Science

[sahyo]

science often like a religion
fearing people cling to when seeking desiring 'certainty'
('certainty'....yp, which not ;) )

though scientists constantly changing which is thought-idea-theorized, people seeking 'believing', desiring 'proof'-certainty, often cling to 'following' science, 'believing' which scientists prove 'is', until is poven 'wasn't'

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 2 2003, 09:15 AM
though scientists constantly changing which is thought-idea-theorized, people seeking 'believing', desiring 'proof'-certainty, often cling to 'following' science, 'believing' which scientists prove 'is', until is proven 'wasn't'
Hi asheera -

Me thinks - yes, I think :lol: - that you are 'guilty' of 'pigeon holing' 'beliefs'.

PLEASE NOTE: I agree with your 'observation', or whatever it is, that many people cling to 'beliefs', whether these be 'religious' or 'scientific', out of a desire for 'certainty', and that what people consider is known fer sure at one time is often replaced by a 'higher', or more encompassing, understanding, which then becomes a 'new' 'certainty', or sumpn like that.

BUT, and this is a BIG BUTT I'm sending your way! :P, I think there REALLY is much more to 'beliefs' and 'believing' than you PROpose. The FACT is, people who 'believe' that things, like medicines, St. Chrisopher medals, God, Jesus, whoever and whatever, and you may call thes 'placebos' if you like, will help protect them or make them 'well' again, ACTUALLY, DEMONSTRABLY, have a statistically higher rate of well-being and well-becoming than people who don't.

IOW, 'beliefs' have a DYNAMIC impact on the 'direction' of the 'flow' of Reality; if not of 'Reality' in your 'view', then at least of ACTUAL, WITNESSABLE LIFE-EXPERIENCE.

Thus I submit to you, they IN FACT have DEMONSTRABLE potency, or creative potential, and may be LEGITIMATELY positively valued -- not just relegated to the scaredy-cat certainty-seeking negative-basket. :lol:

In keeping with this, I submit that 'science' (as we know it) couldn't/wouldn't have become the HUGE, all-our-lives-AFFECTING edifice if 'scientist' types didn't FIRST 'believe' that 'universally' valid 'laws' (or 'principles' or 'dynamics') governing the flow of things EXISTED in some way, shape or form, and SECOND, that these 'laws' or 'regularities' could be 'discovered' and 'verified' by disciplined observation, experimentation, etc., and then (derivatively) THIRD, that one could 'count on' things in the 'world' to 'behave' accordingly in the future.

NOW, all such FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES, etc. may be classified as the 'play' of 'illusion', if you or anyone else wishes to define the FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES I speak of as such, and choose to do so.

HOWEVER, 'illusory' or 'real' in whatever ways one wishes/chooses to so regard them as being or not being, in this 'world' of FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES, 'beliefs' do have a lot more 'significance' than you make them out to have.

As in so many of your other comments regarding matters of common interest and concern, my 'sense' is that your pigeon-holing 'technique' grossly diminishes, or 'trivializes', the FULL-LIFE-FLESH PROPORTIONS of what is being 'talked about', or what is 'trying' (or 'attempting') to be 'talked about' and communally explored.

If you do not 'see' 'significant' 'sense' in what I have just said (in the terms I have used), fine -- I 'know' that this is a 'significant' possibility because I have witnessed you DEMONSTRABLY 'reduce' things that are said, which I have found meaningfully 'discerning', to mono- OR bi-polar word-slush on many an occasion - to the point where it is 'fairly' 'predictable' .

But if you do 'see' 'significant' 'sense' in what I have said, please answer me this: just what do you get out of such reductionism and/or slushing? Do you perhaps think -- yes, think! -- that you are doing others a 'service' of sorts by popping illusion-balloons or something like that?

From my point of view, or let me say in my personal subjective value-assessment, in so doing (by so speaking), your 'words' , or whatever you want to 'designate' them as being or not being, often shortchange mutual dialogical exploration and intercourse (ooops, quick close your eyes and ears, richie! :lol: ).

Hopefully (I refer to my hopefulness only) you won't do that here since you opened this topic for conversation and so, presumably, wish to have a mutually meaningful one.

I presume 'hope' is another one of those things which you personally have no use for, but I neverthless so hope as well as look/seek -- though I 'know', from what you have said, that you have no use for 'seeking' either -- to have such 'hope' ACTualized, whatever you (asheera) think, imagine, believe, or 'know' 'ACTualization' to be, and whether you regard it as 'real' or 'illusory'', in whole or in part.

Please forgive me for 'pressing' you so doggedly with this issue - but that is what I am personally hoping will be 'orgasmically' ACTualized here by my so 'pressing' you - 'cuz I'm a slut-lover of ALL aspects of perceived and/or experienced TRUTH (yours included).

:) David

[rich]

Quite an elegant proposition asheera. Since I am married, I'm out of the running. :unsure:

[rich]

The following two messages were posted by
Dave S.


From my point of view, or let me say in my personal subjective value-assessment, in so doing (by so speaking), your 'words' , or whatever you want to 'designate' them as being or not being, often shortchange mutual dialogical exploration and intercourse (ooops, quick close your eyes and ears, richie! ).

Please forgive me for 'pressing' you so doggedly with this issue - but that is what I am personally hoping will be 'orgasmically' ACTualized here by my so 'pressing' you - 'cuz I'm a slut-lover of ALL aspects of perceived and/or experienced TRUTH (yours included).

David

Why sexual references in this forum David?

Really think they are uncalled for, however suppose that it is your right to post what you wish. It is my right to ignore your posts too. :ph34r:

[a random hack]

:lol:

Hmmm,
Asheera talks about 'certainty'
DavidS talks about 'reality'
rich talks about 'sexual references'

And as for this,
Quite an elegant proposition asheera. Since I am married, I'm out of the running.
I got NO IDEA, I :ph34r:

[rich]

A Random Hack posted the following.
[b]
And as for this,
Quite an elegant proposition asheera. Since I am married, I'm out of the running.

I got NO IDEA, I :ph34r:

Use Too Many I's

Talk too much anyway.
O V E R & O U T

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 3 2003, 02:02 PM
Why sexual references in this forum David?
Hi rich -

I think that 'sex', and by that I mean interpersonal physical 'love'-making not reproducive mechanics, is one of the BEST, if not the BEST, analogies for interpersonal mental and emotional intercourse aimed at interpersonal communion. It is also a GREAT analogy for talking about people's personal relationship and joyful communion with 'God' - which, 'God' or 'Spirit' invisible and etherieal, is is very hard to talk about meaningfully without using analogies to communicate what one is referring or 'pointing' to.

Jesus spoke about the 'bridegroom' coming, 'brides' getting ready, and a potential 'wedding'. And we all know what happens on a bride's and groom's wedding night don't we?

And then there's this, from the OLD 'testament' no less, analogically talking about the 'nature' of the love-realtionship between people and 'God' - the potential for it at least. The Song of Solomon opens with: "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee."

And (in Ch.5) it also contains this!!!: "I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night. I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but ...."

Etc.

Really think they are uncalled for
What kind of cultural ingraining did you recieve, rich? You're sounding like an uptight Englishman :P now.

however suppose that it is your right to post what you wish.
I am not exercising any presumed 'right' here, rich. I am trying to comm·uni·cate in the best way I can think of, because of my a desire for actualizing 'loving' mental and spiritual 'communion' with others to whatever extent may be possible.

It is my right to ignore your posts too.
Anyone can ignore what anyone says here, rich - as you have personally ex·peer·ienced and commented about in relation to yourself. This derives from personal 'freedom' to choose, not any absolute 'right' (or 'wrong' ;) ), IMO. You also have the 'freedom' to 'ignore', as well as 'object to', what's in the Old and New 'Testaments' as well, rich, as does any and everyone else here.

Perhaps you think 'sex' is 'dirty' or 'bad' in some way, rich, and therefore think-n-feel references to and discussions involving 'sex' do not 'belong' in the context of 'good'- or 'high'-minded conversation?

If you 'vacate' the premises on account of my choices pertaining to subject matter, rich, then I'll be like the Italian in the 'dance' joke! I'm hoping that doesn't happen, and will miss your presence if it does.

David

[sahyo]

hi davidling

Me thinks - yes, I think - that you are 'guilty' of 'pigeon holing' 'beliefs'.

yes, davidthinking :)

PLEASE NOTE: I agree with your 'observation', or whatever it is, that many people cling to 'beliefs', whether these be 'religious' or 'scientific', out of a desire for 'certainty', and that what people consider is known fer sure at one time is often replaced by a 'higher', or more encompassing, understanding, which then becomes a 'new' 'certainty', or sumpn like that.

"higher"?....frightened people seeking certainty-'sure'

BUT, and this is a BIG BUTT I'm sending your way!, I think there REALLY is much more to 'beliefs' and 'believing' than you PROpose. The FACT is, people who 'believe' that things, like medicines, St. Chrisopher medals, God, Jesus, whoever and whatever, and you may call thes 'placebos' if you like, will help protect them or make them 'well' again, ACTUALLY, DEMONSTRABLY, have a statistically higher rate of well-being and well-becoming than people who don't.

butt is false "well-being and well-becoming" like people feel using drugs....fearing, beliefsplacebos are used like crutches....not saying wrongright

IOW, 'beliefs' have a DYNAMIC impact on the 'direction' of the 'flow' of Reality; if not of 'Reality' in your 'view', then at least of ACTUAL, WITNESSABLE LIFE-EXPERIENCE.

"direction"?

separate"experince" not

happening whether humans believe or not

Thus I submit to you, they IN FACT have DEMONSTRABLE potency, or creative potential, and may be LEGITIMATELY positively valued -- not just relegated to the scaredy-cat certainty-seeking negative-basket.

which is called 'creating', also whether humans believe or not

In keeping with this, I submit that 'science' (as we know it) couldn't/wouldn't have become the HUGE, all-our-lives-AFFECTING edifice if 'scientist' types didn't FIRST 'believe' that 'universally' valid 'laws' (or 'principles' or 'dynamics') governing the flow of things EXISTED in some way, shape or form, and SECOND, that these 'laws' or 'regularities' could be 'discovered' and 'verified' by disciplined observation, experimentation, etc., and then (derivatively) THIRD, that one could 'count on' things in the 'world' to 'behave' accordingly in the future.

yes....didn't say science cannot be used :P

....however, which needs to "'count on' things in the 'world' to 'behave' accordingly in the future."?

NOW, all such FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES, etc. may be classified as the 'play' of 'illusion', if you or anyone else wishes to define the FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES I speak of as such, and choose to do so.

definition not

HOWEVER, 'illusory' or 'real' in whatever ways one wishes/chooses to so regard them as being or not being, in this 'world' of FACTS, DEMONSTRATIONS, EXPERIENCES, 'beliefs' do have a lot more 'significance' than you make them out to have.

which is called "one" and "choice", not

beliefs not necessary

As in so many of your other comments regarding matters of common interest and concern, my 'sense' is that your pigeon-holing 'technique' grossly diminishes, or 'trivializes', the FULL-LIFE-FLESH PROPORTIONS of what is being 'talked about', or what is 'trying' (or 'attempting') to be 'talked about' and communally explored.

davidthinking"pigeon-holing", and thinkingseparate"talking about", which not

If you do not 'see' 'significant' 'sense' in what I have just said (in the terms I have used), fine -- I 'know' that this is a 'significant' possibility because I have witnessed you DEMONSTRABLY 'reduce' things that are said, which I have found meaningfully 'discerning', to mono- OR bi-polar word-slush on many an occasion - to the point where it is 'fairly' 'predictable' .

"reduce" not

is david thinkingseparating which thinks"mono- OR bi-polar word-slush" which not ;)

But if you do 'see' 'significant' 'sense' in what I have said, please answer me this: just what do you get out of such reductionism and/or slushing? Do you perhaps think -- yes, think! -- that you are doing others a 'service' of sorts by popping illusion-balloons or something like that?

"service"?

From my point of view, or let me say in my personal subjective value-assessment, in so doing (by so speaking), your 'words' , or whatever you want to 'designate' them as being or not being, often shortchange mutual dialogical exploration and intercourse (ooops, quick close your eyes and ears, richie!).

yes davidthinkingseparating-pov-"value-assessment"ingwhichnot

hehe....richie didn't close eyes and ears

Hopefully (I refer to my hopefulness only) you won't do that here since you opened this topic for conversation and so, presumably, wish to have a mutually meaningful one.

"mutually"? "meaningful"?

....davidthinkingdesiressharing'dia'thinkinginterc oursing'about'....loving not 'dia'

I presume 'hope' is another one of those things which you personally have no use for, but I neverthless so hope as well as look/seek -- though I 'know', from what you have said, that you have no use for 'seeking' either -- to have such 'hope' ACTualized, whatever you (asheera) think, imagine, believe, or 'know' 'ACTualization' to be, and whether you regard it as 'real' or 'illusory'', in whole or in part.

no not "no use for" seeking and hope....seeking and hope ceased

not "think, imagine, believe, or 'know' 'ACTualization' to be"....and not "regard as 'real' or 'illusory', in whole or in part"

Please forgive me for 'pressing' you so doggedly with this issue - but that is what I am personally hoping will be 'orgasmically' ACTualized here by my so 'pressing' you - 'cuz I'm a slut-lover of ALL aspects of perceived and/or experienced TRUTH (yours included).

"of ALL aspects of perceived and/or experienced TRUTH (yours included)" not....loving-orgasming just....and not even

:D

[sahyo]

david

seems
posted this on tbv
....don't know
if were reading
on tbv then,
if was




hearing...

hearingfiring,
hearingsofting,
hearing
callingcalling
songingsonging:
"comecome mylove,
come mysweetflower,
come myflowering,
openopen,
you are mine,
you belong to me,
let me enter
so
you can enter me,
i am you,
you are me,
youme"


responsing...

rsponsingsofting,
responsingwatering,
responsingflowing
streamingstreaming,
responsing
openingopening
callingcalling
singingsinging:
"yourssweetdarling,
yours,
i belong to you,
comecome mylove,
enterenter me,
so
can enter you,
i am you,
you are me,
youme"


now...

now
calling to calling
songing to songing
flowingflowing
streamingstreaming
openingopening
enteringentering
firingwatering
wateringfiring
nobelonging
nome
noyou
nomeyou
noyoume
now
noto


now...

now
only
just
songing
just
this


but...

not
even

[rich]

Originally posted by DavidS+Aug 4 2003, 01:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Aug 4 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Aug 3 2003, 02:02 PM
Why sexual references in this forum David?
Hi rich -

I think that 'sex', and by that I mean interpersonal physical 'love'-making not reproducive mechanics, is one of the BEST, if not the BEST, analogies for interpersonal mental and emotional intercourse aimed at interpersonal communion. It is also a GREAT analogy for talking about people's personal relationship and joyful communion with 'God' - which, 'God' or 'Spirit' invisible and etherieal, is is very hard to talk about meaningfully without using analogies to communicate what one is referring or 'pointing' to.

Jesus spoke about the 'bridegroom' coming, 'brides' getting ready, and a potential 'wedding'. And we all know what happens on a bride's and groom's wedding night don't we?

And then there's this, from the OLD 'testament' no less, analogically talking about the 'nature' of the love-realtionship between people and 'God' - the potential for it at least. The Song of Solomon opens with: "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee."

And (in Ch.5) it also contains this!!!: "I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night. I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but ...."

Etc.

Really think they are uncalled for
What kind of cultural ingraining did you recieve, rich? You're sounding like an uptight Englishman :P now.

however suppose that it is your right to post what you wish.
I am not exercising any presumed 'right' here, rich. I am trying to comm·uni·cate in the best way I can think of, because of my a desire for actualizing 'loving' mental and spiritual 'communion' with others to whatever extent may be possible.

It is my right to ignore your posts too.
Anyone can ignore what anyone says here, rich - as you have personally ex·peer·ienced and commented about in relation to yourself. This derives from personal 'freedom' to choose, not any absolute 'right' (or 'wrong' ;) ), IMO. You also have the 'freedom' to 'ignore', as well as 'object to', what's in the Old and New 'Testaments' as well, rich, as does any and everyone else here.

Perhaps you think 'sex' is 'dirty' or 'bad' in some way, rich, and therefore think-n-feel references to and discussions involving 'sex' do not 'belong' in the context of 'good'- or 'high'-minded conversation?

If you 'vacate' the premises on account of my choices pertaining to subject matter, rich, then I'll be like the Italian in the 'dance' joke! I'm hoping that doesn't happen, and will miss your presence if it does.

David [/b][/quote]
Really think they are uncalled for
What kind of cultural ingraining did you recieve, rich? You're sounding like an uptight Englishman :P now.

Dear David,

Thank you for your kind replies in several topics, threads in a few of these forums. I like your analogy of the Italian and Englishman, however am not English desent, (Danish and Latvian genes flow in my veins), however no blame to that, for the inability on my part to understand most of the stuff being posted on this forum. That includes whatI am typing now, seems to be motivated by some source which I can not control. I have already said that to asheera, and now to you; i.e:no self control.

Do not know if A- Your OK In My Book :wub: was meant for asheera (it should be) her posts to you are deserving of your praise.

But anyway David, to show you there are no hard feelings, Your OK In My Book.

:)

[sahyo]

posted the writing responsing:


"it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled"

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 4 2003, 10:20 AM
Do not know if A- Your OK In My Book was meant for asheera (it should be) her posts to you are deserving of your praise.
Memory-recall a 'funny' thang, rich - often guide·influenced by personal preconceptions or postconceptions (and, yes, I can see there is an 'connection' between conception and pregnancy and 'new'-life birth -- the 'sex' (analogy) thang sure can pop up all over the place, and often does all by itself, don't it?! :lol: ).

The way I re'call' what I wrote is: "Your A-Ok in my book." And t'was directed atchooo, rich. No asheeraward reference in that post.

Your memes (the ones living/residing in 'you') you and my memes sure combine to make a mixed-semblance baby!

I can 'imagine' what your personal memes, pertaining to yourself and/or how others see-n-feel towards you 'in' the above QOUTE-offspring, must be. At least I think I can and do. :lol: Can you?

I have already said that to asheera, and now to you; i.e:no self control.
I hear and accept what you say as your 'truth' pertaining to personal 'control', rich. And I can live with your 'vehicle' therefore sometimes being mucky·ditch and brick·wall lurch-smash prone. More than just live with it ... it is often banana-peel-slip, side-splitting-funny-entertaining to witness, actually.

But, to be honest, I must say, in my frame of reference, it 'looks' like a denial of personal response·ability on your part.

I presume (this doesn't mean I 'know') you like the uncensored-impulse-expressive 'freedom' this gives you, and that such liking supercedes any dislike you may have for having your nose sometimes (often?) getting bent out of shape. Or something like that. I 'know' it may not be that exactly.

- David :lol:

P.S. to asheera: no, I wasn't here when you posted the zen-bow poem-arrow sequence - thanks for the ring-a-ding-a-ling cantata-reprise - will, I'm sure, result in a change in my lens-auto-focus operation - will digest and reengage (you know how full-stomach affects the THANG!). :lol: :lol:

[zygoat]

davidS,
BIG BUTTS,FULL FLESH,ACTs,intercourse,orgasmically...smooth :ph34r:

[sahyo]

thanksthanks

(you know how full-stomach affects the THANG!).

:D
hehe
:D

[Thomas Knierim]

asheera: though scientists constantly changing which is thought-idea-theorized, people seeking 'believing', desiring 'proof'-certainty, often cling to 'following' science, 'believing' which scientists prove 'is', until is poven 'wasn't'

Although the statement is over-simplified, Asheera is right. To many it comes as a surprise that science operates exclusively on the basis of beliefs. According to 20th century philosophy of science, it is a requirement of any scientific theory to be expressed in "falsifiable" (Popper) terms, if such a theory should be regarded as scientific at all. This means that scientific theories -and I mean all of them- are simply hypotheses that haven't been invalidated yet. They are beliefs pinned on axiomatic assumptions. In fact, there is no epistemic difference between knowledge and belief, only a gradual difference in perceived certainty.

Now consider this: If God is an axiom, God is unquestionable.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

This means that scientific theories -and I mean all of them- are simply hypotheses that haven't been invalidated yet. They are beliefs pinned on axiomatic assumptions. In fact, there is no epistemic difference between knowledge and belief, only a gradual difference in perceived certainty.

written clearly, thomas :)

Now consider this: If God is an axiom, God is unquestionable.

ah...like which is called 'faith''

[DavidS]

Excellent statement of the way IT is, IMO, Thomas.

Thomas: Now consider this: If God is an axiom, God is unquestionable.

Right on! IMO, the God-concept-postulate (of whatever 'variety') is and should always be consciously recognized as nothing more than a theoretical construct-elaboration - like any 'scientific' concept-n-postulate (i.e., 'theory').

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 10 2003, 09:58 PM
Thomas: Now consider this: If God is an axiom, God is unquestionable.

asheera: ah...like which is called 'faith''
ah...wonderful PRO·position, asheera! - something I can relate to in a positively meaningful (for me) way.

Yes, exactly...like which is called 'faith' - like the 'faith' people (in the 'Western' world at least) have that a macroscopic object will 'follow' the equation-predictions of Newton's 'laws' of "Motion" and "Gravity" - like the 'faith' people have that things like (theorized/postulated) photons and matter-waves will 'follow' the probablity-distribution pattern predicted by the equations of Quantum Mechanics - like the faith that you (presumably) and I have that when we roll out of bed every morning (assuming we don't 'die' in our sleep), there will be a solid floor under our feet!

Very important NOT TO fall into routine thought-n-expectation pattern that no other possibilities could 'happen' - 'faith' should never be 'allowed' to become 'dogma' - whether such 'faith' pertains to Newtons' (so-called) Laws, to Quantum calculations, to the "God" concept, to Buddhist precepts (some might call them 'concepts', too) ... IOW to anything one 'believes' is a reliable re·presentaion of how things and non-things 'are' and how they 'operate' and therefore has developed personal 'faith' in.

Halleluyah! There's 'comprehensive' agreement between us!! I had almost given up hoping something like this could/would 'happen'!!! Miracles 'truly' never cease!!!!

:lol: David

[a random hack]

no not "no use for" seeking and hope....seeking and hope ceased

Yay! What were the circumstances surronding that, if you don't mind sharing?

As for the love poetry here, I'm suprised 'rich's' ear haven't burnt up and dropped off!

:lol:

David,
I guess the 'cutoff' point for faith should be at the point where it becomes unquestioned/ untested/ unquestionable/ untestable.
But then again, it would be a huge pain in the arse to retest all those classic scientific laws for each person. And doesn't 'faith' allow us NOT to retest, say, the laws of aerodynamics every time we board an aeroplane? I guess faith is an attempt to 'control' risk, or rather, the perception of risk. But suspect there are 'better' ways, if you need to feel safe. :)

[rich]

random's remark:

As for the love poetry here, I'm suprised 'rich's' ear haven't burnt up and dropped off!


It did!

The scientists and mathematicians know enough about our solar system
to send men to the moon and back, send probes to Mars, and analyze the returned data. The technology we have, however, there is much to be learned. <_<

[sahyo]

david'ing

Yes, exactly...like which is called 'faith' - like the 'faith' people (in the 'Western' world at least) have that a macroscopic object will 'follow' the equation-predictions of Newton's 'laws' of "Motion" and "Gravity" - like the 'faith' people have that things like (theorized/postulated) photons and matter-waves will 'follow' the probablity-distribution pattern predicted by the equations of Quantum Mechanics - like the faith that you (presumably) and I have that when we roll out of bed every morning (assuming we don't 'die' in our sleep), there will be a solid floor under our feet!

:D yes most people thinkbelieve-'faith' which scientists say, and which sensessensing, which only 'seeming', (like 'rules') which people agree, but whichnot

....people which fear, thinking'separatingnotseparating'whichnot, desire'asomethingnothing'-soliditynotsolidity-'defining'proof

if not think, can zeronotzero?

Very important NOT TO fall into routine thought-n-expectation pattern that no other possibilities could 'happen' - 'faith' should never be 'allowed' to become 'dogma'

if not thinkbeleive-'faith', can "become"?, can "dogma"?

- whether such 'faith' pertains to Newtons' (so-called) Laws, to Quantum calculations, to the "God" concept, to Buddhist precepts (some might call them 'concepts', too) ... IOW to anything one 'believes' is a reliable re·presentaion of how things and non-things 'are' and how they 'operate' and therefore has developed personal 'faith' in.

:D

Halleluyah! There's 'comprehensive' agreement between us!! I had almost given up hoping something like this could/would 'happen'!!! Miracles 'truly' never cease!!!!

:lol:

mmmm.....so is "between"?
;)


shell walk'ing?
:D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 11 2003, 09:22 PM
I guess the 'cutoff' point for faith should be at the point where it becomes unquestioned/ untested/ unquestionable/ untestable.* But then again, it would be a huge pain in the arse to retest all those classic scientific laws for each person. And doesn't 'faith' allow us NOT to retest, say, the laws of aerodynamics every time we board an aeroplane?
Yes, but I think one risks completely 'missing the boat' if one 'stubbornly' continues to ignore 'anomalous' occurrences (if-n-when they 'happen') which 'indicate' there's something either 'wrong' with or 'missing' from the one's faith-'picture-frame'.

I guess faith is an attempt to 'control' risk, or rather, the perception of risk.
It may be that, IMO, and, in the case of 'fearful' people, that's probably the case. BUT it may also simply be part of an 'attempt' to 'go' or 'arrive at' someplace one hasn't been able to 'get to' or 'be' before (assuming one imagines and desires such a 'happening' as being both 'possible' and 'desirable', that is) -- for instance, it (i.e., 'faith') may be 'love'- ([I]instead[/U] of 'fear'-) 'motivated'.

Brings (for example) "Love is letting go of Fear" statement, derived from or at least associated with ACIM (A Course In Miracles), to mind.

But suspect there are 'better' ways, if you need to feel safe. :)
Am not sure about that - that there are 'better' ways to feel either safe or hopeful - though certain ingested-substance-derived 'highs' certainly can be delightfully effective in that regard. <_<

Of course, there's 'desirelessness' or 'not caring' as a 'way' (or 'method', or 'tactic') which some advocate as the 'best' kind of 'medicine' in this and other regards. But this approach has often struck me as being akin, for example, to school and college students who don't 'study' for a 'test' because they have a lot of test-anxiety and figure its best to not 'care' what 'grade' one makes, whether they manage to attain a 'passing' 'mark' or 'fail' (of course, IMO, this approach 'requires' that one 'have faith' that whatever 'grade' one makes doesn't 'really' matter, at least not 'significantly').

My thought as I write this is that the state of 'feeling safe' may be attained via a variety of dance-step-moves, 'faith' just being one, or one 'component', of them.

[sahyo]

h'acking

no not "no use for" seeking and hope....seeking and hope ceased

Yay! What were the circumstances surronding that,
if you don't mind sharing?

cannot wording :)
....wasn't circum'stance'ferences....wasn't sur'round'ing ;)

As for the love poetry here,
I'm suprised 'rich's' ear haven't burnt up and dropped off!

:lol:

r'iching

"It did !"

:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 12 2003, 01:39 PM
if not thinkbeleive-'faith', can "become"?, can "dogma"?
Appearances can of course be deceiving, but, yes, it seems to me that "not-thinking-believing" has "become" "dogma" in your case.

Please understand that "not-thinking-believing" (something or other) is impossible (except temporarily, here and there in relation to this or that) in my 'view'. So your "not-thinking-believing" stuff looks like 'pretense' maintained by 'self-deception' (based on compartmental-relegation of certain aspects of what is actually present and ongoing to the 'unconscious') to me. Reminds me of both reading about and witnessing (on TV) people who, under hypnosis, for all practical puroses, don't 'see' thangs that are there which others, who are not under the same 'spell', do see.

In my 'view', you are right up there in the 'set' of the 'most dogmatic' persons I've ever encountered. Regarding your question about "becoming", I don't think (i.e., I can't 'imagine') anyone being born this way. If that ain't and example of "becoming", I don't know what is.

David

[sahyo]

it seems to me that "not-thinking-believing" has "become" "dogma" in your case

is davidthinking which thinkingreadsdogmawhichnot

your "not-thinking-believing" stuff looks like 'pretense' maintained by 'self-deception'

only 'seems' "like 'pretense' maintained by 'self-deception'" since davidthinkingwhichnot

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Asheera: is davidthinking which thinkingreadsdogmawhichnot

I would answer this with the classic line: If your dog-ma meets my dog-pa lets make puppies. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[dog goddess]

natural selection survival of the fittest




that's all we need to understand.



if you don't have what it takes you're out of the running.


we only make it worse by trying to improve it.


science? scientists?

only making things more complicated than they really are.

[sahyo]

I would answer this with the classic line: If your dog-ma meets my dog-pa lets make puppies.

:lol: :D

[Polaris]

dog goddess: science? scientists?

only making things more complicated than they really are.

An extremely general statement which I disagree with.

[Polaris]

David: ...Reminds me of both reading about and witnessing (on TV) people who, under hypnosis, for all practical puroses, don't 'see' thangs that are there which others, who are not under the same 'spell', do see....

Who's to say what's there and what isn't there to be 'seen'? Do you think because you think your eyes are open and you are "awake" that you see all there is to be seen? Because your eyes are open you think you see what IS? Yet you obviously DON'T see what the person under hyponisis sees. What the person under hypnosis sees is no less real to him than what you are seeing. A mirage looks real enough yet how do you separate truth from illusion. How do you know you're not just wandering toward a mirage? Just because you 'see' it doesn't make it water.

[rich]

Who is to say, "it is not real, it is just a mirage, it is only an illusion?", after experiencing the event? Was 9/11 an illusion? :unsure: :blink:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 14 2003, 10:55 AM
Who is to say, "it is not real, it is just a mirage, it is only an illusion?", after experiencing the event? Was 9/11 an illusion? :unsure: :blink:
I don't know. :unsure:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 14 2003, 06:40 AM
Who's to say what's there and what isn't there to be 'seen'? Do you think because you think your eyes are open and you are "awake" that you see all there is to be seen? Because your eyes are open you think you see what IS? Yet you obviously DON'T see what the person under hyponisis sees. What the person under hypnosis sees is no less real to him than what you are seeing. A mirage looks real enough yet how do you separate truth from illusion. How do you know you're not just wandering toward a mirage? Just because you 'see' it doesn't make it water.
Yes, to all that your statements say and questions imply, Polaris.

What's wonderful about there being so many 'seeing'-n-'not·seeing' "I's" in the world, I think, is that, via things like thought-feeling-an-action comm·uni·cation, at least when they're 'skillfully' expressed and 'adeptly' interpreted, we all have the opportunity (option? possibility?) to become aware of the "things that are seen" which we may not be personally aware of -- like traveling to and mixing with the people of another country, maybe.

Regarding your blind man and rainbow analaogy, the 'blind wo/man' can at least 'know' that the world is an even more 'awesome' place than s/he is able to presently existentially witness/experience.

Just one nitpick to reinforce the 'point' I am trying to get across: To "Just because you 'see' it doesn't make it water;" let me add, "Just because you don't 'see' it doesn't make it 'not water' either."

:) David

[Polaris]

Regarding your blind man and rainbow analaogy, the 'blind wo/man' can at least 'know' that the world is an even more 'awesome' place than s/he is able to presently existentially witness/experience.


No, they can't know. How is a blind person suppose to know the world is more awesome? Because I say so?? If you were blind and I told you the world was awesome would you be inclined to believe me? Could I perhaps interest you in a piece of water frontage in southern Florida? Or a bridge in Brooklyn? The guy is blind, not stupid.

It might interest them to hear about rainbows but having never experienced one how can they possible know?

And besides, if they told you life without sight was awesome, would you know what they were talking about?

The point here is that "awesome" is an individual judgement call. Just as following the same path as you to "spiritual fulfillment" (for lack of a better expression at this hour of the night) is not a prerequisite to an individual's success, neither is it necessary to have sight in order to consider the world an awesome place. Neither is it necessary to have two open eyes in order to "see". All you need is an open mind.

[DavidS]

Hi Polaris -

I get your 'points', but still think there's something you are not 'seeing' in what I am trying to get across. Hopefully, my bouncing off of your words will reveal more of the 'angle' I am coming from.

David: Regarding your blind man and rainbow analaogy, the 'blind wo/man' can at least 'know' that the world is an even more 'awesome' place than s/he is able to presently existentially witness/experience.

Polaris: No, they can't know. How is a blind person suppose to know the world is more awesome?

David: There are very 'significant' differences between how I see and experience thangs and how others I know see and experience things -- I can 'tell' that many of the women in my life, for instance, have experienced things differently, both in terms of the 'nature' as well as the 'intensity' of what they experienced. This to the point where I an convinced that I will never experience what they experience, certainly not the way they experience it.

Nevertheless, as I 'sense' (without 'knowing') that they experience things both different in nature as well as beyond the range of what I am capable of experienceing, I am awed! I am awed when and as I 'know' that such thangs, which I personally, can't/don't experience are reverberative aspects of Life, the 'totality' of which is beyond my 'direct' personal comprehension.

Polaris: Because I say so?? If you were blind and I told you the world was awesome would you be inclined to believe me?

Yes, I would be inclined to believe you, especially if and as you verbally and tonally relayed meaningful (to me) specifics pertaining to your experience, as your words here generally do.

Could I perhaps interest you in a piece of water frontage in southern Florida? Or a bridge in Brooklyn?

Of course not. And if you were serious in making such proposal that would be grounds for my NOT 'believing' you pertaining to any other matters as well.

The guy is blind, not stupid.

Hence the possibility of his choosing 'wisely' what utterances and experessions of others to give 'credence' to.

It might interest them to hear about rainbows but having never experienced one how can they possible know?

Your right. They can't possibly 'know' exactly what a rainbow looks like (to one with 'sighted' eyes, that is). Except, even in that case, they are likely to be able to form at least a striated, semi-circular 'geometric' image-pattern in their mind's eye, and be 'awed' as they 'imagined' it 'arching' over a vast 'horizon'.

And besides, if they told you life without sight was awesome, would you know what they were talking about?

Not necessarily exactly, but, yes, hanging out and verbally communicating with blind and/or deaf people who expressed what their 'awesome' experiences in relation to Life were like would, I think, be quite an 'eye'- and 'ear'- opening experience. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of such ongoing acquaintance.

The point here is that "awesome" is an individual judgement call. Just as following the same path as you to "spiritual fulfillment" (for lack of a better expression at this hour of the night) is not a prerequisite to an individual's success, neither is it necessary to have sight in order to consider the world an awesome place. Neither is it necessary to have two open eyes in order to "see". All you need is an open mind.

Exactly. IMO, all different/differing people 'need' in order to appreciate what each other finds 'awesome' as well as 'why', and possibly 'learn' about something 'new' to them, is good communicational (i.e., both 'speaking' and 'listening') methods and manners.

:) - David

[Polaris]

Polaris: The point here is that "awesome" is an individual judgement call. Just as following the same path as you to "spiritual fulfillment" (for lack of a better expression at this hour of the night) is not a prerequisite to an individual's success, neither is it necessary to have sight in order to consider the world an awesome place. Neither is it necessary to have two open eyes in order to "see". All you need is an open mind.

David: Exactly. IMO, all different/differing people 'need' in order to appreciate what each other finds 'awesome' as well as 'why', and possibly 'learn' about something 'new' to them, is good communicational (i.e., both 'speaking' and 'listening') methods and manners.

Need is very different from desire or want. There is nothing wrong with needing something. I need food and water to stay alive. Desiring something is a whole other cheeseball. I desire chocolate and Pepsi. We need to learn methods and manners. We desire people to agree with our methods and expect their methods to not tick us off, otherwise it becomes a an invasion of our personal expectations..thus we suffer.

[BeyondBeliefs]

I am blind to Infra Red.
So there is an aspect of this universe that I will never see.

There are 24 hours in a day and I will use them to 'see' what I can.
Perhaps 'see' even more than those who can see Infra Red and so spend their time looking at the hot spots, and missing what is at their feet.

Most of what I know, or suspect, of the universe was seen by someone elses eyes.
It took Humanity billions of eyes to know enough to invent the first wheel.

Our current Wisdom accumulated from the limited vision of many eyes.

[a random hack]

Need is very different from desire or want. There is nothing wrong with needing something. I need food and water to stay alive. Desiring something is a whole other cheeseball. I desire chocolate and Pepsi. We need to learn methods and manners. We desire people to agree with our methods and expect their methods to not tick us off, otherwise it becomes a an invasion of our personal expectations..thus we suffer.

Not sure that I need to stay alive....

[DavidS]

Polaris: Need is very different from desire or want. etc. etc. etc.

Hack: Not sure that I need to stay alive....
Please note Polaris and Hack: my 'use' of the word 'need' was qualified by an "in order to . . . xyz". There is no such thang as an 'assolute' 'need' for anything! IMO. Only 'optional' desires and wants -- in the case of the subject under discussion, I was referring to any (potentially, by participants here) 'desired' or 'wanted' actualization of mutually meaningful communication and understanding.

I don't 'need' to stay alive either, Hack. Not sure I even desire or want to, at least I don't seem to all that much (just to 'stay' 'here' 'alive'.) . But, as I find myself where I am and have no greater desire or want to be elsewhere, I 'find' 'myself' 'desiring' and 'wanting' to actualize "mutually meaningful communication and understanding" - even more than my 'favorite flavor' milkshake! ;)

I'll take all the love-n-intimacy you have the capacity and 'desire' or 'want' to deploy!!

[rich]

David S,

Any particular person, persons, you are directing your posts too?

My imagination tells me it would be directed to a person whose gender is female? Above all, have that which you previously posted, or PM revealations re: your present marital status, and things about yourself which should be known, by an interested party? B)

Or is my imagination running away with me? :unsure:

Do you want to take the 5th? ;)

OK, I'll MMOB.

[sahyo]

I'll take all the love-n-intimacy you have the capacity and 'desire' or 'want' to deploy!!

loving givestakes loving? :blink:
...is 'awhatwho' which givestakes?, 'awhere'?, agive'point'-atake'point'?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 18 2003, 03:00 PM
Or is my imagination running away with me? :unsure:
From where I am, it sure seems to be.

Any particular person, persons, you are directing your posts to?
My comment pertaining to love-n-intimacy was 'addressed directly to Hack. Indirectly, my personal predilection is (of course) 'addressed' to any and everyone here who also 'desires' and 'wants' the same in the context of this forum.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 18 2003, 04:00 PM

david: I'll take all the love-n-intimacy you have the capacity and 'desire' or 'want' to deploy!!

asheera: loving givestakes loving? :blink:
Active 'loving' and sharing of 'intimacy' in the world does involve 'transmitting' and 'receiving' (in that sense, 'giving' and 'taking'). Without such 'acts', as in the case of 'physical' love-making, any such 'love' and potentially 'intimacy' will ever 'be' unconsummated.

Clear what I mean, now? :huh:

...is 'awhatwho' which givestakes?, 'awhere'?, agive'point'-atake'point'?
Yes, it is logistically 'necessary' that there be a 'who' that 'transmits' and a 'who' that 'receives' for there to be any kind of tran·act·ion, 'loving' and 'intimate' kinds included. Also, such 'whos', in order to exist, must have a 'locus' in addition to their 'operational identity' (their 'whos', that is). IOW, the ex·igencies of logistics and functionality 'dictate' that they be 'located' at some (relative-position) 'where' at some (relative-time) 'point'.

Otherwise, it seems to me, Life (assuming it could even be reasonably called or experienced as such then) would just be a an beginningless, middleless, and endless, totally UN-creative, NON-happening.

[a random hack]

I am not sure (unsure) that love requires me to (be conscious of) 'transmit'/'recieve', but maybe these things happen... I guess I can be aware of 'loving' while I'm loving, or perhaps not. Is a child aware of loving, before 'loving' is named for him or her? Don't think so. And of course, the same applies for 'hating'.
But, as I find myself where I am and have no greater desire or want to be elsewhere, I 'find' 'myself' 'desiring' and 'wanting' to actualize "mutually meaningful communication and understanding" - even more than my 'favorite flavor' milkshake!

I'll take all the love-n-intimacy you have the capacity and 'desire' or 'want' to deploy!!

OK :)

[sahyo]

Active 'loving' and sharing of 'intimacy' in the world does involve 'transmitting' and 'receiving' (in that sense, 'giving' and 'taking'). Without such 'acts', as in the case of 'physical' love-making, any such 'love' and potentially 'intimacy' will ever 'be' unconsummated.

david think giving receiving when bodyloving?....
is david when bodyloving?

Yes, it is logistically 'necessary' that there be a 'who' that 'transmits' and a 'who' that 'receives' for there to be any kind of tran·act·ion, 'loving' and 'intimate' kinds included. Also, such 'whos', in order to exist, must have a 'locus' in addition to their 'operational identity' (their 'whos', that is). IOW, the ex·igencies of logistics and functionality 'dictate' that they be 'located' at some (relative-position) 'where' at some (relative-time) 'point'.

....and if david not think "logistically"? ;)

Otherwise, it seems to me, Life (assuming it could even be reasonably called or experienced as such then) would just be a an beginningless, middleless, and endless, totally UN-creative, NON-happening.

when humans weren't yet,
did......sunningoceanvolcanoingflowerpollening.... ..
think giving receiving?

[sahyo]

using word 'loving', hack :)

[fu*]

Hi Asheera, :)

>>>when humans weren't yet,
did......sunningoceanvolcanoingflowerpollening.... ..
think giving receiving?<<<

Probably not, but sunningocean had no thoughts or feelings. Human does. Should human be ocean/sun? Or human?

Love without thought seems to be as you say, sun/ocean/volcano. But seems to be missing something.

Loving cant wait any longer for 'no thought'. Needs to love, recognizing thought as thought.

Someone dear died while I was waiting for 'love' without thought.

His fault yes. But I was watching like sun/ocean.

And it occurs to me that sun/ocean doesn't give a shit.

I do.

[rich]

Dear fu*,

Please do not feel depressed and sad if love seems not to be found here. Are you in want of receiving love, or giving love ? Maybe both, receiving and giving. To love, requires both
to reciprocate with each other.

I just thought I would write this to you, as an indication that I have high esteem for you, and do not like seeing you upset. Cheer up, and :D .

[DavidS]

[QUOTE=asheera,Sep 22 2003, 03:35 PM]david think giving receiving when bodyloving?....

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes 'consciously', sometimes 'subliminally'. David likes and enjoys flow-of-thought-life as a 'rich' part of his emotional-also and physical-also Life.

is david when bodyloving?

'I' am sometimes 'david', sometimes 'adam' (i.e., 'generic' 'male') and sometimes 'eve' (i.e., 'generic' 'female'), or sometimes 'the sun' (i.e., a 'radiant' and 'penetrating' 'source'), sometimes 'the earth' (i.e., a warmed-n-lighted and fecundly-responsive 'body'), an ever 'flowing' 'mixture' of all of the above, delighting as my 'consciousness' butterfly-hops-n-honey-sips from each 'thread' of the stream-fabric, when lovemaking.

....and if david not think "logistically"? ;)

david would then be a like a 'clone' of asheera, maybe. ;) only thinking 'non'-logistically?

when humans weren't yet,
did......sunningoceanvolcanoingflowerpollening.... ..
think giving receiving?

I have already 'argued' the inadequacies and dangers of 'generalizing' principles and conclusions arrived at in relation to from things like 'the sun', 'volcanoes', 'flowers', 'pollen', and, as I recall, 'rats' and 'mice', to 'human' functioning', especially in the 'domain' of 'love' -- as though human-capacities dimensions did not significantly add to or otherwise modify the workings/playings of consciousness in Life's scheme.

[sahyo]

hi fu* :)

>>>when humans weren't yet,
did......sunningoceanvolcanoingflowerpollening.... ..
think giving receiving?<<<

Probably not, but sunningocean had no thoughts or feelings. Human does. Should human be ocean/sun? Or human?

or?

Love without thought seems to be as you say, sun/ocean/volcano. But seems to be missing something.

which 'seems' to be missing something?

Loving cant wait any longer for 'no thought'. Needs to love, recognizing thought as thought.

Someone dear died while I was waiting for 'love' without thought.

His fault yes. But I was watching like sun/ocean.

fault?
....'I' was watching?

And it occurs to me that sun/ocean doesn't give a shit.

I do.

Should human be ocean/sun? Or human?

or?

[rich]

And it occurs to me that sun/ocean doesn't give a shit.

I do.

Should human be ocean/sun? Or human?

or?


at least show more concern than sun/ocean, give a shit.

and also, be human, and give a hug.

:wub: :D ;)

[sahyo]

which is thinks not human and not hugging, richie :)

[rich]

which is thinks not human and not hugging, richie :)

whom thinks richie as not human and not hugging, asheera? :)

[sahyo]

oop

hehee....didn't '?' and delete "is"

which thinks not human and not hugging?, richie

[rich]

asheera,
_______ man :rolleyes:
HUgging :lol: ;)

[a random hack]

I guess I can be aware of 'loving' while I'm lovingusing word 'loving', hack :D Thanks! :lol:

Seems we, I at least :), 'need' to recognise better/quicker and accept (what is called) 'love'.
Just 'cause I can't see it presently, doesn't mean it isn't present, 'coming to' and 'going from', 'coming to' or 'going from' :)

[...]

..resting on the couch, her beside me she asked: "whatcha thinking?" Then i realised there hadn't been one shred of a thought for quite awhile, there had been no me for quite awhile, only 'being'...

[sahyo]

i realised there hadn't been one shred of a thought for quite awhile, there had been no me for quite awhile, only 'being'...

which is thinking"only 'being'..."?

[sahyo]

asomethingnothinganything'entity? which can "only being..."?

[sahyo]

richie ;)

[sahyo]

Just 'cause I can't see it presently, doesn't mean it isn't present, 'coming to' and 'going from', 'coming to' or 'going from' :)

awherenowhere?"from"to"? :)

[sahyo]

david think giving receiving when bodyloving?....

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes 'consciously', sometimes 'subliminally'. David likes and enjoys flow-of-thought-life as a 'rich' part of his emotional-also and physical-also Life.

which thinks"part"notpart?

is david when bodyloving?

'I' am sometimes 'david', sometimes 'adam' (i.e., 'generic' 'male') and sometimes 'eve' (i.e., 'generic' 'female'), or sometimes 'the sun' (i.e., a 'radiant' and 'penetrating' 'source'), sometimes 'the earth' (i.e., a warmed-n-lighted and fecundly-responsive 'body'), an ever 'flowing' 'mixture' of all of the above, delighting as my 'consciousness' butterfly-hops-n-honey-sips from each 'thread' of the stream-fabric, when lovemaking.

is "I"my"?

....and if david not think "logistically"? ;)

david would then be a like a 'clone' of asheera, maybe. ;) only thinking 'non'-logistically?

which thinks asheera thinking"'non'-logistically"? ;)

when humans weren't yet,
did......sunningoceanvolcanoingflowerpollening.... ..
think giving receiving?

I have already 'argued' the inadequacies and dangers of 'generalizing' principles and conclusions arrived at in relation to from things like 'the sun', 'volcanoes', 'flowers', 'pollen', and, as I recall, 'rats' and 'mice', to 'human' functioning', especially in the 'domain' of 'love' -- as though human-capacities dimensions did not significantly add to or otherwise modify the workings/playings of consciousness in Life's scheme.

which is thinking which asheera didn't say?

[a random hack]

Just 'cause I can't see it presently, doesn't mean it isn't present, 'coming to' and 'going from', 'coming to' or 'going from' awherenowhere?"from"to"?
awhere-nowhere-herethere-and-every-where.... :)
yup.

[sahyo]

awhere-nowhere-herethere-and-every-where....

then "where"awhere?
"where"tofrom?
..awhere?
:)

[rich]

Aware of not awhere,
that is the question,
ponder on it,
and you'll get indigestion. :huh:

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 25 2003, 10:31 AM
Aware or not awhere,
that is the question,
ponder on it,
and you'll get indigestion. :huh:
Aware or not awhere,
that is the question?
ponder on it,
and you'll get indigestion.
from here, to there,
from everywhere,
to nowhere,
fromdavid, to asheera,
from random, to david,
from asheera to polaris,
from polaris, to asheera,
from : to:, and to: from:,
any combo of these names;
Random and Polaris,
David and asheera,
You'll find them here,
posts from here to there,
from everyone to none,
from: No One! :lol:

[a random hack]

from: No One!

Says who?

Aware of not awhere,
that is the question,
ponder on it,
and you'll get indigestion.

Where aware? a-Where?
there is no question,
don't ponder this,
or wear indigestion. :)

then "where"awhere?
"where"tofrom?
..awhere?

when 'there', then a 'where',
when 'there', then from(to) here,
...awhere? :)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[DavidS]

Hi asheera,

which thinks"part"notpart?

Unlike the 'which' you are familiar with maybe, the 'which' David is familiar with gnows and so thinks that 'which' is 'in' everything and everything is 'part' of 'which'. No 'not-part' 'reality' exists (or doesn't exist).

is "I"my"?

The I AM that I AM is the I AM that I AM. Makes no difference to me whether I or anyone else thinks of 'it' as 'my' "I AM" or not. As far as I am concerned, it makes sense to think of it both as 'mine' and and 'not mine' at the same time.

which thinks asheera thinking"'non'-logistically"? ;)

'Observing' the things asheera has said about herself as well as demonstrated here in action, the 'which' in David thinks asheera thinking"'non'-logistically" is a pretty good bet - IOW, that it is a 'reasonable' 'projection'.

which is thinking which asheera didn't say?

The 'which' in David thinks all sorts of things -- note, this doesn't mean it thinks they're necessarily 'on target' -- it often engages in sharing of thought in spirit of 'hit' or 'miss' experimentation (the 'truth' will be 'clarified' either way).

Glory be to (which's?) "Intelligence's" capacity for "discernment."!

[BeyondBeliefs]

" I "
That Unique combination that has the potential to produces the original thought, unlike anything , any other could.

[fu*]

Dear fu*,

Please do not feel depressed and sad if love seems not to be found here. Are you in want of receiving love, or giving love ? Maybe both, receiving and giving. To love, requires both
to reciprocate with each other.

I just thought I would write this to you, as an indication that I have high esteem for you, and do not like seeing you upset. Cheer up, and

Hi Rich. :)

I am not sad. Sadness goes thru me/this/body, and I drink it.
We are on this/these boards for different reasons. Yes, I am looking for "love", But it is not the "love" that you are refering to. This love does not "require". It does not "give" or "take".

Rich, I have found you to be most caring. But I think I could place letters in a certain way and make you dislike me. Or I could place the alphebet in a different way, and make you hate me. Or I could place letters in another way and you would "like" me. And so most peoples "love" is conditional.

Seems silly doesn't it? Letters on a blank screen can spawn "love" or "hate"?

If you were my neighbor we would have a grand time. :D

But there is a purpose for my visiting this board, and unlike David's purpose, it is not for anyone "else".

[BeyondBeliefs]

http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/t/TTPANTO/journey/day06-1.jpg

[...]

That Unique combination that has the potential to produces the original thought, unlike anything , any other could.

Post an original thought...

[a random hack]

FU,

I don't know about 'you', but I love the truth in your words :)

Sure would 'love' to grow closer to all in this place :)

Closer than mere 'words on a screen' allow.

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Sep 27 2003, 05:25 AM
That Unique combination that has the potential to produces the original thought, unlike anything , any other could.

Post an original thought...
Hi ....,

My thought is that every thought is as 'unique' (and in that sense, 'original') as the thang that is the conduit-vehicle for it - like 'faces' and 'fingerprints'. If you were interested in thangs that are 'original' in that 'sense', you might be more appreciative of what's being offered by various sundry folks who are genuinely revealing 'themselves' here to your 'face'. Of course. he that hath eyes to see is he that sees, and this may not be the 'focus' of your interest.

Hack: Sure would 'love' to grow closer to all in this place. Closer than mere 'words on a screen' allow.

Strikes me that 'words' on 'screen' is actually an 'allowing' medium-n-conduit. In that context, it looks like you are 'focusing' on the 'empty' half of the glass?

Consider the (theoretical, at least for now) possibility that 'love' is not 'confined' by 'words' (or anything else for that matter!). Rather, it's 'where'(ever) and 'what'(ever) the 'heart' chooses to existentially-n-experientially 'go' and, thus, 'be'. Of course, before 'desired' results in this regard 'happen', one may have to further develop and deploy one's verbal -- both hearing and speaking -- 'potential' capabilities.

[sahyo]

thought is as 'unique' (and in that sense, 'original')

thought'parroting'
which has read-heard-'learned'
is original?

[rich]

Originally posted by fu*@Sep 27 2003, 08:04 AM
Dear fu*,

Please do not feel depressed and sad if love seems not to be found here. Are you in want of receiving love, or giving love ? Maybe both, receiving and giving. To love, requires both
to reciprocate with each other.

I just thought I would write this to you, as an indication that I have high esteem for you, and do not like seeing you upset. Cheer up, and

Hi Rich. :)

I am not sad. Sadness goes thru me/this/body, and I drink it.
We are on this/these boards for different reasons. Yes, I am looking for "love", But it is not the "love" that you are refering to. This love does not "require". It does not "give" or "take".

Rich, I have found you to be most caring. But I think I could place letters in a certain way and make you dislike me. Or I could place the alphebet in a different way, and make you hate me. Or I could place letters in another way and you would "like" me. And so most peoples "love" is conditional.

Seems silly doesn't it? Letters on a blank screen can spawn "love" or "hate"?

If you were my neighbor we would have a grand time. :D

But there is a purpose for my visiting this board, and unlike David's purpose, it is not for anyone "else".
Dear fu*,

I suppose what you say, about placement of letters, on a blank screen may spawn love or hate, is quite true. Of course, it is not the actual letters or alphabet which spawns, love/liking/not liking/hate relationships, but the meaning of the actual words
written or said, in a paragraph or sentence.

i.e.: fu* posted this sentence.

But there is a purpose for my visiting this board, and unlike David's purpose, it is not for anyone "else".

Perhaps I am dense, but you could be writing, that the only reason you are posting/visiting this board, and replying is, solely for the benefit of David?

IOW, you know what you are thinking in your reply,
but some in this forum do not. Maybe what written by you, satisfies you, and the intent of your message as you posted it is exactly what you wanted to say. :)
So, whatever. ;) :unsure:

[a random hack]

thought'parroting'
which has read-heard-'learned'
is original?

I never heard the same parrot twice :D

Strikes me that 'words' on 'screen' is actually an 'allowing' medium-n-conduit. In that context, it looks like you are 'focusing' on the 'empty' half of the glass?
<etc>

Sure david, but would 'prefer' to commune with as little intervening 'conduit' as possible :)

So I can see rich look :unsure: , see asheera :lol: , see fu :D , hear sonrisa singing, and watch polaris pouring me another shot of Absolut. Skoal!

[sahyo]

I never heard the same parrot twice :D


:P :D

[rich]

Do I have to say everything twice?, everything twice? :unsure:

Is it necessary for me to repeat everything?, repeat everything? :unsure:

I'm just unsure :unsure: ,just unsure :unsure: .

[BeyondBeliefs]

In order to move on, we must verify what we were told to believe.
Much of what I now know is what I once suspected from what I was told.

What took centuries, now taught in 3 minutes,"The earth is round".
I pass that on.

And the rest, those conflicting speculations taught, that a brain is unable to forget, will die with me. Making my death a blessing to future generations.

We must be careful what memories we make,
in ourselves and in others,
because forgetting the errors we have heard and spoken, is not possible.

[a random hack]

I never heard the same parrot twice

:P :D


I heard that!

(What a beautiful tongue you have :P :lol: :) )

[sahyo]

:o :lol: :D

[rich]

*fu wrote:Hi Rich.

I am not sad. Sadness goes thru me/this/body, and I drink it.
We are on this/these boards for different reasons. Yes, I am looking for "love", But it is not the "love" that you are refering to. This love does not "require". It does not "give" or "take".


What is the type of love which you are looking for?
Some person which has which you think as having complete understanding of the being /brain, behind the reply?

Unconditional acceptance of all of your thoughts, of you, as a person and as a being, your handicaps, as well as your ideas.

You have to answer those questions within your own mind. The
answer would be, to the extent you are willing to accept the same unconditional conditions which you search for in others, from others.

I would tell my daughter, the very same thing.

Fondly, ;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 28 2003, 10:26 PM
Sure david, but would 'prefer' to commune with as little intervening 'conduit' as possible :)
. . . Skoal!
Got some of 'em 'preferences' meself, hack. ;)

The 'potential' of every 'medium' is 'limitless' in its own right, tho, I think.

Hey, to heck with 'strip'-poker...let's all get but-néked and go skinny-dipping! :D

[a random hack]

'limitless' in its own right

??

let's all get but-néked and go skinny-dipping! :D

hmm, haven't done that in a while....
:lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 1 2003, 08:56 AM
'limitless' in its own right

??

let's all get but-néked and go skinny-dipping!* :D

hmm, haven't done that in a while....
:lol:
:o WARNING

Off Limits

:blink: B)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 30 2003, 06:56 PM
'limitless' in its own right

??
What I meant is, Like in the case of 'regular' 'art' media. What you can 'say' with 'music' or 'color' is 'limitless' in terms of range or reach, i.e., that there's no 'end' to what is possible in any given 'medium'. Not that anything which can be 'said' and 'registered' via one medium can necessarily be 'said' and 'registered' via another, although, given the infinite capacity of human imagination, I wouldn't be surprised if that was 'true' (only 'limited' by our imagination) as well.

[a random hack]

Not that anything which can be 'said' and 'registered' via one medium can necessarily be 'said' and 'registered' via another, although, given the infinite capacity of human imagination, I wouldn't be surprised if that was 'true' (only 'limited' by our imagination) as well.

mmm :mellow:
Guess I'm pointing toward moving between/ outside 'media' at will, even unconsciuosly, praps to/ beyond the 'point' of everything doing/ done/ ? an expression/ impression of .?. :lol: :blink:

[sonrisa]

hoo u flippin off, Random?

[fu*]

Hi Rich,

>>>What is the type of love which you are looking for?
Some ---person---<<< "person"? NO, not "person"

>>> which has which you think as having complete understanding of the being /brain, behind the reply?<<<

Which "I" think has? NO

>>>complete understanding of the being /brain<<<

Understanding of "being/brain"? NO

>>>Unconditional acceptance of all of your thoughts,<<<
Some-one-elses-thoughts....... accepting my thoughts? NO

>>>of you, as a person and as a being, your handicaps, as well as your ideas.<<<
Have that. What is beyond "that"?

This "love" that I am searching for is beyond thought, beyond "person", beyond "understanding".

Rich, what I am looking for is not what you are thinking. And I have a feeling that "I" will never find it. Because it has nothing to do with "me". But still "I" search. And as long as "I" search, there is no "finding". But I hang to "me", like "I" matter.

"I" cant figure it out!!!!

[rich]

Dear fu*,

Thanks for responding to my post, sort of wishing that you would.

I can not answer my own questions either. :unsure:

At this point of time, in my life, can feel body changing (deteriorating), almost on a daily basis. I am always very tired, and when I go for a walk, need to rely on walker to hold me up. :angry:

I guess I am looking towards my graduation day as a kid looks forward to his final exam. But how will I spend my time there? I have an idea, that there will be no computers, or anything there to keep in touch
with some of my friends. If there is, I'll certainly look you up. :D That is, if i get a chance.

Guess the best approach is realize that nothing or everything will last forever.

Whatever, it is out of our control.I think. :D ;)

[sahyo]

fu*:D

[rich]

asheera ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 5 2003, 02:24 AM
deleted
deleted

[a random hack]

hoo u flippin off, Random?

you, sonrisa :D nah, actually, the photographer, don't like having photo taken. :)

"I" cant figure it out!!!!

yeah, so who wrote this?

[sonrisa]

ME?!?! :o Well! right back atcha and yo mama! :P

[rich]

Hack posted:QUOTE
"I" cant figure it out!!!!


yeah, so who wrote this?



actually hack, fu* posted it. I think it is the last post
on the preceding page of this thread.
Why do you ask? :unsure:

[sahyo]

asheera ;)


;)

[a random hack]

rich,
from what she wrote before that, seems to me that fu has worked something out, so then wondered, why say she can't? so, praps she didn't write it, and then felt to ask, so who wrote it? see?
:)

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 6 2003, 08:51 AM
rich,
from what she wrote before that, seems to me that fu has worked something out, so then wondered, why say she can't? so, praps she didn't write it, and then felt to ask, so who wrote it? see?
:)
Hack,

What you say may be true. In fact, I suspect that fu* &
asheera are one heartbeat, sharing 2 different identities. To reiterate what has been posted by fu*.

>>>of you, as a person and as a being, your handicaps, as well as your ideas.<<<

Have that. What is beyond "that"?

This "love" that I am searching for is beyond thought, beyond "person", beyond "understanding".

Rich, what I am looking for is not what you are thinking. And I have a feeling that "I" will never find it. Because it has nothing to do with "me". But still "I" search. And as long as "I" search, there is no "finding". But I hang to "me", like "I" matter.

"I" cant figure it out!!!!

fu* or asheera, which person is actually searching,
fu* or asheera? In the end, just one of you will survive. One of the two you will not find it, because one of the two of you, does not want to give up the other you, for it is more comfortable to be two, rather than one. That is why you hang on to the other you, because you do matter to the other you.
I think, the best thing to do, is to be comfortable with
whichever path you decide to take.

I disagree with what you said, 'Because it has nothing to do with "me"'.
It has everything to do with you.

[a random hack]

What you say may be true. In fact, I suspect that fu* &
asheera are one heartbeat, sharing 2 different identities.

Well, if I thought that, I'd probably ask......?

[sonrisa]

judging from a certain foto, I'd say Random & FU are one & the same.....:)

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 6 2003, 11:21 AM
judging from a certain foto, I'd say Random & FU are one & the same.....:)
sonrisa, The avatar of Hack vs fu*'s avatar does not have the slightest resemblance. Why not ask asheera or fu* for the truth. ;) Even though I can't stand it!

What kind of a picture is that which hack uses for an avatar? Which side has the eye, his left, or his right.
I do not think anyone could look like that. I can't even figure out the mask. Apologies Hack, but i can not figure your picture out. Are you fu* :P in disguise? :D :lol:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 6 2003, 11:49 AM

What kind of a picture is that which hack uses for an avatar? Which side has the eye, his left, or his right.
I do not think anyone could look like that. I can't even figure out the mask. Apologies Hack, but i can not figure your picture out. Are you fu** :P in disguise?


:lol: :lol: :rolleyes:

[a random hack]

:lol:

Yes, yes, it's true, all true!

Apologies Hack, but i can not figure your picture out.
What's to figure out? Seems pretty straight forward to me :)

judging from a certain foto, I'd say Random & FU are one & the same.....
Hope FU is not TOO insulted by the comparison :)
I'm certainly not :)

[rich]

Hack,

When you post under the name of fu*, whose photo is that under the name of fu* ? Is it an image of yourself? I did not think that you had long hair? ;) :P :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by fu*@Oct 3 2003, 07:43 PM
But still "I" search. And as long as "I" search, there is no "finding".* But I hang to "me", like "I" matter.

"I" cant figure it out!!!!
For whatever it may or may not be 'worth' to you, methinks-n-feels 'you' really matter, and that not just to 'me'-David.

Also, for whatever it may or may not 'mean' to to you, I am reminded of a response Ram Dass made to a question with similar import, which (response) I'm paraphrasing now to make it 'suit'able in relation to your "I can't 'figure' it out" statement:

"You have to 'be' it, to 'know' it."

Assuming that's a 'valid' hypothesis, which for all I know may not be the case here, this logically leads to the hypothetical conclusion that 'you' are not 'it' as yet, and that, if you want to 'know' 'it', 'it' is something 'you' must first 'become'. only[/u] in a 'logical', in order for 'it' to be 'known' assuming what has been hypothesized above is 'true', sense.]

I am warmed by the honesty of your energy (dare I say, of your 'soul'?), fu* - happy 'figuring'! - David

Please note: I 'say' all of the above and 'offer' it as 'truly' [i]meaningful without having a clear idea pertaining to what 'love' means to you.

[fu*]

Hi Hack,
>>>seems to me that fu has worked something out,<<<
I have noticed that we have "worked" out some of the same things. :)

>>>Hope FU is not TOO insulted by the comparison<<<

Not even a little. :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by DavidS@Oct 6 2003, 09:03 PM
"You have to 'be' it, to 'know' it."
On second thought in relation to my preceding post, fu*, it occurs to me that your trouble with 'figuring' it out (I am a great proponent myself of 'figuring') could also possibly be the result of your trying to 'be' or 'become' and thus 'know' something that is totally inhuman.

So many possible variations and permutations of the concept-relating ideas I'm bandying about! I hope something in what I say gives you a 'clue' which, as you 'boing' off of it, leads to something 'fruitful'.

Sincerely, David

[a random hack]

hi fu :D
feel like i'm talking to myself :)

Not even a little.

:)

rich,

fu and i are 'the same' and simulateously 'not the same'
remember 'I vow to save all sentient beings, even though there are no separate individualities!
'?
:)

[sonrisa]

oh gawd!! :rolleyes:

Random made guru status, all hail the new Wizard of Oz!

(pay no attention to the hack behind the keyboard)

Oh lay oh, lay OH oh, oh lay oh, lay OH oh!

Arf Arf!! (& Toto too!)



:)

[rich]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 8 2003, 02:49 PM
hi fu :D
feel like i'm talking to myself :)

Not even a little.*

:)

rich,

fu and i are 'the same' and simulateously 'not the same'
remember 'I vow to save all sentient beings, even though there are no separate individualities!
'?
:)
My Dear Hack,

Thanks for your reply. Congratulations on your Guruship. Polaris gave her's up, to become a piece of leather. :huh:
I still do not know what I want to be when I grow up. Heck, if they want to give me honorary titles here, I'll accept them, until they strip me of them, and I go down in disgrace. :lol:

So you and fu* share the same heartbeat and body.
Your avatars do not match. How come fu* has long hair, or are you using one of Thomas' avatars representing some famous philosopher? I do not think it is a photo of you, but ICBW. :unsure:

[rich]

Originally posted by rich+Oct 9 2003, 01:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Oct 9 2003, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--a random hack@Oct 8 2003, 02:49 PM
hi fu :D
feel like i'm talking to myself :)

Not even a little.*

:)

rich,

fu and i are 'the same' and simulateously 'not the same'
remember 'I vow to save all sentient beings, even though there are no separate individualities!
'?
:)
My Dear Hack,

Thanks for your reply. Congratulations on your Guruship. Polaris gave her's up, to become a piece of leather. :huh:
I still do not know what I want to be when I grow up. Heck, if they want to give me honorary titles here, I'll accept them, until they strip me of them, and I go down in disgrace. :lol:

So you and fu* share the same heartbeat and body.
Your avatars do not match. How come fu* has long hair, or are you using one of Thomas' avatars representing some famous philosopher? I do not think it is a photo of you, but ICBW. :unsure:

"A h a !", cried the fool,
for being used as a tool,
by hack, fu*,& asheera too,
he left in a hurry,
Discovering Madame Curie!
[/b][/quote]

"A h a !", cried the fool,
for being used as a tool,
by hack, fu*,& asheera too,
he left in a hurry,
Discovering Madame Curie!

Above post revised by posting this: :huh: :o

[a random hack]

Random made guru status, all hail the new Wizard of Oz!


thanks dorothy :D
still think i wanna be addressed as 'cheeseball' :lol:

So you and fu* share the same heartbeat and body.
no

I do not think it is a photo of you, but ICBW
yep, you're wrong

[sonrisa]

we're off to see the cheeseball, the wonderful cheeseball of Oz! If ever a cheese there iz he iz, if ever a cheese there wuz! B)

um, duzzn't have quite the same ring.... :blink:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Oct 8 2003, 02:23 PM
oh gawd!! :rolleyes:

Random made guru status, all hail the new Wizard of Oz!

(pay no attention to the hack behind the keyboard)

Oh lay oh, lay OH oh, oh lay oh, lay OH oh!

Arf Arf!! (& Toto too!)



:)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[sonrisa]

Oh Kraft-y Cheez Whiz (har har :lol: )
so whose foto u hiding behind?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack+Oct 8 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (a random hack @ Oct 8 2003, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>still think i wanna be addressed as 'cheeseball' :lol:[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Oct 12 2003, 08:48 PM
Oh Kraft-y Cheez Whiz (har har :lol: )[/quote]
Nice 'return' of that 'serve', Sonrisa!
:lol:

[a random hack]

Oh Kraft-y Cheez Whiz (har har )
so whose foto u hiding behind?

Bwahahahaha! I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe me ;) :D

[sonrisa]

Oh? Do tell then, & we'll see! :D


thanx David! :)

[a random hack]

why, it's mine!! :o :o :D :lol:

[sonrisa]

yeah, I could believe that.

[a random hack]

oh. :o ;) :rolleyes:

[rich]

Hack, which avatar is yours? The one of you holding up finger, after picking your nose? :o , or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you post as fu*, is what you may want Sonrisa to believe and think. :D

But I do not think that, for both you, Polaris, David S and asheera know the real identity of fu*. So why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa? :lol: ;)

[Polaris]

What's the purpose of having more than one identity?? :huh: :blink:

[rich]

Polaris,

What's the purpose of having more than one identity??

I suppose you would have to ask the person/s with multiple identities, for their purpose. Each person probably would have a different purpose for having > 1 ID. ;)

Having someone to admit they have 2 identities, may be as difficult as extracting someone's tooth. :P

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 22 2003, 10:56 AM
So why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa?
hoo sez he's kidding?

hoo sez I'm kidding? B)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 22 2003, 11:30 AM
Polaris,

What's the purpose of having more than one identity??

I suppose you would have to ask the person/s with multiple identities, for their purpose. Each person probably would have a different purpose for having > 1 ID. ;)

Having someone to admit they have 2 identities, may be as difficult as extracting someone's tooth. :P
There's not enough hours in the day to be ONE person!! Who has time to be more than one person?? :o :blink: :wacko:

[sonrisa]

people with alters (or alteranate personalities) course they're looney tunes...

[rich]

quote Sonrisa:people with alters (or alteranate personalities) course they're looney tunes...


What about looney bins?:wacko: :unsure: :blink:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 22 2003, 12:25 PM


What about looney bins?:wacko: :unsure: :blink:
We have those in Canada. We call them 'banks'.
:)








Explaination: Because in Canada our dollar coin has a loon on it, thus it was given the nickname "loonie"... FYI for those who didn't know. ;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris+Oct 22 2003, 04:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 22 2003, 04:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What's the purpose of having more than one identity?? :huh: :blink:[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 21 2003, 08:56 PM
But I do not think that, for both you, Polaris, David S and asheera know the real identity of fu*. So why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa? :lol: ;)[/quote]
richie, I don't 'get' "you, Polaris, David S and asheera know the real identity of fu*."

Regarding the 'issue' of persons experimentally 'assuming' more than one 'person·ality', my only comment is that I think everyone's 'person·ality' varies with 'mood', and it matters little in an of itself, IMO, whether this is done actor-performance-'deliberately' or not. What does matter, in terms of the wisdom methinks it (potentially) 'conveys' is "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15).

This also applies, IMO, to anyone 'thinking' or 'believing' someone else is 'surreptitiously' using multiple screen-name 'identities' for 'secret' purposes. So it occurs to me to suggest that you look at just what sorts of thangs you are 'believing' and 'unbelieving' and see if you can see why you are so inclined in relation to any who you might think (because the thought pops into your head) 'playing' around with more than one screen-name, richie.

Are you 'seeing' or 'hearing' something which you would character·ize as being 'nefarious'? I have not 'seen' or 'heard' anything untowards (towards anyone) in any of the cross-overs you've referred to, that is, looking at them as 'hypothetically' being the case. But then, take what I say with a grain of salt; cross-word puzzles have never been my 'bag'. :lol:

[Polaris]

:huh: I'm lost

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Polaris+Oct 22 2003, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 22 2003, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 22 2003, 12:25 PM


What about looney bins?:wacko: :unsure: :blink:
We have those in Canada. We call them 'banks'.
:)





[/b][/quote]
yeah, they're pretty looney alright.

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 22 2003, 10:56 AM
Hack, which avatar is yours? The one of you holding up finger, after picking your nose? :o , or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you post as fu*, is what you may want Sonrisa to believe and think. :D

But I do not think that Sonrisa knows real identity of fu*. She thinks it is "A Random Hack". But, Random, Polaris, David S asheera and Rich, are the ones that really know the identity of fu*. So RH, why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa? :lol: ;) ;)
Expressed my thinking very poorly when post was posted.
See above for corrected post.

[a random hack]

as far as i know, fu is fu...:o

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15).

not to mention the bit about motes and beams...:lol:

Explaination: Because in Canada our dollar coin has a loon on it, thus it was given the nickname "loonie"... FYI for those who didn't know.
cripes, our money has a picture of a queen on it.... ;) :lol:

or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you post as fu*,
is that a piccy of madame curie? damn she was a sexy looking woman... B)

[rich]

Random:QUOTE*
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15).


not to mention the bit about motes and beams...



motes and beams? :huh: How did you ever find that out? Evidently is blahing about me, all over the place. :(

Another one from Random:QUOTE or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you post as fu*,*

is that a piccy of madame curie? damn she was a sexy looking woman...*

Yes she was radiating all over the place. As i used to say, "Oui oui Marie." :D ;) :lol:

[a random hack]

motes and beams? How did you ever find that out?
i was also indoctrinated :)

Evidently is blahing about me, all over the place

no idea who or what htis refers to... :huh:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich+Oct 22 2003, 08:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Oct 22 2003, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 22 2003, 10:56 AM
Hack, which avatar is yours? The one of you holding up finger, after picking your nose? :o , or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you post as fu*, is what you may want Sonrisa to believe and think. :D

But I do not think that Sonrisa knows real identity of fu*. She thinks it is "A Random Hack". But, Random, Polaris, David S asheera and Rich, are the ones that really know the identity of fu*. So RH, why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa? :lol: ;) ;)
Expressed my thinking very poorly when post was posted.
See above for corrected post. [/b][/quote]
I have a deja vu that we've discussed the multiple personality issue on the old Big View discussion board and I remember noting that there were a few then. However, I have a really short memory and can't remember who was who. It's not one of the things I find overly important.

I've been goofing around on the internet for around 10 years now. I've learned a lot during this time. A lot about the virtuality of human nature. It is not always as it seems or as it is wished to be seen. As a result, I don't buy into much of what I see or read on the internet as far as information revealed to me by individuals I really don't know. Let's just say that the expression "Once burned, twice shy" accurately depicts how I approach the internet. Not much surprises me on here anymore, however there's still plenty I've seen that I don't understand the point of.

If there are individuals here who somehow have the time and energy in their day to sit there and think about "hmmm who shall I post as today?" well, then.. hell.. congratulations on all the spare time you have to kill.

[rich]

If there are individuals here who somehow have the time and energy in their day to sit there and think about "hmmm who shall I post as today?" well, then.. hell.. congratulations on all the spare time you have to kill.

Before , TBV changed its BB and format, I had 4 ID's that I used while posting. They were, Golden Eagle, Celestial Fire, Narrowmind and Richie T . Now I have but one, Rich.

Thought it would make my posts more interesting, but that is just a spin-off from my ego. There are others that have other ID's. They probably have good reasons, to post under a different ID, which we do not understand. Thus, let it be as it is. :)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich+Oct 23 2003, 06:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rich @ Oct 23 2003, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 22 2003, 10:56 AM
Hack, which avatar is yours? The one of you pointing your finger up, :o , or: the one of Madame Curie which you use you when you* post as fu*, is what you may want Sonrisa to believe and think. :D


But I do not think that Sonrisa knows real identity of fu*. She thinks it is "A Random Hack". But, Random,* Polaris, David S, asheera and Rich, are the ones that really know the identity of fu*. So RH,* why don't you stop kidding Sonrisa? ;) *
Expressed my thinking very poorly when post was posted.
See above for corrected post. [/b][/quote]
The post above was edited by adding this qualification.The paragraph having green ink was corrected, since Random's signature explains that he never picks his nose.:lol:
Sorry Hack, that you felt it necesssary to inlude that qualification as p/o your signature. I did not mean any harm.

[sahyo]

Let's just say that the expression "Once burned, twice shy" accurately depicts how I approach the internet.


a movie....

a brother talking brother which had happened brain damage,
most people thought was retarded,
said he didn't understand that he "trusted" people
no matter how they treated him
....his brother responded that if he didn't trust people
he would "miss" the people he could

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading close book

[rich]

re; asheera's reply:

[color=gray]though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading close book
</span>

not saying trust not trust?

but you wrote it.

Which book is not being read?
" " " closing?

Trying to understand ? :unsure:

Illness?

take care. -_-

[a random hack]

said he didn't understand that he "trusted" people
no matter how they treated him
....his brother responded that if he didn't trust people
he would "miss" the people he could

YES!
:D

[sahyo]

:D

[sahyo]

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading close book


not saying trust not trust?

but you wrote it.

no, hehe

Which book is not being read?
" " " closing?

haha....happened didn't d

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading closed book

:)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 23 2003, 07:01 PM

Let's just say that the expression "Once burned, twice shy" accurately depicts how I approach the internet.


a movie....

a brother talking brother which had happened brain damage,
most people thought was retarded,
said he didn't understand that he "trusted" people
no matter how they treated him
....his brother responded that if he didn't trust people
he would "miss" the people he could

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading close book
Good Point Asheera.

It's not that I don't trust, it's just that I don't trust blindly.

And, using this site as an example, for every person posting here, there is likely an equal number of lurkers who none of us know anything about at all. Knowing that there is a certain proportion of the population who we probably would not trust if we knew them well and there are certain number of people in your life that you do know to a certain degree but there's just something about them that gives you an uneasy feeling of distrust. You have to assume that there are those elements here on the internet as well, and that we DO NOT know them and cannot identify as easily, or we may only 'know' of them what they want us to 'know' whether it be fact of fiction.

Let's face it.... you guys really have no idea who I am, what my life is and what I might do with any of the information you divulge to me. It's a little different chatting to somebody on the internet than chatting to somebody in the check-out line at the supermarket. You can't even take an internet acquaintance at face value. It's not a question of the book being closed. The book isn't even in the same building.

[rich]

Polaris wrote:[color=blue]Good Point Asheera.

It's not that I don't trust, it's just that I don't trust blindly.

And, using this site as an example, for every person posting here, there is likely an equal number of lurkers who none of us know anything about at all. Knowing that there is a certain proportion of the population who we probably would not trust if we knew them well and there are certain number of people in your life that you do know to a certain degree but there's just something about them that gives you an uneasy feeling of distrust. You have to assume that there are those elements here on the internet as well, and that we DO NOT know them and cannot identify as easily, or we may only 'know' of them what they want us to 'know' whether it be fact of fiction.

Let's face it.... you guys really have no idea who I am, what my life is and what I might do with any of the information you divulge to me. It's a little different chatting to somebody on the internet than chatting to somebody in the check-out line at the supermarket. You can't even take an internet acquaintance at face value. It's not a question of the book being closed. The book isn't even in the same building.

</span>
What Polaris wrote, is a good policy to follow, re; especially the Internet.
In real life, one can at least see the person, and observe facial expressions of the person you are conversing with.

On the Internet, it is what your mind wants to imagine a person to personally mean to you in your life. If you want to imagine something, then one should realize that what you are doing to yourself, is strictly your own imagination. <_< .

Your perception of internet acquaintances will be based on the information you reveal about yourself on the internet. To be safe from
receiving unwanted replies, and keep the book closed, it is best not to reveal one's inner secrets on a public forum, for you know nothing about the person/persons who may be replying. B) :mellow:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 23 2003, 08:14 AM
The post above was edited by adding this qualification.The paragraph having green ink was corrected, since Random's signature explains that he never picks his nose.:lol:
Sorry Hack, that you felt it necesssary to inlude that qualification as p/o your signature. I did not mean any harm.
Ain't 'communication' sometimes 'screechingly funny' - as in Costello·ing·with·Abott·ing·convoluting!?
:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 24 2003, 08:08 AM
To be safe from receiving unwanted replies, and keep the book closed, it is best not to reveal one's inner secrets on a public forum, for you know nothing about the person/persons who may be replying.
What one 'reveals' about oneself, methinks, depends on what one's 'goals' and 'vulnerabilities' are (or, at least. what one thinks-n-feels they are) in the context any given 'intimacy'-venture.

Strikes me that complete 'transparency' in relation to 'truth', relying on the 'capacity' of 'light' to dispel 'darkness', is also a safe option, in the sense of there in-the-light-of-[/U]truth[/U] then being nothing which requires 'defense'. It's a 'tricky' 'strategy' tho (given that others may be 'coming from' unforeseen 'angles'), so I wouldn't recommend it to a 'novice'. Better to 'practice' and 'learn' by taking 'small' 'risks' in terms of what one might be 'exposed' to, and only gradually move towards completely néked trapeze-flying.

Why should anyone bother even considering such a 'path' if they're not 'naturally' personality-inclined to be an 'exhibitionist'? Well, it's related to the inspiration and wisdom trans·mission 'calling', I think. "Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:21-23) comes to mind.

Of course, if there's any 'secret' one thinks-n-feels ongoing 'shame' about, this means that one's 'candle' (as far as that 'secret' is concerned at the very least) is not yet 'lit'.
:)

[sahyo]

polarisrichie-expressing-painfearingfearingpainfearing

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading closed book

:)

[sahyo]

if there's any 'secret' one thinks-n-feels ongoing 'shame'


:)

[sahyo]

néked


:D

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 24 2003, 05:27 PM
polarisrichie-expressing-painfearingfearingpainfearing

though not saying trustnottrust,
cannot reading closed book

:)
Polaris not fearing pain. Polaris been in pain before. Polaris been fearful before. Fear is worse...... MUCH worse.

Polaris not fearful because Polaris tries to be mindful to look before she leaps... makes sure one foot is secure before taking next step. No fear in being sure.


Book is open. Polaris reads slowly, every single word from cover to cover before writing review.

:)

[sahyo]

No fear in being sure.


painfearing 'trys' "sure"notsurewhichnot


Book is open. Polaris reads slowly, every single word from cover to cover before writing review.


if polaris readingwriting"review" (REview) then polaris reading like closed book....

cannot reading closed book

[sahyo]

;) :)

[sahyo]

flapbirdpppppping not think flappppppping

[rich]

:lol: Polaris wrote:Polaris not fearful because Polaris tries to be mindful to look before she leaps... makes sure one foot is secure before taking next step. No fear in being sure. </span>

[color=purple] Polaris, no hidden meanings in this post, but your quote reminded me of the ARID commercial which was used about 20 years ago.

i.e.:Are You Dry? Arid Dry? Use Arid To Be Sure.

I'm not calling you wet, I wouldn't gnow. ;) :D :lol: :P Hahaha

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 25 2003, 06:47 AM
flapbirdpppppping not think flappppppping
asheera posted:[color=gray]flapbirdpppppping not think flappppppping </span>


NO!

flapbirdnotppppppingnotthinkflappingbutflapbird isclsingflipflopping.

[sahyo]

Use Arid To Be Sure.


:lol:

[sonrisa]

Before , TBV changed its BB and format, I had 4 ID's that I used while posting. They were, Golden Eagle, Celestial Fire, Narrowmind and Richie T . [/QUOTE]


Richie, I figured out that Golden Eagle was really you (Richie T). Had me fooled with the other ones tho! :)

[rich]

Sonrisa, It was all done in fun, but at times, having multipe ID's can become confusing. :D

How are your candidate friends doing politically? I think many people are beginning to realize the truth now, but in politics one should never become too overconfident. :)

[a random hack]

It's not that I don't trust, it's just that I don't trust blindly.
Of course, if there's any 'secret' one thinks-n-feels ongoing 'shame' about, this means that one's 'candle' (as far as that 'secret' is concerned at the very least) is not yet 'lit'.
seems to me that we all share dark parts and light parts, so called, and we sometimes see in others thngs we afraid to admit about ourselves...
otherwise, wondering why the only person apparently using multiple personas is also the only person apparently concerned by their use...?

Polaris not fearful because Polaris tries to be mindful to look before she leaps... makes sure one foot is secure before taking next step. No fear in being sure.

why want to be sure if not fearful?

[Polaris]

why want to be sure if not fearful?

I'm not fearful because I'm sure.

Do you look both ways before crossing the street?

[sahyo]

You have to assume that there are those elements here on the internet as well, and that we DO NOT know them and cannot identify as easily, or we may only 'know' of them what they want us to 'know' whether it be fact of fiction.


"assume" is "sure"?

"identify"?

"know"notknow?

quote doesn't express "fearful", polaris?


I'm not fearful because I'm sure.


"because"?

"sure"notsure?

what need for "sure"armor if "not fearful"?

whichnot thinks"I'm"whichnot?

[rich]

The only sure thing is death and taxes. :huh:

[Polaris]

Not really sure how it is being fearful when you know danger exists and you make an effort to avoid it. :huh:

I look both ways before crossing the street.

I wouldn't go swimming in a tank full of hungry piranhas.

I wouldn't invited a scorpion into my bed.

I wouldn't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.

I wouldn't share a lot of personal information with a complete stranger, especially one I couldn't see.

So if I am fearful, at least I'm not stupid. ^_^

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 25 2003, 11:19 AM

How are your candidate friends doing politically? I think many people are beginning to realize the truth now, but in politics one should never become too overconfident. :)

esp when those in power are fixing the elections. I have a friend who runs a listserv & he's always posting articles by various number crunchers about how certain incumbants shouldn't be in office becuz the votes didn't tally up right. While you can't completely trust pre-election polls since some people tend to change their minds on election day, the opponents of these incumbants were enjoying leads to wide for them to be defeated on election day. I myself was in
Georgia last year a few weeks after the midterms & the story in all the papers was how did so many of their incumbants get voted out of office- esp their former governor & former Sen McCleland, both of whom were popular with the GA electorate. Articles published since then say the numbers don't make sense.Computerized voting is making things worse becuz there is no paper trail & the voting companies claim their software is "proprietary" & won't allow recounts. This makes elections a joke. I forwarded one comprehensive article from this listserv to a reporter friend of mine & told him to look into it becuz it included a leaked memo by the Diebold Voting Machine Co to the Ohio Repugs promising to deliver our state to dubya in next years presidential elections. Huh? Shouldn't the voters decide who becomes President next year? But then we didn't get to decide back in 2000 either.

As for my friend running for City Council, he supposedly placed in the top half of all the candidates in some poll that somebody who came to one of our fundraisers told us about. I'd like to see that poll & find out if it represented cross section of people in Cincinnati but I don't know who conducted it. Still, I think he has a chance. This current Council has made several blunders- one to the tune of $52 million- so alot of the voters here want those incumbants out, & non-incumbants actually have a chance of getting in this year. So we'll see.

I should mention that Cincinnati, being Cincinnati, we have to do things differently here, so we don't have 1-on-1 ward-by-ward Council elections here. Instead, the Cincinnati City Council race is a city wide, musical chairs free-for-all in which x # of candidates (this year it's 26) compete for 9 Council seats. Placing in the top half is damn good for a candidate making his virgin run on a shoestring budget. Since then we got an ad in the can (& on TV) & our yard signs up. We've also been doing lots of honk'n'waves, stepping up our leafletting, & he's been making buku personal appearances all over the place. So hopefully, it'll be enough to get him in! If the votes ain't fixed, that is. :)

[sahyo]

I wouldn't go swimming in a tank full of hungry piranhas.

I wouldn't invited a scorpion into my bed.

I wouldn't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.


hehehe.....polaris think-"sure"notsure polaris hasn't? :D


Not really sure how it is being fearful when you know danger exists and you make an effort to avoid it.*



I wouldn't share a lot of personal information with a complete stranger, especially one I couldn't see.


"personal information"?

is "personal information" polaris trys "effort"ing to protect?, or?.........

polaris not share which polaris thinks-"personal" unless eyes"see"?

"stranger"notstranger?

is polaris "sure" which is calling "stranger" is "danger"?

whichnot thinks-strangernotstrangerwhichnot?

"danger"notdanger?


So if I am fearful, at least I'm not stupid.



polaris "sure" polaris not thinking as though "stupidnotstupidwhichnnot';)

not "stranger"piranhas"scorpion"buffalo herd" which polaris fears

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 26 2003, 06:04 AM
Not really sure how it is being fearful when you know danger exists and you make an effort to avoid it. :huh:

I look both ways before crossing the street.

I wouldn't go swimming in a tank full of hungry piranhas.

I wouldn't invited a scorpion into my bed.

I wouldn't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.

I wouldn't share a lot of personal information with a complete stranger, especially one I couldn't see.

So if I am fearful, at least I'm not stupid. ^_^
Your 'strategy'-mode strikes me as being very wise indeed, Polaris.

Also stikes me that folks who 'believe' that the only kind of motive(ation) is counter·averse·ive, simply can't (or won't) image·in that one might be motive·ated to (reasonably) 'try' to en'sure' that a 'party', let say, goes 'as well as possible' in order to maximize thangs like en·joy·ment, IOW, that one might be motive·ated by joy[/I]-inclined love-desire.

If they did (that is, in a truly open-minded fashion), their 'belief system' would be de·throned and their 'comfort zone' would be thrown into dis·array. The "best defense is a good offense" principle may apply -- mirror-assert to others that they are aversion-(i.e., fear)-motivated, and the 'threat-feeling' 'goes away' . . . maybe . . . just speculating.
:)

[sahyo]

:lol: :lol:

[rich]

Before , TBV changed its BB and format, I had 4 ID's that I used while posting. They were, Golden Eagle, Celestial Fire, Narrowmind and Richie T .


Richie, I figured out that Golden Eagle was really you (Richie T). Had me fooled with the other ones tho! :) [/QUOTE]

I hope the Democrats publicize the planned'Voting Machine' fraud being committed by Diebold VM Co., and the people responsible are
punished, if the allegation proves to be true. :)

P.S. A Random Hack posted:seems to me that we all share dark parts and light parts, so called, and we sometimes see in others thngs we afraid to admit about ourselves...
otherwise, wondering why the only person apparently using multiple personas is also the only person apparently concerned by their use...?


Sonrisa,
Do you have any idea who is the other person is which Hack is referring to? It can't be me, for I already revealed the other identities I posted by. And I am certain there are others that will never admit they do so. Lots of sneaky stuff going ons in this forum. To be sure. :lol:

[a random hack]

:)
Not really sure how it is being fearful when you know danger exists and you make an effort to avoid it.
is being fearful of 'danger'...how do you see it as danger? seems to me as concept of 'I' diminishes, threats to 'I' also diminish...

I look both ways before crossing the street.

I wouldn't go swimming in a tank full of hungry piranhas.

I wouldn't invited a scorpion into my bed.

I wouldn't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.

I wouldn't share a lot of personal information with a complete stranger, especially one I couldn't see.
you might before you 'realised' they were dangerous...


So if I am fearful, at least I'm not stupid.

seems stupid to be scared of inevitable, but not saying you are stupid.

[Polaris]

is being fearful of 'danger'...how do you see it as danger? seems to me as concept of 'I' diminishes, threats to 'I' also diminish...

Probably true in some regards involving perception....... but if a totally self-less person wandered out onto a busy freeway during rush hour that person is still in danger of being flattened. Whether they are fearful or not of being flattened doesn't not diminish the risk of it happening.


you might before you 'realised' they were dangerous...

Very true. What would you recommend as the solution to this? How would you prevent yourself from winding up in a dangerous situation?

Mindfullness perhaps?

seems stupid to be scared of inevitable, but not saying you are stupid.

If it's inevitable have you gone bathing with any salt water crocs lately? Why not? Are ya a chicken? pluck pluck ;) :P

[sahyo]

Mindfullness perhaps?



'haps polaris thinkingmindfull(whichnot) ;)

there are some posts on other threads which also express polaris fearing....
polaris fear saying fears?


I'm not fearful because I'm sure.


is imaginedsurenotsure?

[Polaris]

I'm not completely fearless, Asheera. Never said I was.

I'm not fearful of the things I understand, though.

[sahyo]

ah... :)

was responsing:

I'm not fearful because I'm sure.

[a random hack]

hmmm...


but if a totally self-less person wandered out onto a busy freeway during rush hour that person is still in danger of being flattened
seems 'totally self-less person' (such as small child) would not possess 'person' concept to be flattened... not recomending road wandering however:), as regardless of person, danger, road concepts, may still be hit by car if wandering on road...so what does that tell you?

How would you prevent yourself from winding up in a dangerous situation?
this assumes that i have sufficient grasp of danger-concept to be able to answer this question, and suspect no-one lives long enough to have this ability... :unsure:
to point another way,
I'm not fearful of the things I understand, though.
how do you know what you 'understand'?
and thus know what to fear?

If it's inevitable have you gone bathing with any salt water crocs lately? Why not? Are ya a chicken? pluck pluck
just because ridicule is inevitable doesn't stop me either :D :lol:

[Polaris]

seems 'totally self-less person' (such as small child) would not possess 'person' concept to be flattened... not recomending road wandering however:), as regardless of person, danger, road concepts, may still be hit by car if wandering on road...so what does that tell you?

It tells me danger exists whether or not you are aware of it.

this assumes that i have sufficient grasp of danger-concept to be able to answer this question, and suspect no-one lives long enough to have this ability...
to point another way,

I suggest that you have a fairly good grasp of the danger-concept since in the previous paragraph you did not recommend 'road wandering.'

how do you know what you 'understand'?
and thus know what to fear?

When I was a child I feared going into our basement because I feared the boogeyman was down there. I used to stomp down the stairs making a lot of noise so I could give the boogeyman warning that I was coming down, so that he'd go hide. Now I understand that my fear was irrational... which most fear is. (not saying I am fearless... just saying when I have fear I am more than likely being irrtational)

just because ridicule is inevitable doesn't stop me either :D :lol:

Me either..... apparently!! :blink:

:)

[sahyo]

when I have fear



fear not objectnotobject which polaris can "have"

fear doesn't comego

"I"?

;)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 28 2003, 10:40 AM

when I have fear



fear not objectnotobject which polaris can "have"

fear doesn't comego

"I"?

;)
Fear is there until it goes.

[rich]

Polaris posted When I was a child I feared going into our basement because I feared the boogeyman was down there. I used to stomp down the stairs making a lot of noise so I could give the boogeyman warning that I was coming down, so that he'd go hide. Now I understand that my fear was irrational... which most fear is. (not saying I am fearless... just saying when I have fear I am more than likely being irrtational)

Making lots of noise, when walking down stairs, seems to be a very rational way to frighten the boogeyman. I used to do the same thing, still would do. :lol:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 28 2003, 04:33 PM
Polaris posted When I was a child I feared going into our basement because I feared the boogeyman was down there. I used to stomp down the stairs making a lot of noise so I could give the boogeyman warning that I was coming down, so that he'd go hide. Now I understand that my fear was irrational... which most fear is. (not saying I am fearless... just saying when I have fear I am more than likely being irrtational)

Making lots of noise, when walking down stairs, seems to be a very rational way to frighten the boogeyman. I used to do the same thing, still would do. :lol:
I swear it works! I have yet to run into the boogeyman in my basement!! That kind of perfect record doesn't lie!! right? :unsure:

;) :lol:

[sahyo]

fear doesn't comego


was responsing:


just saying when I have fear I am more than likely being irrtational



Fear is there until it goes.


does polaris think fear comes and goes? :)

[a random hack]

wonder if the bogey man was as frightened of you as you seem to think... :o ;)

polaris,
you say danger is present whether you aware of it or not... seems to me that threat is ever present, whether seen or not, but danger only present when I interact with threat...? and would like to ask, threat to what? you still threatened by bogey man?

also would like to mention that 'concept of I' is not necessarily all of me, and as concept of I diminishes, realisation of I seems to encompass more and more 'other', 'I' become more integrated into 'other' and 'other' becomes more integrated into 'I' :) and thus threats to 'I' diminsh...

[a random hack]

hey Polaris,
are there many buffalo in canada?

:unsure:

[rich]

Polaris,

In Canada, is that where they find the dear and the angelo at play? :lol:

O give me a home,
where the buffalo roam,
and the deer...etc. ;)