Re: Worship of a politician
Tang Huyen
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo wrote:
> Nobody in Particular:
>
> > India keeps surprising me.
> > The latest news is the death of the Chief Minister (like governor)
> > of the state of Andhra Pradesh. Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhar Reddy died
> > in a helicopter accident on Wednesday. His popularity was such
> > that on latest count, 141 people lost their lives either from the
> > shock of hearing the news, or from suicide because they could not
> > bear the loss:http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/63498
> >
> > Wow!
>
> Now imagine trying to convince people that their favorite deity
> doesn't exist.
>
> /leebert ( I'm personally quite peeved with God for not existing ... )
Remember Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran? Lots
of people flopped over dead during his burial.
Just for the record, he studied Plato's Republic
and modelled Iran after it, in the paradigm of
the Communists who studied Marx and
modelled their countries after his ideal.
Plus �a change ...
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:Bcydnf79JPLkFT_X...@supernews.com...
> Remember Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran? Lots
> of people flopped over dead during his burial.
> Just for the record, he studied Plato's Republic
> and modelled Iran after it, in the paradigm of
> the Communists who studied Marx and
> modelled their countries after his ideal.
>
> Plus �a change ...
>
> Tang Huyen
So? What's that got to do with some judgemental comic book guy posting his
5000 word nutball social autistic rants in a newsgroup? As Daffy Duck might
say: I fail to see the significance of this.
I independently worked out without any significant knowledge of Platos other
work or Buddhism that Plato had moved on from Republic. Yet, if you listen
to Clang Huyen he's still stuck at first base.
Wake up bonehead!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> news:Bcydnf79JPLkFT_X...@supernews.com...
>
> > Remember Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran? Lots
> > of people flopped over dead during his burial.
> > Just for the record, he studied Plato's Republic
> > and modelled Iran after it, in the paradigm of
> > the Communists who studied Marx and
> > modelled their countries after his ideal.
>
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> So? What's that got to do with some judgemental comic book guy posting his
> 5000 word nutball social autistic rants in a newsgroup? As Daffy Duck might
> say: I fail to see the significance of this.
>
> I independently worked out without any significant knowledge of Platos other
> work or Buddhism that Plato had moved on from Republic. Yet, if you listen
> to Clang Huyen he's still stuck at first base.
>
> Wake up bonehead!
Yeh, but tell us how you *really* feel about him....
/leebert
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
People are vulnerable & there's nothing fluffy about the suffering
they endure in pursuit of otherwise intangible things. Santa Claus
teaches us to become ready to fight for justice. Justice is serious
stuff, it comes on the bangstick of suffering with compassion as its
antidote.
Hell, the *ideal* of an Islamic Republic seems antiquarian to us but
to those deeply inculcated into the ideals of Islam, it's progressive.
/leebert
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> Ah, yes.
> But his argument, as well as Dawkin's argument in the same
> article, is not so much about disproving God as it is, as about
> believer's and their attempts to influence non-believers.
> assertions. If the believers (in God or in Russell's teapot)
> simply would leave it at the belief, no harm would be done.
> I don't think there would be much argument, except with some
> fundamentalist atheists
> It's all the other crap that causes grief. (I believe that God
> wrote a book that is absolutely true, and you must accept it or be
> punished forever)
>
> There's a book that I'm eagerly waiting to get from the library,
> but currently someone else has it checked out:
> The Religious Case Against Belief by James P. Carse
As I said recently, regardless of how I feel
about Christianity, I admire the way it
insinuates itself as the exclusive owner of
lots of things, not just about its God (the
monotheistic claim), but the whole spectrum
of things that count to us humans. There is a
poster on public transportation in Boston
that says: "God cannot give us a happiness
and peace apart from Himself, because it is
not there. There is no such thing." C. S. Lewis.
Of course this claim represents a circular
reasoning, in that you have to accept its
premiss (the Christian God is the only source
of happiness and peace, and apart from him
there is none). Stoicism, Daoism and
Buddhism go the opposite direction, in that we
grant ourselves happiness and peace internally,
by our own effort (or effortlessness), and this
claim can be verified in this life (I admit that
the Christian claim, that the Christian God can
grant happiness and peace, can be true, but
the claim to exclusivity is untrue; however the
former part can be true because we work for
such ends ourselves, e. g., by praying, and
God is a mere rigmarole or nostrum around
which we can build our mental work, such as
praying, in closed circle, and he is fully
fungible).
Tang Huyen
zenworm
wrote:
you forgot to say:
"or you can relax and be serene"
relaxing and being present
ZN :D
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> bonfils wrote:
> > Nobody in Particular <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in news:h7ufje$l69$1
> > @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> How do you prove a negative?
> >> Can you prove that Santa Claus or the Easter bunny do not exist?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
>
> Ah, yes.
> But his argument, as well as Dawkin's argument in the same
> article, is not so much about disproving God as it is, as about
> believer's and their attempts to influence non-believers.
> assertions. If the believers (in God or in Russell's teapot)
> simply would leave it at the belief, no harm would be done.
> I don't think there would be much argument, except with some
> fundamentalist atheists
> It's all the other crap that causes grief. (I believe that God
> wrote a book that is absolutely true, and you must accept it or be
> punished forever)
But that approach becomes the case for reason because any *other's*
disinterest becomes a challenge. The responsibility of the believer
becomes defense of the faith (not adherence to process & principles of
reasoning). A credo's defender has a great deal to protect from
unraveling, so it becomes an advocates - then evangelists - game. God
is Mother, Father, and Society, writ large, numenal and
interpenetrating throughout, a realm beyond and within. But faith is a
tenuous experience and so the slightest hint, the least taint, of
personal apognosis looks perilous.
Any attempt to short-circuit this self-feeding conundrum is also
perceived as an assault on faith. It's almost impossible to *not* get
pulled into the either-or, faith/belief evidentiary fighting that
comes with the faithful. Daring to extend their tolerance for that
which would be deemed unacceptable by their fellow votaries is
tantamount to losing faith.
Apognosis - the loss of prior knowledge - is the abyss. For the
faithful it's screaming in the background, it's an 800 lb. gorilla
(EHPG) that's both not actually there and is in fact, actually there.
That's b/c the EHPG is both an abstraction of society (God, His
Writings) which is ACTUALLY THERE and a psychological slight of hand
(God, a particle field mind-form that manages soul particles, his
amazing YHWH field and receives those soul particles (or are they
waves?) in the extradimensional space of heaven, etc.).
It's one helluva trick is to first desensitize someone into *not*
fearing this abstract EHPG, then for them to learn to make it
disappear without being afraid of also making justice and compassion
also disappear (and so on).
> There's a book that I'm eagerly waiting to get from the library,
> but currently someone else has it checked out:
> The Religious Case Against Belief by James P. Carse
This wouldn't be a very thin book, would it? :-)
/leebert
SG
wrote:
If you can overcome C.S. Lewis, you can effectively overcome
Christianity.
SG
Tang Huyen
SG wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
> If you can overcome C.S. Lewis, you can
> effectively overcome Christianity.
Tell that to our Fu.
Christianity starts with a set of premisses, and
if they are rejected, the whole thing falls off.
But if they are accepted, you'll have to acept
the whole thing, according to the rule of the all
or the nothing (dictum de omni et nullo).
However you can see the above set of
alternatives only if you detach yourself from
Christianity and look at it dispassionately, from
the outside so to speak. If you engage in a
body-combat with it, fighting it tooth and nail,
you'll be stuck with it forever, which is what
happens to Fu. He is so upset and bitter with it
(perhaps not Christianity per se, but with
something that happened to him sixty years ago
on the side of his inculcation into Christianity,
but Fu cannot tell the difference emotionally)
that he wants to play victim and fight it forever,
and therefore it will keep him in its death grip
for the duration of his life. He does not want to
free himself of it. However bitter it is to him, it
is his life definition, what he carries in his head
as his story, how he tells his life to himself.
To return to C. S. Lewis, Fu groks him totally
and completely, regardless whether Fu has ever
read him. Lewis' narrative of Christianity is what
Fu accepts as his life narrative, whether in
concave or convex, for or against. That is the
warf and woof of Fu's life. Though Fu lived for
some years in a non-Christian country (Thailand),
he has never learnt to live outside of Christianity.
Christianity is the confine of his life, the
boundary of his perspective, which is what
Christianity wants, even if he has rebelled against
it for over half a century. He is a walking relict of
Jewish mythology.
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee
> If you can overcome C.S. Lewis, you can effectively overcome
> Christianity.
I still have fond memories of CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" - not for
the quality of the apologetics, but for its (perhaps misremembered)
gentle nature.
Lee Rudolph
I might also be misremembering just *which* of his volumes of apologetics
it's in, but I believe it's in that one that he (no doubt ever so gently)
explains that the Christian hell is indeed one of eternal torment, not of
extinction (preceded, or not, by torment, according to the taste of the
blinkered heretic), and why that's a good thing.
Lee Rudolph
P.S. He is risen!!!
Déjà Flu
My goodness!
The boys read all his stuff, not on my recommendation,
but their friends' - it improved their immune systems.
WB and all that, bud :)
Hollywood Lee
Yeah, to see through the civil tone and understand the structure of the
argument can be quite useful for both believer and non-believer.
Hollywood Lee
He never really fell, just got bored with the food.
Déjà Flu
True. There seem to be many more these days, who
argue for Gould's perspective in one way or another.
The religionization of logic is fascinating.
Hollywood Lee
yeah.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:OdKdnc_tdcjlFjjX...@supernews.com...
>
> Christianity starts with a set of premisses, and
> if they are rejected, the whole thing falls off.
> But if they are accepted, you'll have to acept
> the whole thing, according to the rule of the all
> or the nothing (dictum de omni et nullo).
You don't have a clue you fucking hypocrite!
When someone provides an alternate view it just glances off your bonce and
you come back yapping the same old crap you did the day before like some
special needs kid. Plagiarising long words and using convoluted language
doesn't make your rattle any more true. Instead of pissing on people who did
it better before you rolled up how about you pay attention to what's being
said and come out with something original on your own?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee Rudolph
>True. There seem to be many more these days, who
>argue for Gould's perspective in one way or another.
>The religionization of logic is fascinating.
For something I'm working on, the following is (at least temporarily)
serving as epigraph:
Logic is often informally described as the study of sound reasoning.
[...] In an enormous development beginning in the late 19th century,
it has been found that a wide variety of different principles are
needed for sound reasoning in different domains, and "a logic" has
come to mean a set of principles for some form of sound reasoning.
(from Mossakowski, T., Goguen, J., Diaconescu, R., and Tarlecki, A.,
_What is a logic?_ In J.-Y. Beziau (Ed.), _Logica Universalis_,
2005, pp. 113-133)
Mossakowski et al. go on to apply category theory to formalizing a
notion of "formal logic" for use in computer science etc. etc.; not
at all to my taste. I'm just using their words as stalking horse
for my own, which at the moment begin something like this:
===
_Logic is a model of the notion of soundly reasoned persuasion._
That slogan can be embellished a bit--and effectively turned into a
pair of definitions--in light of the epigraph from Mossakowski et al.
(2005): _a logic_ for a particular domain is _a model of soundly reasoned
persuasion within that domain_; a _formal logic_ for a particular domain
is _a mathematical model of the pre-mathematical notion of soundly reasoned
persuasion within that domain._
The slogan and its variants recognize the Classical notion that a process
of persuasion can have both reasoned (dialectical) and unreasoned (rhetorical)
components. [etc.]
===
I shall have to see whether "religionization of logic" can be usefully
stolen. Am I correct in assuming that by "Gould's perspective" you mean
that bafflegab about "non-overlapping magesteria"? Feh.
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
Perhaps it can really serve as a good example of "a logic".
If so, there may be political logics, etc. It seems, without
precise analysis, that there are such things and "logic"
becomes a loose term rather than a rigor. These systems,
constructed on dubious premises, seem to be very common.
There is a serious question of whether rigorous logic can
apply beyond geometry or mathematics.
I prefer to define a "logic" as a system of relationships
wherein, if any corollary is violated, it changes the system
itself and requires redefinition of the theorems, even if
they are arbitrary. So you can have as many bloody "logics"
as you want. Recursion roolz.
Yes, I did mean Gould's NOM. Feh^2.
Nobody in Particular
I have some friends, mostly Hindu, but also some Christians, whose faith
is very strong, and who feel absolutely no need to defend it.
I think the need to defend one's faith is inversely proportional to
the strength of it.
>> There's a book that I'm eagerly waiting to get from the library,
>> but currently someone else has it checked out:
>> The Religious Case Against Belief by James P. Carse
>
> This wouldn't be a very thin book, would it? :-)
I'll find out. I just ordered it from abebooks.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
In a sense yes, but ... no.
Considering that faith is not much more than an abstraction of
defending a societal abstraction, then what are devotees insisting
upon having faith *in?*
For instance, defending the faith of one's parents is something I'd
expect from younger votaries (I witnessed this as a teacher) and
likewise in the case of parents defending the faith of one's children.
What they're defending is not so much the faith itself but their
belief in each other (like soldiers in a small unit), then their home
institution, the perceived societal order (what's acceptable, what's
moral...), their hope to see their dead kin in some afterlife (nice
idea....).
Granted some of the evangelist dynamic is comprised by the needy &
insecure needing to prove themselves, oneupsmanning in competitive
piety and condemnation, crowding to be in the front pews.
But in a broader sense - psychosocially - it's tribe first, from
before the cradle until after the grave. Is that so much a weakness,
or perhaps just a unsophisticated and parochial approach to ethical
consistency, social responsibility, etc.? It's worth defending if
there are perceived threats to the thing in general. Perhaps people
get louder about defending their faiths when change is afoot, when
social roles become uncertain.
Those who are most comfortable with their faith perhaps demonstrate
their confidence because they feel fewer reasons to perceive threats
from the world in general & in particular, their immediate fellow
votaries (perhaps enjoying a less judgmental social mileau...). Threat
assessment (that's ego defense) could be stronger in authoritarian
social groups ... Old Testament vs. New Testament kind of stuff...
The psychology of religion continues to fascinate....
/leebert
Charles E Hardwidge
news:5dSdnb6Muui6LjjX...@posted.toastnet...
> Perhaps it can really serve as a good example of "a logic".
> If so, there may be political logics, etc. It seems, without
> precise analysis, that there are such things and "logic"
> becomes a loose term rather than a rigor. These systems,
> constructed on dubious premises, seem to be very common.
> There is a serious question of whether rigorous logic can
> apply beyond geometry or mathematics.
>
> I prefer to define a "logic" as a system of relationships
> wherein, if any corollary is violated, it changes the system
> itself and requires redefinition of the theorems, even if
> they are arbitrary. So you can have as many bloody "logics"
> as you want. Recursion roolz.
>
> Yes, I did mean Gould's NOM. Feh^2.
I find an air of purpose and sneering defeats any clever logic or arcane
handwaving. One simply looks askance and skewers them with a beady eye.
Opponents tend to fold most readily. If that fails one can always fall back
on ball and musket.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
wrote:
> "Déjà Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dark Lords have all the fun
Nobody in Particular
you lost me here.
> then what are devotees insisting
> upon having faith *in?*
Those strong-faith ones are not insisting upon anything. One of them
told me it's like you have a father that you love, who has been with
you all your life. If you are with him, and another person comes up
to you and says that this person is not actually the father that you
know, but a total stranger just pretending to be your father, would
you react strongly and felt you needed to prove that he in fact was
the father you knew? Or would you simply dismiss that claim and
stay with your father?
He continued, it's the same with his faith in God. If someone tries
to argue just to challenge it, he won't be drawn into the argument.
> For instance, defending the faith of one's parents is something I'd
> expect from younger votaries (I witnessed this as a teacher) and
> likewise in the case of parents defending the faith of one's children.
> What they're defending is not so much the faith itself but their
> belief in each other (like soldiers in a small unit), then their home
> institution, the perceived societal order (what's acceptable, what's
> moral...), their hope to see their dead kin in some afterlife (nice
> idea....).
I think I get a sense of the difference between faith and belief that
might be the basis of that book, "The religious case against belief".
Personal faith in God is not the same as "faith of one's parents".
The latter I would label "belief."
> Granted some of the evangelist dynamic is comprised by the needy &
> insecure needing to prove themselves, oneupsmanning in competitive
> piety and condemnation, crowding to be in the front pews.
>
> But in a broader sense - psychosocially - it's tribe first, from
> before the cradle until after the grave. Is that so much a weakness,
> or perhaps just a unsophisticated and parochial approach to ethical
> consistency, social responsibility, etc.? It's worth defending if
> there are perceived threats to the thing in general. Perhaps people
> get louder about defending their faiths when change is afoot, when
> social roles become uncertain.
>
> Those who are most comfortable with their faith perhaps demonstrate
> their confidence because they feel fewer reasons to perceive threats
> from the world in general & in particular, their immediate fellow
> votaries (perhaps enjoying a less judgmental social mileau...). Threat
> assessment (that's ego defense) could be stronger in authoritarian
> social groups ... Old Testament vs. New Testament kind of stuff...
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
Right. God is an abstraction of a social higher realm. The deity is
deified b/c he embodies truths that need to be reified as superceding
all else. That is, He is as much a "Reity" as a "Deity."
> > then what are devotees insisting
> > upon having faith *in?*
>
> Those strong-faith ones are not insisting upon anything. One of them
> told me it's like you have a father that you love, who has been with
> you all your life. If you are with him, and another person comes up
> to you and says that this person is not actually the father that you
> know, but a total stranger just pretending to be your father, would
> you react strongly and felt you needed to prove that he in fact was
> the father you knew? Or would you simply dismiss that claim and
> stay with your father?
> He continued, it's the same with his faith in God. If someone tries
> to argue just to challenge it, he won't be drawn into the argument.
Right, some solid ones needn't do so and sensibly resist any perceived
challenge. But other solid ones might be game to play (for whatever
reasons...).
>
> > For instance, defending the faith of one's parents is something I'd
> > expect from younger votaries (I witnessed this as a teacher) and
> > likewise in the case of parents defending the faith of one's children.
> > What they're defending is not so much the faith itself but their
> > belief in each other (like soldiers in a small unit), then their home
> > institution, the perceived societal order (what's acceptable, what's
> > moral...), their hope to see their dead kin in some afterlife (nice
> > idea....).
>
> I think I get a sense of the difference between faith and belief that
> might be the basis of that book, "The religious case against belief".
> Personal faith in God is not the same as "faith of one's parents".
> The latter I would label "belief."
I think they're conjoined. The deity concept covers a lot of ground,
but it can't support itself as a complex monotheism without a familial
and societal gestalt to prop it up.
> > Granted some of the evangelist dynamic is comprised by the needy &
> > insecure needing to prove themselves, oneupsmanning in competitive
> > piety and condemnation, crowding to be in the front pews.
>
> > But in a broader sense - psychosocially - it's tribe first, from
> > before the cradle until after the grave. Is that so much a weakness,
> > or perhaps just a unsophisticated and parochial approach to ethical
> > consistency, social responsibility, etc.? It's worth defending if
> > there are perceived threats to the thing in general. Perhaps people
> > get louder about defending their faiths when change is afoot, when
> > social roles become uncertain.
>
> > Those who are most comfortable with their faith perhaps demonstrate
> > their confidence because they feel fewer reasons to perceive threats
> > from the world in general & in particular, their immediate fellow
> > votaries (perhaps enjoying a less judgmental social mileau...). Threat
> > assessment (that's ego defense) could be stronger in authoritarian
> > social groups ... Old Testament vs. New Testament kind of stuff...
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Depends. Mileage varies with individual use.
Faith is a dicey gig, and in a more rigorously authoritarian regimen
(monotheistic vs. heno/polytheistic), the implicit mandate to
demonstrate and defend might be harder to avoid.
/leebert
Nobody in Particular
Hinduism, especially Vedanta argues that God is not to be reified.
True, there are innumerable "Gods" in Hinduism, but they are all just
symbols of what cannot be represented. The underlying reality, variously
called Brahman, Godhead, the Absolute, etc, cannot be understood and thus
cannot be reified.
The Buddha touched on this in the famous verse in the Udana passage in
the Khuddaka Nikaya:
'There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were
there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed,
there would be no escape from the world of the born, orginated, created,
formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unorginated, Uncreated,
Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, orginated, created,
formed. What is dependent, that also moves; what is independent does not
move. Where there is no movement, there is rest; where rest is, there is
no desire; where there is no desire, there is neither coming nor going,
no ceasing to be, no further coming to be. Where there is no ceasing to
be, no further coming to be, there is neither this shore (this world)
nor the other shore (Nibbana), nor anything between them.'
How about a simple monotheism?
>> > Granted some of the evangelist dynamic is comprised by the needy &
>> > insecure needing to prove themselves, oneupsmanning in competitive
>> > piety and condemnation, crowding to be in the front pews.
>>
>> > But in a broader sense - psychosocially - it's tribe first, from
>> > before the cradle until after the grave. Is that so much a weakness,
>> > or perhaps just a unsophisticated and parochial approach to ethical
>> > consistency, social responsibility, etc.? It's worth defending if
>> > there are perceived threats to the thing in general. Perhaps people
>> > get louder about defending their faiths when change is afoot, when
>> > social roles become uncertain.
>>
>> > Those who are most comfortable with their faith perhaps demonstrate
>> > their confidence because they feel fewer reasons to perceive threats
>> > from the world in general & in particular, their immediate fellow
>> > votaries (perhaps enjoying a less judgmental social mileau...). Threat
>> > assessment (that's ego defense) could be stronger in authoritarian
>> > social groups ... Old Testament vs. New Testament kind of stuff...
>>
>> Perhaps. Perhaps not.
>
> Depends. Mileage varies with individual use.
>
> Faith is a dicey gig, and in a more rigorously authoritarian regimen
> (monotheistic vs. heno/polytheistic), the implicit mandate to
> demonstrate and defend might be harder to avoid.
Depends upon the kind of faith.
My teacher used to say, Buddhist faith is akin to the faith a driver
has upon coming up on a green traffic light. There is no proof that
there is a red light on the cross street and that truck will stop.
It is faith that allows you to proceed through the intersection without
slamming on the brakes for that truck.
Allen Barker
Reasoned and unreasoned. Who has the biggest megaphone? Who hits
the political hot-buttons most effectively? Who best exploits the
distinction between the phony Washington reality and the actual
reality? Who controls the propaganda media the most effectively?
"Reasoned" seems rather insignificant in the current realpolitik
environment, versus "unreasoned." (And professional "reasoners"
must share some of the blame.)
Also, the "soundly reasoned" part seems to assume that the
premisses are both consistent and are descriptive of the actual
world. It is often the case that neither of those apply.
One can soundly conclude anything from contradictory premisses,
for example, or from premisses which are consistent but which apply
to some other world entirely.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
One that what? Simply serves as an anthropic principle, a metaphysical
field, cosmic voyeur & I dunno what else... all nicely wrapped into
one complex neat package? Or just only is one of those, making it a
simple God?
Small Gods, anyone?
This is different from the vicarious faith of believing in a
"Reity." (crap, another word everyone is going to want to ban after
I'm done flogging it about ....)
Monotheistic creeds seem to me prone to bring a great burden of
vicarious faith that demands votaries demonstrate their fidelity to a
given system. God nuked Sodom, Jesus performed miracles & went
noncorporeal after he crossed the rode or rode the cross.... and you
better believe it, buddy....
Vicarious b/c so much has to be taught and instructed on abstracted
representations that are reified as an anthropic ethics complex. That
is, "Everyone else tells me that God exists and I'd be stupid/evil/
doomed to not believe in Him," that kind of vicarious, vicariously
learned belief. And pray to Him, and he means Love, Justice,
Compassion, Integrity and FEAR DAMMIT FEAR of eternal assfuckings from
Satan's minions.
But since humans are *also* capable of intense or supernal experiences
that fit the bill as direct, authentic experiences, they are
pigeonholed into the big tent of Divinity** rather than being seen as
separate self-generated experiences. **(or relegated into the
dangerous quadrants of gnosticism, or quashed outright as heresies or
outright apostasy....)
There are rules, y' know.
/leebert
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
Foist a dialectic and it looks like reason when in fact it's just a
phoney put up job where rhetoric is supplanted in place of reasoning.
That's the beauty of a well crafted agitprop, the conclusions are so
obvious!
/leebert
Appledog
wrote:
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
>
> news:OdKdnc_tdcjlFjjX...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > Christianity starts with a set of premisses, and
> > if they are rejected, the whole thing falls off.
> > But if they are accepted, you'll have to acept
> > the whole thing, according to the rule of the all
> > or the nothing (dictum de omni et nullo).
>
> You don't have a clue you fucking hypocrite!
I would have just stopped at informing him that he is using the
intellectually dishonest 'slippery slope' argument. Calling him a
hypocrite, or accusing him that he does not have a clue, is in and of
itself an intellectually dishonest argument, that of ad hominem; it is
actually irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he said if he
were to be, or were not to be, a clueless fucking hypocrite.
Although (strictly following the above) what I believe Tang to be is
immaterial, for the record I wish to state I believe he is neither
clueless nor a fucking hypocrite.
> When someone provides an alternate view it just glances off your bonce and
> you come back yapping the same old crap you did the day before like some
> special needs kid.
This is true in a sense, but again, you have spoiled it by using
intellectually dishonest arguments; here you've made a straw man
argument out of a very bad analogy; you've also presented it as a fact
which it is most certainly not. Point of order, wile it is true that
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, everyone is not entitled to
their own facts or logic. Facts are facts. 1 + 1 = 2 is not my
opinion. It is a fact. Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki says
incorporating enables you to deduct a vacation to Hawaii as a board
meeting on your federal income taxes. He’s wrong. It’s not my opinion.
It’s the Internal Revenue Code Section 162(a) which you can read for
yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000162----000-.html.
Whether you can deduct a trip to Hawaii has nothing to do with whether
you are incoprorated. And you cannot deduct a vacation. It has to be
an “ordinary and necessary business” expense. Travel expenses which
are “lavish or extravagant” are explicitly not deductible according to
IRC §162(a)(2). The fact that Kiyosaki and his CPA co-author differ
from my statements on that subject are not matters of opinion. They
are either lying or incompetent. I am accurately describing the law.
As for you, I am not sure if you are lying or merely incompetent, or
if there is a third option somewhere. But in any case, you are
certainly incorrect in what you have said.
> Plagiarising
Plagiarising? Oh, please. Do you have any proof that was done? Of
course not. And even if you did, so what? This is hardly the forum for
academic-level discussion. Quite clearly, the people here have neither
the interest nor the ability to support something like that for any
length of time.
> long words and using convoluted language
> doesn't make your rattle any more true. Instead of pissing on people who did
> it better before you rolled up how about you pay attention to what's being
> said and come out with something original on your own?
If there was no laughter, it wouldn't be the Tao. And if he did pay
attention and learn something new about someone, he wouldn't be Tang.
:) good luck
-
Lee Rudolph
...
>Also, the "soundly reasoned" part seems to assume that the
>premisses are both consistent and are descriptive of the actual
>world. It is often the case that neither of those apply.
>
>One can soundly conclude anything from contradictory premisses,
>for example, or from premisses which are consistent but which apply
>to some other world entirely.
I did not make clear in that excerpt (I've tried to, in unquoted
later parts; now I shall try harder...) that "soundness" is also
domain-specific, at least as long as the "logic" of that domain
is still pre-mathematical; that's one (perhaps the biggest) challenge
in attempting (perhaps vainly) to mathematize various purported
"logic"s. Polya never did (as far as I can see) actually mathematize
the logic of heuristic in his work on "plausible reasoning", but those
are still great books well worth reading just for the examples.
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> Allen Barker:
Formal logic can be as rigourous as the people
who build it want it to be, though there are
constraints, discovered by Russell, Goedel, etc.
Informal logic, as used in philosophy, theology,
normal everyday discourse, advertisements, etc.
is sloppy, but in some domains where rigour is
often valued, like philosophy and theology,
there is some resemblance to formal logic, and
even modern formal logic, and such imbedded
logic (the underlying logic) can be extracted
and considered apart from the content that it
governs. My project is to use modern
systematics (in an informal manner) and the
Kantian architectonic of pure reason to make
philosophy and theology explainable from them.
The soundness of such logic is relative and not
as exacting as in mathematical logic, because
it is based on natural language, but once such
limit is accepted, philosophy and theology can
be explained by logic, and the content of
philosophy and theology can be regarded as
produced a priori by the Kantian architectonic
of pure reason. Another way of saying it is that
the content of philosophy and theology can be
regarded as produced by the Averroistic
universal Active Intellect, which perpetually
intuits all such content in a transcendent realm,
even as humans occasionally bring some of
such content to human actuality. Very Platonic
and foundationalistic, eh?
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
bonfils
I still think that being a musician is a better strategy for getting
laid.
--
bonfils
http://kim.bonfils.com
To send me a massage, please remove your.underwear
halfawake
> On 9/7/2009 3:36 PM, SG wrote:
>
>> If you can overcome C.S. Lewis, you can effectively overcome
>> Christianity.
>
>
> I still have fond memories of CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" - not for
> the quality of the apologetics, but for its (perhaps misremembered)
> gentle nature.
is it really you? ah Lee, how we've missed ye.
glad I got a few disgusting cursing fits out of the way before you
returned to play hall monitor. but I am truly glad to "see" you.
Robert
= = = = = =
halfawake
I'm totally out of my league here, I mean completely, but just to
attempt a question that might or might not make sense, wouldn't the
potential to mathematize a local logic have a chance of success in
inverse proportion to how loose the local logical structure was? If
there is a sloppy set of suppositions within a cultural realm, and a
more rigorous one in a chess community, where math-like logic is more of
a necessity, I would think the latter would be easier to mathematize.
Now you can tell me if I'm talking nonsense or not.
Robert
= = = = = = =
Tang Huyen
halfawake wrote:
> I'm totally out of my league here, I mean completely, but just to
> attempt a question that might or might not make sense, wouldn't the
> potential to mathematize a local logic have a chance of success in
> inverse proportion to how loose the local logical structure was? If
> there is a sloppy set of suppositions within a cultural realm, and a
> more rigorous one in a chess community, where math-like logic is more of
> a necessity, I would think the latter would be easier to mathematize.
> Now you can tell me if I'm talking nonsense or not.
The underlying logical structure of various folk
languages tend to have some consistency to it,
respectively, so that each folk language tends to
have some underlying logical structure peculiar
to it, but it tends to be loose and hard to
formalize. Jewish mythology falls into this class,
and Hegel says that it is based on the imagination.
In learned language, like in philosophy and
theology, e. g., in India, China and Europe (and
Europe includes northern Africa and western
Asia, the fringes extending from Algeria in the
west through Iran to the east), people consciously
and unconsciously formalize their patterns of
thinking, so that there is some logical rigour to
their language. In addition, there is the structure
of pure reason that spontaneously structures
thinking, since some prehistorical times, perhaps
six millennia ago at the latest, and this structure
of pure reason has been relatively fixed and
unvarying during that time, right down to us.
Modern logic claims to be developed
independently of history, "made of whole cloth"
"right out of thin air", but in fact it is a derivation
and formalization after the fact of such structure
of pure reason that is obvious in famous thinkers
from ancient Greece (Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics,
Plotinus, Damascius, etc.) to India (the Buddha,
the Brahmanists, the Hinduists, etc.) to China
(the Daoists). My direction is to use modern logic
to help render reason of pre-modern thought.
The architectonic of pure reason of Kant (but
Kant applies it badly) and the universal Active
Intellect of Averroes are ways of presenting this
universal working of the human mind at the top
of the mental food chain, in that in ways that
tend to be unconscious to us (the "us" here going
back to the above thinkers and probably past
them, though they are the first recorded thinkers
of such rational persuasion), such structure of
mind guides our thinking and makes it possible
to formalize it, somewhat in the line of modern
logic, but in a loose and fuzzy manner, because
such thinking depends on natural language and
not on rigourous, formal, artificial language of
modern logic (but anybody who is familiar with
the philosophical and theological language of
Europe, India and China knows how artificial
such language is, relative to folk language in the
same geographical area).
The language of the Buddha, that of the Daoists,
that of the Stoics and Neoplatonists, etc. are
brutally structured logically, even in Chinese (for
the Doaists and the Chinese Buddhists, like the
Channists) which is a famously loose and
evocative language, in comparison with
Indo-Aryan language which is very precise. I
believe that the Buddha is aware of such
underlying logic, and that in more recent times so
are Kant and Hegel.
The architectonic of pure reason of Kant and the
universal Active Intellect of Averroes are ways of
saying that some universal structure of mind is
always active beneath our thinking and formulates
it in our stead, and we thinkers are conscious only
of the product, though some rare people, like the
Buddha, Kant and Hegel are conscious also of the
structure that produces our thinking in content.
This structure is permanent, whereas thinkers
come and go, but they exemplify it, unawares,
except again for just a few exceptions, as named.
So, Robbie, you are not talking nonsense. However
in the world, I know not of a single researcher who
tries to extract such underlying logic from
pre-modern thinking, even in European thought
alone. Any time I reflect on it, I must be a freak who
single-handedly tries to render reason of human
thought, or at least of philosophy and theology in
the Euro-Asian land-mass. French-language scholars
(about half a dozen) work in that direction, but they
are lost -- they have good intention but have no idea
on how to proceed, even with Kant's thought alone.
Anglo-Saxons and Germans seem not to be
interested at all. (Anglo-Saxons seem to actively
dislike the concept of structure, especially of
structure that underlies content and governs it
surreptitiously, from behind the scenes).
Tang Huyen
zenworm
boy
logic is luck if you're stupid.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
It would seem rather essential to go for structure, but the structured
thinkers have gone over to science & engineering. I'm going to throw
some quickly sketched ideas out & see if anyone wants to take 'em &
run:
Reification is the spook that's being chased, the coalescing of some
other mental spooks into something worth talking about. Without common
"reities" to pivot on, concepts can't be pressed to fit into language
and culture.
The universe, on the cusp of the current moment, superposing the Great
Electron, reifying it into manifold experiences of the universe
constantly destroying and recreating itself - is itself a constant
field of annihilation & reification. The energy from the destruction
of the previous moment is transferred to the creation of the next
moment. There's the wave, there's the carrier wave, there's the
carrier carrier wave. There's information, but deeper information yet,
structure, substructure, but those run out, meet their "finite
regresses," when what seem unassailable dualities break down into
unaries, monisms. What seems structured logic falls apart into foisted
dialectics that themselves are rooted in short-cut (quick, ready sub-
cognitive thalamic biases).
The basic equational statement of Form <--> Emptiness demonstrates
that reification is the problem and that the constant field of
annihilatory essence lends to Mind reifying cause and effect. Self not
only builds up a wall around itself, it's also necessary to survive in
a material realm of cause and effect. But Self likes to prop up lots
of useful tropes that are just like it, take its metaphors for how
things work and turn it into productive cause & effect outcomes.
Without ego to run its constant "threat assessment" engine, Self would
be open to being revealed, unraveled.
Do the apophatic / negative theology methods ( Stoics, Nagarjuna, Neti
neti ... ) exemplify the back-tracing of reified logical dialectic of
cause vs. not-cause, to structure? As if logic itself were a field and
dialectics were just particles (or waves) then which is in fact the
fundamental principle?
This is where I've always felt that many do falter, in arguing the
obvious of dialectics (of this vs. that, of existence vs.
nonexistence, of proof vs. disproof) guided by attempts at a
nullification. Like Self, those are just attention-getting players,
wanting their turn. But attention doesn't need to be fooled by these
characters ... when tuned to itself, attention gets to see that it is
made of Mind, not Self.
"I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
/leebert
zenworm
paradox?
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
Oh. How Zen.
Paradox shows us where the breakdown in dialectics occurs, as does the
negative theological approach (the anti-nihilist apophatics of
Nagarjuna).
Dialectics violate Form <--> Emptiness, they reify form over
emptiness. Paradoxes jam a wrench in the dialectician cogworks so we
can see that there's a deeper field of experience swimming through
information, attention (mind) separate from cause & effect (karma) in
the essential field of Mind.
Then we have primordial mind as a wave-collapsing observer ... God
observes, waves collapse.
^@%>---*=#**
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c859634-89c6-497a...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>paradox?
no, parabrahman. two cows. mu mu.
Lee Rudolph
>"I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>
>Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
In the beginning was the Fart. And the Fart was with God.
And the Fart was God.
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
>>paradox?
>
>
>no, parabrahman. two cows. mu mu.
How? Now? Von Brown!
Lee Rudolph (who cares where it comes down?)
Hollywood Lee
"He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
^@%>---*=#**
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h8aoin$mfl$1...@reader1.panix.com...
till they come home ?
^@%>---*=#**
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h8apac$sgf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
another potential olfactory ignition.
i see this all of the time.
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
> On 9/10/2009 5:32 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
>
> >> "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>
> >> Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
>
> > In the beginning was the Fart. And the Fart was with God.
> > And the Fart was God.
>
> "He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
:-)
I want my own Tourrettes by Proxy, it's less work.
/leebert
Lee Rudolph
>On Sep 10, 7:50=A0am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/10/2009 5:32 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
>>
>> > luchayana superfly del pseudomodo<leebertar...@yahoo.com> =A0writes:
>>
>> >> "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>>
>> >> Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
>>
>> > In the beginning was the Fart. =A0And the Fart was with God.
>> > And the Fart was God.
>>
>> "He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
>
>:-)
>
>I want my own Tourrettes by Proxy, it's less work.
Let the Spirit move you (and/or your bowels): cacoglossolalia.
It's the way to go.
Lee Rudolph
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
Back in old SubGenius & group press days (1980's), invented the 1-
member congregational church of Our Lady of the Spontaneous Human
Combustion. The anointing rite was the torch squat, sacrament was
beans (of course).
I was Rev. Ignatious Gaseous. Our sister church was the Spontaneous
Human Ignition Temple (acronym please...).
/leebert
Hollywood Lee
> On Sep 10, 8:38 am, Lee Rudolph<lrudo...@panix.com> wrote:
>> luchayana superfly del pseudomodo<leebertar...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 7:50=A0am, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/2009 5:32 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
>>
>>>>> luchayana superfly del pseudomodo<leebertar...@yahoo.com> =A0writes:
>>
>>>>>> "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>>
>>>>>> Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
>>
>>>>> In the beginning was the Fart. =A0And the Fart was with God.
>>>>> And the Fart was God.
>>
>>>> "He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>> I want my own Tourrettes by Proxy, it's less work.
>>
>> Let the Spirit move you (and/or your bowels): cacoglossolalia.
>> It's the way to go.
>>
>
> member congregational church of Our Lady of the Spontaneous Human
> Combustion. The anointing rite was the torch squat, sacrament was
> beans (of course).
>
> I was Rev. Ignatious Gaseous. Our sister church was the Spontaneous
> Human Ignition Temple (acronym please...).
heh
Tang Huyen
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo wrote:
Mental culture, by which I mean Stoicism, Daoism
and Buddhism, takes the whole survival machinery
(which is basically our whole biological legacy,
bodily as well as mental), and gradually, patiently
reduces it, undoes it, deactivates it, so that the
cultivator stops (at least, during meditation, which
needs not at all be formal, seated meditation) the
survival instinct, across the board. As you say,
<<Without ego to run its constant "threat
assessment" engine, Self would be open to being
revealed, unraveled.>> Actually, not only does the
self deactivate its own survival machinery, so that
it can unravel itself and reveal itself to itself (the
result being that it dissolves itself in the process),
but the whole person gives up on survival and
(again, at least during meditation) surrenders
himself to what happens, without resistance
(resistance is part of the basic mechanism of
survival).
As to what Buddhism calls delusion (which really
is the survival instinct and its entire machinery),
it is built on chunking and bagging, which arrives
at names of things and events that populate our
daily life (they can get very abstract). Naming is
a powerful and totally necessary tool for survival,
and a recent article in the New York Times
shows that people who can't name the empirical
units of our daily life are lost.
A stooge of mine, Carol Kaesuk Yoon, wrote
in an article "Reviving the Lost Art of Naming the
World" in the New York Times, 11 Aug 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/science/
11naming.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all
<<The most surprising evidence for the
deep-seatedness of taxonomy comes from
patients who have, through accident or
disease, suffered traumas of the brain.
Consider the case of the university student
whom British researchers refer to simply as
J.B.R. Doctors found that upon recovering
from swelling of the brain caused by herpes,
J.B.R. could no longer recognize living things.
He could still recognize nonliving objects,
like a flashlight, a compass, a kettle or a
canoe. But the young man was unable to
recognize a kangaroo, a mushroom or a
buttercup. He could not say what a parrot
or even the unmistakable ostrich was. And
J.B.R. is far from alone; doctors around the
world have found patients with the same
difficulty. Most recently, scientists studying
these patients� brains have reported
repeatedly finding damage � a deadening
of activity or actual lesions � in a region of
the temporal lobe, leading some researchers
to hypothesize that there might be a specific
part of the brain that is devoted to the
doing of taxonomy. As curious as they are,
these patients and their woes would be of
little relevance to our own lives, if they had
merely lost some dispensable librarianlike
ability to classify living things. As it turns
out, their situation is much worse. These are
people completely at sea. Without the
power to order and name life, a person
simply does not know how to live in the
world, how to understand it. How to tell
the carrot from the cat � which to grate
and which to pet? They are utterly lost,
anchorless in a strange and confusing world.
Because to order and name life is to have
a sense of the world around, and, as a
result, what one�s place is in it.>>
Mental culture tackles the problem (of naming
and of its result in the things and events of our
daily life) head on, and starting with the Buddha,
Buddhism has always pointed out how nefarious
naming is to freedom. Once we start naming,
we catch ourselves in the very nets that we cast
about for our survival, here the names and their
referents (the biggest and baddest of which
being the self or "I"). We are the first victims of
the limits and boundaries (boxes) that we set up
for things and events to fall into, and from that
(inaugural) moment on we are prisoners of our
own boxes. Naming (and the whole machinery
for survival) exacts its price, our freedom. We
survive, but as slaves. Therefore mental culture
stops that process of naming (chunking and
bagging), not forcibly (force does not work in
mental culture) but gently, subtly.
You mention: "the apophatic / negative theology
methods", which are part of mental culture.
There are two options for them: either they deny
the referents out there, or they deny the
concepts in here. If the former, they arrive at
total and complete non-existence, as there is
nothing left, and if there is still experience, it is
experience of ... the absence of experience. If the
latter, everything is still the same, only we from
our side do not cast our nets about to catch the
things and events of our daily life into our boxes.
However, this state is possible only in meditation,
and would be very dangerous if carried out in
the open, in normal life.
As to what you say: such methods "exemplify
the back-tracing of reified logical dialectic of
cause vs. not-cause, to structure", they go much
further back than to structure, because all
structure and framework have been dropped.
The practitioner is mentally naked. (John of the
Cross and his followers, like F�nelon, talk
about the nakedness of mind in going to God).
People on these boards distinguish between
talking about the path and walking the path
(walking the talk). The dialectics that is
spawned from mental culture tends to reverse
means and end and turn the end (liberation)
into a means to support itself (to justify and
validate itself). It tends to stand mental culture
on its head and to revel in survival mechanism
(like mentation) which mental culture wants to
dissolve. However this trend is not limited to
dialectics but extends to the whole cottage
industry of talking about the path to liberation,
and almost all the famous doctors of
Buddhism have been talkers rather than
practitioners. They become famous because
they write abstruse tomes, not because they
practice well what they talk about. All the
fakers also try to put up a facade of talk
rather than of practice, which is why on
these boards they keep blowing up on mere
words on the screen, even with the
protection of asynchronicity. They cannot
even fake some calm and serenity.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo wrote:
> "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>
> Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
As to your quote: "I am the word", from The
Tetragrammaton: I know that I am a rank
amateur in Jewish mythology, but if Yahweh
claims to be the Word and to create the
world from Word, how can his followers
deny words, as in negative theology? The
negative theologians jump through hoops to
justify and validate their version of God,
and some of them fail and end up on stake
or in water (the Seine and Rhine being
famous for such cathartic purpose). The
surprising thing is that lots of them succeed,
at least with regard to the Church. Again, I
know that I am a rank amateur in Jewish
mythology, but to me, a wordless God is a
contradiction in terms in Jewish mythology.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:L5adnXPp-6z6PDTX...@supernews.com...
>
> Again, I know that I am a rank amateur in Jewish mythology, but to me, a
> wordless God is a contradiction in terms in Jewish mythology.
Bullshit.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> People on these boards distinguish between talking about the path and
> walking the path (walking the talk).
Bullshit.
>They cannot even fake some calm and serenity.
Bullshit.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
wrote:
> "Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
I've found the mentally vacant have a problem understanding people and
come
out with little memes they keep repeating. I don't have much time for
arguing or being wound up. Life is short and if the cretin hasn't got
it by
now there's more profitable ventures.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
"...which is in fact the fundamental principle?"
paradox
is there a principle more fundamental than paradox?
zenworm
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
relax and be present
Sentiment Bri
"luchayana superfly del pseudomodo" <leeber...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:ccb722db-35aa-4163...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
/leebert
----------
I'll write as inspired. I'm not going to claim any coherence with the
topic. I'm *way* outta my league here.
The differences between the organic and formalized logic structures...the
question is "What is the cause of the sophistication of language(reification
complexity)?" Rob's "chess community" is a reflection of the surviviving
(*warning: over used word alert) meme. If that meme is simply more complex,
it would be more difficult to mathematize. Its seemingly formalized logic
base is irrelevant. What matters is the complexity and sophistication.
That written, some languages may be more context based - who says it, how
they say it, when they say it. So, if the underlying structure of the
communication is less language based there will be a more difficult time
mathematizing the communication but an easier time mathematizing the
language.
That written, there are probably varying degrees of complexity and
sophistication of the pre-language communcication. Is there a way to
determine whether Jewish Mythology is emotionally more astute than say, the
Baghvad-Gita? Both are very mythological/imaginative based, but maybe one
is better at navigating through diverse social structures. In Tangism
(minimalist Buddhist/Stoicism), the emotional complexity is reduced to the
impossibly simple (RABS and tautological ITSWBJTS).
For Tangism to work, the external environment of the individual practioner
has to be modified to allow such emotional responses to harmonize. One
might be better to use the other methodologies (complex Buddhism, Jewish
Mythology, etc.) first; before Tangist philosophy will emerge in the
individual practitioner. The environment also has to be just right too,
regardless of the individuals ability to know of the "spirit".
That written, Tangism is admittedly fluff, but still a valuable sentiment.
Sentiment Bri
"luchayana superfly del pseudomodo" <leeber...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:ccb722db-35aa-4163...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
/leebert
----------
Sentiment Bri
"luchayana superfly del pseudomodo" <leeber...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:91430e29-4505-496a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
:-)
/leebert
--------------
Outsourcing is the way to go...if you have to go.
^@%>---*=#**
>paradox
"i saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada
at trader vic's and his hair was perfect."
>warren zevon
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
> As to what Buddhism calls delusion (which really
> is the survival instinct and its entire machinery),
> it is built on chunking and bagging, which arrives
> at names of things and events that populate our
> daily life (they can get very abstract). Naming is
> a powerful and totally necessary tool for survival,
> and a recent article in the New York Times
> shows that people who can't name the empirical
> units of our daily life are lost.
> "... Most recently, scientists studying
> these patients’ brains have reported
> repeatedly finding damage ... Without the
> power to order and name life, a person
> simply does not know how to live in the
> world, how to understand it....
> Because to order and name life is to have
> a sense of the world around, and, as a
> result, what one’s place is in it.>>
This goes along with many other organic brain functions that we take
for granted in the everyday qualia of egoic, survival mind.
> Mental culture tackles the problem (of naming
> and of its result in the things and events of our
> daily life) head on, and starting with the Buddha,
> Buddhism has always pointed out how nefarious
> naming is to freedom.
Naming sets parameters. Learning a parameter-based system (a religion,
anything...) is time-intensive and it's expedient to work within one
so long as it provides efficient results. Keeping within the safety of
"what works" is an intelligent choice, so long as one is aware of it.
Going back to redefining parameters threatens to be inefficient, it
presents the nettlesome problem of going back to beginnings. But
beginner's mind doesn't anticipate boundaries in the pleasures of
curiosity and venture.
Bounds-checking, OTOH, is timid work, it's expedient. This is where
culture at large become a hazard to itself, when the expediency of the
orthodox brings an ossified prison. The safety of parameters feels
like freedom (an ordered, predictable, scheduled life does allow for
other efficiencies) but it can create such a well-ordered garden that
no chaos may intrude and in a chaotic world, full of heterodox
discoveries, the walled garden comes to resemble a barren firebreak.
The perfect slave thinks he's free.
> We survive, but as slaves. Therefore mental culture
> stops that process of naming (chunking and
> bagging), not forcibly (force does not work in
> mental culture) but gently, subtly.
Deconstruction is not enough b/c it can assail the defenses of others
while still holding onto survival habits.
> You mention: "the apophatic / negative theology
> methods", which are part of mental culture.
> There are two options for them: either they deny
> the referents out there, or they deny the
> concepts in here. If the former, they arrive at
> total and complete non-existence, as there is
> nothing left, and if there is still experience, it is
> experience of ... the absence of experience. If the
> latter, everything is still the same, only we from
> our side do not cast our nets about to catch the
> things and events of our daily life into our boxes.
> However, this state is possible only in meditation,
> and would be very dangerous if carried out in
> the open, in normal life.
Very fine point. Meditation is where self accesses parameterless
experience, mind at its rawest - the base psychical field of
experience. This is useful stuff. But even mere glimpses of primaeval
mind can inform the daily use of survival mind, esp. with the stress
that life brings.
> People on these boards distinguish between
> talking about the path and walking the path
> (walking the talk). The dialectics that is
> spawned from mental culture tends to reverse
> means and end and turn the end (liberation)
> into a means to support itself (to justify and
> validate itself). It tends to stand mental culture
> on its head and to revel in survival mechanism
> (like mentation) which mental culture wants to
> dissolve.
Well, that's people. Who isn't prone? I think the hazard is greater
online. What draws some people into such fora? Once here, what guide
have they to help them examine what they want (safety? recognition?)
or what is really being offered (liberation? camaraderie?).
> However this trend is not limited to
> dialectics but extends to the whole cottage
> industry of talking about the path to liberation,
> and almost all the famous doctors of
> Buddhism have been talkers rather than
> practitioners.
We live in a media world that preys on distraction. Go to a library or
bookstore or turn on a TV and you get a hint there's an expectation
that we're all supposed to gulp in more and more distraction.
Breadth is grand, entertaining and tickles our wish for novelty.
Novelty in turn can tickle our wish to be deep, showing us fresh
vistas where the parameters aren't locked in. But depth, that's for
the few who want to go dig that far. The Gnostics in the back pews,
the Sufis hiding in their poems away from the mob cutting their scalps
open.
Media culture least wants experiences to slow down, their answer is
throughput: A constant velocity of ideas and experiences to keep the
ant hill humming along. But is it sustainable? The colony is thriving
but is it happy? And if it's not happy then how can it thrive?
The walled garden of the Amish is workable but may not be sustainable.
However neither will be the crazy pace of consumer ego with its faux
novelties feeding survival mind.
> They become famous because
> they write abstruse tomes, not because they
> practice well what they talk about.
They're selling something to eager minds seeking novelty, breadth.
Chopra & his ilk.
The upset personas found in these fora are likely trying to detangle
( pun not intended ,but hey, there it is) a great deal of mental
spaghetti.
/leebert
zenworm
survival is optional
Tang Huyen
Sentiment Bri wrote:
> "luchayana superfly del pseudomodo"
>
> > Hollywood Lee:
>
> > > Lee Rudolph:
>
> > >> luchayana superfly del pseudomodo:
>
> > >> > "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
> > >> >
> > >> > Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
>
> > >> In the beginning was the Fart. And the Fart was with God.
> > >> And the Fart was God.
>
> > > "He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
>
> >:-)
> >
> >I want my own Tourrettes by Proxy, it's less work.
>
> Outsourcing is the way to go...if you have to go.
It would be nice to enjoy one's happiness
and outsource one's unhappiness, eh?
Which is why I keep happiness to myself
and delegate the posting of blowups to my
miscellaneous stooges and sock puppets
from around the world.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Sentiment Bri wrote:
Whatever I feel about Jewish mythology, I
admire the simplicity of the possible delivery
of it, as I witness all the time: one person
standing on a soap box screaming his version
of Christian salvation, two or three people
standing around singing gospel music and
swaying to its rhythm, etc. The message is
quite simple, especially for delivery, and is
nowhere near as complicated and
self-contradictory as the Buddhist equivalent.
The problem with Buddhism is that it
*wants* to be complicated and
self-contradictory, so that its recipients do
not take it too simply and literally, but
reflect on its Aufhebung (roughly, its own
transcending of itself, reitereated all the
way until the whole mentation collapses on
its own weight). Of course Buddhism can
also be simple in practice, like in
mindfulness, but try to explain mindfulness
to others .. (or even to yourself!).
Buddhism is consciously built on the
assumption that it will pull itself down at
the end, leaving its practitioner free, but
even the whole way, the practitioner has to
rely on himself (one binds oneself and
liberates oneself), and all the forces in play
(including the practitioner) are flatly
impersonal, therefore hard to relate to (the
denial of both the self and the person is
very counterintuitive, therefore hard to
relate to), whereas Jewish mythology is
very personal, and salvation depends on
your accepting of such a personal relation,
all tailor-made for easy consumption. (I
leave aside various passages from Jewish
mythology that can go very strongly
against the current of social practice of the
present world, which I quoted previously).
One example on these boards: when Fu
talks Christianity, whether for or against,
he talks very simply. He can be abruptly
for or abruptly against, but he hasn't to
explain, because it is almost self-evident.
When he talks Buddhism, regardless
whether he fakes anything or not, he goes
ballistic in complexity and self-contradiction.
Such attributes belong to the respective
territory, not to him. He is only adapting to
the situation.
One major difference between Jewish
mythology and Buddhism is that in the
Jewish mythology, our daily reality and the
ultimate reality (God's kingdom) go in the
same direction, whereas in Buddhism, there
is that vexing contrast between conventional
reality of our daily life and ultimate reality of
the liberated people, so that they go in almost
contrary directions. In Jewish mythology,
even as God's kingdom is more glorious than
our fallen world here below, it is in the same
direction as our fallen world, only more
glorious (you haven't to turn your head upside
down to get it). Our soul is either saved or
damned, and if it is saved, it will still be a soul,
beholding God in perpetuity, and both the soul
and God are real and eternal, both in our fallen
world and in God's kingdom. (The soul which is
damned is also real and eternal, so that it can be
roasted in eternity, for real).
In Buddhism, the conventional reality of our
daily life is burdened with an illusory self and
an illusory person, but in ultimate reality, there
is no self, no person, no object, no reference,
no sign, no mark, no characteristic, so that the
conventional reality of our daily life is
somehow at antipodes with ultimate reality,
and ultimate reality is very hard to understand,
and Buddhism even recommends not to try to
understand ultimate reality (like Nirvana) at all.
To stand in a street corner, on a soapbox, and
try to explain all those occult and contradictory
ideas to passers-by would be a thankless task.
The Buddha, before even starting his ministry,
thought to himself that the Law (Dharma) that
he discovered and would be teaching (if he
agreed to teach, which he was not sure of
initially) went against the stream, in modern
terms that it was counter-intuitive, and how
right he was.
Generally, Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism
go back to a state before creation, in that in
them the things and events of normal life have
not been created, and are created for deluded
life. Jewish mythology is vastly more, ah,
practical, and starts with things and events as
we know them, only it lamely tries to explain
them by a rather simple-minded myth of
creation, but in this creation, God created by
words (which presupposes that language is
already in existence) the things and events of
daily life (the things and events that we observe
in our daily life, like sun and moon, and the sun
turning around our earth, etc.), all in a crudely
anthropomorphic manner, but just such crude
anthropomophic imagery can be immediately
related to, in contrast with the sophisticated
worldview devoid of anthropomorphism as in
Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism, which is very
hard to relate to, because it intentionally goes
back to a state that is devoid of
anthropomorphism (sorry for the tautology).
How do you explain a state that is devoid of
anthropomorphism to the unwashed masses,
and even to intellectuals? No language, no
thought, no self, no person, no object, no
reference, no sign, no mark, no characteristic,
etc. You must be mad to even believe in such a
state!
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
news:r6ydnVRst7reaTfX...@supernews.com...
>
> One example on these boards: when Fu
> talks Christianity, whether for or against,
> he talks very simply. He can be abruptly
> for or abruptly against, but he hasn't to
> explain, because it is almost self-evident.
> When he talks Buddhism, regardless
> whether he fakes anything or not, he goes
> ballistic in complexity and self-contradiction.
> Such attributes belong to the respective
> territory, not to him. He is only adapting to
> the situation.
So, you've adapted to bullshit?
Okay...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Déjà Flu
Actually, it was quite a compliment.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:_bSdnfDsn8ujizbX...@posted.toastnet...
Bullshit.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
wrote:
> "Déjà Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_bSdnfDsn8ujizbX...@posted.toastnet...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> >>news:r6ydnVRst7reaTfX...@supernews.com...
>
> >>> One example on these boards: when Fu
> >>> talks Christianity, whether for or against,
> >>> he talks very simply. He can be abruptly
> >>> for or abruptly against, but he hasn't to
> >>> explain, because it is almost self-evident.
> >>> When he talks Buddhism, regardless
> >>> whether he fakes anything or not, he goes
> >>> ballistic in complexity and self-contradiction.
> >>> Such attributes belong to the respective
> >>> territory, not to him. He is only adapting to
> >>> the situation.
>
> >> So, you've adapted to bullshit?
>
> >> Okay...
>
> > Actually, it was quite a compliment.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
Takuji
<leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 8:58 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:
> The perfect slave thinks he's free.
> /leebert-
a perfect slave is free
because a perfect slave transcends
the thinking of one's self.
Takuji
wrote:
...from where does one take the measure?
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
> I'll write as inspired. I'm not going to claim any coherence with the
> topic. I'm *way* outta my league here.
I'm there with you ... this is pretty much on the edge of useful
language for me .. maybe b/c what we're discussing is most experienced
beyond language.
> The differences between the organic and formalized logic structures...the
> question is "What is the cause of the sophistication of language(reification
> complexity)?" Rob's "chess community" is a reflection of the surviviving
> (*warning: over used word alert) meme. If that meme is simply more complex,
> it would be more difficult to mathematize. Its seemingly formalized logic
> base is irrelevant. What matters is the complexity and sophistication.
I'll go with that but thought of something along side this ... that
mind has an inherent affinity for logic and structure, of satisfying
(however expediently) the need to associate causes to observed results
(karma). Self & mind seem wont to make up reasons for *why* something
happened, it's integral to survival mind (ordinary mind) - self & ego
- to establish these causal links all around us.
At a cultural macro level we have an entire explaining (& possessing)
class that makes up explanations for us to follow, purposefully
foisting dialectic into the mind politic. They create FUD, fnord
thingees, etc.
Observing the mental sense of higher animals (advanced encephalopods
like octopi, a great many of the vertebrates, including fishes) there
very much appears to be a common capacity for reasoning and conscious
qualia. IOW, experience occurs, learning is acquired, all the
essential faculties of Mind occur and Self is reified as a matter of
ordinary/survival mind (biological necessity).
By necessity, either by instinct or learning built on instinct, many
species develop their own culture of living where behavioral and
mental patterns are set, exchanged and followed. Some of the basic,
instinctual behaviors probably entail little cognitive processing, but
even in the lowliest of vertabrates and highest of molluscs, evidence
of cognition has been clearly established.
And with the upper faculty of cognition established comes the ability
to work on established constructs, and with the higher faculties,
learn new assumptions and build on them, cementing them as working
models of environmental objects with learned expectations. It might
seem like living through pure intuition, with intuition as just
precognitive shortcutting that produces functional results, but
there's more to it than that. Creatures still have to cognitively
arbitrate when it's appropriate to drive a certain new behavior in
gaining some kind of result. Cause and effect are understood. The
sophistication of Mind and Ego in animals can be established up the
evolutionary ladder -- dogs can act guilty just by seeing their
masters reaction to evidence of some prior misdeed. Mind and ego are
built-in constructs that reify cause and effect into expected pattern
rules. When past events are reified into a expectation of future
cause-effect, a reity is formed. And with reity constructs Mind and
Self can conduct business via Ego.
With that I'm going to argue that shame in dogs is as much a reity
construct as the culturally inculcated concept of God in humans.
Octopi will act guilty after sneaking back to their tanks after trying
to raid fish in adjacent aquaria!
[ I know it's made-up jargon so forgive my flogging "reity construct"
about. I'm trying to see if it can be used, as opposed to "meme,"
partly b/c memes have been defined as emergent virtual properties of
physical culture that are supposed to drive both cultural and physical
evolution. Reity constructs, OTOH, can be either organic (biological)
or cultural and can be defined with no bearing on such bigger issues
like evolutionary function..]
God is a Reity, an abstracted formulation that represents multiple
levels of the gestalt social mileau surrounding a person. The deity
concept - anthropic and metaphorical - cements a sense of something
REAL, even though most of the evidence for such a reity is strictly
anecdotal and vicarious. That doesn't matter, it's as real to the
votary as they believe it is, even if we know it's a matter of their
faith in the expedience of being in agreement with (or appeasing)
their fellow believers. I think it's been joked that dogs have Gods
too, faithful to their masters (perhaps Cats are closer to being
Buddhas, when they purr it's a Jhana or Samadhi ...).
Reity constructs go up & down a hierarchy of both sophistication and
dependency, forming an entire mental culture of expectations and
skills that handle the karmic realm. Some are innate and instinctual,
others learned - but no matter, Mind and Self rely on these mental
forms in order to deal with the chaos of a karmic environment where
the experience of pristine, primordial emptiness is fleeting.
And likewise the novelty felt by the curious creature is clear,
unafraid and open to the present moment. And octopus can figure out
how to unscrew the lid off a glass jar in order to get at a morsel.
The joy of Beginner's Mind!
Maybe other animals can't assess all the implications of the dharma
like a human can, but that'd make them no less a meditator than a
human and perhaps no less capable of certain attainments or meditative
states. Maybe samadhi & jhanas are innate to sufficiently complex
brains that possess a conscious mind.
But do Octopi have Buddha Nature? What do creatures do when sitting
still? Focus? Mentate? Meditate? Maybe meditation is an innate process
of quiescence, easier for some creatures than others to take part
in.
I'm imagining aquatic prana for encephalopods!
Well... I could take this farther but it's beddy bed time. Gotta go
furniture hunting tomorrow (may the fair winds of good fortune blow
gently on the yards we sale ....).
/leebert
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
Hmmm. Without self-abnegation? Only a Buddha...... :-)
/leebert
boy
<leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:50 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/10/2009 5:32 AM, Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
>
> > >> "I am the word." -- The Tetragrammaton
>
> > >> Ummm... or I could just be talkin' out of my ass.
>
> > > In the beginning was the Fart. And the Fart was with God.
> > > And the Fart was God.
>
> > "He who smelt it dealt it" - Proverbs of the Lees 4:1
>
> :-)
>
> I want my own Tourrettes by Proxy, it's less work.
>
you can fart by proxy?
boy
<leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 3:45 am, Takuji <Takujise...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 7:55 am, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> > <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 10, 8:58 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> > > wrote:
> > > The perfect slave thinks he's free.
> > > /leebert-
>
> > a perfect slave is free
> > because a perfect slave transcends
> > the thinking of one's self.
i liked my slaves to fear my wrath until it became a homo erotic sado
masochistic addiction.
SG
> > They're selling something to eager minds seeking novelty, breadth.
> > Chopra & his ilk.
>
> > The upset personas found in these fora are likely trying to detangle
> > ( pun not intended ,but hey, there it is) a great deal of mental
> > spaghetti.
>
> > /leebert
>
> survival is optional
*hits buzzer* Wrong! That is one option not open to us.
SG
Mort
cashing in, me out. it is the end game. i am not a joke. i have
never been here before like this. there's something wrong but it
feels so right right now. good bye, unless i change my mind or
somethingorother (i am not strict about limitations, especially self
limitations).
SG
> "...which is in fact the fundamental principle?"
>
> paradox
>
> is there a principle more fundamental than paradox?
>
> relaxing and being present
> ZN :D
That guy that heads the Bob Jones University?
SG
Julian
Chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the Gohonzon.
>No language, no
> thought, no self, no person, no object, no
> reference, no sign, no mark, no characteristic,
> etc. You must be mad to even believe in such a
> state!
Is that so?
Charles E Hardwidge
"Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h8gq7o$9h7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the Gohonzon.
I'm having great fun telling Alex Smith of Labour List he's an arrogant
socially spastic gutless cunt (and all variations thereof) and seeing this
cocky little advocate of free speech hit the chicken switch every time.
Cunting-fucking-wanking-bastard
Cunting-fucking-wanking-bastard
Cunting-fucking-wanking-bastard
It's got a beat to it!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
>
> "Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8gq7o$9h7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the Gohonzon.
>
> I'm having great fun telling Alex Smith of Labour List he's an arrogant
> socially spastic gutless cunt (and all variations thereof) and seeing
> this cocky little advocate of free speech hit the chicken switch every
> time.
Cool. I'm busy decorating my new flat.
It's got stunning, panoramic, 9th floor views
of the sun setting over all West London.
The Peoples Republic of Camden isn't all bad,
especially the NW3 bit.
Charles E Hardwidge
I've just discovered my house is in a blind spot in Google Street View.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
> "Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8gv20$er5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>>
>>> "Julian" <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8gq7o$9h7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> Chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the Gohonzon.
>>>
>>> I'm having great fun telling Alex Smith of Labour List he's an
>>> arrogant socially spastic gutless cunt (and all variations thereof)
>>> and seeing this cocky little advocate of free speech hit the chicken
>>> switch every time.
>>
>> Cool. I'm busy decorating my new flat.
>>
>> It's got stunning, panoramic, 9th floor views
>> of the sun setting over all West London.
>>
>> The Peoples Republic of Camden isn't all bad,
>> especially the NW3 bit.
>
> I've just discovered my house is in a blind spot in Google Street View.
Ask for a Council tax rebate.
SG
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've been to Trader Vic's in Vancouver, BC. = wonderful
in Hawaii = wonderful
(if you don't mind non-stop Elvis in the background)
in Beverly Hills = horrible!!
(money must truly corrupt)
SG
SG
A homeless man walks into a 5 star hotel lounge
and sits down on the plush furniture and says to
himself, "all mine."
SG
Charles E Hardwidge
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>> I've just discovered my house is in a blind spot in Google Street View.
>
> Ask for a Council tax rebate.
This is exactly what I wanted.
Still working on the Force Choke...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
SG
> > > survival is optional
>
> > *hits buzzer* Wrong! That is one option not open to us.
>
> > SG
>
> cashing in, me out. it is the end game. i am not a joke. i have
> never been here before like this. there's something wrong but it
> feels so right right now. good bye, unless i change my mind or
> somethingorother (i am not strict about limitations, especially self
> limitations).
Why the impatience? When this form of suffering ends, another
form of suffering takes its place.
SG
Sentiment Bri
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:r6ydnVRst7reaTfX...@supernews.com...
>
>
I think it may be a mistake to determine the sophistication of one over the
other. The sophistication is really only evidenced in the interpretation,
anyway.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:b178cbe2-dfc7-49e7...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> A homeless man walks into a 5 star hotel lounge
> and sits down on the plush furniture and says to
> himself, "all mine."
I get that feeling watching low men organising things and you tools of low
men being industrious. It's quite the feeling of effortless power.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:lSWqm.44782$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
>
> I think it may be a mistake to determine the sophistication of one over
> the other. The sophistication is really only evidenced in the
> interpretation, anyway.
Writing "Bullshit" requires fewer letters.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "Sentiment Bri"
>
> > I think it may be a mistake to determine the sophistication of one over
> > the other. The sophistication is really only evidenced in the
> > interpretation, anyway.
>
> Writing "Bullshit" requires fewer letters.
Bullshit.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Sentiment Bri wrote:
> I think it may be a mistake to determine the sophistication
> of one over the other. The sophistication is really only
> evidenced in the interpretation, anyway.
Stanislas Breton, Unicit� et monoth�isme, Paris:
Cerf, 1981, 82: "It is very true that the Bible is
gross and that its only god has too human traits
[Il est bien vrai que la Bible est grossi�re et que
son dieu unique a des allures trop humaines]."
The late Father Breton (d. 2005) was a
well-known Catholic theologian in France and
Belgium (he taught at the Catholic Institute in
Paris and was invited to deliver lectures just
before his death at the famous Catholic University
of Louvain in Belgium), and in that book, quoted
modern logicians like Frege, Russell, etc.
On page 75, note 6, he quoted Marx, Contribution
to the Critique of the Philosophy of Right of Hegel
about "the class which is no longer one, which is
the dissolution of all classes [la classe qui n'en est
plus une, qui est la dissolution de toutes les classes]."
Hegel's Aufhebung, understood correctly, and also
pretty Buddhist, eh?
Tang Huyen
zenworm
ego dies in Moment
zenworm
if he falls asleep they kick him out
Takuji
> On Sep 12, 4:26 pm, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 3:45 am, Takuji <Takujise...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 11, 7:55 am, luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
>
> > > <leebertar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 10, 8:58 pm, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > The perfect slave thinks he's free.
> > > > /leebert-
>
> > > a perfect slave is free
> > > because a perfect slave transcends
> > > the thinking of one's self.
>
> i liked my slaves to fear my wrath until it became a homo erotic sado
> masochistic addiction.
You will never have a perfect slave.
Takuji
he's not homeless
boy
lover and idol, slave and master. got to beat them into shape so that
they can give a satisfaction.