Re: Mind's Eye New Google Groups is Dumb,but this not the subject

I don't enjoy insulting people ... but why shdn't they enjoy insulting
themselves !

Or do they look forward to some kind of stroking...

On Jun 26, 5:20 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:21 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The 'heart' is difficult to talk about as I believe that it is often used
> > metaphorically. I, being the coward that I am, tend to avoid reference to
> > it. It could be confused with love.
>
> And why kind it be true ?
>
> The kind of stupid one you are ?
>
> Building something you are safe with...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Malc
>
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:50:30 AM UTC+12, Ash wrote:
> > > When referring to the tangible object it is within normal operating
> > > parameters and conventional properties but we could switch it around a
> > > little, say, what we are referring to is a summation of object
> > > permanence derived from causal relationships resulting in the idea of a
> > > thing we call a heart, or perhaps a million other ways like numbers.
>
> > > But I think Molly was saying a bit more than that, and perhaps you are
> > > too- you sly fox! :)
>
> > > _pleease interpret as jovial_
>
> > > On 6/25/2012 9:23 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> > > > And where's the heart , Molly ? is it somewhere outside this body ?
>
> > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >> The heart also responds to all the things you mention.  Our physical
> > > >> organs and systems all respond to thoughts, feelings and awareness.
> > > >> The heartmath institute has done quite a bit of research in this
> > > >> regard.  Our being (includes physical and all aspects) and experience
> > > >> are in dynamic relationship.  The become one in paradox.
>
> > > >> On Jun 24, 11:22 am, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>> It is the brain which is essential for experiencing all feelings ,
> > > >>> thoughts , and states of awareness. Whatever is experienced has
> > > >>> physical basis because without the physical organs, whether it be
> > > >>> brain or sense organs , no experience is possible. God abides in
> > > >>> matter and guides it by well established laws.
>
> > > >>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>> brain worship is prevalent, but science can't measure mind, or the
> > > >>>> effect of thought on experience.  Science can measure brain function
> > > >>>> as neuro-physical biochemisty, but not the complexity of thought and
> > > >>>> what it means to overall health.  There is a state in sleep and
> > > >>>> waking, where thought is not required, and indeed, awareness is
> > > >>>> enhanced because of it.
>
> > > >>>> On Jun 23, 2:35 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >>>>> Man is a physical creature , the only spiritual aspect in him is
> > > >>>>> awareness. It is the mind which thinks and mind is physical , cut a
> > > >>>>> portion of the brain and thinking will stop , cut another portion
> > > and
> > > >>>>> awareness will be reduced to such a level  as to be insignificant ,
> > > >>>>> and if you kill the brain even  awareness which is the spiritual
> > > >>>>> aspect in life will be extinguished. The fact is that Spirit
> > > pervades
> > > >>>>> throughout matter and an individuality might cease to be , yet the
> > > One
> > > >>>>> Spirit which is eternal and immortal remains unchanged.
>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com>
> > >  wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Mind is a non physical organ, like ego or our metaphorical heart
> > > (the
> > > >>>>>> one what contains our emotions.)  It's kind of like asking if
> > > people
> > > >>>>>> in different climates have different gall bladders because of the
> > > >>>>>> climate.  At some point in our development, because the human being
> > > is
> > > >>>>>> adaptive and resilient, it is possible to find a harmonious life
> > > with
> > > >>>>>> all systems communicating and functioning together. We call this
> > > >>>>>> optimal health.  And, at some point in our development, we may
> > > >>>>>> discover that the harmony of our being is more a reflection of our
> > > >>>>>> internal environment than external and that our lives are lived
> > > from
> > > >>>>>> inside out.  Of course, not everyone comes to this realization, and
> > > >>>>>> continue throughout their lives to look for external causes for
> > > their
> > > >>>>>> problems or discomfort. Whatever our philosophy, the quality of our
> > > >>>>>> lives can dramatically change for the better is we look within for
> > > the
> > > >>>>>> answers.  Our mind thinks.  We can live and breathe without
> > > thinking.
> > > >>>>>> Yet thinking is an important aspect of life, and one that directly
> > > >>>>>> effects the quality of our lives.
>
> > > >>>>>> On Jun 23, 12:06 pm, "pol.science kid"<r.freeb...@gmail.com>
> > >  wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I wanted to find out about this Chaz guy you were talking about...
> > > so
> > > >>>>>>> i was going through some really old posts.. but couldnt go really
> > > far
> > > >>>>>>> back.. only till 2007... when was ME created? who started it? When
> > > you
> > > >>>>>>> have a look..there are sooo many topics covered..its so exiting..
> > > >>>>>>> though i thought i saw some homophobic posts... but seriously..
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>> range is so wide.. and there were so many members actively
> > > >>>>>>> engaging ... my own old posts seemed dumb to me.. i guess they
> > > still
> > > >>>>>>> are.. But its remarkable the range of this forum..im gla i joined
> > > it..
> > > >>>>>>> one can learn a lot.... also ..do you guys think..different
> > > climate
> > > >>>>>>> zones affect the nature of people?..i mean more than the fact that
> > > >>>>>>> environment affects culture which affects to some degree human
> > > >>>>>>> nature(or at least superficial responses.).. are people in
> > > temperate
> > > >>>>>>> areas different in their mind than people from tropical sultry
> > > >>>>>>> areas...
>
> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 22, 5:02 pm, rigsy03<rigs...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>> I read Barbara Ward's "The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations" in
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>>> early '60's when my curiousity led me beyond liberal arts- also
> > > >>>>>>>> Carson's "The Silent Spring", and several books on WWII. 60 years
> > > >>>>>>>> later- and where are we?
>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 8:44 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>> My point above, I think, is that what appears very complex may
> > > have
> > > >>>>>>>>> points of simplexity where we can see the moral action.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2:41 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I was attracted in to have a go at new google groups - utterly
> > > >>>>>>>>>> unspeakable.  These moral issues form the core of my new book
> > > (80%
> > > >>>>>>>>>> done).  Underlying the moral maze is the issue of frames of
> > > reference
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - most famously paradigms, though the Greeks knew.  You can
> > > usually
> > > >>>>>>>>>> make several powerful arguments about anything.  You can't
> > > really
> > > >>>>>>>>>> decide between the arguments because the root metaphors are
> > > different
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and incommensurable.  The following were examples, exhausting
> > > if not
> > > >>>>>>>>>> exhaustive:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> PARADIGM (disciplinary matrices)        KUHN 1970; BURRELL&
> > >  MORGAN 1979
> > > >>>>>>>>>> PICTURE THEORY OF MEANING       WITTGENSTEIN1922
> > > >>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE GAMES  WITTGENSTEIN 1958
> > > >>>>>>>>>> MULTIPLE REALITIES      JAMES1911
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ALTERNATE REALITIES     CASTANEDA 1970; 1974
> > > >>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE STRUCTURES     WHORF 1956
> > > >>>>>>>>>> PROBLEMATICS    ALTHUSSER 1969; BACHELARD 1949
> > > >>>>>>>>>> INTERNALLY CONFLICTING WORLD VIEWS      PIRSIG 1976
> > > >>>>>>>>>> WORLD HYPOTHESES        PEPPER 1942; 1966
> > > >>>>>>>>>> DREAM WORLDS (multiple frameworks)      FEYERABEND 1975
> > > >>>>>>>>>> EVALUATING THE RATIONALITIES OF SOCIAL ACTION AND ACTION
> > > SYSTEMS
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (instrumental v life-world rationalities)       HABERMAS 1984
> > > >>>>>>>>>> AN INSURRECTION OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGES IN A WEB OF POWER KNOWLEDGE
> > > >>>>>>>>>> FOUCAULT 1977; 1980
> > > >>>>>>>>>> MODAL LOGICS, RELATIVITIES      LEWIS 1926; 1929; 1946:  MOSER
> > > 1989
> > > >>>>>>>>>> SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY  WHITEHEAD 1969
> > > >>>>>>>>>> METAPHOR        MORGAN 1986
> > > >>>>>>>>>> TWO DIRECTIONAL TEXT AND RETRO-VISION   BURRELL 1997
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> A classic example was held to be Newton's mechanics and
> > > Einstein's
> > > >>>>>>>>>> relativity and quantum theory.  Very dense work by Snell and
> > > Ludvig
> > > >>>>>>>>>> disproves this IMHO.  I take a similar view and believe the
> > > problem is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> we work in the ready-to-hand and don't get down deep enough to
> > > know
> > > >>>>>>>>>> what we are talking about.  English Law does not allow the
> > > cabin boy
> > > >>>>>>>>>> to be eaten to survive when all else is lost - you have to give
> > > him
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the same shake of the dice everyone else gets.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Bankers and others are always telling us they are worth their
> > > massive
> > > >>>>>>>>>> thefts.  There arguments relies on many frames of reference.
> > >  In short
> > > >>>>>>>>>> argument, I merely note they are 'responsible' for profits and
> > > never
> > > >>>>>>>>>> losses.  I believe it would be moral to work out what they have
> > > lost
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (some estimates at $39 trillion in the US) and take it off all
> > > bankers
> > > >>>>>>>>>> since 1970.  Such clawback is in line with performance related
> > > pay
> > > >>>>>>>>>> they claim to believe in.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 12:53 am, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I know I've been plenty tired lately - like Madeline Kahn in
> > > Blazing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Saddles:  http://youtu.be/Uai7M4RpoLU
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 6:35 pm, malcymo<malc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think tired?
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure, certainly disinterested, apathetic and lazy
> > > minded; unless
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one is a fanatic.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It would seem that the
>
> ...
>
> read more »