throwing over the camouflage net or spraying
chaff changes jack shit. If you listened to one of your own, just one,
fortune cookies for one moment, something might happen.
I piss on your flaming ego. Hah!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
stumper
All yours, dear.
Just sit for a while
without any expectations.
You'll see.
--
~Stumper
Charles E Hardwidge
>> spraying
>> chaff changes jack shit. If you listened to one of your own, just one,
>> fortune cookies for one moment, something might happen.
>>
>> I piss on your flaming ego. Hah!
>
> All yours, dear.
>
> Just sit for a while
> without any expectations.
> You'll see.
There you go again. Full of advocacy but no delivery. Default mantra
yappings R US. You're a busted flush, hombre. Between your Mogadon fuelled
nonsense and Shirley's walk on part histrionics we've got quite a straight
to DVD B-movie going on here. Pathetic!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee Rudolph
>>> And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti at
>>> the wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so much
>>> bollocks like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the carpet,
>>> using Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct grade free
>>> school.
>>>
>>> You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
>>>
>>
>> That's the idea;
>> not to get mad or crazy in this world.
>>
>> Be calm and serene for a change.
>> Do you think you can manage that?
>
>Nope, you still don't get it. Throwing over the camouflage net or spraying
>chaff changes jack shit. If you listened to one of your own, just one,
>fortune cookies for one moment, something might happen.
>
>I piss on your flaming ego. Hah!
He who pisses on flaming egos might take care lest he set his
ego alight. And if you gaze for long into an asshole, the asshole
gazes also into you.
Lee Rudolph
Charles E Hardwidge
>>chaff changes jack shit. If you listened to one of your own, just one,
>>fortune cookies for one moment, something might happen.
>>
>>I piss on your flaming ego. Hah!
>
> He who pisses on flaming egos might take care lest he set his
> ego alight. And if you gaze for long into an asshole, the asshole
> gazes also into you.
I paint the walls with your shit, drink your blood, and make a chair of your
childrens bones. No television world waving of apologetic hands or pince nez
preaching will get you out of this corner, sonny.
A cup of boiling water? One scream, or two?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
stumper
Don't be silly.
Just learn to be grateful
that nothing terrible happened to you today.
Aren't you glad that
people here are still talking to you?
--
~Stumper
Charles E Hardwidge
>> yappings R US. You're a busted flush, hombre. Between your Mogadon
>> fuelled
>> nonsense and Shirley's walk on part histrionics we've got quite a
>> straight
>> to DVD B-movie going on here. Pathetic!
>>
>
> Don't be silly.
> Just learn to be grateful
> that nothing terrible happened to you today.
>
> Aren't you glad that
> people here are still talking to you?
Like what? And so what if you don't? You're still full of it. I've seen
plenty of heroes with the talk and the smooch, and when push comes to shove
they all shrink against the wall or cling to each other in huddles.
Life is short. Scrape the guts off the table and have a drink.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Evelyn Ruut
"Charles E Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nLM0i.16999$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
You're the only one getting excited about it, Charles. Relax.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:1347e8e...@news.supernews.com...
Speaking as a woman, I'd say it probably works very well.
You could learn from the man.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
My my.... a full blown hissy fit. It'll get you nowhere around here,
Charles.
Relax and calm down.
Sit down and have a cup of tea or something.
Hopefully you'll feel better tomorrow.
Goodnight.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Robert Epstein
>>>I used to have a friend like you. He got quite carried away with his
>>>forensic examinations and bullish argumentation. It gets tiresome. You
>>>might find changing the subject more often and relaxing less boorish.
>>>Still, I've got plenty of rope to feed you when you awaken from your nap,
>>>old man.
>>
>>You never had a friend like me.
>
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not, but libraries of books and experience are tucked into
> the last handful of comments. If people are offended or drawn to hysteria, I
> make no apology. The effort is entirely deliberate.
>
> I believe, you next move is to knock me off balance, slap me down, and cut
> my throat. The crows is already beating it's collective chest and screaming
> hysterically from the margins, as your eyes burn bright.
>
> Go on, you can do it.
>
you're a silly man, friend, overly enamoured of yourself and trying to
start a fire over here for some reason. there is no special drama
taking place, and all is quiet on the Eastern front.
Robert
- - - - - -
Robert Epstein
>>>Perhaps, perhaps not, but libraries of books and experience are tucked
>>>into the last handful of comments. If people are offended or drawn to
>>>hysteria, I make no apology. The effort is entirely deliberate.
>>>
>>>I believe, you next move is to knock me off balance, slap me down, and
>>>cut my throat. The crows is already beating it's collective chest and
>>>screaming hysterically from the margins, as your eyes burn bright.
>>>
>>>Go on, you can do it.
>>
>>Why bother? You are managing nicely all by yourself.
>
>
> Bullshit, I'm just fucking around and don't expect anything better from a
> narrow minded and shrill nosey parker like you. I haven't come across anyone
> as useless or sly for a long time. Go back to scrubbing floors and washing
> dishes - you might learn something.
>
> Burn! Burn them all!
>
why not stop fucking around? you're wasting bandwidth. you think
people have nothing better to do than watch you play with your pecker?
robert
- - - - - - - -
Charles E Hardwidge
> start a fire over here for some reason. there is no special drama taking
> place, and all is quiet on the Eastern front.
You're pulling the pompous fart routine again. You call me overly enamoured
with myself and blindly dismiss my action? Playing yourself up and running
your opponent down is a bit cheap, Robert.
Everyones got their view and self-image. So have I. No mystery, and the
rumble in the jungle helped flush some of that out. Talk and huddles are
fine to a point but you have to follow up with do.
Self-scrutiny and application is hard. Not everyone is up to it and,
sometimes, a little push and opportunity for reflection helps. And before
anyone gets funny, think, my action is less questionable.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> Charles.
>
> Relax and calm down.
> Sit down and have a cup of tea or something.
> Hopefully you'll feel better tomorrow.
Not a hissy fit, a statement. There's always someone who will argue or throw
some charisma around. Seen it before. So, no. I don't buy the squabbling or
the jedi mind tricks. It was an action - cutting the head off the cat.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
> Ben <eggplan...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not, but libraries of books and experience are tucked
>>>>>into the last handful of comments. If people are offended or drawn to
>>>>>hysteria, I make no apology. The effort is entirely deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe, you next move is to knock me off balance, slap me down, and
>>>>>cut my throat. The crows is already beating it's collective chest and
>>>>>screaming hysterically from the margins, as your eyes burn bright.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go on, you can do it.
>>>>
>>>>Why bother? You are managing nicely all by yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bullshit, I'm just fucking around and don't expect anything better from a
>>>narrow minded and shrill nosey parker like you. I haven't come across anyone
>>>as useless or sly for a long time. Go back to scrubbing floors and washing
>>>dishes - you might learn something.
>>>
>>>Burn! Burn them all!
>>>
>>
>>Man, I love that you cut off the top, so I have no clue who you're
>>responding to.
>>
>>It's like you're talking to everyone. Or no one.
>
>
> He is talking to his Self. It is a very expansive Self; it
> includes multitudes. It is a Self-raping Self. Luckily, it
> is also a Self-lubricating Self.
wow.
It scrubs itSelf and washes
> itSelf. It is never narrow, never shrill. It is the perfectly
> generous Self and shares itSelf endlessly with itSelf. It
> cuts off its own top and regenerates from its own root. It
> is perfectly empty and perfectly full, perfectly hysterical
> and perfectly sterile. Its eyes burn bright and its teeth
> are, individually and collectively, exemplars of their kind.
> It is the perfect Leader and the perfect Follower. When it
> farts, the world is reborn.
>
> Lee Rudolph
Robert Epstein
>>>responding to.
>>>
>>>It's like you're talking to everyone. Or no one.
>>
>>He is talking to his Self. It is a very expansive Self; it
>>includes multitudes. It is a Self-raping Self. Luckily, it
>>is also a Self-lubricating Self. It scrubs itSelf and washes
>>itSelf. It is never narrow, never shrill. It is the perfectly
>>generous Self and shares itSelf endlessly with itSelf. It
>>cuts off its own top and regenerates from its own root. It
>>is perfectly empty and perfectly full, perfectly hysterical
>>and perfectly sterile. Its eyes burn bright and its teeth
>>are, individually and collectively, exemplars of their kind.
>>It is the perfect Leader and the perfect Follower. When it
>>farts, the world is reborn.
>
>
> Any action attracts whiners and wannabes - a man who can't use a newsreader
> and self-styled poet. I haven't seen such a useless and flatulant pair since
> playschool. You're not fit to join a circus let alone an army. Sergeant,
> hang these men in chains until the flesh drops from their bones and sell the
> remainder of this sorry crowd into slavery.
>
and if Charles can't put the name of who he is responding to at the top
of his messages, roast him in peanut butter.
Robert
Robert Epstein
>>Charles, I suggest you go read on alt.tasteless.jokes for a while and when
>>you have laughed till your sides ache, come back in a better mood :-)
>>Just think, tomorrow is Friday.....
>
>
> I'm in a great mood. Never has the narrow minded and pompous attitudes of
> people stuck on books with pictures and big print been so much fun. And
> sweetie, fapping over Friday is for flunkies. I'm alive, now, or did your
> autistic mind forget that remedial step. Wasters...
>
Charles, you are flaming and trolling pretty hard here. What happened?
Did your vibrator break?
Robert Epstein
>
>
> "Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:f203ro$nn3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> "Charles E Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> self-styled poet.
>>
>>
>> You miscapitalized "Self-styled".
>>
>> We must all try to get in touch with our Hardwidge-nature,
>> but it's not always easy. Still, we must try, try again.
>>
>> Lee Rudolph
>
>
>
> He does this on a regular basis, you know. Suddenly goes all nasty,
> disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
> mood. Seems cyclical.
>
uh....does the word MEDS have any meaning in this context......?
Robert Epstein
>>He does this on a regular basis, you know. Suddenly goes all nasty,
>>disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
>>mood. Seems cyclical.
>
>
> It's nice to see people rush in with their narrow minded vanities. The
> gnashing of teeth and peacocking to the crowd is a spectacle, a
> self-inflicted lesson in bullshit and charisma. Or do I have to paint a sign
> by the edge of the cliff you're all falling over?
>
> Dog see cat. Dog chase cat. See the dog chase cat. Oh, brother...
>
Yeah, well, you know damn well this is exactly what you were aiming for,
troll. You got bored and wanted a little extra attention so you started
preening and complaining like a little girly-boy. Go get laid and stop
dry-humping the group.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
>>>Dog see cat. Dog chase cat. See the dog chase cat. Oh, brother...
>>
>>Don't worry too much. You would stop talking to yourself about yourself
>>sooner or later.
>
>
> And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti at the
> wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so much bollocks
> like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the carpet, using
> Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct grade free school.
>
> You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
>
oh but "dog see cat; dog chase cat" is much more intelligent. Go take a
prozac muthuhfuckuh.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
don't know, but I'll bet he beats off regularly; probably while writing
these inflammatory posts.
robert
Charles E Hardwidge
>> disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
>> mood. Seems cyclical.
>
> uh....does the word MEDS have any meaning in this context......?
No. Got any more spaghetti you want to throw at the wall?
Personally, I was pretty annoyed and upset a few months back and just sat on
it. Throwing a spaz this past few days is a deliberate thing. It's done for
as good or, at least, better reasons than your comment.
So, you done being pompous and moving onto nasty?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>>>> Dog see cat. Dog chase cat. See the dog chase cat. Oh, brother...
>>>
>>> Don't worry too much. You would stop talking to yourself about yourself
>>> sooner or later.
>>
>>
>> And you're another clueless and insensitive prick throwing spaghetti
>> at the wall, like anyone gives a shit. I mean, seriously. You talk so
>> much bollocks like some autistic kid that can't stop shitting on the
>> carpet, using Buddhism as an excuse like some politically correct
>> grade free school.
>>
>> You are what you do, and you don't do anything, sweetie.
>>
>
> That's the idea;
> not to get mad or crazy in this world.
>
> Be calm and serene for a change.
> Do you think you can manage that?
>
oh fuck! stummper has absorbed Tang!!!!!!!!!!!!
:(
Robert Epstein
....whoa now Tang.....do you think you are ready.....?
Robert Epstein
Still deep into studying the asshole I see. Hope you surface soon....
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Robert Epstein
make it decaf please.
have you ever been to Japan?
robert
Charles E Hardwidge
>> incite an inflamed response to your own venom. You are floundering about
>> attacking everyone now in desperation for that response. Why do you need
>> this?
>>
>> Do you still beat your wife?
>
> don't know, but I'll bet he beats off regularly; probably while writing
> these inflammatory posts.
You got some subconcious thing going on there, Bob?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
>> and get mango pie!! How does that work, dear?
> ....whoa now Tang.....do you think you are ready.....?
I find Tang's attempt to tell jokes funnier than his jokes. With a little
polish he could be the next Tommy Cooper. Should be a cinch for syndication.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> Yeah, well, you know damn well this is exactly what you were aiming for,
> troll. You got bored and wanted a little extra attention so you started
> preening and complaining like a little girly-boy. Go get laid and stop
> dry-humping the group.
Is that what you think? Boy, you're full of it.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
>>you're a silly man, friend, overly enamoured of yourself and trying to
>>start a fire over here for some reason. there is no special drama taking
>>place, and all is quiet on the Eastern front.
>
>
> You're pulling the pompous fart routine again. You call me overly enamoured
> with myself and blindly dismiss my action? Playing yourself up and running
> your opponent down is a bit cheap, Robert.
then how about not acting like a prick?
> Everyones got their view and self-image. So have I. No mystery, and the
> rumble in the jungle helped flush some of that out. Talk and huddles are
> fine to a point but you have to follow up with do.
>
> Self-scrutiny and application is hard. Not everyone is up to it and,
> sometimes, a little push and opportunity for reflection helps. And before
> anyone gets funny, think, my action is less questionable.
>
really? maybe you should take a look at your game-playing.
robert
Robert Epstein
>>>He does this on a regular basis, you know. Suddenly goes all nasty,
>>>disappears for a while, to return a few weeks later in a more civilized
>>>mood. Seems cyclical.
>>
>>uh....does the word MEDS have any meaning in this context......?
>
>
> No. Got any more spaghetti you want to throw at the wall?
better than you throwing the sauce.
>
> Personally, I was pretty annoyed and upset a few months back and just sat on
> it. Throwing a spaz this past few days is a deliberate thing. It's done for
> as good or, at least, better reasons than your comment.
oh either explain yourself or shut up.
>
> So, you done being pompous and moving onto nasty?
>
I'm moving onto why sit around and take it when you act like a prick?
robert
- - - - - - - - -
Robert Epstein
oh mos def hardwidge, you got it.
Robert Epstein
I'm glad to see you sounding rational again.
Robert Epstein
what are you full of?
Keynes
wrote:
Choking the chicken.
Keynes
wrote:
>> you're a silly man, friend, overly enamoured of yourself and trying to
>> start a fire over here for some reason. there is no special drama taking
>> place, and all is quiet on the Eastern front.
>
>You're pulling the pompous fart routine again. You call me overly enamoured
>with myself and blindly dismiss my action? Playing yourself up and running
>your opponent down is a bit cheap, Robert.
>
Ha
>Everyones got their view and self-image. So have I. No mystery, and the
>rumble in the jungle helped flush some of that out. Talk and huddles are
>fine to a point but you have to follow up with do.
>
Do do.
>Self-scrutiny and application is hard. Not everyone is up to it and,
>sometimes, a little push and opportunity for reflection helps. And before
>anyone gets funny, think, my action is less questionable.
Good advice.
You really ought to take it yourself.
Charles E Hardwidge
>>>>and get mango pie!! How does that work, dear?
>>
>>>....whoa now Tang.....do you think you are ready.....?
>>
>> I find Tang's attempt to tell jokes funnier than his jokes. With a little
>> polish he could be the next Tommy Cooper. Should be a cinch for
>> syndication.
>
> I'm glad to see you sounding rational again.
It never went away. My pulse never raised or lowered. There was a risk of
going too far but things have played out. Stuff happens.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
>>sometimes, a little push and opportunity for reflection helps. And before
>>anyone gets funny, think, my action is less questionable.
>
> Good advice.
> You really ought to take it yourself.
Always do. More than most suppose but, sometimes, one takes a position and
executes it to its limit. Stuff happens.
--
Charles E Hardwidge