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

Au contraire I insist nothing of the kind. Labeling music is created
by the industry and, imho, has helped ruin popular music. I mean
actual popular music not the label "pop."

Rock is the child of the blues. R&B learned it's soulfulness at the
knee of Godspel. Spirituals, if you will. My favorite guitar and
singing sound is bluesy. SRV, Billy Gibbons, Eric Clapton, Allman
bros., etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv3RWqFlvJs

No doubt this is the blues.

dj


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do, James... Don will insist that Grateful Dead is rock and he may
> be right, but I find it is more Blues ... in continuity with what
> Louis Armstrong blew. Even Jethro Tull, widely known as prog rock, is
> mostly country in spirit.
>
> On Jun 27, 5:57 am, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not a fan of country/blues music Vam?
>>
>> On 6/26/2012 8:24 AM, Vam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »