What do you know for sure?

[pi]

noname: How do you know you don't know anything for sure?

If something was for sure then I would see it as such because there would be a reason for seeing it as such.

I see no things to be for sure as I see no sufficient reason to see anything as being for sure.

Surely, such perfect reasons may exist behind the things I see as uncertain but since I can't see those reasons, once again, I don't know anything for sure.

In a word: I know that I don't know anything for sure as I fail to identify a single thing I "know" to be for sure.

pi

Knowing that you really know nothing (for sure) is the beginning if wisdom. -- Socrates

Good tests kill flawed theories. If we survive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

[pi]

noname: Is that something you know for sure?  Are you saying that you know causality to be one of the basic properties of the universe? 

Far from it. Causality is a crude practical tool invented by humans. You know, I'm a low creature that crawled from under a stone and my tools and my language are only very crude.

Certainty and precision can only be obtained by reading Holy books but you'd still probably need a prophet to help you interpret them cuz (somehow) you could never be certain yourself you're getting things right.

Anyway, would you be kind enough as to post your reply to this thread please? Several parallel discussions on the topic will not serve the conclusions very well, I don't think.

Sorry for replying here. This seems like an important conversation and I thought it deserved a separate thread.

Thank you for replying.

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: How do you know you don't know anything for sure?
>
>If something was for sure then I would see it as such because there would be a reason for seeing it as such.

Sounds as if pi is unsure if he went to England.
He doesn't know anyone named Jasper, Angie, et al.
Maybe it's all a delusion?

He doesn't know if he had parents.
He doesn't know if he lives in Poland.

He doesn't know, based on some connotation of a word,
what the word, know, means, given: some other connotation.

Being stuck on one connotation
can make communication rather difficult.

>I see no things to be for sure as I see no sufficient reason to see anything as being for sure.

What actually happened, happened.

>Surely, such perfect reasons may exist behind the things I see as uncertain but since I can't see those reasons, once again, I don't know anything for sure.

It is sufficient to know one is reading words
in order to respond to the words.

No matter what the words mean,
the words exist on a screen.

>In a word: I know that I don't know anything for sure as I fail to identify a single thing I "know" to be for sure.

If pi doesn't "know"
that he actually typed the above sentence, for sure,
then it could be pi really is messed up.

>Knowing that you really know nothing (for sure) is the beginning if wisdom. -- Socrates

Knowing that there is not necessarily anything wrong
with being how one is, might be a beginning of something.

>Good tests kill flawed theories. If we survive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

People are people. Culture is culture.

The theory that everyone must function at a clock-speed
so they can perform functions in some society is what Marq
might stand against pretty much all the time.

Being useful can be useful,
but it isn't always the best way to be.

To think someone is crazy, unimportant, stupid, wrong or
other thoughts along those lines might be to know
something for sure. Taoism might suggest
forgetting those things at times.

To see everyone and everything as perfect,
just as all things are, can be a different Way
to see Earth as being sacred, shen.

Carving it to pieces only breaks it.
Being whole can be healthy.

- eternally

[pi]

Here comes the Christian prophet who, as he told me, had it revealed to him with absolute certainty upon reading the Bible, that it is the word of God and who has spoken through Jesus and in his name only ever since.

;D

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>Here comes the Christian prophet who, as he told me,
>had it revealed to him with absolute certainty upon reading the Bible,

At first, it seamed as if, pi was serious,
when arriving in this Usenet newsgroup.

A nice fellow, to say the least, in email to be sure.

That was until Tao was mentioed. Then, things shifted.

Tao. Incomprehensible. Just like God. Tod. And
of course, the elephant blind men know.

He asked how stupid someone thought he was.

An answer was uncertain and a question asked
in response was, I don't know. How stupid are you?

Then, it appeared as if pi was, actually, delusional.
Really and for real. And, perhaps he was. Very.

Being able to yank a chain can be fun!

The bus is full of chains, and clowns.
Some people get off the bus and crawl
underneath it to see where the exhaust is made.

> that it is the word of God and who has spoken through Jesus
> and in his name only ever since.

Fundamentalists can be fun in more than one Way.

Taoism mites be found crawling out from under a rug,
in the bus, on the floor, and off the walls.

>;D

Myths and legends, one may know.

Some people actually are delusional at times.

When they wink or smile a truth may be reflected.

From a Christian perspective, things appear.

For people with two eyes to see what exists
given: a stereo-gram, what is hidden in plane sight
may be viewed with degrees of De light.

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3033858/jesustereodsg1.jpg

For an atheist, the story-line shifts a bit.

- in a horse's mind sigh, bits vary

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noname: Is that something you know for sure?  Are you saying that you
> know causality to be one of the basic properties of the universe? 
>
> Far from it. Causality is a crude practical tool invented by humans.

I see. Well, so is logic.

> You know, I'm a low creature that crawled from under a stone and my tools
> and my language are only very crude.
>
> Certainty and precision can only be obtained by reading Holy books

Is that where those who wrote the "Holy books" got their certainty and
precision, from reading the same "Holy books" you speak of? Who wrote the
first of these "Holy books"? What was his "certainty and precision" based
on?

> but you'd still probably need a prophet to help you interpret them cuz
> (somehow) you could never be certain yourself you're getting things right.

I see.

>
> Anyway, would you be kind enough as to post your reply to this thread
> please? Several parallel discussions on the topic will not serve the
> conclusions very well, I don't think.
>
> Sorry for replying here. This seems like an important conversation and I
> thought it deserved a separate thread.
>
> Thank you for replying.
>
> pi
>

To have something that holds together it needs a firm root. We grab onto
things that pass by, saying this is at least a more certain root than the
last one, and we later find that our new "root" is merely a minor branch of
a small limb. Eventually one may crawl back down the tree to find
something adequately basic to act as a usable root.

The most basic characteristic of everything that i have found is the
flipside of causation, it's what could be called "the characteristic of
cosmic inertia". The characteristic of cosmic inertia is that nothing,
absolutely nothing, changes, without cause. It is from cosmic inertia that
causation arises as a yang from stillness.

Now, consider cosmic inertia from a logical standpoint; assume it is
incorrect and work through the implications. If there is no cosmic
inertia, things change unpredictably and for no reason whatsoever. That's
it's opposite, anything at all can happen because it needs no cause at all.
And if that is the case, we're done; science is an elaborate joke, we can
neither do, nor not-do, because whatever occurs is just what occurs, for no
reason at all. And if we're done, and if there's no point in bothering,
why bother. Thus the characteristic of cosmic inertia is either true, or
we're done. It be true. That's called faith and determination and
intensity, which are the pavestones of the road to hell.

Now what do you think about all that?

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

[noname]

You've said more there than i have time to add to this year.

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

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>> noname: Is that something you know for sure?  Are you saying that you
>> know causality to be one of the basic properties of the universe? 
>>
>> Far from it. Causality is a crude practical tool invented by humans.
>
>I see. Well, so is logic.
>
>> You know, I'm a low creature that crawled from under a stone and my tools
>> and my language are only very crude.
>>
>> Certainty and precision can only be obtained by reading Holy books

Only? Really?
Math can't do the trick?

>Is that where those who wrote the "Holy books" got their certainty and
>precision, from reading the same "Holy books" you speak of? Who wrote the
>first of these "Holy books"? What was his "certainty and precision" based
>on?

Epistemology may expore how people know
what they claim to know.

Many Christians will say they know, because the Bible tells them so.

Some folks want what they call, evidence.

Yet what constitutes evidence, evidently, varies.

A Declaration of Independence written in Scotland
of all places, might mean something, or nothing, in terms
suggesting a proof to be found in its putting.

>> but you'd still probably need a prophet to help you interpret them cuz
>> (somehow) you could never be certain yourself you're getting things right.
>
>I see.

Pi struggles with God, as did, prehaps Jacob.

In a dream, young Jake saw a ladder to Heaven.

When he wrestled with one angel, all night long,
he awoke to have a leg out of kilter.

He'd used a block for a pillow at the time.
And he called the rock, Beth El, meaning
House of God. It was a pillar of sorts.
Or so the story goes. And was found
to be passed down as a Coronation Stone.

Today, that Stone is found, in Scotland,
of all places, yet when it was seen in the Abbey
at Westminster, it was in England at that time.

Why kings, and rulers of many sorts, continued
a tradition lost in the minds to sum may be a mystery,
to say the least, for those without eyes to sea isles,
who kept still for millenia, until an Age was set.

>> Anyway, would you be kind enough as to post your reply to this thread
>> please? Several parallel discussions on the topic will not serve the
>> conclusions very well, I don't think.
>>
>> Sorry for replying here. This seems like an important conversation and I
>> thought it deserved a separate thread.
>>
>> Thank you for replying.
>>
>> pi
>>
>
>To have something that holds together it needs a firm root. We grab onto
>things that pass by, saying this is at least a more certain root than the
>last one, and we later find that our new "root" is merely a minor branch of
>a small limb. Eventually one may crawl back down the tree to find
>something adequately basic to act as a usable root.
>
>The most basic characteristic of everything that i have found is the
>flipside of causation, it's what could be called "the characteristic of
>cosmic inertia". The characteristic of cosmic inertia is that nothing,
>absolutely nothing, changes, without cause. It is from cosmic inertia that
>causation arises as a yang from stillness.
>
>Now, consider cosmic inertia from a logical standpoint; assume it is
>incorrect and work through the implications. If there is no cosmic
>inertia, things change unpredictably and for no reason whatsoever.

Or, for every reason and all reasons,
and not just one, and one alone.

> That's it's opposite,
>anything at all can happen because it needs no cause at all.

Without using cause-effect, a block is Uncarved.

What exists, exists. That's a given.

To ask, why,
to ask, what is, the, reason,
is to carve what is given to begin
a form of width, or length, a line drawn
divides what is whole, at first, without a cause.

> And if that is the case, we're done; science is an elaborate joke, we can
>neither do, nor not-do, because whatever occurs is just what occurs, for no
>reason at all.

What occurs, occurs.

For every reason, all the time.

To suppose there is only one reason, or two, or three
reasons, can be viewed as a Great Supposition.

> And if we're done, and if there's no point in bothering,
>why bother.

When something doesn't work, one bothers
if one cares to get the thing working again.

Why did it fail, can be a question.

When the car doesn't start, to find a cause, the cause,
might be as simple as finding the keys one lost.

Why one can't find the keys may be found to be
answered by when one was distracted and misplaced
what was normally placed somewhere, or other.

> Thus the characteristic of cosmic inertia is either true, or
>we're done.

Unless there's a third option.
A fourth view. A fifth side of a coin
of a realm either/or cannot know by virtue
given: its narrow minded, closed minded and
so that story goes. Out the window.

[pi]

noname: Logic. Cosmic inertia.

Agree about logic. It's a a very practical tool but it's not the be all and end all of everything.

Causality? If A is followed by B causally, it doesn't mean it's always so. It only means, statistically, if you get A, chances are you will get B. Perhaps 99% of the time, perhaps more but not always.

Science is all about reproducibility. If you can get A is followed by B 99% of the time, you got yourself something to hang on to in the future, a scientific law, but you still cannot be certain that A and B will not turn out to be vastly complex phenomena or that you neglected a C which they both depend on and which was constant as you experimented and which depends on the weather, or something.

Never heard of cosmic inertia, sorry. If you based it on observational data, the above applies. If it's theoretical, it's probably a tautology.

J really told me he read the Bible and believed it. He's now saying something else. That is called zero reproducibility, no consistency and zero integrity.

I learned from you that one can learn from all spiritual traditions, every book and anyone or anything one comes across. Even a dog.

And this is just what I do. Unfortunately, because of his lack of integrity, there's nothing I can learn from J. It's impossible cuz he's like that ugly bully kid in a sandbox who is not there to have fun and who wants others to have fun but who's there merely for other kids to tell him, contrary to his ugliness, how pretty he is. And if they don't, he will get so noisy, it'll be impossible to play (learn).

He's not here to learn, teach, be around folks and enjoy. It's all merely his pass-time therapeutic kinda activity, whatever lil sth to do to keep his mind away from thinking how unhappy he is with himself and from alcoholic beverages.

No problem :)

pi

[pi]

noname: J.

It's all about the kids. I've always told Angie that whenever we took them them somewhere. When the kids are around, it's all about the kids.

We agree :) It's called reproducibility, which is something to hold on to.

But kids are kids. They are self-obsessed creatures who will tell you one thing and something completely different a second later.

That's why kids need to learn, a word that seems alien to J. It might help if he cut beer, I don't know.

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: Logic. Cosmic inertia.
>
>Agree about logic. It's a a very practical tool but it's not the be all and end all of everything.
>
>Causality? If A is followed by B causally, it doesn't mean it's always so. It only means, statistically, if you get A, chances are you will get B. Perhaps 99% of the time, perhaps more but not always.

That's an odd form of logic.
It smells happy fishy.
It might be true, given
various unstated presumptions.

If there is agreed to be such a thing called, causality
and a situation exists such that A causes B,
but then, if A does not cause B, then,
something must be broken.

It's messed up, as noname said.
Given: causality as a paradigm.

Take a scale, for example, in balance.
If A, a weight is placed on one side of the scale,
then, B, the other side goes up, and it is said
A causes B, but only 99% of the time,
something about the logic is
not logical.

Maybe a grain of sand got caught in the g'ears
and the scale does not cogitate as it ought.

>Science is all about reproducibility. If you can get A is followed by B 99% of the time, you got yourself something to hang on to in the future, a scientific law, but you still cannot be certain that A and B will not turn out to be vastly complex phenomena or that you neglected a C which they both depend on and which was constant as you experimented and which depends on the weather, or something.

To say, something follows something, a correlation,
is different from saying something causes something.

If 3 times 4, causes, 12 to be produced, it works, all the time.
If something else, say, 1, the weather, is added,
then what is produced is 13,
and not 12.

The unstated presumption, all things being equal,
went without saying. Of course.

>Never heard of cosmic inertia, sorry. If you based it on observational data, the above applies. If it's theoretical, it's probably a tautology.

It's a paradigm.

>J really told me he read the Bible and believed it.

Once upon a time, noname enlightened J, really.

Really, as in, Scotland, is called a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

To prove an assertion may take evidence.
To simply state something as fact, can be done.

Pi is mistaken in various waze-maps.
Pi might be delusional. That's entirely possible.

Having all the emails, many tellings can be told.
They can all be reproduced, on a screen.

People are able to assert lots of things.
Being able to prove them is another thing.

> He's now saying something else.

J likes to say, and often says, he likes to believe
many things are possible. And, given, his own experiences,
he does believe it's possible to walk on water.

Whether Jesus actually did, J can believe it.
And, J likes to believe Jesus rose from the dead.

J likes lots of stories, myths, legends and believes
there can be plenty of truth to be found in them.

J is able to believe Caucasians are Northern Tribes
that migrated over the mountains after the Assyrian
captivity, as it says in the old King James Bible.

How much J, really, really, really, believe it
might be a percentage above fifty-fifty.
Give or take some number.

Pi might believe zero percent, ten percent, or
some other percent of a story pi tells himself
about J, or anyone else, in his imagination.

> That is called zero reproducibility, no consistency and zero integrity.

The proof can be in the putting.

Reading comprehension levels vary.

It's possible that the Coronation Stone, in Scotland,
did not actually arrive in Ireland via Jeremiah.

It's possible that the material of the Stone, or, Rock,
is different from that found near what was called Beth El,
geographically speaking.

How to reconcile various facts, might be telling;
as far as a story, such as the Behistun Inscription is,
actually, in reality, etched, in stone, can be found.

>I learned from you that one can learn from all spiritual traditions, every book and anyone or anything one comes across. Even a dog.
>
>And this is just what I do. Unfortunately, because of his lack of integrity, there's nothing I can learn from J.

One may wonder why pi continues to read what J writes,
and comments on various gibberish he sees.

Perhaps pi's over-clocked brain is working overtime at times
and needs more chemicals to rebalance it on occasion.

Maybe pi is obsessed and compelled, and that's okay,
as long as it is okay with pi, that is, J may say.

> It's impossible cuz he's like that ugly bully kid in a sandbox who is not there to have fun and who wants others to have fun but who's there merely for other kids to tell him, contrary to his ugliness, how pretty he is. And if they don't, he will get so noisy, it'll be impossible to play (learn).

It sounds as if pi has gone somewhere, in his mind, again.
Perhaps he smelled too much exhaust fumes
by crawling back under the bozo bus.

>He's not here to learn, teach, be around folks and enjoy. It's all merely his pass-time therapeutic kinda activity, whatever lil sth to do to keep his mind away from thinking how unhappy he is with himself and from alcoholic beverages.

Pi is fun to play frisbee with.

>No problem :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbee

<< A frisbee (sometimes called a flying disc) is a disc-shaped gliding
toy or sporting item that is generally plastic and roughly 20 to 25
centimetres (8 to 10 in) in diameter with a lip, used recreationally
and competitively for throwing and catching, for example, in flying
disc games. The shape of the disc, an airfoil in cross-section, allows
it to fly by generating lift as it moves through the air while
spinning. >>

- like a top, or a coin, only different

[{:-])))]

It sounds as if pi knows some things, for sure.
Or, perhaps he thinks he knows, for sure.

Maybe 99% of the time, pi's thought follows
from A to B and, he sees things.

Whether the things he sees, and knows, or
thinks he knows, are actually really there
it's possible pi may never know.

- for sure

[noname]

Nope. One reason. It may be comprised of many parts, but the root cause
is the root cause.

>
>> That's it's opposite,
>> anything at all can happen because it needs no cause at all.
>
> Without using cause-effect, a block is Uncarved.
>
> What exists, exists. That's a given.
>
> To ask, why,
> to ask, what is, the, reason,
> is to carve what is given to begin
> a form of width, or length, a line drawn
> divides what is whole, at first, without a cause.

Listen dude, you hang onto this cosmic oneness thinger like it would be
death to let it go. It's fine, for what it is, but look around you, the
world is carved, an you carved it, so get over the hubris and move along.

>
>> And if that is the case, we're done; science is an elaborate joke, we can
>> neither do, nor not-do, because whatever occurs is just what occurs, for no
>> reason at all.
>
> What occurs, occurs.
>
> For every reason, all the time.
>
> To suppose there is only one reason, or two, or three
> reasons, can be viewed as a Great Supposition.

If you come to understand causality and reason, you will see that there can
be only one.

>
>> And if we're done, and if there's no point in bothering,
>> why bother.
>
> When something doesn't work, one bothers
> if one cares to get the thing working again.
>
> Why did it fail, can be a question.
>
> When the car doesn't start, to find a cause, the cause,
> might be as simple as finding the keys one lost.
>
> Why one can't find the keys may be found to be
> answered by when one was distracted and misplaced
> what was normally placed somewhere, or other.

You do allow your egoic self to play as it will, which is fine at times,
not so much at others.

>
>> Thus the characteristic of cosmic inertia is either true, or
>> we're done.
>
> Unless there's a third option.
> A fourth view. A fifth side of a coin
> of a realm either/or cannot know by virtue
> given: its narrow minded, closed minded and
> so that story goes. Out the window.

Sometimes your sequitur gets so non that i don't know what your sentences
mean.

>
>> It be true. That's called faith and determination and
>> intensity, which are the pavestones of the road to hell.
>>
>> Now what do you think about all that?
>
>

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

[noname]

Fix pi and J will take care of himself.

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

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noname: Logic. Cosmic inertia.
>
> Agree about logic. It's a a very practical tool but it's not the be all
> and end all of everything.

We'll see. What we might see is different meanings for "logic".

>
> Causality? If A is followed by B causally, it doesn't mean it's always
> so. It only means, statistically, if you get A, chances are you will get
> B. Perhaps 99% of the time, perhaps more but not always.

If A causes B, then A caused B, within one particular set of circumstances.
Statistics is a funny knife and it's easy to cut yourself with it.
Descriptive statistics is fine, but predictive statistics is only good for
manufacturing and other mass-run events, predictive statistics has no
relationship whatsoever to the next event.

>
> Science is all about reproducibility. If you can get A is followed by B
> 99% of the time, you got yourself something to hang on to in the future,
> a scientific law, but you still cannot be certain that A and B will not
> turn out to be vastly complex phenomena or that you neglected a C which
> they both depend on and which was constant as you experimented and which
> depends on the weather, or something.

99% is not good enough to qualify as truth. And 1% is more than enough to
demand a better understanding.

>
> Never heard of cosmic inertia, sorry. If you based it on observational
> data, the above applies. If it's theoretical, it's probably a tautology.

Dunno that anyone else uses or has used the term. I made it up by saying
what it is.

>
> J really told me he read the Bible and believed it. He's now saying
> something else. That is called zero reproducibility, no consistency and zero integrity.

Or crummy communication, or letting too many people walk through your mind,
or other things unthought.

>
> I learned from you that one can learn from all spiritual traditions,
> every book and anyone or anything one comes across. Even a dog.

Then you know that, unless you're claiming to have learned something you
don't know.

>
> And this is just what I do. Unfortunately, because of his lack of integrity,

Because of your inability to see the integrity through the associative
stream of consciousness bullshit, more likely. He's still learning a
number of things, as are we all.

> there's nothing I can learn from J.

Wrong. There's something to be learned from everything. If you think not,
you're snared in the details and need to back the zoom factor out to where
you can see the whole picture instead of some nit.

> It's impossible cuz he's like that ugly bully kid in a sandbox who is not
> there to have fun and who wants others to have fun but who's there merely
> for other kids to tell him, contrary to his ugliness, how pretty he is.
> And if they don't, he will get so noisy, it'll be impossible to play (learn).

Sometimes it's necessary to play a bully instead of playing with him, just
like you'd play a fish, or a marionette; just remember that there are two
ends to every string, and the only difference between a sender and a
receiver is who's on which end of the string.

>
> He's not here to learn, teach, be around folks and enjoy. It's all merely
> his pass-time therapeutic kinda activity, whatever lil sth to do to keep
> his mind away from thinking how unhappy he is with himself and from alcoholic beverages.
>
> No problem :)
>
> pi

It doesn't matter what he's here for, you can learn something from him.
Your mission, should you accept it, is to learn from everything that
happens; if you are captured, the IMO will deny all knowledge.


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

[pi]

noname: Fix pi.

Yes, I could be fixed. I could be employed, I could help folks do whatever and I would love that.

If there's anyone out there reading this who can help me with math, please do.

Thank you.

pi

[pi]

noname: Statistics is IMO.

It is indeed, IMO. It's all IMO, IMO.

IMO.

pi

Through our IMO's we see the world. It's all we have. -- the Buddha

The IMO is not the territory. -- Someone Else

When you flip a coin there is a very small but finite chance you will never ever see that coin again. -- Doesnt Matterwho

[noname]

Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.

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

[{:-])))]

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

>> noname wrote:
>>
>>> Now, consider cosmic inertia from a logical standpoint; assume it is
>>> incorrect and work through the implications. If there is no cosmic
>>> inertia, things change unpredictably and for no reason whatsoever.
>>
>> Or, for every reason and all reasons,
>> and not just one, and one alone.
>
>Nope. One reason. It may be comprised of many parts, but the root cause
>is the root cause.

Suppose the generator goes out, and,
it's rather cold outside, during a snow storm.

What is the one, and only one, reason,
root cause wise.

One may wonder, cause of what?
The snow storm? The cold. The outside?

Suppose the generator won't start.
What is the one, and only one, reason?

What is the root cause, of any one event?

Suppose the generator ran out of fuel.
One may wonder, but why did it do that?

Perhaps someone forgot to fill the tank.
One may wonder, but why did one forget?

One may say, there is the Source.
And that Source is the root cause of all events.

No matter what other parts are spinning
round or crunching numbers or ice
in the mind of the guy who may
wish he remembered to add
fuel at a previous time.

- as the next thing goes, ore went

[{:-])))]

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

>> To ask, why,
>> to ask, what is, the, reason,
>> is to carve what is given to begin
>> a form of width, or length, a line drawn
>> divides what is whole, at first, without a cause.
>
>Listen dude, you hang onto this cosmic oneness thinger like it would be
>death to let it go. It's fine, for what it is, but look around you, the
>world is carved, an you carved it, so get over the hubris and move along.

Carving things, outlines appear.
Uncarved, essences appear.

When uncarving, and uncarving, eventually,
Humpy Dumpty might be a good egg once again.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm

<< “Non-existence” I call the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
“Existence” I call the mother of individual beings.

Therefore does the direction towards non-existence
lead to the sight of the miraculous essence,
the direction towards existence
to the sight of spatial limitations.

Both are one in origin
and different only in name.
In its unity it is called the secret.
The secret’s still deeper secret
is the gateway through which all miracles emerge. >>

To hang on and hold fast to the center
one might be called an Empty Vessel of all things.

One may wonder, why all this talk of emptiness?
Would one who knows speak of such a thing?

- in an echo chamber

[{:-])))]

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

>> To suppose there is only one reason, or two, or three
>> reasons, can be viewed as a Great Supposition.
>
>If you come to understand causality and reason, you will see that there can
>be only one.

Some may call such a One, God, if one so wills.

With Taoism, an author of the TTC wrote a line.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap04

Four

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.
Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
I do not know from whence it comes.
It is the forefather of the gods.

[{:-])))]

If everything is said to be a matter of opinion,
in fact, that would be a matter of opinion.

And so, that fact, is not an opinion.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>> noname: Statistics is IMO.
>>
>> It is indeed, IMO. It's all IMO, IMO.
>>
>> IMO.
>>
>> pi
>>
>> Through our IMO's we see the world. It's all we have. -- the Buddha
>>
>> The IMO is not the territory. -- Someone Else
>>
>> When you flip a coin there is a very small but finite chance you will
>> never ever see that coin again. -- Doesnt Matterwho
>>
>
>Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.

On the one side of a coin, there is probability.

On the other side, there is no coin.

And that's reality for ya.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>> noname: J.
>>
>> It's all about the kids. I've always told Angie that whenever we took
>> them them somewhere. When the kids are around, it's all about the kids.
>>
>> We agree :) It's called reproducibility, which is something to hold on to.
>>
>> But kids are kids. They are self-obsessed creatures who will tell you one
>> thing and something completely different a second later.

One second, pi knows nothing for sure,
or, to put it a different way, he does not know anything for certain,
no matter how certain he is of that.

A second later, probably, it's all about probability, in his opinion.

It could be pi is certain he is uncertain,
or perhaps he is uncertain about even that.

Certainly, for sure, it's all about reproduction.
And that's how kids are conceived of.

>> That's why kids need to learn, a word that seems alien to J. It might
>> help if he cut beer, I don't know.
>

>Fix pi and J will take care of himself.

One second, pi is certain J was all about Jesus.
Another second, pi is uncertain as J keeps flipping out
and spinning round, like a top, or a frisbee.

Some people have one-track minds.
Others have minds that run along parallel tracks
and so, they have what are called, trains of thought.

A few people enter streams of thought and wade in
above the ankle, knee, or waist, or hip, right on up
to their necks and every once in a while they find
Tang, floating there, looking for his teeth.

Suddenly, and without warning, laughter occurs.
The cause of it was one, and only one thing.

- of course, Usenet is a berry silly Ting

[{:-])))]

J cannot help pi now.
J is busy, being annoying.

However, if pi could state what his problem is,
exactly, and precisely, that could be a start.

- math wise

[pi]

noname: Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.

I read your reply very carefully and thought about it really carefully too. This phone won't let me write a structured reply so I thought of a compact way to do so:

When you flip a coin there is always a small probability that you will never see that coin again. -- A quote

In translation:

If you think of something, perhaps a theory, maybe of cosmic inertia, there is always something important you leave out that can turn everything into mash.

That's the way things are. I'd go as far as to risk saying that perhaps the only thing we can be certain of is that we're wrong.

Sorry. Thank you.

pi

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noname: Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.
>
> I read your reply very carefully and thought about it really carefully
> too. This phone won't let me write a structured reply

Maybe you need a cheap bluetooth keyboard. Maybe the world needs a better
newsreader. What is, is what you have to work with. If it isn't adequate,
you can invent something better, or decide it's good enough for the moment.

> so I thought of a compact way to do so:
>
> When you flip a coin there is always a small probability that you will
> never see that coin again. -- A quote
>
> In translation:
>
> If you think of something, perhaps a theory, maybe of cosmic inertia,
> there is always something important you leave out that can turn everything into mash.
>

There is always that possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Only
the ones that become actual are relevant.

As for the "something important you leave out", that can turn everything
into mash, yes, that is an inescapable possibility; that's something we
might "know" whether we recognize it or not. It's the cornerstone of
something one might call power, freedom, understanding, wisdom, and/or
stupidity.

It's possible that a week from Tuesday the solar system will make its way
out of some "field" that nobody is aware of, a "field" that has been luring
science in the wrong direction for a very long time, and as a result of not
being in that "special little place" in the universe, maybe the rules for
the way electricity works will change, and maybe things will stop working.
Or, the world could be proceeding toward some other field, or absence of
some field, that it must remain within to prevent all lithium-ion batteries
from exploding. It's easy enough to think up possibilities, but it is much
less easy to entice one into reality.

> That's the way things are.

When you lock your mind around "the way things are" you'll find out that
most likely it isn't. This locking-in business is what entices us away
from what is, to what we have decided. Sometimes "decided" means
"concluded from lack of reasonable alternatives" and sometimes it means
"wished really hard". It isn't the weirdness of things that gives rise to
finding out that we had everything wrong, it's the act of locking a belief
into our mindset that makes it necessary for us to be shown that we had
things wrong. The world works as it works. Thinking we know how it works
doesn't mean we know how to work it; likewise being able to work it doesn't
mean we know how it works. The world is a very complicated machine for
mice like us to live within, we have to carefully keep from between its
gears or it could get tight for us, maybe too tight to permit our passage
without being squashed.

> I'd go as far as to risk saying that perhaps the only thing we can be
> certain of is that we're wrong.

That isn't something i'd agree with as stated.

>
> Sorry. Thank you.
>
> pi
>

Turn the question inside-out and look at its complement. Making up a
theory that says this-is-true and that-is-true is more demanding than
listing the things known to be false. Talking about what something means
is different from talking about what it doesn't mean, but if we turn the
bag inside out and shake the crumbs off it, we might find something
unexpected.

You've given some evidence of at least having skimmed through the Tao Te
Ching, so you might recognize that rather than spending lots of time and
words on what Tao IS, they spent lots of time and words on what Tao ISN'T.
Some number of years ago i described Tao as "the primary operating
principle of all realities" and as far as i can tell that description
remains literally valid. It is not the only way it could be described, but
describing Tao in terms of what it IS contains the hazard you mentioned,
OTOH so much of that hazard derives from attempting to describe what it IS,
that it can be effectively avoided by not bothering to say what something
IS, or what it ISN'T, but leaving those things unsaid; what glares through
its omission is often brighter than what's in the headlines.

So if you don't know what you know to be true, what about the things you
know to be false? Is there anything you know to be false? That's
something you know, knowings are not limited to known-true and/or
known-false.

I know that the sounds the snow/hail/sleet/fuckever is making against the
side of the workshop here, those sounds say that i need to wait for a
little quiet, before going inside for coffee, if i don't want hammered
while outdoors. Maybe i'll pay obeisance to the gods of shit weather, or
maybe i'll do as i please and expect the same from the world in response.
I usually just do what's next, in those few seconds when i'm not trying in
vain to figure out what's next; oftimes i barely even do that, i just lean
a little this way or that, figuratively, and smile in stupid contentment
here in the mash.

Thing about mash is, once you decide it's all mash, you can pay attention
to the nuances you find within the mash. Oar, knot.

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

[pi]

noname wrote:
> pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > noname: Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.
> >
> > I read your reply very carefully and thought about it really carefully
> > too. This phone won't let me write a structured reply
>
> Maybe you need a cheap bluetooth keyboard. Maybe the world needs a better
> newsreader. What is, is what you have to work with. If it isn't adequate,
> you can invent something better, or decide it's good enough for the moment.

It has to be good enough for the moment. I can't afford a new computer and the library is 1hr away.

> > so I thought of a compact way to do so:
> >
> > When you flip a coin there is always a small probability that you will
> > never see that coin again. -- A quote
> >
> > In translation:
> >
> > If you think of something, perhaps a theory, maybe of cosmic inertia,
> > there is always something important you leave out that can turn everything into mash.
> >
>
> There is always that possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Only
> the ones that become actual are relevant.

The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or a mixture of both has not yet been answered. Patterns emerge then break and if we remain alive, we try again (as Popper would put it).

We parted ways with the chimps about 10 million years ago. It took us 7 million years to invent fire but only to 2 million years to invent a computer. Another 80 years and we invented the Internet. The process of finding patterns is slow but it is gaining momentum. Elon Musk says we'll colonize the Milky Way in 10 million years, but that's nothing on the grand scale of things.

I think there's hope. Not for me, but for species as a whole.

> As for the "something important you leave out", that can turn everything
> into mash, yes, that is an inescapable possibility; that's something we
> might "know" whether we recognize it or not. It's the cornerstone of
> something one might call power, freedom, understanding, wisdom, and/or
> stupidity.
>
> It's possible that a week from Tuesday the solar system will make its way
> out of some "field" that nobody is aware of, a "field" that has been luring
> science in the wrong direction for a very long time, and as a result of not
> being in that "special little place" in the universe, maybe the rules for
> the way electricity works will change, and maybe things will stop working.
> Or, the world could be proceeding toward some other field, or absence of
> some field, that it must remain within to prevent all lithium-ion batteries
> from exploding. It's easy enough to think up possibilities, but it is much
> less easy to entice one into reality.

I'm sure the Japanese would never have built their nuclear plants, had they known what was coming. Shit happens. Nothing is for sure.

If we remain alive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

> > That's the way things are.
>
> When you lock your mind around "the way things are" you'll find out that
> most likely it isn't. This locking-in business is what entices us away
> from what is, to what we have decided. Sometimes "decided" means
> "concluded from lack of reasonable alternatives" and sometimes it means
> "wished really hard". It isn't the weirdness of things that gives rise to
> finding out that we had everything wrong, it's the act of locking a belief
> into our mindset that makes it necessary for us to be shown that we had
> things wrong. The world works as it works. Thinking we know how it works
> doesn't mean we know how to work it; likewise being able to work it doesn't
> mean we know how it works. The world is a very complicated machine for
> mice like us to live within, we have to carefully keep from between its
> gears or it could get tight for us, maybe too tight to permit our passage
> without being squashed.

That's what the masses are for, to absorb the risks. And decision makers are most certainly not elected. They are blame-takers, just like the rest of us.

> > I'd go as far as to risk saying that perhaps the only thing we can be
> > certain of is that we're wrong.
>
> That isn't something i'd agree with as stated.
>
> >
> > Sorry. Thank you.
> >
> > pi
> >
>
> Turn the question inside-out and look at its complement. Making up a
> theory that says this-is-true and that-is-true is more demanding than
> listing the things known to be false. Talking about what something means
> is different from talking about what it doesn't mean, but if we turn the
> bag inside out and shake the crumbs off it, we might find something
> unexpected.

Sure. The devil is in the details. That's the whole story.

> You've given some evidence of at least having skimmed through the Tao Te
> Ching, so you might recognize that rather than spending lots of time and
> words on what Tao IS, they spent lots of time and words on what Tao ISN'T.
> Some number of years ago i described Tao as "the primary operating
> principle of all realities" and as far as i can tell that description
> remains literally valid. It is not the only way it could be described, but
> describing Tao in terms of what it IS contains the hazard you mentioned,
> OTOH so much of that hazard derives from attempting to describe what it IS,
> that it can be effectively avoided by not bothering to say what something
> IS, or what it ISN'T, but leaving those things unsaid; what glares through
> its omission is often brighter than what's in the headlines.

Absolutely. Think Jesus and the Bible. Folks think the stories there are all about being loved by God while they are all about being completely subjugated by the supreme leader.

> So if you don't know what you know to be true, what about the things you
> know to be false? Is there anything you know to be false? That's
> something you know, knowings are not limited to known-true and/or
> known-false.

What do I know to be false? Easy enough. Most if not all of the things I "know" are false but I can't even say which ones they are.

> I know that the sounds the snow/hail/sleet/fuckever is making against the
> side of the workshop here, those sounds say that i need to wait for a
> little quiet, before going inside for coffee, if i don't want hammered
> while outdoors. Maybe i'll pay obeisance to the gods of shit weather, or
> maybe i'll do as i please and expect the same from the world in response.
> I usually just do what's next, in those few seconds when i'm not trying in
> vain to figure out what's next; oftimes i barely even do that, i just lean
> a little this way or that, figuratively, and smile in stupid contentment
> here in the mash.

Same here. Imho, the idea is nevertheless to stay positive, respect folks if they let you, be helpful and socialize. And love the kids most of all.

> Thing about mash is, once you decide it's all mash, you can pay attention
> to the nuances you find within the mash. Oar, knot.

When a church mouse observes a mass in progress, it might be thinking - Fucking hell! What are the Gods doing? It is the same with us folks. We watch the grand voice of the Universe tumble over our heads and think - Wtf? :)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097443/

A friend recently asked me - Is there anything I can do for you? Get you clothes, food? Would you like me to buy you a computer?
I said - Let's meet, drink tea and have a nice chat. Nothing beats that.

Imho, the bottom line is this: There's nothing we know for sure and there's nothing we don't know for sure.

We're guessing all the time and I'd called that -- enlightenment.

(Sorry, the next reply might not be structured.)

pi

https://gscott123.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/japan_nuclear_reactor_meltdown_fallout1.jpg

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname wrote:
>> pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > noname: Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.
>> >
>> > I read your reply very carefully and thought about it really carefully
>> > too. This phone won't let me write a structured reply
>>
>> Maybe you need a cheap bluetooth keyboard. Maybe the world needs a better
>> newsreader. What is, is what you have to work with. If it isn't adequate,
>> you can invent something better, or decide it's good enough for the moment.
>
>It has to be good enough for the moment. I can't afford a new computer and the library is 1hr away.
>
>> > so I thought of a compact way to do so:
>> >
>> > When you flip a coin there is always a small probability that you will
>> > never see that coin again. -- A quote
>> >
>> > In translation:
>> >
>> > If you think of something, perhaps a theory, maybe of cosmic inertia,
>> > there is always something important you leave out that can turn everything into mash.
>> >
>>
>> There is always that possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Only
>> the ones that become actual are relevant.
>
>The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or a mixture of both has not yet been answered.

I shall now answer that question.
Once again, an answer depends on perspective.

Looking at order, one sees order.
Looking a chaos, one sees chaos.
Seeing them both, depending on each,
one may note how they both arise, mutually.

Given: Taoism. The name, of a Usenet newsgroup.

From a pov of Quantum Mechanics, uncertainly rules the daze.
From a pov of Relativity Theory, spacetime is curved, that Way.

Gravity is well ordered.
Gravity wells exist.

Yet not everyone knows the science, physics,
such as it is known to physicists, naturally.

> Patterns emerge then break and if we remain alive, we try again (as Popper would put it).

As forms of Life, Life forms die. Life goes on.
Each of its forms emerge from other forms.

With multi-cellular organisms, each new form
may be conceived as a single cell.

The original one remains alive.
Though many of its individual divisions vanish,
vanishing points toward a horizon line.

>We parted ways with the chimps about 10 million years ago.

Darwinian views select and, known as evolution, depict.

> It took us 7 million years to invent fire but only to 2 million years to invent a computer.

Identifying one's self with a species
one's consciousness may be viewed as limited
by that horizon line of picture-painting.

Some, people, think of their selves as geographical
and identify with their nation-hood.

Some who wear hoods are found in slums
and as hoodlums they may think of themselves as being
less than or more than some other group, so-called.

> Another 80 years and we invented the Internet.

Everyone knows Gore did that.
Once upon a time.

Some people identify with a form they call, we.
And their ID-cards and badges go only so far.

With what is called, New Thought, or Perennial Philosophy,
the Doors of Perception may widen as horizons fall away,
one may sail the seas of lands uncharted, and know.

> The process of finding patterns is slow but it is gaining momentum.

Some minds are faster than
what is uttered by some utter mode of being.

> Elon Musk says we'll colonize the Milky Way in 10 million years, but that's nothing on the grand scale of things.

Colonial thinking is frowned up
on with a smile by imperialists and empire builders.

Taoism takes a turn and goes along a fork
found in the Road of all places.

Now, when there is a fork in the Road, some people stop.
They may find a choice is there. To pick up the fork
and use it, as a spoon.

Another may say, there is no spoon.
There is only the fork. And only one fork at that.

>I think there's hope. Not for me, but for species as a whole.

For some minds, every fork is the same fork.
There is one and only one cause.

And that is called, choice. Free-choice.

A great mind once noticed that up
on a time when he wasn't so grumpy.

>> As for the "something important you leave out", that can turn everything
>> into mash, yes, that is an inescapable possibility; that's something we
>> might "know" whether we recognize it or not. It's the cornerstone of
>> something one might call power, freedom, understanding, wisdom, and/or
>> stupidity.
>>
>> It's possible that a week from Tuesday the solar system will make its way
>> out of some "field" that nobody is aware of, a "field" that has been luring
>> science in the wrong direction for a very long time, and as a result of not
>> being in that "special little place" in the universe, maybe the rules for
>> the way electricity works will change, and maybe things will stop working.
>> Or, the world could be proceeding toward some other field, or absence of
>> some field, that it must remain within to prevent all lithium-ion batteries
>> from exploding. It's easy enough to think up possibilities, but it is much
>> less easy to entice one into reality.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese would never have built their nuclear plants, had they known what was coming. Shit happens. Nothing is for sure.

One says one is sure, and one may be sure, and know
what he is sure about, until he once again is unsure.

>If we remain alive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

Nuclear energy may yet save the grid.
Ore, deposited when spent, may have a use.

In Europe of all places, spent fuel may be recycled.

In the States, it gets buried in the ground. Ore mites
object to that pure objective reality as they see it.

To think one knows, for sure, good and bad,
one may certainly be found to be
taken as a miss is as good
as a mile wide gone.

>> > That's the way things are.
>>
>> When you lock your mind around "the way things are" you'll find out that
>> most likely it isn't. This locking-in business is what entices us away
>> from what is, to what we have decided. Sometimes "decided" means
>> "concluded from lack of reasonable alternatives" and sometimes it means
>> "wished really hard". It isn't the weirdness of things that gives rise to
>> finding out that we had everything wrong, it's the act of locking a belief
>> into our mindset that makes it necessary for us to be shown that we had
>> things wrong. The world works as it works. Thinking we know how it works
>> doesn't mean we know how to work it; likewise being able to work it doesn't
>> mean we know how it works. The world is a very complicated machine for
>> mice like us to live within, we have to carefully keep from between its
>> gears or it could get tight for us, maybe too tight to permit our passage
>> without being squashed.
>
>That's what the masses are for, to absorb the risks.

The huddled masses were once welcomed by a Statue.
They were seen, not as cannon fodder, at the time.

When someone sticks to what is thought
and cannot let it go, one may be found ground
round and his square roots long in the tooth.

> And decision makers are most certainly not elected. They are blame-takers, just like the rest of us.

Some people consistently think in terms of we and us.

Some speak for themselves alone and are fine at
when doing sew or knitting tending to.

Some horizon lines are found to vanish when sails
are set beyond what appears on a sphere.

As a ship disappears vanishing
vanishing points to the horizon.

>> > I'd go as far as to risk saying that perhaps the only thing we can be
>> > certain of is that we're wrong.
>>
>> That isn't something i'd agree with as stated.
>>
>> >
>> > Sorry. Thank you.
>> >
>> > pi
>> >
>>
>> Turn the question inside-out and look at its complement. Making up a
>> theory that says this-is-true and that-is-true is more demanding than
>> listing the things known to be false. Talking about what something means
>> is different from talking about what it doesn't mean, but if we turn the
>> bag inside out and shake the crumbs off it, we might find something
>> unexpected.
>
>Sure. The devil is in the details. That's the whole story.

A myth of pure objective reality is found in atoms,
chemistry and the score lines drawn in a b'all-games
of Life and death oar how round things go
as they roll along or bump in the Road.

>> You've given some evidence of at least having skimmed through the Tao Te
>> Ching, so you might recognize that rather than spending lots of time and
>> words on what Tao IS, they spent lots of time and words on what Tao ISN'T.
>> Some number of years ago i described Tao as "the primary operating
>> principle of all realities" and as far as i can tell that description
>> remains literally valid.

Validity and soundness may part at a fork
in the Road, in terms of when premises are
being found to exist, technically speaking.

Semantics and context rule the daze.

>> It is not the only way it could be described, but
>> describing Tao in terms of what it IS contains the hazard you mentioned,
>> OTOH so much of that hazard derives from attempting to describe what it IS,
>> that it can be effectively avoided by not bothering to say what something
>> IS, or what it ISN'T, but leaving those things unsaid; what glares through
>> its omission is often brighter than what's in the headlines.
>
>Absolutely. Think Jesus and the Bible.

OK dough key.
Got me thunkin cap on.

> Folks think the stories there are all about being loved by God

For God so loved the world he died for it.
Being, as it were, the one and only Son.
Three in one, of all things, Spirit wise.

>while they are all about being completely subjugated by the supreme leader.

Some people's minds are full of rulers.
They measure this and measure that and never know
how the ruler is what determines the measure.

Some are only able to measure inch by inch.
Others may go an extra mile.

A few there be who go global or cosmic
and fewer, still, who, when still, erase all
lines drawn to the vanishing point.

Found, at the horizon.

>> So if you don't know what you know to be true, what about the things you
>> know to be false? Is there anything you know to be false? That's
>> something you know, knowings are not limited to known-true and/or
>> known-false.
>
>What do I know to be false? Easy enough. Most if not all of the things I "know" are false but I can't even say which ones they are.

Sometimes gibberish may be seen as true enuf
and make know sense to one who does not speak it.

>> I know that the sounds the snow/hail/sleet/fuckever is making against the
>> side of the workshop here, those sounds say that i need to wait for a
>> little quiet, before going inside for coffee, if i don't want hammered
>> while outdoors. Maybe i'll pay obeisance to the gods of shit weather, or
>> maybe i'll do as i please and expect the same from the world in response.
>> I usually just do what's next, in those few seconds when i'm not trying in
>> vain to figure out what's next; oftimes i barely even do that, i just lean
>> a little this way or that, figuratively, and smile in stupid contentment
>> here in the mash.
>
>Same here. Imho, the idea is nevertheless to stay positive, respect folks if they let you, be helpful and socialize. And love the kids most of all.

Kids tend to be evil, at times. Full of mischief, without a doubt.
They do knot know what they say and speak as if
words can mean most any Ting, and dew
they condense in the mind
of a child, like wonder.

>> Thing about mash is, once you decide it's all mash, you can pay attention
>> to the nuances you find within the mash. Oar, knot.
>
>When a church mouse observes a mass in progress, it might be thinking - Fucking hell! What are the Gods doing? It is the same with us folks. We watch the grand voice of the Universe tumble over our heads and think - Wtf? :)
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097443/

H'ears a youtube for 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw6h5GdT6WE

Knot sure if ever-eye scene that one
yet recall dim sum li the first.

Thanks!

>A friend recently asked me - Is there anything I can do for you? Get you clothes, food? Would you like me to buy you a computer?
>I said - Let's meet, drink tea and have a nice chat. Nothing beats that.

Endless tea is found on the cart.

The bull sighs snort at times as well frogs chirp
and birds may be found swimming, like ducks.

>Imho, the bottom line is this: There's nothing we know for sure and there's nothing we don't know for sure.

At least you're making words sound like
sounds unlike J makes a word sound like.

>We're guessing all the time and I'd called that -- enlightenment.

Guessing is enlightenment.
When one knows one is guessing, one knows.

When one knows one is not guessing, one knows.

Knowing when one is and when one is not,
one may guess one knows, ore knots.

>(Sorry, the next reply might not be structured.)
>
>pi
>
>https://gscott123.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/japan_nuclear_reactor_meltdown_fallout1.jpg
>
>Good tests kill flawed theories.
>If we survive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

A caterpillar melts down, naturally.

http://nowiknow.com/liquid-memories/

What emerges is the same, only different.

- vanishing points at the horizon

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> noname: Dude, if you're not going to say anything, don't.
>>>
>>> I read your reply very carefully and thought about it really carefully
>>> too. This phone won't let me write a structured reply
>>
>> Maybe you need a cheap bluetooth keyboard. Maybe the world needs a better
>> newsreader. What is, is what you have to work with. If it isn't adequate,
>> you can invent something better, or decide it's good enough for the moment.
>
> It has to be good enough for the moment. I can't afford a new computer
> and the library is 1hr away.

You can't afford a "new" computer, or a "different used" one? Here in the
states i can pick up a used laptop for under $100 (anytime, half that if
you shop around craigslist) and set it up with linux. I don't know that
you've ever said that you live in Poland. And i know nothing about the
used computer market in Poland.

>
>>> so I thought of a compact way to do so:
>>>
>>> When you flip a coin there is always a small probability that you will
>>> never see that coin again. -- A quote
>>>
>>> In translation:
>>>
>>> If you think of something, perhaps a theory, maybe of cosmic inertia,
>>> there is always something important you leave out that can turn everything into mash.
>>>
>>
>> There is always that possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Only
>> the ones that become actual are relevant.
>
> The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or
> a mixture of both has not yet been answered.

As i've said before, the universe is completely ordered except for one tiny
bit of the whole, the part that is more than the sum of the parts of the
whole. Humans and other know-they're-alive critters, whatever you choose
to call that, they're all part of the cosmic mind. And anything that's
part of the cosmic-mind "gets a vote" or "has a voice" or however you say
that, in the ongoing emergence of the world/universe.

The question of whether you believe this or that is yours to answer.

> Patterns emerge then break and if we remain alive, we try again (as Popper would put it).

Some of us do, and some of us don't; some of those who don't prefer to
think they do.

>
> We parted ways with the chimps about 10 million years ago. It took us 7
> million years to invent fire but only to 2 million years to invent a
> computer. Another 80 years and we invented the Internet. The process of
> finding patterns is slow but it is gaining momentum. Elon Musk says we'll
> colonize the Milky Way in 10 million years, but that's nothing on the
> grand scale of things.

It's also a crock.

>
> I think there's hope. Not for me, but for species as a whole.

If there's no hope for any particular member of a species then the species
has already started to destroy itself and only the percentage of deadness
remains. Trends trend. We're at what seems to be a possible
turning-point, one of those periods of "initial trending" that is so highly
leveraged that a butterfly's weight may tip the scales. Globally, and
perhaps some individuals may be going through similarly displaced
confusion.

>
>> As for the "something important you leave out", that can turn everything
>> into mash, yes, that is an inescapable possibility; that's something we
>> might "know" whether we recognize it or not. It's the cornerstone of
>> something one might call power, freedom, understanding, wisdom, and/or
>> stupidity.
>>
>> It's possible that a week from Tuesday the solar system will make its way
>> out of some "field" that nobody is aware of, a "field" that has been luring
>> science in the wrong direction for a very long time, and as a result of not
>> being in that "special little place" in the universe, maybe the rules for
>> the way electricity works will change, and maybe things will stop working.
>> Or, the world could be proceeding toward some other field, or absence of
>> some field, that it must remain within to prevent all lithium-ion batteries
>> from exploding. It's easy enough to think up possibilities, but it is much
>> less easy to entice one into reality.
>
> I'm sure the Japanese would never have built their nuclear plants, had
> they known what was coming. Shit happens. Nothing is for sure.
>
> If we remain alive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

Something is for sure... the worst thing mankind could possibly do is
create enough of a Heaven on earth that their only remaining form of
entertainment is observing the feeding of animals in a coliseum. The
low-tech village is a yin-pussy drawing higher-tech yang-peckers to it;
likewise the higher-tech yang becomes tired and begins whining about how
Silicon Valley is dying. As someone who was there in the '80s i'd say it's
no great loss. But the incipience of such a thing is indicative regarding
the culture within which it arises.

>
>>> That's the way things are.
>>
>> When you lock your mind around "the way things are" you'll find out that
>> most likely it isn't. This locking-in business is what entices us away
>> from what is, to what we have decided. Sometimes "decided" means
>> "concluded from lack of reasonable alternatives" and sometimes it means
>> "wished really hard". It isn't the weirdness of things that gives rise to
>> finding out that we had everything wrong, it's the act of locking a belief
>> into our mindset that makes it necessary for us to be shown that we had
>> things wrong. The world works as it works. Thinking we know how it works
>> doesn't mean we know how to work it; likewise being able to work it doesn't
>> mean we know how it works. The world is a very complicated machine for
>> mice like us to live within, we have to carefully keep from between its
>> gears or it could get tight for us, maybe too tight to permit our passage
>> without being squashed.
>
> That's what the masses are for, to absorb the risks. And decision makers
> are most certainly not elected. They are blame-takers, just like the rest of us.

Don't kid yourself, the actual decision-makers "have people" for that...
like, the rest of you.

I'm not sure what they're all about. They seem to be a widely varied
collage. Of uncertain purpose or authorship or provenance. I've read it
more than once. Finnegans Wake was almost more sensical in an overall
sense.

>
>> So if you don't know what you know to be true, what about the things you
>> know to be false? Is there anything you know to be false? That's
>> something you know, knowings are not limited to known-true and/or
>> known-false.
>
> What do I know to be false? Easy enough. Most if not all of the things I
> "know" are false but I can't even say which ones they are.

Lazy sod, eh?

>
>> I know that the sounds the snow/hail/sleet/fuckever is making against the
>> side of the workshop here, those sounds say that i need to wait for a
>> little quiet, before going inside for coffee, if i don't want hammered
>> while outdoors. Maybe i'll pay obeisance to the gods of shit weather, or
>> maybe i'll do as i please and expect the same from the world in response.
>> I usually just do what's next, in those few seconds when i'm not trying in
>> vain to figure out what's next; oftimes i barely even do that, i just lean
>> a little this way or that, figuratively, and smile in stupid contentment
>> here in the mash.
>
> Same here. Imho, the idea is nevertheless to stay positive, respect folks
> if they let you, be helpful and socialize. And love the kids most of all.

I'm not big on lists of do's and don'ts.

>
>> Thing about mash is, once you decide it's all mash, you can pay attention
>> to the nuances you find within the mash. Oar, knot.
>
> When a church mouse observes a mass in progress, it might be thinking -
> Fucking hell! What are the Gods doing? It is the same with us folks. We
> watch the grand voice of the Universe tumble over our heads and think - Wtf? :)
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097443/
>
> A friend recently asked me - Is there anything I can do for you? Get you
> clothes, food? Would you like me to buy you a computer?
> I said - Let's meet, drink tea and have a nice chat. Nothing beats that.

Then you've no excuse for using a lame computer as an excuse.

>
> Imho, the bottom line is this: There's nothing we know for sure and
> there's nothing we don't know for sure.
>
> We're guessing all the time and I'd called that -- enlightenment.
>
> (Sorry, the next reply might not be structured.)
>
> pi
>
> https://gscott123.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/japan_nuclear_reactor_meltdown_fallout1.jpg
>
> Good tests kill flawed theories.
> If we survive, we try again. -- Karl Popper
>
>
>
>
>
>

The difference between knowing something for sure, and not knowing it for
sure, is as slim as death.

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

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>
>> The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or
>> a mixture of both has not yet been answered.
>
>As i've said before, the universe is completely ordered except for one tiny
>bit of the whole, the part that is more than the sum of the parts of the
>whole. Humans and other know-they're-alive critters, whatever you choose
>to call that, they're all part of the cosmic mind. And anything that's
>part of the cosmic-mind "gets a vote" or "has a voice" or however you say
>that, in the ongoing emergence of the world/universe.
>
>The question of whether you believe this or that is yours to answer.

Some people are able to see.

How things look from one pov
and how things look from three
or more povs one may believe
things appear to appear
such as a sea or an
ocean in a notion.

When pi uses the word, answered,
it probably does not mean once
and for all space thereafter
up on a time for tea.

Metaphysics can be a dime and
six of one might buy a cup of coffee.

At quantum levels, chaos, so-called
rings a phone line and physicists answer
to any degree of probability required
by the mechanics involved in GPS,
electron tunneling, and sew on.

At going to the planets mode, order rules
how gravity is used as a sling-shot with great
precision to ring a bell in that corner shot
banked off the side rail.

Given: a Taoism, when everyone knows order,
that means chaos lurks in the mind.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap02

Two

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty
only because there is ugliness.

All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not possessing.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever.

- the end -

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. Think Jesus and the Bible. Folks think the stories there are
>> all about being loved by God while they are all about being completely
>> subjugated by the supreme leader.
>
>I'm not sure what they're all about.

Sometimes pi is sure, very sure,
in what he may call, his opinion.

And that's great, if he likes keeping it.

If it bothers him, he may change it,
if he is able to do that, opinion wise.

It could be, it may be, his opinions change
all by themselves when the scales tip
over his eyes and he trips in to
a different Way of seeing.

- having oars of course, or at least one

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>The difference between knowing something for sure, and not knowing it for
>sure, is as slim as death.

Once upon a time, a big red thing was seen.
A man, about to enter the Road, wondered.
Is that a truck? Is it a hallucination? What?

And so, to test his hypothesis, he did
absolutely nothing.

There is nothing quite like doing nothing
unless one likes doing something or calling
nothing something. Then, the scene shifts.

- in a word play

[pi]

noname: The difference between knowing something for sure, and not knowing it for sure, is as slim as death. 

That's one thing for sure. I think you just nailed down the concluding remark.

Btw, my vitamin D3 + K2 supplements are 10 bucks per month and I can't afford them. A 50 buck computer would do the trick but I don't have that sorta spare cash.

This phone cost me 20 bucks, I had to borrow the money to but it and I still haven't paid it back. I now owe... blah blah... never mind :)

You nailed the conclusion, Popper style, and that's great.

pi

If we survive, we try again. -- Karl Popper

Accident - A STATISTICAL INEVITABILITY. Some nuclear power plants are built on fault lines, but ever mine, dam, oil rig, and waste dump is founded upon a tacit acceptance of the worst-case scenario. One a long enough timeline, everything that can go wrong will, however small the likelihood is from one day to the next. The responsible parties may wring their hands about the Fukushima meltdown - and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the Exxon Valdez, and Hurricane Katrina, and Chernobyl, and Haiti - but accident is no accident. -- CrimethInc.

[noname]

{:-]))) <wu...@wuji.net> wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> pi wrote:
>>
>>> The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or
>>> a mixture of both has not yet been answered.
>>
>> As i've said before, the universe is completely ordered except for one tiny
>> bit of the whole, the part that is more than the sum of the parts of the
>> whole. Humans and other know-they're-alive critters, whatever you choose
>> to call that, they're all part of the cosmic mind. And anything that's
>> part of the cosmic-mind "gets a vote" or "has a voice" or however you say
>> that, in the ongoing emergence of the world/universe.
>>
>> The question of whether you believe this or that is yours to answer.
>
> Some people are able to see.
>
> How things look from one pov
> and how things look from three
> or more povs one may believe
> things appear to appear
> such as a sea or an
> ocean in a notion.

Talking to a musician is not the same as talking to an engineer or a
carpenter or a geologist or a botanist, each has his own lexicon, and each
lexicon contains connotative, denotative, and associative matrixes.
Everybody has his own technical jargon for the world, as seen from the
place that individual fell into. Even though we all have our own lexicons,
on the other side of the words, the concepts match right up to the real
actual item. Finding a lowest-common-denominator that's adequate to the
task is an iffy business.

>
> When pi uses the word, answered,
> it probably does not mean once
> and for all space thereafter
> up on a time for tea.

He wants somebody with a scholarly curriculum vitae to bless some
outpouring of his own wisdom on the subject. Who knows, maybe he'll find
out that somebody who will indirectly give him permission to think.

>
> Metaphysics can be a dime and
> six of one might buy a cup of coffee.
>
> At quantum levels, chaos, so-called
> rings a phone line and physicists answer
> to any degree of probability required
> by the mechanics involved in GPS,
> electron tunneling, and sew on.
>
> At going to the planets mode, order rules
> how gravity is used as a sling-shot with great
> precision to ring a bell in that corner shot
> banked off the side rail.

What's real is real. Measure it with Newton's yardstick, or Einstein's,
and you'll get different numbers under different conditions, but the real
numbers at intersecting points within such working theories always match
up. IOW if Newton's and Einstein's physics are both correct, then for any
points where both apply, the numbers will be the same, else one (or both)
of them is broken. [I keep saying these "duh" things, maybe i'm so old i'm
losing whatever it is that keeps people from stating the obvious.]

>
> Given: a Taoism, when everyone knows order,
> that means chaos lurks in the mind.

I don't see how you figure that follows from this:

>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap02
>
> Two
>
> Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty
> only because there is ugliness.
>
> All can know good as good only because there is evil.

The fact that somebody doesn't know what's good, damn sure doesn't create
evil; never assume conspiracy when simple stupidity (greed, etc) adequately
explains the situation, right?

>
> Therefore having and not having arise together.
> Difficult and easy complement each other.
> Long and short contrast each other:
> High and low rest upon each other;
> Voice and sound harmonize each other;
> Front and back follow one another.
>
> Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
> The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
> Creating, yet not possessing.
> Working, yet not taking credit.
> Work is done, then forgotten.
> Therefore it lasts forever.
>
> - the end -
>

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

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>Accident - A STATISTICAL INEVITABILITY ...

Some things are done on what's called, purpose.

Some people walk, their whole lives, and never, ever,
get ran over by a red truck, or a bus, by accident,
nor on purpose.

When an event occurs, not on purpose,
it may be called, an accident.

Such a word does not mean there was not a cause,
or several causes.

- fwiw

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> {:-]))) wrote:
>> noname wrote:
>>> pi wrote:
>>>
>>>> The question of whether the Universe is completely ordered or chaotic or
>>>> a mixture of both has not yet been answered.
>>>
>>> As i've said before, the universe is completely ordered except for one tiny
>>> bit of the whole, the part that is more than the sum of the parts of the
>>> whole. Humans and other know-they're-alive critters, whatever you choose
>>> to call that, they're all part of the cosmic mind. And anything that's
>>> part of the cosmic-mind "gets a vote" or "has a voice" or however you say
>>> that, in the ongoing emergence of the world/universe.
>>>
>>> The question of whether you believe this or that is yours to answer.
>>
>> Some people are able to see.
>>
>> How things look from one pov
>> and how things look from three
>> or more povs one may believe
>> things appear to appear
>> such as a sea or an
>> ocean in a notion.
>
>Talking to a musician is not the same as talking to an engineer or a
>carpenter or a geologist or a botanist, each has his own lexicon, and each
>lexicon contains connotative, denotative, and associative matrixes.

Hence there can be, and has been, many answers.
Yet to pi, perhaps none have been the one for him.

>Everybody has his own technical jargon for the world, as seen from the
>place that individual fell into. Even though we all have our own lexicons,
>on the other side of the words, the concepts match right up to the real
>actual item. Finding a lowest-common-denominator that's adequate to the
>task is an iffy business.

Understanding what someone means, e.g. pi,
one may communicate, if both are willing.

GPS won't work using Newtonian physics.

There's enough uncertainty and relativity in the system,
which could be called, chaos, and, forms of order,
that it takes both theories to make GPS work.

So, to answer pi's answer, it's both, mixed, when viewed
thru the lens of physicists and their lexicon.

>> Given: a Taoism, when everyone knows order,
>> that means chaos lurks in the mind.
>
>I don't see how you figure that follows from this:
>
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap02
>>
>> Two
>>
>> Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty
>> only because there is ugliness.
>>
>> All can know good as good only because there is evil.
>
>The fact that somebody doesn't know what's good, damn sure doesn't create
>evil; never assume conspiracy when simple stupidity (greed, etc) adequately
>explains the situation, right?

What the saying says, is about knowing good.

You phrased in differently.

When good is known,
it is known because there exists what is not-good, or, evil.

The fact that somebody doesn't know where up is
does not equate with down. I agree with you.

Yet those who do know which way is up, know it,
because down exists. Up and down arise mutually.

From another pov, one may say, it's all good.
Everything is perfect. The world is sacred, shen, spiritual.
Everyting is in perfect order. and I can agree with that also.

At times pi is able to flip his pov and see.
At other times, it appears to me, knot sew mulch.

[pi]

noname: He (pi) wants somebody with a scholarly curriculum vitae to bless some outpouring of his own wisdom on the subject.  Who knows, maybe he'll find out that somebody who will indirectly give him permission to think. 

Yes, please! Thank you! :D

pi

[noname]

Nope. You may not think. Thinking is bad. Leave thinking to the Big
People who think they know how to think and do it whether they have
permission or not.

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

[pi]

noname: Permission to think.

My math is full of misconceptions and wrong assumptions. I need help to clarify them.

Mental culture is not as easy as it looks and nor is math.

pi

[noname]

One is more difficult than the other; master it first and you may find you
have also mastered the second but for bothering to learn the specificities
of its technical jargon.

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

[pi]

noname: Parallels.

You are right, mental culture, philosophy and math are three different languages for talking about one thing, Truth.

Still, unfortunately, things are usually easier said than done.

pi

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> noname: Parallels.
>
> You are right, mental culture, philosophy and math are three different
> languages for talking about one thing, Truth.

Truth is never just the truth, it is always (the truth *of*) something.
Truth isn't a noun. It's some kind of characteristic, an adjective maybe.
Parts-of-speech isn't something i'm sure about, parts-of-speech are names
for buckets, which may not be the right buckets at all. So how can truth
be "one thing"?

Trueness may be one thing, if this and that are both true, they both have
trueness.

The meaning of truth may have more to do with consistency than anything
else, humans seem to be difference engines, give us a world where
everything is the same as everything and we can't recognize any of it from
itself.


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

[pi]

noname: No.

Ok, mental culture, philosophy and math are three different languages in which folks try to talk about the Tao.

No?

pi

[noname]

People can use any language they want, to talk about whatever they want to
talk about.

So what?

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

[pi]

noname: So what?

Sure.

pi

[noname]

You're gonna get what you need, whether you like it or not. For sure.
Always have, always will.

The trick is reading it. Why inna fuck might i have needed *this*???

The clues are there, you just have to see them. If you hadn't landed in
*this*, what would have been different in *that*? Does it matter? It's
*this* you're stuck in, so it's this you have to deal with.

The world is a mirror, when you can no longer see yourself in it, then you
have something you can take home.

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

[pi]

noname: Help.

You thought I was worth your time and you clarified my thinking. Thank you *so* much and a trillion times.

I need need an analogous clarification in term of math. Can't help it. I'm stuck :(

The problem is, philosophers and mathematicians who know what they are talking about are quite rare.

pi

[noname]

If you need that, you'll find it; the fact that you have not found it,
implies that there is something else you need first.

Suggest spending some time asking your self, "who am i" and "what am i".
When you get answers to those questions, you'll know better what's next.

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

[pi]

noname: Who am I?

I'm a speck of dust in the wind.

pi

[{:-])))]

>pi wrote:
>>
>> Ok, mental culture, philosophy and math are three different languages in
>> which folks try to talk about the Tao.
>>
>> No?

I can.
One may choose to so do.

And, in a Way, it may
sound like an elephant.

To describe such a critter using math,
one might measure it in various ways,
or dimensions. Three lines on a grid,
cartesian coordinates, could show
how high and wide and long it is.

Three dimesions won't say how much it weighs.
Nor how it changes over time.

Does this, elephant, change?

To equate it with, the Tao, using the word, Tao, to mean
the most basic operating principle (MBOP), presumably, no,
MBOP does not change.

At this point, a philosopher may notice how the words,
Tao and elephant, part company. To use an elephant
to suggest what, Reality, is, or the Truth is, or some
other reified thought pointing can be done, to a point.

Math quantifies.
People count on math to do that.

Mathematics need not have anything to do with physics.
Yet math is said to be a, or the, language of physics.

To describe the Elephant, or, Reality, using physics,
science, and math, can be what many modern folk do.
Such a technique works well and holds promise.

Metaphysics is a different story.

With Taoism polarities arise mutually.

Physics and metaphysics imply each other.

Brain and mind, for example, using mental culture,
meditation, may be viewed as two sides of what occurs
when someone begins to see parts of an elephant.

A brain without a mind is dead meat.
A mind without a brain is hard to find.

Physicists, material/physicalists, may view all things,
the Elephant, as being, at its Most Basic Operating Levels,
material or physical in some fashions or paradigms.

The meta-physical emerges from the physical,
in that polar paradigm. Minds emerge from brain-waves
and may be seen to be nothing other than
brains at work, from the ground up.

Meta-physicalists, on the other side of the Elephant,
flip the script and view the physical as manifesting
as a result of mind, mental phenomena, spirit,
consciousness, awareness, prana, ruah, or
some other words the Elephant trumpets.

Metaphysics is above or beyond physics
and tends to describe Reality from the top down
as it spins it yarns, and may also hold promise.

Mental culture, mindfulness, observation, may yield
views of how the Elephant may phase-shift as it
turns inside out, figure-ground reversing.

Taoism is able to incorporate pi's above three
in terms of, using his words, the Tao.

- imo, fwiw, etc.

[noname]

Yeah, but metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.

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

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.

For brian, mind-only
could be some fashion of his thought
waves found in a notion.

For pi, atoms only cud be chewed
as he ruminates again and again what
all things are made of to a point.

Each may be viewed as metaphors thrown
as frisbees skip beneath a bus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6lx8uD0nZc

Dr. Ianold is probably not a bit old.
The above linked to video is less than two minutes long.

- wabbit wise

[brian mitchell]

"{:-])))" wrote:

>noname wrote:
>
>>metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>
>For brian, mind-only
>could be some fashion of his thought
>waves found in a notion.

Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
it.

Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
and certain of imminent death. Of course you can extract facts from
any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
filtering. Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
round.

`

[pi]

noname: Metaphysics.

It's dead.

pi

[noname]

brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
> "{:-])))" wrote:
>
>> noname wrote:
>>
>>> metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>>
>> For brian, mind-only
>> could be some fashion of his thought
>> waves found in a notion.
>
> Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
> it.
>
> Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
> on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
> excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
> and certain of imminent death.

I once boarded a roller coaster with certain death at the end; we're still
negotiating about whether this life is great enough that i should give an
inch on any bargaining position due to that situation.

> Of course you can extract facts from
> any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
> filtering.

I'm not sure whether i agree with that or not, in fact i'm not sure how i
extract facts.

> Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
> something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
> round.

For values of "facts" including things like dates and times and other
measurements, yes; for values of "facts" meaning things-ascertained, maybe
not so much.

I don't know that we bring truth to facts, i think we rather see the truth
in conglomerations of facts. But most of the language available for
talking about it is a bit fuzzy at the edges.

>
> `
>

[brian mitchell]

Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:

because there is mind, there are things;
because there are things, there is mind.

Dependent Origination in a nutshell: each arises due to the other. I
know this doesn't fit with your sense of undirectional causation, but
you might like to ponder it for a bit.

[noname]

Causation and manifestation are different aspects of co-dependent arisal,
as i see things, and the unidirectionality of events is not something i see
as absolutely unidirectional, since individuals learn from the unfolding of
events, and individuals are part of the cosmic mentation from which
co-dependent arisal emerges.

Beyond that, the standard zen position you expressed above, is yet-another
aphoristic saying that seems (to me) to have been a little tweaked-around
due to time or language issues; because there is mind there are things, and
because things interact, minds have something to observe, but I do not
believe that inanimate matter evolved into intelligent life, nor do i
believe that a "big bang" was the absolute beginning of things, i see
physical reality as always-having-existed and always-having-changed. The
whole business of mind-versus-matter, which came first, which is the engine
that drives our lives, it's the most subtle soup imaginable, and very
likely indicates a paradox not yet untwisted.

When science gives evidence that the inanimate can give rise to the
animate, when they can intentionally evolve a talking rock in a lab on
demand, maybe i'll see things differently, but i'm not holding my breath
waiting for that to happen, and should that ever happen, i'll want to have
a discussion with it before reaching any conclusions.

I think the whole business of how the world came to exist is very
unimportant. It does exist, and each of us is bang in the midst of it.
What's important is not where it all came from, but how to interact with
it. Imteract with the world as though it's dead things talking and you get
one result, interact with the world as though it's a wise teacher of
strange appearance and you get another result, interact with the world as
your equal and you may recognize an entirely different set of results.

>

[pi]

noname: Mind. Things.

In math, mind is a meta-thing.

pi

[noname]

You must have learned "new-math" or gotten somewhere past differential
equations (that's where i bailed because it seemed like a FWOT).

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

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:
> {:-]))) speculated metaphysically:

>
>>For brian, mind-only
>>could be some fashion of his thought
>>waves found in a notion.
>
>Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>it.

Some folks write about pure awareness or
pure consciousness without any object in mind.

I'll try to keep in mind you don't have that in mind.

Probably I'd confused you with dagnabit, or
perhaps I'm simply confused all together entirely.

>Physical circumstances don't constitute experience.

A rock experiences weather
but whether that counts as experience
might be up to someone who sees the rock
as not having anything inherent that is able to do
what is required in order to experience experiences.

Calling something something
might be called making things things.

> If you and I ride
>on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>and certain of imminent death. Of course you can extract facts from
>any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>filtering. Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>round.

If the fact is, in Truth, you and I rode a coaster,
and we each experienced the ride different
then that is that.

If there is a thing, called a coaster with rollers,
then there is that thing, no matter what it's called.

How a coaster looks looks different to all observers.
How it is felt differs as wells.

One such as pi may say, in his reality, there really are
no coasters, but there are only atoms and brains
don't ride in trains, as all there is is chemistry.

One may know one knows, for sure, or
keep in mind how words go far on rollers.

- coasting lines vary

[{:-])))]

noname <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
>> "{:-])))" wrote:
>>
>>> noname wrote:
>>>
>>>> metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>>>
>>> For brian, mind-only
>>> could be some fashion of his thought
>>> waves found in a notion.
>>
>> Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>> it.
>>
>> Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
>> on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>> excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>> and certain of imminent death.
>
>I once boarded a roller coaster with certain death at the end; we're still
>negotiating about whether this life is great enough that i should give an
>inch on any bargaining position due to that situation.
>
>> Of course you can extract facts from
>> any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>> filtering.
>
>I'm not sure whether i agree with that or not,

I am able to see what brian is saying.
To agree with him, first, might be said, of course.
Usually one, such as me, ignores that part of a truth.

> in fact i'm not sure how i extract facts.

Facts are called facts for various reasons.

If something existed only in one's mind or image-making
simulation-machinery, as on a computer-screen,
then it may be viewed as a fact of a level
other than in the so-called real-world.

To extract a fact, one may point and say, look.
See. Or, listen, hear. Or, take a whiff, smell.

And if another agrees, they may agree and call it,
a tree, needles or leaves, and go on to discuss how it goes.

>> Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>> something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>> round.
>
>For values of "facts" including things like dates and times and other
>measurements, yes; for values of "facts" meaning things-ascertained, maybe
>not so much.
>
>I don't know that we bring truth to facts, i think we rather see the truth
>in conglomerations of facts. But most of the language available for
>talking about it is a bit fuzzy at the edges.

If someone says, let's call that big thing a tree,
and seeing as how it stands alone, there is no forest,
as a matter of fact, for a forest to exist, in fact,
there needs to be more than one tree, and if
someone else agrees, they may continue.

Calling it a pine, or an oak, in fact, they might.
How it looks to a bug on its bark or smells to a dog
would probably be another story, in Truth.

- once up on a branch of time

[pi]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 12:17:12 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
> pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > noname: Mind. Things.
> >
> > In math, mind is a meta-thing.
> >
> > pi
> >
>
> You must have learned "new-math" or gotten somewhere past differential
> equations (that's where i bailed because it seemed like a FWOT).

In the CS parlance, there is data and there are procedures, but procedures can themselves be passed as arguments to (higher-order) procedures thus becoming data themselves.

This view is not *readily* apparent in the imperative, procedural and declarative paradigms but constitutes the cornerstone of the functional paradigm where running a program is tantamount (explicitly) to evaluating a mathematical function, so to speak.

pi


pi

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

>Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:
>
>because there is mind, there are things;
>because there are things, there is mind.

From a Taoist pov, it may be said,
because there are minds, things are called things.
Calling a flat rock a table makes the rock a table.
Without a mind, the stone slab may yet exist,
but it wouldn't be called by any name.

From a scientific pov, it may be said,
presumably things exist even when no observers do.

Take a fossil, for example. Old bones can be dated
using various methods to suggest a time was
before any bones of people are found
seeing as how none have been
unearthed from the ground
beyond a certain date.

In the minds of paleontologists a T-Rex is created.
What one looked like, as a matter of fact, is beyond
the scope of anyone's radar at present. All there are
in existence, now, are the bone-fossil records.

In theory, hypothetically, Earth was around
and spun into existence billions of years prior to when
dinosaurs roamed the surface and fossil records
suggest a time prior to even then when
only sea-beings are found to be.

Before any sea-being is found with a back-bone,
there are invertebrates, fossil wise, etched
literally in stone, as a matter of facts.

Without a mind to interpret the fact of a fossil,
what the stone means might be most anything,
except, far less, in fact, as nothing would be
found without a mind to find it.

- in fact, and that's the Truth

[{:-])))]

noname wrote in response to brian:

> I do not
>believe that inanimate matter evolved into intelligent life, nor do i
>believe that a "big bang" was the absolute beginning of things, i see
>physical reality as always-having-existed and always-having-changed.

One may believe one's great-great-great grand parents
did not exist and what is found in canyon layers means
nothing in terms of how archaeologists can dig it.

Ancient art-work on cave walls and arrow-heads dug up
might have always existed, or not.

Beneath the layers of sediments are found other layers.
Tree-rings and smoke-rings are able to suggest things
to folks who believe they mean something.

Carbon-decay in radioactive isotopes might be tropes,
or, perhaps something more, for those who see
and believe in what various things mean.

Looking thru a micro or a tele scope, at light passing
in front of one's eyes, shifting red or blue, doppler-wise,
might sound like time travel or science fiction to sum
two ways cellular life grows out of super stellar novae.

> The
>whole business of mind-versus-matter, which came first, which is the engine
>that drives our lives, it's the most subtle soup imaginable, and very
>likely indicates a paradox not yet untwisted.

To an epiphenomenalist, consciousness is as a flower
growing out of the mud taking billions of years to bloom.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/

To a metaphysician who sees time from a different vantage point,
the ground-figure reverses its elf at times in ways most range
far from those who never are at home in pure mind or spirit.

>When science gives evidence that the inanimate can give rise to the
>animate,

Heat convects, naturally.
Oceans warm and winds blow, animating tree leaves
far from coasting lines near the beaches for sure.

All of reality is animated, yet some forms are called plants.

Between plant life and animal life, the latter is more animated.

Rocks are animated yet move very slow, once broken or chipped
off of a mountain they are born and fall or roll to a stream.
Eventually, the life of a rock ends as its last grain is
washed to a far shore of the seas and sand
is all that remains, yet still, animated,
by waves and, a dune may shift,
as dunes too are animated
yet called inanimate
at some level
of being
alive.

>when they can intentionally evolve a talking rock in a lab on
>demand, maybe i'll see things differently, but i'm not holding my breath
>waiting for that to happen, and should that ever happen, i'll want to have
>a discussion with it before reaching any conclusions.

Some folks don't want to believe evolution occurs,
but that does not stop evolution from evolving.
As if there were such a thing as, evolution,
aside from things, such as they are
called and known, being, reified.

People used to point out gaps, and, punctuated, by leaps
and bounds, missing links were sought, and found
until now the spectrum in near complete.

When in a lab, organic molecules were synthesized
out of inorganic ones it was a surprise and so the nay sayers
retreated their line of reasons why, things cannot be
without some mind or spirit driving the process.

On the one side, God is pushed into the gaps.
To explain things that science can't, God is trotted
out globe-wise as a basket-ball might be dribbled.

On the other side, gaps are closing in fast
and yet not fast enough for many rates
for science to be rated higher on lists
than Mind, God, Spirit, et al.

>I think the whole business of how the world came to exist is very
>unimportant. It does exist, and each of us is bang in the midst of it.

To call a thing in the mind, the world, and claim, it exists,
might be taken for granted or questioned in terms of meaning.

In terms of what's for breakfast, to say, the world provides
can be on the same side order as God provides or it's all in the mind.

To ask, how does the next thing or previous one arise,
in mind one may stop, for a spell, and weave a tale.

>What's important is not where it all came from, but how to interact with
>it. Imteract with the world as though it's dead things talking and you get
>one result, interact with the world as though it's a wise teacher of
>strange appearance and you get another result, interact with the world as
>your equal and you may recognize an entirely different set of results.

For me, personally, I'm going to go interact with a store.
Yet, not so much with a store so much as people
who may be in the store at the same time
as me when me arrives there to get
what's on a list and that's a gist.

- of the world

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> pi wrote:
>> noname: Mind. Things.
>>
>> In math, mind is a meta-thing.
>

>You must have learned "new-math" or gotten somewhere past differential
>equations (that's where i bailed because it seemed like a FWOT).

An explanation of what pi means could mean
something and may reveal something
of what pi knows about math.

In what way, mind is a meta-thing,
might be something only pi knows.

- without a quote

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Why do you want truth to be other than a non-living thing
and not just an idea? Courage is an idea, which relates
to truth, which could be relevant, especially when Caiaphas
syndrome becomes relevant, when communities want to
sacrifice honest people.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Is Tao not a metaphysical idea? Is Tao
a pragmatic idea, then?

[brian mitchell]

"{:-])))" wrote:

>brian wrote:
>
>>Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:
>>
>>because there is mind, there are things;
>>because there are things, there is mind.
>
>From a Taoist pov, it may be said,
>because there are minds, things are called things.
>Calling a flat rock a table makes the rock a table.
>Without a mind, the stone slab may yet exist,
>but it wouldn't be called by any name.

Perhaps that is why Cha'n/Zen superceded Daoism.

You seem to be conflating the mind of experience (things) with
conceptual consciousness. One abstracts the concept from the
experience initially, though the two may later become
indistinguishable.

[brian mitchell]

I fall constantly into the same error. At one time I was required to
teach a creative writing course to college freshmen. I was a dismal
failure. It would be very condescending to say that I couldn't get
down to their level, but I couldn't enable them to see and appreciate
the issues of form and structure that were obvious to me. In my
earnest efforts, I usually forgot to praise and encourage what the
students had achieved, so intent was I on furthering them.

[pi]

Although being something beyond this world, which metaphysics supposedly concerns itself with, the True Tao has nothing to do with metaphysics.

Metaphysics uses words and the True Tao cannot be spoken of.

Looked at from a purely pragmatic point of view, the True Tao, understood as being the most fundamental operating principle of all realities, is something to look for but something that might just never be found. Or not. Imo.

I mean, we're light years away from understanding what quasars really are, let alone the True Tao.

http://6iee.com/data/uploads/37/432363.jpg

pi

If one asks about the Tao and another one answers him, neither of them knows it. -- Lao Tzu

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. -- Ludwik Wittgenstein

[noname]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 12:17:12 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
>> pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> noname: Mind. Things.
>>>
>>> In math, mind is a meta-thing.
>>>
>>> pi
>>>
>>
>> You must have learned "new-math" or gotten somewhere past differential
>> equations (that's where i bailed because it seemed like a FWOT).
>
> In the CS parlance, there is data and there are procedures, but
> procedures can themselves be passed as arguments to (higher-order)
> procedures thus becoming data themselves.

It's not usually a procedure that's passed unless you're passing it to a
compiler or linker. Usually it's the name of the procedure that directs
execution to the proper piece of logic along with its parameterized data.

>
> This view is not *readily* apparent in the imperative, procedural and
> declarative paradigms but constitutes the cornerstone of the functional
> paradigm where running a program is tantamount (explicitly) to evaluating
> a mathematical function, so to speak.

The similarity between a program function and a mathematical function is
primarily metaphoric, most software "functions" do little or no actual
mathematical calculation. IOW the similarity arises only because of the
way function-calls are expressed by a particular language, for example C or
C++. In assembler language there are no mathematically-styled invocations,
and abstractions are implemented at a much higher level due to the lower
level of the language being used.

All your maths are pwned.

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

[noname]

{:-]))) <wu...@wuji.net> wrote:
> noname wrote in response to brian:
>
>> I do not
>> believe that inanimate matter evolved into intelligent life, nor do i
>> believe that a "big bang" was the absolute beginning of things, i see
>> physical reality as always-having-existed and always-having-changed.
>
> One may believe one's great-great-great grand parents
> did not exist and what is found in canyon layers means
> nothing in terms of how archaeologists can dig it.
>
> Ancient art-work on cave walls and arrow-heads dug up
> might have always existed, or not.
>
> Beneath the layers of sediments are found other layers.
> Tree-rings and smoke-rings are able to suggest things
> to folks who believe they mean something.
>
> Carbon-decay in radioactive isotopes might be tropes,
> or, perhaps something more, for those who see
> and believe in what various things mean.
>
> Looking thru a micro or a tele scope, at light passing
> in front of one's eyes, shifting red or blue, doppler-wise,
> might sound like time travel or science fiction to sum
> two ways cellular life grows out of super stellar novae.

Lots of things are animate without being sentient.

Don't mistake my meaning here. The fact that i don't believe sentient life
can evolve from inanimate matter does not mean that I think there's no
evolution; evolution is inextricably tied to life: whatever lives changes,
and either evolves, or dies.

> As if there were such a thing as, evolution,
> aside from things, such as they are
> called and known, being, reified.
>
> People used to point out gaps, and, punctuated, by leaps
> and bounds, missing links were sought, and found
> until now the spectrum in near complete.
>
> When in a lab, organic molecules were synthesized
> out of inorganic ones it was a surprise and so the nay sayers
> retreated their line of reasons why, things cannot be
> without some mind or spirit driving the process.

Are you saying the guys who did the synthesis in the lab were not minds
driving the process?

>
> On the one side, God is pushed into the gaps.
> To explain things that science can't, God is trotted
> out globe-wise as a basket-ball might be dribbled.
>
> On the other side, gaps are closing in fast
> and yet not fast enough for many rates
> for science to be rated higher on lists
> than Mind, God, Spirit, et al.

It's nice to have someone to blame, though blame-taking might be a real
shitty job.

>
>> I think the whole business of how the world came to exist is very
>> unimportant. It does exist, and each of us is bang in the midst of it.
>
> To call a thing in the mind, the world, and claim, it exists,
> might be taken for granted or questioned in terms of meaning.
>
> In terms of what's for breakfast, to say, the world provides
> can be on the same side order as God provides or it's all in the mind.
>
> To ask, how does the next thing or previous one arise,
> in mind one may stop, for a spell, and weave a tale.
>
>> What's important is not where it all came from, but how to interact with
>> it. Imteract with the world as though it's dead things talking and you get
>> one result, interact with the world as though it's a wise teacher of
>> strange appearance and you get another result, interact with the world as
>> your equal and you may recognize an entirely different set of results.
>
> For me, personally, I'm going to go interact with a store.
> Yet, not so much with a store so much as people
> who may be in the store at the same time
> as me when me arrives there to get
> what's on a list and that's a gist.
>
> - of the world
>

Some of those people are just folks, and some are jobs-being-done. It's
when the job takes over the person that problems go hogwild.

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

[noname]

If it works for pi, fantastic, maybe he'll whine less about not
understanding math like the biggies do.

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

[brian mitchell]

"{:-])))" wrote:

>brian wrote:
>> {:-]))) speculated metaphysically:
>>
>>>For brian, mind-only
>>>could be some fashion of his thought
>>>waves found in a notion.
>>
>>Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>>it.
>
>Some folks write about pure awareness or
>pure consciousness without any object in mind.
>
>I'll try to keep in mind you don't have that in mind.

I don't reject it. There is an intriguing question regarding how it
would be possible to know, assuming that such pure awareness could not
be an object --thereby defeating the definition-- of itself.

>
>Probably I'd confused you with dagnabit, or
>perhaps I'm simply confused all together entirely.
>
>>Physical circumstances don't constitute experience.
>
>A rock experiences weather
>but whether that counts as experience
>might be up to someone who sees the rock
>as not having anything inherent that is able to do
>what is required in order to experience experiences.

How language shapes perception. By saying that a rock experiences
weather you slant the argument. A rock is subject to weathering
processes due to environmental factors. It seems to me that to even
approach a pure awareness one would first have to have disentangled
oneself from language and concept, if that is possible.

>
>Calling something something
>might be called making things things.
>
>> If you and I ride
>>on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>>excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>>and certain of imminent death. Of course you can extract facts from
>>any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>>filtering. Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>>something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>>round.
>
>If the fact is, in Truth, you and I rode a coaster,
>and we each experienced the ride different
>then that is that.
>
>If there is a thing, called a coaster with rollers,
>then there is that thing, no matter what it's called.

The fact that you keep insisting on this indicates that I have not
made myself clear at all.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Metaphysics are thought about by maybe all people,
whether they accept or reject it.
Realism and forming a view, about a big picture, is
inherently metaphysical, because it is not possible
to experience it all. Doubt is therefore a metaphysical
idea. Knowing, ones, and even groups,
cannot know it all is metaphysical. Nominalists,
can be argued, reject metaphysics because they each
regard only nominalist facts, without universal
repeatable causality, but an argument,
can be made; because nominalists see
each fact as an isolated event, which is not
necessarily reproducible, nominalists believe
in miracles, which is a metaphysical idea.

[brian mitchell]

Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:

>On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 10:46:25 PM UTC+2, brian mitchell wrote:
>> "{:-])))" wrote:
>>
>> >noname wrote:
>> >
>> >>metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>> >
>> >For brian, mind-only
>> >could be some fashion of his thought
>> >waves found in a notion.
>>
>> Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>> it.
>>
>> Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
>> on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>> excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>> and certain of imminent death. Of course you can extract facts from
>> any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>> filtering. Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>> something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>> round.
>>
>> `
>
>Why do you want truth to be other than a non-living thing
>and not just an idea?

Because to bring it directly and fully into living is to open at least
one of the doors of Heaven. Or so I've been told.

[{:-])))]

brian agreed:
> {:-]))) noted it pleased:

>
>>To agree with him, first, might be said, of course.
>>Usually one, such as me, ignores that part of a truth.
>
>I fall constantly into the same error. At one time I was required to
>teach a creative writing course to college freshmen. I was a dismal
>failure. It would be very condescending to say that I couldn't get
>down to their level, but I couldn't enable them to see and appreciate
>the issues of form and structure that were obvious to me. In my
>earnest efforts, I usually forgot to praise and encourage what the
>students had achieved, so intent was I on furthering them.

There used to be a founder here, Zhoubu, who
would usually start out a response with agreement,
and then go on to suggest an alternative point.

All went well, until, one day, ... ... ... .

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> pi wrote:
>> noname wrote:

>>> pi wrote:
>>>> noname: Mind. Things.
>>>>
>>>> In math, mind is a meta-thing.
>>>

>>> You must have learned "new-math" or gotten somewhere past differential
>>> equations (that's where i bailed because it seemed like a FWOT).
>>
>> In the CS parlance, there is data and there are procedures, but
>> procedures can themselves be passed as arguments to (higher-order)
>> procedures thus becoming data themselves.
>
>It's not usually a procedure that's passed unless you're passing it to a
>compiler or linker. Usually it's the name of the procedure that directs
>execution to the proper piece of logic along with its parameterized data.
>
>>
>> This view is not *readily* apparent in the imperative, procedural and
>> declarative paradigms but constitutes the cornerstone of the functional
>> paradigm where running a program is tantamount (explicitly) to evaluating
>> a mathematical function, so to speak.
>
>The similarity between a program function and a mathematical function is
>primarily metaphoric, most software "functions" do little or no actual
>mathematical calculation. IOW the similarity arises only because of the
>way function-calls are expressed by a particular language, for example C or
>C++. In assembler language there are no mathematically-styled invocations,
>and abstractions are implemented at a much higher level due to the lower
>level of the language being used.
>
>All your maths are pwned.

At least your minds are on the same length-wave.

- meta physicality being

[noname]

Communites of honest people have no need to sacrifice others.

The dishonest are always willing to step aside and let the tree fall on
those who did not cut it, as long as they get their profit from the wood.
It's not some insane conspiracy, it's just cooperation between people who
have the same beliefs and care little for truth in comparison to gold; they
want theirs, and devil take the hindmost. It is society that created the
problem, not some evil spirit bereft of blood and bone, just lots of people
with no reason to have faith in anything they can't see, while in
comparison the many fruits of modern science are on sale cheap.

Who knows that enough is enough are seldom in danger of being crushed by a
Black Friday sale crowd. They already have "theirs", though it was not
bought on sale but at full price, and usually they have had to pay extra
for the lessons that have brought them there.

When the situation degrades sufficiently and push comes to shove, free
people will step aside and let the dishonest stand under the tree; it's
their tree after all, they cut it down. Meanwhile meek chickenshits like
me will go off and eat bushes until better food appears again or age takes
us down as last-week's news.

The solution is easy, help the dishonest learn the error of their ways; of
course they think their ways are the only ones not in error, so its
implementation is difficult. Crusades of helping the savages don't work,
we know this because they have been waged and didn't work. Perhaps they
would like to become free, instead of remaining miserable wretches thrashed
daily by the stresses of dishonesty, but their toys keep them happy enough.

It's one of those things that falls under the heading NMP, Not My Problem.
I've got my freedom, and enough is enough. Society will fend for itself,
and if i'm lucky enough i'll survive; lucky for me there is no such thing
as luck. Sitting around writing programs, or chatting with a few smart
enough to think, is enough fun for me; any more fun, and i'd have to get
naked. <g>

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

[noname]

Marquard Dirk Pienaar <mdpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd say it's both. I went looking for what makes the world tick, and found
Tao on the Way.

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

[noname]

brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
> "{:-])))" wrote:
>
>> brian wrote:
>>
>>> Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:
>>>
>>> because there is mind, there are things;
>>> because there are things, there is mind.
>>
>> From a Taoist pov, it may be said,
>> because there are minds, things are called things.
>> Calling a flat rock a table makes the rock a table.
>> Without a mind, the stone slab may yet exist,
>> but it wouldn't be called by any name.
>
> Perhaps that is why Cha'n/Zen superceded Daoism.

Perhaps the handful who grokked Taoism got old and died before they could
get anyone else to understand what they were on about.

>
> You seem to be conflating the mind of experience (things) with
> conceptual consciousness. One abstracts the concept from the
> experience initially, though the two may later become
> indistinguishable.

I'm here attempting to make a point that i see as important. I may muck it
up as usual. Please take this as a statement of how i perceive reality,
rather than some attempt to speak from on-high.

We do not exactly abstract concept from experience. Rather, concept is
communicated-to us through the medium of experience. Once concept has been
received, we can then see the truth of it in various forms. The world
seen-as-a-whole is a [singular] sentient-being that communicates with its
offspring through the manifestation of circumstances within-which the
individual can either learn or die. It's a tough mother, the Great Mother,
so it pays to listen to what the world has to say with the intent of
understanding the communication. The Taoist sage sees itself as being
nurtured by the Great Mother. Conversations with the Great Mother are all
carried on in the most-secret of all languages, because each communication
is emerged from the individual to whom the message applies.

It's more than i can attempt to explain in further monologue within the
kind of language that works here. I say the Great Mother is real, in fact
my life seems to be a continual wager that it is as i believe it to be, and
i have not died before now. The future is unpredictably obvious, meaning
it's unpredictable before-the-fact and obvious after-the-fact. Live long
and prosper, dude[s].

[noname]

I've learned that teaching is a waste of effort. You can't teach someone
else much of anything they couldn't learn on their own if they needed to.
You can however demonstrate what you wish them to learn, and leave them
free to learn what they will.

The art known as "teaching", at least as i've seen it practiced in the US,
seems to be a matter of dragging all the students through the same series
of knotholes called "a curriculum" without attempting to show them the
progression of ideas that the concept of a curriculum implies. It's a lot
more enjoyable, perhaps more useful, to sit around chatting while the
"teacher" mostly observes while it can keep itself quiet. imo fwiw etc.

>

[noname]

That seems to be a common failing. <G>

>
>>
>> How a coaster looks looks different to all observers.
>> How it is felt differs as wells.
>>
>> One such as pi may say, in his reality, there really are
>> no coasters, but there are only atoms and brains
>> don't ride in trains, as all there is is chemistry.
>>
>> One may know one knows, for sure, or
>> keep in mind how words go far on rollers.
>>
>> - coasting lines vary
>

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

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> brian wrote:
>>
>>>Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:
>>>
>>>because there is mind, there are things;
>>>because there are things, there is mind.
>>
>>From a Taoist pov, it may be said,
>>because there are minds, things are called things.
>>Calling a flat rock a table makes the rock a table.
>>Without a mind, the stone slab may yet exist,
>>but it wouldn't be called by any name.
>
>Perhaps that is why Cha'n/Zen superceded Daoism.

In your mind, that may be the Truth.

Or, prehaps, such a word may have been done
away with in its day as any description is
at best not even part nor parcel.

As for me, my Path went thru Zen long ago.

Taoism was where a mine's depth was found as the mother-lode.
Gems and pearls, and swine, are wearing twos be found.

>You seem to be conflating the mind of experience (things) with
>conceptual consciousness.

The mind of a rock tends to be rock solid stone ground bed
sleeping whereas a river has a mind to meander at times.

The rock experiences rocking out.
The river is fed by streams, in thought.

>One abstracts the concept from the
>experience initially, though the two may later become
>indistinguishable.

A very small child may be placed on a coaster
or rocked in a rocking chair.

Having experiencing being rocked, many times,
and, growing up to learn about coasters, the child
may roll and learn to play the drums as
one's roles change in the band
saw while doing the jig of
all things puzzled.

Topologically, in pi's brain, a dough knot
may be viewed as identical with a mug.

- of coffee or beer, one makes no difference to him

[noname]

brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
> Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 10:46:25 PM UTC+2, brian mitchell wrote:
>>> "{:-])))" wrote:
>>>
>>>> noname wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>>>>
>>>> For brian, mind-only
>>>> could be some fashion of his thought
>>>> waves found in a notion.
>>>
>>> Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
>>> on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>>> excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>>> and certain of imminent death. Of course you can extract facts from
>>> any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>>> filtering. Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>>> something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>>> round.
>>>
>>> `
>>
>> Why do you want truth to be other than a non-living thing
>> and not just an idea?
>
> Because to bring it directly and fully into living is to open at least
> one of the doors of Heaven. Or so I've been told.

People who talk about Heaven (the capitalized Christian version) say all
manner of things depending on the flavor of their Religion.

People who talk about heaven (the lowercased abstract version of physical
reality) are few and far between. The Tao Te Ching says little of heaven,
but it uses the term "mystery" instead here and there, and speaks of
harmony with Tao, here and there. Harmony with Tao is of course the Way of
heaven, just as it is a Way here on the dirtball.

But i'd be interested to know what you were told about Heaven and its
doors, by whom, but more particularly what, and in what terms.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Maybe you are thinking about St John's Revelation, which
mentions an entity called "True and Faithfull", or something
like that.

[{:-])))]

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

... snip ...

>> Some folks don't want to believe evolution occurs,
>> but that does not stop evolution from evolving.
>
>Don't mistake my meaning here. The fact that i don't believe sentient life
>can evolve from inanimate matter does not mean that I think there's no
>evolution; evolution is inextricably tied to life: whatever lives changes,
>and either evolves, or dies.

From a physicalist/epiphenomenalist pov, sentience arises
from insentience, and that may be viewed as odd seeing
as how it is the sentience doing such a viewing.

With brian's mind-frame, it takes two.
From a dagnabit ore, sum not-two may emerge.

From a pi-view in the sky, math rules the daze
and the knights are simply chemistry as their brains
process processes while the elephant rides
on the backs of at least one turtle
simulated by the maps drawn
to depict Warsaw of all
cities two speak of.

>> As if there were such a thing as, evolution,
>> aside from things, such as they are
>> called and known, being, reified.
>>
>> People used to point out gaps, and, punctuated, by leaps
>> and bounds, missing links were sought, and found
>> until now the spectrum in near complete.
>>
>> When in a lab, organic molecules were synthesized
>> out of inorganic ones it was a surprise and so the nay sayers
>> retreated their line of reasons why, things cannot be
>> without some mind or spirit driving the process.
>
>Are you saying the guys who did the synthesis in the lab were not minds
>driving the process?

When lightning strikes, it may be enlightening.

Without a mind to see the light, it may not matter.

Given: a lab oratory.
An experiment was set up to produce and reproduce
various elements thought of as existing during an epoch.

Naturally, the thought involved was involved
during the experiement and that goes without saying.

Yet from an occult pov, it is pointed out,
how there is always thought involved in a lab oratory.

Such may be how brian's mind streams.

You and he may ride the same length of wave forms.

- unfolding within, a present, on a coaster

[brian mitchell]

noname wrote:

>brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:

>> noname wrote:

>>
>>> brian mitchell <brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
>>>> "{:-])))" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> noname wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> metaphysicalism sounds quite a mess, and is very lettery.
>>>>>
>>>>> For brian, mind-only
>>>>> could be some fashion of his thought
>>>>> waves found in a notion.
>>>>
>>>> Not mind-only, but mind-as-well. Sounds obvious, but so many dismiss
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Physical circumstances don't constitute experience. If you and I ride
>>>> on a roller coaster, you may have the time of your life and feel
>>>> excited and supercharged with energy; I may be nauseous with terror
>>>> and certain of imminent death.
>>>

>>> I once boarded a roller coaster with certain death at the end; we're still
>>> negotiating about whether this life is great enough that i should give an
>>> inch on any bargaining position due to that situation.
>>>

>>>> Of course you can extract facts from
>>>> any situation, but only by reductionist, lowest-common-denominator
>>>> filtering.
>>>

>>> I'm not sure whether i agree with that or not, in fact i'm not sure how i
>>> extract facts.

>>>
>>>> Facts are dead things we fill our minds with. Truth is
>>>> something else. It is we that bring truth to facts, not the other way
>>>> round.
>>>

>>> For values of "facts" including things like dates and times and other
>>> measurements, yes; for values of "facts" meaning things-ascertained, maybe
>>> not so much.
>>>
>>> I don't know that we bring truth to facts, i think we rather see the truth
>>> in conglomerations of facts. But most of the language available for
>>> talking about it is a bit fuzzy at the edges.

>>
>> Mine is a standard zen position, expressed as:
>>
>> because there is mind, there are things;
>> because there are things, there is mind.
>>

>> Dependent Origination in a nutshell: each arises due to the other. I
>> know this doesn't fit with your sense of undirectional causation, but
>> you might like to ponder it for a bit.
>
>Causation and manifestation are different aspects of co-dependent arisal,
>as i see things, and the unidirectionality of events is not something i see
>as absolutely unidirectional, since individuals learn from the unfolding of
>events, and individuals are part of the cosmic mentation from which
>co-dependent arisal emerges.
>
>Beyond that, the standard zen position you expressed above, is yet-another
>aphoristic saying that seems (to me) to have been a little tweaked-around
>due to time or language issues; because there is mind there are things, and
>because things interact, minds have something to observe, but I do not
>believe that inanimate matter evolved into intelligent life...

Not what is being proposed. More probable that consciousness also
evolves and is able to encompass and discriminate increasing
complexities of existence; material consciousness expanding into the
potentialities of mind.

>nor do i
>believe that a "big bang" was the absolute beginning of things, i see

>physical reality as always-having-existed and always-having-changed. The

>whole business of mind-versus-matter, which came first, which is the engine

>that drives our lives, it's the most subtle soup imaginable, and very
>likely indicates a paradox not yet untwisted.

Surely all arising is in the present?

>
>When science gives evidence that the inanimate can give rise to the

>animate, when they can intentionally evolve a talking rock in a lab on

>demand, maybe i'll see things differently, but i'm not holding my breath
>waiting for that to happen, and should that ever happen, i'll want to have
>a discussion with it before reaching any conclusions.
>

>I think the whole business of how the world came to exist is very
>unimportant. It does exist, and each of us is bang in the midst of it.

[{:-])))]

Marq asked brian:

>Why do you want truth to be other than a non-living thing
>and not just an idea?

Denotations and connotations vary.

What the word, truth, or, Truth, means, often varies.

To some minds, the truth, or Truth, is what exists, period.

It may be called, objective. What occurred, occurred.
An event actually took place. Really. For certain.

If yesterday's football game took place, it took place.

That's the truth. People may argue about the score
in terms of what it, should have been, or, ought,
to have been, but the fact that the game
really did take place, at game-level,
is what can be called: given.

What is taken for granted, or given,
is how a tale can begin to be told.

The presumptions are accepted without question.

> Courage is an idea, which relates
>to truth, which could be relevant, especially when Caiaphas
>syndrome becomes relevant, when communities want to
>sacrifice honest people.

Eminent domain is a fact of life in some spheres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Caiaphas, in the story, is depicted as presuming Jesus.

Jesus, in the story, did some strange things.
He upset the tables in the Temple. He drew attention
to himself. He criticized the authorities, aka, the Man.

The money-changers can be a clue
as to what domain Jesus was operating his most basic
system of things to be reconciled with in.

Drawing attention from, the Man, can be seen as
being not Taoist. The Sage does not do that.

The Sage is invisible, naturally.

Having the courage to go against the System
can be a struggle, without any doubt.

The struggle continues for the masses.

Whether the Sage has a mind to join the struggle
or to not be found in any struggle, or to struggle at all,
can be found in the Taoist texts. Wu xin.

Confucians may struggle all the time.
For them there is no end in sight.

Taoists tend to be found at sea,
along with turtles of all things.

- at peace

[{:-])))]

Marq asked:

>Is Tao not a metaphysical idea? Is Tao
>a pragmatic idea, then?

Words tend to have many meanings.

In a given context, a word might mean something.
In another context, a word may mean something else.

In the Chuang-tzu,
for Cook Ting, Tao was very pragmatic.

In the Tao Te Ching, when it speaks of Tao
as being that from which One emerges
Tao may be viewed as mythic.

- fwiw

[brian mitchell]

Ending a sentence with one preposition can be seen as a breach of
form; to end one with two constitutes a crime.

[pi]

noname: Computers vs math.

I thought computers are all about math.

pi

[pi]

MDP: Metaphysics.

Gott ist tot. -- Friedrich Nietzsche

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

>There is an intriguing question regarding how it
>would be possible to know, assuming that such pure awareness could not
>be an object --thereby defeating the definition-- of itself.

Awareness dawns on the surface of a lake when
a mind sees itself being reflected and then
may go for a swim making ripples or
perhaps a splash.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>

>>A rock experiences weather
>>but whether that counts as experience
>>might be up to someone who sees the rock
>>as not having anything inherent that is able to do
>>what is required in order to experience experiences.
>
>How language shapes perception. By saying that a rock experiences
>weather you slant the argument. A rock is subject to weathering
>processes due to environmental factors. It seems to me that to even
>approach a pure awareness one would first have to have disentangled
>oneself from language and concept, if that is possible.

Sitting, observing, seeing, without doing
other than sitting, observing, seeing,
hearing, being, one may know.

Without names, as TTC 1 may claim, essences
may be found rooted beneath a deep
surface dwelling.

Welling up, with names, can be called the mother
of all things, and if it were not so then perhaps
her name would need to be reinvented.

- wheel wise

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: Computers vs math.
>
>I thought computers are all about math.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA

<< Introduction Article to Heuristics and Metaheuristics -
Richard Feynman, Winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics, gives us
an insightful lecture about computer heuristics: how computers work,
how they file information, how they handle data, how ... >>

[noname]

Dunno, seems like most things that arise in the present have some roots in
the past.

[noname]

Not much. Math co-processors are about math. Graphics co-processors are
mostly about math. Computers in general are about bits and bytes and the
circumstantial evidence thereof. What computers are "most about" is logic.
In this case do this buncha stuff, in that case do that buncha stuff, etc.
It's a virulent breeding-ground for philosophers, if it's seen that way.
It's pure drudgery if it's seen that way.

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

[noname]

I wonder how to end a sentence with three prepositions. Would that
comprise a revolution?

>>
>> Drawing attention from, the Man, can be seen as
>> being not Taoist. The Sage does not do that.
>>
>> The Sage is invisible, naturally.
>>
>> Having the courage to go against the System
>> can be a struggle, without any doubt.
>>
>> The struggle continues for the masses.
>>
>> Whether the Sage has a mind to join the struggle
>> or to not be found in any struggle, or to struggle at all,
>> can be found in the Taoist texts. Wu xin.
>>
>> Confucians may struggle all the time.
>> For them there is no end in sight.
>>
>> Taoists tend to be found at sea,
>> along with turtles of all things.
>>
>> - at peace
>

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