What Is The Usa

[vicente]

In America's darkest hour, as right-wing christians promote their hate and intolerance of anything not to their liking, ie., Pat Robertson's 700 Club praying for the death of Supreme Court Justices,...perhaps it would be prudent to look at what some real American's thought of Christianity.

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion". President John Adams, 1797

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation
that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" John Adams

Christianity is the cause of "pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison

Ethan Allen stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that "God" referred to the God of Nature and not to the God of the Bible.


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson


"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal


"All this [Paul's writing] is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told." Thomas Paine


"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." Thomas Paine


The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason. George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian. He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion and
when his wife, Martha, did he waited for her outside the sanctuary. Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His
representative.

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian
scheme of salvation and the human origin of the
scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with
advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I
shall ever change them."
--Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after
Willie Lincoln's death

"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on
common sense." Thomas Paine

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the
reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I
am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me
one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly
speaking, whether I am one or not."
-- preface, Reason the Only Oracle of Man by Ethan
Allen

"What you should say to outsiders that a Christian has
neither more nor less rights in our Association than
an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for
people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall
not stand upon it."
-- Susan B. Anthony: A Biography, by Kathleen Barry,
New York University Press, 1988, p.310

"All religions united with government are more or less
inimical to liberty. All, separated from government,
are compatible with liberty."
--Henry Clay: Address, U. S. House of Representatives, March 24, 1818

"He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes
to pray for my conversion, but never had the
satisfaction of believing that his prayers were
heard."
-- from B Franklin's Autobiography

"In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United
States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this
property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I
would suggest the taxation of all property equally."
-- Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), 18th U.S. President

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church andstate
forever separate."
-- Ulysses S. Grant, Address to the Army of the
Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875

"The day will come when the mystical generation of
Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln

"In no instance have ... the churches been guardians
of the liberties of people."
-- James Madison

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXCERCISE THEREOF..."
--The First Amendment of the Constitution of the
United State of America

[vicente]

The Origin and Meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance
By Ken Lynn (Commissioned Officer in the US Air Force)

Each day in America's public and parochial schools, teachers and over 60 million students recite the Pledge of Allegiance along with thousands of citizens at meetings of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Legion and many other fraternal and patriotic organizations. Most do so having no idea of the origin or meaning of the Pledge. The United States is one of the few nations in the world to have a pledge to its flag. How has this Pledge of Allegiance to our flag usurped the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of American patriotism?

The Pledge was first published in the September 8, 1892 issue of Youth's Companion, a weekly family magazine published by the Perry Mason Company in Boston. With a circulation of over 500,000, the Companion had the largest national circulation of its day. Daniel Ford owned Youth's Companion, and his nephew-by-marriage, James B. Upham, was a key staff member and a junior partner in the Perry Mason Company.

In 1891, Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister, joined the staff of Youth's Companion. Bellamy was first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the widely circulated socialist utopian novel Looking Backward 2000-1887. Written in 1888, this book, which sold over a million copies in its first few years, described a future America completely socialized with all economic activity carefully planned. As Vice-President of the Society of Christian Socialists, Francis Bellamy lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism, giving a speech entitled "Jesus the Socialist," and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his Boston church because of his socialist views and activities.

Seeking ideas to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America on Columbus Day, 1892, President Benjamin Harrison had initiated a call for the development of a special patriotic school program to highlight the event. Bellamy and Upham were able to line up the National Education Association to support Youth's Companion as a sponsor of the observance, and arranged for President Harrison and Congress to announce a national proclamation which centered around an American flag ceremony and (then unwritten) flag salute.

Bellamy, under the supervision of Upham, then authored the program for the celebration, including the flag salute or Pledge of Allegiance. His original version was, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Bellamy considered putting the words "fraternity" and "equality" into the Pledge, but decided against it as equality for blacks and women was a controversial rather than patriotic issue of the time. Originally intended for recitation on that single day, the Pledge was an instant success and was quickly adopted by the nation.

The Pledge remained in its original version until 1923 when the words "my flag" were changed to "the Flag of the United States" at the urging of the American Legion's National Flag Conference. The following year the Pledge was altered again with the addition "of America" after "Flag of the United States." This version of the Pledge was codified into Public Law in 1942.

The Pledge remained unchanged until the paranoia and hysteria stemming from Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy's "red scare" hearings swept the nation in the 1950s. Fearing Communism might cross the Atlantic and engulf America, a feeling arose in Congress and throughout parts of the nation that by acknowledging "God" as our national symbol, America would be protected from the Communist menace. Scoring a religious Trifecta of sorts, the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956. Collectively these measures form an interesting trilogy of laws for a country founded on a secular Constitution and a belief in the separation of church and state.

Since 1954, the now religious Pledge has read: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In an attempt to mitigate the effects of this controversial change, some religionists claim that the words "under God" merely declare the right of the people to express their belief in a God, not that the nation itself was founded on a belief in a God. Unfortunately, a look at the historical record indicates the latter is exactly what Congress intended when it inserted "under God" into the Pledge.

The resolution to change the Pledge was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of Congress. Three proposals were considered:

one Nation, under God
one Nation under God
one Nation indivisible under God
The Library of Congress reported the following recommendation:

". . . Under the generally accepted rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.' Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors . . ."

The Judiciary Committee and the House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for this Congress to officially acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

When we pledge allegiance, what are we doing? According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, allegiance is defined as: "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives." Although the flag represents the embodiment of our national conscience and is easily the most recognized symbol of our nation, one that I proudly support and defend daily as a member of our nation's Armed Forces, I find it curious that a "religious" Pledge of Allegiance to our flag rather than a Pledge of Allegiance to our secular Constitution has become the institutionalized form of patriotism in our country.

Members of the military are required to swear or affirm their support and defense of the Constitution of the United States. I have gladly "pledged my allegiance" by making this affirmation, and I, like many other atheists in foxholes, would give my life if necessary to defend our Constitution and our great democratic way of life.

[Ronagon]

Please see my response under the topic string "What is a conservative", to see my perspective on this topic...

[vicente]

Ronagon,...instead of ethical liberals and conservatives,...why not a simple liberal and conservative definition.

My dictionaries define conservatives as those who favor traditional views and values (a new tradition such as defined through christian reconstructionists); and tending to oppose change. Or those restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

I would have thought that to any reasonable-rational person, the word conservative would be a most loathed and detestible word in the english language. Of course, with such oddity's as the popularity of anti-American, rightwing media, like the Fox, MSNBC, etc news channels, perhaps there just are not many reasonal-rational people left in America.

In any event, even if one was to subtract the hateful, christian rightwing saturation of todays conservatives, it still would not be close to the progessive, non-christian, neutral agenda the Founding Fathers of the US espoused.

vicente
:)

[Ronagon]

Vincente,

Just a thought, but you might actually consider reexamining your premises, and reconsider what "conservative" or "liberal" actually can mean.

I think you'll find that ethical people choose one definition of just about everything, while unethical people choose a radically different definition of those exact same things.

If you don't hone your philosophical detection skills, you're going to be party to destroying a lot of true and important good in the world, in your quest to rightfully vanquish evil.

[Ronagon]

My point is that evil people are very good at infiltrating all organizations, and smearing the connotations of their name... it takes a keen system of philosophical detection to pick them up.

[vicente]

Yes, I would agree,...the evil in people seeks to sustain itself in all types of organizations today,...and this phenonomen appears to be getting worse.

Through the 80's and 90's, christian hate really gathered momentum in America,...most obvious is the sharp decline in consideration, courtesy and respect for America and its Constitution,...and increase in road rage, hate of liberals, people with violent dog breeds,...and now, more recently, the opposition is beginning to fight back, thus perpetuating the diatribe.

The thing is though, if the Rightwing can manipulate people so easily with christian conservative hate, then I would wonder if the reverse is true? Could a Progessive-wing alter the "god bless America, let's force christianity upon the World groupthink", and make peace and love the priority?

The way things are going, America is creating alot of problems for itself. For example, have you heard the recent story about the US dropping napalm on Iraqi's?

from August 11, 2003:

No,...America did not drop the horrible petro/polystyrene napalm on thousands of Iraqs in March and April,...the Pentagon said so.

In fact, even though just a few Country's, like America and Israel, didn't sign the 1980's UN ban on napalm, we are told we do not use napalm any more.

So what were those hundreds of napalm bombs US pilots admitted were dropped on Iraq that caused massive fireballs which horribly sent thousands to death? Well, it's called a firebomb. Yes, its still a petro/polystyrene incendiary agent that sticks to skin as it burns, the Pentagon just don't call it napalm any more,...so it's not napalm. In fact, the Pentagon said if the reporters would have asked if they used firebombs, they would have said yes.

America, America,...you have set yourself up for many years of retaliation for your crimes against humanity. Your children, and your childrens children very well may be paying a substantial price for George Bush's hateful, illegal, immoral, unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

con·ser·va·tive adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
5. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement

Well Ronagon,...from my understanding, dictionaries are updated quite often. I'm not sure where the "ethical people" you speak of get their definitions from,...for me, I still use a dictionary.

As for evil,...my quest is certainly not to vanquish it,...but instead to show the false as the false. Besides, I could not vanquish evil if I tried. One could say that the problem is that the worlds evil doers think they are doing good,...like George Bush, Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay, etc.

Perhaps next you should define ethical,...with some example of ethical people. Or, what about the word morals?

Morality,...conforming to the rules of "right-conduct".

Osho said:
"Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. Morality is nothing but a deep suppression. We can not do anything while asleep,...we can only suppress.
Through morality we become false,...we will not be a person, but simply a "persona" - just a pseudo entity.
Only a dishonest person clings to morality.
A moral person is concerned with ideals - how we should be, what we should be, how to be convenient to society,...and thus inconvenient to ourself.
The preachers have convinced the whole world that "we are sinners". This is good for them, because unless we are convinced, their profession cannot continue. Religion is built on us being sinners, on our inferiority complex,...they have created an inferior humanity.

Love is not concerned with our so-called morals, our social formalities, etc. Love is neither concerned with immorality, it makes no difference between a thief and a saint. Immorality comes from the disturbed mind of morality. Love is amoral.
Morality and concepts concerning moral behavior are irrelevant for love.

Morality is basically condemning. We are never the ideal so we are condemned. Every morality is guilt-creating. Love does not condemn.

Of necessity, every morality creates hypocracy. Hypocracy will remain with morality,...it is part of it - like a shadow. This will look paradoxical because moralists are the men who condemn hypocracy the most, and yet they are the creators of it.
Hypocracy cannot disappear from the earth unless morality disappears. They exist together as two sides of the same coin. Morality gives us the ideal and we are not the idea; that is why the ideal is given to us. Then we start feeling that we are wrong, and that this wrongness is natural, it is given to us, we are born with it, born with sin. We cannot transform it, only suppress it,...that is easy.

But what can we do. We can create a false face; we can pretend to be something we are not. This saves us; allows religion to save us. Then we can move more easily in society - more conveniently.
Inwardly we have to suppress the real because the unreal can only be imposed only if the real is suppressed. So our reality goes on moving downward into the unconscious and our unreality becomes our conscious. Our unreal part becomes more dominant and the real recedes back.

We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient. Where everyone is false, the real is not going to be convenient. And thus, in the vicious cycle, we train our children to be false".

Vicente
:)

[a random hack]

Our unreal part becomes more dominant and the real recedes back.



Until we meet the real, meet in the sense of from outside. If unreality can be imposed from outside, can't reality?
Amazing how few people will smile at me passing in the street, or even make eye contact. Also amazed, after I became aware of this, how many people will look and smile. :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 13 2003, 06:36 PM
Amazing how few people will smile at me passing in the street, or even make eye contact. Also amazed, after I became aware of this, how many people will look and smile. :)
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 13 2003, 12:51 AM
con·ser·va·tive adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
5. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement

Well Ronagon,...from my understanding, dictionaries are updated quite often. I'm not sure where the "ethical people" you speak of get their definitions from,...for me, I still use a dictionary.

As for evil,...my quest is certainly not to vanquish it,...but instead to show the false as the false...
Hi vicente -

Just to let you know I find the similarity between the way you (try to) use - or abuse, as the case may be, depending on the value-scheme of the one making the assessment - what's in "The Dictionary" and the way many people use - or abuse, as the case may be, depending on the value-scheme of the one making the assessment - what's in 'The Bible" quite striking.

Maybe the lens I'm peeering through is all messed up, but it 'looks' to me like no one in his or her 'right' mind could/would 'believe' that what's in The Bible is the "whole" 'truth' AND "nothing but" the 'truth'. Even so, my guess is that you would agree with this, however.

One the other hand, I get the distinct impression that you think that The Dictionary contains, or at least refers to, "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" pertaining to matters you feel passionately about.

You can imagine what 'opinion' this 'tempts' me to 'form' in relation to you. Please tell-n-show me I am 'wrong' in this regard. It's NOT a pretty picture to look at.

Hey, Ronagon, to expand on your thesis, maybe there are also 'good' Dictionary thumpers and 'evil' Dictionary thumpers, Bible thumpers, etc. etc, etc.? Seems like what you said about 'liberals' and 'conservatives' has an endless number of applications.

- David

[vicente]

DavidS, I am certainly not above skewing an example to clarify a point,...I'm not much into the balanced reporting method that for every so-called negative thing there should be a positive.

However, the definition I quoted is, word for word, out of a dictionary. I personally attempt to use a dictionary definition wherever I can, so that, if anyone wishes to understand what I'm pointing to, they can simply look it up,...which is especially a good idea on the internet, as it is an international forum,...for what words point to, often change from community to community,...ie., in Montana, gay still suggests gaiety, but might be offense to a Houston homophobic.

Today, the word conservative has a powerful groupthink behind it,...yet, no matter how one wishes to describe it, it signifies a people or group devoid of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of humankind. In fact, in every instance I've witnessed, conservative is a synonym for anti-American.

Yes, it is true that the Bible was humanly, not divinely, fabricated, especially the New Testament,...this can be proved in any court of law,...however, just like it took 45 years for the illegal government endorcement of a monotheistic religion, that is, 'in god we trust', to reach a court of law, it is unlikely that the Bible will be challeged anytime soon,...but that does not make it any less discordant to humanity.

If one’s roots, or foundation, is permeated in falsity, then one’s life will be equally as false. For truth is not an invention; it is not a consensus reality born from the fixation with self-authenticating Holy Books devised by our flat-earth ancestors, whom it is said, did not assimulate in their whole lifetime, what we can absorb in a single weekend . Truth can only be uncovered; as like the gnostic writing of Thomas, who said, "when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments [beliefs] and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, only then will you not be afraid". In other words, religion and its theo-beliefs is a wall, not a bridge, to gnowing the Source of us.

As for the "truth" of the dictionary,...it contains no truth that I've seen,...it is merely a relative, objective, guide used for communication.

The term conservative, as per its first, thus most strongly held definition, suggests one, or a group, who clings to tradition for their identity. In America, this tradition, by consensus of the conservatives themselves, is the 1950's, the McCarthy Era, government endorcement of their monotheistic religion, etc. Which is not the tradition of America's Founding Fathers, who not only were nearly all non-Christians, but despised Christianity and there hateful, proconflict agenda.

If one would look at the Constitution and Federalist papers as a whole, the first part of the 1st Amendment suggest freedom FROM religion was their main motive.

:)

[a random hack]

Yes, it is true that the Bible was humanly, not divinely, fabricated, especially the New Testament
What's the difference between humanity and divinity?

[vicente]

divinity, adj.,
1. Having the nature of or being a deity.
2. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity
3. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
4. Superhuman; The godhead; God.

humanity, n.,
1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
2. The condition or quality of being human.
3. The quality of being humane; benevolence.
4. A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.

What appears missing here is that divinty is a contruct of humanity's desire to make the unknown palatable.

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 14 2003, 09:07 PM
What appears missing here is that divinity is a contruct of humanity's desire to make the unknown palatable.
Different things 'appear' to be 'missing' (in this or that 'rendition' of the 'truth') to different people, as in this case, to you hear. It is well and good that it is so, IMO.

Ronagon shared certain things which he thought 'appeared' to be 'missing' from your conservative-vs-liberal 'picture'. (At least that is what I thought he did.)

You 'boxed' the 'missing stuff' he picture-presented right OUT of the conversation - opportunistically insisting that only the dictionary definition was relevant to exploring and evaluating the 'truth' pertaining to the matter.

I also 'see' that you quite freely 'box' things you personally want and would like to be part of agreed-upon truth 'in'to the picture when and wherever that suits your axe-grinding schtick.

That kind of approach seems to be considered 'fair play' and even be evaluated as 'working well' in venues such as the FOX channel.

Just want you to know that, in 'my' idiosyncratic(?) case, such blatant personal-and/or-group-'attitude'-n-'position'-promoting tactics have the effect of my 'seeing' the tactician involved's win-by-any-means 'infantilism' -- analogically, his/her dirty 'underpants'. As you might imagine, because I'm sure you've many times had the same 'relativistic' perception from your POV, that not's exactly a 'delightful' table to be dream-sat at.

One man's 'dirt' is another man's 'soap', however. Ain't dreamin' wonderful!

:) David

[vicente]

DavidS says, "You 'boxed' the 'missing stuff' he picture-presented right OUT of the conversation".

Well, I must be mistaken then,...conservatives must actually be progessive folks merely trying to unhold the Constitution and promote liberty for all. Must be my imagination that conservatives are actively advocating a Christian World Order,...or that George HW Bush said on August 27, 1987 that "I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God".

Yes, must be my mistake when I heard the following words come out of Pat Robertsons mouth:
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) however are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation." Pat Robertson

No,...I should not interpret conservatives as hateful,...that would be "infantilism" on my part.

When conservative sweetheart Ann Coulter commented following 9/11 that "the solution to Islam was for the United States to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity", I really should have joined the groupthink and cheered that idea on. After all, we never did anything to those Saudi's and Egyptians for them to that to us.

It does not matter that George Bush said on April 2, 2003 that "I believe I was called by God to lead the nation at this time". Although for those who believe in this Christian God, such words are probably comforting,...but for an American, the one's who swore to defend the Constitution, these words are most disturbing.
http://skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm

Of course, as I said many times, there is a way for Christians to prove their faith-based righteousness, by accepting Jesus' own litmus test for determining the true christian faithful, as published in the canonized text,...Mark 16:16-18. A true Christian, "the man who accepts baptism,...will be able to drink deadly poison without harm".

Perhaps George Bush, Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay, Jerry Farwell, John Ashcroft, etc., could set an example by being the first to prove their faith and honesty. After all, 1 Thess 5:21 says "prove all things".

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes...s/bushframe.htm (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bushframe.htm)

Vicente
:)

[sonrisa]

Amazing how few people will smile at me passing in the street, or even make eye contact. Also amazed, after I became aware of this, how many people will look and smile. :)[/QUOTE]


Come to Cincy, Random- we not only smile & make eye conract on the street we even say "hey" to each other. :)

Or better yet, trying saying "hey" (well, make that "g'day") to the passerbys in Brisbane. "Southern" isn't just a place, it's also a state of mind.... :) :)

and Random, of everybody posting on this board, I think you are the most Southernly (is that a word?) located of us all! :D

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 16 2003, 01:42 PM

It does not matter that George Bush said on April 2, 2003 that "I believe I was called by God to lead the nation at this time".
mmmm, sounds like meglamania to me...

As for dubya & goons proving their "honesty, or what passes for it, I'd say their noses are somewhere out around Uranus by now.....

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 15 2003, 11:42 PM
Well, I must be mistaken then,...conservatives must actually be progessive folks merely trying to unhold the Constitution and promote liberty for all. Must be my imagination that conservatives are actively advocating a Christian World Order,...or that George HW Bush said on August 27, 1987 that "I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God".
There you go again, argumentatively refractive-lens-slanting the spectrum of 'truth' to 'support' your personal crusade to 'vilify' entire categories/groups of people.

My point was that, as ronagon pointed out, not ALL 'conservatives' fit under the 'umbrella' of your diatribes. What you are doing in relation to 'Conservatives' and 'Christians' is the same kind of thing that many do in relation to 'blacks', 'liberals', 'women', 'men', whatever/whichever 'group' they are pre·judiced against. You pick out certain people-'examples' with reprehensible characteristics and behavioral records and 'stereotype'-tar a whole group of people with that brush - and, in so doing, essence·ially, reduce your 'self' to hate- and prejudice- mongering.

This is a flawed, "My personal 'truth-perspective' and 'values' are soooo 'good', and those of others are soooo 'bad', it 'justifies' my resorting to 'smearing' whole groups of people to incite listeners to be 'against' what I am 'against' and 'for' what I am 'for'," TACTIC IMO.

IMO, and I stress that it is just an opinion based on my personal truth-perspective and derivative values, is that your tactics, or 'manners', in regards making your 'points' fall into the following 'general classification' by Hawkins:

"If we examine much of what the world traditionally calls evil, what we discover is not evil, which is an abstraction, epithet, and label; instead we see behaviors that could be described as primitive, infantile, egotistical, narcissistic, selfish, and ignorant, complicated by the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, and paranoia in order to justify hatred."

IOW, you come across (to me, that is) as being no 'better' than Bush et al., and in certain ways as 'worse'. Been there, done that myself in the past; still have to 'watch out' that I don't Quixotically charge into such kind of 'pit' out of 'righteous' indignation/enthusiasm.

- David

[rich]

David,
Good evaluation of vicente. ;)

[sahyo]

perhaps looking which thinks"evaluation", richie

[vicente]

If DavidS' point is that " not ALL 'conservatives' fit under the 'umbrella' of your [in your point of view]diatribes", ...then perhaps those conservatives should either cease calling themselves conservatives, specifically, a political conservative, or the english language should be revamped to define conservatives with your personal idea of what consevative means.

DavidS, in your attacks, what echoes from the allegations, is that since you think "My personal 'truth-perspective' and 'values' are soooo 'good', and those of others are soooo 'bad'",...that you conceal the possibility that others may not be like that, which is to say, just maybe, some others don't look at "their truth" as the "the truth", as you do, and instead discuss what is true, regardless of self-perspective, and which has nothing to do with their opinions.

Neither personally, nor from the perspective of what is true, I have no quarrel with Hawkins saying:
"what we discover is not evil, which is an abstraction, epithet, and label; instead we see behaviors that could be described as primitive, infantile, egotistical, narcissistic, selfish, and ignorant, complicated by the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, and paranoia in order to justify hatred."

I say the same,...Christian Conservatives are not evil, that is, evil defined as christians define it; they are however, anti-Americans,...media-ted into believing they are patriotic, as that Alabama Judge and his refusal to remove the Commandments of his monotheistic religion from a public building. Perhaps you misinterpreted my use of the word evil, that is, if I've used it. It is their hate, ignorance and intolerance of anything not Christian which is the real enemy of America.

My question is, why attack me with your nonsense? Why not attack Hawkins. You haven't been where I been. You still cling to your beliefs for your identity,...I either got over mine, or am at least aware of their parasitic nature, and the food they seek to sustain themselfs.

As for your upsettedness over my previous comments of Hawkins,...he may very well be a humanitarian of sorts with a few cleavor ideas, but his foundation, that from which he pivots upon in sharing his views, is indisputably flawed. You will probably rush to judgement on my comment, but you fail to realize that I don't spew comments irrationally.

I think you're just upset because I don't believe in your god, or your other beliefs. However, I do understand you don't believe the definition of belief is the unquestioning acceptance of something in the absence of reason,...but until that word gets redefined also, I'll have to stick with the current definition.

To conclude,...why are you here anyway? You seem to have no interests in Buddhism, quantum mechanics, or spirituality.

vicente
:)

[zygoat]

vicente,
why are YOU here?all I see is one-sidedness,that is not a buddhist quality is it?it definitely is not spiritual!!:(

[vicente]

zygoat, I thought you said you're a homophobic catholic who believes what your priest tells you,...what would you know of Buddhism? As for Spirituality, catholicism is irrefutably devoid of any spirituality, for as we know, it is a dogma advocating submission, meekness and anticipatory rewards for obedience, thus does not allow any form of direct experience.

And quantum mechanics?,...well, for a believer such as yourself, , what's the point in science? Why try to reason with you that the Earth, relatively speaking, is actually older than 7 thousand years.

However,...if you'd like a few pointers on Buddhism:

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
http://buddhism.koolhost.com/buddhaongod.htm
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/budd-christ.htm
http://www.samye.u-net.com/kagyu.htm
http://sangha.net/messengers/buddha.htm#IMAGES

[a random hack]

and Random, of everybody posting on this board, I think you are the most Southernly (is that a word?) located of us all!

Well golly-dang, that's right down-home neighbourly of yu!! :D

If DavidS' point is that " not ALL 'conservatives' fit under the 'umbrella' of your [in your point of view]diatribes", ...then perhaps those conservatives should either cease calling themselves conservatives, specifically, a political conservative, or the english language should be revamped to define conservatives with your personal idea of what consevative means.

When is a conservative not a conservative?

spew comments irrationally.

From a silent point of view, all comments are irrational spew.
(including this ;) )

[vicente]

A [political] conservative is not a [political] conservative when they let go of the desire to cling to McCarthy traditionalism and their resistance to change.

A [christian] conservative is not a [christian] conservative when they let go of the desire to cling to the lies of the Bible and their resistance to change.

But then, you have a dictionary Hack,...join the human race, look it up what the consensus definition of a conservative is. For example:

conservative adj
1: resistant to change
2: opposed to liberal reforms
3: unimaginatively conventional
4. n. a person who has conservative ideas or opinions

[sahyo]

But then, you have a dictionary Hack,...join the human race


:o :blink:

[sahyo]

srnghegstfey
eclojehthjerbgpuhjevx

[rich]

:unsure: srnghegstfey
eclojehthjerbgpuhjevx
:blink:

going bananas around here trying to decipher the code.:wacko:

[fu*]

Hey David

"My point was that, as ronagon pointed out, not ALL 'conservatives' fit under the 'umbrella' of your diatribes. What you are doing in relation to 'Conservatives' and 'Christians' is the same kind of thing that many do in relation to 'blacks', 'liberals', 'women', 'men', whatever/whichever 'group' they are pre·judiced against. You pick out certain people-'examples' with reprehensible characteristics and behavioral records and 'stereotype'-tar a whole group of people with that brush - and, in so doing, essence·ially, reduce your 'self' to hate- and prejudice- mongering."


Judgments all.

David-s feeling enjoyment in life.
Judging thru the back door by saying dont judge.

You see up, and down? Right, and wrong? How about rich or poor?

I know someone who would appreciate you giving everything you have.

Money where mouth is?

Give up all
life without goal
easy to post
a bit harder to do/live.

You not seeing Vincente, but what is reprehensible in 'you' as Vincente.

This "dance" has been done. nothing new.

Tell me you are enlightened david, and I may listen a little while longer.

Otherwise... you go dance...someone else is leading..wether you know it or not.

[rich]

in this thread, fu*/asheera, opening door very wide, inviting David S
in, for further discussion. :D ;)

[a random hack]

But then, you have a dictionary Hack,...join the human race, look it up what the consensus definition of a conservative is. For example:

conservative adj
1: resistant to change
2: opposed to liberal reforms
3: unimaginatively conventional
4. n. a person who has conservative ideas or opinions


Hmm, no thanks, kinda enjoying life as non-dictonary, non-human for a while. Anyway, sounds a little conservative to me :D (consensus? :blink: )

You not seeing Vincente, but what is reprehensible in 'you' as Vincente.


ah huh. I can't help but agreee we each got part of the picture, that is true. :)

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack+Aug 21 2003, 10:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (a random hack @ Aug 21 2003, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But then, you have a dictionary Hack,...join the human race, look it up what the consensus definition of a conservative is. For example:

conservative adj
1: resistant to change
2: opposed to liberal reforms
3: unimaginatively conventional
4. n. a person who has conservative ideas or opinions


Hmm, no thanks, kinda enjoying life as non-dictonary, non-human for a while. Anyway, sounds a little conservative to me :D (consensus? :blink: )

You not seeing Vincente, but what is reprehensible in 'you' as Vincente.


ah huh. I can't help but agreee we each got part of the picture, that is true. :) [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin--a random hack@Aug 21 2003, 10:06 AM
But then, you have a dictionary Hack,...join the human race, look it up what the consensus definition of a conservative is. For example:

conservative adj
1: resistant to change
2: opposed to liberal reforms
3: unimaginatively conventional
4. n. a person who has conservative ideas or opinions


Hmm, no thanks, kinda enjoying life as non-dictonary, non-human for a while. Anyway, sounds a little conservative to me :D (consensus? :blink: )

You not seeing Vincente, but what is reprehensible in 'you' as Vincente.


ah huh. I can't help but agreee we each got part of the picture, that is true. :)[/quote]
Random Hack posted :
ah huh. I can't help but agreee we each got part of the picture, that is true.


I do not see any picture hack. What do you mean?
Please be specific. :o :unsure:

[DavidS]

Judgments all.
Yes, fu*, I made and shared a bunch of assessments, meaningful from 'my' 'point' of 'view'.

Judging thru the back door by saying dont judge.
Dang, and I thought I was putting everything I think-n-feel on the table, right up front!

You see up, and down? Right, and wrong? How about rich or poor?
I 'see' - though how much and how well is certainly debatable.

I know someone who would appreciate you giving everything you have.
I don't 'believe' such kind of 'giving' is 'good' (in terms of having a creatively 'benefical' effect) for either the 'giver' or the 'recipient'.

Money where mouth is?
In the case of a medium such as this, what my 'mouth 'says' (in words) is my 'money'.

Give up all
life without goal
easy to post
a bit harder to do/live.
Not mindlessfrabulesqueing-'easy' to post the way I do. NOT without a 'goal' either. Tho I can understand how the PLAYFUL and LOVE-FUN spirit in which I engage in such goal-seeking may give you the above impression. If I had a 'motto', it would be something like "INTEGRALLY FLOW with LIFE as it 'presents' ITSELF" (not passively, but creative-jujitsu-style), not "GIVE 'up' ALL".

You not seeing Vincente, but what is reprehensible in 'you' as Vincente.
Such 'reprehensible' stuff-potential is 'in' everyone - IMO, that's how we can 'know' what the stuff is 'like' when we 'see' it in the first place - not everyone chooses to 'vent' it, or 'vent' it in the same way, however.

This "dance" has been done. nothing new.
It's 'new' for 'me' in relation to vicente, and now you as well. My predication is that I'll stop if and as and when it gets 'stale' for me. In the meantime, I'm glad for the opportunity to do my dance-thang.

Tell me you are enlightened david, and I may listen a little while longer.
Ok. I'm enlightened. :)

Otherwise... you go dance...someone else is leading..whether you know it or not.
I know it. It is 'good' (in my 'view') that you know this as well. But I also have and exercise 'choice' in terms of the 'moves' I make or don't make as a participant - as do you, vicente, and everyone else present. Your dance-'opposition' (or whatever you want to call it, 'judgment' maybe?) to my 'choices' in this regard is noted.

- David

[fu*]

Judgments all.
Yes, fu*, I made and shared a bunch of assessments, meaningful from 'my' 'point' of 'view.

meaningfull from you, and maybe only meaningfull to you.

Judging thru the back door by saying dont judge.
'Dang, and I thought I was putting everything I think-n-feel on the table, right up front!

But it seems you think this was for someone else, not "you"

I know someone who would appreciate you giving everything you have.
I don't 'believe' such kind of 'giving' is 'good' (in terms of having a creatively 'benefical' effect) for either the 'giver' or the 'recipient'.

So much judgment. You have decided what is good and bad. I am sure it is just coincedence, for this belief to protect what you "have".
How could you know what has a creatively 'benefical' effect

Is it possible that "fearthinking" has arived at this judgment of good and bad?
Is it really about your benevolence, or could there be just the slightest possibility that david s, is protecting david s.

Money where mouth is?
In the case of a medium such as this, what my 'mouth 'says' (in words) is my 'money'.

Words are money? Then show me david s, give up all your money. Shouldn't be a problem, cause you will still have your words.


Ok, you have said it allready. Your "belief" keeps you from this. As in...... I don't 'believe' such kind of 'giving' is 'good' (in terms of having a creatively 'benefical' effect) for either the 'giver' or the 'recipient'
Just coincedence that this "belief" keeps you where you are.

People kling. Kling kling kling. It seems always "belief" that keeps them klinging.
Never seem to recognoze that klinging stems belief, and not the other way around.

Tell me you are enlightened david, and I may listen a little while longer.
Ok. I'm enlightened.

My mistake :) I should have said tell me honestly that you are enlightened.

[a random hack]

I do not see any picture hack. What do you mean?
Please be specific.

<points at 'rich'> There's some...
<points at 'hack'> oh, there's some....
<points at 'fu*'>.....
<points at 'DavidS'>.......

How can 'I' be specific, the 'picture' keeps changing... :)

ah huh. I can't help but agreee we each got part of the picture, that is true.

could have easily have said 'see, have, or are part of the picture' :)

The frameless picture....
:)

[DavidS]

Hi fu* -

Obviously, you and I have very different 'opinions' about the 'use' of 'judgment' (in the sense of 'assessment') and comparative evaluations of things being more or less 'good' or 'bad' in this or that regard. I regard "Creativity" as the 'highest calling' because it is an ex·press·ion of what I regard as our 'true' core-being 'essence' or 'nature'. Anything that serves such 'calling' is worth 'using' and learning to 'use' more adeptly/creatively -- LIFE is both MORE meaningful and MORE love-joy-fun THAT way -- in my 'view'.

I understand that's 'anathema' -- against the 'theme' of LIFE or or WHATEVER it is you think we are aspects of -- in your 'view'.

Originally posted by fu*@Aug 21 2003, 09:25 PM
My mistake :) I should have said tell me honestly that you are enlightened.
I'll tell you this much: my honest assessment is that I am at least as enlightened as you are -- I am quite mind-n-heart 'convinced' of this. Not that this should be a factor in your decision whether to 'listen' to and 'consider' what I say or not.

- David

[sahyo]

Obviously, you and I have very different 'opinions' about the 'use' of 'judgment' (in the sense of 'assessment') and comparative evaluations of things being more or less 'good' or 'bad' in this or that regard.


david


Is it possible that "fearthinking" has arived at this judgment of good and bad?


and "this or that" "things" ("comparative evaluations")

[sahyo]

People kling. Kling kling kling. It seems always "belief" that keeps them klinging.
Never seem to recognoze that klinging stems belief, and not the other way around.


:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 23 2003, 05:22 PM
Is it possible that "fearthinking" has arived at this judgment of good and bad?
I cannot speak for how you got to where you have 'arrived' at, asheera -- your 'efforts' to 'pop' what you regard as 'delusion' may, for all I know, be coming from "fearthinkning."

In regards the 'thang' in 'me', however, I'm quite sure, from having navigated through and emerged from fields of fearthinking-n-feeling, hate-thinking-n-feeling, etc., etc., etc. -- so I know what you are talking 'about' --that my assessments of 'good' and 'bad' (which I fully recognize as relative- and not absolute- value assignments) have been arrived at by love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling.

Of course, I am fully aware that, instead of regarding such a statement as (possibly) coming from a seat of consciousness in one who 'knows' 'himself' (as in "Know Thyself"), you may regard at as coming from a seat of consciousness that is deluded (and which could therefore possibly 'use' 'corrective' 'guidance'-'suggestions' such as those 'artfully' contained in your statements).

Whatever else may also the case, I appreciate the fact that you continue to ex·press your creative (therefore 'good' in my book) 'thrust'. However, IMO, you could 'use' my responses to 'learn' to 'better' recognize when your thrust is 'on target' in the 'sublimely creative' sense, and when it isn't -- if you so choose to, of course.

- David

[a random hack]

Hmm, seems that 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' would accept slight, and slightening (lessening), 'errors' in 'moving toward' 'The Good'.
But then again, what 'use' does 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' have for 'good' or 'bad'?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 25 2003, 10:21 PM
But then again, what 'use' does 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' have for 'good' or 'bad'?
Possibly to be·come MORE wise-n-loving or loving-n-wise? Or to serve by facilitating the development of such MORENESS in others? Strikes me that one of the characteristic feature-movies of LIFE is that nothing 'stays' the 'same' - there's always 'development' of one sort or another.

BTW, the terms 'good' and 'bad' can also be applied to belief systems and methodologies which help or hinder such 'becoming' growth. And there are ones that work/serve 'better' and ones that hinder/hobble 'worse' than others.

Of course, if anyone thinks-n-feels s/he is SOOOOO wise-n-loving that s/he has no desire to further develop in such regards, there's no reason for her/him to 'seek' to be·come more loving-n-wise-or-wise-n-loving, no reason for her/him to be 'open' to be·coming MORE discerning and artistic in response to various shades and colors of 'good' and 'bad', no reason for her/him to wonder if her/his Life-picture-n-experience could be MORE wise-n-loving-or-loving-n-wise, etc., etc., etc. (Note: 'wise' in relation to others - this includes both 'people' and 'nature' - also encompasses understanding and learning from them and the dynamics -both 'good' and 'bad' :) - involved in one's relationship with them.)

I gather from certain comments that not a few people here think they have arrived at or are certainly on their way to the pinnacle of earthly development in regards wisdom-n-love-or-love-n-wisdom and that it is 'appropriate' that they STOP making all 'comparative' distinctions. Would that that were the case.

Here's an example: Any kid, past puberty at least (when 'growing' minds and hearts become 'concerned' with issues of 'attractiveness' and 'repulsiveness' in relation to others, and the essentiality of things like 'pair'- and 'community'- formation) KNOWS that there are things which function 'soap'-like and things which just serve to make things 'dirtier' - and, unless their mental-emotional system is devilishly 'warped', they come to regard the former as 'better' in terms of 'utility' value than the latter, which they regard as 'worse'.

I tell you this much. B.O. is 'bad' for relationship-formation, brother. And I get the impression that its 'fashionable' in certain circles, not just elsewhere, for people to one-sidedly focus attention on the un'clean' parts of others' 'acts' TO distract attention (the 'distractors' as well) from having to 'look' at and 'assess' themselves and their personal ways of relating (or 'failing' to -- that's one of 'em relatively 'bad' thangs) and consider how 'best' to 'clean up' the messiness in their own house and front yard. I know I may be 'logically' accused of doing the same thing myself -- the reader, assuming s/he is interested enough to 'delve' into what's what here -- will have to 'assess' :) whether I do so in a one-sided way or for the 'distraction' reason stated above, or . . .

David

[sahyo]

:)

your 'efforts' to 'pop' what you regard as 'delusion'

cannot "pop" "delusion"whichnot

I'm quite sure, from having navigated through and emerged from

"navigatedthrough"emergefrom'delusionwhichnot

coming from a seat of consciousness in one who 'knows' 'himself' (as in "Know Thyself"),

"one who"whichnot cannot "knows" "himself"whichnot :)

you may regard at as coming from a seat of consciousness that is deluded (and which could therefore possibly 'use' 'corrective' 'guidance'-

"correct"whichnot cannot "correct"delusionwhichnot

Whatever else may also the case, I appreciate the fact that you continue to ex·press your creative (therefore 'good' in my book) 'thrust'.

which is thinking"thrust"whichnot? ;)

[DavidS]

Hello again, asheera - please once again try your best to 'get' this:

The pro·position, neti-neti-neti-neti-neti-neti- ... ad infinitum

Does NOT even begin to 'address', let alone contradict the pro·position THAT:

I AM WHAT I AM WHAT I AM WHAT I AM ... which also goes on ad infinitum even when and if one says "neti-neti-neti-neti-neti-neti- ..." to IT.

I 'truly' 'answer' your 'negative' 'point',

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 26 2003, 09:42 AM
which is thinking"thrust"whichnot? ;)
by saying "I AM" is thinking as well as feeling "thrust" -- your modality of expression strikes me as being-doing very much like a wood-pecker brain-bogglingly repeat-hammering similar pieces of 'wood' in the same 'fashion' over and over and over and over again.

If you think that isn't 'evidential' of something like "thrust", then possibly consider close 'cousins' with the same sort of verb-meaning.

- David

[sahyo]

positive"negative"point"?
....which thinks 'no' 'whichnot' positivenegativepoint?

davidthinking"thrust"hammering"

:)

[a random hack]

not sure that (seems) 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' (as 'I' understand it) would 'need' MORE or MORENESS (or less or lessness) of anything, or 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling'.
But then again, silly me, in that case I guess (seems) 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' wouldn't be (named) 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling', would it? :)

Used to think I AM what I AM, but then wondered, if that true, why does I keep changing? Crap, that allows the possibility :lol: that at some future time, I might not exist... Not to mention all those toys I love so much....

So, maybe I'm all wrong on this, please, what do you mean by 'AM'?
And if I'm not sure of the inviolate certainty of I (as is the case, now), what can I be certain of, in an immovable, unchanging sense?
Seems the only certainty is the certainty of 'uncertainty', 'chaos', 'change', which is ok once you get over the shock :)

[fu*]

Hi David s,

"Obviously, you and I have very different 'opinions' about the 'use' of 'judgment' (in the sense of 'assessment') and comparative evaluations of things being more or less 'good' or 'bad' in this or that regard."

I think you are right about differing opinions on the "use of judgment". Only in that I dont see the "use" in it. And you seem to.


"I'll tell you this much: my honest assessment is that I am at least as enlightened as you are --"

Yes, it seems you have studied hard. You seem to know much about enlightenment things. You have probably read alot of books on the subject. Maybe even written about it. So if enlightenment is something to learn thru studying and brain expansion, thru reason and logic, I am sure your satatment is right.

"at least as"???? 'degree's' of enlightenment? Who has the checklist? Is there a written test? On a scale from 1 to 100, where am I? Where are you? Where is Richie? What book would you recomend for improvement?

Can you know "david s" in a book? By asking others? By learning? By thinking?

studying/learning/thinking about water is one thing. But getting wet is not the words. Is it?

How can "love" "use" judgment? :)

[Thomas Knierim]

David: I gather from certain comments that not a few people here think they have arrived at or are certainly on their way to the pinnacle of earthly development...

Exactly! There can be no question that Thomas is evolution's top model. But, how did he get there? What is the source of his powers? What magic brew bestows the mystic eye? The enlightened of all ages have known the secret. Today, Thomas shall tell it to those who are ready to hear. Transcendental wisdom is only to be gained from Paulaner, the world's finest beer. Heretics who indulge in other brews are doomed to wander in eternal delusion, because such is the curse of samsaric beers. Therefore, heed my words and drink Paulaner.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Paulaner North America - Purveyor of the World's Finest Beers

http://www.paulaner.com/index.html

[sonrisa]

so Thomas & Vicente, were u guyz drunk when you posted this stuff? :D

Random, didn't anybody ever tell u- the only 2 certainties are death & taxes :P

[rich]

excerpt from post of fu*:
at least as"???? 'degree's' of enlightenment? Who has the checklist? Is there a written test? On a scale from 1 to 100, where am I? Where are you? Where is Richie? What book would you recomend for improvement?

Where are all of us David, re: degrees of enlightenment? :unsure:

fu* ,recomend should be recommend. ;)

fu*, do not think you need book to be enlightened, just by being your natural self, you are enlightened. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

so Thomas & Vicente, were u guyz drunk when you posted this stuff?

By jove, no! Thomas never drinks on the job. :lol: But, he also recommends the following beers to the spiritual seeker: Weihenstephaner Hefeweizen, Früh Kölsch, Gaffel Kölsch, and Diebel's Alt. Other brands shall be announced once their karmic purity has been established.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

fu: I think you are right about differing opinions on the "use of judgment". Only in that I dont see the "use" in it. And you seem to.

Not sure what the intended meaning is here. Isn't the the "use of judgment" fundamental? As soon as we lay eyes on something, hear something, read something, we automatically assess its content, meaning, and try to establish its relation to ourselves, or respectively the ideas and preceptions we hold. The judgment machine is working all the time, isn't it?

Cheers, Thomas

[a random hack]

:D
<ROTFLUL> (rolls on the floor, lapping up lager)

<always heard/thought American beers were like making love in a canoe... :D>
<bought a homebrew kit four months ago, and it's been sitting unused on my bed every since>
<sure would love to be a brewmeister>
<fu* ,TK ,v ,s ,r , < :) >>

[DavidS]

Hi fu* -

I regard your comments and questions as being both valid and pertinent to the issue at hand - please know that I take them 'seriously' even tho I may (sometimes) be 'flippant' in the way I address them.

How can "love" "use" judgment?
To learn - thru 'evaluating' or 'assessing' the efficacy as well as shortcomings of trial efforts and error results in the 'name' of (i.e., along the lines of whatever one thinks of as) 'love' - to love 'better'. This presumes you are 'able' to 'see' that there are degrees of efficacy and resulting enjoyment of LIFE when it comes to 'love'; IOW, that you are humble enough to 'know', or at least 'presume', that, when it comes to 'love' (in this case), there is always the possibility to rising 'higher' ('degree'- or 'level'-wise, that is :) ).

studying/learning/thinking about water is one thing. But getting wet is not the words. Is it?
Yes, it isn't. I am talking 'about' getting wet. Words, books, etc. are only (useful ;) ) tools for conceptually 'addressing' the issue (in this case, if 'enlightenment') -- even the most erudite ones are not the "real thang" by any means, I agree with you.

"at least as"???? 'degree's' of enlightenment? Who has the checklist? Is there a written test? On a scale from 1 to 100, where am I? Where are you? Where is Richie? What book would you recomend for improvement?

Yes, I meant what I said. IMO, there are 'degrees' of enlightenment. Conscious Life is NOT 'composed' of black-or-white 'divisions' - between those who are 'enlightened' and those who are 'not enlightenened', for instance. IMO, 'black-OR-white' thinking (or 'judging' or 'assessing') is unenlightened. Which is why I answered your initial challenging, "Tell em that you are enlightened, " with a 'humorous' "OK, I'm enlightened" retort.

For a more complete checklist (just a conceptual one, now), see David Hawkins' trilogy: Power vs. Force, The Eye of the I, and I: Reality and Subjectivity. Caveat: don't pursue this this reference unless you are a really dedicated 'aspirant' in regards 'enlightenment' and think you have what it takes to get 'there' (see Luke[/I] 14-28-30) -- IMO these books are a [U]very revealing 'mirror'. Not that this is the only 'source' of this kind, however.

Can you know "david s" in a book?
You may not have meant this the way I am taking it, you can know what kinds of thoughts and assessments brought "david s" to his present point by reading his book (see my profile for link to it) - but, of course, that is a far cry from 'knowing' the spirit or mind of "david s".

Can you know . . . By asking others? By learning? By thinking?
No, true 'knowing', IMO, can only be done by psychospiritually 'identifying' with the 'object' on is attempt to be known in a totally 'selfless' fashion. HOWEVER, "asking others, learning, and thinking," if and as one understands that these only provide only 'allegorical' and 'approximate' clues or pointers about how and where to to 'look' and that they could also possibly be misleading, CAN facilitate one's development to the point where one 'knows' 'better' ;)

Again let me stress this point: "knowing or not" is NOT a "black-OR-white" issue. That you ask such a question in such form in the first place 'reveals' (to 'me', that is) that you are wearing black-OR-white spectacles, spectacles which filter 'truth' in such a way that shades of color, as well as of grey, are totally replaced by either black or white 'pixels'.

IMO, you (anyone) will NOT be able to become truly 'enlightened' or 'loving' unless and until you discard such spectacles as 'visual' or 'judgmental' aids, That they are NOT - again, this is just my opinion, which may or may not be 'more' enlightened (in terms of 'degree') than yours, of course. As richie points out, "Who's to know?" :)

- David

[DavidS]

Hi Hack -

not sure that ... 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling' 'need' MORE or MORENESS (or less or lessness) of anything, or 'love-n-wisdom-thinking-n-feeling'.
Who said anything about 'need'? Does a seed or a sappling 'need' to become a flowering and fruiting and seeding 'tree'? IMO, to 'deny' it in oneself is to 'deny' the Tuth about the reality of one's own being-doing. That's a 'losing' proposition, however, since, such MORE or MORENESS 'development-tendency' is dynamically embedded in the very 'design' of the (indescribable) THANG! The ego (time-space-local-'persona') can either work 'against' or 'with' such dynamic - that's about it!

Used to think I AM what I AM, but then wondered, if that true, why does I keep changing? Crap, that allows the possibility :lol: that at some future time, I might not exist... Not to mention all those toys I love so much....
So, maybe I'm all wrong on this, please, what do you mean by 'AM'?
Same thang as 'referenced' by the Biblical "I AM THAT I AM", I suppose. :) How's this for a 'definition': I AM = the ever-changing existential configurational flowering and fructification of a 'free wheeling' 'inner' essence which is everpresent 'in' every "I" - or sump'n like that. :)

Seems the only certainty is the certainty of 'uncertainty', 'chaos', 'change', which is ok once you get over the shock :)]
Ahhh ... but there are discernable 'patterns' which 'arise' 'out of' the uncertainty-chaos-change thang, as in 'fractals', no? There are 'attractors' which result in such patterns 'developing' even in the context each 'individual' event-happening may be a 'random' to the point of being 'uncertain' and 'incalculable'. Many 'quite definite' patterns (including 'directional' 'trends') may be seen if one takes an overview of uncertain-chaotic-changing Life -- yours too, I presume.

BTW, Hawkins also speaks of the "I" might not exist at some point ex·peer·ience as part of his spiritual journey. Funny, that has never been an issue for me, maybe because I don't particularly 'care' about whether "I" exist or not! Why this is an 'issue" for some and not for others strikes me as being a 'quirky' mystery.

Right on, Thomas. :)

-David

[a random hack]

This presumes you are 'able' to 'see' that there are degrees of efficacy and resulting enjoyment of LIFE when it comes to 'love'
So 'love' is relative? And 'love' has a purpose? Not in my world.

I am talking 'about' getting wet.
Shit, why not just shut up and dive in?
Still, I supose that 'talking about' is as 'wetting' as 'diving in' :lol:

IMO, there are 'degrees' of enlightenment. Conscious Life is NOT 'composed' of black-or-white 'divisions' - between those who are 'enlightened' and those who are 'not enlightenened', for instance. IMO, 'black-OR-white' thinking (or 'judging' or 'assessing') is unenlightened.
Is this like being slightly pregnant?

Does a seed or a sappling 'need' to become a flowering and fruiting and seeding 'tree'?
Apparently.

<pauses to wonder why he bothers> ;) :lol:

How's this for a 'definition': I AM = the ever-changing existential configurational flowering and fructification of a 'free wheeling' 'inner' essence which is everpresent 'in' every "I" - or sump'n like that.
Thought AMness had some component of existence, but now realise existence is some component of AMness. :)

Many 'quite definite' patterns (including 'directional' 'trends') may be seen if one takes an overview of uncertain-chaotic-changing Life -- yours too, I presume.

Don't know, don't care :)

Funny, that has never been an issue for me, maybe because I don't particularly 'care' about whether "I" exist or not!
Not existing not an issue, or issue of non-existence not an issue?

[sahyo]

david:


I don't particularly 'care' about whether "I" exist or not!



but, of course, that is a far cry from 'knowing' the spirit or mind of "david s".



hehe

:)

[DavidS]

Hi Hack -

David: This presumes you are 'able' to 'see' that there are degrees of efficacy and resulting enjoyment of LIFE when it comes to 'love'.
Hack: So 'love' is relative? And 'love' has a purpose? Not in my world.
David: Looks like a logic check might be called for here:

(1) there are degrees of efficacy and degrees of resulting enjoyment => 'love' (itself) is relative?

I don't think sooo! Just means that 'love' may be less or more 'skillfully' deployed and, consequently, less or more 'rewarding' in terms of enjoyment depending on the artfulness of the 'lover', IMO. What goes on in the physical-sex 'love'-making, or 'love'-being-doing, arena 'illustrates' this pro·position well, I think.

(2) there are degrees of efficacy and degrees of resulting enjoyment => 'love' has a purpose?

I don't think sooo! That things like skill, enjoyment, and purpose (related to skill development and enjoyment or something else entirely) may 'manifest' themselves in association with 'love' does NOT mean that 'love' has a purpose, though it indeed well may. It's a "gift" and "powerful agent" which may be 'used' (or not) and/or 'deployed' (or not) for practically any purpose under heaven. Maybe think of it as 'spiritual sunshine' or as 'spiritual money', though, given your "not in my world comment" which indicates you think my view 'besmirches' the 'absolute purity' of 'love', I imagine the latter phrase will make you feel like barfing. :)
. . . .

Hack: Still, I suppose that 'talking about' is as 'wetting' as 'diving in'
David: Yup, 'talking' can be a 'conduit' to just about any kind of experience - including 'getting completely lost in words', of course, which I suppose would be analogous to 'drowning'. :D

David: IMO, there are 'degrees' of enlightenment. Conscious Life is NOT 'composed' of black-or-white 'divisions' - between those who are 'enlightened' and those who are 'not enlightenened', for instance. IMO, 'black-OR-white' thinking (or 'judging' or 'assessing') is unenlightened.
Hack: Is this like being slightly pregnant?
No. The psychospiritual dynamics pertaining to 'enlightenment' are not as simple as a sperm DNA set uniting with and becoming co·active along with an egg's DNA set. Tho there are obviously clear instances of 'enlightenment' 'switches' suddenly being turned 'on', the fact is that there are degrees of intensity and range when it comes to 'light' ('awareness', 'understanding', 'knowing', 'loving', whatever).

There are 'dreams' within 'dreams', which one may 'awaken' from in a series, and each such 'awakening' will have all the 'characteristics' of 'enlightenment' to the ex·peer·iencer as signifiicant aspects of which were previously 'hidden by illusion' become 'lucid'.

David: Does a seed or a sappling 'need' to become a flowering and fruiting and seeding 'tree'?
Hack: Apparently.
<pauses to wonder why he bothers> ;)
David: Logic check:
Abcdef => aBcdef => abCdef => abcDef => abcdEf => abcdeF
does NOT 'indicate' 'need' -- only 'apparently' so to someone who presumes it does. From your 'why bother' comment, I presume you think you stated something 'obvious' to everyone with "eyes that see."

Hack: Thought AMness had some component of existence, but now realise existence is some component of AMness.

Cool dive - with absolutely no splash! :)

David: Many 'quite definite' patterns (including 'directional' 'trends') may be seen if one takes an overview of uncertain-chaotic-changing Life -- yours too, I presume.
Hack: Don't know, don't care
David: No problem then! :)

David: Funny, that has never been an issue for me, maybe because I don't particularly 'care' about whether "I" exist or not!
Hack: Not existing not an issue, or issue of non-existence not an issue?
The former, for me. Issue of non-existence is a BIG issue for 'humanity' (in general) though. IMO, how the issue is 'framed' and 'addressed' has very significant consequence in terms of the way(s) in which 'love' gets 'used' and 'deployed'.

- David

[sahyo]

0pppp

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 28 2003, 11:00 AM
:D
<ROTFLUL> (rolls on the floor, lapping up lager)

<always heard/thought American beers were like making love in a canoe... :D>
<bought a homebrew kit four months ago, and it's been sitting unused on my bed every since>
<sure would love to be a brewmeister>
<fu* ,TK ,v ,s ,r , < :) >>
so Random, where does Foster Lager rank in all of this? :)

[rich]

david posted: I don't think sooo! Just means that 'love' may be less or more 'skillfully' deployed and, consequently, less or more 'rewarding' in terms of enjoyment depending on the artfulness of the 'lover', IMO. What goes on in the physical-sex 'love'-making, or 'love'-being-doing, arena 'illustrates' this pro·position well, I think.

Sorry, but seemingly over the hill for' going-on's' regarding words in david's post. as said earlier, talk among yourselves. ;)

Gittin the f*** out of here.

[a random hack]

Perhaps our belief/ expectations are what enable/ disable our enjoyment of love? With the 'right' beliefs, we could 'enjoy' any 'degree' of 'love'?
I guees I should make the point that I believe love has no intrinsic purpose or relativity, tho it nearly always seems to be assigned these, based on who believes they are loving, and who that person believes they are loving, and how much they expect in return. Lets say it is possible, but exteremly unlikely, to be loved unconditionally. And you may not recognise it when it occurs. I know I don't. :lol: But does explain desire for kids and pets.

Re. enlightenment as pregnancy.
OK, there are degrees of enlightenment, and degrees of preganncy, but after the baby is born, you ain't pregnant any more :D


David: Does a seed or a sappling 'need' to become a flowering and fruiting and seeding 'tree'?
Hack: Apparently.
<pauses to wonder why he bothers>
David: Logic check:
Abcdef => aBcdef => abCdef => abcDef => abcdEf => abcdeF
does NOT 'indicate' 'need' -- only 'apparently' so to someone who presumes it does. From your 'why bother' comment, I presume you think you stated something 'obvious' to everyone with "eyes that see."

Or, does not indicate need to someone who presumes it does not?
:lol: Who was the 'he' in that pause for thought? Me? maybe... ;)

Hack: Thought AMness had some component of existence, but now realise existence is some component of AMness.

Cool dive - with absolutely no splash!

<bows> Likewise :)

[a random hack]

Oh, sorry Sonrisa, forgot to answer your question. :wub:

On a scale of one to ten, I would leave Fosters off.
It is unsuitable for human consumption.
Which is why it's so popular in England. ;) :lol:

Seriously, most Australian mass produced domestic beers taste like h--s-'s p-ss to my delicate and refined palate, with the possible exception of Coopers', and my personal favorite, and the only one I drink by choice, Tooheys' Old. This is a delicious dark beer, not quite as heavy as Guiness, but much more palatable. If you can't get Old, try for Sheaf stout (CUB, if they still make it)more beer, (http://tolsun.oulu.fi/kbs/beer/kbsbeer.htm)more beer, (http://www.cub.com.au/)more beer, (http://www.vintageposters.com.au/alcohol-beverages/alcohol-beverages-Pages/Image32.html)MORE BEER! (http://www.lion-nathan.com.au/our+brands/beer/australia/full+strength/tooheys+old.htm)

[rich]

Hack, Before our little sinsinattian replies, how do you know what h--s-'s p-ss tastes like? ;)

[a random hack]

how do you know what h--s-'s p-ss tastes like?

Easy,
once when I was 'young' and 'foolish', I tried Fosters lager!! :lol:

[sonrisa]

Forget the horse's p*ss- I'm interested in your experiece being pregnant, Random. :D

[a random hack]

Huh? :huh:
Oh. :o
Yeah, me too :D :lol:

[vicente]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 2003
On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans said they thought that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda.

The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. It’s very easy to picture Saddam as a demon, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don’t like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they are told this guy is a bad guy, and it’s not hard to put those things together.

Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconceptions by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before war with Iraq. The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists, said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

DID BUSH ENCOURAGE MISCONCEPTION?
Bush’s opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link began soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was pretty well confirmed that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer’s congressional report on the attacks states, The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
In March 2003, 77% of Americans felt that George Bush had the right to dictate how people on the other side of the planet should live?.
Most rational people understand that Bush's self-interests in emotionally demonizing Saddam is propaganda, ie., in September 1988, the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds. Nor did Saddam have anything to do with 9-11 or the terrorist Bin Laden. However, to get America behind a war, even though there has been no proof of WMD's, lies had to be propagandized.
So, is there another side to the Saddam story?

"Certainly we agree that Saddam is a murderer, tyrant, and dictator, but let's look a bit deeper into the Iraqi culture and make a few comparisons.

The Iraqis under Saddam didn't pay any direct taxes, have minimum restrictions on starting businesses, free medical care from cradle to grave, no property taxes, no sales taxes, minimal zoning and planning laws, free college education with daily meals provided in the campus cafeteria. Iraqi's are encouraged to own guns, have virtually no crime, no homeless, (The Bedouin choose their nomadic lifestyle) Iraqis are free to travel, write, create, make art and worship their God of their choice. Ten percent of Iraqi's are even Christians.

Saddam abhored the al Quada and conservative fundamentalists.

But what will happen if the Baath Party is destroyed? There will be a takeover of civil society by the elements sidelined over four decades of Baath rule. Therefore, along with democracy, fundamentalism and terrorism will rear their heads. And the women of Iraq may see a reversal of many of the privileges which Saddam ensured for them.

A non-American view of Saddam:

BANGALORE, India, April 6 (UPI) -- Why should the Iraqi people feel any gratitude or loyalty to President Saddam Hussein. You would not know it from anything that has been written in the U.S. or British media, but there are very good reasons.

I was commercial counselor and deputy chief of mission at the Indian Embassy in Baghdad from 1976 to 1978. During the interregnum between two ambassadors, I was also for a while the Indian charge d'affaires. This explains why I had more than one occasion to stare into Saddam's expressionless grey-green eyes -- straight out of "The Day of the Jackal" -- while shaking his hand at various official banquets and other ceremonial occasions.

Saddam ran a dictatorship. That, however, caused no concern to the hordes of Western businessmen who descended in droves on Iraq to siphon what they could of Iraq's newfound oil wealth through lucrative contracts for everything. Everything -- from eggs to nuclear plants. Because technologically, from the end of the Turkish Empire over Iraq in 1919 through the British mandate, which lasted till 1932, and the effete monarchy masterminded by Anthony Eden's buddy, Nuri es-Said, right up to the Baath Party coup of 1968, there was virtually no progress at all.

Iraqi latifundia -- the vast country house estates of the tiny privileged elite -- gave large parties for visiting Western guests, including Agatha Christie's archaeologist husband who did most of his digging in Nineveh, now known worldwide to TV viewers as Mosul, while the puppet ruling establishment gave away Iraq's most precious asset, oil, for a song. Iraq's major export was -- hold your Patriot missile -- dates, the fruit of the Arab desert eaten by pious Muslims to break their daylight fast during the Muslim Lent -- Ramadan. India was Iraq's largest buyer.

It was Saddam's revolution that ended Iraqi backwardness. Education, including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was ended by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.

I used to drive past the Mustansariya University on my way home from downtown Baghdad. It was miraculous -- I use the word advisedly -- it was nothing short of miraculous to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the campus, none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that was, and is, essential dress for women in most of the Islamic world -- and almost all in skirts and blouses that would grace a Western university.

The liberation of women -- that is half the population of Iraq, as for any other country -- has been the most dramatic achievement of Saddam's regime. To understand how dramatic just look across the Iraqi border at America's once-favorite Arab satrap, Saudi Arabia.

The chief engineer at the State Organization for Industrial Housing, the driving force behind the massive housing program, which turned Baghdad in the first decade of Baath rule from a dirty shantytown into a pulsating modern metropolis that provided a roof over the head of every family in the city, was a woman. I kick myself for having forgotten her name. But I remember her well. She was so much like Mama in "Chicago". Across the road from SOIH was SOI -- State Organization for Industry where my diplomatic fate obliged me to cross swords with another tough-as-they-come lady, the head of the Legal Division, without whose OK no bills were paid. This was the position of women in Iraq under Saddam a quarter century ago. One had to keep reminding oneself that this was the Middle East.

My second daughter, Yamini, was born in Medical City, Baghdad, symbol of the astonishing revolution wrought by the Baath Party in health care. My child's cradle is now a coffin, a purgatory that holds the mangled remains of Iraqi babies killed by a rain of terror to end a reign of terror. If I, who lived in Baghdad but two years, and that too as a foreigner and so many decades ago, feel violated in my deepest sensitivities at what is being done to my memories of the ordinary Iraqi men, women and children I knew, consider the feelings of those who have lived all their lives in Iraq, all those below 40 years of age who have known no Iraq other than the Iraq of Saddam, and now find everything they have seen grow around them going up in smoke - for their "liberation!"

Iraq is home to some of the holiest Muslim shrines, fertile ground for religious fundamentalism. Saddam would have none of it. Clerics were put firmly in their place -- that is, the mosque and the madrasa -- and the Iraqi believer liberated from the thralldom of the priesthood. The ethos was completely secular: we interacted every day with Iraqis of numerous religious persuasions in every position of responsibility.

Few know even now that one of Iraq's longest lasting Baath leaders, companion-in-arms to Saddam for the last four decades, is Tariq Aziz, a practicing Christian notwithstanding his name. For Indians, there is a special place in our regard for Saddam who has treated with reverence a sacred spot in Baghdad where, legend has it, Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith in the 16th century, meditated on his way back to India from Mecca on the imperative of synthesizing Hindu and Muslim beliefs.

Iraq under Saddam had everything going for it -- except democracy. And it was, of course, the absence of democracy that accounted for Saddam brushing aside all vested interests: his instant liberation of women, his instant dismantling of feudalism, his instant caging of the priesthood, and, therefore, his instant -- and, yes, brutal -- exclusion from Iraq of all forms of religious fundamentalism and religion-based terrorism. Which is, one thing at least that Osama bin Laden and Bush III share: they hate Saddam equally.

If Saddam goes, the brutality of the Baath party will finally be ended.

But other things not wonderful either will take its place. There will be a takeover of civil society by the elements sidelined over four decades of Baath rule. Therefore, along with democracy, fundamentalism and terrorism will rear their heads. And the women of Iraq may see a reversal of many of the privileges which Saddam ensured for them.

Mani Shankar Aiyar is a member of the Indian parliament representing the Congress Party.

[a random hack]

I know as much about enlightenment as I do about pregnancy. :lol:

[Polaris]

Random Hack: I know as much about enlightenment as I do about pregnancy.

Vicente: DID BUSH ENCOURAGE MISCONCEPTION?


Personally I think it's more likely Laura Bush was the one to encourage misconception.
"Georgy!! NO! You keep your chief of staff out of my oval office!!" ;)

[Ronagon]

Back to the topic of this string...

The USA is a study in contradictions...

A nation founded by slave-owners, who wanted to be free.

A nation that can't decide between cherishing reason and heresy, or faith and conformity.

A nation that espouses the individual freedom to be all you can be, but once you make it to the top, you keep the other guys down. In truth, America seems to me to be really little more than one massive game of "King of the Mountain".

Not everyone enters this game with the same ability to compete... not all men are created equal; that's rubbish.

And I'm not sure whether or not I like this little game.

[sonrisa]

Ronagon, going by the law of averages, I'd say there's a 98% chance that you are NOT among the 2% for whom the little game is stacked. So of course you aren't gonna like the little game. Who does, really, aside from that aforementioned 2%.

[Polaris]

What's the deal with this on again/off again recall election in California? They can just cancel an election? Even after the ballots (all 30 pages of it) have been printed off?

I will never understand American politics.
:( :blink:

[sonrisa]

As I understand it, from folx I know from/in California, the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by the bushits to get rid of Gov Davis- who is asking pointed questions about the Enron scandal & placing the blame on Enron- & replacing him with Conan the Barbarian, whose Daddy was a nazi. Alot of Californians aren't buying the scheme, & now the 9th circuit court has postponed the election until the regular March primary. So I guess we'll all have to see what happens with this one.

[rich]

The court is right IMO.

Why hold an election, when using obsolete voting machines, and ballots which are not fraud proofed? :unsure:

[Ronagon]

sonrisa,

I wish you'd decide whether you're agreeing with me for being right, or condemning me for being some kind of hypocrite... That last post was more than confusing, to decipher your tone.

[Ronagon]

It's no surprise to me that Schwarzenegger's daddy was a Nazi... Hell, the entire republican party is controlled by hush-hush Nazi-era holdovers... I've even heard rumors that a consortium of right-wing southern baptist Christian neo-Nazis in Arkansas were responsible for orchestrating the Kennedy assassination...

There's a fascinating book by a Leonard Peikoff called "The Ominous Parallels", where he talks about how the right-wing republican party of the present day has corrupted the tone of this country into one which is eerily similar to that of pre-Nazi Germany.

[Polaris]

Rich: The court is right IMO.

Why hold an election, when using obsolete voting machines, and ballots which are not fraud proofed?

Or as Jay Leno pointed out. The machines were good enough to elect the President of the United States but not good enough to elect the Govenor of California. :lol: Jay Leno.... you gotta love that guy :lol:

I think the California election would be a whole lot more credible if they had a reasonable number of serious candidates. It a circus freak-show right now.


Ronagon: It's no surprise to me that Schwarzenegger's daddy was a Nazi... Hell, the entire republican party is controlled by hush-hush Nazi-era holdovers... I've even heard rumors that a consortium of right-wing southern baptist Christian neo-Nazis in Arkansas were responsible for orchestrating the Kennedy assassination...

Ronagon, you crack me up!! :lol: :lol:

[sonrisa]

Lord no Ronagon, I do not think you're a hypocrite, really I don't. I was merely pointing out why you don't like the little game, hey I'm in the 98% that's getting screwed too.
Oh you mean my last post, about California? Yeah, that is pretty confusing, the situation, I mean. I'll bet alot of Californians are confused too, but that's how the bushits operate- lying, cheating, smoke & mirrors... They want to undermine the Constitution, so that's how they do it, confuse folx.
There's a piece floating around the net by Tom Hartshorn- I believe that's his name- about how our situation today resembles Germany in the early 30's. It's found it's way into my mailbox a few times. Maybe the next time I get it I'll paste it here.

[a random hack]

Sometimes I think the Nazis won the second world war. But maybe most people haven't realised it yet...?

As I understand it, from folx I know from/in California, the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by the bushits to get rid of Gov Davis- who is asking pointed questions about the Enron scandal & placing the blame on Enron- & replacing him with Conan the Barbarian, whose Daddy was a nazi. Alot of Californians aren't buying the scheme, & now the 9th circuit court has postponed the election until the regular March primary. So I guess we'll all have to see what happens with this one.
Scary.
Or as Jay Leno pointed out. The machines were good enough to elect the President of the United States but not good enough to elect the Govenor of California. Jay Leno.... you gotta love that guy Hell, the entire republican party is controlled by hush-hush Nazi-era holdovers... I've even heard rumors that a consortium of right-wing southern baptist Christian neo-Nazis in Arkansas were responsible for orchestrating the Kennedy assassination...

Makes me wonder how long Leno has got...

[sonrisa]

Well, I watch Dave, m'self, soooo.... :rolleyes:


more nazi trivia: apparantly Grampa Bush was in cahoots with them as late as 1942-43, this was during the war when the nazis were public enemy #1.

I attempted to put in a link to a story about Karl Rove, neé Roverer, but the story is off the page now. Basically the gist of the story was that Rove's grampa Roverer built Birkenau.

Thomas, thanx very much for hosting this site for us to vent our minds. I appreciate this very much & do not wish to offend my host, so if you find this stuff offensive feel free to delete it. I want you to know I have nothing against most Germans, just nazis, they scare the living sch%*ss% outta me.

[Polaris]

more nazi trivia: apparantly Grampa Bush was in cahoots with them as late as 1942-43, this was during the war when the nazis were public enemy #1.

Yea, but that doesn't mean Grampa Bush was a Nazi. He might have just been in business with Germany. My grandfather was a coal merchant in Quebec. Regularly did business with Germany into the early 1940s. He wasn't in cahoots with the Nazis although I suppose, in retrospect, he may have had dealings with them in the beginning.

[a random hack]

Maybe I should have said 'fascists' rather than 'Nazis' :)
Makes a lot more sense...

[sonrisa]

I'll have to find the article & paste it. Grampa Bush was in cahoots with the nazis. Then there was Henry Ford. He & Hitler had their own little mutual admiration society going. It is partly the reason that, as of the 40's, GM replaced Ford as the biggest carmaker- people just quit buying Fords. As for Hitler, he was inspired by Henry to invent the VW. He also built the autobahn, but it was to move tanks not VW's

[a random hack]

Hmmmmm (http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Coup.htm)

What is fascism? (http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/berlet_fascism.htm)

Any of this sound familiar?

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: I want you to know I have nothing against most Germans, just nazis, they scare the living sch%*ss% outta me.

Well, likewise. I suppose there are even fewer Germans who are fond of them.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Are you so sure, Thomas? I would think lots of Germans are fond of their grandparents & great-grandparents, folx who were just trying to keep their heads above water during the Depression & take care of their families, & got caught up in the whole nazi wave, sent their kids to Hitler youth, had to go to one of the fronts in WWII, blah, blah, blah.... I was posting some pretty hard stuff about Germans & nazis & I wanted to make clear that I didn't mean offend, & that I have nothing against Germans per sé, esp since the words "good German" are starting to take on a somewhat derogatory connotation over here (somebody who swallows the bushit propaganda lies lock, stock, & barrell) Sometimes I wonder if the bushits are deliberately sabotaging our ecomony so people won't have time to organize against them becuz we are to busy trying to hustle work & keep our heads above water & provide for our families....

At any rate, I think it's pretty cool that the Germans are standing up to the bushits, tho I think Schroder should get serious about it & close down those bases. Unless the Germans need them for something, but I think the bushits need them more. Schroder should get rid of them. B)

[BeyondBeliefs]

Cynically:

Because cheap labor is hard to find, America supplies weapons of mass destruction to both sides.
Then as the destruction continues they come to the aid of the loosing side, helping them just enough to sustain the slaughter until the remaining population can be easily conquered and enslaved by the corporate sponsors of the war.

Thus providing cheap labor for the factories, and pride for the CEO's.
Another market conquered.

[BeyondBeliefs]

sonrisa is wise. (and so must fear the lynch mobs of Salem)

We are born animals, and became "Human" by developing our minds.
(Republicans more slowly than Democrats, but all far to slow to save the innocent children)

Whose ancestors were not barbarians. (We labeled Indians "Savages" and slaughtered them.)
But, in fact, we were being the savages.

Just as it is not our fault that we speak english, salute this flag, and murder children in Afghanistan and Iraq,
so to it was not the peoples fault that they spoke German, saluted their flag and invaded Europe.

Children only know the world from the beliefs (lies) their loving parents tell them in their fear and confusion.
And so, Humanity is a long way from knowing the difference between Living Things,
and the ancient inventions, (of ignorant barbaric tribes) , that we now call "nations and religions".

"Forgive them father, they know not what they do."
All, but the victims of the ignorance of the past,
that all Life has struggled to overcome since it's beginning.

Sad for > The Innocent (http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/t/TTPANTO/journey/Perfection.htm)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 23 2003, 05:11 PM

Just as it is not our fault that we speak english, salute this flag, and murder children in Afghanistan and Iraq,
so to it was not the peoples fault that they spoke German, saluted their flag and invaded Europe.

most people know right from wrong, & it is wrong to murder kids, well anywhere, really. Yet there are some folx over here who cheer on the murders of Iraqi & Afghani kids- one woman (a nurse!) was even quoted in the local paper as saying that "Iraqi kids are the enemy (in additon to Iraqi adults) becuz they do what their parents tell them to". (HUH? :blink: ) To encourage such atrocities, that IS the fault of those who are doing the encouraging.

(We labeled Indians "Savages" and slaughtered them.) But, infact, we were being the savages.

good observation

sonrisa is wise.

:D flattery will get you every where BB :D

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: Are you so sure, Thomas? I would think lots of Germans are fond of their grandparents & great-grandparents, folx who were just trying to keep their heads above water...

Of course they are. But you were talking about Nazis, not grandparents. Obviously these two population groups overlap in some cases, but for the majority they do not. The Nazi regime was based on terror as any other regime, communist, stalinist, talibanist, bathist, etc., which means that those who disagreed with the ones in power had a tendency to disappear. It seems that my grandpa -whom I have never known- was one of them, at least according to Grandma. Anyway, that is history. I was referring mainly to neo-nazis, which is a relatively new political phenomenon. It consists mostly of disoriented working class youth seeking abreaction in xenophobia. This sort of thing exists since the late seventies when the economic boom flattended out in Germany. It has intensified with the German reunification in 1991 which injected a large group of economically less well off (unemployed) people into the labor market who are now competing with Turks, Sri Lankan, Greeks, and other nationalities. Obviously these people are primarily motivated by the lower range of the human emotion spectrum, such as envy, hate, and selfishness. Fortunately, neo-nazism and xenophobia are taken quite seriously in Germany. It is therefore unlikely that political groups of any significance will have a chance to grow from this circle.

Sonrisa: At any rate, I think it's pretty cool that the Germans are standing up to the bushits, tho I think Schroder should get serious about it & close down those bases. Unless the Germans need them for something, but I think the bushits need them more. Schroder should get rid of them.

I am speaking from the perspective of an expatriate who hasn't lived in Germany for ten years, but as far as I am able to "pick up the vibes", the German sentiment is not exactly on Bush's side. The majority of Germans have disapproved of the preemptive war against Iraq. They see the aftermath of the war which presently unfolds in a most unpleasant manner as an affirmation of their concerns. In Iraq, America is now looking into the heart of darkness, and the fact that the UN is withdrawing weakens the already fragile "peace status" in Iraq. Although having secured short term political and economic control in Iraq, the seeds of hatred have been sown, which is more detrimental in the long run not only to the US but to all of the Western world.

It is very unlikely that Schroeder will close down any US airbases, though. Why should he? Germany is interested in continued friendship with the US and these bases have been there for many decades. They will outlive Bush.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Danke for your reply, Thomas. Sorry it has taken me so long to read it. I am up to my eyeballs helping a friend get on our city council- infact I got online to send our supporters an update of our activities this past weekend & what this weeks activities are & instead I am surfing thru TBV!- what you were saying in your post is what worries me here, is that those of us working to steer the United States back to a democratic course of government will end up disappearing eventually. I think the situation over here is answering that almost 60 year old question- "how could the Germans have possibly allowed the nazis to happen?" Many people here don't seem to care that the bushits manipulated the 2000 election to keep Al Gore- whom we elected President- out of office, they did it again in Fla last year to keep Janet Reno from becoming Governor there- one of those Fla voting machines down there returned a count of minus 16,000 & some odd votes! How do you get a negative vote count? The lowest you should be able to get is 0 (nobody voted) They are currently trying to get rid of the Governor in California, & are gerrymandering voting districts in Texas to their advantage. Many people don't seem to care that they are making a farce out of the backbone of our democracy (such as it is) which is voting. They are blasé about those awful un-Partiot Acts, which make a farce out of our Constitution. Fortunately we have some astute judges over here who are striking down those acts section by section, but the mainstream media (supposedly our watchdog for democracy) doesn't seem to be interested in making a big deal out of any of this, nor getting to the bottom of 9/11, the Iraq oil grab, the goings on at Guatanamo Bay, etc... (where are Woodward & Bernstein when you really need them?)

When I was growing up, I remember hearing that the average German knew about those Holocaust camps, but did nothing about them. Well, as you pointed out, anybody who attempted to had a tendency to disappear, but now I am wondering if the average German had any clue how bad those places really were until after WWII was over. There are horror stories coming out of Guatanamo Bay, but they are sketchy & the mainstream media doesn't appear to be inclined to do an exposé on the place any time soon. So most Americans, myself included, really don't have a handle on what's going on there.

We are somewhat more enlightened about Iraq, probably becuz the oil connection is so obvious- as one wag put it, if Iraq had olive oil, we wouldn't be over there. But there are still some folx who just don't get it- they don't understand why the Iraqis don't want a foreign invading force occupying their country, & why they have formed resistence cells to get rid of the invaders & take their country back. I think some of these people, like the nurse I mentioned in my last post, lack the ability to put themselves in another person's shoes. Others are just plain dense. In any case, these people appear to be along for the ride- & if they aren't interested in taking their own country back, then I guess they can't understand why the Iraqis want to take their country back.

In Iraq America is now looking into the heart of darkness,

and not just in Iraq. The domestic situation here is pretty scary as well. I have outllined some of it above. You say the airbases will survive Bush. But will the United States survive the bushits?

[sonrisa]

BUT.... back to Ah-nold....

click here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100603B.shtml)

& here! (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100603G.shtml)

[Polaris]

Let me think... 20 some years ago, who groped my body??

I've had my ass patted, pinched and squeezed many times by many different people. I've have bra straps snapped. I've even had a guy I was not dating "grind" against me as I was bending over a table to sign something. That was the closest I've ever come to knocking someone's light out into next week but I was at a wedding reception and I didn't want to cause a stir.

If any of these guys decided to run for office today would I reveal the crap they did back when they were foolish youngsters in their 20's? No. It was a lifetime ago in a different era in times before AIDS was big and sex was cheap. The rules were different back then.

Heck, if Arnold had squeezed my ass 25 years ago and then went on to be a famous movie star I would be thrilled to death for him. Imagine knowing that the Terminator squeezed your ass! How cool would that be!! ;)

I don't know about the Enron part of it. Don't know what he had to do with Enron. I don't think Arnold could ever dig the executives of Enron out of the hole they had buried themselves in so it seems somewhat stupid to get involved Why jump onto a sinking ship? Not condoning it if he did have shady dealings with Enron but let's face it, he wouldn't be the first politician to get caught with his hand in the corporate cookie jar. Looking at American political history, one might think that underhanded involvement in corporate finances is what makes a politician successful in the USA.

:rolleyes:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 6 2003, 05:36 AM
Let me think... 20 some years ago, who groped my body??

I've had my ass patted, pinched and squeezed many times by many different people. I've have bra straps snapped. I've even had a guy I was not dating "grind" against me as I was bending over a table to sign something. That was the closest I've ever come to knocking someone's light out into next week but I was at a wedding reception and I didn't want to cause a stir.

If any of these guys decided to run for office today would I reveal the crap they did back when they were foolish youngsters in their 20's? No. It was a lifetime ago in a different era in times before AIDS was big and sex was cheap. The rules were different back then.

Heck, if Arnold had squeezed my ass 25 years ago and then went on to be a famous movie star I would be thrilled to death for him. Imagine knowing that the Terminator squeezed your ass! How cool would that be!! ;)
Reading your words was positively heart-warming, Polaris. I hope and assume that;s the case for others here too. I applaud your take on and attitude towards the matter, and thank you muchly for the word-gift-offering.
- David :)

[Polaris]

;) Hmmm, one might think that David has groped his share of ass 30 years ago. ;)

I watched a dumb sitcom last night called "Yes Dear". There was a security guard at a movie studio who wanted to pitch his idea for a movie to one of the executives. The executive invited him into his office and told the security guard:

"Don't go telling any of your security guard friends that I listened to your pitch. I can't have ever security guard coming in here wanting to pitch their movie ideas. If they find out just tell them I had to do it because you have some revealing photos of me and Halle Berry........ Hell, tell them that anyhow."


Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 7 2003, 05:32 AM
;) Hmmm, one might think that David has groped his share of ass 30 years ago. ;)
No, but I've had plenty of feeling-like-pulling-the-hair-out-of-my-head (in order to get a feeling of 'relief' ! encounters with "Making a 'mountain' out of a 'molehill" and 'throwing' that 'mountain' at 'me' types. Actually, it felt more like they were trying to tie it around my neck and totally 'sink' 'me' while I was closely 'engaged' with them. (For what it may be worth as a 'thinking' 'point' - it struck me as being the function of some kind of princess-and-the-pea-under-the-mattress 'syndrome' in many cases.)

I'm sure as many if not more women have been either 'lambasted' or 'undercut' by 'vengeful' men, on similarlyblown-out-of-all-proportion grounds as well. Ahh, the thangs people 'viciously'-n-'mercilessly' do in the 'guise' of being on the 'side' of what 'love' is and 'against' what is 'unloving'.

Very sad to say, the bin Laden's of the world are only one of a a huge number of 'species' of this phenomenon - the human mind's capacity for 'compartmentalizated' perception (and thus of gross 'hypocrisy' on people's part) is a fertile field for endless pattern-variation and -elaboration in this regard.

The 'good' news (which, for those who don't 'know' this, is what the phrase gospel truth means) is that their utterances-n-behaviors provide a direct-perception-n-experience 'laboratory' in which those are not so inclined to learn to 'see' the 'face' 'behind' such 'masks' -- every bit of added 'perspective' expanding their options, should they wish to exercise these, to 'clean up' their 'own' 'acts' in such regards.

In one way or another, all 'serve' the stream-process-oceanward-flow of discerning Life!

[a random hack]

In one way or another, all 'serve' the stream-process-oceanward-flow of discerning Life!
right on! was thinking today that i can say and do anything, as lond as it accords with my beliefs. but figure this may be putting cart before horse, and actions and words tell us what our beliefs truely are, an easy way to see them, anyway.:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

Ah-nold:

Citizens everywhere, not just California, are frustrated and angry, pointing fingers in all directions, looking for something to blame for the last two years of embarrassing events.

In the movies, Arnold finds the evil alien monster that is causing the problem, confronts it, and terminates it.
If only it could be that way in reality.

I don't blame Californians for snapping at anything that moves, or for voting the same way that they pray....
Begging the sky to save them.

Blaming politicians, doctors, corporations, or foreign dictators for our failure to live in Utopia is an easy excuse when passing the buck. But there is an old saying,
"If you want something done right, then must do it yourself.".

Yes, the greedy CEO's must be jailed in order to end their fleecing of America,
and yes, the people who sell tanks and gunships to murderous dictators should be shot,
but also, to make our lives better, the people here must not force their politics and religion on foreign lands,
and become willing to live within their means to reduce their dependence,
and instead of hiring and depending on strangers to raise their kids and care for their aged...
and then complaining about their high cost, and lack of enthusiasm....
just do it yourself.


What Works?

As with all living things, there are no Physical solutions to Human Problems. Humans survived through the hardest of times and a million years, by being what they are, not what they are told to be.

Mamals have to eat, and snapping at the noises in the dark,
living things often harm reality because of mere beliefs.
But even the tiniest Living Things are alive today because of their harmony with the world.
Higher animals could easily destroy their offspring,
or eradicate the life in their surroundings and starve,
or simply withold their nurturing...
all resulting in their own extinction.
Living things are alive today because of what they could Save.
Killing is a High Risk activity even for a Lion among the elk.

I hope that California did not get a "Terminator".
Has Ah-nold grown up?

[BeyondBeliefs]

I would think lots of Germans are fond of their grandparents & great-grandparents, folks who were just trying to keep their heads above water... Of course they are. But you were talking about Nazis, not grandparents.


We "Love" our own (carriers of our ancestors efforts).
The children know that their parents were also the victims of their upbringing. The Nazi's thought they were saving the world from evil.
The world calls it "Brainwashing", but which nation does not raise their children into the "Family"?

My Mother was a Catholic and my Father a Protestant Decon. It was their indecision that gave me my freedom from religions. They were Hungarian and I was born in a German POW camp (Held by the Allys) after the war.

Before I was five I had seen child birth, love, intercourse, disease, old age, death, war and murder. A child can learan much through observation. Adults were confused because they were trained to accept what they were doing, but the children know.

The Children, both Palestinian and Arab, play in the street until an Israeli child yells, "Bomber" and together they run and hide ... returning to play when the danger has passed.... later an Arab child yells "Gunship" and together they run and hide.

Humans are not born stupid.
Becoming stupid takes years of "Education".

[Polaris]

yes, the people who sell tanks and gunships to murderous dictators should be shot,

Shoot the the shooter or become the shootee? :huh:

How does shooting anybody solve the problem? The shootee becomes the shooter, the shooter become the shootee. We're no further ahead.

You say here:
Humans survived through the hardest of times and a million years, by being what they are, not what they are told to be.

Yet in another thread you say:

Posted: Oct 11 2003, 12:14 PM in Personal Beliefs (Religion Forum) by BeyondBeliefs
There really is no nice way to say that our greatest enemy is our own upbringing.

So, have we survived millions of year thanks to our upbringing (doing as we are told) or by being what we are (not doing as we are told)??

And while we're at it, I don't think all upbringings are created equal so it is a fairly general statement when you say "our greatest enemy is our upbringing". The only thing you can be certain of for sure when it comes to upbringings is perhaps that your upbringing is your greatest enemy. My upbringing is completely unknown to you and as far as I am concerned my greatest enemy is myself, upbringing notwithstanding.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 11 2003, 09:24 AM
Shoot the the shooter or become the shootee? :huh:
Yeah, Polaris, but am still wondering if maybe BB 'meant' that sort of stuff to be understood as being 'tongue in cheek'. Either way, you 'freeze-frame' the butterfly's both-sides-of-the-same-'fence' wingflaps rather 'strikingly', methinks. Any National-Geographic-photo-appreciative 'mentality' would, I think, 'recognize' the penetrating-vision 'artfulness' as being quite 'inspired'.

David (zen·bowing :ph34r: )

:lol:

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris -

BB says here:
QUOTE:
Humans survived through the hardest of times and a million years, by being what they are, not what they are told to be. "

Yet in another thread BB says:

QUOTE:
(Posted: Oct 11 2003, 12:14 PM in Personal Beliefs (Religion Forum) by BeyondBeliefs )
There really is no nice way to say that our greatest enemy is our own upbringing. "

Correct
You were TOLD to kill your brothers and sisters. Just as you were TOL:D what language to speak , what flag to salute and what demon to worship.

You were not born this way.

And yes,
The peddlers of Murder should be shot.
The Only defense against a Gun is another Gun.
Attackers CREATE the Defenders, who must consider murder to end the threat agaisnt their family.

And , Polaris, your upbringing, like mine, is on this page.
You highlight our tiny differences , Collie, Shepard.
I see no difference. What animal would not seek peace but wage war when attacked? (whether real or imagined)

DavidS, yes,"should be shot" is the cultural slang.
Those peddlers of tanks and gunships were also once a beautiful baby, loved and nurtured into life by the devotion of a village of Humans.

[Polaris]

Correct
You were TOLD to kill your brothers and sisters. Just as you were TOL:D what language to speak , what flag to salute and what demon to worship.

You were not born this way.


And I'm not that way today. If I were somebody who easily conformed, BB, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you now. And yes, this discussion may be in english and yes, I learned my language from the society I grew up in, I have to choice to learn any other language in the world I want to learn. The only person stopping me from doing so is me.


And yes,
The peddlers of Murder should be shot.
The Only defense against a Gun is another Gun.
Attackers CREATE the Defenders, who must consider murder to end the threat agaisnt their family.

The "best defense is a strong offense" mentality might work well in competitive sports but it really doesn't go too far in diplomatic circles. Ask George Bush how popular his country is after his "preemptive" strike against Iraq, on the premise that he was acting in self-defense.

I'm prehaps more "utopian" than you. I think the best defense is NO guns at all. I think peace is possible without having an defense or an offense.

[rich]

I do not quite understand what whoever started the objection of being told, is such a terrible thing. Maybe instead of using the phrase, of being told , try to think, being taught.

Children do not know the ways of the world, as well as the parents do, and the parents will teach the children, what they have learned. This does not necessarily mean, being told . In regards to children following their parents religious persuasion, that seems to be the normal way, for the kids are pleasing their parents, by believing what their parents taught them ( about God ) is true. If the parents do not have a religious persuasion, the children may do their own research, and be influenced by the books they read, or peer pressure, to find something else in life, if they feel it feels a need.

We do not have any weapons of destruction in our house, have never had any (except for knives and spray cans), though I know that 2 of our 3 married children do have guns. The 3rd I do not know, I hope not, since they have 3 children. :)

[sahyo]

childing not need people reacting'painingfear'

[sahyo]

not saying wrongright

[rich]

Quote asheera: childing not need people reacting'painingfear' ]

True to an extent, also, childing does need people 'giving love', and reacting concern.. Reacting is a natural emotion, and there is no 'acting' involved. :) <_< ;)

[sahyo]

childing does need people 'giving love', and reacting concern..
Reacting is a natural emotion, and there is no 'acting' involved.


can "giving love"?, richie....
is agiver?
....is areceiver?

is reacting just "emotion"?....just feeling?....
which thinksreacting?

[rich]

asheera,

There are different ways to give and express love. The ways of some, may not satisfy the needs of others.

What does Love mean to any person?
It means a lot to be thought of as being a special person, by the other person.

Does Love require the physical presence of a person they love?

I do not think that it is necessary to be physically present, but if one is thinking of a
matrimonial relationship, then, physical presence would be necessary.

asheera asked: [color=gray] can "giving love"?, richie....
is agiver?
....is areceiver?

is reacting just "emotion"?....just feeling?....
which thinksreacting? </span>

richie reacts via responding, because he wants to, and feels like so, not thinking.
giving love, a giver? a receiver?

I wish richie knew that answer.. :unsure:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 12 2003, 07:09 PM

The "best defense is a strong offense" mentality might work well in competitive sports but it really doesn't go too far in diplomatic circles. Ask George Bush how popular his country is after his "preemptive" strike against Iraq, on the premise that he was acting in self-defense.


you ask dubya & he'll tell ya everything's fine & dandy & peachy keen. I'm not sure what planet he's living on, but it ain't Earth. Other than that, Polaris, I'd say you're pretty dead on (no pun intended) :)

BB, if you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine yet you really should.

[BeyondBeliefs]

A Child is Fragile. It is defenseless. It will believe what it is told.
A child is totally dependant on us to speak the truth when we use mere words to describe Reality (Truth) to them.

We owe it to the future of Life to be Honest.

There can be no greater "sin" than to tell a child a belief and call it "truth".

"Told" or "Teach" ?

To Teach means that you have accomplished something in Reality.
To Tell is not the same.

Children are told to be patriots to nationalities and obedient followers of primitive religions. That is not "Teaching".
Teaching involves Truth.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris , we agree much.

I can detect no physical solutions to Humanities mental problems.

Mammal bodies must kill to eat, but in our hands, every acorn can become a tree. We can create more life than we can eat. We don't have to destroy creation to feed ourselves.

"A Human" is patterns of thought. The wisdom of the world distributed among all the inhabitance of Earth. No matter who we kill, we kill only ourselves.

Sonrisa,

"Bowling for Columbine" ? Is a Movie? I'll search google and see what it is. But meanwhile could you elaborate on some key points of it?

[sahyo]

A child is totally dependant on us to speak the truth when we use mere words to describe Reality (Truth) to them.

can "describe" which is called truth?

To Teach means that you have accomplished something in Reality.

"accomplished"?

Teaching involves Truth.

can clarify?

:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

"Truth" The actual History of Life on earth.

A child can teach the adults much.
A child has not been lied to enough to be as wrong as we are.

The children play in Reality, Play with Black , White, Palestinian, Iraeli, Irish Catholic or Buddist equally. Until they are lied to.

[rich]

Beyond Beliefs posted:


There can be no greater "sin" than to tell a child a belief and call it "truth".

"Told" or "Teach" ?

To Teach means that you have accomplished something in Reality.
To Tell is not the same.


Conversely one can also write, There is no greater "sin" than to teach a child, that to believe is a lie. B)

The truth of the matter is, that if you do not believe in anything, your belief is, not believing in anything. This argument can go on and on, like looking in 2 mirrors, and its images goes back, forward, back and forward to the vanishing point. :o

One should not imply that to believe is a lie.
Perhaps Vicente thinks that way.
Let me say, what you reiterated, is your point of view, which is ok, but there are others that will disagree. :D

[sahyo]

What does Love mean to any person?

which thinks"mean"ing?

It means a lot to be thought of as being a special person, by the other person.

which desires to "be thought of as being a special person"
...."other person"? ;)

I do not think that it is necessary to be physically present, but if one is thinking of a
matrimonial relationship, then, physical presence would be necessary.

"relationship"?....does loving 'need' marriage? :)

asheera asked:


can "giving love"?, richie....
is agiver?
....is areceiver?

is reacting just "emotion"?....just feeling?....
which thinksreacting?

richie reacts via responding, because he wants to, and feels like so, not thinking.

"reacting"wants" isn't "responding"

giving love, a giver? a receiver?

I wish richie knew that answer.. :unsure:

not thinking'answer': is 'asomeone' which "giving love"?
....is 'asomeone' which gives-receives?

[BeyondBeliefs]

There are 3000 nations and religions on earth, but only one earth, one reality, one humanity, one truth.

Beliefs can be Anything, they are not limited to, or by, Reality.
But only by the imagination of the unknowing thinker.

Religions exist here because the observation of this Creation (Truth)can neither prove nor disprove that fire breathing dragons had wings and could fly , or not.

Beliefs can only exist in the absense of knowing Truth.
The truth and the lies of other religions are religion's enemy
Religions attack and kill each other to preserve their lies.
Truth requires no defense.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 09:31 AM
A Child is Fragile. It is defenseless. It will believe what it is told.
A child is totally dependant on us to speak the truth when we use mere words to describe Reality (Truth) to them.

We owe it to the future of Life to be Honest.

There can be no greater "sin" than to tell a child a belief and call it "truth".

"Told" or "Teach" ?

To Teach means that you have accomplished something in Reality.
To Tell is not the same.

Children are told to be patriots to nationalities and obedient followers of primitive religions. That is not "Teaching".
Teaching involves Truth.
Just curious BB. ...

Are you the person your parents tried to raise you to be... or have you developed some of your own beliefs and ideas based on your personal experience over the years, that has resulting in you being an individual?

Speaking from only my own personal experience, since I was once a child.

1. I was told there is God and was faithfully taken to church every Sunday, in my youth. There was never a time in my life when I believed in God.

2. I was told there was Santa Claus. As a child I believed in Santa Claus. As soon as I was old enough to figure out that a fat guy in a red suit flying through the air in a sleigh pulled by 8 tiny reindeer, was impossible, I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

So two points made.

1. A child doesn't have to believe everything s/he is told.
2. A child may believe what s/he is told but has the ability to refute that belief at anytime.

Children are not as fragile as you think. You were a child once. Don't you think you evolved a lot all through your life to be at the place you are right now in your thinking?

[sahyo]

bb

responsing post disappeared when pressing letterkey, hehe

body readying sleeping

'morning

:D

[BeyondBeliefs]

Children are more fragile than you think.

Nearly everything you think of the world was not seen with your own eyes.

This is why Honesty is so important when teaching others.
We are the expression of everything Humanity has told itself.

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 13 2003, 08:54 PM
What does Love mean to any person?

which thinks"mean"ing?

It means a lot to be thought of as being a special person, by the other person.

which desires to "be thought of as being a special person"
...."other person"? ;)

I do not think that it is necessary to be physically present, but if one is thinking of a
matrimonial relationship, then, physical presence would be necessary.

"relationship"?....does loving 'need' marriage? :)

asheera asked:

*
* can "giving love"?, richie....
is agiver?
....is areceiver?

is reacting just "emotion"?....just feeling?....
which thinksreacting?

richie reacts via responding, because he wants to, and feels like so, not thinking.

"reacting"wants" isn't "responding"

giving love, a giver? a receiver?

I wish richie knew that answer.. :unsure:

not thinking'answer': is 'asomeone' which "giving love"?
....is 'asomeone' which gives-receives?
Dear asheera,

I AM, whatever you think I AM.

Nothing more, nothing less,

Also am, an old man, :o

Building sand castles, ;)

Blowing bubbles, :lol:

Cloud floating. :D

[BeyondBeliefs]

Morning asheera,

I too have lost more paragraphs than I have written.

luckily, we get many chances.

:)

[Polaris]

I can detect no physical solutions to Humanities mental problems.

Just because you don't detect something doesn't mean it isn't there.
and
Who's to say the solution to humanities mental problems has to be physical?

Mammal bodies must kill to eat, but in our hands, every acorn can become a tree. We can create more life than we can eat. We don't have to destroy creation to feed ourselves.

What's for supper, then?

"A Human" is patterns of thought. The wisdom of the world distributed among all the inhabitance of Earth. No matter who we kill, we kill only ourselves.

I differ this way. I think a "human" is the body and the self is patterns of thought.

The wisdom of the world evolves as we do. I'm dying. You are dying. Life and wisdom doesn't belong to you so clinging to them does you know good. You are only borrowing them for a short time. Both can and will be taken from you in the blink of an eye and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. So don't sit there worrying and thinking about death so much. There's nothing metaphysical about death.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 11:19 AM
Children are more fragile than you think.

Nearly everything you think of the world was not seen with your own eyes.

This is why Honesty is so important when teaching others.
We are the expression of everything Humanity has told itself.
I have children and have worked with children in the school system as a volunteer. Most important to a child is that they feel loved and cared for. That is where they are fragile.

As far as honesty is concerned, they aren't stupid... they know when you're not being honest. And if they don't know, they'll find out. Not everything told to you as a child was the truth yet you sit here preaching the truth to us. I assume you were able to rise above all the lies that were told to you as a child? Do you think you are the only one with the capability to rise above the lies?

I agree, nearly everything I think of the world has not being seen by my eyes. But I have the ability to choose what I believe or don't believe in... just like a child.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Rich my 1990 poem:


It and I.


It.
Blowing,
Flowing,
Forever,
Going.
Endless.

But,
Seeing,
Growing,
Knowing,
Do only I,
A time.

So,
Go I,
On wind,
Or tide,
To island,
Or to sky.

If Wise,
Live.
If Not
Die.
Do only I.

It.
Blowing,
Flowing,
Forever,
Going.
Endless.
But not I.

===

Polaris
Just because you don't detect something doesn't mean it isn't there.

I call a belief a "Belief" because it is a belief and therefore what I say is Truth.


Who's to say the solution to humanities mental problems has to be physical


My Liver, Bladder and Pancreas agree with my Dog, that a Body is Meat.

I think a "human" is the body and the self is patterns of thought.

My dog has a body, eyes , ears, nose, mouth... but we read different newspapers.

The wisdom of the world evolves as we do

Bodies die , but what we do is Forever, and even if we destroy the earth, we leave our mark in the universe.
Creation never dies. What a bacteria did 500 million years ago continues to live. What we DO is forever.
What we ARE is the evolving structure of the first hydrogen atoms.

The pen having written moves on.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polais,
(BB) preaching the truth

Truth requires no preaching.

You eat the three meals (corn sypup) that the Plantation owners feed to their Slaves.
You salute their flag and join their army.
You vote for the candidates that the corporate dictatorsship provides for you to choose from.
You read their media and think that Saddam did not provide good security in Iraq.

You, and the children, do as you are told.
I merely point to it and say that only the Truth can take down the borders and the beliefs that turn Brother against brother for the glory of the "kings".

[Polaris]

I call a belief a "Belief" because it is a belief and therefore what I say is Truth.

Suppose you only believe is it Truth. By golly, supposing you're actually wrong!!! What then? Blame your parents?? Your grandparents? The entire history of the Universe right down to the microbes splashing about in the primordial soup?? If you are wrong don't you think you should have to take some responsibilty for your wrongness?

You can't change the past. We are who we are because of a series of events. We are evolving BB. There's nothing you can do about that. The only constant is change. The best you can do is to try to live this life without regret. Why do you worry so much about the past and the future? Focus on the now.

[BeyondBeliefs]

We all wish for the same thing

http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/On...hildrenWell.mid (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/TeachYourChildrenWell.mid)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 12:08 PM
We all wish for the same thing

http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/On...hildrenWell.mid (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/TeachYourChildrenWell.mid)
Don't wish for things, BB. It only brings suffering. Deal with each moment as it arrives. You can set goals and work towards them but don't wish because you will be sorely disappointed if things don't work out according to plan.

You seem pretty disppointed with the way the world is anyhow. Granted, there is much suffering out there, you have to accept that there is suffering out there. You are seeking the Truth. You wont find it wishing and fantasizing about how things could/should be. You'll only find it by accepting the way things are.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Oct 13 2003, 12:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Oct 13 2003, 12:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Oct 12 2003, 07:09 PM

The "best defense is a strong offense" mentality might work well in competitive sports but it really doesn't go too far in diplomatic circles. Ask George Bush how popular his country is after his "preemptive" strike against Iraq, on the premise that he was acting in self-defense.


you ask dubya & he'll tell ya everything's fine & dandy & peachy keen. I'm not sure what planet he's living on, but it ain't Earth. Other than that, Polaris, I'd say you're pretty dead on (no pun intended) :)

BB, if you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine yet you really should. [/b][/quote]
Thanks Sonrisa. :)



I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine" yet myself. Going to borrow it from my sister-in-law who has rented it for the week. The school took both my kids' classes to the cinema to see it last year. I have heard it is quite an education. I look forward to seeing it. :)

[BeyondBeliefs]

polaris, we agree.

The faery tales are dissappointing.

I spend at least 4 hours a day, 7 days a week collaborating on solutions to Life's difficutlies.

After 40 years, my co-workers still call me "The Engineer", and "Organic Logic". Strangers are not so kind.

[Polaris]

BB, there are lots of different things which may be percieved as "difficulties" but in reality are not.

[sahyo]

...and "rape"?, polaris :)

[sahyo]

Deal with each moment as it arrives.


"arrives"?


You can set goals and work towards them


"towards"?

[sahyo]

I AM, whatever you think I AM.

:)...no

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 13 2003, 01:50 PM
Deal with each moment as it arrives.
"arrives"?

You can set goals and work towards them
"towards"?
The "black box" ?-generating mystery continues. ... :D

Was wondering about in the fantastic field of thought trying to image·in what might be going on inside "it" which would 'make sense out of' and thus 'explain' "it's" output. Don't know if this is a 'true' explanation or not, but it strikes me that "Monism is the theory that anything less than everything is nothing." might be a 'worthy' candidate to consider in this regard. (Note: the preceding quote taken from among the 'enlightened' 'jokes' webmaster Thomas posted in the Phil. section several days ago).

'Signed': Asif Sherlock! :lol:

[sahyo]

'nooning bb :)


I too have lost more paragraphs than I have written.


:)


luckily, we get many chances.


if happens

:D

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 14 2003, 03:55 AM
I AM, whatever you think I AM.

:)...no
Why do you say, "no".

What Do You Think? Tell the truth.

Maybe asheera thinks, I can't handle the truth, but tell me anyway.

B) I'll find out if i can handle it. ;) :o Maybe I AM a non-entity. :unsure:

[sahyo]

But I have the ability to choose what I believe or don't believe in... just like a child.


no, polaris :)

[sahyo]

Deal with each moment as it arrives.

"arrives"?

You can set goals and work towards them

"towards"?


The "black box" ?-generating mystery continues. ... :D

hehe... :D
...."black box"?

Was wondering about in the fantastic field of thought trying to image·in what might be going on inside "it" which would 'make sense out of' and thus 'explain' "it's" output. Don't know if this is a 'true' explanation or not, but it strikes me that "Monism is the theory that anything less than everything is nothing." might be a 'worthy' candidate to consider in this regard. (Note: the preceding quote taken from among the 'enlightened' 'jokes' webmaster Thomas posted in the Phil. section several days ago).

which are referring proposing "monism" theroy for?

'Signed': Asif Sherlock! :lol:

... :lol: :D

[sahyo]

Focus on the now.



which are suggesting, polaris, not possible :)

[sahyo]

You'll only find it by accepting the way things are.

"find it"?....
can polaris "accepting" called "rape"?

[sahyo]

The truth of the matter is, that if you do not believe in anything, your belief is, not believing in anything.

when thoughtbelief is absent, can "if you do not believe in anything, your belief is, not believing in anything", richie?

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 13 2003, 05:50 PM

Deal with each moment as it arrives.


"arrives"?


You can set goals and work towards them


"towards"?

which are suggesting, polaris, not possible

D'OH! :rolleyes:

Asheera never misses. :lol:

This is Polaris' brain ---------------> :)
This is Polaris' brain when Asheera gets through with it --------------> :wacko:

;)

[sahyo]

:lol: :lol: ;) :D

[rich]

asheera posted: The truth of the matter is, that if you do not believe in anything, your belief is, not believing in anything.

when thoughtbelief is absent, can "if you do not believe in anything, your belief is, not believing in anything", richie?

asheera
Posted on Oct 14 2003, 05:04 AM

a new
question here, by asheera, is not fair, and will not be answered until asheera answers the questions which rich had previously asked you.
I.E.; rich
Posted on Oct 14 2003, 04:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (asheera @ Oct 14 2003, 03:55 AM)
I AM, whatever you think I AM.

...no

Why do you say, "no".

What Do You Think? Tell the truth.

Maybe asheera thinks, I can't handle the truth, but tell me anyway.

I'll find out if i can handle it. Maybe I AM a non-entity.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Suppose you only believe is it Truth.

I believe nothing. I was told to believe and I refused.
I was not designed to believe, I was designed to know.
I don't read bibles and commandments, I write them.
As do we all. Your children will do as they are told.
Until they know better.


By golly, supposing you're actually wrong!!! What then?
Everyone is wrong until they are right.
It is our job to be wrong until we are right.

Blame your parents?? Your grandparents? The entire history of the Universe right down to the microbes splashing about in the primordial soup??
Does Blaming ancestors , parents or foreigners for their efforts at defending their children from the blame of others, help them, or anyone?

If you are wrong don't you think you should have to take some responsibilty for your wrongness?
We are each responsible for every minute of our lives.

You can't change the past. We are who we are because of a series of events. We are evolving BB. There's nothing you can do about that.
We decide what we create in the world. We decide what we "evolve" into.
We make the Hitlers and the George W. Bushes and the Popes and Mother Tereasas.
When we murder a half million people then we also murder all of their future offspring, and replace them with our corporate dictatorship.


The only constant is change. The best you can do is to try to live this life without regret.
Be careful what memories you Make and you will have fewer regrets.

Why do you worry so much about the past and the future? Focus on the now.
The ignorance of the past is what stands between you and a better future.

We are the summ total of every action ever taken.
No one can replace you.
If Life on earth continues, it will be because we educated each other and replaced beliefs with Truth.

[BeyondBeliefs]

asheera , The "black box" ?-generating mystery continues. ...

Those eyes that were born to parents who had been cast into a well see life.
The offspring define life, Live, Accept, Enjoy Life, and teach their own children how to live in the well without drowning.

Yes, they are secure in their well, eating frogs and quenching thurst.
Some would argue that they are better off than those living on top of the land. But Life will love life no matter where it is placed,
in Alaska or on the Equator.

Those who condemn the People who live in different places and believe different things are the ones who bring misery to Life.

[BeyondBeliefs]

I missed responding to this one, (see, I'm not perfect, just persuing it)


BB said "I call a belief a "Belief" because it is a belief and therefore what I say is Truth."
Is it a "sin" to call a belief "A belief"? Is it false? Incorrect? Or is it Truth.

Polaris says: "BB, there are lots of different things which may be percieved as "difficulties" but in reality are not."
I count the dead bodies, the unwanted teen pregnancies, the street gang members, Adolescent Refugees escaping their confusion with drugs, the greedy CEO's, the theives, con artists, wife beaters, murderers, and rebelious revenging outcasts raping innocent children.

Beliefs can not teach children Truth in a believable way. Simple Rules can not replace the understanding that Human children seek. Sooner or later the child MUST "touch the stove" in order that their Life be well fed.
To deny them Truth is to promote their "Starvation" and deprivation.

The ten commandments of Zeus are not reason for the intelligent child.
The obedient and the ignorant are served well by simple rules, while Humanity and life is not.

The obedient followers of beliefs will join "armies" and lie, steal and kill.
Those who know Truth will protest.

[Polaris]

I believe nothing. I was told to believe and I refused.

BB, I think you believe in more than you are ready or willing to admit.

The more time I spend here chatting it up on The Big View, the more I realize I believe (think I know) more than I really do. I am willing to admit that where once I believed I didn't believe in anything, I now know that I do. (although God isn't one of them ;)

Everyone is wrong until they are right.
It is our job to be wrong until we are right.

Since you are not perfect and since you do not know everything, this statement you made indicates to me that you are wrong at least some of the time. During those times of wrongness, some of which I know I have witnessed here, you speak as though you are right. So when you are wrong but speak to me as though you are right, are you lying to me intentionally or are you innocently believing that you are right?


Blame your parents?? Your grandparents? The entire history of the Universe right down to the microbes splashing about in the primordial soup??

Does Blaming ancestors , parents or foreigners for their efforts at defending their children from the blame of others, help them, or anyone?

I'm not exactly sure what you just said here. :huh: But I'll explain what I meant by what I said.

My impression of you since you first arrived here is that you hold some disdain towards the history of mankind for telling each new generation how to live and what to believe in. You often say that we carry the wisdom since the beginning of time (to quote you from this thread "We are the summ total of every action ever taken."), so during those times when you are wrong, why are you wrong? Is it your souly your fault that you are wrong or are you wrong because somebody along the way fed you an incorrect piece of information?

We decide what we create in the world. We decide what we "evolve" into.

I disagree to a certain extent. I think we we may be able to decide to a certain degree what we don't "evolve" into but in our effort to avoid a pothole we may end up in the ditch. When Einstein discovered nuclear fission he was thinking of it as a useful source of energy. It was not his intention to provide the world with the science to create the world's most devastating weapon of mass destruction (to date). Evolution generally occurs as a necessity and it happens so gradually that you hardly know a changed has occured until it's too late. And you can't go home again.

Be careful what memories you Make and you will have fewer regrets.

Regrets are attatchments to the past. Desires are attachments to the future.
Memories are memories, it's how you attach to them that create regret.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 14 2003, 09:52 AM


The obedient followers of beliefs will join "armies" and lie, steal and kill.
Those who know Truth will protest.
You are an obedient follower of your own beliefs and you are willing to come here and lie (albeit unintentionally and innocently, because you believe you are right when you speak, which is fine because we all do it. To err is human, right?).

Those who know the Truth... and those who believe they know the Truth will protest.

Which is why you and I are having this discussion. There are two possiblities...one of us knows the Truth and one doesn't... or neither of us knows the Truth. Since I know I don't know the Truth and I know you're wrong enough of the time so I'm pretty sure you don't know the Truth, I'm opting for the second possibility ;)

[rich]

Great stuff you posted Polaris.

Now let me write about an almost impossible scenario happening on thebigview, which would be Polaris and asheera, at the same time, but not knowing the knowing that they are two enlightened beings. B)
If they were truly enlightened Would they still proclaim that God Is Impossible, or would they not know that God is Impossible, or would they 'think' that God is possible? :unsure:

Of course, you can not speak for asheera, but I think that you and she are pretty much in agreement, on that issue. Just wondering how strong your opinion is, on that matter. :D

[Polaris]

:) Thanks very much, Rich.

I don't know about Asheera but I am NO enlightened being!
I am, at most, an infant. At times I bearly qualify for 'embryo' status. :mellow:

About God.... I would claim that I do not know if God is possible or impossible. :)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 07:48 PM

Sonrisa,

"Bowling for Columbine" ?* Is a Movie?* I'll search google and see what it is.* But meanwhile could you elaborate on some key points of it?
BB, I'm not about to spoil your viewing experience. Rent the movie.

I will tell you this- a couple weeks ago one of the cable channels aired a pop-up version of Planet Of The Apes & one of the pop-ups said, "Bowling For Columbine viewers may not know that Charlton Heston once espoused liberal causes..." & then went on to name some of those causes. I had to laugh- of all the many movies Charlton Heston has made, the pop-up people would refer to Bowling For Columbine.....

Dick Clark's bit in the flick is rather, um, enlightening....

I'll leave you with my sister's take on the movie: "How normal Marilyn Manson was, even in full make-up, as compared to Charlton Heston." After I quit laughing & picked myself up off the floor I thought, ya know, she's right! :)

and I think to myself, what a wonderful world......

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 14 2003, 02:10 PM

I'll leave you with my sister's take on the movie: "How normal Marilyn Manson was, even in full make-up, as compared to Charlton Heston." After I quit laughing & picked myself up off the floor I thought, ya know, she's right! :)


OMG!!! :o

My brother-in-law said almost the exact same thing!!

:lol:

I can't wait to see this movie.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 13 2003, 09:10 PM

2.* I was told there was Santa Claus.* As a child I believed in Santa Claus.* As soon as I was old enough to figure out that a fat guy in a red suit flying through the air in a sleigh pulled by 8 tiny reindeer, was impossible, I stopped believing in Santa Claus.


When I found out there was no Santa I felt betrayed & lied to. Even to this very day, I think, what a big lie, when I see somebody dressed up as Santa, even tho I know the poor dude in the suit is just trying to make a buck or two & pay his rent....
I do enjoy the Christmas season & most of its trappings, the one Christmas trapping that I don't care for being Santa.

There are some things out there in the Real World that will warp a kid's mind for life, so I can see the need to um, gild the truth, to a kid in such cases. But to tell them a gratuitous lie, such as Santa- when you know that eventually your gonna have to tell them the truth, if they don't already figure it out for themselves, that makes no sense. From their POV- if you lied to them about Santa, what else ya lying about?


ps, speaking of holidays, Polaris, hope you had a nice Thanxgiving! :)

[Polaris]

I never felt betrayed about the Santa Claus thing. It was just one of those childhood things, like the boogeyman hiding under my basement stairs, making a face in the wind and having it stay that way, step on a crack/break your mother's back etc...

And I don't mind so much Santa since he is loosely base on St. Nicolas who was allegedly a real person. The biggest problem with Santa is that until kids are old enough to understand what Christmas means to the Christian portion of the world they thinking it's all about recieving instead of giving.

What really cranks me is the Easter Bunny. I know the origins of Easter but I don't know how the Easter Bunny fits in there. Seems like a handy creation of card and chocolate makers.

I still needle my mother about something she told me when I was still a pre-schooler and never forgot.

You know in the display windows of some furniture stores they sometimes have a mini bed set up with the bed spread and headboard all made up as a mini-display bed to show off the headboard and/or bedspread? Well, one day as I was out shopping with my mother I asked her about those little display beds and she told me (apparently tongue-in-cheek but I didn't notice) they were beds for dwarves. Since I knew all about Snow White's dwarves and their tiny beds from the Walt Disney movie, I fully believed her. It was quite a number of years later when I finally realized she'd pulled my leg!! D'OH!! :rolleyes:

Yes, I had a very pleasant Thanksgiving. Incredible weather. Except yesterday it rained almost all day so it was a good excuse to do absolutely nothing. Even grabbed a nap... I never do that!! You're in Canada, aren't you Sonrisa? Did you have a good weekend?

[rich]

Sonrisa in Canada. Politicing for Kopinik(sp)? please correct spelling, this man needs name recognition. A good man.

Polaris, alittle trivia, that i did not know before.

On Thursday, the children's author Angela Johnson was on the show, sharing her thoughts on the current state of kid's literature, black versus white authors, and what can and should talk about in books for kids. She is also a delight to listen to.

This weekend I'll be back in Canada to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. Before I moved to Boston I never really knew why people on the north side of Lake Ontario celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October -- 6 weeks before the people on the south side of the Lake. Now I get it. Americans USED to celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October at a time when the corn in New England was ripe, but then Major League Baseball got popular, and people realized that no one wanted to come to the Harvest Table when the playoff were on. Word is that when the Red Sox beat the Cubs 4-2 in 1918, everyone was watching the game on the Pilgrim jumbo-tron and the seagulls and raccoons got into the pumpkin pudding.

So THAT's why Thanksgiving in the United States was moved to late November, because, as everyone knows, at that time, there are no sporting events to distract people from giving thanks.

Have a great weekend. I'll talk to you Monday

Cheers,



Subscription Information
Thank you for subscribing to this newsletter, the best way to find out what is coming up on The Connection. We will only use your email address to communicate with you and will never give it to other parties.

[Polaris]

:huh: Kopinik?

Rich, I thought football was one of the highlights of US Thanksgiving. Seems my usual TV shows are always pre-empted for "the big game" (I am not a football fan... soccer is my sport)

Actually I didn't know your Thanksgiving was ever the same as ours. I figured your's was later because you have a longer growing season. And it was also handy on that date because it was the big kick-off to the holiday shopping season. Merchants like it that way.

[sahyo]

is onenotone which can "enlightened"?
....is "enlightened"?, richie ;)

[a random hack]

So when you are wrong but speak to me as though you are right, are you lying to me intentionally or are you innocently believing that you are right?

maybe the problem with beliefs/ knowledge is that we cannot be sure if it true or not, or we try and apply it too widely? :)

When I found out there was no Santa I felt betrayed & lied to
hey, me too :)

From their POV- if you lied to them about Santa, what else ya lying about?


maybe the point is to get kids to ask questions like this, to 'protect' them from people like 'us' (who tell lies like this to kids like those...?)?

[rich]

asheera asked:is onenotone which can "enlightened"?
....is "enlightened"?, richie

If richie was ENLIGHTENED, would he broadcast it to the world via TBV , for the world to see and hear," follow me, I am enlightened".?
No, for this world knocks those who are content with themselves, down. I have no fear of that, not having self contentment. ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 15 2003, 05:10 AM
:huh: Kopinik? X ERROR
I meant, Dennis Kucinich

Rich, I thought football was one of the highlights of US Thanksgiving. Seems my usual TV shows are always pre-empted for "the big game" (I am not a football fan... soccer is my sport)

Actually I didn't know your Thanksgiving was ever the same as ours. I figured your's was later because you have a longer growing season. And it was also handy on that date because it was the big kick-off to the holiday shopping season. Merchants like it that way.
Meant Dennis Kucinich. A man for peace. Name needs more recognition.
Hint to Sonrisa, TBV's active politician. ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 15 2003, 04:49 AM
Dennis Kucinich, a good man. A man of peace.

Polaris, alittle trivia, that i did not know before.


This weekend I'll be back in Canada to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. Before I moved to Boston I never really knew why people on the north side of Lake Ontario celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October -- 6 weeks before the people on the south side of the Lake. Now I get it. Americans USED to celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October at a time when the corn in New England was ripe, but then Major League Baseball got popular, and people realized that no one wanted to come to the Harvest Table when the playoff were on. Word is that when the Red Sox beat the Cubs 4-2 in 1918, everyone was watching the game on the Pilgrim jumbo-tron and the seagulls and raccoons got into the pumpkin pudding.

So THAT's why Thanksgiving in the United States was moved to late November, because, as everyone knows, at that time, there are no sporting events to distract people from giving thanks.

Have a great weekend. I'll talk to you Monday

Cheers,

oops, I meant Dennis Kucinich.

[sahyo]

If richie was ENLIGHTENED, would he broadcast it to the world via TBV , for the world to see and hear," follow me, I am enlightened".?

richie

is "ENLIGHTENED"?

[sahyo]

not asking isisn't

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 10:43 AM
not asking isisn't

not asking isisn't; then, is, is not enlightened.meaningUNENLIGHTENED :lol: ;)

[sahyo]

hehhehhhe

"UN"?

:D ;)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 14 2003, 11:38 PM

Meant Dennis Kucinich. A man for peace. Name needs more recognition.
Hint to Sonrisa, TBV's active politician. ;)
I guess he does need more recognition. I have never heard of him before. Sorry. :(

I checked out his webpage to learn more. He sounds almost... er... Canadian. ;) :)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 11:41 AM
hehhehhhe

"UN"?

:D ;)
Yes asheera, "UN", when spelling the entire word, I think, would appear to look like this : "you""en"lightened ;) :D .with out the quotation marks, the equivalent word spelling would be, youenlightened :D

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris+Oct 15 2003, 07:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 15 2003, 07:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 14 2003, 11:38 PM

Meant Dennis Kucinich. A man for peace. Name needs more recognition.
Hint to Sonrisa, TBV's active politician. ;)
I guess he does need more recognition. I have never heard of him before. Sorry. :(

I checked out his webpage to learn more. He sounds almost... er... Canadian. ;) :) [/b][/quote]
I'm sorry for making things so unclear. But Representative Dennis Kucinich, is not the author of this letter:
This weekend I'll be back in Canada to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. Before I moved to Boston I never really knew why people on the north side of Lake Ontario celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October -- 6 weeks before the people on the south side of the Lake. Now I get it. Americans USED to celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October at a time when the corn in New England was ripe, but then Major League Baseball got popular, and people realized that no one wanted to come to the Harvest Table when the playoff were on. Word is that when the Red Sox beat the Cubs 4-2 in 1918, everyone was watching the game on the Pilgrim jumbo-tron and the seagulls and raccoons got into the pumpkin pudding.

So THAT's why Thanksgiving in the United States was moved to late November, because, as everyone knows, at that time, there are no sporting events to distract people from giving thanks.

Have a great weekend. I'll talk to you Monday

Cheers,
signed by Dick Gordon of WBUR (National Public Radio)

[Polaris]

That's okay Rich. No confusion. I went to Dennis Kucinich's web site
http://www.kucinich.us/
and read some of the stuff on there and that's why I made my comment about him sounding almost Canadian. :)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich+Oct 16 2003, 02:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Oct 16 2003, 02:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Oct 15 2003, 11:41 AM
hehhehhhe

"UN"?

:D ;)
Yes asheera, "UN", when spelling the entire word, I think, would appear to look like this : "you""en"lightened ;) :D .with out the quotation marks, the equivalent word spelling would be, youenlightened :D [/b][/quote]
Which could mean,
asheeraenlightened :D ;)
Is asheera ENLIGHTENED??? :blink: B)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich+Oct 16 2003, 02:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Oct 16 2003, 02:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Polaris@Oct 15 2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by -rich@Oct 14 2003, 11:38 PM

Meant Dennis Kucinich. A man for peace. Name needs more recognition.
Hint to Sonrisa, TBV's active politician. ;)
I guess he does need more recognition. I have never heard of him before. Sorry. :(

I checked out his webpage to learn more. He sounds almost... er... Canadian. ;) :)
I'm sorry for making things so unclear. But Representative Dennis Kucinich, is not the author of this letter:
This weekend I'll be back in Canada to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. Before I moved to Boston I never really knew why people on the north side of Lake Ontario celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October -- 6 weeks before the people on the south side of the Lake. Now I get it. Americans USED to celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October at a time when the corn in New England was ripe, but then Major League Baseball got popular, and people realized that no one wanted to come to the Harvest Table when the playoff were on. Word is that when the Red Sox beat the Cubs 4-2 in 1918, everyone was watching the game on the Pilgrim jumbo-tron and the seagulls and raccoons got into the pumpkin pudding.

So THAT's why Thanksgiving in the United States was moved to late November, because, as everyone knows, at that time, there are no sporting events to distract people from giving thanks.

Have a great weekend. I'll talk to you Monday

Cheers,
signed by Dick Gordon of WBUR (National Public Radio) [/b]
Originally posted by -rich@Oct 16 2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by -Polaris@Oct 15 2003, 07:37 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 14 2003, 11:38 PM

Meant Dennis Kucinich. A man for peace. Name needs more recognition.
Hint to Sonrisa, TBV's active politician.
I guess he does need more recognition. I have never heard of him before. Sorry.

I checked out his webpage to learn more. He sounds almost... er... Canadian. ;) :)
I'm sorry for making things so unclear. But Representative Dennis Kucinich, is not the author of this letter:
This weekend I'll be back in Canada to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. Before I moved to Boston I never really knew why people on the north side of Lake Ontario celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October -- 6 weeks before the people on the south side of the Lake. Now I get it. Americans USED to celebrate Thanksgiving in mid-October at a time when the corn in New England was ripe, but then Major League Baseball got popular, and people realized that no one wanted to come to the Harvest Table when the playoff were on. Word is that when the Red Sox beat the Cubs 4-2 in 1918, everyone was watching the game on the Pilgrim jumbo-tron and the seagulls and raccoons got into the pumpkin pudding.

So THAT's why Thanksgiving in the United States was moved to late November, because, as everyone knows, at that time, there are no sporting events to distract people from giving thanks.

Have a great weekend. I'll talk to you Monday

Cheers,
signed by Dick Gordon of WBUR (National Public Radio) [/quote]
What country is this dude living in? On Thanxgiving here, in the United States, we sit around stuffing ourselves with turkey & dressing while watching football all day.

Ps to Polaris, we had very nice weather this past weekend here in my part of the United States, & it's still holding! :)

KUCINICH ROCKS!!
(how's that Richie?)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 16 2003, 12:30 PM


KUCINICH ROCKS!!

Shouldn't that be KUCINICH ROX? ;)

[Polaris]

Okay, so who besides me, is in Canada? :huh:

Where's everyone currently at?

And that question includes you too, Asheera, even though I suspect you'll tell me you're nowhere or something like that ;)

[sahyo]

hehe.... ;)

did post a thread
(don't remember title)
living olympia wa usa

however

though body appeared usa....

body grew quesnel bc cananda
....also lived prince george bc,
high prairie, edmonton,
and trochu, alta

has polaris traveled
bc and alta?

....usa?

did travel quebec

:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 14 2003, 11:25 AM
What really cranks me is the Easter Bunny.* I know the origins of Easter but I don't know how the Easter Bunny fits in there.* Seems like a handy creation of card and chocolate makers.
Once saw a Discovery Channel, 'History'-type show in which the 'bunny' thang was traced bag to 'Nature', or 'Pagan', 'worship' traditions - you see, the bunny is very reproductively prolific - and that goes hand in glove with 'Spring' "Love is in the Air' kinds of thanging.

If my memory serves me right, and it may not in this case because what I'm remembering is very 'wispy', the Mad Hare (or Mad March Hare) 'character also comes from this, as the English bunny's (I don't know if this is just the 'male' ones, or both sexes) often go into a kind of 'tizzy' and 'madly' hiphop-dash-swerve-bounce-dance all over the place.

The 'English Church' historically co·opted what amounts to a 'fertility' 'symbol' -- hence the otherwise conundrumistic association of rabbits and eggs! I suppose the 'take over' and 'incorporation' of the 'logo' could be understood to be a function of the (most? all?) church's 'monopolistic' tendencies -- like corporations which design and include 'imitative' products in their product line to expand their 'customer base' and increase their 'market share'. In this case, what with their 'special lobby' 'inside track' relationship with gov't officials, they were pretty much 'successful' in eliminating their 'spiritually product' competition -- except in the 'underground' market, that is.

What else is new? The way I 'see' it, it's a big-carnivorous-dinosaur tending to gobble up any and all little-dinosaurs, carnivorous and otherwise, it can get its teeth into and mouth on. Personally, I'm 'looking forward' with positive anticipation, 'waiting' in a 'laid back' way, for the onset of the next, necessarily 'periodical', 'big-dinosaur'-extinction event, to 'free' all the 'wee willy' folks from the psychospiritual and socioeconomic 'ravages' of the 'big' churches and 'corporations'. A diversity of lots of 'varieties' of 'little' 'cohesive groups' will 'invigorate' and serve to 'ensure' more rapid 'higher' evolution (of psychospiritual and socioeconomic 'system''structures), methinks.

The 'trends' reported in the 'news' are encourageing in this regard. I think it's a 'good' 'bet' that a 'great' evolutionarily 'leap' 'forward' in terms of human 'culture', is coming. The setting-man's-foot-on-the-moon event-gestalt was not 'it' -- only another ex·pression of big-dinosauring 'prowess' -- which, I think, will relatively soon (quite possibly in the context of 'our', TBV·er's lifetimes), 'lie in the dust' along with other 'rah, rah, siss boom bah' mass-'ravings'!

The 'happening' (like all 'destructive' storms) ain't gonna be 'pretty' folks, and a lot of 'good' people are going to suffer 'significant' (to them) 'loss' as well, but the 'greater good' will thereby be 'served'. Symbolic·ally speaking (from Ch.4 of the Bhagavad Gita): "Whenever spirituality decays and materialism is rampant, then, O Arjuna, I reincarnate Myself! To protect the 'righteous', to destroy the 'wicked' and to establish the 'kingdom of God', I am reborn from age to age." (the single-quote 'set offs' are my addition, to 'signify' that I think particular words bear 'interpreting' in a non-'simplistic' fashion).

Or so it makes 'sense' to me to here and now image·in and en·vision. :ph34r:

[Polaris]

Polaris was born in Quebec.
Went to university in Nova Scotia. Lived here ever since. (went to university and got my "Mrs." ;) )
I have travelled to Alberta years ago but not BC but I have cousins in Vancouver.
Drove across Canada from Alberta.
Never been to Newfoundland, though.
Been to Florida. Disney World and visiting in-laws in Tampa.
Been to Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire lots of times to spend time in the mountains. (skiing hiking.. back when I was young and still had good knees)
:)

[sahyo]

:D

[Polaris]

Yeah... basically I haven't been anywhere. :)

[a random hack]

you know where i am.

i'm hiding under the bed from asheeras cat! :lol:

[BeyondBeliefs]

Fast paced topic. I'm 3 pages behind.

Polaris :
I write the words that I feel certain are true.
The rest of the world must convince me otherwise.
My job is to be available to change my mind.
I like it when people disagree.
It means that someone may learn something.
I always hope it is me.

Asheera :
I'll check out "Bowling for Columbine".
I think M.Manson has a worthy goal.

Rich :
I have a transcript of Kucinich opening speech in Ohio Oct 13th.
He is wise.
He wisdom is to late to save the bodies, but I hope people are willing to listen and think what his words actually mean.

I emailed the speech to 428 people on my Site List.
May help.

Santa Bunny :
Once adults lie to a child, they can never SIMPLY believe us, ever again.
Learning becomes slow in the NEW conflict caused by the uncertainty in the believabilty of words.
Thus Producing two kinds of children,
1.) the slow methodical, thinking Rebel.
2.) the fast , obedient worker follower.

[sahyo]

:lol: ...don't need to hide hack
...not cat now :D

[sahyo]

'haps

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 16 2003, 10:58 PM


Polaris :
I write the words that I feel certain are true.
The rest of the world must convince me otherwise.
My job is to be available to change my mind.
I like it when people disagree.
It means that someone may learn something.
I always hope it is me.



BB,

Feeling that you are certain is not the same as knowing you are certain. If you only feelor think you are certain when you share your words with us, then you are expressing a belief.

It's not a matter of the rest of the world having to convince you... sometimes it's just a matter of you opening up and seeing the possibility that perhaps your feeling is incorrect. Learning is a two-way street, BB. A master can teach a student until he is old a withered but if the student is not willing to learn the master's efforts are all for naught.


Santa Bunny :
Once adults lie to a child, they can never SIMPLY believe us, ever again.
Learning becomes slow in the NEW conflict caused by the uncertainty in the believabilty of words.
Thus Producing two kinds of children,
1.) the slow methodical, thinking Rebel.
2.) the fast , obedient worker follower.

1.) the slow methodical, thinking Rebel.
Wouldn't a slow methodical thinker.. as a rebel... be a leader .. as one who initiates change??

So there are two types of people.. leaders and followers. Yup. No surprises there. Not sure Santa Claus is responsible for it though.

Name one person in this world (other than yourself) who, at one point in his/her life did not believe in a character whose existence is/was highly questionable.

[BeyondBeliefs]

There is no difference between feeling and knowing.
You can not be 100 % certain of either.
What we call "Life" may in fact be just be a very complex Mineral Deposit.

The best we can do with what we now have to do it with is Perfection.

I willfully believe Nothing.
And that is what I believe.
It is what I actually do.

(take your time)

===

Santa Bunny :

Most of the murder in the world is caused by followers,
not leaders. Leaders are the last to know Truth.
They are busy leading, and not seeing the bodies, not driven to find a better way.

Ignorance is the common condition.
Wisdom always arrives to late.

===

One Person does not exist in the universe.
We are 50,000 years of accumulated thought.
We are billions of Minds.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Santa : By any name, The LIE is the only problem.

[Polaris]

There is no difference between feeling and knowing.


:D Where's Vicente when you need him??

[sonrisa]

good question Polaris. Probably been picked up by the Thought Police (aka Homeland Security) given the stuff he's been posting on this site. Lord knows what he's been posting elsewhere.

To answer your other question Polaris I was born & raised in Cincinnati & I'm still here. So is most of my extended family tho some of us are scattered elsewhere. Have places to stay when I go traveling, which I like to do. Been to most of the states east of the Mississippi, & some to the west- the furthest west I've been is Las Vegas. Won enough to get my car out of airport parking when I got back. The furthest north I've been is Toronto. Also been to other places in Ontario, but not to any other provinces so far. Also been to Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, & El Salvador, where I finally swam in the Pacific Ocean. Swam in the Atlantc & the Gulf several times, also all the Great Lakes except for Lake Superior. Nearly got kicked out of Lake Ontario once.

Haven't been to the New England states or the Maritimes but one of my cousins & her husband got back from there recently. They were in Hurricane Juan. She was saying that they walked on the floor of the Atlantic & that if there had been water there they would of been around 45ft under it. Is that normal Polaris, or was that a temporary thing caused by Juan?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 17 2003, 06:44 AM
Santa : By any name, The LIE is the only problem.
Strikes me that 'enlightened' (relatively at least) parents might elect to 'go along with' the Santa Story as being 'true' while their kids are very young, if for no other reason than not to 'confuse' such very young child, who may indeed be 'confused' and possibly suffer untowards consequences from 'believing' 'peers', IF s/he received mixed 'messages' pertaining to 'the truth' from her/his parents and those in the community at large.

Those same parents might also elect to 'keep an eye' on their kids, 'watching' for the emergence and development of 'critical thinking' faculties, frequently (as each Xmas seeason approached maybe) 'assessing' the degree of such faculty's development by periodically 'sounding out' their kids about what they really think-n-believe 'the truth' is about Santa.

Then, as soon as they 'detected' that their kids were about to break out of that myth-bubble-cocoon, or that they were already in the process of doing so, such parents may elect to congratulate their kids for having 'rationally' penetrated the folk-lore 'ruse', simulatneously letting them know they were (expectantly) waiting for the time to come when their kid 'hatched', so to speak, in this regard.

Strikes me that such kinds of elections on parents' parts might well 'reinforce' 'healthy' 'skepticism' in their children by 'showing' them that 'independent' thinking (as 'opposed' to simply 'believing' whatever one is 'told') was something 'adults' considered 'laubadle'. Not at all a 'bad' opportunity, for something like that to be 'message' communicated, seems to me the Santa Myth is, or at least 'could' be.

The LIE is the only 'problem'? Hardly. Any 'problem' in this regard, as with any other so called 'problem', depends on how it is approached and contextually handled methinks.

Of course, if one thinks-n-believes that "The LIE is the only 'problem'", one might approach and handle 'it' (whatever one thinks is a LIE) quite differently and the outcome might be quite different from the above-hypothesized 'enlightened parent' case. Kids who are prematurely 'told' by their parents that the Santa story is nothing but a LIE, especially if they're still too young to understand and 'diplomatically negotiate' the limitations and motivations of others who genuinely 'believe' it is 'true' may also be 'unhealthily' 'warped' by derivative experiences it seems to me.

"The LIE is the only 'problem'." Hmmm.... Now that is re·mind·ing me of thangs like "The JEWS are the only 'problem'." Doesn't this kind of unqualified assertion (some might call it a 'bald' LIE) smack of the of 'propaganda' that demagogs have so often [u]used to 'whip up' sentiment 'against' some 'opponent' or other and 'induce' simple-minded'-'idealists' to 'rally' in support of their 'cause'. Such 'simplistically' 'clear cut analyses, as Bush's 'popularity' to date indicates, are 'attractive' to many. But not in my case - you ain't getting my 'vote' on this one, BB. Your utterances are way, and I mean waaaay, too 'demagoging' to be 'warmed' to by the likes of me.
:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

The Truth,
(The history of the universe and life on earth and whatever God)
is the same for every living thing on earth. People have erected borders and lock themselves inside cathederals and cursed each other to eternal hell over their lack of agreement. (Over the differences in their Lies).

In fact, whatever Truth Humanity has discovered over the centuries, was collected by millions, their many notes shared and compared to arrive at a common understanding of what has been observed through all those thousands of centuries.

Together Humanity find the Truth.
Lies keep Humanity apart.
Making progress slow.

[BeyondBeliefs]

After decades of designing machines and writing technical manuals, my way of writing is just a niusance here.

[shifu]

Going back to the question what is the USA? This might not be what Vicente (topic starter) likes to hear. We’ll some few hours ago the world’s most powerful man set on our country. Prior to his visit, the Metropolis was on the move like preparing a big fiesta or it seems that a messiah was coming. Wall of Shame were built to hide the eyesores, pavements and buildings are whitewashed. For our government’s part, to save face may be or another big maneuvering since our national election is coming. Well, most us might say it’s our fault, but USA has a “great” part in our sovereignty and politics. There is nothing wrong with the visit, but History tells us that partnership for equal opportunity for economic and development for a peaceful and well-developed country is big lie to us. It’s always one-sided development and it’s obvious for whose side. American went to war in Vietnam and left the Country devastated. They were 10th of the poorest country in Asia. Now we took their place :D ….irony isn’t it? We have been friends and allies with the Great America for a century, but nothings changed. Our government is even more becoming corrupt with the Aide of American Government.

I have been always drawn by the history of the Birth of the American Nation. It always inspires me. Now, I presumed it’s lost.

shifu

[Polaris]

Haven't been to the New England states or the Maritimes but one of my cousins & her husband got back from there recently. They were in Hurricane Juan. She was saying that they walked on the floor of the Atlantic & that if there had been water there they would of been around 45ft under it. Is that normal Polaris, or was that a temporary thing caused by Juan?

That's a normal thing.
http://www.scottwalking.com/whatsnew2b.html
http://www.valleyweb.com/fundytides/
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/fossils/protect/tideanim.htm

The tides are pretty spectacular on the Bay of Fundy, the Minas Basin in particular because it is a long skinny arm of water. When it goes out it's sort of like somebody flushes a toilet. Very dangerous for unsuspecting swimmers or windsurfers who stray too far out into the current.
:)

[sonrisa]

thanx for the linx Polaris. Very interesting reading. :)

Shifu, what country are you in?

[shifu]

sonrisa, Im a Filipino from the PhilThe Philippines.

[a random hack]

...don't need to hide hack
...not cat now
is dead?
great, so now we don't know what it has become... :lol:

seem to remember i wasn't so cut up learning the 'truth' about santa claus, as i still got the lousy presents...:)
But was really cut up when parents stole my teddy at age 7 or 8, because i was 'a big boy now'...
does anyone really understand their parents?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 19 2003, 10:33 PM
...don't need to hide hack
...not cat now
is dead?
great, so now we don't know what it has become... :lol:

seem to remember i wasn't so cut up learning the 'truth' about santa claus, as i still got the lousy presents...:)
But was really cut up when parents stole my teddy at age 7 or 8, because i was 'a big boy now'...
does anyone really understand their parents?
Funny, my 'teddy' was made 'unreachable' by an encounter with a feral cat[!] which, seeing it on the veranda-ledge, 4 yr-old 'me' approached with "here, pussy, pussy, pussy" up-outstretched hand. Dang thang jumped on and ripped my arm to shreds!

Had to be motor-bike-side-car-mother's-lap-'vac'·ed to the nearest hospital in the next town (this was in Southern India, Polaris) to get my arm all anticepticized and bandaged.

The thang of it was that it was my right arm that was all bandaged up, way past the elbow joint, so I couldn't get my 'sucking thumb' to my mouth, or my 'nose tickler' (which was a soft rag which I held bunched in and wiggled with my right forefinger so it 'brushed' my nose gently back and forth) to my nose. And those were the ONLY thangs that made it so I was 'comfortable' enough to go "all by 'myself' " into the no-one-n-no-thing-there-but-'me' zone of 'sleep'!

Lots o' blubbering and little sleep that night, I tell you, even with a sweety-Mom 'doting' on 'me' -- the left thumb and hand just wouldn't do -- though I 'missed' the 'significance' of what that 'told' me about 'attachment'!

Strikes me that 'God'-flow is 'geared' ('set up'? 'destined'?) in such a way that each and all of us are ultimately 'stripped' of every 'thing' we 'hold' 'dear' as well as, at least in many cases, having our 'noses' rubbed in whatever it is we find most 'aversive' and 'repellant'. But, though such seeming 'curse' may have 'repeated effects' which last a long time, methinks that may be the only way us natural-born 'teat-suckers' and 'holders on' finally 'find' our 'inherent', ubiquitously present G-spot! Very 'tricky' game board, Life is -- only those who 'find' It 'recognize' that the 'curse' was really a 'boon' in disguise all along.

You say 7 or 8 this kind of 'initiation' 'screen'-event 'happened' to you, aye, Hack. Strikes me, 'cold turkey' 'withdrawal' feels about the same whatever the 'attachment' - but that your parents did it the way they did, that sure must have additionally salt-burned the ouching! :(

Aren't we all 'lucky' that Spirit has the capacity to float-sustain Itself through of the most horrific imaginable expeeriences, and not just that, but also to 'grow' 'stronger' and 'wiser' and able to be 'happy' in a broader range of circumstances, as a result of the 'travail' involved!

Now that's 'divine grace', I seems to me. At least, without it, I tell you seriously, I wouldn't even be here.

[sahyo]

is dead?
great, so now we don't know what it has become...



:lol: :lol:

yes not know....................what? ;)


seem to remember i wasn't so cut up learning the 'truth' about santa claus, as i still got the lousy presents...


:lol:


But was really cut up when parents stole my teddy at age 7 or 8, because i was 'a big boy now'...


:) ....
so was brother 7-8 when happened no teddy....
teddy was a gift when he was hospital, when happened polio when 4,
and happening paining and missing family

[sahyo]

the 'curse' was really a 'boon' in disguise



:D :D :D

...yes was only 'seeming'

[sahyo]

The thang of it was that it was my right arm that was all bandaged up, way past the elbow joint, so I couldn't get my 'sucking thumb' to my mouth, or my 'nose tickler' (which was a soft rag which I held bunched in and wiggled with my right forefinger so it 'brushed' my nose gently back and forth) to my nose. And those were the ONLY thangs that made it so I was 'comfortable' enough to go "all by 'myself' " into the no-one-n-no-thing-there-but-'me' zone of 'sleep'!

Lots o' blubbering and little sleep that night, I tell you, even with a sweety-Mom 'doting' on 'me' -- the left thumb and hand just wouldn't do -- though I 'missed' the 'significance' of what that 'told' me about 'attachment'!



m :) mmm

[Polaris]

:) David,

Your tale of woe reminded me of my son. When he was 3 he cut his sucking thumb. It was barely more than a flesh wound but it did require a bandage to keep the flap of skin closed. We ALL suffer the loss of his attachment that night come bedtime!! Fortunately, unlike you, his arm would bend and he could still rub the satin binding on his blanket under his nose. Whew!

Later when he was 8 he had to get a special retainer in his mouth to widen his upper pallet. It interefered with his nightly thumb sucking routine to such a degree that it eventually broke him of the habit. He's 18 now and still has the blanket on his bed. :rolleyes:

I know I never sucked my thumb and I don't recall ever having any teddy bears or cuddly blankets when I was little. But I have this feather pillow now that is to die for!! ;)

[a random hack]

:lol:

funny, was rubbing nose as i scrolled onto your post, david :)

nice point about the repeated 'taking' of attachments...
and damn, that was a feral cat!!

You say 7 or 8 this kind of 'initiation' 'screen'-event 'happened' to you, aye, Hack. Strikes me, 'cold turkey' 'withdrawal' feels about the same whatever the 'attachment' - but that your parents did it the way they did, that sure must have additionally salt-burned the ouching!
yup, was vocal and persistant in my disaproval, as i recall... still prefer/ find more effective a method of wanting to let go, force works sometimes, but is less elegant and permanent a solution, seems.

never got into thumb sucking, hated the taste, and the story of 'little sucker thumb' might have helped a little too ;)

no-one-n-no-thing-there-but-'me' zone of 'sleep'
this stirred some sort of memory...:)

so was brother 7-8 when happened no teddy....
teddy was a gift when he was hospital, when happened polio when 4,
and happening paining and missing family
damn, i bet that hurt... actually, just remembered, one thing that really pissed me off at the time was that i lost my teddy, and my brother didn't lose his... :huh:

well, have used up my quota of smileys for this post, so will shut up now.

[sahyo]

actually, just remembered, one thing that really pissed me off at the time was that i lost my teddy, and my brother didn't lose his...


oh...


well, have used up my quota of smileys for this post, so will shut up now.


:D

[a random hack]

:lol:

[rich]

Dear Forum,

What appears as unintentional mistakes made by parents, by having their off-spring, believe in those hand down traditions like The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus from generation to generation, seems to be a big issue to many of the posters in this forum.

None have to go along with it, but while believing those untruths, as truth, they really are good to the degree of making a kid feel like a kid.
It is allowing the kid to feel like a kid, which is the good thing about it.
I think that most children can cope with those "white lies" their parents told them, and are appreciative that they were allowed to remain as children a little longer.

Some may feel hurt after finding out the truth, while the only transgression committed, was believing in the traditions of your ancestors. :) :mellow:

[sahyo]

:lol:


:lol:

[sonrisa]

Even tho I felt hurt & lied to on the Santa thing, I do have to admit it was pretty funny one Christmas when 2 of my nieces & their brother (my grown nephew) were small & we told them Santa's real name was Jerry Garcia (my sister did not feel hurt & betrayed by the lie & passed it on to her kidz) & they went around telling everybody, like they were privy to some big secret. I can still hear my Granny (may she rest) saying "Jerry Garcia? Who told you that? What kind of name is Jerry Garcia?" :lol: :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 22 2003, 04:19 PM
What kind of name is Jerry Garcia?" :lol:
That was pbly the whole ;) 'point' of using the "Jerry Garcia" 'name' in the joke, seems to me. It 'worked'! Grams wouldn't have had the exact same question if the name 'subsitution' had been something like "Jesus" or godforbid "David", :o At least her Q wouldn't have had the same 'intonation' (the way methinks I 'heard' it). Kudos to the 'originator'. Quite a 'niffty' niece-n-nephew 'educational' in·vent·ion methinks!
:lol:

[a random hack]

It is allowing the kid to feel like a kid, which is the good thing about it.

how does a kid feel, rt?

appears as unintentional mistakes made by parents,
appears to me like unconsidered action....

Even tho I felt hurt & lied to on the Santa thing, I do have to admit it was pretty funny one Christmas when 2 of my nieces & their brother (my grown nephew) were small & we told them Santa's real name was Jerry Garcia (my sister did not feel hurt & betrayed by the lie & passed it on to her kidz) & they went around telling everybody, like they were privy to some big secret. I can still hear my Granny (may she rest) saying "Jerry Garcia? Who told you that? What kind of name is Jerry Garcia?"

:lol: I knew it!! But still wondering what Jesus' real name was...? ;)

seems as it hurts to be excluded from a secret, so it feels good to be part of it. :D

[rich]

A Random Hack,

RH asked me this question:QUOTE
It is allowing the kid to feel like a kid, which is the good thing about it. how does a kid feel, rt?


Like a kid,rh! <_<

[a random hack]

Like a kid,rh!
wonder if it feels like that to a kid...?

[rich]

If you want to give up some of your independence, you can become like a kid again. :huh:

You can become an unruly kid by not obeying the rules your parents give to you to follow. :P

So Random, whacha going to be when you grow up? B)

[a random hack]

So Random, whacha going to be when you grow up?
Who says I am?
Who says I ain't already?
:P

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 22 2003, 09:38 PM
Like a kid,rh!
wonder if it feels like that to a kid...?
To me, being (like) a 'kid' means being play-joyfull, not being (overly) 'concerned' about 'the score' or future 'results', but, rather, more inclined to 'value' and 'enjoy' the 'fun' of being alive/LIFE and game-splash-playing around in a 'pool' of IT!

"O Arjuna! The body of man is the playground of the Self; and That which knows the activities of Matter, sages call the Self. I am the Omniscient self that abides in the playground of Matter; knowledge of Matter and of the all-knowing Self is wisdom." (The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.13, note the and in the last clause, Ocre, not referencing 'only' THAT here.)

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3).

Enjoy! :lol: David

[rich]

David S wrote, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3). </span>

[color=green]The above scriptual passage is Jesus' answer to the disciples question of, "who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

Jesus called to his side a little child, to whom he gave a place in the midst of them, and said, "Believe me, unless you become like little children again, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. He is greatest in the kingdom of heaven, who will abase himself like this little child. He who gives welcome to such a child as this in my name, gives welcome to me."

I do not hope or think that Jesus will condemn any that try to reach that state of mind, and do not succeed. If the action of desiring is there, that may be all that is needed. I really do not know the conditions.Does anyone? :unsure: B)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by DavidS+Oct 23 2003, 07:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Oct 23 2003, 07:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Oct 22 2003, 04:19 PM
What kind of name is Jerry Garcia?"* * :lol:
That was pbly the whole ;) 'point' of using the "Jerry Garcia" 'name' in the joke, seems to me. [/b][/quote]
Actually we picked Jerry Garcia becuz he had a big potbelly & a big red nose sticking out of a scraggly white beard & frizzy white hair. His name had nothing to do with it. If he had been going by Joe Blow, we would of told the kidz Santa's real name was Joe Blow.


Random, Jesus' real name was Joshua. Seriously.

[a random hack]

I really do not know the conditions
is called 'without conditions' :)

Random, Jesus' real name was Joshua. Seriously.
Joshua Garcia? :lol:

[rich]

undefined QUOTE
I really do not know the conditions

is called 'without conditions'


Oh OK,

That's what you say! :unsure:

[a random hack]

yeah. on second thoughts, a kid is prolly the last person who would know what kids are 'like'... <_<

[rich]

I remember that when I was a kid, I did not like it, for was always trying to impress people that I was grown up.

The trouble is, that now, some people can not visualize me as ever being a kid. :unsure: Some may also wonder if I will ever grow up. ;)

[sonrisa]

Random, Jesus' real name was Joshua. Seriously.
Joshua Garcia? :lol:[/QUOTE]


click here (http://www.babynames.com.au/search/search-alphabetical-results.asp?Name=jesus) Random.

and here (http://www.babynames.com.au/search/search-alphabetical-results.asp?Name=joshua)

:)

[sahyo]

names?... hehe :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 24 2003, 08:28 PM
That was pbly the whole ;) 'point' of using the "Jerry Garcia" 'name' in the joke, seems to me.
Actually we picked Jerry Garcia becuz he had a big potbelly & a big red nose sticking out of a scraggly white beard & frizzy white hair. His name had nothing to do with it. If he had been going by Joe Blow, we would of told the kidz Santa's real name was Joe Blow.
Thanks for the 'real' scoop about how the name was picked. It's interesting. I'm glad I said 'probably'. I nevertheless image·in the lady's tonal ex·pression (as she 'said', "What kind of name is that?") was fairly communicative along the lines suggested - to any with "ears that hear, and eyes that see".

One way or another, the 'meaning' pinball sure 'fluidly' boings around making 'concrete sense' in this way and that all over the place! In case you don't recognize it as such, this is just 'modern idiom' for "Alleluiah, the Lord works in mysterious ways!"
:lol:

[a random hack]

"What kind of name is that?"
funny, i heard the emphasis on 'that' :)

click here Random.

and here
wasn't doubting, just joking :)

[sonrisa]

the emphasis was on "that". Guess I should of used italics when I posted the story, but I thought it was a givven.....

My mind is a trivia sponge that picks up all sorts of info that may or may not come in handy later on down the road. I picked up the Jesus/Joshua thing years ago, before there was a net to post on. Now that there is a net to post on, just thought I'd post a couple linx so all could see for themelves....:)

[a random hack]

My mind is a trivia sponge that picks up all sorts of info that may or may not come in handy later on down the road. I picked up the Jesus/Joshua thing years ago, before there was a net to post on. Now that there is a net to post on, just thought I'd post a couple linx so all could see for themelves
:) thanx :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 26 2003, 08:40 PM
"What kind of name is that?"
funny, i heard the emphasis on 'that' :)
Funny, now I hear the emphasis on 'that'!

How about, "What kind of name is that?"?

:lol:

[rich]

Ooof! What's the difference anyway? Just what is a name, but another label to carry around! Rich is Richie , so what?
Anywhere you cut the cards, there is No respect! So what? :ph34r: :unsure:

[a random hack]

Anywhere you cut the cards, there is No respect!
you want respect?
you think you deserve it?
maybe you getting respect and don't realise?
just how much respect do you need, and watcha gonna do if I don't (appear to be) giving it?

maybe you have to give to get...

[shifu]

Hey, where is Vicente! :D

[a random hack]

We think the thought police got him... :huh:

The thought police... (http://www2.itexas.net/~jburks/1984.htm)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 29 2003, 09:44 AM
Ooof! What's the difference anyway? Just what is a name, but another label to carry around! Rich is Richie , so what?
Anywhere you cut the cards, there is No respect! So what? :ph34r: :unsure:
& Golden Eagle, & Narrowmind, & so on & so forth...... :D

[vicente]

shifu,...I been up in the US Northeast since the beginning of October. The colours were so brillant, nearly orgasmic in Vermont and New Hampshire. My most used word during the month was Wow! Also spent some time in Salem, Mass., midtown Manhattan, and Philadelphia. I am now back in New Mexico, and see that the Bigview is as fun as ever.

Random,...have you ever read Colin Wilson's 'Mind Parasites'? There is a way around those 'Thought Police'.

Vicente

[Polaris]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 2 2003, 01:46 AM
The colours were so brillant, nearly orgasmic in Vermont and New Hampshire.
Note to Self:

Dear Self,

Remember to wear a raincoat on your next visit to New England.

;)

[sahyo]

defining? ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris+Nov 2 2003, 10:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Nov 2 2003, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--vicente@Nov 2 2003, 01:46 AM
The colours were so brillant, nearly orgasmic in Vermont and New Hampshire.
Note to Self:

Dear Self,

Remember to wear a raincoat on your next visit to New England.

;) [/b][/quote]
Why Polaris, is it going to rain the next time you are in New England?
:unsure:

[vicente]

Rich,...the way I took Polaris' statement was that since the peak colours in Vermont and New Hampshire can percipitate orgasm, then a 'raincoat' around the genitals would contain the cream in the pants. However, my comment was more of an emotional orgasm than a base-energy one, which if constrained, may initiate implosion or spontaneous combustion.

My comment regarding the fall colours was to stress that in all my fairly well travel 50 years, in 5 country's, I've never seen a more awesome autumn than in upper New England (the lower part was not yet in peak).

Pictures don't come close to showing the brillance radiance revealed to ones owns eyes. And the wow! of the observation doesn't arise from perceiving a perceived, but from the so-called perceived actually animating us.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

the observation doesn't arise from perceiving a perceived, but from the so-called perceived actually animating us.


can "perceived actually animating us." if not think"perceiving a perceived"?

[sahyo]

was more of an emotional orgasm than a base-energy one,


are sure, vicente?

[sahyo]

;)

[vicente]

"the observation doesn't arise from perceiving a perceived, but from the so-called perceived actually animating us". Yes Asheera, I agree that my statement was not very clear. The so-called perceived does not actually animate us, that is, the Dream, for neither the Dream nor the perceivers are real.

The colours, in all their perceived brillance, are merely objects reflecting what they haven't absorbed,...not like seeing a green ray at the moment of a so-called sunset.

vicente
:)

[sahyo]

thankssharing "Wow!"
and clarifying post, vicente :)


neither the Dream nor the perceivers are real.

The colours, in all their perceived brillance, are merely objects reflecting


can " The colours, in all their perceived brillance, are merely objects reflecting" without thinking'perceiver'?

[shifu]

Vicente, Welcome back Sir! I was out from TBV also for some time I've been roaming around my beautiful country also. So, 'will be expecting more intelectual intercourses this winter eh! Hasta luego Señor!

shifu