Words

[Ocre]

(I’ll cut and paste a few of the last responses in a thread, originally called: Implicate order as proposed by bohm)

-Ocre: Then what do you mean by "people 'think meaning'... "?
If there is no meaning to your words, how can you see meaning (in other words)?

-Asheera: heyhey..........................
learned sillying words, so....."using"
no "other"

-Ocre: Aren’t all words ‘syllying’? (The meaninglessness of meaning….)

-Asheera: 'no meaning', so "meaninglessness"
words 'not'

-Ocre: Then, like I said": all words are sillying, including Asheera’s
Responding happens, when meaning is seen in the words you read.
Asheera can’t reply with 'no meaning', so 'no "meaninglessnesswithout seeing meaning in the words: “the meaninglessness of meaning”..</span>


-Asheera:
loo oolllllllooooo
posted: learned sillying words, so....."using"[color=red]seems ocre didn't read post</span>

-Ocre: So, you are you saying your words have meaning?

-Asheera: no

-Ocre: [color=blue]seems ocre didn't read post<span style='color:blue'>If your words do not have meaning, what was there to read or understand?</span>
-Asheera: not which ocrethinking

[Ocre]

If your words do not have meaning, what was there to read or understand?

not which ocrethinking

Where does the image “ocrethinking” appear, but in Asheera’s thoughts?

“not which ocrethinking”, then there was something to understand from your words? ?

:-)

[sahyo]

Where does the image “ocrethinking” appear, but in Asheera’s thoughts?


no thought"image"....'using' words


“not which ocrethinking”, then there was something to understand from your words? ?


no thought"understand"

:D

[Ocre]

no thought"image"....'using' words
Then where does the ‘use' “ocrethinking” appear?
You write:
seems ocre didn't read post
Does this not imply that a different reaction is expected by Asheera when Asheera feels Ocre read the post?

:-)

[sahyo]

no :)

[Ocre]

seems ocre didn't read post

Then to whom did this seem as such?

:-)

[sahyo]

seems = perhaps

[Ocre]

Then who is seeing 'perhaps?'

:-)

[sahyo]

(the posts not posting like posted)

[Ocre]

What are you saying with that?

:-)

[sahyo]

testing...

[Ocre]

testing what?

:-)

[sahyo]

posting isn't displaying like posting
....also flashes on the screen

[Ocre]

Perhaps a ‘short-circuiting’ in Asheera’s regular method of answering? ;)


:-)

[sahyo]

no "method" ;)

[Ocre]

Then who is seeing 'perhaps?'

:-)

[sahyo]

no 'who'

[Ocre]

Then to whom did this (=seems ocre didn't read post) seem as such?
was the question you replied to with: seems = perhaps

“Perhaps Ocre didn’t read post” is not Asheera’s finding?

:-)

[rich]

Ho La Ho ,
AL Oh a,

asheera and Ocre staying up all night nomeaningfulmeaninglesswording, while rich snoringlysleeping. Holahohahahaahaaaaaaaaahaha. ;) :rolleyes: <_<

[Polaris]

no 'who'

I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third - ;)

[rich]

Polaris,
As I thought before, the going gets rough, Ocre and asheera, just go away. B) :unsure: :blink:

[sahyo]

I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third - ;)



:D

no who
no what
no first second third

;)

[sahyo]

norichiethinking which not..

asheera slept,

perhaps ocre slept,
or mornafternoonevennighting,

..and,"rough"?

:P :)

no "away"?

[rich]

Did not see you on forum @ post time, thus said, When the going gets rough, Ocre and asheera get going."

Rich's method of teasing little asheera. :blink: :rolleyes: asheera usually disappears from forum when trying to duck answering questions. ;) :P

[sahyo]

asheera usually disappears from forum when trying to duck answering questions.


no....
not always reading posting forum

:D

[rich]

True asheera, no....not always reading posting forum

Thank you for posting when you do. :)

[sahyo]

thankingrichie :)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by Ocre@Jun 19 2003, 04:14 PM

“Perhaps Ocre didn’t read post” is not Asheera’s finding?

:-)
I noticed this question is left unanswered

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by rich@Jun 19 2003, 09:20 PM
Ho La Ho ,
AL Oh a,

asheera and Ocre staying up all night nomeaningfulmeaninglesswording, while rich snoringlysleeping. Holahohahahaahaaaaaaaaahaha. ;) :rolleyes: <_<
I’m posting from Holland, sleeping at different hours….

:-)

[sahyo]

no :D

[rich]

:lol: What no? Who no? :blink: :unsure:
Ocre on Holland time schedule? or, " Perhaps Ocre didn't read post" is not Asheera's finding?" Interpretation please.

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Jun 20 2003, 09:42 PM
no :D
That’s unclear to me as well Asheera, what is it responding to?

:-)

[rich]

Ocre,

"Perhaps asheera has responded by not reponding.", rich said as the
deafening sound of silence surrounds thebigview. B)

[sonrisa]

Hey Asheera!! :D

[sahyo]

sonrisa, hey :P ;) :D

[rich]

I think asheera may be hiding in the wings. :rolleyes: :lol: ;)

[rich]

She posted before i did, then she went away. B)

[dog goddess]

well this topic is real damn interesting.

[rich]

Dog Goddess,

Arf arf, means, I agree!

[sonrisa]

yo Dog Goddess!! The topic is Words & that's exactly what we're posting! :)

hey Asheera!! :rolleyes: :P

hey Richie! :D

[sahyo]

h :D sonrisa :D ey

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jun 28 2003, 02:53 PM
yo Dog Goddess!! The topic is Words & that's exactly what we're posting! :)

hey Asheera!! :rolleyes: :P

hey Richie! :D
Hey Sonrisa, :wacko: :wacko:

I wish i had the capability of replying in the same degree of uniqueness as some of the more experienced posters display in this forum, but you'll just have to accept my post with these words for what they are worth. :mellow:

[sonrisa]

Richie, you are unique too, as are we all, so I guess that's not very unique. As for posting experience, you have been posting here longer than I have. Some of your posts have actually made me think! :)


:P Asheera!! :D

[rich]

Sonrisa,

Thank you, it is rewarding to hear that some of my posts stimulate thought. :D

Then they have been purposeful, purpose being, to stimulate thought.
a preventitive for mind sleeping. :)

[sahyo]

:P
ho
ha
leee
laaahhh :D
sonrisahhh
;)

[rich]

and after reading asheera's post, though not directed to me, maybe they stimulate a little laughter too. :D

If not, then not. :unsure:

:lol: ;)

[dog goddess]

Come, said my Soul,
Such verses for my Body let us write, (for we are one,)
That should I after death invisibly return,
Or, long, long hence in other spheres,
There to some group of mates the chants resuming,
(Tallying Earth's soil, trees, winds, tumultous waves,)
Ever with pleas'd smile I may keep on,
Ever and ever yet the verses owning- as, first, I here and now,
Signing for Soul and Body set to them my name.


- Walt Whitman



now those are what i call words.

[sonrisa]

:P ah
sheeeeeeeee
rah! :lol:
rah rah rah!!
:D Asheerahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh :P
B)

[sonrisa]

So Dog Goddess, can u do "oh Captain, my Captain"? B)



OH RANDOM!! :unsure: WHERE R U?????????? :blink:

[sahyo]

B)
lahala
shhhhonrishhhhhahhhhhhh :D :P
:lol: rahhhrahhrah
la

[a random hack]

:D

How about a few verses of 'Random, my Random'?? :lol:

Sorry, was cruelly denied access to TBV by (bloody) Yahoo, which refused to accept my re-registration acknowledgement :P

NE way, here I is :D

[sonrisa]

YAY RANDOM!!!! :D YA- HOOOOOOOOO!! :D
Was worried about u bud! As 4 Yahoo, well, they're just a bunch of yahoo's over there. Maybe Dog Goddess can do "Oh Random. My Random"! :)


Asheeeeerah!!! Random's back!! :P

[sahyo]

:D
sonrising
yes 'acking :D
:D

[sonrisa]

:D :P

[a random hack]

I never really left, I was just struck dumb.

(That means I couldn't talk.) :P

It was horrible I tell you, horrible!

:lol:

[sahyo]

:o :lol: B)

[sonrisa]

awww, poor Random... my heart bleeds. Now that you can talk again, I have a quesion for you: the other day I saw a sign on a phone pole- somebody is trying to get together an Australian Rules football team. What is that? OK obviously it's some form of football, I guess what I'm asking is how the rules differ from American Rules football, I guess is what you'd call it.

[a random hack]

You're asking the wrong hack, I'm more the cerebral type :lol:

I found http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aboutthegame which might answer your question, assuming you know something about American football, for comparison purposes :)

[sonrisa]

Thanx for posting the link, Random, preciate it. I find it amusing that they call the scores "behinds", up here that's another word for "butt". We call our football scores touchdowns or TD's. :)

[Polaris]

:blink: I thought football is Australia was soccer. :blink:

It didn;t look like the players were wearing protective gear (helmets and pads etc...). Is it similar to rugby then?

[sonrisa]

No soccer is soccer. Aussie football is something different from both CFL & NFL. Obviously. :)

[a random hack]

OK, let's talk football...

In Australia, being a sports mad nation (it helps take the focus off the talents we lack :P :lol: ), any type of football you can name will be played and watched here. Even American football :o . We also have rugby league, popular where I grew up on the east coast, and rugby union, which is pretty similar but supported more by the blue bloods, or by those with aspirations towards blue bloodedness, and AFL (or australian football, formerly VFL, or victorian football, for the state where it was played professionally for the past hundred years), which has only become a national competition in the past ten or so years, and soccer, a bit of a joke at the professional level for all the infighting among the games controlling body, but the most popularly played code among people up to their teenage years. These are the main codes, but as I said, any football you can name will be played and supported somewhere in Australia.

As for AFL, it most closely resembles Gaelic football (that helps a lot, doesn't it), and there is even a test match form called International rules which combines rules of these two codes.

The most unusual feature about AFL is the naumber of goal posts at each end, four rather than two. A ball kicked thru the middlemost pair of posts is called a goal (I think) and worth six points, and a kick between one of the outer and inner posts is called, yes, a behind, and is worth one point. And the score is quoted as X goals, Y behinds, and Z, the total points (Z=6X+Y), or for example, 6:3:39. So you can have fun with math while you watch football, neat eh?
The other unusual feature of AFL is the number of umpires, but being in the US, perhaps this is not so unusual :)

Anyway, if you get a chance, go and watch a match as a unique cultural experience, but don't tell any Aussies present I said that :lol:

[sonrisa]

Thanx Random for your explanation. Soccer is somewhat of a joke up here too. It's considered girlie ball, (American) football being considered the real thing. And lots of girls do play soccer up here, including one of my nieces when she was between 10-13.

[Polaris]

Soccer's big around here. My daughter has been playing since she was 4. She's now 15. She loves it. Men's soccer is also pretty big. My son use to play until one summer he got pnemonia and couldn't play. He never got back into it after that. Too bad.

I love soccer and if I'm channel surfing and come across a game, doesn't matter who's playing, I'll stop and watch for a while. It's the only sport I'll really watch. I'd love for there to be a professional soccer league in North America. It would be so good for the sport up here in Canada because it would likely mean they'd have to build some indoor soccer arenas so we could play year round :)

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jul 7 2003, 11:03 PM
Thanx Random for your explanation. Soccer is somewhat of a joke up here too. It's considered girlie ball, (American) football being considered the real thing. And lots of girls do play soccer up here, including one of my nieces when she was between 10-13.
Was noticing the way Sonrisa referred to her geographic location, by saying, "up here" .

Guess we in North America, think that the Aussies are down there.

Wonder if the Aussies think Americans are also down there, since relatively to each other, we appear to be standing on our heads.

Maybe that is why none of us can think straight, for the blood has rushed to our heads.

:wacko:

[sonrisa]

no Richie, its "down under"

on the other hand your location (in the Carolinas) is "down there" relative to my location (Cincinnati, aka "up here") :)

From your pov, however, I am "up there", while you are "down here". Random is "down under" for you too, while Polaris is "up there" for both of us, & we are "down here". Course to Polaris we are "down there" & she is "up here", & Random is still "down under". Hope that clarifys things. :)

ps I'm not sure what our locations are relative to Random's- "up over"?

[sonrisa]

Polaris, there was a pro league, or maybe it was semi-pro, for awhile. We had a team on it- the Cincinnati Comets. But I think it died out.

Then there was arenaball. This was basically NFL football played indoors. To accomodate the arenas, however, the field was only 1/2 as long (50 yds) so all you had to do to score was kick a field goal. I actually liked arenaball better becuz of that. I hate it when these NFL teams do a long drive down the field & don't score. All that work (& time) then only to come up empty handed. :(

[rich]

Sonrisa, we in North America, would be down under for Random also. At least if I ever went to Australia, I would tell them I'm
from down under.

Random, would they understand what I am saying, or would they think , another one, standing on head too long? :unsure: <_< :blink:

[Polaris]

Why isn't Antarctica down under? You can't get any more down and under than Antarctica.
:huh:

[sonrisa]

good point. If the North Pole is the "top of the world", then Antarctica should definitely be "down under". BUT I didn't write the song "I'm from a land down under" which refers to Australia. B)

[Polaris]

I wonder if how different the world would be today if when we started out exploring, if we'd drawn the maps upside-down from what we are used to. Would the different perspective we'd have, when we look at a map, (east would be west, north would be south) make a difference to how we turned out today? Our national identities would all be different.

http://www.flourish.org/upsidedownmap/upsidedownmap.jpg

[killervampire]

No soccer is soccer- cool

[killervampire]

If we turned out to look at the map inversely we might as well build concrete wheels and inflated roads to match it. Plus we don't have to use stairs or elevators cause buildings will just escalate at will for easy access thus saving airspace for flying cars if ever.

[sonrisa]

There's a big version of that inverted map in a local bookstore down here. It also has something on it called the Guelke Equidistant Projection which calculates the distance from anywhere on the planet to Toronto. Is that your 20 Polaris, Toronto? I know your "up there" somewhere! :) :P

[rich]

If you turn the map upside down, does magnetic North become non-magnetic? if so, we will have to change all of the points on the compasses, to indicate that south is magnetic. ;)

[Polaris]

Nope, not Toronto. I've only been there once for a visit and a visit was all I needed to satisfy me that TO ain't the place for this small town country girl.

I live in Nova Scotia. Canada'a Ocean Playground. :)

[rich]

In a post I wrote, and thought it was sent, Rich wrote:


Wonder if any of you kids remember the song, Barney Google With His Goo-goo Googly Eyes?

I wrote in that lost post, would do Google search. Here is one of them:

BARNEY GOOGLE

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

This site is supported by your donations.
Please click here to contribute via Amazon.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Medium: Newspaper comics
Distributed by: King Features Syndicate
First Appeared: 1919
Creator: Billy DeBeck
The name "Barney Google" is familiar to anyone who ever watched a TV retrospective of comic strips — he's the guy with the "goo-goo-googly eyes" in the 1923 Billy Rose song they always play in such retrospectives. Many newspapers use his name in the title of one of their comic strips. And in 1995, he was honored by the U.S. Postal Service in its "Comic Strip Classics" series of commemorative stamps.

But how many people actually remember seeing Barney Google in a comic strip?

Barney made his debut on June 17, 1919, in a King Features strip with the ungainly title Take Barney Google, F'rinstance. The cartoonist, Billy DeBeck, is said to have been working in newspaper comics only until he could accumulate the wherewithal to pursue his "true calling", a career in fine arts. If so, he must at some point have decided his true calling was in comic strips, because Barney Google, as the strip was quickly renamed, earned him enough money to do whatever he wanted.

Like Mutt & Jeff, Barney Google started out as a sports strip. Barney (who was about half as tall as the other characters) enjoyed horse races, prize fights and similar contests, and was nagged by "a wife three times his size" (as the song goes) for it. The strip enjoyed modest success during its first couple of years — and then came Spark Plug.

On July 17, 1922, Barney happened to be standing on the sidewalk in front of the Pastime Jockey Club, when an argument inside got physical and a man came sailing out the window, knocking Barney to the sidewalk. Convinced this relatively soft landing had saved his life, the grateful victim made Barney a gift of a horse named Spark Plug — and that's when DeBeck's strip took off running.

Sparky's first race became one of comics' first national media events, eagerly anticipated by millions of newspaper readers. So great was the public's enthusiasm that DeBeck, who had been planning to retire the plug after that one storyline, made him a permanent part of the cast. Spark Plug was such a star during the 1920s that children who enjoyed the comics were liable to get "Sparky" for a nickname — for example, Charles M. "Sparky" Schulz, who grew up to create Peanuts.

Another character, introduced in 1934, had an even greater impact on the strip. What with one thing and another, Barney found himself in the North Carolina mountain country that year. There, he became caught up in the affairs of the equally diminutive Snuffy Smith. Hillbillies were popular in American entertainment right then (as Al Capp was proving with his new strip, Li'l Abner), and Snuffy became more and more prominent a character. Within a few years, his name was added to the title. In the mid-1950s, Barney and Snuffy parted, and the strip stayed with Snuffy.

There was an animated version of Barney Google in the 1930s, produced by the Charles Mintz Screen Gems Studio — the one that had earlier failed to capture any of the wit or charm of Krazy Kat. They made only four Google cartoons, two of which were released in 1935 and two in '36. Barney also guest-starred in Hillbilly Blitzkrieg, the second of two comedy shorts where Snuffy starred, with Cliff Nazarro (voice of Egghead) as Barney.

Barney Google & Snuffy Smith also had a sporadic career in comic books, starting with the first issue of Ace Comics in 1937. They appeared in comics of their own, too — three issues from Dell in the 1940s, four from Toby Press in the '50s, one from Gold Key in the '60s, and six from Charlton in the '70s.

Billy DeBeck died of cancer in 1942, only 52 years of age. Fred Lasswell, who had been his assistant in the '30s, took over the strip. In DeBeck's memory, The National Cartoonists' Society named its highest honor "The Billy DeBeck Award". Later, the name was changed to The Reuben Award — which, by the way, Fred Lasswell won in 1963 for his work on the strip DeBeck had created.

Lasswell continued to write and draw the strip until his death in 2001, for over 900 newspapers in 21 countries. Its official name is still Barney Google & Snuffy Smith, but Barney Google is only an infrequent visitor.

— DDM

BACK to Don Markstein's Toonopedia™ Home Page
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary!
ToonSearch: Search this site.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text ©2000-03 Donald D. Markstein. Art © King Features Syndicate.


To get more trivia about Barney Google, in your search browser, search for: Song: Barney Google With His Goo-goo Googly Eyes.

Interesting trivia. ;)

[Polaris]

I don't know Barney Google but I remember a product called Koogle Peanut Butter that had chocolate mixed in.

We never got any at our house but I can still remember the TV commercial

Here comes Koogle with the koo koo koogly eyes
Peanutty Koogle with the koo koo koogly eyes.

I remember that from 30 years ago but I have trouble remembering what I had for supper last night. :rolleyes:

[sonrisa]

I remember reading Snuffy Smith in the comics when I was a kid. There was that big fat Mama, what was her name- Weezy (sounds like a 7 dwarf) or something? And the kid with the coonskin cap? Don't remember no Barney Google tho. Must of been before my time.

I enjoyed my visit to Toronto & would luv to go back sometime. But then I'm a City Girl, born & raised. :)

Wouldn't mind checking out Nova Scotia sometime tho.

[Polaris]

I thought Wheezy was the name of George Jefferson's wife. :)

Toronto is really looking for tourists these days, what with all that SARS business scaring people off. Bad stuff to be sure. Looks like it's all but gone now. Let's hope it stays that way.

One of the reasons I'm not particularly fond of Toronto is that they are a "have" city. In comparison much of Atlantic Canada would be in varying degrees of "have not". I don't mind the fact that it is a "have" city. My problem is that they (in the collective sense not the individual sense) don't really appreciate what they "have". A few years back Mayor Mel Lastmen wanted Toronto to separate from the rest of Ontario because he was tired of Torontonians' tax dollars footing the bill for the welfare programs and subsidizing of the rest of the province. He got quite a lot of support for that idea but it never really took off. Thank goodness. He's forgetting where the food on his plate comes from.

[a random hack]

So THAT'S what people did before television! :lol:

Hey RT,
If the people in the 'southern' hemisphere had decided to conquer the world before, say, 1400, they would have mapped it with a southern bias. As it is, the world was colonised by northerners, so that's where the reference point is. :)
And the south magnetic pole is just as magnetic as the north magnetic pole, just that end of the compass needle that points north is called north. :o . So now you know :lol:

[sonrisa]

You make an interesting point, Random. I was about to point out that NASA fotos of the Earth show that the northern hemisphere is on top, after all. But what if the southern hemisphere got into space 1st? Would the fotos all be "upside down" then? Something to think about. B)

[rich]

Consider this also.

When ever anyone sat down, the force of gravity helps one sit.

When one writes, one has to write down, towards the ground on a surface which is firmly supported on the ground.Try writing up, and you'll see.


Now you'll notice, on your monitor, the down limitation on your monitor, would be the floor. The sky is the limit, so you can go on and on and on etc.
I think all letters should start at the botttom, the foundation. Then they can expand into infinite. With letters, they should flow from right to left/ West and East, respectively, for that is how we depict the earth travels around the sun. From West to East
Now that we have revolutionized some of the basic, try to remember what you were taught, on thebigview.Include this information on your resumes to allow all to see the genious that you are.

Please be humble. <_< :huh: :( Do not be proud.

[sonrisa]

Actually, Richie, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Hebrew & Yiddish go from right to left. And their books, what looks like the back is actually the front. Don't know that for sure, tho.

[a random hack]

And Chinese, don't forget the Chinese...

I used to think it was because they were all 'cacky-handers', or left handed, to those in the more civilized parts of the world.

Like, anyone outside my brain. :lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jul 13 2003, 12:01 PM
Actually, Richie, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Hebrew & Yiddish go from right to left. And their books, what looks like the back is actually the front. Don't know that for sure, tho.
Do you think that the relationship of sunrise to sunset, and the base of anything is at the bottom, would be the logic in reading and writing in those sequences/that direction? :unsure: :huh: ? I don't know why, just asking. :)

[rich]

Just think of how transposing/adjusting the starting point from left and the words flowing to the right , how that would change the way in which our minds work.. I do not think writing in that way would work in the languages whose words are read from left to right, i.e.; English, French, Spanish, etc.

Are Yiddish and Hebrew words read from right to left? :unsure:

[sahyo]

richie

when learning writing, wrote right to left using left hand
....when was to learn writing left to right, turned paper updown
and wrote bottomup....still write bottomup

write using left hand though draw and paint using both hands

when read often read bottomup....lately more often

haven't been reading books,
but when did often didn't read front to back....
didn't read back to front either....
read like raining

no difference
which people call direction....

direction not....

:D

[a random hack]

Just think of how transposing/adjusting the starting point from left and the words flowing to the right , how that would change the way in which our minds work.

(: .ti yrt s'tel ,TR ,wonk t'nod I

[rich]

?huh?
~ok~ko~
!ah ha ha ah!

?LIVE= EVIL?

no toot toot on

:lol: R U a H?:wacko:?H a U R :lol:

[rich]

That is very interesting asheera. You would start at right, and write towards the left. Do you think that it would be more natural, if we were all taught that way?
Would all of this be related to the way our brains function? Any relationships to the chemistry of the brain, including the Right and Left Hemispheres? Do you have any theories about that?
Am asking these questions, for I do not know the answers.
Thanks for reading, what written. :) :D :P

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich+Jul 15 2003, 12:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Jul 15 2003, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Jul 13 2003, 12:01 PM
Actually, Richie, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Hebrew & Yiddish go from right to left. And their books, what looks like the back is actually the front. Don't know that for sure, tho.
Do you think that the relationship of sunrise to sunset, and the base of anything is at the bottom, would be the logic in reading and writing in those sequences/that direction? :unsure: :huh: ? I don't know why, just asking. :)[/b][/quote]
ok IS THERE A RABBI IN THE HOUSE? :unsure:

[sahyo]

richie :)


Would all of this be related to the way our brains function? Any relationships to the chemistry of the brain, including the Right and Left Hemispheres? Do you have any theories about that?


no theories

researched alittle
....which read said this brain functioning dyslexia cross-lateral ambidextrous,
but which was described still not say
'no sides no middle'

:D

[rich]

:D Thanking asheera for replying.

********** :lol: 10 Stars :lol: ;)

[rich]

asheera,

You probably read this already, since it is available on a web site. Am posting it here, just in case some may beinterested.

cross laterality

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

Subject: senco-forum cross laterality
From: jeanhutchins <JeanHutchins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:15:16 -0500

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

Message text written by "Andrew Maguire"
>He is right hand and footed but left eyed. <

So am I, and I have no difficulties
tho I might have been better at sport
if I had not been cross lateral.
I bet John McEnroe and Greg Rusedski
are left-eyed as well as left-handed.

This theory about cross-laterality surfaced
in the early 1980s, but is now discounted.
I found it was more significant
if the learner's handedness was not strongly dominant,
and he was late making up his mind which had to use.
Such learners were not ambidextrous
(I called them anti-dextrous
because they were not good with either hand.)

So I do not think cross-laterality is the reason for difficulty,
just an accompanying characteristic.
And I do not think one should try to change laterality.
Look what happened when left-handers were made to write
with their right hands.
The stammering King George VI was the classic example.

Jean
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean Hutchins, BDA Volunteer.
RSA Dip SpLD, AMBDA, retired.
E-mail: JeanHutchins@compuserve.com
BDA Web: www.bda-dyslexia.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: [ Previous | Next ] Thread: [ Previous | Next ] Index: [ Author | Date | Thread | Subject ]

[sahyo]

:)

no
hadn't read, richie

yes
"cross-laterality" not....
was just using wording
which read used for pointing
not just using left or right side hands feet etc

dylexia not, ambidextrous not
....only words people use....not important

just....
"no sides no middle"
also only words....
not
important
either

;)

thanking

:)

[a random hack]

This theory about cross-laterality surfaced
in the early 1980s, but is now discounted.
I found it was more significant
if the learner's handedness was not strongly dominant,
and he was late making up his mind which had to use.
Such learners were not ambidextrous
(I called them anti-dextrous
because they were not good with either hand.)

And I thought I was just a Gumby, for using my left hand for sport, and my write (right) hand for, err, writing. And not being very 'skillful' at either... Still remember sitting in a classroom for six months at age 12 or 13 practicing cursive writing my letters. :D No wonder I love school! :P
As a PS, I met the same teacher about three years ago, teaching IT (Information technology, or 'puters to us proles). Not sure if he remembered me, as I said nothing about it (once I remembered), but somehow doubt the irony struck him at all. :lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 20 2003, 09:50 AM
This theory about cross-laterality surfaced
in the early 1980s, but is now discounted.
I found it was more significant
if the learner's handedness was not strongly dominant,
and he was late making up his mind which had to use.
Such learners were not ambidextrous
(I called them anti-dextrous
because they were not good with either hand.)

And I thought I was just a Gumby, for using my left hand for sport, and my write (right) hand for, err, writing. And not being very 'skillful' at either... Still remember sitting in a classroom for six months at age 12 or 13 practicing cursive writing my letters. :D No wonder I love school! :P
As a PS, I met the same teacher about three years ago, teaching IT (Information technology, or 'puters to us proles). Not sure if he remembered me, as I said nothing about it (once I remembered), but somehow doubt the irony struck him at all. :lol:
Might be, he remembered the curses you used in your cursive writing, and was making believe he did not know you. B) :P ;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 20 2003, 09:50 AM

And I thought I was just a Gumby, for using my left hand for sport, and my write (right) hand for, err, writing. And not being very 'skillful' at either.
Me too Random! Except I can write a little with my left hand, but it's not very good. It's faster & easier to do it with my right hand. And I can't draw at all with my left hand, only my right hand, so I'm not a leftie forced to be a rightie. :)

ps, nice touch, Random, "using my left hand for sport" I'm assuming you mean "throwing things"? :D

[a random hack]

S'funny, throw with left hand, kick with right foot, (not sure which I catch with). But remember playing soft ball at school, and there only being one lefty glove(!), so needing to use righty glove to catch, then having to remove glove to throw. So I guess that means then I caught naturally with right :unsure: :blink: :lol:
ps, nice touch, Random, "using my left hand for sport" I'm assuming you mean "throwing things"?
Shhhhh, you'll upset RT :D


rich,
sure, plenty of cursive cursing :P

[sonrisa]

Well in softball, you catch with whichever hand's wearing the mitt, so if the mitt was on your right hand (& you threw with the left) then you caught with your right hand.
How'd you come to play softball, Random? I thought y'all played cricket down there. Or something. :)

[a random hack]

Well in softball, you catch with whichever hand's wearing the mitt, so if the mitt was on your right hand (& you threw with the left) then you caught with your right hand.

Yeah, but using a 'righty' glove meant that I had to catch AND throw with the same hand... <_< :rolleyes: :blink:
(There was more than one left hander in the class, see?)
How'd you come to play softball, Random?
Dunno, who can fathom the ways of educators?? The school had a kit, tho, and a canadian teacher who thought he knew the rules of softball... :lol:

[Polaris]

...canadian teacher who thought he knew the rules of softball...

Canadian Softball Rules
1. Pick up the bat
2. Tap it on the ground and make a couple of practice swings like you've seen them do on TV
3. Glare at the pitcher in an attempt to psych him out.
4. Swing like hell at the ball when it is lobbed your way.
5. Upon striking the ball (eventually), run counter-clockwise as fast as possible to the grimy sweatshirt which represents 1st base.
6. If the other team is still looking for the ball in the woods then continue onto the shoe which represents 2nd base
7. If the other team has found the ball and is about to throw it, continue to run to 3rd base, which is represented by the other shoe on the assumption they can't throw or catch, especially since nobody has any mitts.
8. Even though the ball appears to be under control make a slide into home plate, a jacket, making sure not to rake the zipper teeth over your skin.
9. Stealing base is fair game any time and heartedly encouraged.
10. It's okay to taunt the players on the other team by standing halfway between two bases and sticking your tongue out at them.
11. Repeat this process until every player has had a turn, or until the outfield is bored. then go eat.
;) :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 28 2003, 06:04 AM
Canadian Softball Rules . . .
:lol: X 11

:) David

[rich]

Words scrambled spell sword,
which the pen is mightier than,
Evil scrambled spells Live/Live
One rhymes with Five,
The other with Give,
While Devil scrambled is Lived,
Meaning, TO HAVE LIVED,
Certainly I hope not. :ph34r:

[a random hack]

Canadian Softball Rules...

I coulda been a star, I tell ya! :D

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 29 2003, 03:56 AM
Words scrambled spell sword,
which the pen is mightier than,
Evil scrambled spells Live/Live
One rhymes with Five,
The other with Give,
While Devil scrambled is Lived,
Meaning, TO HAVE LIVED,
Certainly I hope not. :ph34r:
The only way to revise a post greater than 1 hour old, is to quote the post one wants to revise.

Scrambled Letter Relationships

Words scrambled spell sword,
which the pen is mightier than,
Evil scrambled spells Live/Live
One rhymes with Five,
The other with Give,
While Lived scrambled is Devil,
Live, live and lived;
evil and devil,
Seem to have a letter scrambling
relationship, as do
sword and words too <_< .

[rich]

For my self amusement, to see what other words can be generated from the words, devil sword
devil
el
die
lie
lid
led
evil
live
vile
veil
lived
lied
sword
word
words
rows
row
sow
sod
or
so

Who cares anyway,? Nothing to be proved by continuing. Too many words. :angry:
Tired wracking my brain. Sorry.

Back to aussie basket-ball :blink: :o :P

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 1 2003, 10:19 AM
Tired wracking my brain. Sorry.
Back to aussie basket-ball.
Hi rich,

There's someting about being physically active which seems to 'sooth' the 'mind' by 'occupying' it in a way that let's thoughts 'fall into place' and 'settle down'.

I hope watching aussie basket-ball 'worked'. If not, or if not well, the next time you feel your brain pre·occupied to the point of being 'wracked' :lol: I recommend embarking on something like a bicycle ride or a walk. I personally find this kind of way 'easier' (meaning seems to 'work' 'naturally') than attempting something like meditatively focusing on my breathing, or something else I 'choose', especially when I'm feeling either 'agitated' or just plain 'too tired' to concentrate in that way. In such cases, I find things like focusing on things like breathing, engaing in prayer or mantra repetition, or just 'spectating' something on TV not 'involving' enough to quell my 'agita' (which often is nothing more than the dysphoria of having nothing 'to do' with my Life's activation-energy and, so, being 'bored').

If you are unable to get out and about for any reason, something like knitting (or an equivalent) might 'work' as well.

That failing, take two aspirins and let me know how you're doing in the morning.

Doc-Dave ;)

[rich]

Dear Doc Dave,

Thank you for your excellent advice. Wish was able to bike ride.
Gave bike away almost 3 years ago, for chronic arthritus in knee and ankle made it nearly impossible to negotiate the pedals. Still am able to walk, however, use a walker for balance. Can not take aspirin or non-inflamatory drugs, for they eat your insides out. Take propoxy/darvoset twice daily for pain.
Have a few exercises I should do daily, but at times, get too involved with posting in forums, that neglect to do what should be done. Time to retire shortly, and thank you for your well intentioned reply.

Cordially,
Rich

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 31 2003, 10:10 AM
Canadian Softball Rules...

I coulda been a star, I tell ya! :D
oh puhleeeeeeese.... :rolleyes:

Polaris, your rules pretty much sum up the game, tho at least in my (working class) neighborhood everybody did have mitts. What did y'all do, wrap your hands?

Richie, 2 words- glucosamine chondroitin :)

[rich]

Thanking Sonrisa for 2 words- glucosamine chondroitin, have been taking for 3 years now. :D ;)

[sonrisa]

And you still have pain & trouble walking? Do you get any relief from it?

[rich]

Regarding Glucosamine sulphate and chondroitin:
Dear sonrisa,
Do not believe it is classified as a pain killer, sonrisa, though there advertising implies otherwise. Maybe placebo effect takes :
place. However it may relieve some of the pain. :) :unsure:

[rich]

Besides my having a big mouth, :lol: and a mighty keyboard, can anyone explain to me why, in practically every forum, am I left with having the last word? :(
It disturbs me to no end. :huh: :o

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 3 2003, 01:26 PM
Besides my having a big mouth, :lol: and a mighty keyboard, can anyone explain to me why, in practically every forum, am I left with having the last word? :(
It disturbs me to no end. :huh: :o
Hi rich -

Speculating now: Seems to me that big mouth (desire to talk and relate) and mighty keyboard (plenty of motivation-energy to do so) might be more than a 'sufficient' explanation.

Here's another 'dynamic' which might be operational as well at times:

Did you hear about the conversational 'dance' between Englishman and Italian? [Please everyone/anyone: These are admittedly 'stereotypes', but I don't consider or mean either in a 'negative' way.] As Italians are more culture·ally ingrained to like 'closeness' and 'warmth', the Italian guy moves in real close and speaks with a lot of animation. The Englishman, on the other hand, culture·ingrainedly preferring, (i.e., valuing to a 'greater' extent) being 'composed' and 'cool' and having his 'space' 'respected', feels uncomfortable with the Italian's style, experiences it as being on the 'brash and rude' side, and so steps backward in order to reestablish his 'comfort zone'. The Italian experiences this as 'cold' and 'distant', or 'aloof'. So he takes a step forward to close the 'distance' between them as he continues talking and gesticulating, even increasing the intensity in such regards in a 'hopeful' attempt to break through to 'intimacy' with the Englishman. The Englishman takes another step back, of course, and the 'dance' continues with them skittering across the floor, with the Englishman ending up outside the room and the Italian alone.

Again, I emphasize this is all speculative and based on pure 'imagination' since I don't ex·peer·ience you from an 'Englishman' frame of reference - that ain't my personal 'comfort zone'. However, assuming it contains pertinent 'truth', nothing in any of the above strikes me as being 'bad'. It's all very nature·al. I imagine the Italian being a bit 'disturbed' (i.e., out of his 'comfort zone') as well at the 'end' result, ex·peer·iencing frustration and feeling 'dissed', that is, disrespected and disaffirmed. The Englishman, well, he got what he 'wanted', at least more so than the Italian, I guess.

Love and Blessings - David :)

[sonrisa]

Richie, glucosamine chondroitin isn't a pain killer, it's supposed to loosen up the joints, make them more flexible. It works for me, but then I don't have full blown arthritis (yet!) I just noticed a tightening in some of my joints, most notably my fingers, which went away when I started taking the GC & comes back when I run out & can't get some for a few days. Other people I know have more dramatic problems when they go off the stuff, but are fine when they take it. I dunno, maybe you have to start taking it early on, before arthritis becomes a real problem, for GC to be really effective.

Oh Richie, you are STILL bothered with getting the last word in? :rolleyes: What did I tell you before- you are the sage of thebigview, so you are enitled to the last word. Enjoy it! :)

[sahyo]

:D
"another 'dynamic'
which might be operational as well" post
excellent,
david

[rich]

One thing for sure, no body,

but nobody is going to make me

post anything else in this forum,

and leave me holding the bag,

by posting the last word, in this thread.

That I won't do ! That's for sure. :blink:

You shall soon find out how true these words are. :o

[zygoat]

richie,
being silent is no guarantee for staying out of trouble!! B)

[rich]

Originally posted by zygoat@Aug 6 2003, 09:44 AM
richie,
being silent is no guarantee for staying out of trouble!! B)
One thing for sure, no matter what ever you do, or not do, there'll always be some to criticize your action.
No need to be surprised, but rather expect it. <_<

[sahyo]

if thinking"expect"ingcriticism,
is which will think'imagine'happening perhaps when not ;)

which is 'expecting'criticism?, richie

[rich]

asheera posted if thinking"expect"ing criticism,
is which will think 'imagine' happening perhaps when not which is 'expecting'criticism?, richie

The key word is imagine.

If it is imaginination, then my statement is not valid, and what you wrote is correct, I imagine. ;)

But, if it is not imagination, then what I wrote is/(was) true, I imagine. :D

whatever we do not know for sure, we imagine.

now to tackle the word "expect", is the same as anticipating a future event, before happening. Sort of crystal gazing. Maybe guessing. Sure, some future happening not known for sure, therefore; projecting, due to past experience a future event. probably could be called, imagining. :wacko:

[sahyo]

now to tackle the word "expect", is the same as anticipating a future event, before happening. Sort of crystal gazing. Maybe guessing. Sure, some future happening not known for sure, therefore; projecting, due to past experience a future event. probably could be called, imagining.

yes :D ....and if not thinkpastfuturewhichnot?

[rich]

Your point well taken, asheera. :D

How easy it is to get caught in recalling the past, and anticipating the future, rather than living in a continuous now. :lol:

Do you live in a continuous state of being aware that the present moment is one continuous NOW? :unsure:

I may be aware of it, but not always thinking like that. :P

[sahyo]

Do you live in a continuous state of being aware that the present moment is one continuous NOW?

"continuous"?...."that"?
"state of being aware"?....awhere?...."that"?
"one"?...."that"?

I may be aware of it, but not always thinking like that.

;) ;) :)

[rich]

A Dialogue between asheera and rich.
Key: A= asheera
R=rich

asheera
Posted on Aug 7 2003, 03:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


R:now to tackle the word "expect", is the same as anticipating a future event, before happening. Sort of crystal gazing. Maybe guessing. Sure, some future happening not known for sure, therefore; projecting, due to past experience a future event. probably could be called, imagining.

A:yes ....and if not thinkpastfuturewhichnot?






rich
Posted on Aug 7 2003, 01:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
asheera posted QUOTE
A:if thinking"expect"ing criticism,
is which will think 'imagine' happening perhaps when not which is 'expecting'criticism?, richie


R:The key word is imagine.

If it is imaginination, then my statement is not valid, and what you wrote is correct, I imagine.

But, if it is not imagination, then what I wrote is/(was) true, I imagine.

whatever we do not know for sure, we imagine.

now to tackle the word "expect", is the same as anticipating a future event, before happening. Sort of crystal gazing. Maybe guessing. Sure, some future happening not known for sure, therefore; projecting, due to past experience a future event. probably could be called, imagining.


asheera
Posted on Aug 7 2003, 12:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A:if thinking"expect"ingcriticism,
is which will think'imagine'happening perhaps when not

which is 'expecting'criticism?, richie



rich
Posted on Aug 6 2003, 11:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (zygoat @ Aug 6 2003, 09:44 AM)
richie,
being silent is no guarantee for staying out of trouble!!

R:One thing for sure, no matter what ever you do, or not do, there'll always be some to criticize your action.
No need to be surprised, but rather expect it.



R: Do you live in a continuous state of being aware that the present moment is one continuous NOW?

R:I may be aware of it, but not always thinking like that.
(oh oh, A found a word to be critical about:)
R: I may be aware of it, but not always thinking like"that"..

A: "continuous"?...."that"?
A: "state of being aware"?....awhere?...."that"?
A: "one"?...."that"?

R: Did not realize I would be criticized for writing"that"?
Should I have written "this"?
Would you have replied this way?
A: "continuous"?...."this"?
"state of being aware"?....awhere?...."this"?
"one"?...."this"?

Past history shown, to affirm my original premise that expected criticism did occur. But maybe you are kidding and teasing me. ;)
That is fine, 'cus I am too. LOL :lol: ;) :D

[sahyo]

Past history shown, to affirm my original premise that expected criticism did occur.

no :)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 7 2003, 08:23 AM
Past history shown, to affirm my original premise that expected criticism did occur.

no :)
:o You dared to say NO to"this"? After me spending hours preparing my case proving i was right. Ok, asheera. I understand. B)

[sonrisa]

YO EVVRYBUDDY!!

Check out Richie's sidebar- he's now a guru-aka sage, maybe better than a sage! Anyhoo, it's now official: Richie is entitled to have the last word at TBV!! YAY!! :D
(1 hand clapping!) :P :)

[rich]

Hi sonrisa, thanks for your applesauce. Am just a sausage with sage.
mmmmmmdeeeelishshush. ;) :lol:

[rich]

undefined
Just a wee bit of kidding One, having an identity of asheera , wishing her well as she officially becomes a Guru in this forum.

miss asheera now has 249 posts in ths forum; needs 250 posts to become a Guru on this forum..
Thinking she may make her 250th post shortly, but then again, she may not. She does dislike any fanfare or special attention from some of the folks here. In fact I do not think I should say anymore. :o :P ;)

[rich]

Dear asheera,

Did not mean to up set you by posting the previous post, and perhaps other posts doing the same. Should not have.

It is now 2:06 PM EDST on a Saturday afternoon. This afternoon
I feel extremly tired, and sort of comotose, probably a result from the various medications have been taking for arthritus. Will take a nap this PM., rather than sitting by computer trying to stay awake. <_< ^_^

[sahyo]

rich

identity of asheera?

Did not mean to up set you by posting the previous post,
and perhaps other posts doing the same. Should not have.

which is thinking'whichnot'? ;)

hehe....yes-word'guru'-screening

[rich]

A Raindrop

A raindrop fell,
naturally from heaven,
into a puddle on cement.
waves emanated
from ground zero,
displacing water
there before;
to puddle's perimeter shore.

A raindrop fell,
naturally from heaven,
into soil on ground,
plantings nourished,
quenching their thirst
by drinking water.
As roots send
Life to stem, leaf and bud.

[DavidS]

Eloquent raindrop-related 'distinctions', my friend.

[BeyondBeliefs]

To share thoughts about the objects in this universe, we need words.
The universe does not need words.
It is the "Language of Truth".

For millennium, in our effort to share our observations of the universe with our new born babies,
we have attempted to invent proper words

Unfortunately, words are not like the Universe. Words can lie.
And so we have had thousands of nations and religions attacking and killing each other to preserve the differences in their lies.
While the Truth waits to see if Humanity is a form of life that deserves to exist in it's universe.

Can we survive our words?

[DavidS]

Beautifully put, BB. Just a comment on:

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 15 2003, 08:52 AM
Can we survive our words?
Strikes me this is akin to the question, Can we 'survive' our 'nature'?

Also strikes me, since the 'future' is open-ended (alternatively, one might think of it as 'including' both the 'possibility' that we will and the 'possibility' that we won't), that one has to choose between (1) 'believing' that we (probably) will and (2) 'believing' that we (probably) won't OR (3) to remain totally 'agnostic' in this regard.

Each choice 'naturally' results in one 'logically' 'gravitating' into the 'orbit' of one of three different types of 'life-stances' (or 'philosophies', or 'value systems).

Of course the choices, and consequent life-stance-road-forks, become somewhat more varied if and as one arrives at the conclusion that 'soul' or 'spirit' is 'eternal', indestructible, etc. In that case, there is no question of whether or not our 'spirit-self' will 'survive' 'words', 'tools', any and all implements and modes of ego-functioning in this time-n-space-dimensional 'world'.

But I assume your question, even if only meant rhetorically, referred to 'worldly' survival. Well, to that I can only say that we have 'survived' this far, pretty severe repercussions (of our 'use' of things like concepts and words for cultural transmission purposes) notwithstanding. Can the 'future' be reasonably 'projected' on that basis? I think not. 'Instruments' with the 'power' to make the planet humanly uninhabitable have been developed. And there's a growing 'army' of 'nuttiness' out there. All 'em 'suicide' bombings look to me like the first wave of population-overflowing human-lemmings leaping into the sea! So I think whether possibility-1 or possibility-2 will 'come to pass' has to remain an open question till we 'see' if the nuttiness-forest-fire-storm burns itself out without taking all of humanity with it.

My guess (considering all factors I am aware of) is that those who 'believe' in the 'notion' that soul-spirit (though clearly very changeable in terms of 'form'al ex·press·ion is) is itself a 'ray' of 'eternal' being will be more able to go through this period of uncertainty (the valley of the shadow of 'death'), at least they will be less 'traumatized' by what takes place, than those who either 'believe' the contrary as well as those who are 'agnostic' (i.e., those who have no faith-n-therefore-hope, or 'weak' faith-n-therefore-hope, or 'flip-flop' faith-n-therefore-hope), in this regard. This 'guess' is based both my personal observations and data which support the 'intuition' that things like faith and hope serve to increase a 'spirit's' resiliency.

Assuming 'humanity' 'survives' on our planet, me·projects what is 'coming', which will then of course amount to a 'culling, will consequently be 'selective', 'naturally' 'selecting' FOR 'traits' like faith and hope and cultural memes which support and reinforce these.

Nice to meetcha, BB :)

- David

[BeyondBeliefs]

If I said the short line, "Bob Hope's visit was a vacation from my Levinworth.", then most people here in America would know what I said because we share the same history. Without a common history, it takes a lot of words about Viet-Nam, Bob, battlefields, and military installatons.

I'm about to use a lot of words. It might be easier to go outside and paint the house.


Soul
There is "Life" after death.
Only the bodies of living things Die. What they do does not.
(though lifes deed's can be erased by the murderers of Creation)

Even before the invention of the wheel, everything done was, and still is, done forever. Even if the earth were destroyed by a meteor, pieces of our history would be scattered throughout this galaxy until they were found and added to the wisdom of Life.
Everything that happened in this universe has altered the future forever.
And so do we.

Human Nature
A lion raised in a gentle house becomes a gentle 600 pound lion.
(But don't be behind him when the flashbulb goes off in his face)

For many children, raised inside of religions (the carrots and sticks of ancient villages and tribes), forever is not seen as sufficient. This flaw in upbringing causes them to overrule their own Nature.

By Nature, all Humans, everywhere, are all the same. When their house is on fire, then they all yell the same thing, "Save the children".

Like languages, all our borders and beliefs were invented in ancient isolation, and are all different in their lies and all the same in their Truth. For the liars to continue to rule, their lie must be defended, and so, they teach their children that the rest of Creation is their duty to fix or eradicate.

Children's reaction to these fabricated threats, and also to "god's etenal hellsfire", is not a part of our "Human Nature", but is produced by the words used to replace the Truth during our upbringing.

Children are designed to adapt (fit in) to whatever place and time they happened to get born into. They are designed to carry on the successful methods of their ancestors. Cannibals or not.

With Human children it is possible to give them the illusion of actual experience by using nothing more than mere words. But like a pet raised indoors, it's chance of surviving out in reality is unlikely. And like a lion trained to kill, it is unlikly that reality can survive its attack.

Unlearning an upbringing can take a lifetime. A lion raised in the wild will not be reborn into a house pet. Lions and children are trapped in the place BY WHICH they were raised to live.

Becoming a Mammal or a Human
Without sharing our thoughts using words, we would still be living in caves and turning over rocks for food. Words are not a bad thing.... if they speak the Truth.

Like the friendly mammals that live where there are no predators, so to, a Human Child will become what they believe is required as told to them by their predecessors. In the absense of attackers, there are no defenders. In the presense of attackers (real or not)(actual Bear or magic Satan) the response is the same. Defend yourself and fight for your liberation from the illusion. Unfortunately, attackers CREATE the Defenders, terrorists, and enemies. Creating the Paradox of Lies.

By condemning God and His Creation, nations and religions have turned Human Children into soldier, crusaders and missionaries to fight their wars to preserve their lies.

===

This was a lot of work.

David,
I hope you are still glad to meet me.
Even my best friends say that I am "Brutally Honest".

[Polaris]

I have vinyl siding... no paint required. ;)

With Human children it is possible to give them the illusion of actual experience by using nothing more than mere words. But like a pet raised indoors, it's chance of surviving out in reality is unlikely. And like a lion trained to kill, it is unlikly that reality can survive its attack.

Unlearning an upbringing can take a lifetime. A lion raised in the wild will not be reborn into a house pet. Lions and children are trapped in the place BY WHICH they were raised to live.

My problem exists in your use of the word reality and I'm worried that I wont be able to clearly express why your use of this word in this particular contexts bothers me. But I'll give it a go and hope I make it clear enough. :unsure:

I guess it has to do with the fact that I'm not sure what 'reality' you are referring to. If you are talking about the reality that exists outside their front door in the sort of superficial 'dog-eat-dog' world then I would have to say that, yes, some people enter the big scary world better equiped than others to handle that kind of harsh reality of the world they must someday face as independant individuals. But is THAT really reality??

However, if you refer to reality as being a more empty, Absolute Zen-like sense then just how important is survival in that kind of reality?


So basically, could you define "reality".

That might clear it up for me.



:blink: :unsure:

[BeyondBeliefs]

It's Mechanics.

The word "Reality" is as close as I can get to a one word description of theActual History of the universe and the things that it has produced on earth from the compounds that it has created from the gases it collected from space.

To me, Reality is not just those few things that were accidently created on this planet, but also all the other possible things that could have survived here as events permitted.

(I wish English had the right words, but those words are only invented after a concept has been popularized.)

Since the early universe, (composed of clouds of light gasses), the organic structures we call living things took billions of years of 'chemical' cooperation to produce.

In reality we could be a three headed four armed and six legged creature, and we would still be looking at the same niverse asking the same questions and offering the same answers.

"Reality" is where different materials combine to produce a more complex structure, that has new characteristics. Creating New Options from this list of cosmic material.

I would call Reality, "Evolution", but that word is also ruined by association to magic beliefs.
Reality is a cooperation of accumulating differences, creating new complexities with new potentials.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Note that in social "reality", most children face what was fabricated by their ancestors,
whereas in Reality , the challenge to physical structures are only the physical things, like bacteria, virus or hurricanes.

The challenge to Human Minds has no structure. A "Human" is patterns of thought.
Not a brain, nor neurons, nor the electricity that forms the patterns, but just the patterns.
A Prophet would call it the "Soul of Life".

Reality : The accumulated wisdom shared throughout the history of the earth (and space), accumulated from , and by, all the patterns, and all the observations of patterns ever made by all things, living or not, since the universe was but a ball of gas.

A Prophet would call this "The Creation".

[rich]

Can the Real REALITY be really REAL without understanding?

[BeyondBeliefs]

Reality is NO different in a galaxy that contains no living things.

[rich]

BB/TTP, posted:


The challenge to Human Minds has no structure. A "Human" is patterns of thought.
Not a brain, nor neurons, nor the electricity that forms the patterns, but just the patterns.

Thomas,
Patterns of thought, within a 'human body' capable of reacting to its stimuli. :unsure: ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 18 2003, 04:48 AM
Reality is NO different in a galaxy that contains no living things.
BB, :lol:
I wouldn't know, have never been in that kind of a galaxy. ;) :D

[BeyondBeliefs]

Chemicals were the first to respond to stimuli and combine to produce more complexity.
Our body is a mammal and so must be fed organic material to survive.
Some think that this feeding is the highest priority.
It is possible to convince a Human Mind to compete for food, even though it was the cooperation of everyone in the village that made Human Life possible.

Villages, tribes, languages, nations and religions were early forms of Human Cooperation. Those Humans that did not invent cooperations are all now extinct or have joins those villages that did create the Unity that is required to allow Humans to exist on earth.
Accumulating Cooperation across generations is the definition of Human.

It only takes one villager to make everyone buy locks for all their doors.
Killing is so easy that even a child can pull a trigger.
Humanity is a product of saving living things, growing living things and learning from them.

The Human Mind can create Patterns of thought in children that can not sustain Life.
Some would call these "nations" and "religions", but they actually encompass far more fantasy. The loss of cooperation can even result in the loss of what took a million years to create.

[Polaris]

BB,

I've read your definition over a couple of times. Thank you for the explaination. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I agree 100% with your definition of 'reality'.

Maybe it'll go point by point.

The word "Reality" is as close as I can get to a one word description of the Actual History of the universe and the things that it has produced on earth from the compounds that it has created from the gases it collected from space.

To me, Reality is not just those few things that were accidently created on this planet, but also all the other possible things that could have survived here as events permitted.

In my personal definition, 'reality' would be now, not history. Reality doesn't exist in the past or the future or in possibilities.

Note that in social "reality", most children face what was fabricated by their ancestors,
whereas in Reality, the challenge to physical structures are only the physical things, like bacteria, virus or hurricanes.

Not sure what you mean by this? Why is there a challenge in reality? Shouldn't reality be pretty clear-cut and straight forward? Doesn't the challenge exist only in our delusions?

The challenge to Human Minds has no structure. A "Human" is patterns of thought.
Not a brain, nor neurons, nor the electricity that forms the patterns, but just the patterns.
A Prophet would call it the "Soul of Life".

This doesn't feel right to me. A "Human" is patterns of thought??? I'm either misunderstanding you or disagreeing. I'm not sure which. :blink:

Reality : The accumulated wisdom shared throughout the history of the earth (and space), accumulated from , and by, all the patterns, and all the observations of patterns ever made by all things, living or not, since the universe was but a ball of gas.

What makes you think there was no reality before the universe was but a ball of gas? :huh:

Humanity is a product of saving living things, growing living things and learning from them.

I'm not sure what the alternative for humans is, other than humanity?

[sahyo]

galaxy that contains no living things.


:blink:

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris, I understand.
If I could find a better word, I would.

===

History
Tomorrow is created by Today. The Earth and a Human is a product of the universe's History.

Now is only a small part of what the universe could have made in this tiny spot. (Earth).
But Reality is not limited to making only what you see on earth.

When we cut down a forest, that is not adding to or subtracting from Reality.
It is our selection. We are choosing what lives and what dies around us.
Reality is not affected. It continues to combine materials into more complex forms.

===


Challenge
Our body is made of material that is easily killed.
To live for just a hundred years a body must handle and endure many difficulties.
Drought, flood, Heat, Cold, harmful Chemicals structures (living and non living).
Most of the species that developed on this planet are now extinct.
Staying alive in the harsh enviornment of earth is not easy.

===

Patterns of Thought
Someone else invented our alphabets, languages, nations and religions.
We were not born "German" , "French" or "Egyptian" , nor born "Christian", "Muslim" or "Jew".
Those things were done to us by the people in the place and the time into which we happened to be born.

Our body is a mammal , but our Human is 50,000 years of thoughts passed from generation to generation since the invention of languages.
A Human is the million years of accumulated wisdom (and stupidity).
A Human Mind can create a compound that otherwise could not be created in this universe through natural events, but Reality will use that new compound just as if it occured naturally.

In this way, Humans can Create a future that the universe could not have created without us.

===


Ball of Gas

Whatever existed before the universe was a ball of gas is also a part of the Reality in which the universe evolved.

===

Human, the Product of saving
Every thing you see in the universe is what has survived.
Humanity is here because it's actions have saved it from becoming extinct

===

[sahyo]

things?, bb

[BeyondBeliefs]

asheera, I don't understand the question. Which things ?

[sahyo]

Reality is NO different in a galaxy that contains no living things



Humanity is a product of saving living things, growing living things


:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

The survival of Humanity (Patterns of Thoughts) is dependant on keeping our mammal bodies alive and that means saving and growing everything that the body needs.

Until we know exactly what organic material we need, (to maintain the enviornment that supports our body), it would be wise to save all living things. Someday, it may turn out that the Smallpox virus is a Cure for some new and termianal disease.

Reality will continue to combine materials into new forms of life. We must be prepared to defend ourselves from the new obstacles that reality creates.

[sahyo]

bb trying "saving" for future which may or maynot happen
.....if didn't 'trying' saving for future?

[sonrisa]

Hmmm smallpox, or some new unknown terminal disease......
While I see your point BB, I have to confess, I don't much care that choice!

[a random hack]

bb trying "saving" for future which may or maynot happen
.....if didn't 'trying' saving for future?


:o <suprised>

:blink: <thinking>

<scratches head, has no ideas>

[Thomas Knierim]

Just came back to look into this thread and noticed a philosophical eruption with subsequent concept inundation of considerable depth requiring emergency floating of conventional definitions. As this is taking place I shall find a dry spot from which to watch the further unfolding of the spectacle. Since I am mathematically inclined I admit I like the 'patterns of thoughts' bubble that swims on top of it. After all, mathematics is the science of patterns.

BeyondBeliefs, for somebody who distrusts words you use an awful lot of them. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[BeyondBeliefs]

Words are never good enough because they are History and we are making the future..

And to much variation in the interpretation. (Reality)
And to much cross linking to unrelated 'hot issues'. (Evolution)

What takes a minute to think requires an hour to write.
Once wrote, I can only sit and wonder if the thought made it through the obstacle course we call "Our language".

[rich]

asheera posted:
bb trying "saving" for future which may or maynot happen
.....if didn't 'trying' saving for future?

Though this post is directed to BB, and before knowing wh/o/ich wrote the post, I knew its author:

;) :lol: :D

[sahyo]

bb trying "saving" for future which may or maynot happen


:lol:
rewording:

trying "saving" for which not happening?

words
:wacko:
onigy bonigy

[sahyo]

bb trying "saving" for future which may or maynot happen
.....if didn't 'trying' saving for future?


:o <suprised>

:blink: <thinking>

<scratches head, has no ideas>



:lol:

[sahyo]

noticed a philosophical eruption with subsequent concept inundation of considerable depth requiring emergency floating of conventional definitions.


:lol: :D

[Polaris]

Polaris, I understand.
If I could find a better word, I would.

BB. I understand. Language can sometimes be more hindrance than help. I have times when something is so clear in my head but there are no proper words to describe it.

I'm not sure were are going to completely find we are standing on common ground. I see emptiness when you see things like the past and the future. The past forms the now but the now is all we have. You can plan for tomorrow but you must live for today (now).

Now is only a small part of what the universe could have made in this tiny spot. (Earth).
But Reality is not limited to making only what you see on earth.

To me Now is all inclusive. This tiny spot we call Earth is only a small part of the Now. The Now includes the past (as the events of the past create the Now) but it does not include possibilities which did not occur except in the form of thoughts. If you think it's possible that we could have evolved as three-headed creatures, that exists in the Now only as a thought.

I understand what you are saying when you say a Human is the million years of accumulated wisdom (and stupidity). . Yes. But we still exist only in the Now not in the past.

However:
Humans can Create a future that the universe could not have created without us.
Once again we are entering the realm of "possibilities". This is bordering on being an imponderable, don't you think? You can't predict what effect our actions in the now will "create" in the future and whether or not these possible creations would not be possible without Humans. This also requires we know what created the Universe or Humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time, I so fondly refer to as Now. Are we products, independant of the Universe able to separate ourselves and our actions from it? Or are we part of the Universe, both products of something else?

Humanity is here because it's actions have saved it from becoming extinct

Yes... for Now :)

[Polaris]

We must be prepared to defend ourselves from the new obstacles that reality creates.

Personally I think we should accept reality rather than defend ourselves against it as though it were the enemy.

[sahyo]

This also requires we know what created the Universe or Humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time, I so fondly refer to as Now.



'awhatwho' which can "know"?
"point in time"?

[sahyo]

I think we should accept

can "should" without shouldn't?
and "accept" without not-accept?

;)

[sahyo]

I see emptiness when you see things like the past and the future.


yet


requires we know what created the Universe or Humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time,

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 18 2003, 11:27 AM
I think we should accept

can "should" without shouldn't?
and "accept" without not-accept?

;)
Meant in the context of BB's post where he seems to suggest nonacceptance of reality when he states:

We must be prepared to defend ourselves from the new obstacles that reality creates.

BB presents a nonacceptance... I tried to present (but probably failed ) that there is nothing to not accept.

:unsure:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 18 2003, 11:35 AM

I see emptiness when you see things like the past and the future.


yet


requires we know what created the Universe or Humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time,


tsk tsk tsk Asheera! Taken out of context it does sound contradictory. However, my entire statement suggested that trying to know what created the Universe or humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time was imponderable.

[BeyondBeliefs]

* * Personally I think we should accept reality rather than defend ourselves against it as though it were the enemy.

In the past few millennium, we invented every language, nation, religion, medicine, mechanism, vaccine, surgery and solution that has ever existed on earth.

The universe created oxygen producing Algae, but also huricanes, HIV and black widow spiders. We have to defend our future from what both we and the universe has accidently created here.

Once again we are entering the realm of "possibilities". This is bordering on being an imponderable, don't you think? You can't predict what effect our actions in the now will "create" in the future and whether or not these possible creations would not be possible without Humans.

Just as we decided what languages, nations and religions to invent, so to I do not predict tomorrow, I decide what it will be and create it. A Human Mind is not limited to what was produced on this one tiny planet.

Today, the earth is still able to support and promote life, and so, I predict that you will be alive tomorrow, if you do not choose actions that result in your death.

Creation may be a vary slow process, and so, preserving these rare objects here on earth is important, but even more important is to create what we need to prevent the loss of what now is here. (That our body's survival depends on.)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 17 2003, 08:31 AM
David,
I hope you are still glad to meet me.
Even my best friends say that I am "Brutally Honest".
Yes, I find your trampoline bouncing delightful to part-take of -- so far that is ;) , but see no reason to anticipate things changing significantly in that regard.

'Ruthless Love', which sees-n-embraces-n-accords with 'truth' in 'impartial' perspective, has it's place, right in center of the 'altar' IMO. Dissservice to Life only results when 'ruthlessness' is 'utilized' in 'partial', or 'narrowly'-focused, fashion methinks.

[BeyondBeliefs]

trampoline bouncing

I had hoped it would at least be a pogo stick.
Let me know if I make any progress.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 17 2003, 05:29 PM
History: Tomorrow is created by Today. The Earth and a Human is a product of the universe's History. Now is only a small part of what the universe could have made in this tiny spot. (Earth). . . . Etc.
Just to let you know, I 'get' the 'import' of what you are saying, BB. This just to balance responses from 'strict' Nowists who may be either unable or unwilling to entertain your lens-view.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 18 2003, 11:40 AM
trampoline bouncing
I had hoped it would at least be a pogo stick.
Let me know if I make any progress.
Pogo stick, you bounce on alone. Trampoline, I can get a 'bounce' off of the 'energy' of your bounce, high-flyer. 'Progress' will take care of itself -- if you keep your eyes open as you let your heart 'guide' you, that is. :)

[rich]

Do any think that Earth is the Axis of The Universe
which everything rotates about?

Or maybe it is my EGOwhich is the Axis of Reality?

Or a combination of both? :unsure:

I Think things spin, all around me,
Ho Ho Ha, Tee Hee Hee, All is a fantasy :lol: ;)
:wacko:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 18 2003, 03:06 PM
Personally I think we should accept reality rather than defend ourselves against it as though it were the enemy.

In the past few millennium, we invented every language, nation, religion, medicine, mechanism, vaccine, surgery and solution that has ever existed on earth.

The universe created oxygen producing Algae, but also huricanes, HIV and black widow spiders. We have to defend our future from what both we and the universe has accidently created here.

Once again we are entering the realm of "possibilities". This is bordering on being an imponderable, don't you think? You can't predict what effect our actions in the now will "create" in the future and whether or not these possible creations would not be possible without Humans.

Just as we decided what languages, nations and religions to invent, so to I do not predict tomorrow, I decide what it will be and create it. A Human Mind is not limited to what was produced on this one tiny planet.

Today, the earth is still able to support and promote life, and so, I predict that you will be alive tomorrow, if you do not choose actions that result in your death.

Creation may be a vary slow process, and so, preserving these rare objects here on earth is important, but even more important is to create what we need to prevent the loss of what now is here. (That our body's survival depends on.)
I'm not going to deny we invented ways to communicate, tribes based on location and belief, treatments for illness, the wheel etc.... We did. However, I have trouble with the notion that the "universe created" anything. Once again it seems you are trying to separate the universe from the items inside it. The universe, IMO includes the items inside it.... the oxygen producing algae, the hurricanes, disease and spiders.... and us! We are no better than the algae, the viruses, the spiders, the weather. In a previous post you discussed cooperation. Shall we cooperation with the Universe and that which we share this space with or shall we take up arms against it?? There's nothing to defend yourself against. You create your own adversaries.

You decide very little in the grand spectrum of things. Your life is fleeting. A year before your birth you weren't even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. 100 years from now, your decendants will scarcely know your name (if you're lucky) and they wont know you at all. You may wish to leave behind a legacy....perhaps some great wisdom, but you have no control of how people 100 years from now will choose to use the wisdom you leave behind. That's reality. Your control is extremely limited to what you yourself do in this short lifetime. That's why you live for the 'now' and don't dwell on the past or the future.... because that's not where you are.

You don't choose life. You don't choose death. It happens regardless.

Preserving objects? Objects aren't important. You can't prevent change, BB.

[BeyondBeliefs]

I have trouble with the notion that the "universe created" anything.

Do you think these galaxies formed by magic?
The universe is an ordinary, and boring, kind of factory, in which whatever happens to fall together and manage to remain in one piece, does. The rest does not.

Since the first Electro-Magnetic Vibrations (big bang) , the Cooperation (syncopation, sympathetic resonance, combination) has created electrons, protons, neutrons, which continued to coalese (collapse) into becoming hydrogen, the first atom, Creation has continued. This planet was not zap-poofed into existence. It was created by the chemical evolution of the universe.

You decide very little in the grand spectrum of things.

We decide everything. You decide what language, nationality and religion your children will or will not believe. There is no one else to do it. Either you (The Creator of Life's Destiny) decide it's future, or no one will. Only you can be inspired. Only you can teach governments about Living Things, and only you can teach religions about "God" and His Creation.

but you have no control of how people 100 years from now will choose to use the wisdom you leave behind

Why would I want to Control them? They would be fools to let the ignorant past (My Present) influence their judgement. Do they need to be defended from Truth by me?
Should I leave a pamphlet to guide them? Or should the Truth guide them in the same way as the Truth, that was given to us, by observations of Reality, has guided us away from illness, suffering and death. Truth Saves. Lies Kill. Just as we depended on the past million years of Human effort, so to the future depends on us.

You don't choose life. You don't choose death. It happens regardless.


If you think that, then climb to the roof and jump. Someone weened and fed you into surviving. It was no accident. Now you decide to continue or not.

Bodies live and they die. LIFE only continues by making good choices on a planet that supports it's survival. Those animals that destroyed everything around them, starved to death, and are now extinct.

You decide.

Preserving objects? Objects aren't important. You can't prevent change

Try living without air, water, food and intelligent neighbors.

[sahyo]

I see emptiness when you see things like the past and the future.


yet


requires we know what created the Universe or Humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time,



tsk tsk tsk Asheera! Taken out of context it does sound contradictory. However, my entire statement suggested that trying to know what created the Universe or humans in the first place and what lead us to this point in time was imponderable.


wasn't thinking contradictory, polaris
and wasn't "imponderable" which post was responsing :)

perhaps read again?

[sahyo]

That's why you live for the 'now' and don't dwell on the past or the future



and what lead us to this point in time,


"live for the 'now"?
....is aseparatenotseparate 'now' to live 'for'?

"and what lead us to this point in time"?....
is a"what" to " lead"?, 'awhere' to go?
....is a"point in time"?

[Polaris]

David: Just to let you know, I 'get' the 'import' of what you are saying, BB. This just to balance responses from 'strict' Nowists who may be either unable or unwilling to entertain your lens-view.

You might be talking about me here, I suppose. Not to worry, David. I get BB's point.... I just happen to disgree with certain aspects of it... not all of it. I am both able and willing to entertain anyone's "lens-view" but it has to be clear and undistorted for it to be any good to anyone.

[Polaris]

Polaris: I have trouble with the notion that the "universe created" anything.


BB: Do you think these galaxies formed by magic?
The universe is an ordinary, and boring, kind of factory, in which whatever happens to fall together and manage to remain in one piece, does. The rest does not.

No. Of course not. My point is... if the universe created galaxies... what created the universe? Big Bang? What created the Big Bang? What created the matter which through "cooperation" created the universe and then the galaxies? Where do you start? You can't just start with the Big Bang. What where the chain of events which lead to the Big Bang? What was there before those chain of events? If you feel so strongly about delving into the imponderable past then go all the way.

To be brief, cuz I'm in a hurry:

Why would I want to Control them?
You want to control me by making me understand what "your reality" is. You want very much to change my mind, and you might very well do it. Just like Vicente might change my mind and just like someday I might understand everything Asheera is saying to me. I'm ready for change. Impress me. Woo me.

They would be fools to let the ignorant past (My Present) influence their judgement.

Exactly!


I did not ask to be born.
I know I will someday die.

[BeyondBeliefs]

First of all, I'm glad to hear that my time spent here was not a total waste.


What created the Big Bang?

I have no Idea. Nor does it cause me to disreguard what I do know and may discover.
A million years ago, one generation could heat the cave with fire, and find food, before knowing what fire and food was, or where it came from.
My generations responsibility is to add to the accumulating wisdom that will someday lead to the final answer to, "Bang What?".

You want to control me by making me understand what "your reality" is.

My job is to gather and share information. If you see this as me trying to control you, it is not my doing.

"My Reality" is also "Your Reality". Someone else took the time to teach us a language and share Humanities accumulating wisdom (and Stupidity) with us. Were they trying to control us by telling us "Their Reality"?

If generations had not taught us their languages and their current understandings then we would now be howelling mammals eating insects in the mud.

I did not ask to be born. I know I will someday die.

Will you live? Will what you do survive you? Or end when you end?

[Polaris]

BB,

I'm not saying your ideas are wrong, okay. It's just that I have different ideas however some of them are the same. I fully understand what you're saying about the accumulated wisdom/stupidity over the ages.

I'm at times confused because sometimes it seems you are telling me that having been 'shaped' (for lack of a better word) by the untrustworthy words and activities of our ancestors we have been lead astray by lies, in the form of religion and their false 'realities' etc... Yet at other times it seems you do a 180 and I get the feeling you you approve of our actions, saying that we decide everything.. the direction humanity takes from here and that we should trust their 'realities'.

One hand it seems as though you are saying religion was merely thought control of our young to shaped them into the ineffectual beings who couldn't survive in 'reality' and then you question that statement yourself by saying Were they trying to control us by telling us "Their Reality"?. Well according to your previous posts scatter throughout this discussion board .. YES. You said so earlier when you said Like languages, all our borders and beliefs were invented in ancient isolation, and are all different in their lies and all the same in their Truth. For the liars to continue to rule, their lie must be defended, and so, they teach their children that the rest of Creation is their duty to fix or eradicate.. Anyone who rules is controlling... liars included.

My thought is that you can't have it both ways. You can't condemn the words and doings of our ancestors for spreading information about a false reality (even if that false reality was truth to them) and then turn around and do the exact same thing. You gather information and share it, but from what source do you gather it? Aren't you shaped by the same history as me? Can you honestly tell me you have thoughts which are untainted by the past doings of humanity and that you see reality as it truly is.. unadulterated by mankind's wisdom/stupidity through the ages?

I agree that our Reality is the same. I just doubt that you see it any clearer than I do.

Will you live? Will what you do survive you? Or end when you end?

I will die. What I do will die with me. How can what I 'do' continue after I am dead? Somebody might take over my 'doings' but it is no longer me.. the task will be performed by somebody with different thoughts and actions and it will be different.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 18 2003, 04:01 PM
David: Just to let you know, I 'get' the 'import' of what you are saying, BB. This just to balance responses from 'strict' Nowists who may be either unable or unwilling to entertain your lens-view.

Polaris: You might be talking about me here, I suppose. Not to worry, David.

People come from all different 'angles' here. I just wanted to make sure ('certain'? ;) ) that BB knew that the logic or and values espoused in his discourse were 'resonantly' heard and appreciated by one other person at least.

I get BB's point....

Yes, that's clear in my 'view' too.

I just happen to disagree with certain aspects of it... not all of it.

Also very clear. And I think your 'disagreements' (which I 'see' as deriving from different value-'emphasis') are well taken and well-expressed. I have found the conversation quite 'edifying'.

I am both able and willing to entertain anyone's "lens-view" . . .

T'is so in my 'view', too.

. . . but it has to be clear and undistorted for it to be any good to anyone.

Totally value-agreed. And your manner of communication and method of engagement very much 'helps' (serves?) to clarify and add perspective-balance to the subject under discussion - the goings on in this thread being only one such example.

Thank you, your presence and relationality is much appreciated. <bow>

- David

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 19 2003, 05:36 AM
I will die. What I do will die with me. How can what I 'do' continue after I am dead? Somebody might take over my 'doings' but it is no longer me.. the task will be performed by somebody with different thoughts and actions and it will be different.
I understand and appreciate that, if one interprets "I" and "me" in the 'strictest' terms (and I think there are many good 'reasons' to do so at least on one 'level'), what you say is 'true'.

But I think it's 'important' (because it is creative--effect 'valuable') to also 'look' at and 'comprehend' the Life-Force-'transmission' phenomenon in a slightly different light. Take what gets 'transmitted' from a parent to a child, for example. Yes, the child will go on to "perform" with his or her 'own' "thoughts and actions" which will be different in 'significant' ways, but also 'significantly' derivative in others, from those of the parent.

Depending on what one decides/chooses to regard as 'significant', one may legitimately say that the parent's Life-Force, in some 'ways' at least, 'lives on' in the constellation of the child's Life-Force.

The same may be said to be the case in any and every case where some kind of 'transmission' is 'sent' and 'received' -- for example, some aspects of one's Life-Force expression may 'live on' in the Life-Force constellation of someone one 'touches' in some 'meaningful' way while in a laundromat or waiting for a bus! One 'inseminates' the flow of Life with the very 'nature' of one's 'being'.

One may free-will choose to 'believe' that one's 'ripple effect' will simply die out after a generation or two at most. But don't tell that to all 'em coral organisms which (hey, is this the 'which' you refer to, asheera?) en masse, annually send their 'spawn' into the big-'impersonal' ocean - they wouldn't 'believe' you because of the 'truth' that's 'organically' woven into their 'being'.

Of course, if one's main-top-value motivation is to simply live one's life for one's 'self', maybe 'learning' and 'practicing' dispassionate 'detachment' in preparing for one's 'exit cue', while waiting for one's exit cue, then there's no 'reason' for one to 'care' about the 'transmission' thang in the first place.

The 'transmission' thang may only 'appeal' to those who's emotions and philosophies inclined them to see themselves in some kind of 'parental' capacity in relation to the (future-)flow of Life. It would 'naturally' not 'appeal' to those who simply regard themselves as 'children' of the past who's greatest-'value' is 'personal' 'emancipation' in the 'present'.

As I write this, it occurs to me that maybe this 'difference' in 'types' is what historically led to different kinds of 'designations' in certain monastic orders -- some are designated as Father so-and so and Mother so-and-so, others as either Brother or Sister so-and-so. Hmmm. . .

[sahyo]

I think it's 'important' (because it is creative--effect 'valuable') to also 'look' at and 'comprehend' the Life-Force-'transmission'

which sends?, which receives?

Depending on what one decides/chooses

is awhere"One"-entity?....is "decides/chooses"?

The same may be said to be the case in any and every case where some kind of 'transmission' is 'sent' and 'received' -- for example, some aspects of one's Life-Force expression may 'live on' in the Life-Force constellation of someone one 'touches' in some 'meaningful' way

which is touched?....which "touches"?....is touch?

One may free-will choose to 'believe'

which 'believes' can "choose"?

that one's 'ripple effect' will simply die out after a generation or two at most. But don't tell that to all 'em coral organisms which (hey, is this the 'which' you refer to, asheera?)

no :)

en masse, annually send their 'spawn' into the big-'impersonal' ocean - they wouldn't 'believe' you because of the 'truth' that's 'organically' woven into their 'being'.

if not 'believe', is personal?, is impersonal?

''believe"s "which is called truth is "'organically' woven"?....which was called "being" 'is-isn't' unless truth is "'organically' woven"?

Of course, if one's main-top-value motivation is to simply live one's life for one's 'self', maybe 'learning' and 'practicing' dispassionate 'detachment' in preparing for one's 'exit cue', while waiting for one's exit cue, then there's no 'reason' for one to 'care' about the 'transmission' thang in the first place.

which is thinking can "'learning' and 'practicing'" "detachment"attachment?....is de'at'tachment?

which is thinking-pastfuturewhichnot-"preparing for ones' exit cue', while waiting for one's exit cue"?

The 'transmission' thang may only 'appeal' to those who's emotions and philosophies inclined them to see themselves in some kind of 'parental' capacity in relation to the (future-)flow of Life.

is awhere'from'past, is awhere'to'future'?

those who simply regard themselves as 'children' of the past who's greatest-'value' is 'personal' 'emancipation' in the 'present'.

are 'kissers'?, is 'kissing'....if 'seems'akisser, if 'seems'kissing, which is thinking'about'?

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris,

If what you do dies when your body dies, then did you invent your alphabet?
or did the work of Humans survive after the mammal carcass died?

Religions are the best that barbarians could do at the time.
They don't mean to be evil, they are just trying to defend themselves from each other.
Attackers create defenders. The "save their religious soul", they kill creation and lose their Actual Soul.

===

David,

Once, I thought a diamond was just a piece of glass until I saw it from many, many sides.
But because a diamond burns as easily as goal burns, all of it's other attributes need to be defended from harm.
When rushing, at first glance, it is but glass.

===

Asheera,

We can choose from among those languages, nations, and religions that survived. Choose from the list that was left here (Left alive) for us to choose from by all our ancestors Humans or not.

Coral/Evolution of bodies, is slow. Minds change the course of Humanity quickly. (Dr.Salk).

===

Note: I'm glad I found this place (TheBigView.com).
Here I am actually learning how to traverse the language/culture problem.
My "Mountain to climb"when making my 'Journey' website.

My Thanks to All.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 19 2003, 09:36 AM


I will die. What I do will die with me. How can what I 'do' continue after I am dead? Somebody might take over my 'doings' but it is no longer me.. the task will be performed by somebody with different thoughts and actions and it will be different.
Perhaps this requires a little more explaination since David is into ripple effects


Let's say, for example, that I am a floating on the surface of a pond of water. Living my life as such I move around and do things which cause ripples. As long as I am alive and kicking I make ripples. After I die the ripples continue for a while and then eventually cease. If there is somebody else in the pond with me my ripples will affect them. If they are also moving their ripples will affect me.

My ripples and their ripples will collide and the original nature of our ripple will change as a result so my ripple will no longer be Polaris' ripple and David's ripple will no longer be David's ripple. In effect, what results is a whole new ripple that neither Polaris nor David.

For a period after my death my ripples will still have an affect on others and likewise other will have an affect on mine but i wont know because I'll be dead and eventually mine become weaker and then cease to have any affect at all.

It is possible that I created a wave so strong that I pushed David closer to shore where the water is shallower and the ripples break on shore with some intensity and in this way, his life closer to shore will be different than the life he had out in the center of the pond, prior to him being hit by my rippling wave. But he will continue to produce his own ripples from there after my death and they will be of his origin, not mine.

A person can only effect change will still alive. I on my death bed I might tell David about a really cool idea I had about bread that is sold pre-sliced. The day after my death David will go out and create sliced bread. I introduced the idea and changed David while I was alive David changed the way we buy bread after I was dead.

So once you die, people can continue to do things as you may have done them, but it isn't YOU doing it. The laws of karma no longer apply to a dead person. Cause and effect ceases for you when you die. These things do continue for the other's who you may have affected with your ripples while still alive but their actions from that point forward are of their own design and volition... not the dead guy's.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 19 2003, 03:49 PM
are 'kissers'?, is 'kissing'....if 'seems'akisser, if 'seems'kissing, which is thinking'about'?
I 'showed' you my version of 'which'. The only way I could answer your question is to repost the post it is in response to.

Now let me ask you, how about showing me your version of 'which', O' mush-n-blend-everything-till-its-all-undifferentiated-soup chef par excellence? But even as I finish writing this invitation, my hearts :( sinks 'gnowing' ('believing'? 'expecting'?) you won't 'transmit' an answer meaningful enough for me to 'receive', - just more which?-neti-neti-confetti, which you (or should I say the 'which' ;) in you? ) 'seem' :D to have made a smugself-sustaining career of 'showering' upon other people's verbal sharings, ad infinitum.

Look, for crying out loud! The 'kissers' are 'one', the 'kissers' and the 'kiss' also are 'one', because, ultimately, there is only That 'Which' Is. BUT, the 'kissers' are also two, and each of the two 'engage' in the 'kiss'-event, as INTEGRAL/VITAL parts of the 'one'.

IOW, 1 and 1 = 1 and 1 and 1 = 2, etc. Both 'geometries' correspond, each in very 'significant' ways, to aspects of 'reality'.

What is going on with 'you', asheera? Can you not 'see' the beauty, and 'validity' as part of the field of Life in its own right, of what others, in this case I, 'see' by imagining what things look like through their minds-eye and how their heart-value system makes 'sense' in that 'light' - in that field of (which's?) 'intelligent emanation'?

MUST you ALWAYS (I say always because that's what is 'seems' like in my view), must you always express some kind of 'come back' in which you neti-neti others' ways of 'picturing' and 'portraying' Life to 'death'? It's looks like you 'love' to do this and practically nothing else here.

I have to tell you, an 'awe'ful movie-image went through my mind just now - someone placing a zen-arranged flower buoquet in front of you, and you picking the head off each individual flower in the arrangement, looking at the remaining stem-bunch, and uttering an AAAAhhhhh of "Isn't-my-re·arrangement-wonderful-and-aren't-I-clever?" pleasure.

I found it kind of gruesome!

- David

[sahyo]

which is imag<span style='color:brown'>ein</span>howwhatwhyasheeraposting<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:silver'>ing</span></span>?

[BeyondBeliefs]

Ripples are incindental. Very little about Human Mind, and enviornment, is incidental.

Where an Acorn falls may be an accident, but that it falls took a billion years of constant effort. Effort in which failure meant extinction.

Humans have survived all these countless nations and religions because a Human's Nurture is to Save Life, and there are more of us than there are nations and religions.

Even the children who were raised by nations and religions to make war eventually grow up and overturn the dictators who lied to them and sent them out to kill their own brother.

We are not a mere ripple in a pond. Our individual efforts save or destroy the future.
It depends on what wisdoms Humans choose to pass on to their children.

If nations and religions raise the children then nations and religions will be served,
by Humanity, until Humanity is eroded to the point that it can no longer serve Living Things. Then Extinction.

[Polaris]

BB,

I'm afraid we just see things from completely different angles. I rarely, if ever, see anything that is just "incidental" . Things happen for a reason and as you say, that reason may be a billion years in the making but there's a reason even if it doesn't seem apparent to you. There is nothing incidental about ripples or falling acorns. These things happen for a reason. You need to look harder.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris,
Things happen for a reason and as you say, that reason may be a billion years in the making but there's a reason even if it doesn't seem apparent to you.

What do you think I have ben telling you?
It is nice to see you come around, while claiming to have been unaffected.

Your next challenge is to teach what you have learned.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 22 2003, 10:04 AM
Polaris,
Things happen for a reason and as you say, that reason may be a billion years in the making but there's a reason even if it doesn't seem apparent to you.

What do you think I have ben telling you?
It is nice to see you come around, while claiming to have been unaffected.

Your next challenge is to teach what you have learned.
:o
<_<
:rolleyes:

[BeyondBeliefs]

Every language, nation and religion is proof that we CREATE the future using our time and our words.
What you do matters.
What will you motivate children to do?
Will Truth arrive in time to save the planet from the wars between the confused?
It is up to you as much as me.

Life on earth today is what the cooperation of each particle could produce and preserve.

Good Luck.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 21 2003, 01:26 PM
which is imag<span style='color:brown'>ein</span>howwhatwhyasheeraposting<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:silver'>ing</span></span>?
Yeah, that's what I want to know - what do you think 'which' is?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 23 2003, 12:51 AM
Every language, nation and religion is proof that we CREATE the future using our time and our words. What you do matters. . . .
Hi Polaris -

To build on what BB is saying: The water 'ripple-effect' analogy only goes so far because purely 'physical' effects 'run down' (like a 'clock') in time, as the 'energy' imparted to the by their source dissipates. However, the phenomenon of LIFE is quite 'counterposed' to this. The 'nature' of 'Life' is that it is counter-entropic. In the case of living 'beings', ripple-effects accumulate and burst forth in new flow-avenues of Creativity, to which there is no 'end'. This is what the 'evolutionary ladder' is all about. The 'spirit'-ripple of the first first 'life-form', for instance, is still 'manifestly' active - we among others are "it's" 'future' 'manifestation'. The same is true in terms of 'original' ideas being 'out-worked' in the course of the 'evolution' of a 'culture' (which is also a 'life'-pheonemon, IMO).

So, it's possible for you (anyone) to have a 'ripple-effect' that 'endures'. Depends on the quality(ies) of the ripples one makes, IMO. In broad-brush-stroke terms: hate-ripples 'beget' hate-ripples and so ultimately bring about 'destruction' on themselves and one another. ("How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." is another way of saying this, I think.)

On the other hand, love-ripples, if these are 'focused' on, or 'splashed' towards, love-resonant 'springs', 'beget' love-ripples which just continue to 'build' in 'amplitude' in reciprocal reinforcement -- the 'score' just keeps on going up and up on the love-pinball boinging life-'machine' -- there is no BUST' to this BOOM! So it's conceivable, Polaris, that you or I or anyone else here could direct the flow of our life-energy in ways that endure in psychospiritual 'realms' as well as in ways that don't.

BB: What will you motivate children to do?

AHHH, that makes my heart ache, BB. Sooooooo many of today's children are drowning in septicity. But there are undoubtedly those we can (occasionally, at least) 'ripple-reach' within the parameters of our personal lives, however.

BB: Will Truth arrive in time to save the planet from the wars between the confused?

Methinks this is a 'backwards' way of framing 'the problem', BB. At least, what may be thought of as a 'forwards' way of framing it may be derived from noting the fact that the word apocalypse literally means "1. revelation; discovery; disclosure." [Webster's Universal Unabridged].

It is quite arguable that it is things like "the wars between the confused" which lead (those who are 'ready' to make the 'leap') to 'higher' levels of consciousness of the 'Truth' -- as well as that they 'present' an 'opportunity' (challenge?) to people everywhere to 'embrace' and 'integrate' themselves with the Life-Force (Love?) Itself at the core level of their souls, as in:

"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

I have heard it said that 'opportunities' this 'big', meaning as critical and widespread as the one we now face, only come about at the 'end' of one and 'beginning' of another cultural 'age', every several thousand years or so!

It is up to you as much as me.

Well, setting issues of 'personal' 'identity' aside (that's a danged 'tall' 'order', BB!), it is up to the Spirit of Life 'in' us, I would say.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by DavidS@Sep 23 2003, 07:06 PM

Hi Polaris -

To build on what BB is saying: The water 'ripple-effect' analogy only goes so far because purely 'physical' effects 'run down' (like a 'clock') in time, as the 'energy' imparted to the by their source dissipates. However, the phenomenon of LIFE is quite 'counterposed' to this. The 'nature' of 'Life' is that it is counter-entropic. In the case of living 'beings', ripple-effects accumulate and burst forth in new flow-avenues of Creativity, to which there is no 'end'. This is what the 'evolutionary ladder' is all about. The 'spirit'-ripple of the first first 'life-form', for instance, is still 'manifestly' active - we among others are "it's" 'future' 'manifestation'. The same is true in terms of 'original' ideas being 'out-worked' in the course of the 'evolution' of a 'culture' (which is also a 'life'-pheonemon, IMO).

So, it's possible for you (anyone) to have a 'ripple-effect' that 'endures'. Depends on the quality(ies) of the ripples one makes, IMO.
Hi Thomas,

I understand what you're saying and I agree. It didn't come across well but my analogy of me creating such a strong ripple that my waves pushed you closer to shore where you would be in a changed environment. That's what I meant by that. Same idea as me coming up with the splendid idea of sliced bread and telling you about it on my death bed. You will have been changed by my idea, gone out and created the very first loaf of pre-sliced bread which in turn would have changed the way people world wide buy and consume bread.

Yes, that is the type of ripple that keeps on giving

Is that sort of what you mean? :)

Keep in mind that you could just have easily ignored my death bed idea about sliced bread, figuring it was just the crazy rantings of a delirious old bag struggling for her last gasp of oxygen, and my ripple might have died right there with me and the entire world could be deprived of the convenience of sliced bread. That's the kind of ripple that sort of gets lost and eventually disappears.

[sahyo]

which is imag<span style='color:brown'>ein</span>howwhatwhyasheerapostinging?



Yeah, that's what I want to know - what do you think 'which' is?



david think is "know"?, is "think"?

;)

[sahyo]

There is nothing incidental about ripples or falling acorns. These things happen for a reason. You need to look harder.


perhaps polaris look which believes'reason'is?

[Polaris]

perhaps polaris look which believes'reason'is?

oh, probably. :) ;)

[sahyo]

hehe ;) :)

[a random hack]

So it's conceivable, Polaris, that you or I or anyone else here could direct the flow of our life-energy in ways that endure in psychospiritual 'realms' as well as in ways that don't

Seems to me, this happens whether we 'direct' or not.
Also seems that 'ripples' have neither discernable beginning or end, tho they may change form...?
:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

It only takes one "crook" to make an entire village lock all their doors and be ever watchful in defense.

But there are so many who elevate Life that it would take many "crooks" before the burden was so great that the village would fall.

[sahyo]

which is to defend?

[sahyo]

which fears so trys defending?

[BeyondBeliefs]

The Unknown.

There are some children who think that things have more value than their pride in themselves.

There are children who don't know that they can only be proud of what they make, not what they take.

Unlearning an upbringing can take a lifetime.

Meanwhile, we, the many, must rebuild what they, the few, destroy.

[a random hack]

make?
take?
build?
destroy?

we?
they?
things?
themselves?

make things, take themselves?
take things, make themselves?
build things, destroy themselves?
destroy things, build themselves?
make we, take they?
take we, make they?
build we, destroy they?
destroy we, build they?

Yes.
:)
No.
:)

[sahyo]

:D :D :D

[BeyondBeliefs]

It requires much effort to sustain and grow what has taken millions of years to produce here. Blowing it up is so easy, that simple carlessness can do it.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 23 2003, 04:07 PM
Same idea as me coming up with the splendid idea of sliced bread and telling you about it on my death bed.* You will have been changed by my idea, gone out and created the very first loaf of pre-sliced bread which in turn would have changed the way people world wide buy and consume bread. Yes, that is the type of ripple that keeps on giving.

Is that sort of what you mean?* :)
Yes, except that I think that 'e·motional' life-'ripples' can also be passed on and 'grow', not just 'mental' (or 'ideational') ones (i.e., 'memes') and 'physical' one's (i.e., 'genes').

Emotional 'states' can be quite 'infectious' <_< IMO.

Analogous to the concept and practice of 'genetitc engineering', it is interesting (and potentially worthwhile, I think) to consider the question of just what kind of 'ideas' and 'emotions' would have to be 'spliced' into culturally-extant current 'streams' of these in order for soul-development to become 'wholesome' ('soul' used here to designate people's 'core' mental-n-emotional 'constellations').
--------

P.S. You addressed me as 'Thomas', but he's so cool, I take it as a 'complimentary'-'slip'.

[DavidS]

Hi Hack:

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 23 2003, 09:47 PM
David: So it's conceivable, Polaris, that you or I or anyone else here could direct the flow of our life-energy in ways that endure in psychospiritual 'realms' as well as in ways that don't.

Hack: Seems to me, this happens whether we 'direct' or not.
Yes, indeedy. Hence, the possibility and desirability(?) of becoming more acutely 'aware' of how (in what 'directions' and historic-reason-why) our life-energy is flowing, or 'tends' to flow, from moment-to-moment and, depending on the degree to which we assume and accept personal 'response-ability' for doing so in the 'best' (according to our own subjective 'assessment') ways we can think of, our becoming more creatively 'adept' in the flow-process. Or not! ;)

Also seems that 'ripples' have neither discernable beginning or end, tho they may change form...?
:)
Double Yup! Any 'specific' ripple-'identity' is really a personally decided-upon, focus-on-'this'-component-and-not-'that', de·finite·ion. In ultimate terms, there is only one supercalifragilisticexpialidotious 'wave' function with a whole lot of 'continually'-interacting-n-changing-n-being-changed-in-the-process 'vibrational' 'components'.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Genetics

If we think that it was the Hunmting and killing that enabled creatures to survive then we will seek to add teeth and claws and the attack mentality to our bodies species.

If we think it was the nurturing and protecting that enabled bodies to survive then we will seek to add compassion and diligence to our species.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by DavidS+Sep 26 2003, 03:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Sep 26 2003, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Sep 23 2003, 04:07 PM
Same idea as me coming up with the splendid idea of sliced bread and telling you about it on my death bed. You will have been changed by my idea, gone out and created the very first loaf of pre-sliced bread which in turn would have changed the way people world wide buy and consume bread. Yes, that is the type of ripple that keeps on giving.

Is that sort of what you mean? :)
Yes, except that I think that 'e·motional' life-'ripples' can also be passed on and 'grow', not just 'mental' (or 'ideational') ones (i.e., 'memes') and 'physical' one's (i.e., 'genes').

Emotional 'states' can be quite 'infectious' <_< IMO.

Analogous to the concept and practice of 'genetitc engineering', it is interesting (and potentially worthwhile, I think) to consider the question of just what kind of 'ideas' and 'emotions' would have to be 'spliced' into culturally-extant current 'streams' of these in order for soul-development to become 'wholesome' ('soul' used here to designate people's 'core' mental-n-emotional 'constellations').
--------

P.S. You addressed me as 'Thomas', but he's so cool, I take it as a 'complimentary'-'slip'. [/b][/quote]
Yes, I would agree about emotions. But do you think that an emotional (oh, heck, let's call them "scars) would be different the further away from the original source you get?

For example, I had an alcoholic uncle. My cousin suffered some fairly severe emotional scars while she was a child as a result. Being "scarred for life" in the way she is, she certainly does pass some of these scars influences on to her own kids. However, they are less their grandfather's making and more her's even though he might have been originally responsible. Emotions are so uniquely personal and based on a broad spectrum of things which vary from person to person according to their personal experiences. For example, my cousin's two older sisters were not as affected by their father's drinking as they youngest sister, prehaps because they were already more grown up and independant during the time just before he hit rock bottom and finally sought help for his problem.

My cousin's own kids are also affected by their grandfather's drinking even though he died when they were all quite young because thier mother was affected by the drinking. However they will be more affect by her reaction to her experiences while she was growing up and not so much to the actual drinking itself.

Does that make a lick of sense?? :blink: :huh:


Sorry to both you and Thomas for the name mix up. :)

[Polaris]

If we think that it was the Hunmting and killing that enabled creatures to survive then we will seek to add teeth and claws and the attack mentality to our bodies species.

Hey. You're the one who wanted to be prepared to defend yourself agaisnt reality. Not me. I'm a live and let live kind of person. You're the one who wants everyone to be the same, not me.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Reality is Hurricanes, Bacteria and Floods.
You protect yourself by sharing the wisdom that is contained in the MINDS of others... People different from us. Those different others who have answers to our questions.

It takes billions of Human Brains to hold the wisdom of the world.
If we were all the same then we would still be living in a cave, grunting and eating insects.

[a random hack]

<Grooving on the cosmic carrier wave, riffing with reality>

DavidS,
Or not!
:)

Polaris,
Does that make a lick of sense??

Yup :). I had a think once about the effects of one of my grandfathers being sightblind, and was quite interesting :). Good experience for interacting with other 'blind' people :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 26 2003, 01:41 PM
Yes, I would agree about emotions. But do you think that an emotional (oh, heck, let's call them "scars) would be different the further away from the original source you get?
Etc. . . .
Hi Polaris -

Your observations and comments pertaining to the personal-history 'example' you cite make complete 'sense' to me. What 'happened', I think, is 'truly' illustrative of the way the Life-Force-transmission-reception thang operates - both merging (as as result of 'environmental' in·fluences) and differentiating, or individuating (as a result of 'personal-preference' based choices and decisions).

Reminds me of: ". . . the iniquity of the fathers [shall be visited] upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

The same, of course, would naturally apply to the virtuousness of the fathers (and other 'influential' members of any community, including mothers, of course).

Here, in very broad brush strokes, is what I 'see' 'happening' in the course of Life. Each of us has the option (the response-ability?) to make the 'best' of what we 'inherit' (in the above generational-tranmission sense) from our parents et al., as well as to 'transcend' or 'overcome' or simply 'jettison' (i.e, we have the option to 'refuse' to continue to propagate such) the 'worst' of what we inherit - or not (many 'do' the 'converse').

Over time (for NOWers, let me say, in the courseof the flow of 'Life']), there is a kind of sorting that takes places as members of succeeding generations of us 'pinballs' bounce-n-move either in 'healthily'-creative direction or in an 'iniquitous'-destructive direction (anticipating your (mis)'take' of and likely re'tort' to my use of the word 'direction', asheera, let me say it's just a manner of concept=>word=>speech adopted for communicational purposes -- only intended for and 'addressed' to folks willing and able to meaningfully engage in such manner).

This results in there being a 'spectrum' of people 'characterized' by everything from 'illumined' and 'illuminating' sagacity and saintliness on one end to 'dark' and 'disconnected' insanity and depravity. In dualistic terms, there's the analogicaly equivalent of "wheat" and "chaff".

During times of summer-like 'affluence' with 'plenty' to go around, everythang 'grows' and 'elaborates' 'freely' in both 'directions' -- all sorts of 'memes' and e·motional 'states' proliferate THEN.

The "chaff", however, doesn't make the 'cut' when there's a 'winter'-crunch. Ya gotta be psychospiritually vital and healthy and both capable of and choose to be mutually co·operative to survive and propagate in that context.

What's referenced as "The Hand of God" (operating in "Pass Over" mode :D ) is the same thang as "natural selection" operating in the domain of 'human' 'culture' in the course of a 'winter'-culling 'event', IMO. You might say that there is a kind of 'purification' or 'refinement' of the cultural-'stream' in that case. This is also what is analogically 'portrayed' in "Every branch ... that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.", or so I think.

Viva lá [B]Evolution[B]! :lol: Our 'personal lives', how we are 'touched', what 'effects' we choose to retain and build on and what we choose to jettison, and how we consequently 'touch' others, are [U]part[/I] of this 'grand' procession.

[sahyo]

word not important :)

david: (anticipating your (mis)'take' of and likely re'tort' to my use of the word 'direction', asheera, let me say it's just a manner of concept=>word=>speech adopted for communicational purposes -- only intended for and 'addressed' to folks willing and able to

fu*: Your concepts are 'thought'. Believed, they become you.
Then 'you' are believed.

[sahyo]

david

fu*: Your concepts are 'thought'. Believed, they become you.
Then 'you' are believed.

[BeyondBeliefs]

My language is "Roman/British", my math is "Arabic", my chemistry is "Chinese", my government is "Greek".......
I am the best that we could do with what we had at the time.
In fear, we have erased more wisdom than we have preserved.

Let's save what we can.

[rich]

BB,

Thought you were a Brooklynite, which migrated to the sovereign state of So Carolina, where cotton is king, and Storm Thurmond once ruled the land?

Wassa this about being Grig? :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 28 2003, 04:55 PM
david
fu*: Your concepts are 'thought'. Believed, they become you.
Then 'you' are believed.
I assume you mean that the above-quoted words from fu* 'speak' for 'you', asheera.

As I said, 'I' 'get' all that. My point, which you seem to not be 'getting', asheera, is that there's absolutely nothing 'wrong' with any of that (i.e., with 'thinking', 'believing', and 'I·AMizing') as long as one also simultaneously keeps sight of and honors the (underlying? overarching?) FACT of one's real-life-fluid-oceanic, flow-of-THAT-which-is, 'root' reality.

'Thinking', 'believing', and operating on the basis of a personal-identity 'notion' CAN BE 'done' and 'enjoyed' very wholesomely if and as one become aware of and adept at navigating lifes' 'fluid', everchanging-flow 'dynamics' -- in which thinking, believing, and I·AMizing is done with a 'light' 'heart and 'touch', such that noting is 'held onto' or allowed to become 'set' in 'form'.

Your continual, repetitive 'harping' about my choices, vis a vis 'thought, 'beliefs', and personal identity-posture strike me like a 'parent' continually, repetitively 'cautioning' a 'child' against things like 'sex', 'alchohol', drugs', 'rock-n-roll', etc. because the parent thinks[!] and believes[!] that the child isn't 'truly' aware of the potential dangers of such kinds of engagements and thus is prone to engaging in them 'naively', and because the parent believes[!] it's not possible for anyone to engage in such things without things getting all f*cked-up, so the parent simply disregards everything the 'child' says about going about such things response-able·y.

The parent's 'fear' and 'belief' that such things can/will only lead to 'no good' keeps the parent (i.e., 'locks' the parent 'into') hen-nitpick-pecking the child about the same thangs over and over again despite child's protest that the parent's 'points' have been 'registered' and seriously taken into account, and his earnest request to not be hen-nitpick-pecked any more.

I am holding 'you' as a 'human' 'adult' accountable, 'asheera', the 'you' that 'I' 'see' 'you' to be even as 'you' try to hide 'you' behind a there's-no-'me' blanket. I am holding 'you' accountable for persisting in continuing to be a hen-nitpick-pecker in relation to me.

Please do whatever you have to in order to resolve 'your' (above hypothesized kind of) 'fears' and 'beliefs' (or whatever may be the motivation underlying your hen-net-neti-nitpick-pecking) so that 'you' don't continue to so unwelcomely lay 'your' 'trip' on 'me' (on my word-art·iculations, that is).

Or don't. In that case, I will periodically continue to let 'you' know 'my' 'truth', deriving from the fact that 'I' find 'your' kind of continuing, repetive 'bird-dog'-'harping'-'treatment' of 'my' word-art-pictorialization-phrases, that 'I' don't find your relational behavior 'me'wards (my 'words' re·present 'me') acceptable and why.

Flow, flow, flow your boat, asheera, gently down the stream -- just don't try to 'hook' 'yours' onto 'mine' and hold 'me' 'back', asheera, 'cuz "I wanna be a freely-me·andering 'me·eeeee'," pretty please, pretty please, pretty please.

David :ph34r:

[rich]

To Whom It May Concern:
Dear Fu*,
What makes David so special, that asheera should to accord David with special treatment? :unsure:

[Thomas Knierim]

David: ...the motivation underlying your hen-net-neti-nitpick-pecking...

I think that the term "neti-neti-nitpick-pecking" should be nominated to be included into the Oxford dictionary of contemporary English.

:D

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

I am holding 'you' as a 'human' 'adult' accountable, 'asheera'

adult?

the 'you' that 'I' 'see' 'you' to be even as 'you' try to hide 'you' behind a there's-no-'me' blanket. I am holding 'you' accountable for persisting in continuing to be a hen-nitpick-pecker in relation to me.

you thnkinglabeling which not, david :)

Please do whatever you have to in order to resolve 'your' (above hypothesized kind of) 'fears' and 'beliefs' (or whatever may be the motivation underlying your hen-net-neti-nitpick-pecking) so that 'you' don't continue to so unwelcomely lay 'your' 'trip' on 'me' (on my word-art·iculations, that is).

david only welcomes which agrees with which imgines?, labeling which doesn't agree

Or don't. In that case, I will periodically continue to let 'you' know 'my' 'truth', deriving from the fact that 'I' find 'your' kind of continuing, repetive 'bird-dog'-'harping'-'treatment' of 'my' word-art-pictorialization-phrases, that 'I' don't find your relational behavior 'me'wards (my 'words' re·present 'me') acceptable and why.

which keeps labeling which not happening?

Flow, flow, flow your boat, asheera, gently down the stream -- just don't try to 'hook' 'yours' onto 'mine' and hold 'me' 'back', asheera, 'cuz "I wanna be a freely-me·andering 'me·eeeee'," pretty please, pretty please, pretty please.

which is thinkingfeeling held back?

[Ocre]

Again Asheera, when what is said/written can’t find a common ground as to ‘meaning’, it is like hearing Portuguese and answering in Chinese.

Do you still feel that David’s Portuguese is badly pronounced Chinese?? :D :blink: :P

[Polaris]

Does language really matter? :huh:

[Ocre]

Nee, niets doet er werkelijk toe, maar als het om uitwisseling gaat, is een overeenkomst in de toegekende betekenis als de passen van de dans...

:-)

[Polaris]

I gather your answer is 'no' with an elaboration?

How necessary is the elaboration?

[Ocre]

How did you gather the “no”?

:-)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Oct 1 2003, 07:03 PM
I think that the term "neti-neti-nitpick-pecking" should be nominated to be included into the Oxford dictionary of contemporary English. :D
Don't 'encourage' me, Thomas; I'm 'bad' enough as it is! ;)

On my walk the other day, bits and pieces of the Beatle's cartoon-movie, The Yellow submarine, kept popping up in my mind, which gradually became focused on one particular 'episode' in it.

For those who haven't seen-n-heard it, it's a delightful cartoon-character story with kaleidoscopic Peter Max visuals and Beatles-hit-songs 'relevantly' part of the sound track. The cartoon Beatles' are on a 'mission' to 'save' (more like 'resurrect') the folks in Pepperland (home of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band) who have all become 'ossified' ('turned to all-grey stone') as a result of being attacked and 'bonked' by the Blue Meanies.

One of the 'dangers' they have to get by on their way to Pepperland in their Yellow Submarine is a 'monstrous' ostrich-with-thick-legs-and-no-neck critter which has a curved-megaphone-shapes metallic 'schnoz' in place of both nose and mouth. It 'prowel-walks' around on the ocean's bottom looking for 'prey'. (Hey, it's an anything-is-'allowed' fantasy!)

The critter is 'gigantically' bigger than the yellow submarine which just barely squirts by it gooes about 'voraciously' shnozzle-vacuuming up everything it sets its eyes on. First it vacuums-up-n-swallows other critters it spots swimming around it. Then it begins to vacuum-up-n-swallow physical features of the ocean's bottom and, 'script-playing' the 'idea-theme' to its 'logical' 'conclusion', until it ends up sucking the whole 'fabric' of the picture-frame into itself. In the last set of frames of the episode, when everything is 'gone' except the critter itself, it turn-swerves around, eye-focuses and schnozzle-latches onto its own 'backside', and sucks itself into oblivion (meaning the 'show' 'screen' goes 'blank').

Of course, leaving aside the question of whether it 'must' or not, the 'show' does 'go' 'on' - picking up with the next near misadventure of the Beatles as they continue to submarine their way towards Pepperland.

On reviewing my recollection of it, despite some obviously 'pop', and therefore, 'naive' features of the 'story', I came to the conclusion that it was a pretty 'inspired' piece of work-play. The 'vacuum'-critter bit strikes me as pretty astute commentary on the gestalt-dynamics of 'mindlessly passionate' neti-neti·ism, methinks. There's a whole bit encompassing a a "Mr. Nowhereman" and a "Look at all the lonely people; where do they all come from?" song-collage which also struck me as being quite astute commentary on what a 'Western Science'-based philosophy and life style leads to.

By the way, as you might guess, they do finally 'save' the folks in Pepperland, 'defeating' the Blue Meanies with the meanings-n-'vibes' of their songs (you guessed it, All You Need Is Love being 'key' in the flower-power 'battle'). At the end, Pepperland once again blossoms in technicolor, resonating with the 'triumphant' words and sounds of We're Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and we hope you enjoy the show. You might want to check it out if you have a VCR and your local video rental store has it.

[BeyondBeliefs]

You've been stiring my thoughts. Thank You.

Different languages, same dreams. A new page under construction.

Ship of Dreams (http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/t/TTPANTO/journey/AntiCreation.html)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 30 2003, 12:57 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Dear Fu*,
What makes David so special, that asheera should to accord David with special treatment? :unsure:
Hi rich,

I'm no more 'special' than anyone else. Don't misinterpret my speaking for 'myself' to mean that 'I' (or 'my' word-art) especially deserve not to be 'treated' in the ways I am saying I will not 'accept'. Though you and others may be inclined to choose to 'accept' and maybe even 'embrace' such a 'trip' because of your 'sense' of what 'compassion' is all about, I don't share your valuation-premises in this regard. I personally don't think it's 'good' for anyone[!] to be 'treated' in such a manner, and so don't wish to accept and embrace it 'with open arms' myself. Different strokes for different folks maybe, but based on differences in the ways they 'see fit' to 'live', not on the basis of 'specialness' on anyone's part.

Please note, anyone who thinks what I am saying is simply 'cover' for not 'welcoming' disagreement. I welcome any and all 'other' 'views' including ones which are 'contrary' to mine. It is the manner in which she expresses her 'disagreement' -- in particular it's 'repetiveness' and the 'insidious-implication·ally-question and "climbing on the 'back' of my words" (instead of really 'speaking for what she is 'for' in a way which can actually be mutually-meaningfully related to in inter·active response) character of her word-art which I am 'challenging' and becuase it both 'see' and personally experience this to be (unconscionably) 'detractive' from the interpersonal communicational process and a 'hindrance' in terms of the (potential) development of a greater degree of mutual respect and understanding, at the very least between her and myself, here.

Thank you, in advance, for your 'consideration' of this matter.

[rich]

In reply to David:QUOTE (rich @ Sep 30 2003, 12:57 PM)
To Whom It May Concern:
Dear Fu*,
What makes David so special, that asheera should to accord David with special treatment?


I think that the above quote, originally my post, has 2 meanings.
The first one which was intended to mean, that asheera posts to everyone, in a very similar manner. No one really seem to get direct answers, AFAIK, but, ICBW. :unsure:

The other meaning means what is written above, is partly true, contingent upon the degree of ignorement involved. My degree of
being ignored by asheera is very high, while practically every post asheera writes, appears to be directed to you.
Thus, I am finished talking and writing to my self, believe me, and certainly hope all will work out for you David, which ever way you want. :) B)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 3 2003, 01:24 AM
How did you gather the “no”?

:-)
I take it Polaris, you gathered the "no" because "nee" has a resemblance.

So, one word was translated into (re-lated to) something we both are conditioned to recognise the same meaning in, wasn’t it? (So that the dance of interaction could take place)

The Dutch says:
“No, nothing really matters, but when it comes to exchange, agreement about the attributed meaning is like the steps of the dance”.

:-)

[sahyo]

"nee" has a resemblance

:lol:

[Ocre]

Yes, that is exactly the point Asheera, it shows how mutually attributed meaning (common ground, in this case that resemblance) facilitates interaction. (Even when there is the illusory need to be understood and respected as if there is a ‘you’ and an ‘I.’ ;) )

It illustrates that meaning is always read into words and this is done by condition, unfree.
Since no words ever point at anything better of worse, correction of words is conditioned as well.
All these expressions point at that which can not be named, that which in itself is no object, but language objectifies and there is no need to try and overcome that as if “THAT” could ever have a better expression.

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

"interaction"?

"THAT"?

not 'about' "correction",
"better expression",
ocre

:)

[Ocre]

Interaction: how response happens.

“That”: the unnameable, the Unchanging.

not 'about' "correction, better expression",*
It never is about any-thing Asheera, that’s the whole point.
Response just happens because meaning just happens.
Asheera’s “it is not about…..(whatever follows)” is just as much ‘effortless meaning happening’.

If you feel it is not about meaning just happening, (=Asheera just happening) is meaning /response happening when Asheera reads Dutch?
I.o.w.: respons is about meaning, without meaning having meaning. (Without 'truth' being an object)

:-)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Ocre+Oct 3 2003, 04:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ocre @ Oct 3 2003, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ocre@Oct 3 2003, 01:24 AM
How did you gather the “no”?

:-)
I take it Polaris, you gathered the "no" because "nee" has a resemblance.

So, one word was translated into (re-lated to) something we both are conditioned to recognise the same meaning in, wasn’t it? (So that the dance of interaction could take place)

The Dutch says:
“No, nothing really matters, but when it comes to exchange, agreement about the attributed meaning is like the steps of the dance”.

:-) [/b][/quote]
Oh, so it was Dutch! I thought at first it was German but I couldn't get a translation from German.

At any rate.... so the answer to my " Does language really matter? question was 'no' which I assertained as a result of the resemblence between 'no', 'nee' and even 'nein'.

I'm not convinced the elaboration was necessary afterall.


Okay.. getting off on a slightly different tangent:

You say we are conditioned to recognise the same meaning in words which have a resemblance. Okay, I would agree that in especially written text, resemblance between words plays a huge role in our comprehension of that text, regardless of the language.

I would have a very hard time if you had answered me in Chinese, for example, because there is no resemblance between the two alphabets.

However, if I were to meet a Chinese fellow on the street and he began talking to me, I might very well understand him if he spoke the Chinese word for 'no'. Not that this isn't part of your "dance" but I have always been interested in the origins of languages (I've been trying to figure out for years where the english language came from and nobody has been really able to tell me) and find it somewhat peculiar that it seems that in most languages the word for 'no' IS recognisable in most languages as if the customary shaking side-toside of the head (or nodding up and down if a person means 'yes').

It seems to me the shaking side-to-side of the head is something learned very early on, perhaps around the time we try to force a spoon full of strained peas into our baby's mouth or maybe even earlier. The act of turning one's head away in refusal to eat is universal (or at least global) and it crosses the language barriers.

So are these things conditioned responses or just natural? The muttering of an 'N' word when feeling negative might very well be the most natural sound for that particular mood. :blink:

[Ocre]

Whether something is found as “natural” or “conditioned”, is in itself a conditioned finding of course…

:-)

[sahyo]

Response just happens because meaning just happens.



:lol:

[a random hack]

The act of turning one's head away in refusal to eat is universal (or at least global) and it crosses the language barriers.

ah, but have heard in some place, and no, not sure where, a up and down nod means no..... so guess we shouldn't get too settled with even the meanings of body 'language'. Seems all meaning is conditioned to some extent.....

[sonrisa]

yeah I heard that too. One of those Pacific Islands somewhere, but I can't remember which one.

[a random hack]

<thought it was somewhere like Turkey...> :unsure:

[sonrisa]

no its one of those islands, some island that time passed by & the natives are still living in the stone age.

[a random hack]

oh :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 2 2003, 10:09 AM
Does language really matter? :huh:
That depends on how 'well' or 'poorly' in terms of 'artfulness' it is 'used'?

Don't it?