Intelligent Design

[Craig]

One problem many evolutionist face is how exactly did everything happen. After all there are no facts supporting evolution just theories. One problem is the necessity by logic for a creator. For instance logically speaking which is more real the thought of earth or the earth itself? The thought of earth is more real and must by necessity preceed the earth itself because without the thought you do not have the object. Like wise you can have the thought of something but the object may not exist which goes to show that the thought of something is more real than the object itself. So keeping this in mind where did this universe come from since you must have a thought of it.

[Thomas Knierim]

Craig: One problem many evolutionist face is how exactly did everything happen.

Indeed, there are many open questions in evolution theory. However, this doesn’t mean that evolution theory can be dismissed on this account. There are also many open questions in quantum theory and hardly anyone sees fit to dismiss quantum theory. Both, evolution and quantum theory do not describe their subject matter completely, yet, they are the most exhaustive and most consistent descriptions available.

Craig: After all there are no facts supporting evolution just theories.

The genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence for historical evolution is overwhelming. Hence, evolution is both, a theory and a fact. With “fact” I mean an empirical-theoretical account which is consistent to such a degree that disagreement must be considered irrational.

Craig: One problem is the necessity by logic for a creator.

Such a necessity does not exist. Advanced scientific models have long replaced the explanatory function of an intelligent agent (creator).

Craig: For instance logically speaking which is more real the thought of earth or the earth itself? The thought of earth is more real and must by necessity preceed the earth itself because without the thought you do not have the object.

This is a fairly unconventional defense of creationism, also fairly unconvincing I must say. Why does thought precede existence? Thought is a neural activity, which is preceded by a brain, which is preceded by neurons, which is preceded by organisms, which is preceded by molecular life forms, which is preceded by earth. So, it seems you have the cart before the horse.

Cheers, Thomas

[Craig]

Thomas,

One you cannot have two contradictory ideas in one sentence for example Hence, evolution is both, a theory and a fact. Either something is a fact or it is a theory. You cannot have it both ways a theory is something not proven where a fact is proven and is an absolute rock solid statement.

Another things is that you point to the fossil record as great evidence for evolution. I give you credit for this. It is excellent evidence for well lets see ummmm, not evolution. Sorry I thought I was going to be able to credit you that evidence but the way it looks there is no evolutionary tree more like a sudden explosion of life all different with no intermidiate stages of life. For example, Scientist have just found the oldest known supposed pre-human skeleton and admit that it looks like a present day human and has evidence that it was intelligent like modern man not like an ape.

And for the cart before the horse. I ask you which is more real? The thought of the cart or the cart itself?

You cannot deny the fact that thought comes before the object. No matter how hard you try after all which is more real the thought of a logical argument or a logical argument?

[...]

You cannot deny the fact that thought comes before the object.

This is not so hard Craig, thought always comes after the object.

The nature of thought is reactionary, it deals with what is percieved as, and in, the past. Thought is not consciousness but merely a conduit for expressing...

[Thomas Knierim]

Craig: Either something is a fact or it is a theory. You cannot have it both ways a theory is something not proven where a fact is proven and is an absolute rock solid statement.

That is a common misunderstanding. In colloquial speech, the words "hypothesis", "theory", and "fact" are used to denote ascending certainty, like rungs on a ladder of being real. However, in reality there is no such ladder. Reality simply is. The problem of different degrees of certainty arises only when applying descriptions to reality. Both, a theory and a fact describe reality. Therefore, something can be a theory and a fact at the same time. For example, Netwon's mechanics is a theory and a fact.

Craig: For example, Scientist have just found the oldest known supposed pre-human skeleton and admit that it looks like a present day human and has evidence that it was intelligent like modern man not like an ape.

I am not sure to which discovery you refer. Can you provide a reference?

The oldest hominid fossil -according to my knowledge- is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which is six to seven million years old. The skull has a very small brain of 350 ccm and it is supposed that the creature was apelike, perhaps not even bipedal. From there on, we can walk down the timeline of hominid fossils from Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, down to the modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

There is at least one major fossil record for each of these species. The above list is a chronological record rather than an evolutionary sequence, but, it is possible to recognize the overall trend of development. The older fossils have smaller skulls (and brains), larger teeth, thicker bones, etc. which makes them more apelike, whereas the more recent fossils have features that look more like ours. What else can we infer from this other than an evolutionary progression from apes to humans?

Craig: You cannot deny the fact that thought comes before the object.

This sounds somewhat counterintuitive to say the least. What you suggest is that you think of an object, such as an apple, and then the apple suddenly pops into existence as a consequence of thought?

Doesn't it seem more that thought is the consequence of experience? You do not usually think the thought 'apple' before you see an apple, or before you hear someone else speaking of apples, do you?

Cheers, Thomas

[dog goddess]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jun 30 2003, 10:04 AM


What you suggest is that you think of an object, such as an apple, and then the apple suddenly pops into existence as a consequence of thought?

Doesn't it seem more that thought is the consequence of experience? You do not usually think the thought 'apple' before you see an apple, or before you hear someone else speaking of apples, do you?

Cheers, Thomas
too bad that when i see your picture and think about how cute you are you don't pop into existence in front of me.
now that would be an experience.

[Thomas Knierim]

I can do a lot of tricks, but I can't do THAT yet. Besides, my wife would probably pull the plug on the photon transporter. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

Nothing else matters indeed.

[Ronagon]

Thomas is right...

Quantum theory gels nicely with modern evolutionist theories, which model and are supported by mountains of evidence in the real world, which proves the following:

At the most fundamnetal level of existence, the universe unfolds apparently randomly, and whatever happens to work, "catches hold" and continues to exist, with successive random improvements continuing to build things in whatever direction happens to work.

What you end up with, is a system that looks like it was all thought out and prearranged perfectly, but which really boils down to nothing more than constant rolling of the dice, and a haphazard, piecemeal building pattern.

And it works amazingly well, even if it is also insanely messy, which it is. The way of nature is blind, and it is cruel, but also amazingly efficient. For every randomly-generated, shining improvement that appears, there is a miserable, doomed failure that also arises, and hopefully dies out before it suffers too much.

However, those "doomed failures" are constantly being generated as part of the working, random mechanism, because remember... the universe is blind. It never knows when today's miserable failure might be tomorrow's shining success, depending on how the environmental situation changes.

One man's trash, is another man's treasure, after all.

This blows my mind, constantly, to contemplate it.

[sahyo]

insanely
messy
blind
cruel
improvement
miserable
doomed
failure


?

[...]

This blows my mind, constantly, to contemplate it.

If it ever does, perhaps then you understand you're not an individual surviving in a hostile universe...

[Ronagon]

On the contrary, I still do see the universe as hostile. Because by its very nature, it is blind. And as such, it is constantly trying to stamp out the very nonconformity which the whole system relies upon.

The system works on the whole, but it's sheer hell on the pawns in the system...

[Ronagon]

And asheera,

if you think you're somehow contributing something of real value to this forum by picking random words out of each of my posts, think again.

Mockery is never a substantial contribution.

[...]

On the contrary, I still do see the universe as hostile.

Are implying that you've seen the illusory nature of the mind?

Because by its very nature, it is blind. And as such, it is constantly trying to stamp out the very nonconformity which the whole system relies upon.

What lead you to this realisation?

The system works on the whole, but it's sheer hell on the pawns in the system...

No pawns Ronagon, blisfull wholeness...

[dog goddess]

Isaiah 29 13-16


The Lord says:

" These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up of rules taught by men.
Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish"
Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the Lord,
who do their work in darkness
and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him that formed it,
" He did not make me"?
Can the pot say to the potter,
"He knows nothing."



******************************************





Something unformed and complete
Before Heaven and Earth were born,
Solitary and silent,
Stands alone and unchanging,
Pervading all things without limit.
It is like the mother of all under heaven.
But I don't know it's name-
Better call it Tao.
Better call it great.

-Tao Te Ching



Who knows where it all began.

[dog goddess]

asheera,
your contributions make the whole forum more interesting.

don't listen to ronagon.

[sahyo]

Mockery



ronagon....was "?" mocking?

:)

[sahyo]

:) dog goddess ;)

[Ronagon]

Oh, I forgot.

When males strive for wisdom, the striving for wisdom is a foolish thing, and the male is to be sneered at.

When females strive for wisdom, she is in the process of unfolding as a "goddess", and is to be exalted.

Let me cut to the chase and ask the following: Is there anything a male can do in this nasty and childish little game, which does not warrant his being snickered at?

Or are we only good for heavy lifting, handing out money, and risking our lives constantly?

[dog goddess]

he can be nice.




they're also good for getting naked.

[Ronagon]

I never thought I'd say this, but...

...bring on the burqas.

[dog goddess]

B)

[a random hack]

On the contrary, I still do see the universe as hostile. Because by its very nature, it is blind. And as such, it is constantly trying to stamp out the very nonconformity which the whole system relies upon.

The system works on the whole, but it's sheer hell on the pawns in the system...


'You' see the 'universe' as hostile.
'You' see the 'universe' as blind.
'You' see yourself as a pawn.
'You' see yourself as a nonconformist.
'You' suffer for your views.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Jul 2 2003, 06:13 AM

Or are we only good for heavy lifting, handing out money, and risking our lives constantly?
yep, that's about it. Specially the money part B)

ya know, I kinda like this dude B)

[Polaris]

Let me cut to the chase and ask the following: Is there anything a male can do in this nasty and childish little game, which does not warrant his being snickered at?

There's something about a grown man who throws hissy-fits.

Get a grip, Ronagon. We all have our own rows to hoe. The demands placed upon you don't make you special. You're supposedly an adult, aren't you? When you're an adult you're suppose to be responsible and look after yourself and your obligations. If that means compromising for others now and then then it only means you're a member of the human race.

[sylph]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Jul 2 2003, 06:13 AM
Oh, I forgot.

When males strive for wisdom, the striving for wisdom is a foolish thing, and the male is to be sneered at.

When females strive for wisdom, she is in the process of unfolding as a "goddess", and is to be exalted.

Let me cut to the chase and ask the following: Is there anything a male can do in this nasty and childish little game, which does not warrant his being snickered at?

Or are we only good for heavy lifting, handing out money, and risking our lives constantly?
(note: i am female.)

i don't find anything sneer-worthy of men striving for wisdom.

however, when a man is promiscuous, he is considered a stud. when a woman is promiscuous, she is considered a whore.

i don't play battle of the sexes anymore. i just say what i think is true.

i'm sure men are good for other things, as well. it just depends on you.

however, i still feel glad that i am not born a man, so that i am not innately perverted. :P

[a random hack]

As a man, I'm striving for wisdom AND (thru :lol: ) promiscuity :lol:

[sonrisa]

oh gawd!! :wacko:


Keep on posting Random, & eventually you'll become Guru in this group. that's what I'm aiming for! :P

[Ronagon]

Aw, how predictable.

Such a cheap and easy trick. Whenever a grown man has a legitimate complaint that the feminist establishment is uncomfortable with, let's show our true colors by name-calling.

Hey, I know. Let's say he's having a "hissy fit". Yeah, considering that most people are morons, they'll be easily distracted from the real legitimacy of his argument, when we use quick and lazy cliche phrases like that.

*golf clap*

[...]

Ronagon, the male principle is in essence passive [silence], and the female principle active [e-motion]. Both natural gifts that need not be prefered over another, for in harmony they bring bliss. In today's society much emphasis is attached to feelings and emotion and that places the male in a tight spot, the male just doesn't feel as much as a female.

Compare the male and female orgasm, and you know that's correct.

The natural male gift of silence brings peace, but silence is easily cumbered by emotion. When there's a preference to stay in silence, emotion is seen as unwanted. On the other hand, from a female perspective, emotion is life, is full experiencing, and it can't be understood that for men it just isn't so.

Two preferences collide here and breeds misunderstanding, whilst both can't exist without eachother. Come to peace with fearing emotion, and come to peace alltogether...

[Polaris]

Yeah, considering that most people are morons, they'll be easily distracted from the real legitimacy of his argument, when we use quick and lazy cliche phrases like that.

Ronagon, you see, my problem is that I don't think you HAVE and argument, least of all a legitimate one.

Does your life suck? Well, what are you going to do about it? Only YOU can effect change, little brother. Are you going to come in here and moan about it continuously and expect us to put our own lives on the back burner while we throw you a pity party or are you going to get off your sorry ass and do something about it? What are you doing for yourself to make it better? :angry:

As I have said before, you have no idea what the lives are of anyone else on this discussion board. For all you know any one of us might a life that sucks 100X more than yours. For all you know any one on this board might be dying from some terminal disease and you come in here and whine about life. Do you have any idea how shallow that is? Take a look around at the world beyond the end of your own nose. Look at the suffering that exists out there. The war, the killing, the sickness, disease, starvation, the poverty, the utter devastation. The very fact that any of us are in a position to post on this web site means we ALL live extremely privileged lives. ALL of us who read this message, Ronagon. YOU Ronagon, live a privileged life!! Wake up, get off your arse and enjoy it because your next one might not be as sweet. :angry:

[sonrisa]

:angry: what Polaris said. :angry: double

[a random hack]

Keep on posting Random, & eventually you'll become Guru in this group. that's what I'm aiming for!

You aiming for me to be guru of this group?
That's very kind, but I'm not sure I want such a terrible responsibility.
Which probably means I will get it somewhere, somehow... :lol:

Oh Gawd, indeed :)

Hey dots,
Your post made a lot of sense to me/here/now, but I suspect you have overstated the 'impossibility' of the male and female principals/ principles coming to mutual understanding/ acceptance.

I suspect you are a man.
And you seem to be doing alright :D

Tho tell me, how did you manage to compare the male and female orgasm?

[Polaris]

:lol: :lol: Random :lol: :lol:

[rich]

Random,

After 400 posts on thisforum, one becomes a Guru. So keep Hacking away Randomly.
BTW, go to My Controls to see all the new Avatars available. :)

[...]

Hey dots, Your post made a lot of sense to me/here/now, but I suspect you have overstated the 'impossibility' of the male and female principals/ principles coming to mutual understanding/ acceptance.

Never said it was impossible.

I suspect you are a man. And you seem to be doing alright

It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open, but not to come to understanding.

Tho tell me, how did you manage to compare the male and female orgasm?

You do not see a difference between your orgasme and that of your female companion, assuming you like women and have sex with them and assuming you're succesfull in bringing them to a satisfying climax?

[sahyo]

and assuming you're succesfull in bringing them to a satisfying climax?



..that 'causality' is really an 'illusion', that creation, evolution, etc. are really the 'manifestation' of unfolding 'consciousness' in the context of an ubiquitous, time-space transcendent 'Presence' which is 'alive' everywhere.

Ofcourse it is. What else could it be?


"bringing"? since agreed "What else could it be"
... 'a do-er' causing? ;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 7 2003, 12:06 PM
Keep on posting Random, & eventually you'll become Guru in this group. that's what I'm aiming for!

You aiming for me to be guru of this group?

Oh Gawd, indeed :)

no I'm aiming for ME to be a Guru in this group! :P



Ahhh, but just think of it Random, once you hit your 400th post, & attain your Guru-ship, you could set yourself up on Ayers Rock & be the new Wizard of Oz!! :lol: :lol:

[...]

"bringing"? since agreed "What else could it be" ... 'a do-er' causing?

Whatever, sure could use a good bodily excretion right now...

[sahyo]

"Whatever, sure could use a good bodily excretion right now..."

"use"?....hehe :P :D ;)

[Ronagon]

I want to eventually achieve the designation of "Cheese Log".

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Jul 8 2003, 03:58 PM
I want to eventually achieve the designation of "Cheese Log".
No valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now. Alan W. Watts

Cheese may be milk's effort at immortality but a cheese log is gone for good before the party is half over. ;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by ...@Jul 9 2003, 12:10 AM

Whatever, sure could use a good bodily excretion right now...


just don't do it on the floor.

[...]

..'use' all you want, this boy don't mind a slippery floor...

[sahyo]

..that 'causality' is really an 'illusion', that creation, evolution, etc. are really the 'manifestation' of unfolding 'consciousness' in the context of an ubiquitous, time-space transcendent 'Presence' which is 'alive' everywhere.

... : Ofcourse it is. What else could it be?

... : and assuming you're succesfull in bringing them to a satisfying climax?

"bringing"? since agreed "What else could it be" ... 'a do-er' causing?

... : Whatever, sure could use a good bodily excretion right now...

"use"?....hehe

...: 'use' all you want, this boy don't mind a slippery floor...

"bringing"? "use"?

[rich]

Hey ...,

Why not make a deposit in a sp*** bank? Or isn't that interesting enough?

Maybe that would disappoint some of your repliers. :lol:

[dog goddess]

oh




my





goodness



ya i'm glad i'm female too.





just because i like guys so damn much.



the first thing i notice about a guy is his arms. i love guy's arms. so strong.

[a random hack]

After 400 posts on thisforum, one becomes a Guru. So keep Hacking away Randomly.


Looks like you'll get there b4 me, RT :)

Cheese log sounds preety good too. :lol:

(insert favorite cheese joke here)

but a cheese log is gone for good before the party is half over.

Sure is good to be popular, if you don't mind being 'used'.

no I'm aiming for ME to be a Guru in this group!

You want to go backwards?

Ahhh, but just think of it Random, once you hit your 400th post, & attain your Guru-ship, you could set yourself up on Ayers Rock & be the new Wizard of Oz!!

Well, as long as I don't have to be Grand Wizard! :lol:

You do not see a difference between your orgasme and that of your female companion, assuming you like women and have sex with them and assuming you're succesfull in bringing them to a satisfying climax?

Don't know, I never saw myself have orgasm yet.

Is G-ship related to G-spot?

[sahyo]

word "G-ship"?, hack
...haven't read or heard it

:)

[a random hack]

sorry Asheera,

G-ship = Guru-ship :) :lol:

(placed Random thoughts in R/random order :) )

[sahyo]

thanks 'R/random ordering' ;)

... (dots) G-shipping G-spot?

[sahyo]

or G-spotting G-ship?

[sahyo]

oop forgot....thanks hack :)

[rich]

A Random Hack posted:

[b]
After 400 posts on thisforum, one becomes a Guru. So keep Hacking away Randomly.



Looks like you'll get there b4 me, RT


Do not be too sure that I'll get there b4 u.

I say this, because threads like this one I do not like.
What I do not like is my seeing the willingness of some female posters to respond to male posters who have given accounts of the state of their libido. I do not wish to participate in that type of a discussion. So if all of you enjoy discussing topics like libido, continue, but count me out.

I suppose one can not fight human nature, and I will probably follow the evolution of events posted on TBV, and sit in the background, observing, thinking, moaning, and sleeping. :(

[sahyo]

richie


What I do not like is my seeing



exactly

[rich]

asheera,

then enjoy. :ph34r:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 12 2003, 08:27 AM
... threads like this one I do not like.
What I do not like is my seeing the willingness of some female posters to respond to male posters who have given accounts of the state of their libido. I do not wish to participate in that type of a discussion. So if all of you enjoy discussing topics like libido, continue, but count me out.

I suppose one can not fight human nature, and I will probably follow the evolution of events posted on TBV, and sit in the background, observing, thinking, moaning, and sleeping.
Hi rich -

What you refer and respond to strikes me as being reflective of a kind of defensive-offensive 'sibling' rivalry which often gets out of hand.

Image: left foot and the right foot thinking and feeling 'insulted' as a result of each thinking-n-feeling it is 'negatively' appreciated or not appreciated 'enough' (i.e., not truly appreciated); both unable or unwilling to walk·in·the other's·shoe empathize with and understand and therefore appropriately 'honor' and 'respect' the contributions as well as difficulties inherent in other's manner/way of being.

NOT that I think all the various comments/responses fall into this category. everyone who posted in the sex-a-tete <_< please note this) - I personally found many that were, at least in part, sympathetically communicative. I personally find expression and exploration of male-female differences ('libinal' or otherwise) interesting and potentially (if they don't become 'rivalrous') worthwhile.

Ahhh, the vagaries of 'ego', which interfere with sympathetic, read·between·and·behind·the lines listening.

Something from David Hawkins' I: Subjectivity and Reality, which I think has some bearing:

Pride

There is a normal, benign level of pride that is more correctly termed "self-esteem" or "self-care." This refers to putting one's best foot forward and the normal satisfactions that result from successful effort and achievement. These forms of positive self-image are the result of effort and are therefore appropriate and not necessarily inflationary to the ego. They have been earned and have a realistic foundation.

Pride as a spiritual defect refers to pridefulness as an attitude and a positionality. It is an arrogance hat can apply to beliefs, thoughts, opinions, and the general attitude of being better than others. This is an over-valuation of self-worth and is commonly referred to as egotism. Since it is not based on accomplishment and is unearned, it is fragile.

Because pride is vulnerable, it has to be constantly defended and can be accompanied by a "chip on the shoulder" attitude. Its weakness is usually recognized in the common saying "Pride goeth before a fall." The vulnerability occurs because it is an arbitrary positionality. Pride is an ego inflation and like a balloon, it is easily punctured. Flattery feeds pride because pride is vanity. Vanity is egocentric in that it is psychologically based on narcissism. Its downside is that it decreases the capacity to be compassionate and loving towards others.

Pride in its strictest spiritual sense, refers to the refusal to surrender to God [please note: this refers to Hawkins' concept of God, not the usual 'traditional' ones] as the Supreme Source of one's existence. it is tehrefore a subtle attitude of competition with God for sovereignty.

Underneath spiritual vanity is the refusal of humility because, to egotism, humility is misunderstood as submission, inferiority, and humiliation. The truly humble are immune to humiliation. A truly accurate and humble scientist[for the present purpose, one might substitute "man or woman" for "scientist"] , for example, is quite aware of both the upside, the downside, and the limitations of the scientific method, including logic and reason [for the present purpose, one might substitute "feminine modality and masculine modality" for "scientific method", and something like "feeling and thinking" for "logic and reason"] . A truly humble person can derive great satisfaction from even great achievements without assuming the secretly prideful position of pseudohumility.

The best antidotes for pridefulness are gratitude, satisfaction, and thankfulness. True humility allows one to say, without pride, that facts are just facts. One can be humble and, at the same time, admit that yes, they are indeed the greates and best in their particular field, at least at the present moment. This is possible if there is no ego inflation involved. If egotism is involved, then the person feels that they have to adopt pseudohumility and pretense to appear humble. Society recognizes greatness, major accomplishment or status but without necessarily introducing pridefulness. Greatness realistically accepts the importance of a position or accomplishment without becomeing inflated by it. To do this, the person often separates the personal self from their role, position, or function. The personality that bases pridefulness on narcissistic ego inflation tends to have an 'entitled' attitude that has not been earned by personal accomplishment.

I hope no one feels personally insulted by this.

David (for the moment, playing, well or not, 'Solomon') :ph34r:

[sahyo]

david thinks playing was "sex-a-tete"?

[sahyo]

:)

[rich]

Dear David,

Thank you for your thought provoking post. I do not feel insulted from
what you wrote in your post. However, what you posted fairly represents a more charitable assessment of the opposing POV of mine.

I will see what evolves here if anything, and speak when spoken to, or feel B) like saying anything.

[sahyo]

The best antidotes for pridefulness are gratitude, satisfaction, and thankfulness. True humility allows one to say, without pride, that facts are just facts. One can be humble and, at the same time, admit that yes, they are indeed the greates and best in their particular field, at least at the present moment. This is possible if there is no ego inflation involved. If egotism is involved, then the person feels that they have to adopt pseudohumility and pretense to appear humble. Society recognizes greatness, major accomplishment or status but without necessarily introducing pridefulness. Greatness realistically accepts the importance of a position or accomplishment without becomeing inflated by it. To do this, the person often separates the personal self from their role, position, or function. The personality that bases pridefulness on narcissistic ego inflation tends to have an 'entitled' attitude that has not been earned by personal accomplishment.


which quoted not "facts"....David Hawkins 'thinking' silly

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 13 2003, 03:18 AM
david thinks playing was "sex-a-tete"?
"sex-a-tete"?

Can not find a definition, tried Google and Webster's, so far. :unsure:

[rich]

asheera,
What is silly about David Hawkins thoughts posted by David S ? I do not understand why it seems silly to you? :unsure:

Also do not understand the meaning of sex-a-tete. :unsure:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 12 2003, 10:27 PM
What I do not like is my seeing the willingness of some female posters to* respond to male posters who have given accounts of the state of their libido. I do not wish to participate in that type of a discussion. So if all of you enjoy discussing topics like libido, continue, but count me out.


Richie, if they feel they have to discuss it, they mustn't be getting any!

As long as I don't have to be Grand Wizard! :lol:

Random I should hope not! Where I come from Grand Wizards run around in the bed sheets & burn crosses. Not very nice folx. :unsure:

[rich]

Religion at its worst.

In Cincy, Are they still active?

We got some in Ayden, I believe,
about 25 miles from here.
As you said, "not very nice folx"

Was once in Cincy, about 1963, had a bowel of chili, it was hot :P

[sonrisa]

Just a bowl Richie? You didn't get a 4-way on a plate? (for those of you with dirty minds: a 4-way is chili, spagetti, onions, & cheese. 4 ingredients, 4-way, ¿comprenden?) What was hot- the chili or the weather, or both? :)

The KKK aren't active here in the City. The surrounding counties are another story. For while one of these chapters kept coming in & erecting a cross on (our main) Fountain Sq every Christmas. It was really irritating, becuz, in addition to being generally offensive (tho at least they didn't burn it) as I said, we don't even have a KKK chapter here, these folx were coming in from out of town. The City couldn't ban it outright (tho they tried several times) becuz of 1st Amendment issues, so finally they set up a public holiday display on the Sq & said that NOBODY could set anything up during the holidays due to the public display, which they make sure takes up the whole Sq. & that's how they got rid of the cross.

[...]

Don't know, I never saw myself have orgasm yet.

So you never ejaculated, or experienced orgasmic sensations?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 12 2003, 07:36 PM
Also do not understand the meaning of sex-a-tete.
T'was just word-play on tête-a-tête. Probably belongs in in the category of a 'bad' joke :rolleyes:

[rich]

Thanks Dave.

Think I know now what you were saying. Found this definition on the internet.

tête-à-tête ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tt-tt, tt-tt)
adv. & adj.
Without the intrusion of a third person; in intimate privacy: talk tête-à-tête; a tête-à-tête supper.

n.
A private conversation between two persons.
A sofa for two, especially an S-shaped one allowing the occupants to face each other.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French : tête, head + à, to + tête, head.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

thinking asheera blushing :wub: :wub: :o ;)

[sahyo]

;)

blushing?

[sahyo]

What is silly about David Hawkins thoughts posted by David S ? I do not understand why it seems silly to you?

david hawkins was thinking confused

[rich]

Maybe its my hypertension maybe my imagination, and yet again maybe not. I ain't talking, no recipe'. :D ;)

[rich]

Where Hawkins confused? What d'ya mean? :unsure: :blink: :rolleyes:



FYI Bad electrical storm out side. signing off ;) B)

[Polaris]

I can't speculate on what Asheera find silly talk but out of the paragraph she quoted I find the following David Hawkins statements questionable.

Greatness realistically accepts the importance of a position or accomplishment without becomeing inflated by it.

One is not great.... one just is. Greatness, whether one percieves themself as great or somebody else as great, is a delusion.

To do this, the person often separates the personal self from their role, position, or function.

no self

[rich]

Asheera, There are times when one does not know what to say, and this is one of these times. We all have different perceptions of people. I do not see anything silly in David Hawkins' philosophy.

Polaris, I believe Hawkins is saying that those who really are great, their ego will not be inflated by their greatneses. Think that Einstein would be a perfect example of that. :) Though he knew he was great, he still was a humble man. B)

[a random hack]

Was Einstein as great/ less great/ more great than some one with less talent and training, who may have done more with what they had?

Would Einstein be so humble if he hadn't known he was so great?

Hmm, ok, let's see...

Asheera,

S'funny, thought 'R/random ordering' was like 'hack'...

so was rather surprised to see hack thanked. :lol:


S'funny, I understood the 'sex-a-tete' reference, but praps only after what rich said...

And yes, sonrisa, my dirty mind had a good laugh at 'fourway on a plate' (what do you do with the plate?
:huh: ). Actually, after a plate of chili, spagetti, onions, & cheese, has anyone got a match? :lol:
As for the cross burning sheet wearers, we don't (that I know of) have any official chapters in Oz, but there seem to be some who share the views, if you know what I mean. Still, hate is hate, however it is expressed.
I thought the chrismas story was pretty neat. :)

...,

Don't know, I never saw myself have orgasm yet.

So you never ejaculated, or experienced orgasmic sensations?

No, just never watched.

:lol:

[sylph]

i have never ejaculated nor experienced orgasmic sensations. ;)

[sahyo]

S'funny, thought 'R/random ordering' was like 'hack'...

so was rather surprised to see hack thanked.

hehe...happened couldn't order reading postings....blanked, so thanked again since seemed hadn't :)

S'funny, I understood the 'sex-a-tete' reference, but praps only after what rich said...

just read david thinking

[Polaris]

Polaris, I believe Hawkins is saying that those who really are great, their ego will not be inflated by their greatneses. Think that Einstein would be a perfect example of that. Though he knew he was great, he still was a humble man.


I don't think it's possible to know you're great and still be humble. And besides, "greatness" is relative depending on the person doing the assessing and the circumstances.

Einstein wasn't a great guy. He was a man who was fortunate to find something he had a talent in and then again fortunate enough to be in a time and place where he could use this talent efficiently. If he had been born in some dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would have been just another person dying of starvation.

[...]

No, just never watched.

Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...

i have never ejaculated nor experienced orgasmic sensations.

That happens...

[sahyo]

Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...



perhaps when nolonger watching and thinking
"occuring", "orgasme",
and "female one"

[sahyo]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 13 2003, 03:13 PM

I can't speculate on what Asheera find silly talk but out of the paragraph she quoted I find the following David Hawkins statements questionable.

Greatness realistically accepts the importance of a position or accomplishment without becomeing inflated by it.

One is not great.... one just is. Greatness, whether one
percieves themself as great or somebody else as great, is a delusion.

To do this, the person often separates the personal self from their role, position, or function.


no self



:D
:D
:D
yes
..but
"one"?
;)

[sahyo]

richie
there is more evidence hawkins
writing thinking separate than just which polaris
posted, but isn't important more explaining
....which happening is that you, called richie,
not attentioning
'processing'

:)

[rich]

asheera,

baffles

me.

IN-->>)))processing(((<<--OUT=:wacko:

:mellow: : B) :unsure:

;)

[sahyo]

lilela

yes processing thinking separating
processes yoyo which not....
but processing which not processing
not process though
processes

words not say

hehehe

;)

lilela

[rich]

The process of trying
to process is the
same as not processing.
O' I don't know,
trying to be smart,
same as, not smart.
GRRRRRRRRRR
makes me :angry: ;)

[sahyo]

"smart" not

;)

[Polaris]

yes
..but
"one"?


not one, not two :)

[a random hack]

Einstein wasn't a great guy. He was a man who was fortunate to find something he had a talent in and then again fortunate enough to be in a time and place where he could use this talent efficiently. If he had been born in some dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would have been just another person dying of starvation.

Polaris,
You got that right. May I also add, "If no-one had appreciated his talent and his work, if his particular talents had not been required by a wider audience, he would have not been as 'fortunate' ".

mmm, ta-sheera :D

...,
You ever ponder the difference between watching and experiencing?
That's the main reason I don't choose to compare orgasms, let alone the massive generalisation involved in male vs female. <yawn>, case closed...

[rich]

processing machine needs to be rewired. maybe screw is loose which connects to one of the terminals.

+0----|i|i|i}----vvvv----------|
``````````````````````````````````````|``````````` ```|
````````````````````` _______````|
- 0---------------- |BRAIN|----
````````````````````|-----------|
Oy !
vot a messy schematic! Loose wires shown.

Hahahaha :lol: as nutty as a fruitcake.RoF LoL

[...]

perhaps when nolonger watching and thinking
"occuring", "orgasme",
and "female one"

Then what?

[...]

You ever ponder the difference between watching and experiencing?

Sure, focussing on either of them without understanding of both breeds ignorance...

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 14 2003, 09:58 AM

Would Einstein be so humble if he hadn't known he was so great?


And yes, sonrisa, my dirty mind had a good laugh at 'fourway on a plate' (what do you do with the plate?
:huh: ). Actually, after a plate of chili, spagetti, onions, & cheese, has anyone got a match? :lol:
As for the cross burning sheet wearers, we don't (that I know of) have any official chapters in Oz, but there seem to be some who share the views, if you know what I mean. Still, hate is hate, however it is expressed.
I thought the chrismas story was pretty neat. :)


I understood Einstein was rather humble.... no matter, the bottom line is he put his pants on every day the same way we do.

note to Random: true Cincinnatians douse our 4-ways with hot sauce...
when done eating, throw the plate at Random.... to be washed, of course :D

Glad to hear that the Klan has not been exported to Oz.. & hopefully no place else.... Not exactly America at its finest :blink:

[Polaris]

I understood Einstein was rather humble.... no matter, the bottom line is he put his pants on every day the same way we do.

The way I de-idolize a person is by picturing sitting on the toilet taking care of their.... daily constitution. :)

The Queen, the Pope, The President of the USA... you name it... I've pictured them. Nobody's great, everybody's equal, when they've got their knickers down around their ankles. :lol: ;)

[sahyo]

watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...thinking 'a watcher watching' thinking 'other', which not

[sahyo]

Sure, focussing on either of them without understanding of both breeds ignorance...



no, fear-thinking-separate, which not, thinks-ignorance

[sahyo]

polaris :)

[sahyo]

mmm, mmmtahackmmm :D

[sonrisa]

Polaris, I think dubya wears pampers.
Those big kind. Depends, or whatever they're called.


hey asheera! :D :P

[sahyo]

:o :D :P :D

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: Einstein wasn't a great guy. He was a man who was fortunate to find something he had a talent in and then again fortunate enough to be in a time and place where he could use this talent efficiently. If he had been born in some dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would have been just another person dying of starvation.

Yes, but he wasn't. I believe that the circumstances of Einstein's life are no coincidence, just as the circumstances of all of our lifes are no coincidence. Einstein was driven to revolutionize physics. Not only was his mind unique, but he was also in the position to make the fullest use of it. The setting was perfect. Einstein is without doubt one of the greatest scientists who walked on this earth. But then again, this is quite meaningless, isn't it? Some stars are very bright, others are dim. Does it make any difference? We might admire the bright ones, but this is only human bias, while the phenomena exist as they are. In order to appreciate the beauty of a bright star, or the cleverness of Relativity one must be born human. It is the human quality that matters to us. Relativity changed the way we see the univserse. It had a massive impact on collective thought, which is why we think of it as "great". Is it Einstein's doing? A sign of the time? Coincidence? It does not make any difference.

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

polaris posted:Einstein wasn't a great guy. He was a man who was fortunate to find something he had a talent in and then again fortunate enough to be in a time and place where he could use this talent efficiently. If he had been born in some dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would have been just another person dying of starvation.

Dear Polaris,
I tend to disagree with your opinions in your post. I believe that just as water seeks its own level, a mind like Einstein's, in whatever body this mind was placed in, no matter of geographic location where born, or race, this mind was destined to make itself heard The mind had to make its thoughts known; seek its level..

Just like my mind is making my thoughts heard, by posting on thebigview.com. :D :P

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 15 2003, 11:41 PM
Polaris: Einstein wasn't a great guy. He was a man who was fortunate to find something he had a talent in and then again fortunate enough to be in a time and place where he could use this talent efficiently. If he had been born in some dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would have been just another person dying of starvation.

Yes, but he wasn't. I believe that the circumstances of Einstein's life are no coincidence, just as the circumstances of all of our lifes are no coincidence. Einstein was driven to revolutionize physics. Not only was his mind unique, but he was also in the position to make the fullest use of it. The setting was perfect. Einstein is without doubt one of the greatest scientists who walked on this earth. But then again, this is quite meaningless, isn't it? Some stars are very bright, others are dim. Does it make any difference? We might admire the bright ones, but this is only human bias, while the phenomena exist as they are. In order to appreciate the beauty of a bright star, or the cleverness of Relativity one must be born human. It is the human quality that matters to us. Relativity changed the way we see the univserse. It had a massive impact on collective thought, which is why we think of it as "great". Is it Einstein's doing? A sign of the time? Coincidence? It does not make any difference.

Cheers, Thomas
I understand what you're saying Thomas, and I agree. However I feel that Einstein was just being Einstein at that particular time and place, including the things he did. If he had been born in a dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would still have just been Einstein. If his fortunate circumstance in life was no coincidence then the ability for him to do the things he did was also no coincidence. Does this make him *great* or does this just make him *Einstein*?

[...]

thinking 'a watcher watching' thinking 'other', which not

No...

no, fear-thinking-separate, which not, thinks-ignorance

No again...

[sahyo]

....


Sure, focussing on either of them without understanding of both breeds ignorance...


fear-thinking-separate the source of "ignorance"

[sahyo]

watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...


yes are thinking-'a watcher' watching 'a'n orgas'me'-female 'one'

[sahyo]

watcherless not think me-one

[sahyo]

If he had been born in a dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would still have just been Einstein.


unique called einstein wouldn't same unique if had been born ethiopia

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 16 2003, 02:39 PM

If he had been born in a dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would still have just been Einstein.


unique called einstein wouldn't same unique if had been born ethiopia
But he would have been unique nonetheless, just as you are, just as I am, just as anyone.

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris+Jul 17 2003, 03:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Jul 17 2003, 03:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Jul 16 2003, 02:39 PM

If he had been born in a dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would still have just been Einstein.*


unique called einstein wouldn't same unique if had been born ethiopia
But he would have been unique nonetheless, just as you are, just as I am, just as anyone. [/b][/quote]
Me,
I believe that just as water seeks its own level, a mind like Einstein's, in whatever body this mind was placed in, no matter of geographic location where born, or race, this mind was destined to make itself heard The mind had to make its thoughts known; seek its level..

Just like my mind is making my thoughts heard, by posting on thebigview.com.**

--------------------
Rich :lol:

THE BLUE BOLD EGGO ALL OVER MY FACE!

ha ha ha :D :lol: ;)

An original punny poached egg posted on thebigview. If
my head were any sweller, Id be EYENSTEIN.

[sahyo]

But he would have been unique nonetheless,
just as you are, just as I am, just as anyone.

didn't write wouldn't unique
....wrote "wouldn't same unique" ;)

[Polaris]

An original punny poached egg posted on thebigview. If
my head were any sweller, Id be EYENSTEIN.

:lol: :rolleyes:

[Polaris]

But he would have been unique nonetheless,
just as you are, just as I am, just as anyone.

didn't write wouldn't unique
....wrote "wouldn't same unique" ;)


Yep. I noticed :)

[sahyo]

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: I feel that Einstein was just being Einstein at that particular time and place, including the things he did. If he had been born in a dusty little hut in the middle of drought stricken Ethiopia he would still have just been Einstein. If his fortunate circumstance in life was no coincidence then the ability for him to do the things he did was also no coincidence. Does this make him *great* or does this just make him *Einstein*?

That is an interesting question. I think both is true. Einstein was just being Einstein, but he also participated in greatness. He did not live in Ethiopia and he was fortunate to be born into a time when physics was "ripe" for a revolution. Whether this is due to "lucky" (= random) circumstances, or due to Einstein's karma, merits of previous lifetimes, or due to his personal achievements is a matter of debate. I just don't think one becomes an Einstein by mere chance.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

I just don't think one becomes an Einstein by mere chance.

:) Agreed :)

[...]

fear-thinking-separate the source of "ignorance"

Ignorance in general, ofcourse. Within the context of the exchange 'ignorance of..' is obvious.

yes are thinking-'a watcher' watching 'a'n orgas'me'-female 'one'

Perhaps there is confusion about attached value to writings? There's no issue about narrowing the big view of reality to their socalled parts, a circle is still a circle.

watcherless not think me-one

True...

[sahyo]

Perhaps there is confusion about attached value to writings?

hehe...no

There's no issue about narrowing the big view of reality to their socalled parts

no big view of reality...youthinkingseparate'a thing' which can be narrowed and thinkingseparate'an entity' which can narrowing

;)

[...]

youthinkingseparate'a thing' which can be narrowed and thinkingseparate'an entity' which can narrowing

Ofcourse, as you did aswell by writing this, so what's your point?

[sahyo]

youthinkingseparate'a thing'
which can be narrowed
and thinkingseparate'an entity' which can narrowing

Ofcourse, as you did aswell by writing this, so what's your point?

no....
writing not the same as "youthinkingseparate'a thing'
which can be narrowed
and thinkingseparate'an entity'
which can narrowing"

[rich]

On jul 16th, asheera posted:watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...thinking 'a watcher watching' thinking 'other', which not


Private matters between m & f, should not be in a public forum for
comments.

Do not think anyone would want to be watched, unless they were exhibitionists looking for maximum exposure. At least I would not. B)

Those advocating pornography would watch, for me to watch something like that, would depress me. :ph34r: :angry:

[...]

no....
writing not the same as "youthinkingseparate'a thing'
which can be narrowed
and thinkingseparate'an entity'
which can narrowing"

Yet you see/percieve 'me' writing posts as if "narrowing thinkingseparate'a thing" has any meaning or value, vaguely implying that's erroneous. Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle; we're all...

[sahyo]

Yet you see/percieve 'me' writing posts as if "narrowing thinkingseparate'a thing"*


not writing posts as if
narrowing thinkingseparate'a thing',
but:

Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...

[sahyo]

Yet you see/percieve 'me'



no :D

[rich]

time for me to leave this discussion. :ph34r:

--------------------
Rich

[a random hack]

I just don't think one becomes an Einstein by mere chance.


What does 'chance' mean anyway? "I saw it happen, but I don't know how, and I can't make it happen again"?

rich,
If you still here, I think the point was the participants 'each' watching the 'other' (or not), not audience watching the participants. If you catch my drift...?

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 20 2003, 10:45 AM
I just don't think one becomes an Einstein by mere chance.


What does 'chance' mean anyway? "I saw it happen, but I don't know how, and I can't make it happen again"?

rich,
If you still here, I think the point was the participants 'each' watching the 'other' (or not), not audience watching the participants. If you catch my drift...?
A Random Hack, posted:

rich,
If you still here, I think the point was the participants 'each' watching the 'other' (or not), not audience watching the participants. If you catch my drift...?



Random Hack:
I do not know if I understand what you mean, Dear Hack, but as I posted earlier, am sick of all the talk between ... and asheera on the topic of watching female orgasme-ing. That is why i will stop posting here, for that is not a topic of discussion that belongs on a public forum. It depresses me, have said that before. That topic is like a virus too, seems to be spreading to other topics. People can discuss what they wish, and let them do so.
I do not have to stay in this forum either, and then they can watch orgasmning all over the place. I do not intend to. So if asheera and ...
continue to keep posting as they do, I shall not remain here .

[...]

..touchy aren't we? The whole point about watching orgasmes was to come to better understanding about the supposed differences between male and female, and how everything in the dream comes to be on the arc, the tension, between the two. Ofcourse this only appears that way...

[...]

Yet you see/percieve 'me'

no

When there is no watcher, there are no concepts. When there are no concepts, you aren't able to recognize your keyboard, tell one letter from another and so on. The fact that you're writing/responding shows that those concepts move from memory, which means there's a watcher. In absolute terms you're absolutely right, but that was'nt what we were talking about, we're we?

[sahyo]

When there is no watcher, there are no concepts. When there are no concepts, you aren't able to recognize your keyboard, tell one letter from another and so on. The fact that you're writing/responding shows that those concepts move from memory, which means there's a watcher.


"writing/responding", presentingresponsingusingmemory ,
not thought"concepts"watcher"


but that was'nt what we were talking about, we're we?



only appears that way...


:D

[sahyo]

The whole point about watching orgasmes was to come to better understanding about the supposed differences between male and female, and how everything in the dream comes to be on the arc, the tension, between the two. Ofcourse this only appears that way...

"differences"between"two" not.............no-thing to "better understanding"

which was posted was:
Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun, especially the female one...
thinkingseparate'other'(a-thing) which not

Ofcourse this only appears that way...

yet which quoted, was written thinkingspearate'watcher' which not

[rich]

Am too old and naive to understand all the adult talk
going on here. Forgive me for being stupid or able to join in the discussion.. :(

[Polaris]

Aww shucks, Rich. The sooner you start ignoring it, the sooner it'll stop bugging ya. :)

[sahyo]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 20 2003, 03:34 PM

Am too old and naive to understand all the adult talk
going on here. Forgive me for being stupid or able to join in the discussion.. :(


richie thinking which not


polaris....is richiethinking which "bugging"richie

[...]

..it sure took awhile, but perhaps to the relief of some asheera's abstractiveness got the better of ... Ofcourse everything only appears that way, but do you deny the beauty of a painting because it's only strokes of different coloured paints creating the image? Naaahhh....

[Polaris]

..it sure took awhile, but perhaps to the relief of some asheera's abstractiveness got the better of ... Ofcourse everything only appears that way, but do you deny the beauty of a painting because it's only strokes of different coloured paints creating the image? Naaahhh....

My son is red/green colour blind. What if the painting is not beautiful to him?
Is it beautiful in reality or only in the "eye of the beholder"?
Is the "eye of the beholder" qualified to judge beauty or is it just personal perception?
:huh: :unsure: :blink:

[...]

My son is red/green colour blind. What if the painting is not beautiful to him?

That's irrelevant.

Is it beautiful in reality or only in the "eye of the beholder"?

All beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but all is beauty. Denying beauty is needless.

Is the "eye of the beholder" qualified to judge beauty or is it just personal perception?

Both are the same...

[Polaris]

My son is red/green colour blind. What if the painting is not beautiful to him?

That's irrelevant.
Not to him ;)

Is it beautiful in reality or only in the "eye of the beholder"?

All beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but all is beauty. Denying beauty is needless.
All is not beauty.

Is the "eye of the beholder" qualified to judge beauty or is it just personal perception?

Both are the same...
So judging beauty is a personal perception?
So if you and my son, two sets of "beholder's eyes", stood side-by-side looking at the same painting of a lush green apple tree laden with plump juicy red apples and he thought it was not beautiful even though you did, his perception would be wrong and your's would be right? :huh:

[sahyo]

image?

...

Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun,
especially the female one...is thinkingimaging'other'
(thinkingseparate watcher other "one", which not)

[rich]

Polaris,

Sorry that your son is color blind.

Does that mean all colors look the same to him, or are there different shades of contrast that each color transmits to his brain to interpret?

Have there ever been any artists that were color blind? Have there ever been any color blind art critics ?

I would think not, but your son probably excels in other talents. :) ;)

[a random hack]

Is a green apple less beautiful than a red apple?

[Polaris]

Richie, I'm not sure what he sees exactly. Judging from those colour blind test you see around with a number hidden in a picture full of various coloured spots it seems that what he sees instead of green, for instance, is more a brownish colour (according to my eyes, that is)

He's fine with it. Doesn't slow him down. My father was also colour blind. It's a gene that travels on the 'X' chromosome.

[...]

All is not beauty.

Everything is enjoyable, there's beauty in ugliness, all is beautiful.

So judging beauty is a personal perception?

If that beauty is based on ugly, yes.

So if you and my son, two sets of "beholder's eyes", stood side-by-side looking at the same painting of a lush green apple tree laden with plump juicy red apples and he thought it was not beautiful even though you did, his perception would be wrong and your's would be right?

No.

[...]

image?



Watching an orgasme occuring is half the fun,
especially the female one...

Living porn, it just doesn't get any better...

[sahyo]

Living porn, it just doesn't get any better...

not porn, not notporn, if ... not think'imag(e)ining'other'one'

:D

[Polaris]

All is not beauty.

Everything is enjoyable, there's beauty in ugliness, all is beautiful.

All just IS. It is neither ugly nor beautiful.

So judging beauty is a personal perception?

If that beauty is based on ugly, yes.

See my remark above.

They way I see it, whether somebody sees something as beautiful or ugly is totally subjective to each individual.

You seem to think porn is beautiful and that "it just doesn't get any better..."
I disagree. I don't like porn. I think it is ugly.

Who's right?

[rich]

:D Who is right? :unsure:
To each their own, but I agree with Polaris. -_- :lol:

I don't like porn. I think it is ugly.


AMEN

[fu*]

First this......."All just IS. It is neither ugly nor beautiful."

Then this....."I don't like porn. I think it is ugly."

You seem a little mixed up. :huh:

crazy aint it?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 25 2003, 12:04 PM
Is a green apple less beautiful than a red apple?
Well, red's my fave color, so you know what my beholden answer is to that. I think red apples taste better, too, the redder the better. The ones that are so red they're purple looking, they taste best of all. :P

[Polaris]

Originally posted by fu*@Jul 26 2003, 01:04 AM
First this......."All just IS. It is neither ugly nor beautiful."

Then this....."I don't like porn. I think it is ugly."

You seem a little mixed up. :huh:

crazy aint it?
No, not at all. I was trying to bring my point into a dualistic context so that ... and you might understand. Apparently I was unsuccessful. :P

[rich]

Hey fu*,

Why do you look so angry? :angry: ?

Why don't you smile? ;) :D :lol:

Be Happy.:wacko:

[sahyo]

hehe

richie thinking-guessing-thinks-knows fu* angry,
then richie thinks-should-shouldn't and
tells how he thinks fu* 'should'

:)

[rich]

Not thinking, asheera, not knowing, but intuitioning.
BTW asheera, why no avatar?
Are you just being, consistently emotionless? or hiding identity? or just being Miss Teary Yus?
How would that be, for a new identity? :lol: ;) :rolleyes: hahaholaho.

[sahyo]

happyangry not separate richie :)

[rich]

fu* not separate asheera, asheera, though post separate.Miss Teary Yus, not separate too, but will leave that one alone, since no comment on it. :P ;)

[sahyo]

;) :P

[rich]

Since 2 smilies is your reply,
each pix, worth a thousand words,
which is an awful lot to write,
and now it is past midnight,
I must return to my sack,
Removing the light from my sight,
If I do happen to see the morrow,
Or If not, May there be no sorrow.

boo hoo hoo so sad :( sniff sniff.

[...]

not porn, not notporn, if ... not think'imag(e)ining'other'one'

You have a nack for stating the obvious, asheera...

All just IS. It is neither ugly nor beautiful.

When ugly and beauty are no longer interdependant, what manifests is crisp and clear and plain beautiful.

They way I see it, whether somebody sees something as beautiful or ugly is totally subjective to each individual.

See above statement.

You seem to think porn is beautiful and that "it just doesn't get any better..."
I disagree. I don't like porn. I think it is ugly.Who's right?

Irrelevant to the subject polaris, this isn't about wrong/right...

[Polaris]

All just IS. It is neither ugly nor beautiful.

When ugly and beauty are no longer interdependant, what manifests is crisp and clear and plain beautiful.


sigh No. As long as you have beauty, you have ugly. You create one with the other.



You seem to think porn is beautiful and that "it just doesn't get any better..."
I disagree. I don't like porn. I think it is ugly.Who's right?

Irrelevant to the subject polaris, this isn't about wrong/right...

Beauty/ugly is also irrelevant.

[sahyo]

Living porn, it just doesn't get any better...

not porn, not notporn, if ... not think'imag(e)ining'other'one'

You have a nack for stating the obvious, asheera...

when ... "Living porn, it just doesn't get any better..." is "obvious"?

[sylph]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 20 2003, 11:38 AM
Random Hack:
I do not know if I understand what you mean, Dear Hack, but as I posted earlier, am sick of all the talk between ... and asheera on the topic of watching female orgasme-ing. That is why i will stop posting here, for that is not a topic of discussion that belongs on a public forum. It depresses me, have said that before. That topic is like a virus too, seems to be spreading to other topics. People can discuss what they wish, and let them do so.
I do not have to stay in this forum either, and then they can watch orgasmning all over the place. I do not intend to. So if asheera and ...
continue to keep posting as they do, I shall not remain here .
i agree with rich. please don't pollute this forum with unnecessary smut. i thought that this board (the old version) was a rare gem because there were actually intelligent people carrying on intelligent conversations. there is so much smut and so little intelligent conversation on the internet... if you want smut, you can go to the billions of such web sites out there, which do it better than this forum. however, thebigview.com discussion board is a one of a kind. :)

go on IRC, or yahoo chat, or any other chat network, and take your smut there, where that kind of talk is welcomed, encouraged, and praised.

i'm tired of searching through these threads to find something substantial.

[sahyo]

sylph not attentioning the posts

[rich]

Please do not leave this forum. What they write here, should not be taken literally. Though, I do not know why they persist in mentioning that subject. When I feel I am in wrong topic, then I will get out. Trying to understand some posters is a challenge. :unsure:

Right now a 2 way discussion between 2 Canadians, Polaris{Nova Scotia} and asheera, { British Columbia?} Canadian
sisterhood talking. :D

[sylph]

no, don't worry. i'm not leaving. :rolleyes:

btw, i'm from ontario! B)

asheera,

i'm not really offended by your posts. i just think it's unnecessary for people to volunteer information about bodily excretions and slippery floors. :blink:

however, when you keep re-mentioning female-orgasming, it brings up the topic again and encourages others to make more irrelevant comments about it. :D

[rich]

btw, A Random Hack is an aussie. All subjects of Her Royal Majesty, i.e.; A Random Hack, asheera, Polaris, and Sylph. :P

What chance does an American have around here? :unsure:

What ever happened to Paul Revere? :unsure: :wacko: :blink:

[sylph]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 28 2003, 10:29 AM
btw, A Random Hack is an aussie. All subjects of Her Royal Majesty, i.e.; A Random Hack, asheera, Polaris, and Sylph. :P

What chance does an American have around here? :unsure:

What ever happened to Paul Revere? :unsure: :wacko: :blink:
and when was the last time the monarch had any real power? :P

[sahyo]

sylph :D

i just think it's unnecessary for people to volunteer information about bodily excretions and slippery floors.

information?

however, when you keep re-mentioning female-orgasming, it brings up the topic again and encourages others to make more irrelevant comments about it.

are the posts about "female-orgasming"?

[a random hack]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

*goes looking for a purple apple, like Snow White... :lol:

[sahyo]

rich,
body appeared washington (usa)
then lived british columbia and alberta (canada)
....now living washington

:)

[sahyo]

:lol: 'acking

[...]

sigh No. As long as you have beauty, you have ugly. You create one with the other.

No, when (sh)it is as it is, it's beauty. Let's agree to disagree...

[rich]

asheera wrote:rich,
body appeared washington (usa)
then lived british columbia and alberta (canada)
....now living washington

asheera,

thanks, I thought you were born in Canada.

you gave a good history about where "body" appeared and lived. Presume that the "spirit" went along for the ride. :D ;) :lol:

[rich]

Rich admits posting an error, see below:
Right now a 2 way discussion between 2 Canadians, Polaris{Nova Scotia} and asheera, { British Columbia?} Canadian sisterhood talking.

Please change to read as follows:

Right now a discussion between Polaris and asheera, sister human-beings talking.

The lesson my error teaches me, is labels are not important. Think more corrections on more of my posts, should be made. Sorry.

[Ronagon]

WTF have I stumbled onto, in here?

[sahyo]

have I



ohoh

is "have I"?

;)

[Ronagon]

Maybe if I stick a power drill up my nose and shred my frontal lobes into cole slaw, I can be a "guru" like asheera, too...

[sahyo]

hehehe

250 posts happens 'guru'

;)

[a random hack]

Maybe if I stick a power drill up my nose and shred my frontal lobes into cole slaw

You want fries with that?

[sahyo]

hehe :)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 14 2003, 08:58 AM
Maybe if I stick a power drill up my nose and shred my frontal lobes into cole slaw

You want fries with that?
no, just a diet coke

[a random hack]

diet coke? Isn't that what supermodels use to get up and go in the morning? :lol:
Still, would have similar effect to nasally applied power tools.

[Polaris]

Maybe if I stick a power drill up my nose and shred my frontal lobes into cole slaw

Not that's what I call empty calories ;)

:huh:
Does that mean you're a cabbage head? :D ;)

[rich]

:lol: Polaris,

Although you made your reply many months ago, the retort indicates intelligence and being sharp. IOW, Intelligent Design. :lol: ;)

[Polaris]

:D :lol:

[a random hack]

design, eh?
was seeming pretty spontaneous to me. which is also why it stopped..:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 24 2003, 09:58 PM
design, eh?
was seeming pretty spontaneous to me. which is also why it stopped..:D
It's actually a spontaneous·'design'-making thang, Hack - if you unzerozip yourself, you'll see that you've got one, like her too! :lol:

Her 'thang' only 'appears' to you ('cuz of your 'sense'-limitations) to have 'stopped' spontaneous-designing here for the moment in any case. I've been catching glimpses of it zoomin' all over the TBV screen-cosmos!.
:)

[a random hack]

seems to me 'design' indicates some planning... seems both creation and destruction may be spontaneous or premeditated...maybe was only seeming....was offering another possibility:D

Her 'thang' only 'appears' to you ('cuz of your 'sense'-limitations) to have 'stopped' spontaneous-designing here for the moment in any case. I've been catching glimpses of it zoomin' all over the TBV screen-cosmos!.

was saying was spontaneous because had stopped here, wasn't forced onward, but maybe full of sh*t :D
seems very hard to stop creative/ destructive impulse :)

[shifu]

Hack… you seems right. Small things move faster… big things, as it seems to your senses, move slow. I suppose evolution moves that way so that it is hard for us to notice it. Natural movement creates design or design in-itself i.e. creation or destruction is spontaneous, no planning ahead. :)

shifu

[a random hack]

hmm, seems is apparent order everywhere, praps to order liking, seeing, producing brain...? or brain training...?
seems evolution may move relatively slow or fast, but seems never without apparent impetus, or, in response to 'need' (to survive) by organism....purely response, in other words :)

[shifu]

It may not only be apparent order everywhere, it could also be apparent disorder or re-ordering. Speculatively, when an entity reaches its being-in-itself, it moves to another order.

Well, apparent impetus is there, however, one of the difficulties with evolution/naturalist theory is it has dealt with speculations, or let say logical intuitions. But the most obvious impetuous in all Beings is it grows, orders… into something that which maybe considered as a response to or a necessity to survive.

shifu

[DavidS]

Originally posted by shifu@Oct 30 2003, 11:02 PM
It may not only be apparent order everywhere, it could also be apparent disorder or re-ordering. Speculatively, when an entity reaches its being-in-itself, it moves to another order.

Well, apparent impetus is there, however, one of the difficulties with evolution/naturalist theory is it has dealt with speculations, or let say logical intuitions. But the most obvious impetuous in all Beings is it grows, orders… into something that which maybe considered as a response to or a necessity to survive.

shifu
Hi shifu -

I wonder about your (and others') attribution of 'necessity' as being the 'mother' of any motivation to 'survive'. Doesn't look-or-feel that way in 'my' case.

I very much 'groove' with your 'speculation' pertaining to 'entities' changing/moving into another 'order' when it has 'fulfilled', or 'reached the end of the rope' in terms of, "being-in-itself", however. Makes 'intuitive' 'sense'.
:)

[a random hack]

It may not only be apparent order everywhere, it could also be apparent disorder or re-ordering.
other side of non-coin :)

Well, apparent impetus is there, however, one of the difficulties with evolution/naturalist theory is it has dealt with speculations, or let say logical intuitions. But the most obvious impetuous in all Beings is it grows, orders… into something that which maybe considered as a response to or a necessity to survive.

was considering 'impetus' as from POV of thus apprently affected organism. for example, as climate changes, food sources change, increase or decrease, and organism best suited to relatively changed conditions seems more likely to survive, breed.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 31 2003, 09:25 PM
It may not only be apparent order everywhere, it could also be apparent disorder or re-ordering.
other side of non-coin :)
other side of 'non-coin' :lol: :D :lol:

[shifu]

I wonder about your (and others') attribution of 'necessity' as being the 'mother' of any motivation to 'survive'. Doesn't look-or-feel that way in 'my' case.


Hello David S., I respect your view. However, it is a also a fact that we have some limitations that includes worldview-understanding of a particular term, phenomena, mystery on and on. Yes, I do agree that this limitations must not be a hindrance in arriving to particular or absolute truth (if there are any for those who deny it ) for an least common ground or understanding. Your wondering ‘bout (mine and others) attribution of 'necessity' as being the 'mother' of any motivation to 'survive is exacto mundo in view of an already existing life-entity. If I am going put this in the I-POV, It is necessary for Me to survive ( struggle, eat, build dominion etc.) because I know I have a greater purpose, thus, know-feel-speculate that there is something greater that will come out from the here and now going into the unknown-beyond. I put forward the term necessity to imply the scientific logical-speculation-intuition. Hegelian and the Marxist concept of thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis of the spiritual and material dialectics is I guess an ample example of the said idea. Amenably, there maybe another motivation to survive like for example the will.


Hi, Hack,
I hope I get you right. Honestly, I can’t conceived much about a priori apparent impetus i.e. prior to living entities. However, we know (not necessarily believes) that zero is not nothing. If equating zero as a priori, then, in-itself, was and is already an apparent impetus. And alongside in it are the necessities (whatever that is) to forgo its entitled outcome (order, disorder, re-order)

shifu

[a random hack]

Honestly, I can’t conceived much about a priori apparent impetus i.e. prior to living entities.
seems life has imputus to be changed by prevailing conditions...

[shifu]

seems life has imputus to be changed by prevailing conditions...

Hack!
Presumably, Yes!

[DavidS]

Originally posted by shifu@Nov 3 2003, 02:27 AM
If I am going put this in the I-POV, It is necessary for Me to survive ( struggle, eat, build dominion etc.) because I know I have a greater purpose, thus, know-feel-speculate that there is something greater that will come out from the here and now going into the unknown-beyond.
Strikes me that such 'knowing' may incline one to choose to 'survive' in order to further participate in the hypthesized something-greater-will-come-out-from-the-here-and-now flow-process. The same 'knowing' may also incline someone to 'leave' the local' process - as in the case of Eskimos reportedly going out into the snow fields to die when and if they reach a point where they think-n-feel that that would serve 'the greater good' of the community.

Maybe what some think-n-feel-n-so-ex·peer·ience as 'necessity' others might think-n-feel-n-so-ex·peer·ience as being a matter of personal 'choice'.

I just wanted to mention that because 'necessity' can be used as a 'supporting' argument to 'rationalize' just about any thing it seems to me. In this regard, Hitler's Germanic-lebensraum (sp?) ambitions, for instance. Then there's sex and having children which, if regarded either as 'necessities' OR as 'absolute' personal (or 'divine'!) 'rights', leads to 'gross' overhumanpopulation, which in turn makes 'economic' 'development', even at the 'expense' of environmental degradation, seem 'necessary' in 'rational' terms. I would bet that many of the politicians you speak of as cowtowing to U.S. interests think-n-feel it that it is 'economically' 'necessary'.

This bring up another subject. I wonder, given the kind of catastrophe(s) that human population expansion ultimately leads to, what your personal thoughts are on the subject of the Pope/Vatican's continued opposition to things making birth-control devices readily accessible to people in 'developing' countries, etc. (which I assume he/they think of as 'necessary' if they wish to remain 'true' to their particular brand of Jesus/God/Christianity). I would guess that the 'population explosion' in your and other 'Catholic' and Islamic' countries around the world is just as horrendous if not worse than it is in India, where I come from.

All them human bodies and minds available for things like 'economic' 'growth' and 'war-machine' 'fodder', Oh my! Strikes me that there's many thangs which can be 'blamed' for the degree of 'extreme' 'madness' (where political and economic 'expediency' RULE!) which is now epidemic the world over, not just in your country. U.S. 'interests' just stand out, it seems to me, because of the degree of their current 'prominence'. But hey, "U.S. interests" have only been doing their thang for a bit over a couple of hundred years. They're really Johnnny-come-lately's it seems to me. Vatican & Papal 'interests' have been doing there's for about two thousand!!
:(

[rich]

Excellent questions you raise here David, re; Overpopulation. How to solve that problem, probably will have moral implications, no matter what ones answer may be.

One of the biggest obstacles we have to face, is, the personal greed of some. They think that since they studied and worked hard to obtain the position and status they have, that no one has the right to ask them to share some of it. No one does have the right to ask them, but, if they have many times more than their basic needs, and upon realizing this,
they should be willing to share their overabundance of personal wealth
with those that are in need.

There are many of our corporate leaders who are philanthrophists.
For the sake of humanity, many more are needed. :)

[shifu]

Strikes me that such 'knowing' may incline one to choose to 'survive' in order to further participate in the hypthesized something-greater-will-come-out-from-the-here-and-now flow-process. The same 'knowing' may also incline someone to 'leave' the local' process - as in the case of Eskimos reportedly going out into the snow fields to die when and if they reach a point where they think-n-feel that that would serve 'the greater good' of the community.

David S., Sir, I would like to point out that in my using of the term necessity is to strongly emphasized the entities’ natural ability to survive (Mutations, Adaptation etc.). I suppose, for now I will paraphrase it to Esse = Lat., nature of being; Verb: be. Furthermore, to chose to survive requires Cogito = to think, ruminate, ponder, consider, plan. Cogitare[Verb] = to meditate. Cogitatio = thorough consideration. Cogitatus = thought. IM-POV, the first one; necessity/esse, is the natural (or could be what we call the design), while the latter is what point out as a survival; choice vis-à-vis cogito.

It is a fact that there are million ways and means to survive in the natural sphere, thus, likewise with the survival vis-à-vis cogito. What you cite as an example like the case Eskimos, IM-POV, is Cultural but is still part of the latter. In the case of Hitler, well, his was a personal claim rooted in the rotten obsession of superior race, with a taste occult. Why eliminate only the Jews BTW? Sex? IM-POV compared to needs, it is more of a necessity so that homo sapiens species will endure. I suppose this is both natural and divine right. However, in ensuring continued existence unnatural ways of controlling overpopulation have been in used by Institution leaders. In this case I acknowledge the dilemma of the term necessity. IM-POV this is now a moral/ethical question. Of whose survival which will be ensured first? In this case, choice is means for survival.


I would bet that many of the politicians you speak of as cowtowing to U.S. interests think-n-feel it that it is 'economically' 'necessary'.

How I wish it is the case Sir, and much more if it is for the greater good. But, personal interest to perpetuate in power and pocket boosting is the business of these politicians. IM-POV overpopulation is the paranoia of the developed countries. In the other thread-topic, I mentioned about some of the political and economic maneuvering of world politicians. Here in the Philippines, the common theme is Sustainable Development to ensure the stability and survival of the next generation. What a heavenly cause isn’t it? But the other side of the story is that World politicians and economist/bankers is paying my country to preserve the remaining resources…for sustainability and development. However, the question remains… sustainability and development for whom? In simple term, Developed countries are imposing the notion of overpopulation to developing countries in order to minimize the utilization of its natural resources, on which developed countries are cow towing with.


This bring up another subject. I wonder, given the kind of catastrophe(s) that human population expansion ultimately leads to, what your personal thoughts are on the subject of the Pope/Vatican's continued opposition to things making birth-control devices readily accessible to people in 'developing' countries, etc. (which I assume he/they think of as 'necessary' if they wish to remain 'true' to their particular brand of Jesus/God/Christianity). I would guess that the 'population explosion' in your and other 'Catholic' and Islamic' countries around the world is just as horrendous if not worse than it is in India, where I come from.

To some case I’m not ignoring the fact of the greater possibility of population explosion. Kidding aside, however, I will not ignore also the much greater possibility of balancing it with the natural means of eradication (death, war, natural catastrophe etc.)

The case of John Paul II’s continued opposition of unnatural birth control, IM-POV it is standpoint of an Institution Sir, not of an individual. Institution exist so that there will be order. In the question of moral issues, Institutions are guide, its up to the individual to follow it or not. My Church says that premarital Sex is morally wrong, but it doesn’t make less a human or more of a brute of I am doin it.


But hey, "U.S. interests" have only been doing their thang for a bit over a couple of hundred years. They're really Johnnny-come-lately's it seems to me. Vatican & Papal 'interests' have been doing there's for about two thousand!!

In the matters-of-time within the sphere of human history, IMO, there is no such thing as old or new comers when it comes manipulation and interest. Well, it is not only the Vatican who is solely responsible of the goodness and madness in this world. It is both the home of saints and sinners, of angels and devils, of intellectuals and madman, of devotees and fanatics. And I suppose every Institution have their share of goodness and madness in every kind. Before, the Vatican, had the power and the influence, now only have influence. Presently, Vatican have no Armada. What the Vatican had done long ago, will not just what America is doing now.

I hope that i am not being so rude...! my Apology

shifu

[DavidS]

Originally posted by shifu@Nov 5 2003, 01:25 AM
David S., Sir, I would like to point out that in my using of the term necessity is to strongly emphasized the entities’ natural ability to survive (Mutations, Adaptation etc.).
Yes, I 'get' that.
I hope that i am not being so rude...! my Apology
Apology not the least bit necessary, shifu. I found your 'points' all well taken/made. I just wanted to get my 'point' (about 'necessity'-based thinking) in as well. Thanks for your additionally 'clarifying' points. Am enjoying all the pin-ball bouncing ring-a-ding-dings. No further comments on what your wrote to boing your way.

Appreciatively, David :)

[shifu]

No further comments on what your wrote to boing your way.

David S.,
Good Sir, what I may be thinking-writing-posting here might not be all true in the end. The Vatican silenced Galileo for what He had found. In 1995, almost 500 years later, the Vatican accepted its mistake. Exchange of views and opinions is what I found here as an expression of truth without violence in thoughts and words. Honestly, it is worth exchanging thought-idea withy you, its more fruitful Sir. I hope that the above comment will not jeopardize it.


till next! ;)

shifu

[a random hack]

seems is just people playing follwers and leaders...

B)

[shifu]

Hi Hack,

Seems playing...seems not :D Respect and expression of views/truth / realities; objective/subjective without any violence in words, thoughts and intent is pleasant and good to the mind and soul. :)

Allah ekhum me Salaam! Allah's peace goes with you!
shifu

[a random hack]

Hi Hack,

Seems playing...seems not :D Respect and expression of views/truth / realities; objective/subjective without any violence in words, thoughts and intent is pleasant and good to the mind and soul. :)

Allah ekhum me Salaam! Allah's peace goes with you!
shifu

surely is! :D

and with you :)

[shifu]

surely is! :D

and with you :)

Hack, you should have say Salaam me Allah ekhum Allah's in me also goes with! :D

Till next Pal! :)

shifu

[a random hack]

surely is!

and with you

Hack, you should have say Salaam me Allah ekhum Allah's in me also goes with!

Till next Pal!



guess I would have to be 'Muslim" to know this :D

anyway, Salaam me Allah ekhum! :D

[shifu]

you don't have Hack, its a universal language of peace! and is part of the intelligent Design. :D

shifu

[sahyo]

louloudi

[rich]

shifu posted:Seems playing...seems not Respect and expression of views/truth / realities; objective/subjective without any violence in words, thoughts and intent is pleasant and good to the mind and soul.

Allah ekhum me Salaam! Allah's peace goes with you!
shifu

It reminds me of the Mass in Latin:(from memory)

`````` PRIEST: Dominous vobiscum. (The Lord be with you.)
RESPONSE: Et cum spirito sancti ``( and with thy spirit )

[a random hack]

:)

[shifu]

So, Rich you seems to have arrived at the peak of wisdom. Latin masses was halted after Vatican II Council. :)

Well, it also help me remember a favorate line that i learn when i took Latin Language 3 years ago it says: Viretas Liberabit Vos. In deed Truth shall set us free. :D

shifu

[thirst4sun]

Well, there would be no need for evolutionists if we knew the answer. The truth is different for everyone, people have to find the truth that is real to them!

[DavidS]

Leaving aside the issue of whether it qualifies as being regarded as 'intelligent' or not, here's something that 'says' something 'significant' about our/Life's 'design' (at least I think it has a good chance of being 'found' to be so by 'hearers' who taste-'groove' on a math-science 'approach' to 'truth'). The source cite is at the end of it.

:o David
=========

The Ultimate Paradigm Shift

The rapidly accelerating discoveries of Chaos are overtaking our worldview. They teach us that Newton, and indeed almost all of the pre-chaos scientists, were dead wrong in their basic view of the Universe. They thought that there was a predictable cause and effect for everything, and that everything happened according to fixed physical laws. They believed in certainties, not probabilities. Their fundamental image of the Universe was a big clock. The presence of a divine being was only necessary to make the clock and wind it up. After He created the Universe, all God had to do was sit back and watch. The laws would operate in a predictable causal fashion.

Old science actually used to think that if you only knew all of the initial conditions, how the clock worked, you could predict what would happen at any point in time. Science assumed that everything could be known and eventually predicted. The Universe was ruled by a detailed system of unchanging laws. Cosmos and causality reigned supreme. There was no room for chaos and so it was conveniently swept under the rug. The inevitable outcome of the ordered machine view was the complete winding down of the clock, the end of time in complete entropy - the second law of thermodynamics where everything tends to breakdown, to dissipate. This big picture of science naturally spawned the "God is dead" philosophies, nihilism, the life nausea of existentialism, behavioralism, communism and the like. Now with the Chaos theories this paradigm is itself dead. A whole new scientific view has been born, one much more in accord with an organic view, the common law, and philosophies of hope and spirit.

The cosmic clock image of establishment science first began to crumble at the turn of the century when physicists found that at the nuclear level the causal laws of physics didn't hold true. The behavior of the atom and individual electron could not be predicted. Still, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of quantum physics, old ideas die hard. The static civil law mind set would not die easily. Even Einstein could not believe that God would play dice with the Universe. He searched in vain for a unified field theory that would explain away the chance and unpredictability so obvious in the subatomic world. Science struggled to maintain its centuries old view. The belief in a causal cosmos was now on shaky ground because it lacked a subatomic foundation. Still it prevailed because the rest of the world of physics seemed to follow linear, orderly and predictable clock like processes. Besides no one had articulated a different view to replace it. The subatomic world was considered an insignificant anomaly, an exception that proved the rule.

Then along came the Science of Chaos in the last part of this century to show that causality did not apply everywhere else as thought. In fact close measurements revealed that the unpredictable appeared in what was previously believed to be the most ordered and predictable of systems, the swinging of a simple pendulum - the very heart of a clock. As James Gleick's book Chaos shows the brave early explorers of Chaos found that Science had been fooling itself for centuries by ignoring tiny deviations in its data and experiments. If a number was slightly off what the causal laws predicted, the pre-chaos scientists simply assumed there was an error in measurement in order to uphold the sanctity of the law itself. In order to preserve their pseudo-cosmos, scientists limited their investigation to closed and artificial systems, avoiding the turbulence of open systems like the plague.

Causality was the prime assumption behind all pre-chaos science and it never occurred to anyone to question it. This conceptual bias created a blind spot of enormous proportions. But the reality of open systems, the Chaos lurking behind all order, would not be denied. The charade of perfect order and fudged experimental data could not last forever. By the nineteen seventies it began to crumble, the conceptual blinders were falling from the eyes of more and more scientists. By the nineteen eighties the fly in the ointment, the unpredictable results in what should have been perfect predictability, could no longer be denied. The Science of Chaos was born. Our understanding of the world will never be the same.

After nearly two decades now of work by Chaoticians made up of the leading scientists and mathematicians in a wide variety of fields, the evidence is overwhelming. The world is not a gigantic clock where everything happens in an ordered and predictable manner. The real world is fundamentally disordered, free. Chaos reigns over predictability. Simple, linear systems which are causal and predictable are the exception in the Universe, not the rule. Most of the Universe works in jumps, in a non-linear fashion that can not be exactly predicted. It is infinitely complex. Freedom and free will - the Strange Attractors - prevail over rules and determinacy.

Yet Chaos is no enemy and destroyer of Cosmos, for from out of Chaos a higher order always appears, but this order comes spontaneously and unpredictably. It is "self-organized." The creation of the Universe is an ongoing process, not just a one time event at the beginning. All and everything - and everyone - is part of this creative process. Over time all systems - from molecules, to life, to galactic clusters - are continually creating new organizations and patterns from out of featurelessness and chaos. The world is not a Clock, it is a Game, a Game of Chance and Choice. In the game random processes - chance and serendipity - allow room for free will, individuality and unpredictable creativity.

The Universe is governed by laws, but the laws are of a different kind than previously thought. Like the common law system, the Laws of Wisdom are inherently flexible. They are not written in stone, they are general. They leave infinite room for creativity within certain general parameters. A few fundamental principals exist to establish the parameters, but the Law governs much more loosely than previously thought. The Laws are subject to changes and modifications over time and depend upon the particular facts. Like the common law, the Laws of Nature appear to have flexibility; many things are decided on a case by case basis. Self organization is the rule, not the exception. Everything is not pre-determined by a rigid and complex system of detailed laws which specify exactly how everything works. There is no detailed blueprint of the universe, just a general set of Laws.

In the words of physicist Paul Davies in his book The Cosmic Blueprint (1988):

"There is no detailed blueprint, only a set of laws with an inbuilt facility for making interesting things happen. The universe is free to create itself as it goes along. The general pattern of development is "predestined", but the details are not. Thus, the existence of intelligent life at some stage is inevitable; it is, so to speak, written into the laws of nature. But man as such is far from preordained."

The image of God playing dice with the Universe was threatening and fearful to the old scientists, even the great ones like Einstein, who incidentally grew up in a civil law system. But that was only because they did not understand the order lurking in Chaos, the great beauty inherent in chance. For we now know that it is only through chance that new and unpredictable relationships can be created, entities can self organize to further evolution and create entirely new symmetries and coherence. With the image of the machine clock gone, the insights of relativity can finally be appreciated. Time is not mechanical, it depends on space. Time is flexible, essentially unpredictable from moment to moment, but this does not lead us hopelessly adrift. We can still navigate from the hidden order which appears over time, the statistics from segments of time, from iteration. The order implicit in Chaos is unpredictable on a case by case basis, but still reliable and workable on the long run.

God's dice liberates us from the prison of determinism, the hopeless tedium of the cosmic clock and the inevitable death of entropy. We have instead an intelligent Universe, where ever new and evolving life forms thrive on Chaos, where negentropy creates higher order from decaying forms. The clock is not winding down as the second law of thermodynamics had thought, it is ever being created anew. God is back in the picture, not just as the creator of the machine who then left - the ghost in the machine - but as the Strange Attractor, the origin of inexplicable and unpredictable order from chance.

This is a new kind of order, a "fractal order," based on a relatively few basic structural principals from which many transitory laws follow. The Laws of Wisdom we must learn for the journey to self realization are flexible, evolving. Like the common law, they are articulated afresh moment by moment, case by case. The laws are stable, but they do not stand still. Exactly how the basic principals will apply to form governing laws all depends upon the circumstances, the consciousness involved, the entities, the case.

The free will of the individual in connection with the infinite is now primary. All is not determined, everyone has a chance to decide their own fate. The philosophic implications of Chaos are positive and encouraging. The Universe is not a clock, its a game. Enjoy it!

For this and other gloriously multi-source-linked text, go to
http://www.fractalwisdom.com/

[rich]

A great link David. Thanks for posting it.

ie; http://www.fractalwisdom.com/

Life is like a continuous movie, I wonder where I came in? :unsure:

In order to get someone's goat, I will say, hmmm.

Think you know whom I mean. :lol: ;)

No, Not you, David

[sahyo]

much
which you quote on tbv, david,
like on the linked site, and 'The Ultimate Paradigm Shift',
which is sur :think: mised as though truth,
is based on false pre :zzz: mise


:holiday:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Jan 30 2004, 04:37 PM
much
which you quote on tbv, david,
like on the linked site, and 'The Ultimate Paradigm Shift',
which is sur :think: mised as though truth,
is based on false pre :zzz: mise.
How generous of you to say 'much' instead of 'all', great 'arbiter' of what is and isn't 'false'. :lol:

P.S. A 'paradigm' is only an 'explanatory' 'model' of utilitarian value; it does not 'pretentiously' 'claim' to be or reflect the 'truth' about anything, as you do.

[sahyo]

A 'paradigm' is only an 'explanatory' 'model' of utilitarian value; it does not 'pretentiously' 'claim' to be or reflect the 'truth' about anything, as you do.

which you quoted didn't "claim"?...did you read? ;)

when ceases david thinking 'as though', so will cease thinking "reflect"

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Jan 30 2004, 02:31 PM

In order to get someone's goat, I will say, hmmm.




Richie-

:badgrin: :thumbsup: :badgrin:

he is such a jerk, isn't he?

[rich]

Insults everyone, a KNOWITALLER. Someday he may learn something, but with an attitude problem, will probably take years. <_< :duh: :think: :nono:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Jan 31 2004, 04:55 AM
which you quoted didn't "claim"?...did you read? ;)
Yes, I read. Obviously you and I interpret the same words differently - or make different 'attributions', in terms of what we consider their 'implications', to them.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Jan 31 2004, 03:50 PM
Insults everyone, a KNOWITALLER. Someday he may learn something, but with an attitude problem, will probably take years. <_<* :duh:* :think:* :nono:

a KNOWITALLER ??


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

I would say KNOWSNOTHING, given the content, or lack thereof, of his posts.

:badgrin:

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Feb 1 2004, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Feb 1 2004, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Jan 31 2004, 03:50 PM
Insults everyone, a KNOWITALLER. Someday he may learn something, but with an attitude problem, will probably take years. <_<* :duh:* :think:* :nono:

a KNOWITALLER ??


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

I would say KNOWSNOTHING, given the content, or lack thereof, of his posts.

:badgrin: [/b][/quote]
Sonrisa,

Precisely.

Oh, oh, he is likely to reply with another insult. Ay?

Hmmm. :D :nono: :unsure:

[sonrisa]

:D :lol:

[sahyo]

Oh, oh, he is likely to reply with another insult. Ay?

was "insult"?

[sonrisa]

nope, was funny!

[sahyo]

sonrisa

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 03:11 PM

You unleashed a bunch of insults instead.


expresses you imagining slayer can "insult"

can insult happen if imagining'awho' and "insult" not happening?

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jan 31 2004, 02:31 AM
A great link David. Thanks for posting it.

ie; http://www.fractalwisdom.com/

Life is like a continuous movie, I wonder where I came in? :unsure:

In order to get someone's goat, I will say, hmmm.

Think you know whom I mean. :lol: ;)

No, Not you, David
Sorry for posting the above post here.

I made a grevious error by trying to get someone's goat who does not even post,

or never posted on this thread.

asheera, sonrisa should not be held accountable for insulting slayer for I

take responsibility for starting this farkus in this thread, where t does not belong.

However, I do not take responsibility for insults made by slayer in a different

bigview forum, on another thread. :boxing: :ph34r: :knockout:

[sahyo]

:nono:

the post wasn't 'bout
"held accountable for insulting slayer"

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera+Feb 3 2004, 06:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (asheera @ Feb 3 2004, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> sonrisa

<!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 03:11 PM

You unleashed a bunch of insults instead.*


expresses you imagining slayer can "insult"

can insult happen if imagining'awho' and "insult" not happening? [/b][/quote]
asheera posted:

the post wasn't 'bout
"held accountable for insulting slayer"




O ooo oh? if not about that, then what about :blink: :huh: <_<

[sahyo]

this post richie


Originally posted by asheera+Feb 2 2004, 04:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (asheera @ Feb 2 2004, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

sonrisa

<!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 03:11 PM

You unleashed a bunch of insults instead.*


expresses you imagining slayer can "insult"

can insult happen if imagining'awho' and "insult" not happening?


[/b][/quote]

[rich]

Oh, ok, i guess. You win.

:D 1010-866= 144 That's gross. B)

[slayer]

Originally posted by Craig@Jun 27 2003, 11:45 PM
One problem is the necessity by logic for a creator.

For instance logically speaking which is more real the thought of earth or the earth itself? The thought of earth is more real and must by necessity preceed the earth itself because without the thought you do not have the object.

Like wise you can have the thought of something but the object may not exist which goes to show that the thought of something is more real than the object itself.

So keeping this in mind where did this universe come from since you must have a thought of it.

Although I think Thomas has done a good job of arguing against what Craig has here (above), I think there are some other things worth bringing out.

I think it's clear that Craig is alluding to the creator of the universe. We can think of it also as the creator of matter (the first matter from which the universe was shaped). We believe that something cannot come from nothing, hence, it seems, we need to posit a creator of matter.

So, asks Craig, since there is an earth, logically speaking, how did it come to be?

There are two assumptions Craig is making. One, that the earth has a design. Of course there are two senses of "design" we should distinguish. Let's say I accidently spill some milk on the floor and the spill has some shape or form. We can speak of the design of the milk on the floor. This isn't what Craig intends. Two, an architect designs a house. We can speak of the design of the house. This is what Craig intends.

I think we can see that he's already begging the question by attributing this type of design to the earth. But I want to continue to unpack his question.

His assumption comes out quite clearly in the way he's formulated his question: "where did the universe come from since you must have a thought of it[?]"

Well, yes, if the earth (or the universe) was designed (in the sense Craig wants), then logically it follows that some entity designed it. Of course this doesn't show that the earth or the universe were indeed designed (in the sense Craig wants).

Craig's question about what logically comes first, the object or the thought of the object, has two answers. Thomas is right to point out that there a great many cases in which it's the object that comes first. I mean, how many times had any of us thought of a rubic's cube before we saw one? But Craig is concerned with a special type of object, the kind which are newly created. Hence, he is asking which logically precedes which, the idea of the object or the object. If you keep in mind that the kind of object he has in mind is the universe or the earth, then we see that he's talking about the special circumstance of creating a new object. 'New' in the sense of qualitatively different, not just quantitatively different.

In closing, I'd like to say that Craig's question is the traditional argument from design. It has been kicked around for thousands of years in philosophy, but it has serious problems, some of the same problems which I've point out for Craig: he assumes a certain kind of design.

On last bit. Even if we grant Craig that logic demands a designer; logic also makes the thought of a designer who designed himself (Craig's God who springs from nothing) illogical.

logic is an indian giver,

slayer

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 3 2004, 12:57 AM
logic is an indian giver
Elegantly cogent post, slayer (more like a 'target'-'parameterizing', knife-throwing or sixgun-shooting :twoguns: 'circus'-man in this 'post-incarnation', how does the stage-role feel? :lol: ). The 'read' experience as delightful as of a candle flame.

Besides that, today's Thought For The Day from 'my friend John' being in 'synchrony' with the above statement, I also wanted to share the following piece which I think is also 'brilliant' commentary on the 'logic' thang.

:) David

========
Subj: Thought for the Day 1/3/04
Date: 2/3/2004 8:58:23 AM US Mountain Standard Time
From: eman8tions@yahoo.com (John MacEnulty)
Reply-to: eman8tions-owner@yahoogroups.com
To: eman8tions@yahoogroups.com

Making sense is the great thing that our minds do. Somehow we figure
things out. We use logic:

We eat bread.
We are out of bread.
Therefore, we need bread.

The store has bread.
We need bread.
Therefore, go to the store and get bread.

This is pure logic and it is what we do all day long, realize and
act, realize and act.

Add fear to your syllogism. You are afraid of the store, don't want
to go anywhere near one. The whole logic behind going to the store to
get the bread becomes impossible to think.

This is the problem of the human condition in a nutshell. And we are
all in one nutshell or another. Fear stops our logic, makes a
sensible thing to do literally inconceivable.

Virtually every problem we experience has a solution if we are able
to think clearly about it. But fear does amazing things to our logic.
Fear even makes us think that logic doesn't even work. Obviously it
doesn't because logic would have us do things we are afraid to do!

Facing our fears is the biggest challenge to consciousness. Fears
range from innocuous little eccentricities to full blown obsessive
insanity, from simple things like a fear of the dark to a gridlock of
anxiety that can paralyze us or shape bizarre attitudes.

It's the same answer though. Let go. Stop the thinking. Let
everything flow freely through you. Truth emerges in meditation, in
the stillness. Let that happen and begin to think more and more
clearly.

When we finally let go we can experience the logic of our own minds
and we can go beyond into the deeper sense of the divine in all
things. To transcend logic we have to achieve it first.
=========

Emanations
Copyright © 2004 by John MacEnulty
2/3/2004, St. Louis, MO

To receive Emanations daily, please sign on to Yahoo at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eman8tions/
and request Emanations Thought for the Day. Please sign on to accept "special notices". There's no cost for a Yahoo account, of course.

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.
If you are receiving Emanations as a forward
please feel free to subscribe for yourself.

Web site address: http://Emanations.net/

[slayer]

Disclaimer!!!

I'm not sure what your post means, David, regarding my attempt at humor with "logic is an indian giver."

I tend to close many of my posts with something silly or sarcastic. I'm not making claims in my closing salutation. So when Fu quoted my "peas getting all mushy in your mouth" as if I was making a claim, I ignored it because I figured only he would think that I was indeed making a claim.

My "logic is an indian giver" was only meant to comment on how Craig had relied on logic to seemingly get him his Creator, but then this logic would have to be applied to the concept of a Creator who created himself, making this Creator an illogical entity.

What I didn't imply was that logic is contradictory.

Me --> slayer
Me,

slayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera+Feb 2 2004, 06:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (asheera @ Feb 2 2004, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>sonrisa

<!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 03:11 PM

You unleashed a bunch of insults instead.*


expresses you imagining slayer can "insult"


can insult happen if imagining'awho and "insult" not happening?[/b][/quote]


:badgrin:

u lurking in on my game, asheera?

:dancing: :dance: :applause:

[sahyo]

"lurking"... :goodlaugh:


:applause: :dance:


:dancing:

[sonrisa]

yep, "lurking"

:dancing: :dance: :dancing:

:badgrin:

[sahyo]

:D :scatter: :dance: :scatter: :D

[sonrisa]

:gone: :rofl: :gone:

[sahyo]

:D

[sonrisa]

:D :goodlaugh:

[sahyo]

:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by slayer@Feb 3 2004, 09:19 PM
What I didn't imply was that logic is contradictory.
That wasn't/isn't how I 'took' your statement (about 'logic' being an 'indian giver') either, rather I was 'resonating' because I saw it (in the context of your 'illustrative' discussion) as being like a double-edged sword which often cuts in both directions on various 'issues', thus, in effect, being a kind of 'give with one hand and take away with the other' agent, or 'indian giver'. :)

In case you are wondering, the quote of the John MacEnulty stuff, was simply 'an additional' discourse on 'logic', not meant as a 'comment' on yours, which stands on its own quite elegantly I think.