[Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

Well said Gabby - can't add much other than we have faint notions of
the real end if the world and know our future ends unless we can get
off the planet. One can even speculate this is merely a repeat cycle
in failures in which the best we manage is to travel space in
primitive form etc. waiting for the next evolution.

On Sep 28, 4:32 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you still in fiction mode, Pat? Of course, we'll stop before the earth
> and before the world. And I'll hopefully have stopped before my son has.
> Thour futureat's how the real story goes. But I agree that the limited time span of
> personal experience on the one hand, and the limited time span of being able
> to be attentive to a story line on the other hand, has been a challenge for
> story telling. Seen in this light, the collective passing is a summary of
> what did/does/will happen to each of us. Simple, really. As for Hollywood,
> they are taking financial advantage of our enjoyment in being entertained.
> And because this joy came to an end if the American Hero fighting for
> freedom and justice would not win in the end, he wins in the end. The
> feeling of schadenfreude can occur in the process of identification and
> projection, but it's never a constant attribute to the hero figure the way I
> understand you think it is being used. Schadenfreude always contains this "I
> knew it before"/"I told you before, but you weren't listening to me" and now
> see how I was right, you have got the damage now. That's not how you sell
> tickets - but with the promise that you will be saved and rewarded in
> Paradise (for giving me your ticket money). :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 6:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> > > Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> > > with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> > > going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> > > asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> > > gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> > > survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> > > Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> > > Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> > > stop?
>
> > The answer to your question is, of course, exactly what you don't want
> > to hear.  Of course we'll stop...when the real end of the world
> > comes.  ;-)
>
> > I think the fascination is because we know our time here is limited
> > but we don't know all the factors that limit it.  We know that each of
> > us will die, but, perhaps, some people--rather more than you might
> > imagine--would take comfort in the fact that, when it's THEIR time to
> > go, it's also time for everyone else.  I think, to some, a collective
> > passing is more palatable than the "it's just you" scenario.  As far
> > as the films go, this is purely down to Hollywood taking advantage of
> > schadenfreude, the chance to sit back and safely watch others fight
> > for their lives and lose while the viewer always wins because they
> > walk away.  It's a very subtle type of schadenfreude; but, I believe
> > that's what it is, nonetheless.  I think Gabby would agree.
>
> > Also, there are the religious eschatological factors.  In particular,
> > Christianity and Islam both predict the world will end in a
> > cataclysmic way; so, the concept is a built-in part of millions of
> > people's faith.  How these two faiths differ in their end-time result
> > is, of course, obvious.  In The Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation),
> > the Christians are saved.  In the Qur'an, there is a resurrection of
> > all the dead followed by the complete annihilation of the universe
> > (not just Earth!) and all people's souls are judged fairly by God.
> > The Qur'an does NOT take the view that Muslim's will fare better than
> > others simply because they're Muslim; rather, each individual will be
> > judged on their own thoughts, deeds and piety, which, to be fair, is a
> > more egalitarian of a view than the Christian eschatological view that
> > Christians, just by virtue of being Christians, will be saved and
> > rewarded in Paradise.

Write my paper

writing expert is here to help and assist you in writing your research papers and term papers. We are a company trusted by students like you for writing quality custom term papers, research papers and essays. We offer high-quality papers within your deadline.When at college or University, all students experience the challenging task of conducting and writing research papers. However, the problem is that they do not always know how to write a term paper or a research paper of an adequate academic level.There‘s no doubt that research writing requires much patience, consistency and hard work. If you, as an inexperienced student, try to do a research yourself, the required efforts should be doubled. You can object to this by saying that there are tons of research paper samples available online, which can help you in the research writing process. It is true that these examples are accessible and really valuable if used only for references,the importance of why you come to the writing-expert.com where you have several professionals to help you with custom papers .

From now on when you are in need of write my paper you know where to go, writing-expert.com offers the best professionals in addition an excellent service via chat or phone to take your questions,your right choice when you pay for papers is the writing-expert.com, then visit the site to see and learn more information.

[Mind's Eye] Re: Beyond virtue ethics

Indeed rigsy it has often been said philosophy is thus. The domination
of male issues is indeed a problem - though I can't make it into 'the
problem' and still find some of it embroiled with 'wimmin' and even
revenge against men not playing to the old rules. I would raise
bimboism in this area as about a non-gender (yet gendered) issue of
the triumph of presentation over content. I don't mean in this the
characterisation of the blonde bimbo as a feckless dummy around for
some male's apres travail - but more the Tony Blair syndrome and BBC
news by and for bimbos. I can take my commentary from an old woman
dressed as a bag lady, but it's more than this - it's now hard to
ignore the 'easy on the eye' of it all (I find myself repelled).
In terms of threats to existing power there is a form of 'instruments
of torture' operating in practical affairs deeper than the male stuff
(which is often so reinforced by wimmin) in economic stupidity. My
wonder is whether we could rearticulate this "stuff" to get a better
notion when it is getting in the way.

On Sep 28, 1:14 pm, "rigs...@yahoo.com" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We might be stuck with a patrilinear world/institutions. We can trace
> beyond Socrates, who rejected myths in favor of logic and science
> (Phaedrus) so now we live in the Age of Machines and Technology where
> a Blair can influence history with lies presented as truth. Even
> liberated women in the West are operating/reacting/manipulating unde
> The idol you seek may be the White Goddess (Robert Graves) but she is
> long gone and forgotten. While envionmentalists might claim her we can
> already see how products and causes are often a ruse. Perhaps the mind
> is the last sanctuary and influence limited in scope.
>
> On Sep 26, 10:22 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've had to read a lot of dross as an academic and I find it gets into
> > my writing in ways I don't want it to.  I rarely find myself excited
> > or inspired by the academy outside of some science.  Occasional
> > writers like Lyotard or Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' appeal to my
> > enjoyment delayed humour.  One particular aspect of 'great writing'
> > that worries me is that one gets sucked into the arguments made and
> > yet know at the same time the ability to make them did not shift the
> > writers from what we now regard as glaring injustices like slavery.  I
> > know people like Moses (the war criminal of Numbers 31) and Plato and
> > Aristotle (slavery OK were men of their time, but that isn't my
> > point.  Even John Locke argued slaves taken in just wars deserved
> > their fate.
>
> > The Greeks knew it was fairly easy to make equally powerful and
> > contradictory argument.  I (for instance) favour modern reliableism
> > and structured realism as a philosophic base but prefer to say I'm a
> > tropical fish realist - this at least admits philosophy isn't my first
> > consideration.  Some won't have a clue what I'm on about.  Mostly,
> > I've learned most arguments are suspicious and based on assumptions
> > that don't 'ground' (like gods, human nature in economics) or are
> > subjective in the sense that allows liars like Blair and most
> > politicians to lie and tell us they tested information they made
> > decisions on in personal integrity.  In the meantime, modern slavery
> > goes on in the sense of war and economics taking us down the road to
> > serfdom.  I see little hope of philosophical answers to any of this
> > because they have a long history of failure.
>
> > I'm led to a view that our societies are based on selfish madness -or
> > at least that we should examine what's going on as we might examine
> > religious belief in its dafter forms.  I'd start with our common
> > virtue ethics.  I'm aware of 'Beyond Virtue' (McIntyre) but feel we
> > need a darker analysis based more on social Idols.  Any takers for a
> > go?

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Why Has Allan Been Barred From The Group ?

I didn't realize my auto sig was on. Poor form, and of course you're right.

Regarding Allan? I have no idea. However, there is a group of moderators you can ask about it. :)

On Sep 29, 2011 4:54 AM, "gabbydott" <gabbydott@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being too close or over-identifying with the moderation role can have the
> opposite effect, as we have seen. Has this effect been corrected yet?
> I haven't seen Allan reentering the fair exchange stage so far.
>
> And please switch off your automatic signature when you are posting here,
> Chris, you might be taken for a spammer by moderators to come who don't know
> your history here.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Chris Jenkins
> <digitalprecipice@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> *laughing* I think that Gabs was insinuating I was about to re-enter the
>> moderation fray. As it turns out, that is incorrect. I have completely
>> removed myself from any form of moderation or ownership. As I mentioned the
>> last time around, I was far too disconnected from the daily going-ons to be
>> effective in that role.
>>
>> Now it's in the hands of others, and I'm free to pop in from time to time
>> without dealing with moderation issues...unless, of course, I were to be
>> banned. :)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a
>>> natural
>>> > death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush. In other words, he's the
>>> man behind the puppets. Actually, they're muppets, because the
>>> strings come from below rather than above!! Nevertheless, Bush Sr.
>>> and Putin call the shots in their respective countries. The facts
>>> abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book. The whole
>>> story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA. It WILL
>>> stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!!
>>>
>>> > If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power
>>> > position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I
>>> > think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go
>>> on,
>>> > my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive,
>>> unproductive,
>>> > degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still
>>> had
>>> > full control over what was happening here!
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins
>>> > <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > God I hate banning people.
>>> >
>>> > > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It
>>> accomplishes
>>> > > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity
>>> (much
>>> > > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery).
>>> >
>>> > > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy
>>> > > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any
>>> further
>>> > > decisions regarding group management.
>>> >
>>> > > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely
>>> regretful
>>> > > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil
>>> conversation,
>>> > > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated
>>> it at
>>> > > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation
>>> twice
>>> > > prior to being banned.
>>> >
>>> > > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful
>>> > > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe
>>> important
>>> > > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through
>>> > > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity
>>> to
>>> > > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a
>>> fine
>>> > > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western
>>> > > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space
>>> and
>>> > > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors
>>> like
>>> > > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she
>>> was
>>> > > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me
>>> feel
>>> > > lucky to be part of this group.
>>> >
>>> > > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted
>>> management
>>> > > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that
>>> the lack
>>> > > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's
>>> get it
>>> > > resolved once and for all.
>>> >
>>> > > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the
>>> > > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself.
>>> :D
>>> >
>>> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time. Does the fact
>>> I'm
>>> > >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord
>>> me
>>> > >> > a ban? Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of
>>> Denmark'.
>>> > >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan. I wonder
>>> about
>>> > >> > us if we can't be more tolerant. If Allan did something bad enough
>>> > >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK.
>>> >
>>> > >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!! I'm all for crediting even
>>> > >> those who disagreed!!
>>> >
>>> > >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really
>>> like
>>> > >> > > Orn.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > This is unacceptable.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here
>>> under
>>> > >> these
>>> > >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win?
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind <
>>> > >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>>> > >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed
>>> about
>>> > >> you
>>> > >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by
>>> Vam.
>>> > >> But I am
>>> > >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like
>>> to
>>> > >> know. Is he
>>> > >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his
>>> posts
>>> > >> been
>>> > >> > > > > deleted?
>>> > >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help
>>> us
>>> > >> increase
>>> > >> > > > > the
>>> > >> > > > > > level objectivity.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, ornamentalmind <
>>> > >> > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > >> > > > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is
>>> not
>>> > >> > > > > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added
>>> to
>>> > >> it.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let
>>> me
>>> > >> know
>>> > >> > > > > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it
>>> > >> comes to
>>> > >> > > > > > > individual cases.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the
>>> > >> task/responsibility
>>> > >> > > > > > > lightly.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears
>>> to
>>> > >> be we are
>>> > >> > > > > > > not about trials here.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > > > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or
>>> done.
>>> > >> In the
>>> > >> > > > > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled
>>> : Why
>>> > >> > > > > so-and-so
>>> > >> > > > > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to
>>> respond,
>>> > >> and a
>>> > >> > > > > call
>>> > >> > > > > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't
>>> be
>>> > >> difficult.
>>> > >> > > > > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <
>>> > >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
>>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself
>>> knew he
>>> > >> had gone
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining
>>> posts.
>>> > >> He
>>> > >> > > > > followed
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self
>>> > >> > > > > admitted/defined)
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the
>>> result
>>> > >> would be.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include
>>> self
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > responsibility.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems
>>> > >> > > > > disproportionate,
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain
>>> gross,
>>> > >> as in
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such
>>> evolved
>>> > >> members who
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on
>>> this
>>> > >> matter.-
>>> > >> > > > > Hide
>>> > >> > > > > > > quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > >> > - Show quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.
>>> > > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text -
>>> >
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.
>> The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>
>>
>>

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Why Has Allan Been Barred From The Group ?

Being too close or over-identifying with the moderation role can have the opposite effect, as we have seen. Has this effect been corrected yet? I haven't seen Allan reentering the fair exchange stage so far.

And please switch off your automatic signature when you are posting here, Chris, you might be taken for a spammer by moderators to come who don't know your history here.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecipice@gmail.com> wrote:

*laughing* I think that Gabs was insinuating I was about to re-enter the moderation fray. As it turns out, that is incorrect. I have completely removed myself from any form of moderation or ownership. As I mentioned the last time around, I was far too disconnected from the daily going-ons to be effective in that role. 

Now it's in the hands of others, and I'm free to pop in from time to time without dealing with moderation issues...unless, of course, I were to be banned. :)

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a natural
> death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God.
>

Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush.  In other words, he's the
man behind the puppets.  Actually, they're muppets, because the
strings come from below rather than above!!  Nevertheless, Bush Sr.
and Putin call the shots in their respective countries.  The facts
abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book.  The whole
story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA.  It WILL
stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!!

> If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power
> position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I
> think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go on,
> my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive, unproductive,
> degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still had
> full control over what was happening here!
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins

> <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > God I hate banning people.
>
> > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It accomplishes
> > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity (much
> > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery).
>
> > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy
> > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any further
> > decisions regarding group management.
>
> > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely regretful
> > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil conversation,
> > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated it at
> > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation twice
> > prior to being banned.
>
> > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful
> > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe important
> > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through
> > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity to
> > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a fine
> > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western
> > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space and
> > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors like
> > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she was
> > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me feel
> > lucky to be part of this group.
>
> > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted management
> > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that the lack
> > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's get it
> > resolved once and for all.
>
> > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the
> > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. :D
>

> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time.  Does the fact I'm
> >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord me
> >> > a ban?  Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of Denmark'.
> >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan.  I wonder about
> >> > us if we can't be more tolerant.  If Allan did something bad enough
> >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK.
>
> >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!!  I'm all for crediting even
> >> those who disagreed!!
>
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really like
> >> > > Orn.
>
> >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > This is unacceptable.
>
> >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here under
> >> these
> >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win?
>
> >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed about
> >> you
> >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up.
>
> >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye.
>
> >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by Vam.
> >> But I am
> >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you.
>
> >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like to
> >> know. Is he
> >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his posts
> >> been
> >> > > > > deleted?
> >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help us
> >> increase
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > level objectivity.
>
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, ornamentalmind <
> >> > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not
> >> > > > > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to
> >> it.
>
> >> > > > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me
> >> know
> >> > > > > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it
> >> comes to
> >> > > > > > > individual cases.
>
> >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the
> >> task/responsibility
> >> > > > > > > lightly.
>
> >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to
> >> be we are
> >> > > > > > > not about trials here.
>
> >> > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>
> >> > > > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done.
> >> In the
> >> > > > > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why
> >> > > > > so-and-so
> >> > > > > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>
> >> > > > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond,
> >> and a
> >> > > > > call
> >> > > > > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be
> >> difficult.
> >> > > > > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he
> >> had gone
> >> > > > > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts.
> >> He
> >> > > > > followed
> >> > > > > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self
> >> > > > > admitted/defined)
> >> > > > > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result
> >> would be.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self
> >> > > > > > > > > responsibility.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems
> >> > > > > disproportionate,
> >> > > > > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross,
> >> as in
> >> > > > > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved
> >> members who
> >> > > > > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this
> >> matter.-
> >> > > > > Hide
> >> > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.

> > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.

The Web Guy

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Why Has Allan Been Barred From The Group ?

*laughing* I think that Gabs was insinuating I was about to re-enter the moderation fray. As it turns out, that is incorrect. I have completely removed myself from any form of moderation or ownership. As I mentioned the last time around, I was far too disconnected from the daily going-ons to be effective in that role. 

Now it's in the hands of others, and I'm free to pop in from time to time without dealing with moderation issues...unless, of course, I were to be banned. :)

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a natural
> death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God.
>

Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush.  In other words, he's the
man behind the puppets.  Actually, they're muppets, because the
strings come from below rather than above!!  Nevertheless, Bush Sr.
and Putin call the shots in their respective countries.  The facts
abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book.  The whole
story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA.  It WILL
stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!!

> If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power
> position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I
> think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go on,
> my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive, unproductive,
> degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still had
> full control over what was happening here!
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins

> <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > God I hate banning people.
>
> > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It accomplishes
> > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity (much
> > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery).
>
> > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy
> > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any further
> > decisions regarding group management.
>
> > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely regretful
> > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil conversation,
> > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated it at
> > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation twice
> > prior to being banned.
>
> > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful
> > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe important
> > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through
> > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity to
> > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a fine
> > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western
> > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space and
> > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors like
> > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she was
> > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me feel
> > lucky to be part of this group.
>
> > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted management
> > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that the lack
> > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's get it
> > resolved once and for all.
>
> > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the
> > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. :D
>

> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time.  Does the fact I'm
> >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord me
> >> > a ban?  Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of Denmark'.
> >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan.  I wonder about
> >> > us if we can't be more tolerant.  If Allan did something bad enough
> >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK.
>
> >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!!  I'm all for crediting even
> >> those who disagreed!!
>
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really like
> >> > > Orn.
>
> >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > This is unacceptable.
>
> >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here under
> >> these
> >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win?
>
> >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed about
> >> you
> >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up.
>
> >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye.
>
> >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by Vam.
> >> But I am
> >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you.
>
> >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like to
> >> know. Is he
> >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his posts
> >> been
> >> > > > > deleted?
> >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help us
> >> increase
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > level objectivity.
>
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, ornamentalmind <
> >> > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not
> >> > > > > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to
> >> it.
>
> >> > > > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me
> >> know
> >> > > > > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it
> >> comes to
> >> > > > > > > individual cases.
>
> >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the
> >> task/responsibility
> >> > > > > > > lightly.
>
> >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to
> >> be we are
> >> > > > > > > not about trials here.
>
> >> > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>
> >> > > > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done.
> >> In the
> >> > > > > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why
> >> > > > > so-and-so
> >> > > > > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>
> >> > > > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond,
> >> and a
> >> > > > > call
> >> > > > > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be
> >> difficult.
> >> > > > > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he
> >> had gone
> >> > > > > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts.
> >> He
> >> > > > > followed
> >> > > > > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self
> >> > > > > admitted/defined)
> >> > > > > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result
> >> would be.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self
> >> > > > > > > > > responsibility.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems
> >> > > > > disproportionate,
> >> > > > > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross,
> >> as in
> >> > > > > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved
> >> members who
> >> > > > > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this
> >> matter.-
> >> > > > > Hide
> >> > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.

> > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.

The Web Guy

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

Are you still in fiction mode, Pat? Of course, we'll stop before the earth and before the world. And I'll hopefully have stopped before my son has. That's how the real story goes. But I agree that the limited time span of personal experience on the one hand, and the limited time span of being able to be attentive to a story line on the other hand, has been a challenge for story telling. Seen in this light, the collective passing is a summary of what did/does/will happen to each of us. Simple, really. As for Hollywood, they are taking financial advantage of our enjoyment in being entertained. And because this joy came to an end if the American Hero fighting for freedom and justice would not win in the end, he wins in the end. The feeling of schadenfreude can occur in the process of identification and projection, but it's never a constant attribute to the hero figure the way I understand you think it is being used. Schadenfreude always contains this "I knew it before"/"I told you before, but you weren't listening to me" and now see how I was right, you have got the damage now. That's not how you sell tickets - but with the promise that you will be saved and rewarded in Paradise (for giving me your ticket money). :)

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Pat <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> stop?

The answer to your question is, of course, exactly what you don't want
to hear.  Of course we'll stop...when the real end of the world
comes.  ;-)

I think the fascination is because we know our time here is limited
but we don't know all the factors that limit it.  We know that each of
us will die, but, perhaps, some people--rather more than you might
imagine--would take comfort in the fact that, when it's THEIR time to
go, it's also time for everyone else.  I think, to some, a collective
passing is more palatable than the "it's just you" scenario.  As far
as the films go, this is purely down to Hollywood taking advantage of
schadenfreude, the chance to sit back and safely watch others fight
for their lives and lose while the viewer always wins because they
walk away.  It's a very subtle type of schadenfreude; but, I believe
that's what it is, nonetheless.  I think Gabby would agree.

Also, there are the religious eschatological factors.  In particular,
Christianity and Islam both predict the world will end in a
cataclysmic way; so, the concept is a built-in part of millions of
people's faith.  How these two faiths differ in their end-time result
is, of course, obvious.  In The Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation),
the Christians are saved.  In the Qur'an, there is a resurrection of
all the dead followed by the complete annihilation of the universe
(not just Earth!) and all people's souls are judged fairly by God.
The Qur'an does NOT take the view that Muslim's will fare better than
others simply because they're Muslim; rather, each individual will be
judged on their own thoughts, deeds and piety, which, to be fair, is a
more egalitarian of a view than the Christian eschatological view that
Christians, just by virtue of being Christians, will be saved and
rewarded in Paradise.

[Mind's Eye] Re: MiNDS Eye have covered many topic covering how the sences both those of feeling taste touch hearing and seeing :"now this'

On Aug 19, 5:30 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course life can be cut-throat. It stimulates our instinctive nature
> and forces us to fight. Some of the best lessons I've learned were the
> hardest. But what I think Einstein was trying to say is that a playful
> approach to life opens the mind to creative thought. I can see where
> rational thought is important but come on, we're not robots. We have
> the ability to create! ;-)
>

Einstein said himself that he wanted to try to discover how God
created the universe. He was a believer in Spinoza's God. That is,
he could easily see the transcendence but couldn't grasp the
immanence. Had he lived a three or four decades later and was able to
see the better part of string theory develop, I think he would have
seen what I have. So, whilst I wish he could have seen it, I'm glad,
in a way, that it's been left to me. ;-)

> On Aug 19, 7:02 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes- add my welcome also. I am trying to figure out why you have such
> > a spiritual take on life as I think it's pretty cut-throat but never
> > fear, I will listen and am curious.
>
> > Yes- thanks Al for a-bombs and nukes. "Einstein's Dreams"...
>
> > On Aug 18, 1:21 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
> > > faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant
> > > and has forgotten the gift." Albert Einstien
>
> > > On Aug 18, 3:57 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In this case I would say: my English lessons. :)
>
> > > > But let's up the ante and say, "I see your point, Howard." No matter how
> > > > many senses you take into account, its mind analyzing.
>
> > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:33 AM, creible hulk <howardmos...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > knownleage giving and recieved how as to the basics of how we
> > > > > attain ... that which we need to power our being like the same with
> > > > > the food we eat ... and what lessons where those chrishable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: MiNDS Eye have covered many topic covering how the sences both those of feeling taste touch hearing and seeing :"now this'

On Aug 18, 7:21 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
> faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant
> and has forgotten the gift." Albert Einstien
>

Thanks for that Jo! I only wished I'd read that before I handed my
book over to the publisher. As a great deal of the book is philosophy
derived from Special Reletivity, it's always nice to hear another
quote from Einstein that showed his mind was in the right place and
that he knew others were missing some of the more important aspects of
his findings. Again, thanks for that!!

> On Aug 18, 3:57 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In this case I would say: my English lessons. :)
>
> > But let's up the ante and say, "I see your point, Howard." No matter how
> > many senses you take into account, its mind analyzing.
>
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:33 AM, creible hulk <howardmos...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > knownleage giving and recieved how as to the basics of how we
> > > attain ... that which we need to power our being like the same with
> > > the food we eat ... and what lessons where those chrishable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

On Sep 27, 6:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> stop?

The answer to your question is, of course, exactly what you don't want
to hear. Of course we'll stop...when the real end of the world
comes. ;-)

I think the fascination is because we know our time here is limited
but we don't know all the factors that limit it. We know that each of
us will die, but, perhaps, some people--rather more than you might
imagine--would take comfort in the fact that, when it's THEIR time to
go, it's also time for everyone else. I think, to some, a collective
passing is more palatable than the "it's just you" scenario. As far
as the films go, this is purely down to Hollywood taking advantage of
schadenfreude, the chance to sit back and safely watch others fight
for their lives and lose while the viewer always wins because they
walk away. It's a very subtle type of schadenfreude; but, I believe
that's what it is, nonetheless. I think Gabby would agree.

Also, there are the religious eschatological factors. In particular,
Christianity and Islam both predict the world will end in a
cataclysmic way; so, the concept is a built-in part of millions of
people's faith. How these two faiths differ in their end-time result
is, of course, obvious. In The Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation),
the Christians are saved. In the Qur'an, there is a resurrection of
all the dead followed by the complete annihilation of the universe
(not just Earth!) and all people's souls are judged fairly by God.
The Qur'an does NOT take the view that Muslim's will fare better than
others simply because they're Muslim; rather, each individual will be
judged on their own thoughts, deeds and piety, which, to be fair, is a
more egalitarian of a view than the Christian eschatological view that
Christians, just by virtue of being Christians, will be saved and
rewarded in Paradise.

[Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

Unless you watched your culture die before your eyes (American
Indians), unless you lived in Japan in 1945 and this year, unless,
unless...I think believers of "end times" have simply lost faith in
humanity and lost hope in Mother Nature.

On Sep 27, 12:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> stop?

[Mind's Eye] Re: Beyond virtue ethics

We might be stuck with a patrilinear world/institutions. We can trace
beyond Socrates, who rejected myths in favor of logic and science
(Phaedrus) so now we live in the Age of Machines and Technology where
a Blair can influence history with lies presented as truth. Even
liberated women in the West are operating/reacting/manipulating under
male rules- to do otherwise is a threat to political power/society.
The idol you seek may be the White Goddess (Robert Graves) but she is
long gone and forgotten. While envionmentalists might claim her we can
already see how products and causes are often a ruse. Perhaps the mind
is the last sanctuary and influence limited in scope.

On Sep 26, 10:22 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've had to read a lot of dross as an academic and I find it gets into
> my writing in ways I don't want it to.  I rarely find myself excited
> or inspired by the academy outside of some science.  Occasional
> writers like Lyotard or Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' appeal to my
> enjoyment delayed humour.  One particular aspect of 'great writing'
> that worries me is that one gets sucked into the arguments made and
> yet know at the same time the ability to make them did not shift the
> writers from what we now regard as glaring injustices like slavery.  I
> know people like Moses (the war criminal of Numbers 31) and Plato and
> Aristotle (slavery OK were men of their time, but that isn't my
> point.  Even John Locke argued slaves taken in just wars deserved
> their fate.
>
> The Greeks knew it was fairly easy to make equally powerful and
> contradictory argument.  I (for instance) favour modern reliableism
> and structured realism as a philosophic base but prefer to say I'm a
> tropical fish realist - this at least admits philosophy isn't my first
> consideration.  Some won't have a clue what I'm on about.  Mostly,
> I've learned most arguments are suspicious and based on assumptions
> that don't 'ground' (like gods, human nature in economics) or are
> subjective in the sense that allows liars like Blair and most
> politicians to lie and tell us they tested information they made
> decisions on in personal integrity.  In the meantime, modern slavery
> goes on in the sense of war and economics taking us down the road to
> serfdom.  I see little hope of philosophical answers to any of this
> because they have a long history of failure.
>
> I'm led to a view that our societies are based on selfish madness -or
> at least that we should examine what's going on as we might examine
> religious belief in its dafter forms.  I'd start with our common
> virtue ethics.  I'm aware of 'Beyond Virtue' (McIntyre) but feel we
> need a darker analysis based more on social Idols.  Any takers for a
> go?

[Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

I agree. We are easily distracted from what is before us. Looking
away is often less painful. The pain is of our own making.

On Sep 27, 2:22 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We never seen to get such coverage on more sensible but important
> issues.
>
> On Sep 27, 6:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> > Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> > with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> > going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> > asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> > gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> > survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> > Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> > Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> > stop?

[Mind's Eye] Re: Beyond virtue ethics

There are some answers - at least in approximation and ruling out
idiocy - though I really agree the questioning part, except answers
sometimes provide 'go forward'. 'Slavery' sort of exists in ants -
but what is it about it that we now reject as abhorrent? I'd stand and
die against it, but I don't have John Brown's religion in any
standardly religious sense. Tropical fish realism is subject of
philosophy - most of us wielding equations haven't done much more than
followed a book as we would in setting up a tropical fish tank.

I still tend to think of 'social lunacy effects' in terms of Bacon's
Idols - or at least my version of them. His main ones were:
1.Tribe
2. Cave
3.Marketplace
4. Theatre
His writing is dreadfully dull and about 11 Idols can apparently be
picked out. I've had the books from time to time, but to be honest
couldn't read them long and rely on commentary. He claimed science
was inductive - this was toshed - but we now have probabilities. My
take on the idols renames them thus:
1. Our parochial peer group.
2. A closer group such as family.
3. Public discourse such as politics and gossip.
4. More theoretical learned opinion taken as doctrine.
5. The need to espouse certain opinion because of followership demands
including funding, garnering votes and so on.

There are also issues to do with those who can't follow argument or
tolerate its uncertainties and how this should be treated. Just as we
think democracy is good - along comes opinion we regard as
'thoughtless', 'clown' 'utterly biased' and so on. And, of course, the
moderation bete noir 'foul'. The 'objective' voice is often brutal
and not objective at all and doing violence - the point of
deconstruction rather than nihilism. Although ad hominem is not
allowed in academic talk it's actually full of the stuff in disguise
from 'standing on the shoulders of giants' on (Newton casting
aspersion on Hooke's 'size') to Habermas as 'the professor (meaning he
who knows all -a jibe from the postmodernists).

The books of my subject specialism, organisation theory, generally
revolt me. Managers have a key role in 'creating reality' for others
translating quickly into 'taking huge salaries or fees for some dud
strategic mission statement' and so on. Underlying issues of
'meritocracies' reproducing themselves by hogging resources like boss
mice are unexplored. Critique is hobbled with heresy tags - and
frankly often comes from people carving out a niche for themselves
rather than an alternative. All the while we really 'shelter' under
what is now the American military umbrella, much as many of us despise
something about it - possibly its necessity. 'Banning the bomb'
movements never went global and few really wanted us to give up and
have a world with Russian and Chinese (and Pakistani, Indian, Israeli
and South African) ones. Economics is clearly barking too and we have
a Politburo of the rich.

We end up up the gum tree of wanting power in the hands of the people,
and unable to trust the people. Those claiming freedom of religion
often seem to threaten me as a secularist, though how can there be
such freedom without a secular society, and how can we allow Crusaders
or Taliban? One in thirteen kids die before five - which is bloody
awful - yet so is the increasing over-population.

With agriculture at 4% and production at 25% of world GDP there is
little work that needs doing to give us a base for a sane and
reasonably equal society. I fancy we are caught in madness on work
ethic from our feudal past. Just as the banks are so networked that
Greece falling will hit across Europe and the US, our production is
built on houses of cards. Lack of world interest in engines of death
causes 3,000 highly skilled manufacturing jobs to go in the UK, taking
20,000 support jobs with it. Shale gas under Lancashire is thought
sufficient for 64 years UK energy supply but will only directly
produce 5,000 jobs and our media is full of stories on exploding water
taps, not analysis of how we might best exploit the resource while we
get into more sustaining technology. We're scared on getting into a
politics that could let us alone to do 'philosophy' and drag ourselves
out of the medieval.

On Sep 27, 9:51 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the "best it can do is question".  
> It seems to me that an answer is simply a question with a period at the end
> of it.
> An answer is static, trapped in the amber of time and applicable in a very
> limited scope and totally dependent on the question.  
> A question is dynamic, and moves through time, spewing static little answers
> wherever it goes...or not, the question is not dependent on its answers...
> Philosophy is about how one thinks, not what one thinks.  To think is to
> question.  To rely on answers is to avoid thinking....
>
> Not sure where that came from... but there it is....
>
>  :-)

[Mind's Eye] Re: Beyond virtue ethics

I agree with the "best it can do is question". 
It seems to me that an answer is simply a question with a period at the end of it.
An answer is static, trapped in the amber of time and applicable in a very limited scope and totally dependent on the question. 
A question is dynamic, and moves through time, spewing static little answers wherever it goes...or not, the question is not dependent on its answers...
Philosophy is about how one thinks, not what one thinks.  To think is to question.  To rely on answers is to avoid thinking....

Not sure where that came from... but there it is....


 :-)

[Mind's Eye] Re: End of The World

We never seen to get such coverage on more sensible but important
issues.

On Sep 27, 6:58 pm, Jo <jojocasame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...
>
> Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
> with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
> going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
> asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
> gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
> survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
> Annihilation" movies must we endure?
>
> Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
> stop?

[Mind's Eye] End of The World

Armageddon, Doomsday, Rapture, Y2K, or the Mayan Calendar predicts...

Just when we think another "end times" day has passed, they come up
with a new one. We're going to blow ourselves up or the computers are
going to nuke us all, the Sun will spit out a solar flair or an
asteroid's going to hit the Earth (yeah right). The human population
gets wiped out with the exception of a select few who are left to
survive on a lifeless planet. Seriously? How many more "World
Annihilation" movies must we endure?

Why is mankind so fascinated with the end of the world? Will we ever
stop?

[Mind's Eye] Re: introduction

On Sep 23, 11:15 am, harry <hammad.co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i am new hi everryone

Welcome aboar' th' good ship 'Minds Eye'!! Min' yer step, tho, th'
deck's bin swabbed recen'ly! ;-)

[Mind's Eye] Re: Why Has Allan Been Barred From The Group ?

On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a natural
> death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God.
>

Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush. In other words, he's the
man behind the puppets. Actually, they're muppets, because the
strings come from below rather than above!! Nevertheless, Bush Sr.
and Putin call the shots in their respective countries. The facts
abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book. The whole
story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA. It WILL
stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!!

> If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power
> position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I
> think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go on,
> my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive, unproductive,
> degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still had
> full control over what was happening here!
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins
> <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > God I hate banning people.
>
> > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It accomplishes
> > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity (much
> > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery).
>
> > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy
> > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any further
> > decisions regarding group management.
>
> > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely regretful
> > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil conversation,
> > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated it at
> > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation twice
> > prior to being banned.
>
> > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful
> > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe important
> > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through
> > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity to
> > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a fine
> > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western
> > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space and
> > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors like
> > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she was
> > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me feel
> > lucky to be part of this group.
>
> > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted management
> > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that the lack
> > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's get it
> > resolved once and for all.
>
> > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the
> > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. :D
>
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time.  Does the fact I'm
> >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord me
> >> > a ban?  Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of Denmark'.
> >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan.  I wonder about
> >> > us if we can't be more tolerant.  If Allan did something bad enough
> >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK.
>
> >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!!  I'm all for crediting even
> >> those who disagreed!!
>
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really like
> >> > > Orn.
>
> >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > This is unacceptable.
>
> >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here under
> >> these
> >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win?
>
> >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed about
> >> you
> >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up.
>
> >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye.
>
> >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by Vam.
> >> But I am
> >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you.
>
> >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like to
> >> know. Is he
> >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his posts
> >> been
> >> > > > > deleted?
> >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help us
> >> increase
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > level objectivity.
>
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, ornamentalmind <
> >> > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not
> >> > > > > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to
> >> it.
>
> >> > > > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me
> >> know
> >> > > > > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it
> >> comes to
> >> > > > > > > individual cases.
>
> >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the
> >> task/responsibility
> >> > > > > > > lightly.
>
> >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to
> >> be we are
> >> > > > > > > not about trials here.
>
> >> > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>
> >> > > > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done.
> >> In the
> >> > > > > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why
> >> > > > > so-and-so
> >> > > > > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>
> >> > > > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond,
> >> and a
> >> > > > > call
> >> > > > > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be
> >> difficult.
> >> > > > > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>
> >> > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <
> >> ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he
> >> had gone
> >> > > > > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts.
> >> He
> >> > > > > followed
> >> > > > > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self
> >> > > > > admitted/defined)
> >> > > > > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result
> >> would be.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self
> >> > > > > > > > > responsibility.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems
> >> > > > > disproportionate,
> >> > > > > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross,
> >> as in
> >> > > > > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved
> >> members who
> >> > > > > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>
> >> > > > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this
> >> matter.-
> >> > > > > Hide
> >> > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.
> > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Why Has Allan Been Barred From The Group ?

On Sep 24, 5:06 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> God I hate banning people.
>
> I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It accomplishes
> silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity (much
> like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery).
>
> I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy
> hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any further
> decisions regarding group management.
>
> Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely regretful
> that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil conversation,
> and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated it at
> length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation twice
> prior to being banned.
>
> Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful
> contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe important
> conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through
> Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity to
> speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a fine
> education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western
> religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space and
> inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors like
> that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she was
> another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me feel
> lucky to be part of this group.
>

Oh, I haven't gone away, I'm just less active due to less access. I
hope I haven't melted TOO much of your brain. ;-)

> I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted management
> questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that the lack
> of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's get it
> resolved once and for all.
>
> Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the
> group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. :D
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time.  Does the fact I'm
> > > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord me
> > > a ban?  Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of Denmark'.
> > > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan.  I wonder about
> > > us if we can't be more tolerant.  If Allan did something bad enough
> > > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK.
>
> > Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!!  I'm all for crediting even
> > those who disagreed!!
>
> > > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really like
> > > > Orn.
>
> > > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is unacceptable.
>
> > > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here under
> > these
> > > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win?
>
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed about
> > you
> > > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up.
>
> > > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye.
>
> > > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by Vam.
> > But I am
> > > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you.
>
> > > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like to
> > know. Is he
> > > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his posts
> > been
> > > > > > deleted?
> > > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help us
> > increase
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > level objectivity.
>
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not
> > > > > > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to
> > it.
>
> > > > > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me know
> > > > > > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it comes
> > to
> > > > > > > > individual cases.
>
> > > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the
> > task/responsibility
> > > > > > > > lightly.
>
> > > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to be
> > we are
> > > > > > > > not about trials here.
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done.
> > In the
> > > > > > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why
> > > > > > so-and-so
> > > > > > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules !
>
> > > > > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond,
> > and a
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be
> > difficult.
> > > > > > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <
> > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he
> > had gone
> > > > > > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts. He
> > > > > > followed
> > > > > > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self
> > > > > > admitted/defined)
> > > > > > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result
> > would be.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self
> > > > > > > > > > responsibility.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems
> > > > > > disproportionate,
> > > > > > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross,
> > as in
> > > > > > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved
> > members who
> > > > > > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this
> > matter.-
> > > > > > Hide
> > > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal.
> The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -