Re: Feminism humor

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/7/2016 10:51 AM, Kitty P wrote:

> "Wilson"

>> "Women with Gender Studies degrees used to make me angry....now they
>> just make me coffee."
>>
>> Norma: Hopefully they poison it.
>>
>> "What, you mean like they poisoned the feminist movement?"

> Pony whip time ;)

Kitty my sweet and loving daughter, The above joke
has a point, perhaps unintended: the movers and
shakers of a movement, in their (not necessarily
neophytes') zeal, push their movement so hard that
they lose sight of what their movement is intended
to accomplish and thereby distort it, in many cases
beyond recognition, and in the end poison it beyond
repair. What the Communists did and still do to Marx
is a case in point.

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/07/the-real-issue-with-donald-trump-saying-a-man-can-do-anything-to-a-woman/>

The hot controversy on Trump's remarks about what
he could do to women (grab th-em by the p***y), got
Jackson Katz, co-founder of the Mentors in Violence
Prevention, an anti-rape program taught at
universities nationwide, to say:

<<“Boys will either rise to our expectations or sink to
them, in the locker room or otherwise. And we need
to raise our expectations for what it means to be a
boy or a man.”>>

He seems not to see the double entendre in his
remark.

Tang Huyen

[noname]

Trump expressed his disgust at the level to which Americans are enslaved by
their spiritual poverty, enslaved to a degree that overwhelms even the
hypocritical puritanism of American Womanhood and makes them the drooling
whores of the nearest wealthy celebrity, rightly expressing his disgust in
disgusting terms.

The league of poliitical correctness is all over that like white on rice,
their boy-toy speaks out in favor of further repression for males through
the shunning of those not meeting the expectations of political
correctness, and the cycle continues its downward spiral.

When a culture espouses the concept that the goods are worth whatever the
market will bear, and thinks so highly of its product that only the wealthy
are considered worthy, some cannot raise the price of bread. Some of those
desperately hungry will beg, while others will steal, and the few who value
their integrity will simply wait.

Rape is an expression of angry desperation, you don't solve that problem by
further increases in the price of goods offered by those who wish to be
worshipped, any more than you solve the loosening of drunken anger's rage
by prohibiting alcohol, or win the war against drugs by punishing those
whose life is so miserable that no other medicine reduces the pain.

Politically-correct America is very full of puritanical hot air. America
has been hoist on its own profit motive.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[Julian]

"Did you see the ankle on that one? I can't help myself...
When I see a comely lass I can't help but want to sit in
the parlour and look at tin types with them. You know, when
you're famous you can basically grab them by the third or
fourth layer of their petticoats."

President Chester A Arthur

[liaM]

Any rocker who didn't start his career because he wanted to get laid
is not a rocker.

[Kitty P]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
news:788a148e-47e9-6d46...@gmail.com...

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

The joke did have some truth in it - I just like to pull out my pony whip.

You got it. Trump's rather pathetic talk isn't about sex - but about what
one can do when one has power. Trump isn't the first to succumb to power
over others (JFK, Bill Clinton, more than a few CEOs, including women at
times). The recipient of that behavior can be attracted to having those
attentions and a side stream sniff of that power - so it can be a mutual
dance as well.

So it isn't anything new. He is just the first person running for president
who proudly let his proclivities be put on video. One would hope that people
would see it as a red flag warning. Believe me, those of use who have worked
for and with men who had that kind of groping, suggestive and denigrating
behavior have been watching that flag being raised for quite some time.

Kitty

[Wilson]

That's a fascinating perspective.

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/8/2016 5:12 AM, noname wrote:

> Politically-correct America is very full of puritanical hot air. America
> has been hoist on its own profit motive.

<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/karl-marx-yesterday-and-today>

Louis Menand has a fascinating article on Marx.

<<This matters because one of Marx’s key principles was
that theory must always be united with practice. That’s
the point of the famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach:
“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it.” Marx was not
saying that philosophy is irrelevant; he was saying that
philosophical problems arise out of real-life conditions,
and they can be solved only by changing those
conditions—by remaking the world.>>

<<It is sympathy for Marx that leads Sperber and Stedman
Jones to insist that we read him in his nineteenth-century
context, because they hope to distance him from the
interpretation of his work made after his death by people
like Karl Kautsky, who was his chief German-language
exponent; Georgi Plekhanov, his chief Russian exponent;
and, most influentially, Engels. It was thanks mainly to
those writers that people started to refer to Marxism as
“scientific socialism,” a phrase that sums up what was
most frightening about twentieth-century Communism:
the idea that human beings can be reëngineered in
accordance with a theory that presents itself as a law of
history. The word the twentieth century coined for that
was totalitarianism.

So, by 1939, when the British philosopher Isaiah Berlin
published his widely read and not wholly unadmiring
study “Karl Marx: His Life and Environment” (still in print),
he could describe Marx as “among the great authoritarian
founders of new faiths, ruthless subverters and innovators
who interpret the world in terms of a single, clear,
passionately held principle, denouncing and destroying all
that conflicts with it. His faith . . . was of that boundless,
absolute kind which puts an end to all questions and
dissolves all difficulties.” This became the Cold War Marx.

It’s true that Marx was highly doctrinaire, something that
did not wear well with his compatriots in the nineteenth
century, and that certainly does not wear well today, after
the experience of the regimes conceived in his name. It
therefore sounds perverse to say that Marx’s philosophy
was dedicated to human freedom. But it was. Marx was an
Enlightenment thinker: he wanted a world that is rational
and transparent, and in which human beings have been
liberated from the control of external forces.

This was the essence of Marx’s Hegelianism. Hegel argued
that history was the progress of humanity toward true
freedom, by which he meant self-mastery and
self-understanding, seeing the world without
illusions—illusions that we ourselves have created. The
Young Hegelians’ controversial example of this was the
Christian God. (This is what Feuerbach wrote about.) We
created God, and then pretended that God created us. We
hypostatized our own concept and turned it into something
“out there” whose commandments (which we made up) we
struggle to understand and obey. We are supplicants to our
own fiction.

Concepts like God are not errors. History is rational: we
make the world the way we do for a reason. We invented
God because God solved certain problems for us. But,
once a concept begins impeding our progress toward
self-mastery, it must be criticized and transcended, left
behind. Otherwise, like the members of the Islamic State
today, we become the tools of our Tool.

What makes it hard to discard the tools we have objectified
is the persistence of the ideologies that justify them, and
which make what is only a human invention seem like “the
way things are.” Undoing ideologies is the task of philosophy.
Marx was a philosopher. The subtitle of “Capital” is “Critique
of Political Economy.” The uncompleted book was intended
to be a criticism of the economic concepts that make social
relations in a free-market economy seem natural and
inevitable, in the same way that concepts like the great chain
of being and the divine right of kings once made the social
relations of feudalism seem natural and inevitable.>>

<<Marx had very little to say about how the business of life
would be conducted in a communist society, and this turned
out to be a serious problem for regimes trying to put
communism into practice. He had reasons for being vague.
He thought that our concepts, values, and beliefs all arise
out of the conditions of our own time, which means that it’s
hard to know what lies on the other side of historical change.
In theory, after the revolution, everything will be “up for
grabs”—which has been the great dream of leftist radicalism
ever since.

Marx was clearer about what a communist society would not
have. There would be no class system, no private property,
no individual rights (which Marx thought boil down to
protecting the right of the owners of property to hang on to
it), and no state (which he called “a committee for managing
the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”). The state, in
the form of the Party, proved to be one bourgeois concept
that twentieth-century Communist regimes found impossible
to transcend. Communism is not a religion; it truly is, as
anti-Communists used say about it, godless. But the Party
functions in the way that Feuerbach said God functions in
Christianity, as a mysterious and implacable external power.>>

<<Marx did not, however, provide much guidance for how a
society would operate without property or classes or a state.
[snip] But Marx considered the division of labor one of the
evils of modern life. (So did Hegel.) It makes workers cogs in
a machine and deprives them of any connection with the
product of their labor. “Man’s own deed becomes an alien
power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being
controlled by him,” as Marx put it. In a communist society, he
wrote, “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each
can become accomplished in any branch he wishes.” It will
be possible “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear
cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner . . . without ever
becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman, or critic.”

This often quoted passage sounds fanciful, but it is at the
heart of Marx’s thought. Human beings are naturally creative
and sociable. A system that treats them as mechanical
monads is inhumane. But the question is, How would a
society without a division of labor produce sufficient goods
to survive? Nobody will want to rear the cattle (or clean the
barn); everyone will want to be the critic. (Believe me.) As
Marx conceded, capitalism, for all its evils, had created
abundance. He seems to have imagined that, somehow, all
the features of the capitalist mode of production could be
thrown aside and abundance would magically persist.>>

<<Ryan, in his book on Marx, makes an observation that Marx
himself might have made. “The modern republic,” he says,
“attempts to impose political equality on an economic
inequality it has no way of alleviating.”>>

Sorry for the long quotes, but what Menand says about Marx
is eerily similar to what we on these boards are familiar with
in mental culture, with the proviso that adjustment be made
for switching from the external wold to the internal one.

The tools that we use become our masters. The salvific state,
called Nirvana or whatever, scarcely fosters survival and,
not even going that far, society. The people who do not taste
final release yet have scarcely any way of appreciating just
what such a state is. It is not susceptible to a priori analysis,
or due diligence. They just have to trust the words of people
who (presumably) have tasted it, and essentially grope in
the dark about something that escapes their grasp,
conceptual or otherwise. On top of all such uncertainty, they
are repeatedly told that to try to grasp "it" only pushes "it"
beyond their grasp. "It" embodies a jump of faith that weirdly
resembles the same in traditional religions, regardless of
content. The regimen of grace and the regimen of survival
can scarcely be reconciled, for those who have not entered
the former. Just jump with both feet into the unknown, shorn
of the boxes of the known, and you will "get" "it". As Marx
says, it will be possible “to hunt in the morning, fish in the
afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after
dinner . . . without ever becoming hunter, fisherman,
herdsman, or critic.”

Fantasy of fantasies, eh? Another word is utopia.

Tang Huyen

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Marx was a dialectical philosopher. That was his
problem. He believed in An essence. He wrote "labour"
is "the creator".

Yesterday i saw a book of Sartre was recently published
in English. The book is called something like "Critique
of Dialectical Philosophy". Sartre was a communist and
it seems he identified the main problem of Marxism.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>Trump expressed his disgust at the level to which Americans are enslaved by
>their spiritual poverty, enslaved to a degree that overwhelms even the
>hypocritical puritanism of American Womanhood and makes them the drooling
>whores of the nearest wealthy celebrity, rightly expressing his disgust in
>disgusting terms.

That sounds odd, when he appears to me to be Captain of a Parade
that has some culturally indoctrinated so-called beauties in a pagent.
What's it called, Miss Universe? As in, unmarried?
I don't know for sure.

Perhaps he wears a funny swimsuit in his competition.

If he were disgusted by it, why would he promote it?

I don't watch politics much.
I actually try to avoid it at times.
Except, here it is, and so, I play along, for the ride.
Probably that makes me as hypocritical as anyone else.

>The league of poliitical correctness is all over that like white on rice,
>their boy-toy speaks out in favor of further repression for males through
>the shunning of those not meeting the expectations of political
>correctness, and the cycle continues its downward spiral.

People sure do see the world thru filters and screens.
This one here presents a collide-a-scope at times.
There is nothing like a bamboo grove
I always just said, this once.

>When a culture espouses the concept that the goods are worth whatever the
>market will bear, and thinks so highly of its product that only the wealthy
>are considered worthy, some cannot raise the price of bread. Some of those
>desperately hungry will beg, while others will steal, and the few who value
>their integrity will simply wait.

I imagine Trump charges the highest prices he can
for whatever land-holdings, hotel rooms, apartments and such.

I'm not sure if we are seeing the same guy, in our glass
peanut galleries.

He might be one of those owners who have the lower classes use
one door while the upper-crust have their door held open for them,
while they both stay in the same high-rise building.

And the two classes are not allowed to mix, in the lobby.

That's funny to me.
In a strange twist of what funny means.

>Rape is an expression of angry desperation, you don't solve that problem by
>further increases in the price of goods offered by those who wish to be
>worshipped, any more than you solve the loosening of drunken anger's rage
>by prohibiting alcohol, or win the war against drugs by punishing those
>whose life is so miserable that no other medicine reduces the pain.
>
>Politically-correct America is very full of puritanical hot air. America
>has been hoist on its own profit motive.

Last night I attended a graduation of an Apprenticeship Program.
Not the Trump kind of media circus. This one was not televised.

This one was a real for real one that hooks up felons with Unions
and people who have trouble entering the systems they live in.
It gets people off the streets and into careers.

It showed me how opportunities are available
for those who can show up on time and are willing to work.

A breath of fresh-air, for me, since I hear so often how life sucks
and there are no jobs when, apparently, there are plenty
in a land of plenty for those who are interested
and want to get on their feet.

While others are found sitting round, as a campfire smolders.

[{:-])))]

liaM wrote:

>Any rocker who didn't start his career because he wanted to get laid
>is not a rocker.

My grandfather was a real rocker.
But he didn't start out that way.

At first, he made furniture.
Chairs, and horses, made of wood,
among other things..

Since he had to test them for quality, he found
he kinda liked rocking out on them.

He wasn't wanting to get laid. He was married already.

Probably he was a Taoist rocker.

One time, a kid tried to ride one of his horses and fell off.
The kid broke his leg, if you can imagine the horror,
and the kids parent wanted to sue gramps.

Grandpa said, hold your horses.
Maybe it's not as bad as you think it is.

Perhaps you're thinking of another Joe Cocker.

[{:-])))]

Kitty wrote, about the Donald:

>So it isn't anything new. He is just the first person running for president
>who proudly let his proclivities be put on video. One would hope that people
>would see it as a red flag warning. Believe me, those of use who have worked
>for and with men who had that kind of groping, suggestive and denigrating
>behavior have been watching that flag being raised for quite some time.

How do you feel about how he sees his daughter?

Does someone's morality, given some culture, affect one's ability
to govern a nation, or police the world, or mean anything?

Would you ever mix business with pleasure?

As a Buddhist, I presume.

Not speaking as a Taoist.
That would be a different newsgroup.

There are stories about monks who pick up on women.
Some of them put them down. In more ways than one.

I don't recall any tales about women who carry men
across a stream, in the literature, and keep the raft
as if it were a trophy.

Would Siddartha have run for an office?
There appears to have been some Zen fur flying at times.

- flags appear to wave when the mind moves

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote about:

> The people who do not taste
>final release yet have scarcely any way of appreciating just
>what such a state is.

One time, not long ago, noname stated the sage would be unconcerned
about pressing a button that would be the doom of any mass of people.

I stressed how a Taoist Sage would not press any such a button.
Nor would a Taoist Sage ever be found in such a situation.

At times, being a stickler for semantics can be fun.

Those who don't appreciate the world,
in all of its Shen-glory, as being sacred, in its uncarved Pu,
might seek to change it, via some means.

Or wish upon a star it were other
than how it appears to them to be, as such.

I don't disagree with noname in principle, or Tao.
In fact, I quite agree.

My only quibble is with words, generally speaking.

Appreciating just what such a state is.

Be it, political, environmental, nation-state, ore of sum
other myth lodging in a wrestling match striking out.

At shadows while boxing in rings, some sokoban push.
They never pull. Pulling goes against their instruction manual.

Teeth of an ox are another story.

[{:-])))]

Marquard wrote, in response to Tang's post:

>Marx was a dialectical philosopher. That was his
>problem. He believed in An essence. He wrote "labour"
>is "the creator".
>
>Yesterday i saw a book of Sartre was recently published
>in English. The book is called something like "Critique
>of Dialectical Philosophy". Sartre was a communist and
>it seems he identified the main problem of Marxism.

I've heard of some Taoists who say Tao is not a creator.
Nor is Tao, the creator.

Assuming there were to be a creator, Tao is prior to that.

I don't know if Marxism is related to Taoism,
nor why Tang presented his post.

But it does put me in mind of Taoism, since,
it appears to me this is a Taoist newsgroup.

Taoism rings a bell.

One time there was a guy who chopped down trees.
He did unto them what he would not have done to him.

And, it was, said, his bell-stand's were exquisite. Other-worldly
might be a term given to them.

The guy used a Taoist technique.
I don't think it had anything to do with Marx though.

But, then again, maybe a similarity can be given. After all,
from what I gather of Tang's mind, differences don't matter.

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 18:48:14 -0700
Tang Huyen <tang...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/7/2016 10:51 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> Kitty my sweet and loving daughter, The above joke
> has a point, perhaps unintended: the movers and
> shakers of a movement, in their (not necessarily
> neophytes') zeal, push their movement so hard that
> they lose sight of what their movement is intended
> to accomplish and thereby distort it, in many cases
> beyond recognition, and in the end poison it beyond
> repair. What the Communists did and still do to Marx
> is a case in point.

I find it puzzling that the gay movement seems to
neglect appropriate emphasis on the most important
gay right of all--the right to stay in the closet.
Metta, Rale

[liaM]

People have confided they would sleep with a president (or equivalent)
just because, because.

Is that or was that ever, your wont, Kitty? *

[Kitty P]

"liaM" wrote in message news:ntbllc$817$1...@dont-email.me...

I have been unusually devoid of wanting to sleep with extremely powerful
men, crush on celebrities, or even ogle handsome fellas on the street or in
a bar. Interesting question though. How about you?

[Kitty P]

"{:-])))" wrote in message
news:r3givb9h52f04kf4d...@4ax.com...

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

There is morality which is difficult to define depending on an individual's
culture and definitely not what I'm talking about - and then there are
identifiable actions that are predatory. I have no idea what is in the
Donald's head regarding his family members, nor do I care. I don't care that
he has consensual affairs or uses foul language. But guess what? Unwanted
groping of women's genitals is predatory and considered assault in just
about every culture. If you don't know the difference I feel a little sorry
for you.

[{:-])))]

Kitty wrote:

> ... But guess what? Unwanted

>groping of women's genitals is predatory and considered assault in just
>about every culture.

That seems reasonable to me.

>If you don't know the difference I feel a little sorry for you.

Are you assuming I don't know?

Or, when you use the word, you, do you mean, one?
As in, anyone who doesn't know differences.

People often form impressions of other people
and sometimes I wonder how they were formed.

[liaM]

Me too, but no doubt it's because they didn't make advances. Normally
I'm rapid like a rabbit when a bunny shows her tail :)

[noname]

Geez, I hope that's a typo, Kitty.

> who have worked
> for and with men who had that kind of groping, suggestive and denigrating
> behavior have been watching that flag being raised for quite some time.
>
> Kitty
>
>

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Glad you're entertained, Wilson. <g>

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

It would be handy if quotes were more obviously delineated, but thank you
for adding them, I agree that it is quite refreshing to see some evidence
that someone has a glimmer of a clue. Have you yet invited him to join
these boards? Or, is he already here and wearing a sock?

> but what Menand says about Marx
> is eerily similar to what we on these boards are familiar with
> in mental culture, with the proviso that adjustment be made
> for switching from the external wold to the internal one.

Your provision is quite unnecessary imo. It's only one world after all.
There is zero difference between the external world and the internal world,
except for either being inside-out with respect to the other,
metaphorically. At least that's my perception of things, though it hardly
seemed that way to me always, tinfoil hats have a tendency to majorly fuck
up both incoming and outgoing signal strength and thus introduce
misinterpretations in places where the signal is even slightly ambiguous.
imo.

>
> The tools that we use become our masters.

If I'm not misremembering I've mentioned this before, though it might have
been in some other newsgroup. Yes, I think it was. I was pointing out the
massive leverage that computer programmers who are developing new and
better technologies have on the consuming public, ie real folks. Anybody
here who hasn't heard of Android? Touch-screen interfaces? Watched small
children playing with them? Watched adult children play fantasy games,
nowadays virtual-reality games? Welcome to the matrix boys and girls,
we're under the bigtop now. Unfortunately those who are creating the
technology that will shape the thinking of new generations are cogs in a
machine they do not yet realize that they control.

> The salvific state,
> called Nirvana or whatever, scarcely fosters survival and,
> not even going that far, society.

The ambiguity of the word "fosters" is quite useful, since survival is
somebody else's idea, someone who made up the idea that death is
unavoidable. Small children don't naturally think about survival, they
have to be scared into it, at least that is how it appears to me.
Indoctrination is a powerful tool, unfortunately it seems not to have had a
successful history yet, because it has always been applied toward achieving
a specific goal, usually a political one rather than anything beneficial.
Now, what happens if we indoctrinate our children to resist indoctrination?
I've some experience with that one, having been brought up that way, and
having raised my own children that way.

> The people who do not taste
> final release yet have scarcely any way of appreciating just
> what such a state is. It is not susceptible to a priori analysis,
> or due diligence. They just have to trust the words of people
> who (presumably) have tasted it, and essentially grope in
> the dark about something that escapes their grasp,
> conceptual or otherwise.

I strongly believe that it does not have to be that way. Instead I believe
that once given the necessary clues, any individual can begin to accumulate
his own stock of evidence, and over time, that self-collected data will
accumulate and prove sufficiently conclusive to allow the individual to
awaken. In other words, you don't have to spend your whole wad on some
idiot's crackpot theory, given the clues you need, your own theory will
become both obvious, and obviously correct.

> On top of all such uncertainty, they
> are repeatedly told that to try to grasp "it" only pushes "it"
> beyond their grasp.

Do you think that might be due to the fact that grasping squeezes and
mercury squishes out of the hand that attempts to grasp it? It's like a
watermelon seed. What's common between the action of mercury and the
action of a watermelon seed? Collect your own observations and see.

> "It" embodies a jump of faith that weirdly
> resembles the same in traditional religions, regardless of
> content.

Let's pretend we both understand what you mean by "regardless of content",
unless you choose to explain which content you're referring to? The
content of traditional religions? The content of what again? Wasn't that
"it"? "It" resembles the same blah blah blah? I don't even understand
what your sentence means there, but I have yet to encounter a "traditional
religion" that has significant working content. Taoism (specifically the
TTC, to a much lesser extent the CZ) is almost entirely working content, as
is Buddhism's Dhammapada, do those count as "traditional religions" or does
"traditional religion" translate directly to "Christianity"? The clues are
there, it's a matter of knowing what the vocabulary actually means, which
one can figure out if he continually turns the puzzle over until its every
side is known in its details, assuming that the translator's understanding
of the actual subject matter is both accurate and consistent, even though
it is written using the most bizarre language possible. I prefer Feng's
translation of the TTC, and Byrom's translation of the Dhammapada fwiw.
From the various translations I've looked at, it appears that the earliest
translations are the least consistent, presumably because they contain
ideas new to the western mindset, ideas that became better understood over
time as more people attempted to apply them. Or perhaps as more people who
learned at least something of the subject as part of their cultural
indoctrination began to learn English and find they could get paid for
translating books, who knows.

OTOH it isn't clear that what strikes me as "accurate and consistent" will
ring the same chord for anyone else. The thing is, consistency is the
major, and only once consistency has been established does accuracy become
relevant. If a set of beliefs cannot even remain consistent within its own
context, it's too jumbled to be usable.

> The regimen of grace and the regimen of survival
> can scarcely be reconciled, for those who have not entered
> the former.

Maybe we need to discuss that one, because it's only the reconciling of the
two which allows, in the sense of permitting or enabling, those who have
not entered the former to sit between the two and recognize the whole, thus
stepping into it a little at a time.

> Just jump with both feet into the unknown, shorn
> of the boxes of the known, and you will "get" "it". As Marx
> says, it will be possible “to hunt in the morning, fish in the
> afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after
> dinner . . . without ever becoming hunter, fisherman,
> herdsman, or critic.”

Species living in isolation take a long time to develop the technology
mankind has arrived at, or possibly reinvented, here in the 21st century.
I'm not sure the internet is the be-all and end-all, personally I would
prefer a peer-to-peer network between smartphones that requires no
cell-towers or other dependence on central facilities that can be
restricted and thus used as a weapon. I'm trying to hold off on buying a
MacBook until at least the point at which Apple has to ponder the idea of
discarding it in favor of a solar-powered tablet because their capabilities
are so close it no longer makes sense to manufacture both. When you start
with dirt and wood and the other materials readily available in an
undeveloped world, there are plenty of steps to move through between there
and microminiaturized semiconductors, even if you begin with a complete
understanding of the available materials and the end goal, nevermind if you
have to figure out what can be done with wood, how to refine metals, etc.

>
> Fantasy of fantasies, eh? Another word is utopia.
>
> Tang Huyen
>

Life's a cast-iron bitch, I went looking for a new pair of boots today at
one of my favorite stores, and found that their in-house inventory has
shrunk, much of it replaced by shiny crap instead of the higher-quality
items they stocked in the past. Looks like I'll have to shop on the
internet for boots, who woulda thunkit back in the '50s?

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Personally I appreciate beauty in all its forms. As long as I can
recognize it. All of which means not a thing.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

It should be pretty obvious that he knows how to make money by working
(within) the system. Money is easy, because the game is crooked; learn how
it cheats you, and you can cheat it. Trump is not playing for money, and
he is playing to win. I think he's a bit pissed that he had to cheat in
order to win. I agree that's messed up, fwiw.

Or maybe I'm nuts, should I care? If so, why? Remember that TTC-29 says
it's all good, if you believe what you're told by dead men's words. I'm a
cynic and a skeptic and an optimist and not too bad at solving puzzles,
though sometimes I find it easier to change the rules instead of being
ruled by them.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[Kitty P]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntcoub$ucg$2...@dont-email.me...

Heh - someone cut it off when copying...

" Believe me, those of use who have worked for and with men who had that

[dagnabit]

>"noname" wrote in message news:ntcouc$ucg$4...@dont-email.me...

>Life's a cast-iron bitch,

>"noname" wrote in message news:ntcouc$ucg$4...@dont-email.me...

>Personally I appreciate beauty in all its forms.

"a stagecoach full of feathers and
footprints pulls up to my soapbox door."
>jimi hendrix

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> Tang wrote:
>
>> The salvific state,
>> called Nirvana or whatever, scarcely fosters survival and,
>> not even going that far, society.
>
>The ambiguity of the word "fosters" is quite useful, since survival is
>somebody else's idea, someone who made up the idea that death is
>unavoidable.

I recently read of a guy who, before he could live,
needed to face death, go through fear, and enter Nirvana.

Then, having entered Nirvana, he fixed the generator.
Whereupon he and his wife lived happily ever after.

> Small children don't naturally think about survival, they
>have to be scared into it, at least that is how it appears to me.
>Indoctrination is a powerful tool, unfortunately it seems not to have had a
>successful history yet, because it has always been applied toward achieving
>a specific goal, usually a political one rather than anything beneficial.
>Now, what happens if we indoctrinate our children to resist indoctrination?
> I've some experience with that one, having been brought up that way, and
>having raised my own children that way.

Can they fix things that break
or break things that aren't broken?

If the world, or everything under the sun, tian xia, is shen,
spiritual if not sacred, and to try and change it breaks it
into 10k-pieces, does the cat that hates meeces enter Nirvana?

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> Tang had written of Nirvana's lack:

>
>> The people who do not taste
>> final release yet have scarcely any way of appreciating just
>> what such a state is. It is not susceptible to a priori analysis,
>> or due diligence. They just have to trust the words of people
>> who (presumably) have tasted it, and essentially grope in
>> the dark about something that escapes their grasp,
>> conceptual or otherwise.
>
>I strongly believe that it does not have to be that way.

At times, when my view of the world changes, the world changes.
Instead of being all-involved, another Road is taken. For granted.

Kinda like when viewing a two-dimensional representation of a cube
and only the frame-work is visible. It often flips its point.

Figure-ground reversals might be fan/fu in a Way.

When the world is seen as shen,
everything can be seen under the sun,
without leaving a room, one knows how it goes.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> Tang wrote about, it:

>
>> On top of all such uncertainty, they
>> are repeatedly told that to try to grasp "it" only pushes "it"
>> beyond their grasp.
>
>Do you think that might be due to the fact that grasping squeezes and
>mercury squishes out of the hand that attempts to grasp it? It's like a
>watermelon seed. What's common between the action of mercury and the
>action of a watermelon seed? Collect your own observations and see.

Grasping water while swimming has little effect
yet its affect might be one of concern
for those who don't know how to swim.

Taoism might suggest swimming in ways.

>> "It" embodies a jump of faith that weirdly
>> resembles the same in traditional religions, regardless of
>> content.
>
>Let's pretend we both understand what you mean by "regardless of content",
>unless you choose to explain which content you're referring to? The
>content of traditional religions? The content of what again?

I'd guess he means, Nirvana, Heaven, enlightenment, etc.
As if those words all point to the same thing.

It could be said, Samsara is Nirvana and vice versa.
Or that Heaven is all around, in between, within, etc.
Or the world can be Heaven or Hell, so to speak.

What, "it" takes is a change of perspective.
A transformation of consciousness. An experience perhaps,
if one is unable to see, "it" intellectually, via jnana, etc.

Some say, "it" can't be found in a book.
Others find, "it" everywhere they look.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> Tang had written:

>
>> The regimen of grace and the regimen of survival
>> can scarcely be reconciled, for those who have not entered
>> the former.
>
>Maybe we need to discuss that one, because it's only the reconciling of the
>two which allows, in the sense of permitting or enabling, those who have
>not entered the former to sit between the two and recognize the whole, thus
>stepping into it a little at a time.

When Cook Ting carved oxen, he did it with grace, and style.

To suppose he received grace from on high
is probably not the same thing as depicted in the Taoist text.

To hack might be how some people are able to survive in life.
Another survival tactic is also mentioned in Cook Ting's discourse.
Both of those ways, or Tao, require resharpening often.

Of the three, ways, or Tao, all three of which are Tao,
the one mentioned as being the Tao of Cook Ting
would be more a Tao of Taoism than is
grace from above.

Ting's blade was ever-sharp.
He knew his way thru an ox and the guy who watched
and listened said he learned how to live life.

Such a way can be called Tao.

Grace is another spin on another story.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> Looks like I'll have to shop on the
>internet for boots, who woulda thunkit back in the '50s?

I shopped for boots on the internet once, not too long ago.

My search turned up nothing to speak of.

Some are more hidden than others.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:u3rkvblb8pa2t509e...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I shop for almost everything on the net except
groceries and I see that now they do have that
service on the web for the handicapped.

goods on the net are always less expensive than
my local stores, even with added shipping charges,
and they bring the items right to my door.

I won't waste my time and effort with that crazy
traffic through that big shopping complex near
my home unless it's absolutely necessary.

[noname]

Footprints, huh? I thought Jimi was mostly too high to leave 'em.

Anyway, were you trying to point out an inconsistency? Sometimes life *is*
a cast-iron bitch, but once you let go of expectations, it gets easier to
see the beauty of the way the thing works. When we fuck up, things get
harder; when we don't, they get easier: duh. Likewise when things keep
working better and better, it seems not too unlikely that one isn't fucking
up too severely.

Of course if you just fell off a new horse and broke your leg, it's tough
to see the beauty in it, because the beauty of it's still in the future,
when the broken leg makes you not-good-enough to be impressed into the army
during a war.

I've been able to see the beauty of it for a while now. For example,
election campaign in the US is proceeding precisely as it must. Guess
what, *everything* proceeds *precisely* as it must.

You assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out what that
means, so you can decide for yourself what you think about it.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Yeah, it was the "those OF USE who have worked for and with men" that I was
commenting on, the typo makes it sound as though you perceive women as
things-of-use rather than individuals; that's why I said II hoped it was a
typo. I think the <g> got cut off too. Hey, I'm wierd, I wanted to know
if you even noticed the double meaning, or that you hadn't typed "US".
From your reply it sounds like you hadn't noticed it. Or maybe you
intended to type "use"?

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

{:-]))) <wu...@wuji.net> wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> Tang wrote:
>>
>>> The salvific state,
>>> called Nirvana or whatever, scarcely fosters survival and,
>>> not even going that far, society.
>>
>> The ambiguity of the word "fosters" is quite useful, since survival is
>> somebody else's idea, someone who made up the idea that death is
>> unavoidable.
>
> I recently read of a guy who, before he could live,
> needed to face death, go through fear, and enter Nirvana.
>
> Then, having entered Nirvana, he fixed the generator.
> Whereupon he and his wife lived happily ever after.

Don't count your eggs before you have chickens.

>
>> Small children don't naturally think about survival, they
>> have to be scared into it, at least that is how it appears to me.
>> Indoctrination is a powerful tool, unfortunately it seems not to have had a
>> successful history yet, because it has always been applied toward achieving
>> a specific goal, usually a political one rather than anything beneficial.
>> Now, what happens if we indoctrinate our children to resist indoctrination?
>> I've some experience with that one, having been brought up that way, and
>> having raised my own children that way.
>
> Can they fix things that break
> or break things that aren't broken?

What, my kids? They do both, some do one more than another does another.
OTOH don't waste your time trying to indoctrinate them.

>
> If the world, or everything under the sun, tian xia, is shen,
> spiritual if not sacred, and to try and change it breaks it
> into 10k-pieces, does the cat that hates meeces enter Nirvana?
>

I think cats do not hate mice any more than they hate birds. I think the
reason cats "play" with their food is to allow dinner time to make its
peace, and before they'll do that it needs to be clear that it's time for
dinner and they're it. They're not "torturing" dinner because they hate
it, they get its attention and 'splain to dinner that it's dinnertime and
the bell is ringing, wait a bit while dinner gets ready, and then chow
down.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

At times we step through the door of our choice into a whole new life in a
whole new universe, literally.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

{:-]))) <wu...@wuji.net> wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> Tang had written:
>>
>>> The regimen of grace and the regimen of survival
>>> can scarcely be reconciled, for those who have not entered
>>> the former.
>>
>> Maybe we need to discuss that one, because it's only the reconciling of the
>> two which allows, in the sense of permitting or enabling, those who have
>> not entered the former to sit between the two and recognize the whole, thus
>> stepping into it a little at a time.
>
> When Cook Ting carved oxen, he did it with grace, and style.
>
> To suppose he received grace from on high
> is probably not the same thing as depicted in the Taoist text.

Yeah, did somebody say it was? Harmony is not dispensed on a point-reward
system. It just happens to be flowing through where you are; if you're a
leaf you get picked up and carried along, if you're a rock you just get
ground down by hydraulic pressure.

>
> To hack might be how some people are able to survive in life.
> Another survival tactic is also mentioned in Cook Ting's discourse.
> Both of those ways, or Tao, require resharpening often.
>
> Of the three, ways, or Tao, all three of which are Tao,
> the one mentioned as being the Tao of Cook Ting
> would be more a Tao of Taoism than is
> grace from above.
>
> Ting's blade was ever-sharp.
> He knew his way thru an ox and the guy who watched
> and listened said he learned how to live life.
>
> Such a way can be called Tao.
>
> Grace is another spin on another story.
>

Literary aside: less words say more.

Given that saying, extrapolating it a bit gives "those who know don't say".
Maybe the old fart thought hyperbole was a useful tool.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntemqm$a52$2...@dont-email.me...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no need. if everything proceeds as it must,
then thinking of it is simply superfluous.

[{:-])))]

dagnabit wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

noname wrote:
> Guess
>what, *everything* proceeds *precisely* as it must.
>
>You assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out what that
>means, so you can decide for yourself what you think about it.
>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>no need. if everything proceeds as it must,
>then thinking of it is simply superfluous.

If you think about it, according to noname's guessing what,
then you must have thought about it.

And that makes sense, if you think about it.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>Literary aside: less words say more.
>
>Given that saying, extrapolating it a bit gives "those who know don't say".
> Maybe the old fart thought hyperbole was a useful tool.

That's the best explanation I've heard yet.

It takes the context to a whole nuther level.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:9jslvbp4uc5uc2n0o...@4ax.com...

````````````````````````````````````````````````

depends on the level of thinking. most common thinking
is words and sentences at a pace not unlike actual word
and sentence speaking, yet there are levels of thinking
that most aren't consciously aware of but still occur.

at quiet, rapid levels of thinking all possibilities for any
given subject are considered instantly. sorting through
this and subsequent conclusions are sized up instantly
too.

decisions based on this style of perception aren't commonly
associated with this process, but it's a necessary adjunct to
slower thinking schema and processing.

[{:-])))]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 22:04:34 -0400, "dagnabit"
<meanmr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"{:-])))" wrote in message
>news:9jslvbp4uc5uc2n0o...@4ax.com...
>
>dagnabit wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>noname wrote:
>> Guess
>>what, *everything* proceeds *precisely* as it must.
>>
>>You assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out what that
>>means, so you can decide for yourself what you think about it.
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>no need. if everything proceeds as it must,
>>then thinking of it is simply superfluous.
>
>If you think about it, according to noname's guessing what,
>then you must have thought about it.
>
>And that makes sense, if you think about it.
>
>````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>depends on the level of thinking.

I'd think it depends on the meaning of the word, must.

If you went to the store, then you must have gone to the store.

> most common thinking
>is words and sentences at a pace not unlike actual word
>and sentence speaking, yet there are levels of thinking
>that most aren't consciously aware of but still occur.

I think that in noname's thought he sees things at times
as flowing in reverse as well as forward, using cause-effect,
coupled with free-choice, as he presents his presents.

>at quiet, rapid levels of thinking all possibilities for any
>given subject are considered instantly. sorting through
>this and subsequent conclusions are sized up instantly
>too.
>
>decisions based on this style of perception aren't commonly
>associated with this process, but it's a necessary adjunct to
>slower thinking schema and processing.

Assuming you went to the store, all the events happened
in between the time you left and the time you arrived.

They must have happened.
Otherwise you would not have arrived.
And you must have taken the route you did,
or else you would have not take that route, but you did.

If you think about something, then you thought about it.
You must have. If you didn't then you would not have.

At quiet, rapid levels of thinking all possibilities for any
given subject are considered instantly. ...

Including what noname wrote, as he must have,
seeing as how he did. Yet another word, proceeds, exists.

All proceeds from this exchange we are having must
be given to noname as his due, if not dew.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:0ttmvbt6pnpe7rna8...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

where did the thoughts arise from and where
did they dissolve into, so to speak? if a keen
focus continually looks for the source of mind
then perspective can dwell specific to the
context of mind instead of the content which
is the thinking-ness whether in word and sentence
style endeavor or deeper aspects of mental gymnastics.
in that context, the essence can be seen as the means
in which thought genesis occurs. this essence is likely
the initialization of all physical and mental effulgence.
but of course, when all is said and done, your spiritual
dining and dancing mileage may indeed vary.

[Tang Huyen]

On 10/9/2016 5:40 PM, dagnabit wrote:

> no need. if everything proceeds as it must,
> then thinking of it is simply superfluous.

That is the Stoic position. Everything happens by
fate, and the Stoic sage has no opinion, i. e., no
opinion on what happens. What happens happens
from its own side, and needs no interference from
us, not even our thinking on it. Stoic sagehood
simply lets what happens happen without slapping
anything superfluous on it, in effect treats what
happens as if it did not happen, not by blocking it
out, for that would be interference, but by simply
letting it happen, period. The underlying flow of
what happens gets to be the only thing that
happens, the only star, and all the extras are shed.
The Stoic sage simply surrenders to what happens
in its bare appearance, at the surface level in its
rawness, stops there, and refrains from weaving
any story to make it livable, not to mention
intelligible.

Tang Huyen

[dagnabit]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message

news:0a06b590-3882-1305...@gmail.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it's the story that builds a cage for people,
not only in the *who I am* category, but also
in the emotional baggage that holds one to
the "content only" of one's experience.

if one can look to the context of one's experience,
i.e., where the storyline is generated from, content
would not be able to take charge as it tends to do.

[{:-])))]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:58:10 -0400, "dagnabit"

Most of mine seem to stem from other thoughts
as they branch out. Some of them stream in to others
while flowing along in a river of thought to an ocean.

At times a notion will bubble up, and emerge,
much to my surprise, as if out of nothing, or no-thought,
one that was unrelated but which became related
as it emerged from the tips of my fingers.

They dissolve or dissipate after a spell,
usually after being processed or digested, assimilated,
and perhaps incorporated or integrated into the others.

At times they link up into a single train of thoughts
while at other times they run along parallel tracks.

Double-entendres dew t'hats in m'eye world-views.

In what I'd call a Taoist framework or grid, I'd say
they emerge from no-thought and return to no-thought,
or, perhaps Undifferentiated, or Wu, given
a fashion of thought.

Tao would be that which includes both,
thought and no-thought, sound and silence, etc.

The quest-
ion has an echo of where sound arises from
and returns to, after changing Aum for a spell.

> if a keen
>focus continually looks for the source of mind
>then perspective can dwell specific to the
>context of mind instead of the content which
>is the thinking-ness whether in word and sentence
>style endeavor or deeper aspects of mental gymnastics.

It sounds as if the keen focus is not the mind,
since it is looking for the source of mind.

Unless, if the focus is the mind, then
it might be said to be looking for its own tail
and it spins a tale on the don quixote.

Between Tao and Aum cud be a mite thought full.

>in that context, the essence can be seen as the means
>in which thought genesis occurs.

An ocean of all notions.
That reminds me of a potion that is true.

> this essence is likely
>the initialization of all physical and mental effulgence.

Do you have in mind, like, a loud physical fart?

>but of course, when all is said and done, your spiritual
>dining and dancing mileage may indeed vary.

I get about an hour out of a cuppa joe.
Now that I am thinking about it.

[{:-])))]

I can see how a thread of Taoism is in that rendition
of what you say the Stoic position is.

When an ox just happens to be in front of Ting,
his knife just happens to know where to go,
like the ma, in jingle bells, going to grandma's.

How you paint Stoicism might be extremely wu-wei.
It's perfectly ziran for you to sew dew.

When Wheelwright Pian carves a wheel, the chips fly.
They happen to happen as a result of his technique/Tao.
The wheel doesn't just form itself, in such a tale.
It's more like the three bears and goldie hawn.
She was just right. Perfect. For the part.

The differences between a laugh in and a good cry
might be so insignificant as to be the same as
a bad joke when it lands on its face in the mud and
egg settles into one's beer, when it doesn't float.

I've never really tried egg in my beer.
So, I hope no one gets that impression.
Wouldn't want that. Nope. Nope.

[{:-])))]

dagnabit wrote:

>it's the story that builds a cage for people,
>not only in the *who I am* category, but also
>in the emotional baggage that holds one to
>the "content only" of one's experience.
>
>if one can look to the context of one's experience,
>i.e., where the storyline is generated from, content
>would not be able to take charge as it tends to do.

That makes perfect sense to me, faraday.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:rugnvbtglm0k6lsfi...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

thoughts can run on their own if one is extremely
vigilant. proving that they are not one's voluntary
thoughts but simply a process in play. from the
vantage point of thought watching one is further
back, so to speak, in the process and can get a
grip on context with greater ease. in context there
is perfect silent stillness, and that IS the context
that one is really seeking.

when one seeks money, power, control, security
or approval it is just a veil for the one true desire
and that is to see our "beloved".

[{:-])))]

dagnabit noticed how:

>thoughts can run on their own if one is extremely
>vigilant. proving that they are not one's voluntary
>thoughts but simply a process in play.

Sometimes I watch them float along, as clouds.

At other times I try to dredge up something.

Exactly how a memory, e.g. a name, can be thought of,
and matched up to a picture in one's mind one has, is a mystery.

I don't know of a good scientific explanation for how neurons
are able to do such a dredging and picture-making and matching.

It could be that they wave in waves.
And maybe some of them are able to surf in ways.

To think of how, for example, x + 4 = 30, one may think,
just runs on its own, or that it was manipulated sum how now
except, in reverse, doing the math, and all.

Twenty-eight might mean something.
It might be what 42 - x =, when it does.

> from the
>vantage point of thought watching one is further
>back, so to speak, in the process and can get a
>grip on context with greater ease. in context there
>is perfect silent stillness, and that IS the context
>that one is really seeking.

If you are that one, or maybe if Ummmmmmm is that one.

His appears to only be able to be accessed with a key
given to one (other than himself) by a living Master.

And there's joy inside! Which, I would imagine
is something other than perfect silent stillness.

How he arrives at his conclusions might be by bad logic.
Since it worked for him, that must be the only way.

And, if your silent stillness is perfectly calm,
and not full of overflowing joy, then, maybe it's different.

>when one seeks money, power, control, security
>or approval it is just a veil for the one true desire
>and that is to see our "beloved".

I don't know if Ummmmmm's joy is a personal god.

He did mention something about Power.

Maybe he's in love with Shakti or Kali, if not Mara.

Or, probably I'm confusing him with Tang,
since any differences are insignificant in Tang's paradigm.

Tang is full of joy, when he flies his kite. Here and there.

Line upon line.
Layer upon layer.

[brian mitchell]

"dagnabit" wrote:

> . . . most common thinking

>is words and sentences at a pace not unlike actual word
>and sentence speaking, yet there are levels of thinking
>that most aren't consciously aware of but still occur.
>
>at quiet, rapid levels of thinking all possibilities for any
>given subject are considered instantly. sorting through
>this and subsequent conclusions are sized up instantly
>too.

A while ago I cited neurologist Dr Robert Epstein and his essay "The
Brain is not a Computer." The part relevant to your post is in his
denial of the linearity of thought. Prior to the internal vocalisation
is what he refers to as a "brain state", the overall configuration of
neural connections (specifically regarding the commerce of meaning,
not the body-functional autonomic systems) which is perceived as a
whole.

In my own mind I likened that to the use of an abacus, or the game of
Go. A skilled abacus user is not totting up the different coloured
beads on each side but is rather recognising patterns as beads are
moved around. Only at the end of the calculation will he interpret the
pattern as a numerical value. There is a similar pattern-dependent
non-linearity to Go, particularly in comparison to chess.

>decisions based on this style of perception aren't commonly
>associated with this process, but it's a necessary adjunct to
>slower thinking schema and processing.

I rather think that all thought is of the rapid kind, and that what we
are doing with internal vocalisation is rehearsing the conclusion
before an audience. We are socialising it. It can be an interesting
question to ask: when I talk to myself, who am I really adressing?
Whose response do I wish to mould? How do I wish to present myself to
the addressee? I find that my vocalisations are often addressed to
friends, sometimes to people from the past --dead or alive, sometimes
to posters in this or another forum, and so on.

I believe this vocalisation is a habit we adopt. I can remember quite
clearly the first time I heard myself inwardly vocalise a thought,
rather than simply having it, and how surprised I was. Being required
to read from an early age may cement the habit in place with great
firmness.

[noname]

Your pretty separator line interferes. You must be using a real
piece-of-shit newsreader, maybe google-groups?

Anyway, I disagree.

If you do not think of what is, how can what must be next become?


--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

What can you do, when you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't
get out of the game?

You can change the rules so they aren't crooked: take the context to a
whole nuther level.

Once you find a level where the rules aren't crooked, then you can play
fair by the rules; if they don't conflict with the rules others use, they
won't even notice.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Unfortunately for designs, I choose the color without lines: "free".

What may be instant in the source, where things are their own true names,
and their naming calls them into being, in the manifest neighborhood, takes
time.

Thought has only one speed, "on". Processors vary, but good algorithms
beat poor ones every time, and often faster processors too. How near is
your pigeon-hole for every thought? The fastest processor can waste all
its time looking for something that might as well not exist, if it's stored
in a fractured maze with no path from here.

What did they leave you to think with? That better be enough, especially
if someone is looking at you like dinner.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

> ... It can be an interesting

>question to ask: when I talk to myself, who am I really adressing?

Sometimes I notice I'm asking questions.
And I'm getting answers. Aloud, in silence, in thought.

And then I wonder,
why would I identify more with the answer-getter
than with the answer-giver.

More the student than the teacher.
And then I might stop, in that wonder.

Assuming I am other than all of that as things were
such as they were, going and stopping, along the way.

>Whose response do I wish to mould?

Heaven forbid anyone from thinking of one's self
as being one's own teacher. (He says, to himself, ironically.)
Or that one is one's own higher power. Or lower power.

Some see the process as the Teacher, or Sage, within.
Some see the devil within, or externalized.

And far be it from Tang, or me, to think we any of all that.
Since we, Know, we are not that. As such, because
those words, Teacher, or Sage, mean more
than just some words in one's head,
in various contexts, at times,
let alone, being the devil
or a vocal advocate.

> How do I wish to present myself to
>the addressee? I find that my vocalisations are often addressed to
>friends, sometimes to people from the past --dead or alive, sometimes
>to posters in this or another forum, and so on.

I often am in conversation with others, in my head, presumably,
and yet, perhaps everything, the entire Universe is not other than.

And what is transmitted or received, in words, is not only inside
one's brain-case or skull, but extends, Venn-wise, as far as it does.

Monroe once wrote about communicating on various levels
at the same time, in different dimensions, to a single person,
with a single person, as two different people.

Yet he did not use the word, persona.
As if all personas are masks of a singular Self.

>I believe this vocalisation is a habit we adopt.

I knew a guy once, who said, go to the desert, far away.
And after a few days the words cease. Then, you may hear
the thoughts of others, telepathically for a change.

As if we don't always, except we do,
except they are drowned out by the signal to noise ratio
of thinking they're not, because it can't be, since
it never was, in a lab oratory.

> I can remember quite
>clearly the first time I heard myself inwardly vocalise a thought,
>rather than simply having it, and how surprised I was. Being required
>to read from an early age may cement the habit in place with great
>firmness.

I've read if not heard that some synaptic junctions are cleared out,
flushed out, during various experiences at times, for some folks.

What was indoctrinated, etched, by culture is not always
written in stone but the brain is more plastic and
what was is not necessarily what could be.

- if only, in a folk tale ... ... ... .

[{:-])))]

Yours didn't have any > signs at all this time.

What are you using, a cell phone?

Google-groups doesn't use line-breaks, like when Moe posts
or when Marquard provides a cut and paste quote.

Moe uses a phone and google-groups, I think,
and what he is responding to at times does not appear.

That appeared to me recently when using the wife's phone.
All that appeared was my response.

Probably Ummmmmmm knows what you're doing.
He's been reading everything here for months now.

If not, perhaps he can ask his living Master
and maybe she'll be able to unlock the secret place
inside your heart, or where ever it is, and you will then live
happily ever after!

What could possibly be > that?

[{:-])))]

I like the color, clear, very much, at times.

It's the color of a glass of half-full water
when it's seen through, as a bell.

But, drawing a line, they don't make crayons in that color.
Spray paint, if you're over eighteen maybe, is available.

>What may be instant in the source, where things are their own true names,
>and their naming calls them into being, in the manifest neighborhood, takes
>time.

With solid-state, I've heard boot-time makes good time.

>Thought has only one speed, "on".

Cogito spins its wheels in the grime.
Thinking it must be, therefore it am.

>Processors vary, but good algorithms
>beat poor ones every time, and often faster processors too. How near is
>your pigeon-hole for every thought? The fastest processor can waste all
>its time looking for something that might as well not exist, if it's stored
>in a fractured maze with no path from here.
>
>What did they leave you to think with? That better be enough, especially
>if someone is looking at you like dinner.

Sometimes I'm left in wonder, which is only right.

I like dinner. But not being called late for it.

One time I caught a bus.

Those were the daze.

So, there I was, waiting, at the stop.

When the bus rolled up, I caught it in my net.
It was a small bus, fortunately, since my net was a butterfly.

Such thoughts are clear to me, now that I think of them.
Or had thought of them. As they were, or got thought.

Prior to them being thought,
there they were not.

Nor here.
A few minutes ago.

It must have been that way.
Because it was. Naturally.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntgtbk$boo$1...@dont-email.me...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

are you claiming that your thinking
formulates reality in subsequent
consequence? when did you become
god?

[dagnabit]

"brian mitchell" wrote in message
news:f7rnvbdah71n10dnq...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree that all thought is quiet and rapid and then
we hash it out with slower recapitulations but only
to match our chosen, current capacity for perceptual
conclusions.

my take though is that one can find that essence of
mind by feeling into those more subtle processing
avenues and then one is not confined to the subsequent
mishmashing of the rapid processing.

[{:-])))]

dagnabit wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

noname wrote:
> Sometimes life *is*
>a cast-iron bitch, but once you let go of expectations, it gets easier to
>see the beauty of the way the thing works. When we fuck up, things get
>harder; when we don't, they get easier: duh. Likewise when things keep
>working better and better, it seems not too unlikely that one isn't fucking
>up too severely.

Such a scenario paints a picture of Tao
in terms of what following Tao might eventuate as unfolding.

Yet there are no guarantees.
Tao don't play that.

Sometimes one can fuck up for a long time,
without any instant karma hitting one upside the head.

Then, all of a sudden, blammo.
Sometimes Tao decides to do things that Way.
Assuming Tao was a decider of all things.
Which it isn't. In Taoist thought.
It can't be because it must not be.

>Of course if you just fell off a new horse and broke your leg, it's tough
>to see the beauty in it, because the beauty of it's still in the future,
>when the broken leg makes you not-good-enough to be impressed into the army
>during a war.

Once one has figured out how to follow Tao,
and becomes a Sage, one does not fall off a horse.

One is cautious, as when crossing an icy stream, in winter.

>I've been able to see the beauty of it for a while now. For example,
>election campaign in the US is proceeding precisely as it must. Guess what,
>*everything* proceeds *precisely* as it must.
>
>You assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out what that
>means, so you can decide for yourself what you think about it.
>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>no need. if everything proceeds as it must,
>then thinking of it is simply superfluous.

You assignment must mean something, I think.
I'd think it was a typo that must have been made.
Proably by not-thinking, or thinking too much,
instead of paying more attention.

Except, I'm wrung lotsa times too.

noname then asked:

>If you do not think of what is, how can what must be next become?
>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>are you claiming that your thinking
>formulates reality in subsequent
>consequence? when did you become
>god?

If what was next never was, since what is, always is what is,
then what you thought it was, wasn't, because it wasn't.

When what is changes into what is, it remains what is.

All that changed was thinking about it, as if it was.
And then it wasn't. And it became what must be next.

I think it must be like that.
Because that's how I think it must be.

Other than that, noname's views can be fun.
A single choice, made by a free-thinker with free-choice, is able,
instantly and without notice, to change everything, all at once.

And one wouldn't notice it, unless one paid attention to it.

So it's really the choice
and not the thought that must change.

Everything.

If you think about it.
As such.

All at once.

[brian mitchell]

My take, too.

[brian mitchell]

"dagnabit" wrote:

>my take though is that one can find that essence of
>mind by feeling into those more subtle processing
>avenues and then one is not confined to the subsequent
>mishmashing of the rapid processing.

You're probably familiar with this quote from Ramana Maharshi:

"See for whom these doubts exist.
Who is the doubter?
Who is the thinker?
That is the ego.
Hold it.

The other thoughts will fade away.
The ego is left pure.
See from where the ego arises.
That is pure consciousness."


(Thanks Bill)

[noname]

I don't think so.

> The quest-
> ion has an echo of where sound arises from
> and returns to, after changing Aum for a spell.
>

Sometimes I hum, not a tune most times, just a tone; its sounds help me
remember the sound I make when I hum that tone, and who it is that hums it.

>> if a keen
>> focus continually looks for the source of mind
>> then perspective can dwell specific to the
>> context of mind instead of the content which
>> is the thinking-ness whether in word and sentence
>> style endeavor or deeper aspects of mental gymnastics.
>
> It sounds as if the keen focus is not the mind,
> since it is looking for the source of mind.
>
> Unless, if the focus is the mind, then
> it might be said to be looking for its own tail
> and it spins a tale on the don quixote.
>
> Between Tao and Aum cud be a mite thought full.
>
>> in that context, the essence can be seen as the means
>> in which thought genesis occurs.
>
> An ocean of all notions.
> That reminds me of a potion that is true.
>
>> this essence is likely
>> the initialization of all physical and mental effulgence.
>
> Do you have in mind, like, a loud physical fart?
>
>> but of course, when all is said and done, your spiritual
>> dining and dancing mileage may indeed vary.
>
> I get about an hour out of a cuppa joe.
> Now that I am thinking about it.
>

It's a shame some people don't know any shorter words than "effulgence",
maybe they're not done learning English yet. I'm not quite done with that
myself.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Yeah, NewsTap wouldn't include what his separator recognized it not to
include, so I had to copy'n'paste the whole thing.

> What are you using, a cell phone?
>

iPad.

> Google-groups doesn't use line-breaks, like when Moe posts
> or when Marquard provides a cut and paste quote.
>
> Moe uses a phone and google-groups, I think,
> and what he is responding to at times does not appear.
>
> That appeared to me recently when using the wife's phone.
> All that appeared was my response.
>
> Probably Ummmmmmm knows what you're doing.

What I'm doing? Have him tell me what I'm doing so we'll both know.

> He's been reading everything here for months now.
>
> If not, perhaps he can ask his living Master
> and maybe she'll be able to unlock the secret place
> inside your heart, or where ever it is, and you will then live
> happily ever after!
>
> What could possibly be > that?
>

There are no locks in my heart that I didn't put there myself. Most of the
ones I run across these days, I don't bother to lock up again for when I
grow up.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

I'm thinking that dagnabit can kiss my ass until he fixes his fucking
separator line.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

It's a shame it took you so long to figure out your separator line. You
asked a question I'd have been glad to answer, but I didn't care to copy
and paste to do it. If it's important you'll ask again.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[dagnabit]

"brian mitchell" wrote in message

news:qc8ovb5rstq103ic2...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ramana's instructions were basically the same
all the time just like nisargadatta maharaj. when
I first read both of them something "clicked" and
I've read quite a bit of their stuff over the years.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntherc$vab$4...@dont-email.me...

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

methinks that the issue may be on your end
like the brian issue you seem to have since
no one else seems too suffers such grief
from my separation lines.

[Ummmmmmm]

Tang, my sweet and loving Grandpop! You're fading away.
You do deserve better than to be shut up in a little box, pretending
that nothing's happening. Just waiting for it all to go away.
Simply surrendering.
Not caring if it all makes sense or not.

Next step - chemically induced catatonia. Voodoo Zen.
The not-alive undead as e.e.cummings used to call them.

But then, what happens to 'mental culture' in the zombie ward? Or are
you content for that to remain as unintelligible to you as it is to most
everyone else?

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntherd$vab$5...@dont-email.me...

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

=========================================

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

which one do ya fancy?

[dagnabit]

"Ummmmmmm" wrote in message news:nthfop$ok0$1...@dont-email.me...

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

you should probably look
into zombie samadhi

[Nobody in Particular]

On 10/10/2016 6:21 PM, noname wrote:
>
> It's a shame it took you so long to figure out your separator line. You
> asked a question I'd have been glad to answer, but I didn't care to copy
> and paste to do it. If it's important you'll ask again.

A contributing factor maybe the fact that you end your posts with:
"--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com"

Two hyphens at the beginning of a line define all subsequent content as
signature, which is to be deleted when a follow-up is composed.
Some newsreaders adhere to that convention, some don't, resulting in
unpredictable behavior.

[Ummmmmmm]

It is not something that can be imagined or described. It can only be
experienced.

>
> How he arrives at his conclusions might be by bad logic.
> Since it worked for him, that must be the only way.
>
> And, if your silent stillness is perfectly calm,
> and not full of overflowing joy, then, maybe it's different.
>
>> when one seeks money, power, control, security
>> or approval it is just a veil for the one true desire
>> and that is to see our "beloved".
>
> I don't know if Ummmmmm's joy is a personal god.
>
> He did mention something about Power.
>
> Maybe he's in love with Shakti or Kali, if not Mara.

it is not possible to put it in a box.
Labels fall off it. god/not god, personal/impersonal, power/stillness.
It is all of those things & a whole lot more.
Nor can you put a face on it, although you will fall in love with it.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> {:-]))) defined:

>
>> Tao would be that which includes both,
>> thought and no-thought, sound and silence, etc.
>>
>
>I don't think so.

I know.
You define Tao in another fashion of thought.
And you hold fast to your definition
as being the only definition
you use for the word.

I don't do that.
Normally I try to hold to the basic texts,
within which I find plenty of nuances,
lots of connotations, of the word.

On occasion I allow extensions of meanings
to include anything anyone wants it to mean.

In the case dagnabit presented, thought-wise,
I'd taken thought to be yang, and no-thought, yin.

Given: yin + yang = Tao.
Tao is both, includes both, yin and yang.
Thought and no-thought.

Your definition is more narrow.

As the most basic principle ... it might be the fine line
that separates thought from no-thought. Or the way
one turns into the other or returns back again.

Or how both emerge from Mystery. At the Gate.

Or, however you define the words to mean
what you say they mean.

Unless you change the meanings,
as you might, as they occur to you to change.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>It's a shame some people don't know any shorter words than "effulgence",
>maybe they're not done learning English yet. I'm not quite done with that
>myself.

I had to look it up, as it was not in my vocabulary.
I'd heard of it, but couldn't say what it meant.

What's great about the Internet, among other things,
is to be able to know lots of stuff at my fingertips.

I'd like to say something bright, and witty.
It's a shame nothing bubbles to sup on.

The coffee is probably finished brewing now.

Mayhaps another post shall make dew.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> dagnabit wrote:
>
>> I agree that all thought is quiet and rapid and then
>> we hash it out with slower recapitulations but only
>> to match our chosen, current capacity for perceptual
>> conclusions.
>>
>> my take though is that one can find that essence of
>> mind by feeling into those more subtle processing
>> avenues and then one is not confined to the subsequent
>> mishmashing of the rapid processing.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It's a shame it took you so long to figure out your separator line. You
>asked a question I'd have been glad to answer, but I didn't care to copy
>and paste to do it. If it's important you'll ask again.

The experience of what is below a line,
taken by a newsreader as being a signature line,
and, hence, not included in a response, I experienced also.

Sometimes his > signs appear, but usually not.

I can think of things < than that that might be a shame.
But I don't like to think of them.

Exactly why his posts are as they are, perhaps he can agree
and think of how to make them other than that,
if he cares to.

It snot as if his knows dirt is full of mine
eyes tailings off in to pond scum ore utter Tings beaming.

[noname]

So let's talk about that. I'm not making up some mysterious
known-only-to-me rules, I'm simply following the convention that was
established long ago. That djinn and MDP don't follow the convention,
because google-groups is a piece of crap that doesn't, or because they're
using some other newsreader that doesn't follow the established convention,
is no reason for me to attempt to establish some other convention.

You seem to think "unpredictable behavior" is a bad thing. I'm not so sure
about that. The posts djinn and MDP send are generally a pain in the ass
to read because they don't snip. I don't care to bother. NMP.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Looks like NewsTap doesn't recognize any of those as a whatchamacallit
separator. The official separator is two hyphens (and a newline?), but I
don't remember what it's called or where it's documented. I've yet to run
into a nntp client that wasn't hosed up in one way or another.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[brian mitchell]

Here's where I part company with 7-ems regarding the utility of
written language. The quotation from Maharshi is an example of
performative speech (language use), which is speech that demonstates
or causes that which it presents. Such speech, written or spoken,
doesn't merely describe or explain; the words act on you directly and
take your understanding with them.

Maharshi's words take you to the edge. The only question left is who
jumps first.

[{:-])))]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:37:34 -0400, "dagnabit"

It might have to do with the line you draw.
But it doesn't always seem to work that way.

Maybe only if the line is at the bottom
and what is seen as a signature
is what is seen by the reader.

The ------------------- didn't give my reader any problem.

Some other line did, recently.

I needed to cut and paste beneath the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in order to respond to whatever I responded to.

I'd say that goes to prove: dao ke dao fei chang dao.
But I say lots of stuff that isn't always true.
Which can be what the saying says.

- in various a bamboo groove

[brian mitchell]

"dagnabit" wrote:

>
>
>"noname" wrote in message news:ntherc$vab$4...@dont-email.me...

>
>I'm thinking that dagnabit can kiss my ass until he fixes his fucking
>separator line.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>methinks that the issue may be on your end
>like the brian issue you seem to have since
>no one else seems too suffers such grief
>from my separation lines.

You and noname appear to be talking about two different things. I've
an idea that what noname means by 'separator line' is the
angle-bracket ">" or similar mark the replying program places at the
start of every line of quoted text. Your email client isn't inserting
any. You seem to be referring to the line of hyphens you use to
demarcate your reply. Knowing you do that, that's what I've been
conditioned to look for. Noname resists.

[{:-])))]

All of those worked on my reader.

Care to try again?

[dagnabit]

"brian mitchell" wrote in message

news:3m0qvb94844djof5a...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ramana said many times that words or instructions
could not convey that pristine state and he oftentimes
preferred "teaching" in silence.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:ot1qvb9q7rl9v0g1f...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do seem to find it quite interesting that seasoned
tao practitioners would enable themselves with so
much uproar over a simple spacing line.

[dagnabit]

"brian mitchell" wrote in message

news:pu1qvbl3r8h43qt8b...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

noname appears to be a variable resistor....

missing carets could be a hasenpfeffer issue...

that could be what's up doc...

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:r72qvbdgd397d54tk...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the issue is that my newsreader doesn't insert "carets"
when I reply and I'm too lazy to insert them one at a time
so I just use a line of characters to space things. if some
are not able to live with this minor issue then life could
really be a voluntary pain in the ass for them at times.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
>Nobodywrote:

>> noname wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a shame it took you so long to figure out your separator line. You
>>> asked a question I'd have been glad to answer, but I didn't care to copy
>>> and paste to do it. If it's important you'll ask again.
>>
>> A contributing factor maybe the fact that you end your posts with:
>> "--
>> email: noname.123...@gmail.com"
>>
>> Two hyphens at the beginning of a line define all subsequent content as
>> signature, which is to be deleted when a follow-up is composed.
>> Some newsreaders adhere to that convention, some don't, resulting in
>> unpredictable behavior.

By which, may be meant, from reader to reader, as in, newsreader.

One might think, given any given reader, it would be consistent.

With brian's messages to which noname responds,
when noname posts at the bottom of the message, it's crickets.
Not to be confused with turtles, nor ninja stars.

If noname were not to bottom-post in response to brian,
that might eliminate that problem, entirely.

Why it occurs could well remain a mystery in the
Great Mystery Well of Mystery.

>So let's talk about that.

Let's chat, in unreal time.

>I'm not making up some mysterious
>known-only-to-me rules, I'm simply following the convention that was
>established long ago.

I never got that memo.
Never felt any desire to have a signature line.
Not attached to what I never felt. Nobody might not care.

> That djinn and MDP don't follow the convention,
>because google-groups is a piece of crap that doesn't, or because they're
>using some other newsreader that doesn't follow the established convention,
>is no reason for me to attempt to establish some other convention.

Is dagnabit using google-groups? I need to take a look at that.
How about that that. I do have a need. I do! I do!

>You seem to think "unpredictable behavior" is a bad thing.

Some people call such a thing a random thing.
But definitions of words tend to vary.

Certainly a cause exists.
And yet, perhaps one's free-choice enters in to play.
When everOne enter in, two can be, such as two are.

> I'm not so sure
>about that. The posts djinn and MDP send are generally a pain in the ass
>to read because they don't snip. I don't care to bother. NMP.

I've had my problems at times.
A problem with some problems is that they're problematic.

Being problematic can be a real PITA.
Not to be confused withe PETA.

That would be a different newsgrope.

[{:-])))]

And, to be perfectly clear, one can only experience that,
if and only if one has been given the key
by a living Master.

I wonder if she was an ECK master. Hmmm.

>> How he arrives at his conclusions might be by bad logic.
>> Since it worked for him, that must be the only way.
>>
>> And, if your silent stillness is perfectly calm,
>> and not full of overflowing joy, then, maybe it's different.
>>
>>> when one seeks money, power, control, security
>>> or approval it is just a veil for the one true desire
>>> and that is to see our "beloved".
>>
>> I don't know if Ummmmmm's joy is a personal god.
>>
>> He did mention something about Power.
>>
>> Maybe he's in love with Shakti or Kali, if not Mara.
>
>it is not possible to put it in a box.

But it is possible to, Know,
without any shadow of any doubt, that everyone,
no matter who, must, at all times, at any and every time,
must have had it transmitted to them, by a living Master.

Even the very first one to be a living Master.
Because, that's how logic works.
It's perfectly logical.

No matter if that living Master was
Siddhartha, Jesus or Lao Tzu. That doesn't matter.

Each and every one, got it from someone else.

There is no original original.
Not three. Not two. Not even one.

Ever. And Ummmmmm, so to speak, Knows this.

>Labels fall off it. god/not god, personal/impersonal, power/stillness.
>It is all of those things & a whole lot more.
>Nor can you put a face on it, although you will fall in love with it.

As long as you got it from a living Master.

If you got it from a rock, or a tree, that doesn't count.

Sorry. No soup for you.

>> Tang is full of joy, when he flies his kite. Here and there.

Tang gets an extra bowl of soup.

Congratulations Tang!

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

> dagnabit wrote:
>
>>ramana's instructions were basically the same
>>all the time just like nisargadatta maharaj. when
>>I first read both of them something "clicked" and
>>I've read quite a bit of their stuff over the years.
>
>Here's where I part company with 7-ems regarding the utility of
>written language.

I don't recall ever seeing 7-ems as a word for anything.

Apparently, writers of the TTC and CT figured it was worth something.
I like the idea of hyperbole as a technique of expressing oxen.

>The quotation from Maharshi is an example of
>performative speech (language use), which is speech that demonstates
>or causes that which it presents. Such speech, written or spoken,
>doesn't merely describe or explain; the words act on you directly and
>take your understanding with them.

Taoist texts have been called, transformative.

>Maharshi's words take you to the edge. The only question left is who
>jumps first.

Some people are not impressed, let alone transformed,
by any dao that happens to be written as a dao.

Some say it can't be done.

Even the elephant doesn't know how it's done.

Words can be tricky, t'hat Way.

Bullwinkle can be trusted to be watched by Rocky.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:ij3qvbprednb9fv2r...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm using windows live mail which is just a bastardization
of their old newsreader outlook depressed, I mean outlook
express. I've looked at other newsreaders but they are
usually combined with a news server that has a monthly
fee and I just use eternal september as my server.

[Julian]

Thunderbird isn't much different from OE or WLM, is free,
is easy to set up for ES and it's default settings will
do fine as far as the issue is concerned.

[noname]

[noname]

[noname]

It isn't just a pretty line, it's part of a poorly-defined specification.
Look for "RFC nntp" on google and you'll likely find a nice long document
that explains it, in addition to an encyclopedia of other information you
don't care about. The official standard is for newsreaders to ignore
anything below the sig-line other than to display it. Some display it in a
slightly different color. The one I'm using refuses to include sig's in a
reply. If you don't understand it from that, you're outa luck, I'm done
with the issue.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

For Windows take a look at Thunderbird, on linux they call it IceDove now.
I use it in offline mode, but it also supports online mode. Bit of a pain
to set up just like they all are, works okay with eternal-septermber etc.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[dagnabit]

"Julian" wrote in message news:ntjv2t$n8e$1...@dont-email.me...

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````

thank you. I'll look into it.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message news:ntjvdb$o3p$5...@dont-email.me...

okay. thanks.

[{:-])))]

I see what brian sees, how you don't, or can't,
normally add the > sign, but, instead, bottom-post
with ~~~~~~~ or ````````````````` or ---------
to delineate, or separate, a post to which you respond.

The -- Bill was talking about doesn't seem to matter
to my newsgreeter when responding to noname.

The brian issue occurs when noname bottom-posts
in response to brian's posts.

When noname responds in the middle of a brian-post,
those portions of his response get posted,
but when he tries to post at the bottom, he draws a blank.

[{:-])))]

I call a ^ a caret. It's above the 6 on my keyboard.

The > is above the . on my keyboard.

I call that a greater-than sign, because,
when we got our first machine, I asked the vendor,
what do you call that > sign. And he said, you mean
the greater-than sign? In math I think it's called that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater-than_sign

Angle-bracket appears to be similar, but different.

- tech know logically squeeking

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:uv4rvb5lrlvrvddig...@4ax.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

my theory is that we are all in the twilight zone here