John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Stop messin around guys 
How we behave
- Thread starter John Connellan
- Start date
John Connellan,
Might. Be. Emotionally. Scarred. For. Life.
What, and if someone kills your parents in front of you, and afterwards you can't study anymore for months -- you would explain that as overreacting?
Man, I don't want to be around you.
Might. Be. Emotionally. Scarred. For. Life.
What, and if someone kills your parents in front of you, and afterwards you can't study anymore for months -- you would explain that as overreacting?
So if you feel hurt after somebody has done something really bad to you, you consider that hurt of yours as "another example of a flaw in our genetics"? What is your ideal human? A robot? A giggling robot, perhaps?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
You have a point, John. Rosa does sound a bit judgmental about reacting; however this is what we do mostly, and not all of it is bad. If someone throws something, I had best react. If something hurts, it is better for me to react than not. When all else fails, do the "ugly" cry, or kick the wall! pmt
pmtP. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
HERE COMES ROSA: WITH, We are the way we are, and saying that you love someone "inspite of his weaknesses and spots" is a lot of Christian crap. It's saying that you really wish this person to be someone else! You either love someone or you don't. There's no "inspite's" and "but's" in love.
What you prefer to deduce from my statement is fine with me, but what I was aiming for was that we are all imperfect in one way or another, and yet we love each other. There is nothing to be read into this statement that I can see. To say that we are perfect -in the way that we define perfect-would be silly.
ROSA: Faith ... that's just one big noble cop-out. Why not be humble and modest, at the risk of being politically incorrect though, and instead of "faith" say something like "the success of that thing depends on my work and some factors I cannot influence" ?
My stars and little fishes, Rosa, surely you do not want to put upon someone to necessarily express herself in exactly the way you prefer to hear, do you? Are you not kind of putting it on the top shelf there, girl? Of course, our faith must be active, and with active faith there is no “cop out” as you call it. We move forward with faith, and faith can be a comforting and practical quality. I have some faith that my bed will not collapse each night; otherwise I would check it each time. More importantly, I have faith that I will be given the strength and courage for whatever comes. It is my assurance, and there is nothing bad to be said about it.
ROSA: What "scissors of reason"?! Reason per se, the principles of argumentation and syllogisms, is neither good nor bad; it's a tool. It all depends on how you use it. With a needle, I can sow a nice dress, or I can poke someone in the eye.
Okay, but it sounds gastly!
ROSA: When I was talking about "reason gone wild" I was refering mostly to the fact that human reason is a mighty tool, it can do a lot of things. And humans fell for that admiration of their own reason and the things it can do.
But just because you can do something with a certain tool, that doesn't mean that you should or must do it too.
You lost me with the scissors. As I mentioned I do not like the analogy I presented [about scissors having cut the wings of faith], because it was a bunch of flowery words that meant nothing! {ohh I said flowery} What is it exactly that you are adding? Is is just that you agree with me, or what? Gosh, do you suppose? I simply thought that it was of interest that a supposedly well educated man would blame reason on lazy faith. It is not reason that “cuts the wings” of faith, if wings it had, rather it is superstition and fear that has taken such a toll on faith, I think. Superstition based on an assumption that one can bargain with God, and fear that God will either not notice how good one is, or will not “fix” those who need to be “fixed”. . . or something like that. One thing I learned in my very early twenties that started me on the path of reconsidering what I had been taught, was that virtue is its own reward. I was tickled to find a good philosopher like Spinoza understanding my take on that. Nice of him!
ROSA WANTS TO KNOW: "They sought to tempt the leaders of their day, believing that states and nations could benefit from their works. ..." Who is this from?
Yours truly. It is an excerpt from a prologue to a poem titled, Their Bones Lie Quiet Now, (Thoughts in Motion, a book of poetry). Now, you can see why I did not explain all that in the first place, but I do like that prologue, because my heart is always so touched by the unnecessary sorrow that works its way through society, because of nonsensical reasons. Where was the love? Damn! It makes me angry.
ROSA ASKS: Do you really think that there is a "humane" way to kill a creature??
Absolutely. There is also sometimes a humane reason for killing.
ROSA: It would be suicidal nowadays to not act as 'man'. If nowadays you don't live in a warm house, drive a car, wash yourself with shampoo, eat, get vaccinated, use computers and soooo on, you are seriously reducing your chances of survival in this world.
You give a new meaning to my statement. Moreover, I am not advised as to why it would be necessary to kill, hurt and destroy for those purposes. However, I do not wash my body with shampoo. I think I would not feel clean.
ROSA: All I wish is that people would see that and stop moaning, and for crying out loud, stop saying that "they want to be in touch with nature". It's a lot of neo-bourgeoisie BS. Yeah right, they want to be in touch with nature, but *on their terms.* We'll go camping, take all supplies with us, a portable bathroom, mosquito nets, warm blankets, a TV, some other stuff so that we won't get bored, and be in touch with nature. BS.
We were very modern when I was in the primary grades, we had real toilet paper in our outhouse, and our pigs had the cleanest pens in the county. The chickens mostly ran free except at night; we would lock the “henhouse,” after they went to roust. My step dad used to open the gate to the garden, so the chickens could go inside and eat the bugs, and then he would call them out again. So, yep, they ate live things, and we ate fryers mostly; otherwise, I would probably not be here. Times were hard. One could go hungry. We treated our chickens well, and cared for them if they were injured. Very few today live that well, even for a short time. Quality is better than longevity. Do you not think so?
ROSA WRITES: Just because there aren't that many "reasonable arguments" (as far as syllogisms go, "reason" has been discussed above), that doesn't mean that they cannot be found here.
No, nor does it mean they can. Philosophically you presented an incomplete statement, kiddo.
ROSA: Reason, if working properly, does not spawn fallacies. Fallacies (of reason)come when someone is trying to prove something that is *not* a matter of formal logics and syllogism by means of formal logics and syllogism. Like when Bush said "He that is not against us, is with us." and suddenly had 130 allied countries or so. Matthew 12:30 states "He that is not with me is against me." Bush took *for granted* that everyone believed in Matthew 12:30, then used some logics to turn that statement into the other form. Technically, there's nothing wrong with that -- except that *not everyone believes in Matthew 12:30.* First he committed an argumentum ad populum, and then made a false dichotomy due to it.
ROSA CONTINUES: What is speaking "our hearts"?! When Bush said what he said, he definitely was sincere, he meant every word he said. But does that mean that he made a good argument?! If I tell you that I love flowers and stuff (to make this shorter), yes, you may easily think that it comes from the heart, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart. But what can we do then with that info on me liking flowers? Not much ...
What do you have against flowers? As for President Bush, yes, I would suppose that he was sincere, but we are not presidents nor are we talking about international politics; we are talking about philosophy, are we not?
ROSA QUOTES from my previous post: You believe, do you not, that the highest form of intellect is intuition? What is more dependable than intuition? Nothing. Our intellect can fool us. Even our instincts can react unnecessarily, our beliefs can crumble, but that higher knowledge that we have worked with ... ”
ROSA RESPONDS: Why so complicated? Take reason as the tool for syllogisms. What the content of these syllogisms is, that is another issue. That content depends on experience, knowledge, luck, who knows what else.
You call that complicated after little story about Bush! Intuition, once owned, is not a real process, it acts very similar to instinct, but is born in wisdom, or knowledge rightfully applied, rather than in heredity. or physical evolution.
ROSA: That's something that can be interpersonally verified, or not.
Why does everything little thing have to be verified by another party. I think you do not have the same definition of intuition. Intuition comes from knowledge that has been tried and proven with experience and intellect; otherwise it would not be such a good thing. Spinoza calls it the third kind of knowledge. I do not ask for much advice. I rarely join a group. I was married once, but supported myself even then. I look to people to love them, rather than to be loved. My intuition with people has been a wonderful thing. It ought to be; I paid dearly for it. (Now, that’s a smile, not an old poor me, so keep your horses hitched.) Intuition is much like perception, except to me, perception just kind of lies there and intuition jumps to the rescue, or tells us something is not quite right. Just a couple of examples.
See if this makes any sense to you: "The highest endeavor of the mind, and the highest virtue, is to understand things by intuition......From intuition arises the highest possible mental acquiescence......The endeavor or desire to know things by intuition cannot arise from opinion, but from reason....." If not, think about it a bit; what could it hurt. The gentle philosopher, Spinoza believed this.
Reason is something we do for an answer, or a solution, if you prefer; however, intuition is reason processed into a knowledge upon which we may depend. This get us working from the inside. I like this following quote ever so much, because it is so reasonable, and brings to mind maybe a different slant we had once supposed. Here is: "Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this. We know this because they advocate controling ourselves so that we can be good, or disciplining ourselves so that we can be moderate. However, if we gain an understanding of the benefits of moderation in all things, and develop cognizance -with reason as our guide- regarding why we wish to do or be, then we are those things because we love being those things, and the more we do those things, the better we will feel about who we are, and the more time and energy we will have for good moments and conquests in harmony with our purpose. Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?
ROSA: If there are contents we didn't know, and have made former premisses without them -- well, then we'll update our thoughts and our arguments after we learn those new contents.
But, that is not intuition.
ROSA: Yes, that is what my intuition tells me: when new knowledge comes, you should update.
I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek! We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?
IN CONCLUSION:
You are an interesting woman, with many sides. That is good, I think. Sorry that I cannot really relate to the camping thing. It sounds like a lot of work, and taking everything with you, rather defeats the purpose, huh? I prefer to eat and sleep at home, under a roof. Neither am I inclined to eat outside in restaurants. Other than those things, I love the out of doors. Working outside, especially where there are trees and other foiliage, so one can smell it, see it, taste it, be glad for it. Watching things, like crawdads. I love their eyes. I could never eat a live bug. How could you look into its eyes and then crush it with your mouth (teeth)? It probably would not be much worse for the bug than dying any other way, but what about the person biting? Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing. [See, I am in disguise.]
Goodnight, lady.
WITH, We are the way we are, and saying that you love someone "inspite of his weaknesses and spots" is a lot of Christian crap. It's saying that you really wish this person to be someone else! You either love someone or you don't. There's no "inspite's" and "but's" in love.What you prefer to deduce from my statement is fine with me, but what I was aiming for was that we are all imperfect in one way or another, and yet we love each other. There is nothing to be read into this statement that I can see. To say that we are perfect -in the way that we define perfect-would be silly.
ROSA: Faith ... that's just one big noble cop-out. Why not be humble and modest, at the risk of being politically incorrect though, and instead of "faith" say something like "the success of that thing depends on my work and some factors I cannot influence" ?
My stars and little fishes, Rosa, surely you do not want to put upon someone to necessarily express herself in exactly the way you prefer to hear, do you? Are you not kind of putting it on the top shelf there, girl? Of course, our faith must be active, and with active faith there is no “cop out” as you call it. We move forward with faith, and faith can be a comforting and practical quality. I have some faith that my bed will not collapse each night; otherwise I would check it each time. More importantly, I have faith that I will be given the strength and courage for whatever comes. It is my assurance, and there is nothing bad to be said about it.
ROSA: What "scissors of reason"?! Reason per se, the principles of argumentation and syllogisms, is neither good nor bad; it's a tool. It all depends on how you use it. With a needle, I can sow a nice dress, or I can poke someone in the eye.
Okay, but it sounds gastly!
ROSA: When I was talking about "reason gone wild" I was refering mostly to the fact that human reason is a mighty tool, it can do a lot of things. And humans fell for that admiration of their own reason and the things it can do.
But just because you can do something with a certain tool, that doesn't mean that you should or must do it too.
You lost me with the scissors. As I mentioned I do not like the analogy I presented [about scissors having cut the wings of faith], because it was a bunch of flowery words that meant nothing! {ohh I said flowery} What is it exactly that you are adding? Is is just that you agree with me, or what? Gosh, do you suppose? I simply thought that it was of interest that a supposedly well educated man would blame reason on lazy faith. It is not reason that “cuts the wings” of faith, if wings it had, rather it is superstition and fear that has taken such a toll on faith, I think. Superstition based on an assumption that one can bargain with God, and fear that God will either not notice how good one is, or will not “fix” those who need to be “fixed”. . . or something like that. One thing I learned in my very early twenties that started me on the path of reconsidering what I had been taught, was that virtue is its own reward. I was tickled to find a good philosopher like Spinoza understanding my take on that. Nice of him!
ROSA WANTS TO KNOW: "They sought to tempt the leaders of their day, believing that states and nations could benefit from their works. ..." Who is this from?
Yours truly. It is an excerpt from a prologue to a poem titled, Their Bones Lie Quiet Now, (Thoughts in Motion, a book of poetry). Now, you can see why I did not explain all that in the first place, but I do like that prologue, because my heart is always so touched by the unnecessary sorrow that works its way through society, because of nonsensical reasons. Where was the love? Damn! It makes me angry.
ROSA ASKS: Do you really think that there is a "humane" way to kill a creature??
Absolutely. There is also sometimes a humane reason for killing.
ROSA: It would be suicidal nowadays to not act as 'man'. If nowadays you don't live in a warm house, drive a car, wash yourself with shampoo, eat, get vaccinated, use computers and soooo on, you are seriously reducing your chances of survival in this world.
You give a new meaning to my statement. Moreover, I am not advised as to why it would be necessary to kill, hurt and destroy for those purposes. However, I do not wash my body with shampoo. I think I would not feel clean.
ROSA: All I wish is that people would see that and stop moaning, and for crying out loud, stop saying that "they want to be in touch with nature". It's a lot of neo-bourgeoisie BS. Yeah right, they want to be in touch with nature, but *on their terms.* We'll go camping, take all supplies with us, a portable bathroom, mosquito nets, warm blankets, a TV, some other stuff so that we won't get bored, and be in touch with nature. BS.
We were very modern when I was in the primary grades, we had real toilet paper in our outhouse, and our pigs had the cleanest pens in the county. The chickens mostly ran free except at night; we would lock the “henhouse,” after they went to roust. My step dad used to open the gate to the garden, so the chickens could go inside and eat the bugs, and then he would call them out again. So, yep, they ate live things, and we ate fryers mostly; otherwise, I would probably not be here. Times were hard. One could go hungry. We treated our chickens well, and cared for them if they were injured. Very few today live that well, even for a short time. Quality is better than longevity. Do you not think so?
ROSA WRITES: Just because there aren't that many "reasonable arguments" (as far as syllogisms go, "reason" has been discussed above), that doesn't mean that they cannot be found here.
No, nor does it mean they can. Philosophically you presented an incomplete statement, kiddo.
ROSA: Reason, if working properly, does not spawn fallacies. Fallacies (of reason)come when someone is trying to prove something that is *not* a matter of formal logics and syllogism by means of formal logics and syllogism. Like when Bush said "He that is not against us, is with us." and suddenly had 130 allied countries or so. Matthew 12:30 states "He that is not with me is against me." Bush took *for granted* that everyone believed in Matthew 12:30, then used some logics to turn that statement into the other form. Technically, there's nothing wrong with that -- except that *not everyone believes in Matthew 12:30.* First he committed an argumentum ad populum, and then made a false dichotomy due to it.
ROSA CONTINUES: What is speaking "our hearts"?! When Bush said what he said, he definitely was sincere, he meant every word he said. But does that mean that he made a good argument?! If I tell you that I love flowers and stuff (to make this shorter), yes, you may easily think that it comes from the heart, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart. But what can we do then with that info on me liking flowers? Not much ...
What do you have against flowers? As for President Bush, yes, I would suppose that he was sincere, but we are not presidents nor are we talking about international politics; we are talking about philosophy, are we not?
ROSA QUOTES from my previous post: You believe, do you not, that the highest form of intellect is intuition? What is more dependable than intuition? Nothing. Our intellect can fool us. Even our instincts can react unnecessarily, our beliefs can crumble, but that higher knowledge that we have worked with ... ”
ROSA RESPONDS: Why so complicated? Take reason as the tool for syllogisms. What the content of these syllogisms is, that is another issue. That content depends on experience, knowledge, luck, who knows what else.
You call that complicated after little story about Bush! Intuition, once owned, is not a real process, it acts very similar to instinct, but is born in wisdom, or knowledge rightfully applied, rather than in heredity. or physical evolution.
ROSA: That's something that can be interpersonally verified, or not.
Why does everything little thing have to be verified by another party. I think you do not have the same definition of intuition. Intuition comes from knowledge that has been tried and proven with experience and intellect; otherwise it would not be such a good thing. Spinoza calls it the third kind of knowledge. I do not ask for much advice. I rarely join a group. I was married once, but supported myself even then. I look to people to love them, rather than to be loved. My intuition with people has been a wonderful thing. It ought to be; I paid dearly for it. (Now, that’s a smile, not an old poor me, so keep your horses hitched.) Intuition is much like perception, except to me, perception just kind of lies there and intuition jumps to the rescue, or tells us something is not quite right. Just a couple of examples.
See if this makes any sense to you: "The highest endeavor of the mind, and the highest virtue, is to understand things by intuition......From intuition arises the highest possible mental acquiescence......The endeavor or desire to know things by intuition cannot arise from opinion, but from reason....." If not, think about it a bit; what could it hurt. The gentle philosopher, Spinoza believed this.
Reason is something we do for an answer, or a solution, if you prefer; however, intuition is reason processed into a knowledge upon which we may depend. This get us working from the inside. I like this following quote ever so much, because it is so reasonable, and brings to mind maybe a different slant we had once supposed. Here is: "Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this. We know this because they advocate controling ourselves so that we can be good, or disciplining ourselves so that we can be moderate. However, if we gain an understanding of the benefits of moderation in all things, and develop cognizance -with reason as our guide- regarding why we wish to do or be, then we are those things because we love being those things, and the more we do those things, the better we will feel about who we are, and the more time and energy we will have for good moments and conquests in harmony with our purpose. Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?
ROSA: If there are contents we didn't know, and have made former premisses without them -- well, then we'll update our thoughts and our arguments after we learn those new contents.
But, that is not intuition.
ROSA: Yes, that is what my intuition tells me: when new knowledge comes, you should update.
I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek! We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?
IN CONCLUSION:
You are an interesting woman, with many sides. That is good, I think. Sorry that I cannot really relate to the camping thing. It sounds like a lot of work, and taking everything with you, rather defeats the purpose, huh? I prefer to eat and sleep at home, under a roof. Neither am I inclined to eat outside in restaurants. Other than those things, I love the out of doors. Working outside, especially where there are trees and other foiliage, so one can smell it, see it, taste it, be glad for it. Watching things, like crawdads. I love their eyes. I could never eat a live bug. How could you look into its eyes and then crush it with your mouth (teeth)? It probably would not be much worse for the bug than dying any other way, but what about the person biting? Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing.
[See, I am in disguise.]Goodnight, lady.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Oh shoot. I transferred your post to Word, and when I went to answer it, I must have started down a ways, so here is the rest and I will try to make keep it short.
You wrote: Let's say that brain is the "machine", and "mind" is when this machine is running.
I guess we could say that???
You: ......That's discussable. And a bit romantic. We cannot know what they were like, whether they were "transient, poor, proud, loyal, dependable, people, as many of them were, were mostly without envy, because they accepted their lot, so to speak, and were thankful for whatever they had."
Oh, I was talking about my relatives, to draw a comparison of their demeanor to the pilgrims. People that live in rough earthy situations, because accustomed to some degree, expecting far few changes than we do. If we get a pain, we want to rub something on it, or take a pill, get the heating pad. Nothing basically wrong with that, but it is just different, when one grits his teeth and bites the bit. How’s that?
You......Why wouldn't they feel a need for permanence? This is what I was trying to find out. After all, home is one kind of permanence. "Namely, settlers came into an untouched nature, carrying certain knowledge and technology with them, that did not evolve on that ground. Imagine you go backpacking on a trip into the woods: Don't you feel just cool and powerful with the tools and knowledge of handling nature that you brought with you?" OK, what I was trying to say is that the New World must had been as strange to them as coming to the Moon would be for us.
I am not sure why one would not feel a need for permanence, just like some tribes that move about four times a year. People adjust to what is needed to survive. My relatives, like many in some of the old countries, and in Mexico today, sought work where they could find it. That job decided where home would be. There could be many reasons why one would be moving. But, did the settlers move all that much. Did they not homestead for the most part? I think so, but even then, sometimes the land would quit yielding, or the natives would get too close. Right? The gold rush brought many to the West, as did the dust bowl, but for different reasons.
That must be dreadful to have *no* fear! Do you know the film Fearless with Jeff Bridgess? I don't think there is such a state of no fear; but I do know, from my personal experience, that one can feel as if one had no fear -- because one is so full of fear, that that fear consumed the ability to feel fear, and as a result, one feels fearless. Bold, yet strangely uptight all the time ... If you don't know that film -- it's really worth seeing.
No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now. This is why we need to come as a little child. Being grown up gets us all serious and cautious about much more than what is probably necessary.
You......I think there was a misunderstanding: I said that they *couldn't* feel safe, because there were no towns and villages in the New World. It was nothing like what they were used to in the Old World. Who wouldn't feel at least a bit unsafe?
I sit corrected! :bugeye: Thanks. You are right.
YOU.......What do you think this work, work, work did to those people who first came to America? All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy ... No pun intended, but it's true.
I do not know, Rosa, I think work can be very rewarding, but when we keep in mind that almost everything they did was necessity, would you not think that at times they would be so tired they could scarcely stand it. When people have cattle to milk and care for, they have to be there. Every morning, my grandmother got up, got the cows all eating, and sometimes milked one, and then came in and made breakfast while the guys milked the other cows. I think there were five. I was only seven, so I may be wrong. The gardens had to be worked, the chickens had to be fed, wood had to be chopped. My aunt used to work ten hours in the field, come home and prepare supper (we called it then), and sometimes after that she would wash a load of clothes (electric machine) or two, or else can until close to bedtime. Then here came all the preparation to care for her skin. After this, she would sit in her gown and crochet until she went to bed. Amazing. Once while visiting my eldest aunt, I awoke to this noise. It was a manual mower, going full bore at four o’clock in the morning. I went to the door and asked my aunt why she was mowing so early. She said she had to get it down before she wanted to be in the fields by five thirty. Oh, of course, how silly of me to ask. I, myself, used to get up at three to make breakfast, and breakfast was coffee, pancakes, syrup, (we made our own), eggs and bacon when we had it, and then to the field. It was too hot to work in the late afternoon. This is why folks got up so early. (Central California) People do what they have to do, and I think it often looks worse to observers than to the ones involved. My mother and her sisters had fun. They were quite serious in the fields. No horsing around, but at home, canning, or whatever, they really knew how to enjoy each other.
You.....Where does this discontentment come from? Whence the too much stimulation?
I seem to be short on information. Please forgive me. I was speaking here of today’s American’s. And yes, I do think, in fact I have seen it often with children, when stimulated constantly, the behavior is inclined to be of a nervous sort. I am not much for mentioning sex in mixed gatherings, or whatever, but that and everything else seems to “need” so much preparation…….(how’s that), and stimulating ideas and new this and that, and it simply amazes me. Why? Do people not really like each other, or what, …or what on earth have they been raised to expect from their mates? If we become much more mechanical, the computers may do better than we, in knowing how to show affection that is sincere and stimulating. Nothing in this world is sweeter than a good man. See, I may be divorced and going down the other side of the mountain, but I know what makes Spring so much fun for the animals. What could be better than seeing a face you love across the table over a cup of steaming coffee, and knowing that you love that person? I like that sort of thing with anyone, and I think if we do not know how to love platonically, then we might really mess up with romance, because romance is a bit of a crock.
You......"Too much watchin' television got me chasin' dreams ..."??
Right, and then when I try to think, I falls asleep……..
You........."Passion is too often a guide for some." What passion? Maybe the passion to explain everything with logics?
What are you calling passion? If we keep stretching the meanings of our words, we shall have no adequate way of expressing ourselves.
You..... I call that reason gone wild, the passion of reason. {oh, corn dogs!}
Only if you stick to logics, only then it feels ok to merge companies and lose thousands of jobs, for example. Only if you stick to formal logics can it feel ok to say that abortion is perfectly ok. Formal logics doesn't say anything about any values, it cannot.
How nice.
National Geographic if you want detailed info), there was a site where they produced uranium for nukes. There were leaks in the walls of those factories, and employed scientists there have detected that radioactive matter reached the river water. They wrote that into their reports. Yet they did not inform any authorities about that, because the rules and regulations they sticked to said nothing about informing anyone. They just had to make a report. This is where their *ethics* should have jumped in -- but ethics is not scientific, so they ignored it. The case was quite loud, when it all came out some years back.
I remember that. I do.
You.......It's still a misunderstanding. I am saying that I believe in a Creator only inasmuch as I can neither prove that he is, nor prove that he isn't.
Gotcha’. Excuse me, however, while I leave the pink elephants in your lab.
All right I finally caught up with myself. Sorry about that. I be so tired now. I always have to finish what I start. I almost have to whip myself sometimes, to use good sense. I am hitting the sack, for sure, right now. Take care. pmt
You wrote: Let's say that brain is the "machine", and "mind" is when this machine is running.
I guess we could say that???
You: ......That's discussable. And a bit romantic. We cannot know what they were like, whether they were "transient, poor, proud, loyal, dependable, people, as many of them were, were mostly without envy, because they accepted their lot, so to speak, and were thankful for whatever they had."
Oh, I was talking about my relatives, to draw a comparison of their demeanor to the pilgrims. People that live in rough earthy situations, because accustomed to some degree, expecting far few changes than we do. If we get a pain, we want to rub something on it, or take a pill, get the heating pad. Nothing basically wrong with that, but it is just different, when one grits his teeth and bites the bit. How’s that?
You......Why wouldn't they feel a need for permanence? This is what I was trying to find out. After all, home is one kind of permanence. "Namely, settlers came into an untouched nature, carrying certain knowledge and technology with them, that did not evolve on that ground. Imagine you go backpacking on a trip into the woods: Don't you feel just cool and powerful with the tools and knowledge of handling nature that you brought with you?" OK, what I was trying to say is that the New World must had been as strange to them as coming to the Moon would be for us.
I am not sure why one would not feel a need for permanence, just like some tribes that move about four times a year. People adjust to what is needed to survive. My relatives, like many in some of the old countries, and in Mexico today, sought work where they could find it. That job decided where home would be. There could be many reasons why one would be moving. But, did the settlers move all that much. Did they not homestead for the most part? I think so, but even then, sometimes the land would quit yielding, or the natives would get too close. Right? The gold rush brought many to the West, as did the dust bowl, but for different reasons.
That must be dreadful to have *no* fear! Do you know the film Fearless with Jeff Bridgess? I don't think there is such a state of no fear; but I do know, from my personal experience, that one can feel as if one had no fear -- because one is so full of fear, that that fear consumed the ability to feel fear, and as a result, one feels fearless. Bold, yet strangely uptight all the time ... If you don't know that film -- it's really worth seeing.
No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now. This is why we need to come as a little child. Being grown up gets us all serious and cautious about much more than what is probably necessary.
You......I think there was a misunderstanding: I said that they *couldn't* feel safe, because there were no towns and villages in the New World. It was nothing like what they were used to in the Old World. Who wouldn't feel at least a bit unsafe?
I sit corrected! :bugeye: Thanks. You are right.
YOU.......What do you think this work, work, work did to those people who first came to America? All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy ... No pun intended, but it's true.
I do not know, Rosa, I think work can be very rewarding, but when we keep in mind that almost everything they did was necessity, would you not think that at times they would be so tired they could scarcely stand it. When people have cattle to milk and care for, they have to be there. Every morning, my grandmother got up, got the cows all eating, and sometimes milked one, and then came in and made breakfast while the guys milked the other cows. I think there were five. I was only seven, so I may be wrong. The gardens had to be worked, the chickens had to be fed, wood had to be chopped. My aunt used to work ten hours in the field, come home and prepare supper (we called it then), and sometimes after that she would wash a load of clothes (electric machine) or two, or else can until close to bedtime. Then here came all the preparation to care for her skin. After this, she would sit in her gown and crochet until she went to bed. Amazing. Once while visiting my eldest aunt, I awoke to this noise. It was a manual mower, going full bore at four o’clock in the morning. I went to the door and asked my aunt why she was mowing so early. She said she had to get it down before she wanted to be in the fields by five thirty. Oh, of course, how silly of me to ask. I, myself, used to get up at three to make breakfast, and breakfast was coffee, pancakes, syrup, (we made our own), eggs and bacon when we had it, and then to the field. It was too hot to work in the late afternoon. This is why folks got up so early. (Central California) People do what they have to do, and I think it often looks worse to observers than to the ones involved. My mother and her sisters had fun. They were quite serious in the fields. No horsing around, but at home, canning, or whatever, they really knew how to enjoy each other.
You.....Where does this discontentment come from? Whence the too much stimulation?
I seem to be short on information. Please forgive me. I was speaking here of today’s American’s. And yes, I do think, in fact I have seen it often with children, when stimulated constantly, the behavior is inclined to be of a nervous sort. I am not much for mentioning sex in mixed gatherings, or whatever, but that and everything else seems to “need” so much preparation…….(how’s that), and stimulating ideas and new this and that, and it simply amazes me. Why? Do people not really like each other, or what, …or what on earth have they been raised to expect from their mates? If we become much more mechanical, the computers may do better than we, in knowing how to show affection that is sincere and stimulating. Nothing in this world is sweeter than a good man. See, I may be divorced and going down the other side of the mountain, but I know what makes Spring so much fun for the animals. What could be better than seeing a face you love across the table over a cup of steaming coffee, and knowing that you love that person? I like that sort of thing with anyone, and I think if we do not know how to love platonically, then we might really mess up with romance, because romance is a bit of a crock.
You......"Too much watchin' television got me chasin' dreams ..."??
Right, and then when I try to think, I falls asleep……..
You........."Passion is too often a guide for some." What passion? Maybe the passion to explain everything with logics?
What are you calling passion? If we keep stretching the meanings of our words, we shall have no adequate way of expressing ourselves.
You..... I call that reason gone wild, the passion of reason. {oh, corn dogs!}
Only if you stick to logics, only then it feels ok to merge companies and lose thousands of jobs, for example. Only if you stick to formal logics can it feel ok to say that abortion is perfectly ok. Formal logics doesn't say anything about any values, it cannot.
How nice.
National Geographic if you want detailed info), there was a site where they produced uranium for nukes. There were leaks in the walls of those factories, and employed scientists there have detected that radioactive matter reached the river water. They wrote that into their reports. Yet they did not inform any authorities about that, because the rules and regulations they sticked to said nothing about informing anyone. They just had to make a report. This is where their *ethics* should have jumped in -- but ethics is not scientific, so they ignored it. The case was quite loud, when it all came out some years back.
I remember that. I do.
You.......It's still a misunderstanding. I am saying that I believe in a Creator only inasmuch as I can neither prove that he is, nor prove that he isn't.
Gotcha’. Excuse me, however, while I leave the pink elephants in your lab.
All right I finally caught up with myself. Sorry about that. I be so tired now. I always have to finish what I start. I almost have to whip myself sometimes, to use good sense. I am hitting the sack, for sure, right now. Take care. pmt
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
RosaMagika said:
Why not? I still want to be around u
Don't know what ur problem is here
Now killing somebodys parents is a lot worse than threatening to cut off their pee-pee but......YES. It is over-reacting to the types of behaviour set out by our genes for us to survive and reproduce. I think u are looking at my wording a bit shallowly. I don't mean 'react' the way u probably use the word. Don't u realise that all of our emotions serve a purpose? That they are all controlled by genetics? That these emotions may indeed be over-indulged depending on levels of environmental stress we are subjected to?
Come on Rosa, give me a real argument here. I know u have more to come coz u are an intelligent person.
No. Emotions are not genetic flaws. It is the reaction to these emotions which can be flawed if they are no longer useful in the environment. If our environmnet were to change so that we were living around human corpses all the time than after a few thousand years, u would expect there to be a a higher tolerance of 'fear' in society and u can be damn sure that nobody was scared of corpses anymore! Those who were irrationally afraid of corpses would be driven out of the gene pool.
I don't know what u mean by ideal human. I would have to say Beyonce though
PMT,
I think this thing about perfection is an ugly Christian residue, and it's causing a lot of static in communication sometimes. Do you know whether they have such terms (perfection and alike) in other cultures, say Chinese, native African and other?
"My stars and little fishes, Rosa, surely you do not want to put upon someone to necessarily express herself in exactly the way you prefer to hear, do you?"
No, I just like to keep some things without names. And I know, I sometimes jump at people who seem to have it sorted out with words. I don't like words very much, you know. I'm full of them (full of it, hehe ), but that doesn't mean I like them.
"ROSA: What "scissors of reason"?! Reason per se, the principles of argumentation and syllogisms, is neither good nor bad; it's a tool. It all depends on how you use it. With a needle, I can sow a nice dress, or I can poke someone in the eye.
Okay, but it sounds gastly!"
And so it is.
"I simply thought that it was of interest that a supposedly well educated man would blame reason on lazy faith."
I didn't even see that point. I guess I am so used to seeing well educated people who say ... well, crap.
"virtue is its own reward. I was tickled to find a good philosopher like Spinoza understanding my take on that. Nice of him!"
Nice of him, indeed!
ROSA ASKS: Do you really think that there is a "humane" way to kill a creature??
Absolutely. There is also sometimes a humane reason for killing."
Well, maybe a "humane" way. But I think that all killing, any kind of killing of *animals* done by humans is bad. Humans should stick to killing humans, if they must, and they can do it in their "humane" way.
"Moreover, I am not advised as to why it would be necessary to kill, hurt and destroy for those [survival] purposes."
To eat meat, you need to kill the animal first. To produce cotton for clothes, you need to make a field and use pesticides -- you take away animal habitat and kill animals. To not even begin with factories and big pollutants.
Don't get me wrong, what I mean is that humans as such are ok. But looking at humans sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, looking at humans in the context of this whole world and nature, I think we are just like parasites, prone to destroy everything we see.
As for the chickens and "... Quality is better than longevity. Do you not think so?"
Humans have no right to treat this world the way they do. I think we should be aware of that, and that we are doing harm to other beings for us to survive. And then someone comes and has the nerve to call humans "the crown of creation". I am appalled.
ROSA WRITES: Just because there aren't that many "reasonable arguments" (as far as syllogisms go, "reason" has been discussed above), that doesn't mean that they cannot be found here.
No, nor does it mean they can. Philosophically you presented an incomplete statement, kiddo."
Did not! Just because something isn't here, doesn't mean that it cannot come here. Goes twice: first for the "reasonable arguments" here on SF, and second for this argument right here, and the next.
"What do you have against flowers?"What made you think that I have something against flowers?! Dang you!
See attached file.
"As for President Bush, yes, I would suppose that he was sincere, but we are not presidents nor are we talking about international politics; we are talking about philosophy, are we not?"
Yes we are talking about philosophy. But we also *vote*. And we vote for a president. And ultimately it is up to voters like us, who gets elected. That's why we need to educate ourselves in many ways, to not vote for the wrong man, or at least, after the harm being done, do all we can to get that wrong man off of his position, or at least disable his undertakings as much as possible.
ROSA: That's something that can be interpersonally verified, or not.
Why does everything little thing have to be verified by another party."
Who sad that it *had* to be interpersonally verified? It can be, but it mustn't be.
Your explanations of intuition and perception -- I think I know where you getting at and from, but I'm not gonna try to present my view, I think it would just cause new systemizing issues, and I think this time they are avoidable.
"See if this makes any sense to you: "The highest endeavor of the mind, and the highest virtue, is to understand things by intuition......From intuition arises the highest possible mental acquiescence......The endeavor or desire to know things by intuition cannot arise from opinion, but from reason.....""
Look, you can load up pretty much anything to my systemizing brain, and it will most likely find a way to understand it, whatever it is that you load up. [The bliss of an almost complete relativism.]
For some things, I have my own views though, which I sometimes line out, sometimes not, mostly depending on how far my vanity takes me.
I'll split up the post here, there are some complications ...
I think this thing about perfection is an ugly Christian residue, and it's causing a lot of static in communication sometimes. Do you know whether they have such terms (perfection and alike) in other cultures, say Chinese, native African and other?
"My stars and little fishes, Rosa, surely you do not want to put upon someone to necessarily express herself in exactly the way you prefer to hear, do you?"
No, I just like to keep some things without names. And I know, I sometimes jump at people who seem to have it sorted out with words. I don't like words very much, you know. I'm full of them (full of it, hehe
), but that doesn't mean I like them."ROSA: What "scissors of reason"?! Reason per se, the principles of argumentation and syllogisms, is neither good nor bad; it's a tool. It all depends on how you use it. With a needle, I can sow a nice dress, or I can poke someone in the eye.
Okay, but it sounds gastly!"
And so it is.
"I simply thought that it was of interest that a supposedly well educated man would blame reason on lazy faith."
I didn't even see that point. I guess I am so used to seeing well educated people who say ... well, crap.
"virtue is its own reward. I was tickled to find a good philosopher like Spinoza understanding my take on that. Nice of him!"
Nice of him, indeed!
ROSA ASKS: Do you really think that there is a "humane" way to kill a creature??
Absolutely. There is also sometimes a humane reason for killing."
Well, maybe a "humane" way. But I think that all killing, any kind of killing of *animals* done by humans is bad. Humans should stick to killing humans, if they must, and they can do it in their "humane" way.
"Moreover, I am not advised as to why it would be necessary to kill, hurt and destroy for those [survival] purposes."
To eat meat, you need to kill the animal first. To produce cotton for clothes, you need to make a field and use pesticides -- you take away animal habitat and kill animals. To not even begin with factories and big pollutants.
Don't get me wrong, what I mean is that humans as such are ok. But looking at humans sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, looking at humans in the context of this whole world and nature, I think we are just like parasites, prone to destroy everything we see.
As for the chickens and "... Quality is better than longevity. Do you not think so?"
Humans have no right to treat this world the way they do. I think we should be aware of that, and that we are doing harm to other beings for us to survive. And then someone comes and has the nerve to call humans "the crown of creation". I am appalled.
ROSA WRITES: Just because there aren't that many "reasonable arguments" (as far as syllogisms go, "reason" has been discussed above), that doesn't mean that they cannot be found here.
No, nor does it mean they can. Philosophically you presented an incomplete statement, kiddo."
Did not! Just because something isn't here, doesn't mean that it cannot come here. Goes twice: first for the "reasonable arguments" here on SF, and second for this argument right here, and the next.
"What do you have against flowers?"What made you think that I have something against flowers?! Dang you!
See attached file.
"As for President Bush, yes, I would suppose that he was sincere, but we are not presidents nor are we talking about international politics; we are talking about philosophy, are we not?"
Yes we are talking about philosophy. But we also *vote*. And we vote for a president. And ultimately it is up to voters like us, who gets elected. That's why we need to educate ourselves in many ways, to not vote for the wrong man, or at least, after the harm being done, do all we can to get that wrong man off of his position, or at least disable his undertakings as much as possible.
ROSA: That's something that can be interpersonally verified, or not.
Why does everything little thing have to be verified by another party."
Who sad that it *had* to be interpersonally verified? It can be, but it mustn't be.
Your explanations of intuition and perception -- I think I know where you getting at and from, but I'm not gonna try to present my view, I think it would just cause new systemizing issues, and I think this time they are avoidable.
"See if this makes any sense to you: "The highest endeavor of the mind, and the highest virtue, is to understand things by intuition......From intuition arises the highest possible mental acquiescence......The endeavor or desire to know things by intuition cannot arise from opinion, but from reason.....""
Look, you can load up pretty much anything to my systemizing brain, and it will most likely find a way to understand it, whatever it is that you load up. [The bliss of an almost complete relativism.]
For some things, I have my own views though, which I sometimes line out, sometimes not, mostly depending on how far my vanity takes me.
I'll split up the post here, there are some complications ...
Part 2
""Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this."
Hihih, try to tell a Mormon that heaven is a place on earth or that "remission of sins" comes only after not doing them anymore (when one dies) or that we are saved by being alive.
"... Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?"
How could I disagree after you have presented it so illustratively?
"I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek!"
I had to look up that idiom in the dictionary, you know. Speaking ironically. Cool.
"We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?"
To go the the computer analogy: Intuition works like the fact that the computer is turned on. Okay? Huh, you have so many words ... I seem to process that on the level of my OS, the way my Word and Internet Explorer (what cute and most meaningful names, thank you Bill, I love you for that ) work in accordance to that change in the OS -- that I don't even notice. And it probably isn't all that possible to notice, because we aren't all that often working in the OS mode.
"You are an interesting woman,"
I just hope that my own interestingness won't kill me.
"with many sides."
I hate that! I am not a box, so that I would have sides. I prefer to see myself as a ball.
"Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing. [See, I am in disguise.]"
I told you that reason can take us into spooky places!
"No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now."
Lucky you, that it worked!
Gosh, what is this, another split ...
""Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this."
Hihih, try to tell a Mormon that heaven is a place on earth or that "remission of sins" comes only after not doing them anymore (when one dies) or that we are saved by being alive.
"... Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?"
How could I disagree after you have presented it so illustratively?
"I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek!"
I had to look up that idiom in the dictionary, you know. Speaking ironically. Cool.
"We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?"
To go the the computer analogy: Intuition works like the fact that the computer is turned on. Okay? Huh, you have so many words ... I seem to process that on the level of my OS, the way my Word and Internet Explorer (what cute and most meaningful names, thank you Bill, I love you for that
) work in accordance to that change in the OS -- that I don't even notice. And it probably isn't all that possible to notice, because we aren't all that often working in the OS mode."You are an interesting woman,"
I just hope that my own interestingness won't kill me.
"with many sides."
I hate that! I am not a box, so that I would have sides. I prefer to see myself as a ball.
"Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing. [See, I am in disguise.]"
I told you that reason can take us into spooky places!
"No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now."
Lucky you, that it worked!
Gosh, what is this, another split ...
Yes. The theory is incomplete and self-fulfilling.John Connellan said:
Our behaviour is determined by our beliefs according to philosophers. In western societies we are brought up to believe that neo-Darwinism is correct and that we are zombies driven by selfish genes. Naturally we behave accordingly. You will notice that people who do not believe this behave differently.
In 'scientific' societies we do behave as if materialism were true and morality is for the superstitious. However we don't have to, it just follows from our indoctrination, which leads us to confuse the scientific model of the universe with the real thing.
Part 2
""Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this."
Hihih, try to tell a Mormon that heaven is a place on earth or that "remission of sins" comes only after not doing them anymore (when one dies) or that we are saved by being alive.
"... Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?"
How could I disagree after you have presented it so illustratively?
"I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek!"
I had to look up that idiom in the dictionary, you know. Speaking ironically. Cool.
"We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?"
To go the the computer analogy: Intuition works like the fact that the computer is turned on. Okay? Huh, you have so many words ... I seem to process that on the level of my OS, the way my Word and Internet Explorer (what cute and most meaningful names, thank you Bill, I love you for that ) work in accordance to that change in the OS -- that I don't even notice. And it probably isn't all that possible to notice, because we aren't all that often working in the OS mode.
"You are an interesting woman,"
I just hope that my own interestingness won't kill me.
"with many sides."
I hate that! I am not a box, so that I would have sides. I prefer to see myself as a ball.
"Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing. [See, I am in disguise.]"
I told you that reason can take us into spooky places!
"No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now."
Lucky you, that it worked!
Gosh, what is this, another split ...
""Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwisem becayse we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." [Also Spinoza] We know, of course, that many believers have a rule rather backwards to this."
Hihih, try to tell a Mormon that heaven is a place on earth or that "remission of sins" comes only after not doing them anymore (when one dies) or that we are saved by being alive.
"... Without accommodating conduct, our purpose can only suffer. Agree?"
How could I disagree after you have presented it so illustratively?
"I cannot tell whether you are tongue in cheek!"
I had to look up that idiom in the dictionary, you know. Speaking ironically. Cool.
"We are back on the computer analogy, right? Okay. We should also purge our files and get rid of all that old prejudice stuff and perhaps skim off a few layers of technical terminology, and coin a phrase or two that is our very own, that expresses something that we feel down to our toes, about why we behave one way rather than another. Then we would have something really alive and meaningful, right?"
To go the the computer analogy: Intuition works like the fact that the computer is turned on. Okay? Huh, you have so many words ... I seem to process that on the level of my OS, the way my Word and Internet Explorer (what cute and most meaningful names, thank you Bill, I love you for that
) work in accordance to that change in the OS -- that I don't even notice. And it probably isn't all that possible to notice, because we aren't all that often working in the OS mode."You are an interesting woman,"
I just hope that my own interestingness won't kill me.
"with many sides."
I hate that! I am not a box, so that I would have sides. I prefer to see myself as a ball.
"Gruesome, I say...very softly...so no one notices that this is all to do with my predisposition to such a thing. [See, I am in disguise.]"
I told you that reason can take us into spooky places!
"No, I do not think so, and no, to me, it was not dreadful. It was nothing really, just an acceptance that God was taking care of me. Sweet? Sort of. I was a little kid, but I do not know. Interestingly, it worked, I guess, but I am not so brave now."
Lucky you, that it worked!
Gosh, what is this, another split ...
Part 3
"I do not know, Rosa, I think work can be very rewarding, but when we keep in mind that almost everything they did was necessity, would you not think that at times they would be so tired they could scarcely stand it."
See me, the spoiled bourgeois speaking ... I don't know, maybe I'm just European. We know all sorts of trifles for the mind, and we can live from that, we don't exactly have to work awfully hard ... I mean physically.
But personally, I think this non-physical work is somehow more dangerous, as demons come creeping up behind one ...
Just a tidbit on over stimulation: I watched a docu on prematurily born babies, who then have to live in incubators for a while. The rooms with the incubators are bright and the machines there are loud, and it has been known for a long time that prematurily born babies tend to develop specific learning disabilities and are often hyperactive. They did an experiemnt and have a prematurily born baby live in a dark quiet warm room, with parents and nurses around all the time. And that baby turn out not to be hyperactive. It's just one baby for now, so it could be nothing about the overstimulated brain of the babies living in usual incubators.
Also, children, if stimulated too much at an early age, lose their natural ability to be curious. So if parents are pushing their children too much stimuli, it tends to choke the child's natural curiosity. This being supported by experimental evidence.
"What could be better than seeing a face you love across the table over a cup of steaming coffee, and knowing that you love that person?"
Like I said on the other thread: Because it's sentimental. Because it is not modern. etc. Once more in jest, but it is sad that it is so.
......"Too much watchin' television got me chasin' dreams ..."??
Too much watching television can easily make one chase unrealistic ideals, not those nice dreams we have while we sleep, silly.
"What are you calling passion? If we keep stretching the meanings of our words, we shall have no adequate way of expressing ourselves."
Is there an adequate way to express oneself with words? The essence of understanding is a misunderstanding. That is, only after it has been established that there is a misunderstanding, understanding can be pursued.
"Gotcha’. Excuse me, however, while I leave the pink elephants in your lab."
Leave 'em here. We're gonna have a crazy party, and we're not sure whether we'll invite you or not. Maybe. If you dress pink.
"I always have to finish what I start."
I love that. It's so persuasive. I wish I could already say that for myself too. See, dang it, I didn't grow up on a farm.
But I have a cat sleeping next to me, and I won't even try to say how beautiful that is, because it is sooooooo ...
Now I'm gonna switch myself into the Mona Lisa mode. Hm.
"I do not know, Rosa, I think work can be very rewarding, but when we keep in mind that almost everything they did was necessity, would you not think that at times they would be so tired they could scarcely stand it."
See me, the spoiled bourgeois speaking ... I don't know, maybe I'm just European. We know all sorts of trifles for the mind, and we can live from that, we don't exactly have to work awfully hard ... I mean physically.
But personally, I think this non-physical work is somehow more dangerous, as demons come creeping up behind one ...
Just a tidbit on over stimulation: I watched a docu on prematurily born babies, who then have to live in incubators for a while. The rooms with the incubators are bright and the machines there are loud, and it has been known for a long time that prematurily born babies tend to develop specific learning disabilities and are often hyperactive. They did an experiemnt and have a prematurily born baby live in a dark quiet warm room, with parents and nurses around all the time. And that baby turn out not to be hyperactive. It's just one baby for now, so it could be nothing about the overstimulated brain of the babies living in usual incubators.
Also, children, if stimulated too much at an early age, lose their natural ability to be curious. So if parents are pushing their children too much stimuli, it tends to choke the child's natural curiosity. This being supported by experimental evidence.
"What could be better than seeing a face you love across the table over a cup of steaming coffee, and knowing that you love that person?"
Like I said on the other thread: Because it's sentimental. Because it is not modern. etc. Once more in jest, but it is sad that it is so.
......"Too much watchin' television got me chasin' dreams ..."??
Too much watching television can easily make one chase unrealistic ideals, not those nice dreams we have while we sleep, silly.
"What are you calling passion? If we keep stretching the meanings of our words, we shall have no adequate way of expressing ourselves."
Is there an adequate way to express oneself with words? The essence of understanding is a misunderstanding. That is, only after it has been established that there is a misunderstanding, understanding can be pursued.
"Gotcha’. Excuse me, however, while I leave the pink elephants in your lab."
Leave 'em here. We're gonna have a crazy party, and we're not sure whether we'll invite you or not. Maybe. If you dress pink.
"I always have to finish what I start."
I love that. It's so persuasive. I wish I could already say that for myself too. See, dang it, I didn't grow up on a farm.
But I have a cat sleeping next to me, and I won't even try to say how beautiful that is, because it is sooooooo ...
Now I'm gonna switch myself into the Mona Lisa mode. Hm.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Canute said:
How, pray tell?
I thought I'd get that from a philosophy forum alright
No, Darwin for one Im sure, believed that we do not behave through our beliefs alone.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
WESMORRIS WRITES: Maybe I misread you. Seemed to me like calling my comment "nonsensical" was kind of uhm, well disrespectful. I just took it that way at the time. I've put a lot of time and effort into my thoughts about this stuff, so to be non-chalantly shrugged off as "nonsensical"... well, it's no matter. I think your emoticontent is just a tough read for me. I believe you when you mean you meant no disrespect, so I apologize if I offended you with the annoyed tone of my response. I just thought you were sluffing me off as an idiot and it was getting under my skin a bit, as I find that annoying. Now I don't think you were doing that, so my apologies.
This is great! I noticed this post, not realizing at first that it was in response to ME. As I read, I was thinking how much I agreed with not liking disrespect against something I had said in earnest, and lo and behold, -you were talking to me. Shame on me, for giving you that impression. Wes, there is no way that I think you are an idiot. I tend to be blunt, and some people find that troubling. I try to watch it when I am writing, unless I am writing to journalist, in which cases I may scorch the paper a bit!
but hell I get annoyed at stuff sometimes. My bad.
I was indeed rather startled by your response, and thought, Wow, what happened to him. This is because I knew what I meant and you did not. So, what to do? Make my meaning/intent clear. Hmm. Now that might work.
Well it seemed obvious that you were meaning to tell me "god kicks ass you stupid bitch"
Now, be careful with this one. Try not to take this wrong, but do you think that you might be just a bit sensitive toward me, because of my strong convictions. They are not against you. I have no idea whatsoever, what gave you that impression. If you can give me the quote, perhaps I could clarify. Furthermore, I do not call bitches, or anyone else for that matter.
Well see that's what you think but I disagree see. Your god is in your imagination as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, right here. I find that insulting. It is almost like you think of me as one giving a specious replication to your higher wisdom, all to avoid facing some hidden fears of actuality; otherwise, why would anyone as intelligent as I am supposed to be, choose to continue a relationship in the pool of my imagination. What makes you think you are so much more inclined to think things through, test, speculate, deduce realistically, and be the one with the most plausible concepts? Now, Wes, if you will think about what I just said, you may better understand the other side of this coin, unless you really do think I a moron in my last stage of regression!
I have one in my imagination too. Is this "my god is cooler than yours"? Ha! Okay yours is cooler because I was a jackass. That's fine for now, but I'm putting a 24 hour cutoff on the deal, so tomorrow your god's cool points will be re-evaluated. I'll spend the time between now and then tweaking out my dogmatic action. Be prepared for the coming of thy lord v2.32 - with automated scripture generation technology! Gonna god you up!
If I were going to describe you to someone, [ relax, I have no intention of doing so], I would choose that cute paragraph to show your talent for getting a point across with some sincerity, and some nonsense. You have a remarkable knack for that sort of thing. I have noticed in your postings to others that you often kind of back track, much like when I make a statement, (usually in person), and then say, “But what do I know?” I am trying to quit that, but for you, it seems to work. This type of dialogue tells me that you are saying, “Hey, I am not a know-it-all, and I am aware that you too have a point of view,” and I appreciate that about you, but in other places you really make believing in the power of God sound like idiot’s play.
Well you'd said "my god is your god". Isn't that a statement based on faith?
I suppose so, but I do not think of my awareness of God as being faith, I guess, no more than my awareness of you. My “FAITH” in God becomes noticeable to me when I say “Just help me get through this without doing any lasting damage to myself or anyone else;” or, “God please give me some patience here, or remind, or kick me or something.” That is kind of the way I pray. It is a way of pulling all my resources together, which resources come from God, of course. You knew that, right?
I did not once lose consciousness.
Funny, funny, funny! You really are quick. I say quick, because I think you speak quickly.
I believe you and apologize for my vehement barnyard vigilance. I was just pissed because I thought you were talking to me like I was some stupid punk. Again, my bad.
Yeah, that is your bad. Shame on you for having such a low opinion of me.
I'd appreciate your reciprocation but understand if you have reservations that preclude your participation.
I will always answer your posts, Wes, unless something turns up bigger than a jack rabbit. Ignoring things is not one of my strengths, or weaknesses. I am a head-on kind of person, and have the bumps to prove it. So, will be times when my bluntness may not fit in your preferences, so tell me!Maybe you're just not funny eh? Hehe.
Some people think I am.
Yeah you know what I have a real bad potty-mouth. I partially understand why but you might not believe me. It simply works well for me in a number of ways.
Guess I will have to take your word for it.
.I'm pretty sure I'm not in this for appearances. Promise. I don't agree with you, as I think I've broken the whole god issue down pretty well (which I'm guessing you feel you've done too so I guess we have to compare notes eh? )... but meh. I respect you and don't want to get you all annoyed like I was, so I'll just drop it.
To tell you the truth I do not dwell on “breaking God down,” this—to me—would be like trying to picture all the pieces in the Broadway Bridge, and how they work, every time I go over it.
No. I just contend that faith is emotional. I have faith of my own and such and see it as purely emotional. I think it is valid, emotionally speaking... but it is not logically valid, as circular logic tends not to be (there are special circumstances where circular logic is technically valid, e.g., any assumptions made about a system or whatever).
“Emotional,” is not a bad word, nor is it an unnecessary quality. Having said that, I tell you, faith in our higher Resource for strength and wisdom, is about as reasonable as one can get. Take it from one who knows.
Story: One time a woman who supports reincarnation told me that I must have been a really bad person in my last life to have had so many disadvantages in this one. Pooh! In the first place, there are many worse off, and it did rather put me off. I asked if her beliefs did not support the theory that we choose what we want to go through and learn, before we come to earth. She said, “Yes.” I answered, “Well then, I must have chosen to learn more than you chose to learn. She looked really serious, and said, “You are right.”
This is the same way I handle comments from Christians that bother me, I get on their turf, use their rationale, and the scriptures as they know them, and talk from their side of the fence. But, here is the problem: I do not know your turf. Atheists do not share as much mutual turf as religions do, except that many seem very angry and somewhat hostile, but you have helped me understand this better. I suppose, if I get annoyed with being told what to do, it would stand to reason that it would be even more annoying from the position of disbelief. This is rather like an argument that ensued over something. I cannot recall, but anyway, this friend asked, “You do believe the Bible is the Word of God, don’t you?” When I answered, “Not totally.”
She smiled, shrugged and said, “Well, then I guess we have no argument. I admired her for that. It showed good sense. If you do not agree on premise you cannot have a very productive argument. It will be flawed, big time!
Once this sweet young Mormon fellow, stunned by my presumption, so to speak that I claimed eternal life right now, ~ was arguing that if he could know now that he was going to Heaven, why would he care what he did. “You could do anything you wanted to,” he kept saying. Finally, I looked at him and scowled. “Just what is it you want to do?”
His friend leaned forward and said, “Yeah, what is it… you want to do?” The guy turned red and shrugged, “Well nothing he said.” “And why not?” I asked. He said, because I love God and want to serve him.” “So, there you have it,” I replied.
Those were the neatest guys. It seemed to me that I had made my point, regarding his concerns. Only they know for sure. I was not trying to change them, but when someone acts like my belief is not respectable or intelligent, or a convenience for unwarranted excuses, I like to defend my reasons, though not necessarily the belief itself. I think we all seek validation and respect. As for eternity, if it has no ending, then it has no beginning, because if it did, it would have had to, at one time, have been transitory. This is the way I see my existence too. If I am going to have life after death, and many agree, then there must have been life before, to which they disagree. I think eternal means it was always there, type thing. Not that you give a rat’s petunia, but just thought I would make that argument for you, just in case I die before you notice there is a power bigger than you, but of which you are a part.
It's slightly easier if we can see at least that much to begin with though, would you agree?
I would, ~and I do. Arguments are cool, but once in a while they ought to be something on which we agree; otherwise, I would be suspicious that one or both of us is being picky and arguing for the sake of arguing.
Ah, I see. You were trying to be not you? That would do it. I don't know you well enough to know when you're out of character and as such, from what I know of you - you seemed on the obnoxious offensive, so I felt a matching attitude seemed appropriate. That sometimes backfires of course. Pardon.
No, no. I am seldom out of character. I am a character.
You said "rectal".
Well, yes, I did. Here it is: theoretically. How’s that?
Maybe it was that you were out of character than threw me.
Perhaps your presuppositions about me are faulty. I am very complex, for better or for worser!
Hmmm... I mean that it seems contradictory to me to believe in something that doesn't allow any other possibility, like believing in god, and then imply you allow the possibility of being wrong.
My being right or wrong has nothing to do with God's presence.
, then I have to claim you're wrong for saying I'm wrong because to me, neither one of us know, but to you, you know and me knowing that neither of us know……
Hold on there, cowboy! I do know –as much as I can know anything.
I can't tell who's doing my thinking for me. It seems like me.
That is cute too. You use feigned ignorance to ease things. I do that sometimes, but not in stuff like this; it is not necessary. In fact, it would be redundant.
I get that a lot. *smirk* well, my two young ones.. they're awefully lovey.
Are they both girls? I know you mentioned a daughter once, and I think you were celebrating your wife’s birthday at the time.
Well I can be somewhat abrasive I suppose.
Oh Gosh, do you suppose?
That is so sweet of you. You are far too kind. I appreciate the gesture. You can pray for me if you'd like.
If “Lord help me with this one (meaning your email),” then I did. (Smile) I do not want anyone to remember me as a painful or disgusting experience.
I don't think you are flawed.
I think you are perfect, as we all are. I cannot imagine what god might think of it.
Well, no, how could you. You silly goose. Did you forget that you do not believe in Him?
If this is truly so, then why do you speak of him as though he is? Huh? How come?
You say god's wisdom is great but then say "God has to take what he can get", which in my mind tells me you think you can relate to the wisdom of one who you just said was all great, so obviously you couldn't relate to it.. only sheep in it.
FYI: Please do not call me a sheep in that connotation. I am sure that comparison was used in N. T. times, because there were so many shepherds round about, and it worked well—then—as an analogy. It seems outdated to me, but I have a problem with it only when it is tanked with “senseless.” As for the other, you made way too big of a deal out of that. I can see that I made a mistake saying such a thing to a layman. Ho, ho, ho!
So you get my personal feelings on it. I don't intend to offend you but if you can be, I most likely will I suppose. All that thinking for myself gets me all off in weird places.
No, I am not offended, but am on notice that I might be, okay?
YOU SAY:...we are in no way separate. We are it. So all in all perhaps it's just semantics.
AND THEN I SAY: I am impressed. That is sensible, grasshopper.
I just see a particular arrangement of concepts that requires a place in which meaning can exist for there to be any. IMO, perspective is the only route to meaning, as it is the act of conceptualization, or 'abstraction' that brings meaning into being. Meaning is an aspect of mind, by definition as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something. In other words, meaning is an abstract and abstracts only exist in minds. So empty space for instance would be devoid of meaning by definition, until meaning comes to be in a mind regarding that space. RosaMagika explained it better I think.
Interesting, so why am I still making a face? Perhaps because I think it is utter nonsense to contend that nothing exists unless it is perceived. You must prefer modern philosophy. I have read many commentaries by modern philosophers and reading them is similar to eating pomegranates. You have to spit a lot out!
You are more than worth the time, so I am going to type something from a book for you, just to share:
"In the end it is this initial dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence…………………. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company, and dreads even the irritating realism of his home. He wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. ………….. He retreats fearfully into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer after layer of technical terminology. ” [Will Durant]
To deny our vulnerabilities and faults is futile. When I do something repeatedly that hinder me/does not serve me well, I have developed a fault that I need to address and remedy. To say one is perfect, may not be a lie, because perfection—like beauty—is really with the beholder, and also there is that aspect of being perfect for a specific need, ……….and somehow this brings the nicely grown Thanksgiving turkey to mind. What I said was, “perfection as we know it,” or as we see it…-one of those. Mankind does not mean “P. M. Thorne when it speaks of perfection, I assure you.
Not trying to impress me impresses me much more than trying to impress me.
I guess that is good, but now that I read it, I wonder if it is entirely true to say that I do not wish to impress, right along with saying that I wish not to leave anything disgusting or painful; but what I meant was that impressing anyone—and I do mean anyone—is not my goal, (a goal which should not be too difficult to reach). (Now, I am joking, so do not get all in a dither, kind Sir.)
SUMMARY:
Yours was such a sweet post; it is no wonder that your little ones are loving. Kids are great. I loved being a mommy, and still do with my precious daughter and her children.
If I come across as supercilious, ever, it is that old nature raring its ugly head. I used to be known all over the place for my smacking repartee. It took that Finnish singer—I mention from time to time—to show me the beauty of being just a basic me, without quite so much attention. He is so good; I wish everyone in the world could hear his seeming guilelessness, his naturalness and sweetness, and maybe some of those minor keys help too. I did not know that a grown man could be like that. I get teased sometimes, because I am so vocal about him, but that is because people can be silly and annoying about deep feelings, I love Spinoza too, for similar reasons. Those two are my heroes, and first ones I have ever had. I hope this means that something good has sunk in along the way, to make me a better person too.
I am so glad we had this talk. …..pmt Sing! sing! sing!
This is great! I noticed this post, not realizing at first that it was in response to ME. As I read, I was thinking how much I agreed with not liking disrespect against something I had said in earnest, and lo and behold, -you were talking to me. Shame on me, for giving you that impression. Wes, there is no way that I think you are an idiot. I tend to be blunt, and some people find that troubling. I try to watch it when I am writing, unless I am writing to journalist, in which cases I may scorch the paper a bit!
but hell I get annoyed at stuff sometimes. My bad.
I was indeed rather startled by your response, and thought, Wow, what happened to him. This is because I knew what I meant and you did not. So, what to do? Make my meaning/intent clear. Hmm. Now that might work.
Well it seemed obvious that you were meaning to tell me "god kicks ass you stupid bitch"
Now, be careful with this one. Try not to take this wrong, but do you think that you might be just a bit sensitive toward me, because of my strong convictions. They are not against you. I have no idea whatsoever, what gave you that impression. If you can give me the quote, perhaps I could clarify. Furthermore, I do not call bitches, or anyone else for that matter.
Well see that's what you think but I disagree see. Your god is in your imagination as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, right here. I find that insulting. It is almost like you think of me as one giving a specious replication to your higher wisdom, all to avoid facing some hidden fears of actuality; otherwise, why would anyone as intelligent as I am supposed to be, choose to continue a relationship in the pool of my imagination. What makes you think you are so much more inclined to think things through, test, speculate, deduce realistically, and be the one with the most plausible concepts? Now, Wes, if you will think about what I just said, you may better understand the other side of this coin, unless you really do think I a moron in my last stage of regression!
I have one in my imagination too. Is this "my god is cooler than yours"? Ha! Okay yours is cooler because I was a jackass. That's fine for now, but I'm putting a 24 hour cutoff on the deal, so tomorrow your god's cool points will be re-evaluated. I'll spend the time between now and then tweaking out my dogmatic action. Be prepared for the coming of thy lord v2.32 - with automated scripture generation technology! Gonna god you up!
If I were going to describe you to someone, [ relax, I have no intention of doing so], I would choose that cute paragraph to show your talent for getting a point across with some sincerity, and some nonsense. You have a remarkable knack for that sort of thing. I have noticed in your postings to others that you often kind of back track, much like when I make a statement, (usually in person), and then say, “But what do I know?” I am trying to quit that, but for you, it seems to work. This type of dialogue tells me that you are saying, “Hey, I am not a know-it-all, and I am aware that you too have a point of view,” and I appreciate that about you, but in other places you really make believing in the power of God sound like idiot’s play.
Well you'd said "my god is your god". Isn't that a statement based on faith?
I suppose so, but I do not think of my awareness of God as being faith, I guess, no more than my awareness of you. My “FAITH” in God becomes noticeable to me when I say “Just help me get through this without doing any lasting damage to myself or anyone else;” or, “God please give me some patience here, or remind, or kick me or something.” That is kind of the way I pray. It is a way of pulling all my resources together, which resources come from God, of course. You knew that, right?
I did not once lose consciousness.
Funny, funny, funny! You really are quick. I say quick, because I think you speak quickly.
I believe you and apologize for my vehement barnyard vigilance. I was just pissed because I thought you were talking to me like I was some stupid punk. Again, my bad.
Yeah, that is your bad. Shame on you for having such a low opinion of me.
I'd appreciate your reciprocation but understand if you have reservations that preclude your participation.
I will always answer your posts, Wes, unless something turns up bigger than a jack rabbit. Ignoring things is not one of my strengths, or weaknesses. I am a head-on kind of person, and have the bumps to prove it. So, will be times when my bluntness may not fit in your preferences, so tell me!Maybe you're just not funny eh? Hehe.
Some people think I am.
Yeah you know what I have a real bad potty-mouth. I partially understand why but you might not believe me. It simply works well for me in a number of ways.
Guess I will have to take your word for it.
.I'm pretty sure I'm not in this for appearances.
Promise. I don't agree with you, as I think I've broken the whole god issue down pretty well (which I'm guessing you feel you've done too so I guess we have to compare notes eh? )... but meh. I respect you and don't want to get you all annoyed like I was, so I'll just drop it.To tell you the truth I do not dwell on “breaking God down,” this—to me—would be like trying to picture all the pieces in the Broadway Bridge, and how they work, every time I go over it.
No. I just contend that faith is emotional. I have faith of my own and such and see it as purely emotional. I think it is valid, emotionally speaking... but it is not logically valid, as circular logic tends not to be (there are special circumstances where circular logic is technically valid, e.g., any assumptions made about a system or whatever).
“Emotional,” is not a bad word, nor is it an unnecessary quality. Having said that, I tell you, faith in our higher Resource for strength and wisdom, is about as reasonable as one can get. Take it from one who knows.
Story: One time a woman who supports reincarnation told me that I must have been a really bad person in my last life to have had so many disadvantages in this one. Pooh! In the first place, there are many worse off, and it did rather put me off. I asked if her beliefs did not support the theory that we choose what we want to go through and learn, before we come to earth. She said, “Yes.” I answered, “Well then, I must have chosen to learn more than you chose to learn. She looked really serious, and said, “You are right.”
This is the same way I handle comments from Christians that bother me, I get on their turf, use their rationale, and the scriptures as they know them, and talk from their side of the fence. But, here is the problem: I do not know your turf. Atheists do not share as much mutual turf as religions do, except that many seem very angry and somewhat hostile, but you have helped me understand this better. I suppose, if I get annoyed with being told what to do, it would stand to reason that it would be even more annoying from the position of disbelief. This is rather like an argument that ensued over something. I cannot recall, but anyway, this friend asked, “You do believe the Bible is the Word of God, don’t you?” When I answered, “Not totally.”
She smiled, shrugged and said, “Well, then I guess we have no argument. I admired her for that. It showed good sense. If you do not agree on premise you cannot have a very productive argument. It will be flawed, big time!
Once this sweet young Mormon fellow, stunned by my presumption, so to speak that I claimed eternal life right now, ~ was arguing that if he could know now that he was going to Heaven, why would he care what he did. “You could do anything you wanted to,” he kept saying. Finally, I looked at him and scowled. “Just what is it you want to do?”
His friend leaned forward and said, “Yeah, what is it… you want to do?” The guy turned red and shrugged, “Well nothing he said.” “And why not?” I asked. He said, because I love God and want to serve him.” “So, there you have it,” I replied.
Those were the neatest guys. It seemed to me that I had made my point, regarding his concerns. Only they know for sure. I was not trying to change them, but when someone acts like my belief is not respectable or intelligent, or a convenience for unwarranted excuses, I like to defend my reasons, though not necessarily the belief itself. I think we all seek validation and respect. As for eternity, if it has no ending, then it has no beginning, because if it did, it would have had to, at one time, have been transitory. This is the way I see my existence too. If I am going to have life after death, and many agree, then there must have been life before, to which they disagree. I think eternal means it was always there, type thing. Not that you give a rat’s petunia, but just thought I would make that argument for you, just in case I die before you notice there is a power bigger than you, but of which you are a part.
It's slightly easier if we can see at least that much to begin with though, would you agree?
I would, ~and I do. Arguments are cool, but once in a while they ought to be something on which we agree; otherwise, I would be suspicious that one or both of us is being picky and arguing for the sake of arguing.
Ah, I see. You were trying to be not you? That would do it. I don't know you well enough to know when you're out of character and as such, from what I know of you - you seemed on the obnoxious offensive, so I felt a matching attitude seemed appropriate. That sometimes backfires of course. Pardon.
No, no. I am seldom out of character. I am a character.
You said "rectal".
Well, yes, I did. Here it is: theoretically. How’s that?
Maybe it was that you were out of character than threw me.
Perhaps your presuppositions about me are faulty. I am very complex, for better or for worser!
Hmmm... I mean that it seems contradictory to me to believe in something that doesn't allow any other possibility, like believing in god, and then imply you allow the possibility of being wrong.
My being right or wrong has nothing to do with God's presence.
, then I have to claim you're wrong for saying I'm wrong because to me, neither one of us know, but to you, you know and me knowing that neither of us know……
Hold on there, cowboy! I do know –as much as I can know anything.
I can't tell who's doing my thinking for me. It seems like me.
That is cute too. You use feigned ignorance to ease things. I do that sometimes, but not in stuff like this; it is not necessary. In fact, it would be redundant.
I get that a lot. *smirk* well, my two young ones.. they're awefully lovey.
Are they both girls? I know you mentioned a daughter once, and I think you were celebrating your wife’s birthday at the time.
Well I can be somewhat abrasive I suppose.
Oh Gosh, do you suppose?
That is so sweet of you. You are far too kind. I appreciate the gesture. You can pray for me if you'd like.
If “Lord help me with this one (meaning your email),” then I did. (Smile) I do not want anyone to remember me as a painful or disgusting experience.
I don't think you are flawed.
I think you are perfect, as we all are. I cannot imagine what god might think of it.
Well, no, how could you. You silly goose. Did you forget that you do not believe in Him?
If this is truly so, then why do you speak of him as though he is? Huh? How come?
You say god's wisdom is great but then say "God has to take what he can get", which in my mind tells me you think you can relate to the wisdom of one who you just said was all great, so obviously you couldn't relate to it.. only sheep in it.
FYI: Please do not call me a sheep in that connotation. I am sure that comparison was used in N. T. times, because there were so many shepherds round about, and it worked well—then—as an analogy. It seems outdated to me, but I have a problem with it only when it is tanked with “senseless.” As for the other, you made way too big of a deal out of that. I can see that I made a mistake saying such a thing to a layman. Ho, ho, ho!
So you get my personal feelings on it. I don't intend to offend you but if you can be, I most likely will I suppose. All that thinking for myself gets me all off in weird places.
No, I am not offended, but am on notice that I might be, okay?
YOU SAY:...we are in no way separate. We are it. So all in all perhaps it's just semantics.
AND THEN I SAY: I am impressed. That is sensible, grasshopper.
I just see a particular arrangement of concepts that requires a place in which meaning can exist for there to be any. IMO, perspective is the only route to meaning, as it is the act of conceptualization, or 'abstraction' that brings meaning into being. Meaning is an aspect of mind, by definition as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something. In other words, meaning is an abstract and abstracts only exist in minds. So empty space for instance would be devoid of meaning by definition, until meaning comes to be in a mind regarding that space. RosaMagika explained it better I think.
Interesting, so why am I still making a face? Perhaps because I think it is utter nonsense to contend that nothing exists unless it is perceived. You must prefer modern philosophy. I have read many commentaries by modern philosophers and reading them is similar to eating pomegranates. You have to spit a lot out!
You are more than worth the time, so I am going to type something from a book for you, just to share:
"In the end it is this initial dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence…………………. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company, and dreads even the irritating realism of his home. He wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. ………….. He retreats fearfully into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer after layer of technical terminology. ” [Will Durant]
To deny our vulnerabilities and faults is futile. When I do something repeatedly that hinder me/does not serve me well, I have developed a fault that I need to address and remedy. To say one is perfect, may not be a lie, because perfection—like beauty—is really with the beholder, and also there is that aspect of being perfect for a specific need, ……….and somehow this brings the nicely grown Thanksgiving turkey to mind. What I said was, “perfection as we know it,” or as we see it…-one of those. Mankind does not mean “P. M. Thorne when it speaks of perfection, I assure you.
Not trying to impress me impresses me much more than trying to impress me.
I guess that is good, but now that I read it, I wonder if it is entirely true to say that I do not wish to impress, right along with saying that I wish not to leave anything disgusting or painful; but what I meant was that impressing anyone—and I do mean anyone—is not my goal, (a goal which should not be too difficult to reach). (Now, I am joking, so do not get all in a dither, kind Sir.)
SUMMARY:
Yours was such a sweet post; it is no wonder that your little ones are loving. Kids are great. I loved being a mommy, and still do with my precious daughter and her children.
If I come across as supercilious, ever, it is that old nature raring its ugly head. I used to be known all over the place for my smacking repartee. It took that Finnish singer—I mention from time to time—to show me the beauty of being just a basic me, without quite so much attention. He is so good; I wish everyone in the world could hear his seeming guilelessness, his naturalness and sweetness, and maybe some of those minor keys help too. I did not know that a grown man could be like that. I get teased sometimes, because I am so vocal about him, but that is because people can be silly and annoying about deep feelings, I love Spinoza too, for similar reasons. Those two are my heroes, and first ones I have ever had. I hope this means that something good has sunk in along the way, to make me a better person too.
I am so glad we had this talk. …..pmt
Sing! sing! sing!P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
ROSA, I AM PUTTING YOUR MESSAGES IN WORD UNTIL I CAN GO OVER THEM AGAIN. i REALLY YOUR POSTS THIS TIME, FOR SOME REASON. I THINK YOU WERE MORE LIKE WHEN WE FIRST EXCHANGED WORDS, IT SEEMED TO ME. I TOO, TEND TO BE BLUNT, AS I ADMITTED TO WES. HE IS A DEAR, ISN'T HE?
YOU BE A GOOD GIRL. TEE HEE, AND I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU. WHO KNOWS, MAYBE I WILL SAY SOMETHING PROFOUND. WHAT? PMT
YOU BE A GOOD GIRL. TEE HEE, AND I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU. WHO KNOWS, MAYBE I WILL SAY SOMETHING PROFOUND. WHAT? PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Rosa, my dear,
It is mighty good of you to be so sweet to your elders. I was on here trying to clean up all my e-mail, and got stuck trying to send a picture of a camel spider to some friends, and it would not work. Saw your post come up, so thought I would check it out. I am leaving for the coast early am, so I had best get myself into bed.
As soon as I return I will surely write you. It is really sweet of you to be so kind and real. This world is hungry for it. You take care of that, okay?
I want to say God bless, but that would not be diplomatic, and I am quite sure what it means anyway, but I like it. Our thoughts do make a difference. We will have to talk about that some times. Gotta go. Bye! ...... pmt
It is mighty good of you to be so sweet to your elders.
I was on here trying to clean up all my e-mail, and got stuck trying to send a picture of a camel spider to some friends, and it would not work. Saw your post come up, so thought I would check it out. I am leaving for the coast early am, so I had best get myself into bed.As soon as I return I will surely write you. It is really sweet of you to be so kind and real. This world is hungry for it. You take care of that, okay?
I want to say God bless, but that would not be diplomatic, and I am quite sure what it means anyway, but I like it. Our thoughts do make a difference. We will have to talk about that some times. Gotta go. Bye! ...... pmt
PMT, Wes,
I think we have a little mess here, regarding the topics and the threads. PMT and I are having a parallel conversation both on "The meaning of life" and "How we behave" (that are con-merging) and I think PMT posted a post for Wes on the "How we behave thread" instead of on the "The meaning of life thread".
Maybe we should take it all to the "Meaning of life" thread, in order to avoid future mishaps. I'll post it on both threads and send you PM's, just in case.
I just thought I shall let ya'll know.
I think we have a little mess here, regarding the topics and the threads. PMT and I are having a parallel conversation both on "The meaning of life" and "How we behave" (that are con-merging) and I think PMT posted a post for Wes on the "How we behave thread" instead of on the "The meaning of life thread".
Maybe we should take it all to the "Meaning of life" thread, in order to avoid future mishaps. I'll post it on both threads and send you PM's, just in case.
I just thought I shall let ya'll know.
John Connellan,
I was just upset when you said "MIGHT". See, I behave, emotionally, now think where this fits into your GSS theory.
Have you ever known anyone who has been beaten as a child? I know more personally two people who were, a young woman and a young man. That girl just gets scared when some fast moving object passes her, like when we were having pizza once and the waiter had full hands, and quickly put down the plates. The expression on that girl's face. Or, with that young man, we were chatting and laughing, and at some point I did a gesture like "Hey you, you are making fun of me" and raised my hand. It was over in a matter of milliseconds, but you know how in emotionally intense moments we can see microemotions that we otherwise don't see because they are so micro, and everything seems to run in slow motion -- the boy had this ghastly expression on his face, a fear, it stung me to the heart. It must be the look he had when facing the person who was beating him. He might be ok now, but those scars that he has from his childhood are just there.
But our brain is an organ too, and a vulnerable one, and it can be damaged too, and I don't mean just by physical injuries, but also by psychological injuries. These are just as serious as physical injuries.
The brain is flexible and adjustable, but we need to keep in mind that some psychological injuries to the brain can be as grave as losing your legs, at least for some time.
And to explain the behaviors connected to psychological injuries will take a more complex use of the GSS theory.
Do you really? Hm ....
I was just upset when you said "MIGHT". See, I behave, emotionally, now think where this fits into your GSS theory.
Have you ever known anyone who has been beaten as a child? I know more personally two people who were, a young woman and a young man. That girl just gets scared when some fast moving object passes her, like when we were having pizza once and the waiter had full hands, and quickly put down the plates. The expression on that girl's face. Or, with that young man, we were chatting and laughing, and at some point I did a gesture like "Hey you, you are making fun of me" and raised my hand. It was over in a matter of milliseconds, but you know how in emotionally intense moments we can see microemotions that we otherwise don't see because they are so micro, and everything seems to run in slow motion -- the boy had this ghastly expression on his face, a fear, it stung me to the heart. It must be the look he had when facing the person who was beating him. He might be ok now, but those scars that he has from his childhood are just there.
Never overestimate an "intelligent person".
The thing is that we are vulnerable to external influences. We can get our arm bitten off, it's a damage to us, and an irrepairable one. It can be compensated to some extent, by increasing other skills. Or when deaf people learn to read lips or something like that.
But our brain is an organ too, and a vulnerable one, and it can be damaged too, and I don't mean just by physical injuries, but also by psychological injuries. These are just as serious as physical injuries.
The brain is flexible and adjustable, but we need to keep in mind that some psychological injuries to the brain can be as grave as losing your legs, at least for some time.
And to explain the behaviors connected to psychological injuries will take a more complex use of the GSS theory.
You make me sick.
Canute,
On that famous protrait of Rene Descartes, painted by J. B. Weenix in 1638, Descartes is holding a book, and we can read the words in it: "Mundus est fabula."
The world is a story. We are telling the world as a story, and we tell this story according to our beliefs, whatever they are. What the real thing is, remains behind the story.
I am so glad for this concise thought, it puts things in perspective again.
On that famous protrait of Rene Descartes, painted by J. B. Weenix in 1638, Descartes is holding a book, and we can read the words in it: "Mundus est fabula."
The world is a story. We are telling the world as a story, and we tell this story according to our beliefs, whatever they are. What the real thing is, remains behind the story.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
PART ONE OF TWO..........
ROSA: I think this thing about perfection is an ugly Christian residue, and it's causing a lot of static in communication sometimes. Do you know whether they have such terms (perfection and alike) in other cultures, say Chinese, native African and other?
PMT: Interesting. However, the word “perfect” has no necessary qualities to be tied exclusively to Christianity. As for other cultures, I can tell you this, although I did not look up every one of them, the O. T. has nine Hebrew words translated “perfect,” and the N. T. has twelve Greek words translated “perfect.” Then we have perfected, perfecting, perfection, perfectly and perfectness; therefore, I would venture a guess that yes, other cultures have words meaning very much the same. If the Hebrews had such a word, so would the Arabs, no doubt as they have some similar background in language. If the Greeks do as well, then I would guess that perhaps the Romans did, and so forth. I believe I said something to the effect: “perfect as we know it,” meaning what man refers to as perfect, as in “a perfect solution,” a “perfect example,” a “perfect picture,” and so forth. Therefore, if I were to tell you, “Rosa, I just found the perfect job for me,” would you think it had to do with Christianity, and why would you suppose, if you did, that it was pecular to Christian culture? (Did I just go on and on?)
ROSA: No, I just like to keep some things without names.
PMT: Like what, (?) like TSC, cha, cha, cha! J
ROSA: And I know, I sometimes jump at people who seem to have it sorted out with words. I don't like words very much, you know. I'm full of them (full of it, hehe ), but that doesn't mean I like them.
PMT: Well, I can see that I am back to dealing with the other Rosa. What on earth are you talking about? I could use terms drenched in text book terminology, but I would still be using words. How can you know languages (plural) and not like words. Please do not tell me that you are one of those who feigns to despise that which make her a bit above her fellows in some regard. Women sometimes tend to do this; I have many timee, and it is probably because we feel that we must be humble about any accomplishment(s) that is at all remarkable. Now, see right now, I want to add, “But, of course, my accomplishments were not necessarily remarkable,” but I will not lest you go, “Ya, ya, ya!”
ROSA: I guess I am so used to seeing well educated people……..
PMT: So, how does it feel to slum?
ROSA: Don't get me wrong, what I mean is that humans as such are ok. But looking at humans sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, looking at humans in the context of this whole world and nature, I think we are just like parasites, prone to destroy everything we see.
PMT: And I, dear lady, think it is unfortunate that in all this thinking, you seem to forget that nature itself is also destructive, or that animals eat each other; (it is the way of nature), or that that humans have done more for animals in the past few decades than ever before; or that, in times gone by, they had no protein drinks. Sometimes the crops would fail and all a family had to eat in the wintertime would be meat, and sometimes that was just rabbit, sometimes causing something called scurvy.
PMT- Perhaps there will come a time when we will not eat meat. I rather doubt it, but it could happen. Humane people take good care of their animals and appreciate them, even while knowing that some will become food for their families. The only animals I have killed for food are chickens and fish, and yes, I realize someone has to kill any meat I eat. This is not heaven, my friend, and this world is not perfect, nor are we. Most of us do what we can, just as the animals do. I was touched to hear it, when veterinarians were sent to Afghanistan to care for all the poor animals scattered about, starving and ill from neglect all the war activity. You can bet your little pink boots that Alexander the Great was not concerned about the ravaged conditions his activities wrought.
PMT- It the extremes that pollute this world; it is the extremes that pollute our lives, and it is the extremes that we are, and have been, advised by every great teacher to avoid. That is what we need to work on, rather than throwing up our hands and declaring, “People are bad, and I am a “people!” That reminds me of the backsliders in the Pentecostal movement: I know I am an S.O.B. and that God is disappointed in me,” and “I know if I died right now I would go to Hell; and, so forth. Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that if one calls himself bad enough names, or admits loudly enough, his bad deeds, or lack of good deeds, somehow it absolves him, or distances him somehow from the wrong in which he is so sure he almost helplessly participates.
PMT: In addition, wild animals are far more plagued with disease, starvation and cruel circumstances than most who are owned, and they can have attitudes about it too. Once, while traveling through Nevada, there in the road I a saw a most miserable looking creature. Matted hair sticking out in hunks, thin to the bone, staring eyes, unmoving muscles, rigid and scrawny. I slowed down, and then barely beeped my horn, and received in return, the most disgusting and hateful look I ever saw on an animal. Poor Coyote. I will never forget that face. He reminded me of a ragged man that had been sitting at a gas station in Vegas. I had said, “Excuse me,” as I walked in front of him, and he glared at me like I was his worst enemy. It was just a short time after that when I encountered that coyote. “You poor thing,” I said aloud, to that coyote. “I wish there were some way I could tell you that I stopped and honked lightly to cause you as little discomfort as possible,” and I wish I knew a safe way to feed you something, . . . just as I wished I could have explained to that man that I was not his enemy, even though we were—at least somewhere along the trail of genes and conceptions--of different races.
PMT -Of course, some people are cruel, and I hate it more than anything, but not everyone is a bad actor. There are some very dedicated people trying to make this world a better place, in various ways that truly count. So, let us count too, while keeping in mind that we have a long ways to go. The streets in olden times were polluted. Dogs, it seems, had no respect unless they were killers or something, for some big wig. Cats were, (and still are unfortunately) sometimes despised, or feared, except for those who were employed to guard the Egyptians, and such. Look how many of us love them now, and even without Darwin’s theory getting much credit for it, we have many breeds from which to choose. We have resources if we find that one is being abused, resources for quick reporting, and resources to cause a problem if the authorities do not respond. Many animals are being treated better than many children. Are you aware that the first court case to address the abuse of a child was brought to trial based upon a law to do with cruelty to animals; otherwise—at that time—there was no law to protect an abused child. By golly, if those philosophers and scientists had not convinced the book writers and schools to call us people animals, that law would not have worked. So, see there!
ROSA: I think this thing about perfection is an ugly Christian residue, and it's causing a lot of static in communication sometimes. Do you know whether they have such terms (perfection and alike) in other cultures, say Chinese, native African and other?
PMT: Interesting. However, the word “perfect” has no necessary qualities to be tied exclusively to Christianity. As for other cultures, I can tell you this, although I did not look up every one of them, the O. T. has nine Hebrew words translated “perfect,” and the N. T. has twelve Greek words translated “perfect.” Then we have perfected, perfecting, perfection, perfectly and perfectness; therefore, I would venture a guess that yes, other cultures have words meaning very much the same. If the Hebrews had such a word, so would the Arabs, no doubt as they have some similar background in language. If the Greeks do as well, then I would guess that perhaps the Romans did, and so forth. I believe I said something to the effect: “perfect as we know it,” meaning what man refers to as perfect, as in “a perfect solution,” a “perfect example,” a “perfect picture,” and so forth. Therefore, if I were to tell you, “Rosa, I just found the perfect job for me,” would you think it had to do with Christianity, and why would you suppose, if you did, that it was pecular to Christian culture? (Did I just go on and on?)
ROSA: No, I just like to keep some things without names.
PMT: Like what, (?) like TSC, cha, cha, cha! J
ROSA: And I know, I sometimes jump at people who seem to have it sorted out with words. I don't like words very much, you know. I'm full of them (full of it, hehe ), but that doesn't mean I like them.
PMT: Well, I can see that I am back to dealing with the other Rosa. What on earth are you talking about? I could use terms drenched in text book terminology, but I would still be using words. How can you know languages (plural) and not like words. Please do not tell me that you are one of those who feigns to despise that which make her a bit above her fellows in some regard. Women sometimes tend to do this; I have many timee, and it is probably because we feel that we must be humble about any accomplishment(s) that is at all remarkable. Now, see right now, I want to add, “But, of course, my accomplishments were not necessarily remarkable,” but I will not lest you go, “Ya, ya, ya!”
ROSA: I guess I am so used to seeing well educated people……..
PMT: So, how does it feel to slum?
ROSA: Don't get me wrong, what I mean is that humans as such are ok. But looking at humans sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, looking at humans in the context of this whole world and nature, I think we are just like parasites, prone to destroy everything we see.
PMT: And I, dear lady, think it is unfortunate that in all this thinking, you seem to forget that nature itself is also destructive, or that animals eat each other; (it is the way of nature), or that that humans have done more for animals in the past few decades than ever before; or that, in times gone by, they had no protein drinks. Sometimes the crops would fail and all a family had to eat in the wintertime would be meat, and sometimes that was just rabbit, sometimes causing something called scurvy.
PMT- Perhaps there will come a time when we will not eat meat. I rather doubt it, but it could happen. Humane people take good care of their animals and appreciate them, even while knowing that some will become food for their families. The only animals I have killed for food are chickens and fish, and yes, I realize someone has to kill any meat I eat. This is not heaven, my friend, and this world is not perfect, nor are we. Most of us do what we can, just as the animals do. I was touched to hear it, when veterinarians were sent to Afghanistan to care for all the poor animals scattered about, starving and ill from neglect all the war activity. You can bet your little pink boots that Alexander the Great was not concerned about the ravaged conditions his activities wrought.
PMT- It the extremes that pollute this world; it is the extremes that pollute our lives, and it is the extremes that we are, and have been, advised by every great teacher to avoid. That is what we need to work on, rather than throwing up our hands and declaring, “People are bad, and I am a “people!” That reminds me of the backsliders in the Pentecostal movement: I know I am an S.O.B. and that God is disappointed in me,” and “I know if I died right now I would go to Hell; and, so forth. Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that if one calls himself bad enough names, or admits loudly enough, his bad deeds, or lack of good deeds, somehow it absolves him, or distances him somehow from the wrong in which he is so sure he almost helplessly participates.
PMT: In addition, wild animals are far more plagued with disease, starvation and cruel circumstances than most who are owned, and they can have attitudes about it too. Once, while traveling through Nevada, there in the road I a saw a most miserable looking creature. Matted hair sticking out in hunks, thin to the bone, staring eyes, unmoving muscles, rigid and scrawny. I slowed down, and then barely beeped my horn, and received in return, the most disgusting and hateful look I ever saw on an animal. Poor Coyote. I will never forget that face. He reminded me of a ragged man that had been sitting at a gas station in Vegas. I had said, “Excuse me,” as I walked in front of him, and he glared at me like I was his worst enemy. It was just a short time after that when I encountered that coyote. “You poor thing,” I said aloud, to that coyote. “I wish there were some way I could tell you that I stopped and honked lightly to cause you as little discomfort as possible,” and I wish I knew a safe way to feed you something, . . . just as I wished I could have explained to that man that I was not his enemy, even though we were—at least somewhere along the trail of genes and conceptions--of different races.
PMT -Of course, some people are cruel, and I hate it more than anything, but not everyone is a bad actor. There are some very dedicated people trying to make this world a better place, in various ways that truly count. So, let us count too, while keeping in mind that we have a long ways to go. The streets in olden times were polluted. Dogs, it seems, had no respect unless they were killers or something, for some big wig. Cats were, (and still are unfortunately) sometimes despised, or feared, except for those who were employed to guard the Egyptians, and such. Look how many of us love them now, and even without Darwin’s theory getting much credit for it, we have many breeds from which to choose. We have resources if we find that one is being abused, resources for quick reporting, and resources to cause a problem if the authorities do not respond. Many animals are being treated better than many children. Are you aware that the first court case to address the abuse of a child was brought to trial based upon a law to do with cruelty to animals; otherwise—at that time—there was no law to protect an abused child. By golly, if those philosophers and scientists had not convinced the book writers and schools to call us people animals, that law would not have worked. So, see there!