Literature News

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T06:20:00.001-08:00

Rigs, I may not have put it better !

On Jan 27, 6:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In
> fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift
> through his.
>
> Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant
> consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to
> mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic.
> The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe.
>
> The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its
> "peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there
> with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way?
>
> We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and
> let the circles spread- if possible.
>
> On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
> > scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.
>
> > There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
> > you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?
>
> > Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
> > are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
> > cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
> > balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
> > billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
> > and wicked.
>
> > Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
> > appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
> > the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
> > without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !
>
> > On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> > > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> > > see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > > thing to me.
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > >> > what does not.
>
> > > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:41:00.001-08:00

I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In
fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift
through his.

Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant
consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to
mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic.
The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe.

The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its
"peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there
with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way?

We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and
let the circles spread- if possible.

On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
> scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.
>
> There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
> you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?
>
> Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
> are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
> cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
> balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
> billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
> and wicked.
>
> Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
> appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
> the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
> without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !
>
> On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> > see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > thing to me.
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > >> > what does not.
>
> > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:35:00.000-08:00

The paramount paradox.

On Jan 27, 8:21 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I
> was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series
> aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could
> keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so
> much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled
> ideas! :-) Oh, dear!
>
> However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider
> there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet
> that is our struggle to bridge- if possible.
>
> On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
> > the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
> > common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
> > isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
> > phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
> > that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
> > looking within.
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> > > already exists.
>
> > > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> > > that it has.
>
> > > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> > > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> > > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> > > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> > > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> > > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> > > picks and chooses.
>
> > > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > > Earth.
>
> > > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > > its support.
>
> > > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > > rule).
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > > what does not.
>
> > > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:21:00.001-08:00

Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I
was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series
aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could
keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so
much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled
ideas! :-) Oh, dear!

However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider
there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet
that is our struggle to bridge- if possible.

On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
> the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
> common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
> isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
> phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
> that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
> looking within.
>
> On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> > already exists.
>
> > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> > that it has.
>
> > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> > picks and chooses.
>
> > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > Earth.
>
> > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > its support.
>
> > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > rule).
>
> > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > what does not.
>
> > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T04:34:00.001-08:00

The multitude is a reflection, and, if your eyes and ears are open, a
dialogue with, of the infinite mystery within.

On Jan 26, 11:57 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> and humanity as a whole.
>
> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T04:32:00.001-08:00

Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
looking within.

On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> already exists.
>
> Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> that it has.
>
> Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> picks and chooses.
>
> We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > Earth.
>
> > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > its support.
>
> > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > rule).
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > a challenge?"
>
> > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > what does not.
>
> > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T01:55:00.000-08:00

Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.

There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?

Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
and wicked.

Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !

On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > thing to me.
>
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > >> > what does not.
>
> > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > >> > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-26T14:31:00.001-08:00

I read '100 Things To Do To Prevent Altzheimers' yesterday and have
forgotten them all James. Maybe the last line read 'forget all this
tosh'! God/nature hardly matters to me either.
One doesn't really want to dismiss any argument, yet I sense we have
somehow to stop ceding all the ground to the madness of our power
elites and their appeal to the vapid. It's impossible to imagine
argument shifting this unless we can apply public scrutiny to the
argument in new ways. For me this entails some analogue of science
properly understood. We are stuck in some kind of phlogiston theory
and ecocide as surely as Easter Islanders.

On Jan 23, 10:10 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, ignore the top thoughts, my editing got mixed up. I meant to
> submit the direct responses inline. o.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I do agree
>
> > Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
> > I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
> > books or the words I speak.
>
> > I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
> > in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
> > would be to make the same error as to call it one.
>
> > To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
> > give up power for
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
> > I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
> > we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
> > our identity (characteristically).
>
> >> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
> > They are all hypothetical gods to me.
>
> >> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
> >> wives... " !
> > I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
> > with the reference.
>
> >> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
> >> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
> > Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
> > explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
> > in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
> > a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
> > like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
> > with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
> > awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
> > care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
> > however he likes. And for round 2?
>
> >> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> >>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> >>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> >>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> >>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> >>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> >>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> >>> > preoccupies you.
>
> >>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> >>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> >>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> >>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-26T13:47:00.001-08:00

The problem with competing is cheating bastards Don. Even a level
playing field is a handicap to those of us who play every week on the
side of a wind-blown mud heap on the side of a hill. I think the sods
who exported our manufacturing are traitors and about as moral as
someone selling whiskey and guns to the Indians. The economics touted
by our politicians reminds me of talking to mad people before you
realise they are out of it.

On Jan 24, 1:55 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Me neither Kenny, me neither. Thing about jobs is they don't exist to keep
> us all making money. They exist to provide a service or build a product. In
> the case of the Iphone China gets the jobs of making the product. As a
> direct result of our economic policies it's simply impossible for the U.S.
> to manufacture these nifty devices here in the States. Innovation and
> progress would stall if the focus changed from providing services to
> keeping alive outdated jobs. We need a regulation revolution in this
> country to compete. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
>
> dj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
> > technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
> > jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
> > doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething
>
> > On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> > > bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> > > problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> > > hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> > > On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > > > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > > > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > > > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > > > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > > > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > > > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > > > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-26T13:01:00.001-08:00

Many of today's derivative scams are land-grabs at bottom rigs.

On Jan 25, 7:40 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's an old problem- like farming and banking don't mix either. Try
> watching "Sweet Land" for an example- a movie. America has always
> attracted schemers because of its loose social system- bounders could
> re-invent themselves with no class structure to counter.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> > On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > > on the present economic crisis.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > > versa.
>
> > > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > > dj
>
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > > >> ..
>
> > > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > > >> > world.
>
> > > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
>
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T12:59:00.001-08:00

I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
see no signs of this trap being sprung.

On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> thing to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seems good to me, RP...
> > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> >> > a challenge?"
>
> >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> >> > what does not.
>
> >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> >> > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T09:24:00.000-08:00

Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
thing to me.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems good to me, RP...
> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> It is the ethics code that is for others,
> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
>> and humanity as a whole.
>>
>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
>> > a challenge?"
>>
>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>>
>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>>
>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>>
>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>>
>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
>> > what does not.
>>
>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>>
>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>>
>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
>> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T09:06:00.001-08:00

Seems good to me, RP...
except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.

The moral code is the core but for ourself.
It is the ethics code that is for others,
but it needs the moral code for its foundation.

On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> and humanity as a whole.
>
> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T08:57:00.001-08:00

It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
and humanity as a whole.

On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> a challenge?"
>
> James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> us. Truth is our Home.
>
> This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> what does not.
>
> That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T02:54:00.001-08:00

What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
already exists.

Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
that it has.

Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.

Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
picks and chooses.

We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.

On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T00:26:00.001-08:00

Neil, I feel otherwise and am myself surprised at the evidence...
The Journal entry I made in " Verum Intus, Fulci Vacuus " on
wordpress
has been viewed @ 12 per hour over the last 48 hours !

Gabby, I can only suggest that you step out of your bubble !
You wouldn't have to lock horns with me to find the voices of pain
and misery the world has heaped on people everywhere.

On Jan 26, 4:40 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The zeitgeist graph is already out there (http://www.gravity.com/), so
> that problem has been solved, Vam. What else do you have to criticize about
> the world?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...
>
> > This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
> > Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...
>
> > Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.
>
> > The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
> > with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
> > fine !
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > Earth.
>
> > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > its support.
>
> > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > rule).
>
> > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > what does not.
>
> > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T15:40:00.001-08:00

The zeitgeist graph is already out there ( http://www.gravity.com/ ), so that problem has been solved, Vam. What else do you have to criticize about the world?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...

This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...

Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.

The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
fine !

On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T15:30:00.001-08:00

it's lost in translation on me old friend.

On Jan 25, 4:22 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...
>
> This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
> Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...
>
> Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.
>
> The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
> with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
> fine !
>
> On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > Earth.
>
> > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > its support.
>
> > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > rule).
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > a challenge?"
>
> > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > what does not.
>
> > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T08:22:00.000-08:00

Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...

This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...

Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.

The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
fine !

On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T07:45:00.000-08:00

I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.

What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
Earth.

What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
its support.

Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
rule).

On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> a challenge?"
>
> James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> us. Truth is our Home.
>
> This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> what does not.
>
> That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-25T04:48:00.000-08:00

the favorite of thr politicians is stick in my pocket..

Allan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:32 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:

The scheme is how politicians can continue to get elected by
rephrasing the whatever tune to their constituents. There are a lot of
ways to say "let's spread the money around" (Baracky Malarkey).

On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > on the present economic crisis.
> > Allan
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > versa.
>
> > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > dj
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > >> ..
>
> > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > >> > world.
>
> > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>

> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T23:40:00.001-08:00

It's an old problem- like farming and banking don't mix either. Try
watching "Sweet Land" for an example- a movie. America has always
attracted schemers because of its loose social system- bounders could
re-invent themselves with no class structure to counter.

On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > on the present economic crisis.
> > Allan
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > versa.
>
> > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > dj
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > >> ..
>
> > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > >> > world.
>
> > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T23:32:00.001-08:00

The scheme is how politicians can continue to get elected by
rephrasing the whatever tune to their constituents. There are a lot of
ways to say "let's spread the money around" (Baracky Malarkey).

NARRACIONES Y CUENTOS BREVES

2012-01-24T23:31:00.001-08:00

NARRACIONES Y CUENTOS BREVES

MISTERIO

Posted: 24 Jan 2012 08:00 PM PST

Estaba tan borracho que nunca supo que ocurrió con esa última botella dentro de la casa.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T22:54:00.001-08:00

now that you mention it,, that is exactly what it sounds like

Allan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:00 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.

On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> because it is very profitable to them.
>
> I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> on the present economic crisis.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > versa.
>
> > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > just the public's trust.
>
> > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > dj
>

> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> >> ..
>
> >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Mind's Eye Truth & I

2012-01-24T19:26:00.001-08:00

"Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
a challenge?"

James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.

And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
"rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
ours, for us to say, we should STFU !

The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
us. Truth is our Home.

This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.

The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
what does not.

That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.

What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.

These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T17:00:00.001-08:00

I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.

On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> because it is very profitable to them.
>
> I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> on the present economic crisis.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > versa.
>
> > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > just the public's trust.
>
> > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> >> ..
>
> >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T23:32:00.001-08:00

the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,

When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess because it is very profitable to them.

I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought on the present economic crisis.

Allan

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:

I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa versa.

Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know, is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil, I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently) just the public's trust.

I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy companies. It's a conundrum.

Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at covering his ass though. Very, very good.

dj

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T18:44:00.000-08:00

I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa versa.

Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know, is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil, I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently) just the public's trust.

I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy companies. It's a conundrum.

Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at covering his ass though. Very, very good.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-23T17:55:00.001-08:00

Me neither Kenny, me neither. Thing about jobs is they don't exist to keep us all making money. They exist to provide a service or build a product. In the case of the Iphone China gets the jobs of making the product. As a direct result of our economic policies it's simply impossible for the U.S. to manufacture these nifty devices here in the States. Innovation and progress would stall if the focus changed from providing services to keeping alive outdated jobs. We need a regulation revolution in this country to compete. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM, kenny <goatsrrunnin@gmail.com> wrote:

problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething

On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-23T14:19:00.001-08:00

problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething

On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T14:10:00.000-08:00

Wow, ignore the top thoughts, my editing got mixed up. I meant to
submit the direct responses inline. o.0

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I do agree
>
> Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
> I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
> books or the words I speak.
>
> I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
> in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
> would be to make the same error as to call it one.
>
> To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
> give up power for
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
> I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
> we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
> our identity (characteristically).
>
>> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
> They are all hypothetical gods to me.
>
>> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
>> wives... " !
> I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
> with the reference.
>
>> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
>> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
> Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
> explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
> in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
> a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
> like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
> with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
> awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
> care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
> however he likes. And for round 2?
>
>> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>>
>>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>>> > preoccupies you.
>>>
>>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>>
>>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>>
>>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>>
>>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>>
>>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>>
>>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T14:09:00.001-08:00

Well, I do agree

Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
books or the words I speak.

I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
would be to make the same error as to call it one.

To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
give up power for

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
our identity (characteristically).

> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
They are all hypothetical gods to me.

> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
> wives... " !
I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
with the reference.

> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
however he likes. And for round 2?

> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>
>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > preoccupies you.
>>
>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>
>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T13:44:00.001-08:00

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T12:39:00.001-08:00

Thank you , old man !

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right RP is a confused child and for me not worth the effort.
> Allan
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:06 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree RP - religion can be very comforting in adversity. I don't
>> agree with Allan on what you put forward in this thread - I take this
>> to be about misconception of your stance in others. I would rather
>> share honest enquiry in fellowship, but there is little of this.
>>
>> On Jan 23, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your
>> > very
>> > opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an
>> > atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.
>> >
>> > I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear
>> > position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
>> > Allan
>> > On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
>> > > dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
>> > > directed at us.
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
>> > > > vile behaviour.
>> >
>> > > > On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> > > >> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> > > >> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>> > > >> Vam,
>> > > >> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> > > >> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring
>> > > >> minds
>> > > >> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>> >
>> > > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>> >
>> > > >> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > > >> > preoccupies you.
>> >
>> > > >> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of,
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know
>> > > >> > of
>> > > >> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>> >
>> > > >> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches
>> > > >> >> a
>> > > >> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows
>> > > >> >> his
>> > > >> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> > > >> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at
>> > > >> >> times
>> > > >> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on
>> > > >> >> exercising
>> > > >> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get
>> > > >> >> wet in
>> > > >> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world
>> > > >> >> without
>> > > >> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>> >
>> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> > > >> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>> >
>> > > >> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> > > >> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> > > >> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the
>> > > >> >> > answers.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>> >
>> > > >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories
>> > > >> >> >> that
>> > > are
>> > > >> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it
>> > > >> >> >> that
>> > > >> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine
>> > > >> >> >> any
>> > > truth
>> > > >> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this.
>> > > >> >> >> I
>> > > often
>> > > >> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is
>> > > about
>> > > >> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>> >
>> > > >> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and
>> > > >> >> >> > not
>> > > real ,
>> > > >> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
>> > > uncertainty in
>> > > >> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's
>> > > >> >> >> > will
>> > > is
>> > > >> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates
>> > > >> >> >> > from
>> > > Him
>> > > >> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the
>> > > >> >> >> > question
>> > > of
>> > > >> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any
>> > > >> >> >> > event as
>> > > it
>> > > >> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice
>> > > >> >> >> > and
>> > > hence
>> > > >> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question
>> > > >> >> >> > of
>> > > >> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In
>> > > >> >> >> > that
>> > > case ,
>> > > >> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism ,
>> > > >> >> >> > I
>> > > can be
>> > > >> >> >> > called an atheist.
>
>
>
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
>
>

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T10:17:00.000-08:00

You are right RP is a confused child and for me not worth the effort.

Allan

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:06 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree RP - religion can be very comforting in adversity. I don't
agree with Allan on what you put forward in this thread - I take this
to be about misconception of your stance in others. I would rather
share honest enquiry in fellowship, but there is little of this.

On Jan 23, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your very
> opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an
> atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.
>
> I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear
> position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
> Allan

> On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
> > dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
> > directed at us.
>

> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
> > > vile behaviour.
>
> > > On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> > >> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> > >> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> > >> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> > >> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> > >> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > >> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > >> > preoccupies you.
>
> > >> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > >> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > >> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > >> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> > >> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> > >> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> > >> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> > >> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> > >> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> > >> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> > >> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> > >> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> > >> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> > >> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> > >> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> > >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that
> > are
> > >> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> > >> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any
> > truth
> > >> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I
> > often
> > >> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is
> > about
> > >> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> > >> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not
> > real ,
> > >> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
> > uncertainty in
> > >> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will
> > is
> > >> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from
> > Him
> > >> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question
> > of
> > >> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as
> > it
> > >> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and
> > hence
> > >> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> > >> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that
> > case ,
> > >> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I
> > can be
> > >> >> >> > called an atheist.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Mind's Eye a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T08:37:00.001-08:00

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-bourgeoisie

The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
world.

Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
"reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
rationalist fantasy.

The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
realise quite what modern reality is.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T08:10:00.001-08:00

Err... Please read " And I do NOT
speak of God except in very informal group."

On Jan 23, 8:58 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good, RP...
>
> I do not know of God, his choices or his choicelessness. And I do
> speak of God except in very informal group.
>
> If I must share my belief of God... he is everything, forms and
> formless, and more.
>
> Does that seem like a portrait ?
>
> On Jan 22, 9:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vam , since you know that God has choices you also know what they are
> > and can delineate them. To me God is formless, but you would surely be
> > able to draw up a portrait.
>
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > > preoccupies you.
>
> > > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> > >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> > >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> > >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> > >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> > >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> > >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> > >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> > >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> > >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> > >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> > >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> > >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> > >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> > >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> > >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> > >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> > >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> > >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> > >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> > >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> > >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> > >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> > >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> > >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> > >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> > >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> > >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> > >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> > >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> > >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T08:07:00.001-08:00

James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?

We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?

I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
wives... " !

It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.

On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > preoccupies you.
>
> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T07:58:00.001-08:00

Good, RP...

I do not know of God, his choices or his choicelessness. And I do
speak of God except in very informal group.

If I must share my belief of God... he is everything, forms and
formless, and more.

Does that seem like a portrait ?

On Jan 22, 9:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam , since you know that God has choices you also know what they are
> and can delineate them. To me God is formless, but you would surely be
> able to draw up a portrait.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > preoccupies you.
>
> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T07:06:00.001-08:00

I agree RP - religion can be very comforting in adversity. I don't
agree with Allan on what you put forward in this thread - I take this
to be about misconception of your stance in others. I would rather
share honest enquiry in fellowship, but there is little of this.

On Jan 23, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your very
> opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an
> atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.
>
> I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear
> position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
> Allan
> On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
> > dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
> > directed at us.
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
> > > vile behaviour.
>
> > > On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> > >> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> > >> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> > >> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> > >> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> > >> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > >> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > >> > preoccupies you.
>
> > >> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > >> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > >> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > >> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> > >> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> > >> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> > >> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> > >> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> > >> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> > >> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> > >> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> > >> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> > >> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> > >> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> > >> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> > >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that
> > are
> > >> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> > >> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any
> > truth
> > >> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I
> > often
> > >> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is
> > about
> > >> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> > >> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not
> > real ,
> > >> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
> > uncertainty in
> > >> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will
> > is
> > >> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from
> > Him
> > >> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question
> > of
> > >> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as
> > it
> > >> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and
> > hence
> > >> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> > >> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that
> > case ,
> > >> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I
> > can be
> > >> >> >> > called an atheist.

Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-23T06:57:00.001-08:00

We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.

On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> for a lil bit of eye candy.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T03:40:00.001-08:00

That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your very opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.

I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
Allan

On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:

Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
directed at us.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
> vile behaviour.
>
> On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>
>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > preoccupies you.
>>
>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>
>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-22T23:40:00.001-08:00

Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
directed at us.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
> vile behaviour.
>
> On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>
>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > preoccupies you.
>>
>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>
>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-22T23:27:00.001-08:00

If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
vile behaviour.

On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > preoccupies you.
>
> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >> >> > called an atheist.

Mind's Eye i see

2012-01-22T18:42:00.001-08:00

that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
for a lil bit of eye candy.

Mind's Eye Re: a thesis on hell

2012-01-22T18:38:00.001-08:00

and thus the benifits of marijuana and drugs. creative writing

On Jan 22, 5:51 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HELL EXPLAINED BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT
>
> The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona
> chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
>
> The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it
> with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the
> pleasure of enjoying it
>
> as well :
>
> Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs
> heat)?
>
> Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas
> cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
>
> One student, however, wrote the following:
>
> First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need
> to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which
> they are leaving
>
> , which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul
> gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for
> how many souls are entering Hell,
>
> let's look at thedifferent religions that exist in the world today.
>
> Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
> religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these
> religions and since people do not
>
> belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to
> Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
> souls in Hell to increase
>
> exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell
> because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure
> in Hell to stay the same,
>
> the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
>
> This gives two possibilities:
>
> 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter
> Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all
> Hell breaks loose.
>
> 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
> Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
>
> So which is it?
>
> If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
> that, 'It will be acold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into
> account the fact that I
>
> slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am
> sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of
> this theory is that since
>
> Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls
> and is therefore, extinct..... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the
> existence of a divine being
>
> which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
>
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
>
> I can only wish I could write this well.. but thought I would share it
> Allan
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-22T10:29:00.001-08:00

As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> preoccupies you.
>
> You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Beliefs

2012-01-22T08:44:00.001-08:00

This is a very important point Rigsy. Very dangerous stuff,
abstracting people as means to ends. Recent talk of "gray tsunamis"
doesn't inspire much hope for national dialogue, I think how we meet
our challenges says a lot about us.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The tribe fulfills the human need to be a social creature and find
> meaning in life. That seems a universal pattern- to me. It helps
> explain modern alienation- to me. Well- technological advances us to
> robots and drones, doesn't it? I think that's our dilemma.
>
> On Jan 21, 1:18 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hah, that's a humorous way to see it. I haven't delved into the
>> specifics of the claim but two things stand out to me: that a diet
>> increasingly reliant upon carbohydrates over protein which our brains
>> seem to be heavily reliant upon, and how our brains are used in our
>> cultural environment (not US specific) since the agricultural
>> revolution. The prefrontal cortex and cognitive development I think
>> were the precursors to this, it was just a matter of time but I think
>> the human brain naturally evolved an extremely high intuitive capacity
>> for social relations, and tribal peoples I think implement that
>> capacity to a greater degree. In an animist world (natural to
>> tribal/our ancestors and children) the world is full of these
>> relations, full of life. If we leave the context of modern society we
>> see a world with infinite potential for complex interrelationships,
>> imagine a mind brought into that world with underlying cultural roles
>> that integrate all those sources of experience. This is not something
>> easy for us to grasp I think, and is often dismissed.
>>
>> Not that I'm especially privy to romantic notions like the noble
>> savage, if I am saying anything it is that we've left something behind
>> and I think it haunts us, perhaps there is a developmental capacity
>> that we've skipped when we jumped on board because the two worldviews
>> are so at odds, as they seem mutually antagonistic for coexistence
>> purposes if on the point of resource exploitation alone, though
>> history makes plain what happens to tribal cultures in the path of
>> industry. Sorry to be so cryptic, it seems that we are missing
>> something I can't point to. But it becomes clearer if you run the
>> narrative, our timeline seems terribly skewed, something we should be
>> working to address. Especially now that our technological innovations
>> are reaching such maturity that we will be able to redefine the human
>> condition en masse. Funny, hasn't that always been the promise of
>> innovation-
>>
>> Lost my thoughts somewhere.. I didn't know Shaman was a Russian word, neat.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I hope america gets over its shrinking brain syndrome.. some of the peoples
>> > brain must be the size of a pea right now,,(lol ... Must have been a
>> > great prophet in my youth who came up with the term pea brain -- then
>> > researchers saying it would be several hundred years but that we were headed
>> > that direction ) ah the prophets of doom (see i told you so)
>>
>> > Shaman is a russian term term and not and indian term it seem they
>> > are classified by what and how they serve the tribe.
>>
>> > Yes I agree the US is paying the price for its arrogance (saying that I know
>> > I am talking about myself too).. I hear that liberty for security.. well I
>> > think that the US is too blinded by corporate greed and spin to see the
>> > truth.. and they are being spoon feed little by little losing both their
>> > liberty and security;;
>> > Allan
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:18 AM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> We are paying dearly for our arrogance Allan, you know what they about
>> >> those who sacrifice liberty for security. Our scientists are
>> >> explaining the fact that our brains are shrinking with reassuring
>> >> statements on progress and efficiency. Just transpose that with Neil's
>> >> position on those terms and the marching rhythm of our cultural myths
>> >> stops dead. I believe a Lakota shaman called Lame Deer put it more
>> >> poetically. There are many things you won't find written, if you
>> >> consider the purpose of the shaman to the tribe it is no surprise, and
>> >> I believe explaining it as ignorance is kinda ironic. ;-)
>>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Native american beliefs are earth based and a living world the concept
>> >> > of
>> >> > mother earth.. the western based concepts really do not fit any of the
>> >> > developed western ideas and Ideals.
>>
>> >> > Within the beliefs there is great power and energy, I have
>> >> > some experience with friends but am at a loss as to explain it. My own
>> >> > experience most are of both sides I think with only a couple being
>> >> > clearly
>> >> > one sided. Native american beliefs are really not written down , nor
>> >> > are
>> >> > they for sale, so I have been told.
>> >> > Allan
>>
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Eman Abdulla <emana...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Hello Allan, I don't know much about native American belief system,
>> >> >> but I think that constructing our own belief system is an open ended
>> >> >> process, however, if we don't have a solid frame of reference, our
>> >> >> minds and passions will take us in so many directions and who's to say
>> >> >> what is wrong or right. For me, monotheism is a rational conclusion
>> >> >> for my search for the true faith, supplemented by the multiple
>> >> >> revelations that humans received throughout history. If I didn't have
>> >> >> a religion that I saw fit to follow, I would have probably been simply
>> >> >> a believer in one omniscient and omnipresent God.
>>
>> >> >> On 1/15/12, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Was reading a concept on native american beliefs..
>>
>> >> >> > it is strange actually it is rereading the material .... There was
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > reference to to beliefs being born to the land. For some reason that
>> >> >> > triggered a lot of thought.. what would happen the native beliefs
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > correct, and western thought is out of line. It seems that religions
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > a whole lot to do with rules and regulations and control of others.
>>
>> >> >> > Oddly it seems that is a western concept. One I have never known
>> >> >> > among
>> >> >> > my
>> >> >> > native american friends,
>> >> >> > Allan
>>
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > (
>> >> >> > )
>> >> >> > |_D Allan
>>
>> >> >> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > (
>> >> > )
>> >> > |_D Allan
>>
>> >> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>>
>> > --
>> > (
>> > )
>> > |_D Allan
>>
>> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-22T08:41:00.001-08:00

1) yes

2) no

3) no

4) no

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Gabby... but if the questions were clear, you could have answered
instead of relating with me or my motives.

On Jan 20, 9:40 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Vam, it is always interesting to observe how sometimes you still make
> the mistake of replying to me. The motivation behind has become crystal
> clear though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gabby...
>
> > 1) Is your observation about my post ? If so, what, specifically ?
>
> > 2) Are you referring to the link in my post as spam ? Spell it clear.
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello mods, please remove this SPAM and put back the square brackets.
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A choiceless God is shite...
> > > > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> > > > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> > > > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> > > > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> > > >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=.
> > ..
>
> > > > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> > > > > full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> > > > > creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any
> > truth
> > > > > in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> > > > > wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> > > > > and how this might be explained.
>
> > > > > On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real
> > ,
> > > > > > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
> > uncertainty in
> > > > > > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> > > > > > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> > > > > > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> > > > > > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> > > > > > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and
> > hence
> > > > > > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> > > > > > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that
> > case ,
> > > > > > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> > > > > > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-22T08:24:00.001-08:00

Vam , since you know that God has choices you also know what they are
and can delineate them. To me God is formless, but you would surely be
able to draw up a portrait.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> preoccupies you.
>
> You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> > called an atheist.