Literature News

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-29T02:17:00.001-08:00

It has been my experience that it is extremely difficult to explain nothing to people who know everything. Maybe it is because people understand what is said as they as they want to understand it see their world as they want to see it, this is normal and valid.

If you don't believe me take ten friends with digital cameras decide on a common animal or bird subject walk out and at the same time take a picture.. they may look the same but it picture has it own point of . They can stitched together to see a 3 D view of the subject. which can be of great interest.

Spirituality can be of much greater beauty when viewed using this 3 D effect.. Like taking an off the wall statement like "Before the beginning is the Entirety with complete harmony and balance. From within the Entirety came the beginning." Now how can the idea be applied to your personal beliefs.

As for an old dog sap-pen on a favorite bone.. I can relate and understand.

Allan

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:

Great responses... Molly, of course, is the one at ease; and Allan,
forever fresh, means so much without that verbal finesse I now
associate more with admen than people with culture.

RP : " Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend,

nowadays ,to try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself
were talking of infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or
God is the same thing to me."

Is God relevant to the dog sucking on the bone ? I am not sure if he
is even aware of God, but it is plain that nobody in the entire
universe is more pleased, fed and satisfied, than the dog. And, like
it, our senses need their respective objects to home-in, RP, not God.
It's a matter between the world and us, subject to rules and laws,
norm and order.

When I spoke of bliss infinite, I also spoke of zero identity, silence
and love. And, of a process to take our being between the world and
ourself from senses <+ vanity> to love <- vanity>, silence <-
thought>, zero < - need it be said ? > and what remains < yes, bliss
infinite >.

So, when people with vanity speak of God, I easily choose to be
counted among the atheists. It's impossible to find someone without
vanity, ordinarily, much less hear him speak... of God. I am among the
most fortunate to have met one and have heard him speak, when it was
plain that he was referring to the all-inclusive truth supreme.

Neil's grouse about over-individualised notion of the inner is
understandable. I mean, only an overly vain person would communicate
notions of the "inner" to the dog perched on his senses ! The dog is
equally an individual and he ' knows ' all other individuals are no
different. He would be right in wondering what the whole babble and
brouhaha was all about.

Almost all voluntary attempts at introspection are short-lived and
prove more in the manner of fad or play, which make no difference to
the individual's spiritual position or moral perspective, in terms of
shift or committment. And forced attempts, imposed by others, are
worse.

There is something fateful or innate at work when the introspection
abides for long, deepens with increasing withdrawal from material
values, without loss of honesty or the courage to live by one's
accepted truths.

On Jan 29, 8:38 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect we have an over-individualised notion of the "inner". The
> standard citation for this, not without irony Vam, was a bloke called
> Wrong! My guess is we miss something about the voluntary nature of
> introspection and what keeps us honest in its retreat. There are
> points even in chemistry where on can only rely on intuition as to
> what is going on - typically in some crystal behaviour, what a 'third
> atom' may do in reaction, stuff like space being too cold for most
> chemical reactions (yet they happen) and in reactions going both ways
> at once. I guess Allan that in the case of some tortured souls we do
> ascribe outer responsibility for the condition. Very sage otherwise
> of course.
>
> On Jan 28, 9:13 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No one is responsible for your inner being except you, it is a path of our
> > own choosing.
>
> > I can share my experiences and insights, as I hope others share theirs and
> > I have the wisdom to examine theses insights and apply what is relevant to
> > each of us.
>
> > We are each responsible for our own lives and souls. Choose wisely.
> > Allan
>
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who
> > > can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the
> > > question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to
> > > professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for
> > > ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to
> > > the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing
> > > from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma.
>
> > > This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep
> > > sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things
> > > that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like
> > > an immune system against the factors that contribute to radicalisation
> > > and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for
> > > the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require
> > > transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to be
> > > positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will
> > > pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy
> > > problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene
> > > to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position
> > > doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still
> > > pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where
> > > aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something serves
> > > identifies where it fits?
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > > thing to me.
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Seems good to me, RP...
> > > >> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > >> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > >> It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > >> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > >> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > >>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > >>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > >>> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > >>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > >>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > >>> > a challenge?"
>
> > > >>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > >>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > >>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > >>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > >>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > >>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > >>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > >>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > >>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > >>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > >>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to
> > > put
> > > >>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > >>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > >>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > >>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > >>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > >>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > >>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > >>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come
> > > to
> > > >>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > >>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > >>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > >>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > >>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > >>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > >>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > >>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > >>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > >>> > what does not.
>
> > > >>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also
> > > there
> > > >>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > >>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > >>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > >>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > >>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > >>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > >>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > >>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a
> > > build
> > > >>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > >>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all
> > > a
> > > >>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > >>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > >>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > >>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > >>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because
> > > it
> > > >>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore
> > > over
> > > >>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > >>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > >>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and
> > > Silence,
> > > >>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > >>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > >>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > >>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > >>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > >>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > >>> > public and personal lives.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Alterações na Política de Privacidade e nos Termos de Serviço do Google

2012-01-28T23:04:00.001-08:00

		Esta mensagens não está sendo exibida corretamente? Abra-a em seu navegador.
Caro usuário do Google, Estamos substituindo mais de 60 políticas de privacidade diferentes do Google por uma política mais concisa e fácil de ler. A nova política abrange vários produtos e recursos, refletindo nosso objetivo de criar uma experiência extremamente simples e intuitiva em todos os produtos do Google. Isto é importante. Assim, dedique alguns minutos para ler as versões atualizadas da nossa Política de Privacidade e dos nossos Termos de Serviço em http://www.google.com/policies. Estas mudanças entrarão em vigor no dia 1º de março de 2012.
Uma política, uma experiência no Google

Fácil de trabalhar em vários produtos Nossa nova política reflete nosso desejo de criar uma experiência de produto simples, que ofereça o que você precisar, quando você quiser. Seja ao ler um e-mail que o faça lembrar de marcar um encontro familiar ou encontrar um vídeo favorito que você queira compartilhar, queremos que você possa utilizar com facilidade o Gmail, o Google Agenda, a ferramenta de pesquisa, o YouTube ou o que mais você quiser.	Sob medida para você Se você fizer login no Google, podemos sugerir consultas de pesquisa ou adequar os resultados da pesquisa de acordo com os interesses que você expressou no Google+, Gmail e YouTube. Assim, poderemos compreender melhor qual versão do Pink ou Jaguar você está pesquisando e oferecer esses resultados com mais rapidez.	Compartilhar e colaborar é fácil Ao postar ou criar um documento on-line, é provável que você queira que outras pessoas o vejam e contribuam. Ao lembrar as informações de contato das pessoas com quem você deseja compartilhar, facilitamos seu compartilhamento em qualquer produto ou serviço do Google com o mínimo de cliques e erros.

A proteção de sua privacidade não mudou. Nosso objetivo é fornecer a você o máximo de transparência e de escolha possível, por meio de produtos como Google Dashboard e Gerenciador de preferências de anúncios entre outras ferramentas. Nossos princípios de privacidade permanecem os mesmos. Ainda, nunca venderemos nem compartilharemos suas informações profissionais sem sua permissão (a não ser em raras circunstâncias, como solicitações legais legítimas).	Alguma dúvida? Temos a resposta. Visite nossas Perguntas frequentes em http://www.google.com/policies/faq para saber mais sobre estas mudanças. (Imaginamos que nossos usuários podem ter uma pergunta ou vinte e duas.)

Aviso de alteração A nova Política de Privacidade e os novos Termos de Serviço do entrarão em vigor em 1º de março de 2012. Se optar por continuar usando o Google assim que a alteração ocorrer, você fará isso de acordo com a nova Política de Privacidade e os Termos de Serviço. Não responda a este e-mail. Respostas enviadas para este endereço não serão respondidas. Nunca insira sua senha após abrir um link que aponte para um site não confiável. Em vez disso, acesse diretamente o site, como mail.google.com ou www.google.com/accounts. O Google nunca mandará um e-mail pedindo sua senha ou outra informação confidencial.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-28T21:53:00.001-08:00

Great responses... Molly, of course, is the one at ease; and Allan,
forever fresh, means so much without that verbal finesse I now
associate more with admen than people with culture.

RP : " Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend,
nowadays ,to try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself
were talking of infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or
God is the same thing to me."

Is God relevant to the dog sucking on the bone ? I am not sure if he
is even aware of God, but it is plain that nobody in the entire
universe is more pleased, fed and satisfied, than the dog. And, like
it, our senses need their respective objects to home-in, RP, not God.
It's a matter between the world and us, subject to rules and laws,
norm and order.

When I spoke of bliss infinite, I also spoke of zero identity, silence
and love. And, of a process to take our being between the world and
ourself from senses <+ vanity> to love <- vanity>, silence <-
thought>, zero < - need it be said ? > and what remains < yes, bliss
infinite >.

So, when people with vanity speak of God, I easily choose to be
counted among the atheists. It's impossible to find someone without
vanity, ordinarily, much less hear him speak... of God. I am among the
most fortunate to have met one and have heard him speak, when it was
plain that he was referring to the all-inclusive truth supreme.

Neil's grouse about over-individualised notion of the inner is
understandable. I mean, only an overly vain person would communicate
notions of the "inner" to the dog perched on his senses ! The dog is
equally an individual and he ' knows ' all other individuals are no
different. He would be right in wondering what the whole babble and
brouhaha was all about.

Almost all voluntary attempts at introspection are short-lived and
prove more in the manner of fad or play, which make no difference to
the individual's spiritual position or moral perspective, in terms of
shift or committment. And forced attempts, imposed by others, are
worse.

There is something fateful or innate at work when the introspection
abides for long, deepens with increasing withdrawal from material
values, without loss of honesty or the courage to live by one's
accepted truths.

On Jan 29, 8:38 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect we have an over-individualised notion of the "inner". The
> standard citation for this, not without irony Vam, was a bloke called
> Wrong! My guess is we miss something about the voluntary nature of
> introspection and what keeps us honest in its retreat. There are
> points even in chemistry where on can only rely on intuition as to
> what is going on - typically in some crystal behaviour, what a 'third
> atom' may do in reaction, stuff like space being too cold for most
> chemical reactions (yet they happen) and in reactions going both ways
> at once. I guess Allan that in the case of some tortured souls we do
> ascribe outer responsibility for the condition. Very sage otherwise
> of course.
>
> On Jan 28, 9:13 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No one is responsible for your inner being except you, it is a path of our
> > own choosing.
>
> > I can share my experiences and insights, as I hope others share theirs and
> > I have the wisdom to examine theses insights and apply what is relevant to
> > each of us.
>
> > We are each responsible for our own lives and souls. Choose wisely.
> > Allan
>
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who
> > > can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the
> > > question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to
> > > professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for
> > > ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to
> > > the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing
> > > from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma.
>
> > > This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep
> > > sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things
> > > that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like
> > > an immune system against the factors that contribute to radicalisation
> > > and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for
> > > the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require
> > > transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to be
> > > positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will
> > > pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy
> > > problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene
> > > to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position
> > > doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still
> > > pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where
> > > aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something serves
> > > identifies where it fits?
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > > thing to me.
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Seems good to me, RP...
> > > >> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > >> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > >> It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > >> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > >> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > >>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > >>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > >>> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > >>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > >>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > >>> > a challenge?"
>
> > > >>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > >>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > >>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > >>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > >>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > >>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > >>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > >>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > >>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > >>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > >>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to
> > > put
> > > >>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > >>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > >>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > >>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > >>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > >>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > >>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > >>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come
> > > to
> > > >>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > >>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > >>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > >>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > >>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > >>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > >>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > >>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > >>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > >>> > what does not.
>
> > > >>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also
> > > there
> > > >>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > >>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > >>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > >>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > >>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > >>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > >>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > >>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a
> > > build
> > > >>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > >>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all
> > > a
> > > >>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > >>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > >>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > >>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > >>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because
> > > it
> > > >>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore
> > > over
> > > >>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > >>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > >>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and
> > > Silence,
> > > >>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > >>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > >>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > >>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > >>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > >>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > >>> > public and personal lives.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-28T19:38:00.001-08:00

I suspect we have an over-individualised notion of the "inner". The
standard citation for this, not without irony Vam, was a bloke called
Wrong! My guess is we miss something about the voluntary nature of
introspection and what keeps us honest in its retreat. There are
points even in chemistry where on can only rely on intuition as to
what is going on - typically in some crystal behaviour, what a 'third
atom' may do in reaction, stuff like space being too cold for most
chemical reactions (yet they happen) and in reactions going both ways
at once. I guess Allan that in the case of some tortured souls we do
ascribe outer responsibility for the condition. Very sage otherwise
of course.

On Jan 28, 9:13 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No one is responsible for your inner being except you, it is a path of our
> own choosing.
>
> I can share my experiences and insights, as I hope others share theirs and
> I have the wisdom to examine theses insights and apply what is relevant to
> each of us.
>
> We are each responsible for our own lives and souls. Choose wisely.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who
> > can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the
> > question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to
> > professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for
> > ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to
> > the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing
> > from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma.
>
> > This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep
> > sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things
> > that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like
> > an immune system against the factors that contribute to radicalisation
> > and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for
> > the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require
> > transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to be
> > positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will
> > pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy
> > problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene
> > to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position
> > doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still
> > pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where
> > aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something serves
> > identifies where it fits?
>
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > thing to me.
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Seems good to me, RP...
> > >> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > >> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > >> It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > >> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > >> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > >>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > >>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > >>> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > >>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > >>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > >>> > a challenge?"
>
> > >>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > >>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > >>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > >>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > >>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > >>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > >>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > >>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > >>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > >>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > >>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to
> > put
> > >>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > >>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > >>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > >>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > >>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > >>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > >>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > >>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come
> > to
> > >>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > >>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > >>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > >>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > >>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > >>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > >>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > >>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > >>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > >>> > what does not.
>
> > >>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also
> > there
> > >>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > >>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > >>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > >>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > >>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > >>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > >>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > >>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a
> > build
> > >>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > >>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all
> > a
> > >>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > >>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > >>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > >>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > >>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because
> > it
> > >>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore
> > over
> > >>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > >>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > >>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and
> > Silence,
> > >>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > >>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > >>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > >>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > >>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > >>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > >>> > public and personal lives.
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-28T13:13:00.001-08:00

No one is responsible for your inner being except you, it is a path of our own choosing.

I can share my experiences and insights, as I hope others share theirs and I have the wisdom to examine theses insights and apply what is relevant to each of us.

We are each responsible for our own lives and souls. Choose wisely.

Allan

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:

And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who
can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the
question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to
professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for
ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to
the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing
from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma.

This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep
sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things
that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like
an immune system against the factors that contribute to radicalisation
and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for
the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require
transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to be
positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will
pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy
problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene
to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position
doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still
pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where
aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something serves
identifies where it fits?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> thing to me.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seems good to me, RP...
>> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>>
>> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
>> It is the ethics code that is for others,
>> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>>
>> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
>>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
>>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
>>> and humanity as a whole.
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
>>> > a challenge?"
>>>
>>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
>>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
>>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>>>
>>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
>>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
>>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
>>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
>>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
>>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>>>
>>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
>>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
>>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
>>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
>>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
>>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
>>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>>>
>>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
>>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
>>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
>>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
>>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
>>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>>>
>>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
>>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
>>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
>>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
>>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
>>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
>>> > what does not.
>>>
>>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
>>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
>>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
>>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
>>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
>>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
>>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
>>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>>>
>>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
>>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
>>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
>>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
>>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
>>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
>>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
>>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
>>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
>>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
>>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
>>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
>>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>>>
>>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
>>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
>>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
>>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
>>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
>>> > public and personal lives.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-28T12:09:00.001-08:00

And who can be trusted to judge ultimate teleological objectives, who
can be trusted to command in God's name? This brings us to the
question of power, whether we should entrust our daily matters to
professors of divine inspiration instead of learning to judge for
ourselves. Then it brings into question what value is contributed to
the process of governance, guiding morality is quite another thing
from force of submission and compliance to theocratic dogma.

This isn't unique to religion or cosmology and spans into deep
sociological stressors. But what I am thinking about is the things
that can be built into society and culture to make it resilient, like
an immune system against the factors that contribute to radicalisation
and behaving in general like a bunch of yahoos. These things seem for
the most part secular knowledge, the reasoning doesn't require
transcendent reference to say, "hey starving people aren't going to be
positioned for making the best long term decisions", neither will
pascal's wager tell us how to build solutions to climatic and energy
problems or a politician's disbelief in a pernicious deity intervene
to solve those problems. Vam's idea that starting at a God-position
doesn't help the situation holds weight with me, but I am still
pondering a spectrum. Perhaps it is a categorical problem where
aspects are tools, akin to schools, and what function something serves
identifies where it fits?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> thing to me.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seems good to me, RP...
>> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>>
>> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
>> It is the ethics code that is for others,
>> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>>
>> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
>>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
>>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
>>> and humanity as a whole.
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
>>> > a challenge?"
>>>
>>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
>>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
>>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>>>
>>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
>>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
>>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
>>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
>>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
>>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>>>
>>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
>>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
>>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
>>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
>>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
>>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
>>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>>>
>>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
>>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
>>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
>>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
>>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
>>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>>>
>>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
>>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
>>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
>>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
>>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
>>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
>>> > what does not.
>>>
>>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
>>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
>>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
>>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
>>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
>>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
>>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
>>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>>>
>>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
>>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
>>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
>>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
>>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
>>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
>>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
>>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
>>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
>>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
>>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
>>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
>>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>>>
>>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
>>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
>>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
>>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
>>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
>>> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-28T07:19:00.001-08:00

Hi Mol&Rigs, listening to you two I've been asking myself why none of
you mentions Jung and his description of the collective unconscious. I
haven't read the Red Book yet, but maybe of of you has and could tell
me why this is irrelevant to what you are discussing.

On Jan 27, 2:35 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The paramount paradox.
>
> On Jan 27, 8:21 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I
> > was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series
> > aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could
> > keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so
> > much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled
> > ideas! :-) Oh, dear!
>
> > However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider
> > there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet
> > that is our struggle to bridge- if possible.
>
> > On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
> > > the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
> > > common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
> > > isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
> > > phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
> > > that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
> > > looking within.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> > > > already exists.
>
> > > > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> > > > that it has.
>
> > > > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> > > > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> > > > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> > > > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> > > > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> > > > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> > > > picks and chooses.
>
> > > > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > > > Earth.
>
> > > > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > > > its support.
>
> > > > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > > > rule).
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > > > what does not.
>
> > > > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Truth & I

2012-01-28T03:52:00.000-08:00

No headache here rigsy. England's batsmen have a few against Pakistan
spinners though. The cycle I see us as in is broadly one of a
potential escape from ignorance and superstition and the fear of
this. We are held in this almost as England's batters are in the
spell of Pakistan spin.

On Jan 28, 5:10 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though I know what you are saying and your thoughts are very familiar
> they are often out of my grasp. I decided to write my thoughts or I'd
> be stuck saying nothing when I have too many thoughts and result in no
> words, like staring into the dark recesses of the mind will coax some
> convergence of arcane geometries. I find that the rhythm of learning
> is stochastic but over time undulations emerge. Echolocation without
> the echo is how my sight seems to work. It seems to be a tough spot
> kinda in between or outside that I'm in. You are right about seeing
> things for yourself, holding whatever truth, there is a profound
> difference in what we assume things to mean. I mean that simply, as
> things have become evident to me over time from many perspectives. I
> am grateful to understand most of what you've said, even though a
> little unsure of what Zero and Bliss Infinite mean.
>
> In humor, I think if there are multiple lives this one's a lesson in
> humility. In my terms I would call your ideas on Home and Vanity
> 'living truth' of great value. We 'begin again'?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Truth & I

2012-01-27T21:10:00.001-08:00

Though I know what you are saying and your thoughts are very familiar
they are often out of my grasp. I decided to write my thoughts or I'd
be stuck saying nothing when I have too many thoughts and result in no
words, like staring into the dark recesses of the mind will coax some
convergence of arcane geometries. I find that the rhythm of learning
is stochastic but over time undulations emerge. Echolocation without
the echo is how my sight seems to work. It seems to be a tough spot
kinda in between or outside that I'm in. You are right about seeing
things for yourself, holding whatever truth, there is a profound
difference in what we assume things to mean. I mean that simply, as
things have become evident to me over time from many perspectives. I
am grateful to understand most of what you've said, even though a
little unsure of what Zero and Bliss Infinite mean.

In humor, I think if there are multiple lives this one's a lesson in
humility. In my terms I would call your ideas on Home and Vanity
'living truth' of great value. We 'begin again'?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> a challenge?"
>
> James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> us. Truth is our Home.
>
> This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> what does not.
>
> That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> public and personal lives.
>
>
>

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T06:20:00.001-08:00

Rigs, I may not have put it better !

On Jan 27, 6:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In
> fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift
> through his.
>
> Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant
> consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to
> mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic.
> The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe.
>
> The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its
> "peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there
> with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way?
>
> We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and
> let the circles spread- if possible.
>
> On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
> > scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.
>
> > There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
> > you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?
>
> > Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
> > are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
> > cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
> > balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
> > billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
> > and wicked.
>
> > Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
> > appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
> > the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
> > without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !
>
> > On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> > > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> > > see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > > thing to me.
>
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > >> > what does not.
>
> > > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:41:00.001-08:00

I have no intention of giving Neil a headache- what a horrid image! In
fact, Neil's comments often dance through my thoughts and hope I drift
through his.

Iniquity is different form inequality. The American model of rampant
consumerism is impossible given near future population figures not to
mention cultural systems which are quite apparent but another topic.
The thought has even been ventured at Davos, I believe.

The USA has been "on a roll"- similar to the British Empire at its
"peak"- if one wants to sugar coat. Do you think we will stay there
with long-distance warfare/sanctions to get our way?

We change our own world first- like a pebble tossed in a calm pool and
let the circles spread- if possible.

On Jan 27, 3:55 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
> scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.
>
> There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
> you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?
>
> Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
> are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
> cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
> balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
> billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
> and wicked.
>
> Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
> appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
> the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
> without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !
>
> On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> > to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> > see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > > thing to me.
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > >> > what does not.
>
> > > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > >> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:35:00.000-08:00

The paramount paradox.

On Jan 27, 8:21 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I
> was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series
> aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could
> keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so
> much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled
> ideas! :-) Oh, dear!
>
> However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider
> there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet
> that is our struggle to bridge- if possible.
>
> On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
> > the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
> > common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
> > isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
> > phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
> > that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
> > looking within.
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> > > already exists.
>
> > > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> > > that it has.
>
> > > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> > > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> > > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> > > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> > > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> > > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> > > picks and chooses.
>
> > > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > > Earth.
>
> > > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > > its support.
>
> > > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > > rule).
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > > what does not.
>
> > > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T05:21:00.001-08:00

Yes- I've read a lot of Campbell and admire his efforts. In fact, I
was going to put the Oriental Mythology of his Masks of God series
aside to reread- Indian, Chinese and Japanese chapters. I wish I could
keep certain studies on top of my thinking but maybe I have read so
much there is a chute to forgetfulness or a pit of scrambled
ideas! :-) Oh, dear!

However, back to your comment about looking back/within. I consider
there is impossible split between the spiritual and material and yet
that is our struggle to bridge- if possible.

On Jan 27, 6:32 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
> the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
> common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
> isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
> phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
> that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
> looking within.
>
> On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> > already exists.
>
> > Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> > that it has.
>
> > Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> > native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> > carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> > Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> > there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> > for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> > picks and chooses.
>
> > We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > Earth.
>
> > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > its support.
>
> > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > rule).
>
> > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > what does not.
>
> > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T04:34:00.001-08:00

The multitude is a reflection, and, if your eyes and ears are open, a
dialogue with, of the infinite mystery within.

On Jan 26, 11:57 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> and humanity as a whole.
>
> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T04:32:00.001-08:00

Do myths disappear? Joseph Campbell mapped common human myth around
the word and through time to discover a mechanism something close to
common memory - the expression of the same archetypes in real time,
isolated incidents around the globe and at the same time. This
phenomena has occurred throughout human history. This may tell us
that it is not the looking back that is important, but as Vam says,
looking within.

On Jan 26, 5:54 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
> already exists.
>
> Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
> that it has.
>
> Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
> native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
> carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.
>
> Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
> there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
> for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
> picks and chooses.
>
> We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.
>
> On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > Earth.
>
> > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > its support.
>
> > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > rule).
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > a challenge?"
>
> > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > what does not.
>
> > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-27T01:55:00.000-08:00

Neil... you give me the impression that Rigs' heels are hard on your
scalp, so you can't ever disagree with her ! Seems pragmatic to me.

There is NO ONE here with power who is EVER EVER going to share with
you. So, what kind of a dream are you banking upon ?

Iniquity refers to : gross immorality, injustice or wickedness. These
are each acts committed of individual drives. They may aggravate with
cartelisation and could be suppressed with policing or checks and
balances, but power sharing is not a solution for drives residing in 7
billion people. Yes, even people without power can be immoral, unjust
and wicked.

Very truly, I am inclined to embrace the reality that nothing
appreciable can be done about the world, in terms of changing it for
the better. But, equally, that no individual can ever improve one bit
without trying to live and do all in its power to change the world !

On Jan 27, 1:59 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
> to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
> see no signs of this trap being sprung.
>
> On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> > try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> > infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> > thing to me.
>
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Seems good to me, RP...
> > > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> > >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> > >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> > >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> > >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > >> > a challenge?"
>
> > >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > >> > what does not.
>
> > >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > >> > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-26T14:31:00.001-08:00

I read '100 Things To Do To Prevent Altzheimers' yesterday and have
forgotten them all James. Maybe the last line read 'forget all this
tosh'! God/nature hardly matters to me either.
One doesn't really want to dismiss any argument, yet I sense we have
somehow to stop ceding all the ground to the madness of our power
elites and their appeal to the vapid. It's impossible to imagine
argument shifting this unless we can apply public scrutiny to the
argument in new ways. For me this entails some analogue of science
properly understood. We are stuck in some kind of phlogiston theory
and ecocide as surely as Easter Islanders.

On Jan 23, 10:10 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, ignore the top thoughts, my editing got mixed up. I meant to
> submit the direct responses inline. o.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I do agree
>
> > Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
> > I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
> > books or the words I speak.
>
> > I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
> > in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
> > would be to make the same error as to call it one.
>
> > To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
> > give up power for
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
> > I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
> > we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
> > our identity (characteristically).
>
> >> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
> > They are all hypothetical gods to me.
>
> >> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
> >> wives... " !
> > I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
> > with the reference.
>
> >> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
> >> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
> > Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
> > explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
> > in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
> > a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
> > like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
> > with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
> > awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
> > care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
> > however he likes. And for round 2?
>
> >> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> >>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> >>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> >>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> >>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> >>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> >>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> >>> > preoccupies you.
>
> >>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> >>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> >>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> >>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-26T13:47:00.001-08:00

The problem with competing is cheating bastards Don. Even a level
playing field is a handicap to those of us who play every week on the
side of a wind-blown mud heap on the side of a hill. I think the sods
who exported our manufacturing are traitors and about as moral as
someone selling whiskey and guns to the Indians. The economics touted
by our politicians reminds me of talking to mad people before you
realise they are out of it.

On Jan 24, 1:55 am, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Me neither Kenny, me neither. Thing about jobs is they don't exist to keep
> us all making money. They exist to provide a service or build a product. In
> the case of the Iphone China gets the jobs of making the product. As a
> direct result of our economic policies it's simply impossible for the U.S.
> to manufacture these nifty devices here in the States. Innovation and
> progress would stall if the focus changed from providing services to
> keeping alive outdated jobs. We need a regulation revolution in this
> country to compete. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
>
> dj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
> > technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
> > jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
> > doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething
>
> > On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> > > bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> > > problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> > > hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> > > On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > > > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > > > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > > > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > > > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > > > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > > > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > > > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-26T13:01:00.001-08:00

Many of today's derivative scams are land-grabs at bottom rigs.

On Jan 25, 7:40 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's an old problem- like farming and banking don't mix either. Try
> watching "Sweet Land" for an example- a movie. America has always
> attracted schemers because of its loose social system- bounders could
> re-invent themselves with no class structure to counter.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> > On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > > on the present economic crisis.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > > versa.
>
> > > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > > dj
>
> > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > > >> ..
>
> > > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > > >> > world.
>
> > > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
>
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T12:59:00.001-08:00

I can't disagree with rigsy. For all my wish for power to be shared
to prevent iniquity I know most people don't reason at all well. I
see no signs of this trap being sprung.

On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
> try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
> infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
> thing to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seems good to me, RP...
> > except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> > The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> > It is the ethics code that is for others,
> > but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> >> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> >> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> >> and humanity as a whole.
>
> >> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> >> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> >> > a challenge?"
>
> >> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> >> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> >> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> >> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> >> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> >> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> >> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> >> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> >> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> >> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> >> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> >> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> >> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> >> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> >> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> >> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> >> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> >> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> >> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> >> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> >> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> >> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> >> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> >> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> >> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> >> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> >> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> >> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> >> > what does not.
>
> >> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> >> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> >> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> >> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> >> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> >> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> >> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> >> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> >> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> >> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> >> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> >> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> >> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> >> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> >> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> >> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> >> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> >> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> >> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> >> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> >> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> >> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> >> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> >> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> >> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> >> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> >> > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T09:24:00.000-08:00

Vam , God is not irrelevant as it is the general trend, nowadays ,to
try to realize God , Self if you like. You yourself were talking of
infinite bliss , whether it is realization of Self or God is the same
thing to me.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems good to me, RP...
> except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.
>
> The moral code is the core but for ourself.
> It is the ethics code that is for others,
> but it needs the moral code for its foundation.
>
> On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
>> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
>> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
>> and humanity as a whole.
>>
>> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
>> > a challenge?"
>>
>> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
>> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
>> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>>
>> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
>> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
>> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
>> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
>> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
>> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>>
>> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
>> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
>> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
>> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
>> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
>> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
>> > us. Truth is our Home.
>>
>> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
>> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
>> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
>> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
>> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
>> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>>
>> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
>> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
>> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
>> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
>> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
>> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
>> > what does not.
>>
>> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
>> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
>> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
>> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
>> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
>> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
>> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
>> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>>
>> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
>> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
>> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
>> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
>> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
>> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
>> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
>> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
>> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
>> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
>> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
>> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
>> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>>
>> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
>> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
>> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
>> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
>> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
>> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T09:06:00.001-08:00

Seems good to me, RP...
except that this matter about God might be irrelevant.

The moral code is the core but for ourself.
It is the ethics code that is for others,
but it needs the moral code for its foundation.

On Jan 26, 9:57 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
> has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
> multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
> and humanity as a whole.
>
> On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T08:57:00.001-08:00

It is not the God within which we have to search - He is there O.K. ,
has always been and will always be. We have to look outside at the
multitude , and evolve a moral code for the benefit of individuals
and humanity as a whole.

On Jan 25, 8:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> a challenge?"
>
> James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> us. Truth is our Home.
>
> This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> what does not.
>
> That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T02:54:00.001-08:00

What is original? I might argue that one is simply explicating what
already exists.

Each generation assumes it has a distinct character- or needs to prove
that it has.

Was thinking the reason myths disappear is because they were oral and
native languages are usually suppressed by the conquerors. One also
carries family myths- which interfere with deep communication.

Yes- there are terrible inequities- all the more scandalous because
there really is plenty to go around so the root is greed and distain
for others. Governments only pretend to care for all its citizens- it
picks and chooses.

We passed the Gilded Age- I would call this the Tinsel Age.

On Jan 25, 9:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-26T00:26:00.001-08:00

Neil, I feel otherwise and am myself surprised at the evidence...
The Journal entry I made in " Verum Intus, Fulci Vacuus " on
wordpress
has been viewed @ 12 per hour over the last 48 hours !

Gabby, I can only suggest that you step out of your bubble !
You wouldn't have to lock horns with me to find the voices of pain
and misery the world has heaped on people everywhere.

On Jan 26, 4:40 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The zeitgeist graph is already out there (http://www.gravity.com/), so
> that problem has been solved, Vam. What else do you have to criticize about
> the world?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...
>
> > This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
> > Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...
>
> > Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.
>
> > The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
> > with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
> > fine !
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > > Earth.
>
> > > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > > its support.
>
> > > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > > rule).
>
> > > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > > a challenge?"
>
> > > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > > what does not.
>
> > > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > > public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T15:40:00.001-08:00

The zeitgeist graph is already out there ( http://www.gravity.com/ ), so that problem has been solved, Vam. What else do you have to criticize about the world?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...

This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...

Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.

The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
fine !

On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T15:30:00.001-08:00

it's lost in translation on me old friend.

On Jan 25, 4:22 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...
>
> This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
> Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...
>
> Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.
>
> The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
> with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
> fine !
>
> On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> > of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> > am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> > citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> > started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> > read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> > discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> > before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> > giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> > The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> > Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> > decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> > better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> > to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> > class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> > What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> > culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> > understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> > believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> > We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> > stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> > Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> > allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> > academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> > Earth.
>
> > What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> > pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> > usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> > exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> > is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> > through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> > margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> > its support.
>
> > Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> > defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> > consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> > rule).
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > > a challenge?"
>
> > > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > > what does not.
>
> > > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T08:22:00.000-08:00

Thanks, Neil ! Perhaps, if you you were to read the piece again...

This is not a thread where one may enter because one feels good.
Watch The Devil's Advocate, especially the end. And think...

Much is already out there, regardless of what we might feel.

The point is to have something to say, for oneself, that coincides
with the collective. If it must not, then the banksters should be
fine !

On Jan 25, 8:45 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
> of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
> am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
> citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
> started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
> read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
> discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
> before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
> giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
> The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
> Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
> decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
> better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
> to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
> class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.
>
> What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
> culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
> understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
> believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
> We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
> stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
> Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
> allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
> academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
> Earth.
>
> What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
> pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
> usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
> exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
> is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
> through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
> margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
> its support.
>
> Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
> defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
> consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
> rule).
>
> On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> > Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> > a challenge?"
>
> > James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> > what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> > a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> > And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> > runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> > compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> > "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> > references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> > ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> > The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> > out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> > across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> > everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> > that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> > and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> > us. Truth is our Home.
>
> > This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> > for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> > apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> > believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> > their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> > too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> > The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> > community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> > with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> > preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> > money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> > on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> > what does not.
>
> > That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> > in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> > subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> > For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> > deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> > our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> > everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> > agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> > What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> > up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> > possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> > matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> > search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> > our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> > which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> > which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> > limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> > all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> > we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> > journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> > and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> > These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> > Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> > It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> > the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> > opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> > public and personal lives.

Mind's Eye Re: Truth & I

2012-01-25T07:45:00.000-08:00

I would say, Vam, that you often jump in the water with an 'entourage'
of assumptive baggage. I probably dislike citation more than you and
am not the first. Veblen would be a good start (to use some rough
citation). These days, you can at least Google the name. When I
started it meant a trip to the library. Anyone who has the chance to
read a lot of what's available (this is still remarkably few) should
discover most of what they thought their own ideas have been done
before. The idea is no doubt to try to 'stand on the shoulders of
giants' (itself a wisecrack by Newton on Hooke's dwarfish stature).
The 'giants' always turn out flawed. Moses is a war criminal in
Numbers 31, the Greeks, for all their argument, never produced a
decent one against slavery (the lunatic-religious John Brown being
better). Many, because they don't read enough, attribute 'relativity'
to Einstein, but it has a longer and wider history. The chattering
class reinvents the square wheel all over the place.

What if the best of our system is fascist and we have grown in such
culture, or a caste system? By what processes do we get an
understanding for change from such? Western propaganda would have us
believe pouring resources into the gullets of the rich is sensible.
We all live in the gutter. Only some of us lift our eyes to the
stars. If only I was smart enough to have been first to that! (Oscar
Wilde) A common jibe by academics is that common sense is that which
allows us to believe the world is flat - yet flat-earth was an
academic construction - one can actually see the curvature of the
Earth.

What we need is reliable collective memory. Given our capacity to
pervert, citation is usually used in a highly selective manner,
usually along with a core academic (religious etc.) narrative of
exclusion of competing argument. Control of what is reliable memory
is, of course, just what those in power want to maintain - perhaps
through principles of Home and Vanity. I will always prefer the
margins to this, remembering that to oppose tyranny can pervert into
its support.

Deconstruction is only a beginning. I believe its spirit concerns a
defeat of madness that includes rationalist fantasy and animal
consensus (which I sense as grasping, selfish individualism easy to
rule).

On Jan 25, 3:26 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
> Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
> a challenge?"
>
> James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
> what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
> a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.
>
> And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
> runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
> compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
> "rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
> references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
> ours, for us to say, we should STFU !
>
> The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
> out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
> across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
> everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
> that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
> and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
> us. Truth is our Home.
>
> This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
> for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
> apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
> believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
> their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
> too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.
>
> The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
> community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
> with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
> preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
> money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
> on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
> what does not.
>
> That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
> in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
> subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
> For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
> deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
> our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
> everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
> agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.
>
> What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
> up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
> possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
> matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
> search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
> our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
> which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
> which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
> limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
> all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
> we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
> journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
> and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.
>
> These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
> Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
> It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
> the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
> opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
> public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-25T04:48:00.000-08:00

the favorite of thr politicians is stick in my pocket..

Allan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:32 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:

The scheme is how politicians can continue to get elected by
rephrasing the whatever tune to their constituents. There are a lot of
ways to say "let's spread the money around" (Baracky Malarkey).

On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > on the present economic crisis.
> > Allan
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > versa.
>
> > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > dj
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > >> ..
>
> > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > >> > world.
>
> > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>

> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T23:40:00.001-08:00

It's an old problem- like farming and banking don't mix either. Try
watching "Sweet Land" for an example- a movie. America has always
attracted schemers because of its loose social system- bounders could
re-invent themselves with no class structure to counter.

On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
>
> On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> > because it is very profitable to them.
>
> > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> > on the present economic crisis.
> > Allan
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > > versa.
>
> > > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > > just the public's trust.
>
> > > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > > dj
>
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> > >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> > >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> > >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> > >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> > >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> > >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> > >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> > >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> > >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> > >> ..
>
> > >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> > >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> > >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> > >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> > >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> > >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> > >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> > >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> > >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> > >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> > >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> > >> > world.
>
> > >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> > >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> > >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> > >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> > >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> > >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> > >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> > >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> > >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> > >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> > >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> > >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> > >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> > >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> > >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> > >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> > >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> > >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T23:32:00.001-08:00

The scheme is how politicians can continue to get elected by
rephrasing the whatever tune to their constituents. There are a lot of
ways to say "let's spread the money around" (Baracky Malarkey).

NARRACIONES Y CUENTOS BREVES

2012-01-24T23:31:00.001-08:00

NARRACIONES Y CUENTOS BREVES

MISTERIO

Posted: 24 Jan 2012 08:00 PM PST

Estaba tan borracho que nunca supo que ocurrió con esa última botella dentro de la casa.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T22:54:00.001-08:00

now that you mention it,, that is exactly what it sounds like

Allan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:00 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.

On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> because it is very profitable to them.
>
> I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> on the present economic crisis.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > versa.
>
> > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > just the public's trust.
>
> > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > dj
>

> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> >> ..
>
> >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Mind's Eye Truth & I

2012-01-24T19:26:00.001-08:00

"Is this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
Vam, can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as
a challenge?"

James, starting with God is a bad idea. Perhaps, ending up at it is
what needs to happen. Dawkins was in Jaipur here and I found his view
a lot more balanced, less bigoted and militant.

And Neil is right : it must deal with morality. Where his discourse
runs dry is when he is quoting other people ! That is also my
compelling logic against intellectual property rights. What damned
"rights" on knowledge of any kind ? Or, why must we have to give
references, when all we wish to say is ours, with us ? If it's not
ours, for us to say, we should STFU !

The formal aspect of Truth or truths is onerous. There are libraries
out there where it goes dry. It is the informal one that I wish to put
across : it is mine... and for that reason should be everyone's, of
everything. And that ( informal aspect ) is... HOME. The search for
that place which is truly ours, where we can rest without fear, free
and fulfilled, which nothing in the whole universe can take away from
us. Truth is our Home.

This is no parable I've begun. People are spent for and on a " home "
for themselves. They build, buy, rent one for the body... house or
apartment, car or craft. But then the worst a-holes amongst us come to
believe that home they are so invested on is also the " home " to
their emotion, to their thought, their identity, and their happiness
too ! Well, it is and it definitely isn't.

The better ( a-hols ) take on a wife, friend, progeny or pet,
community or cause, to engage their emotion-thought-identity where,
with whom or which, one then feels at home. Of that our thought is
preoccupied... that same ' faculty ' that had been used to focus on
money to buy the home, on the value of food and worth of delicacies,
on the relevance of what is beneficial and serves our purposes and
what does not.

That pitch of ' acquisition,' value, worth, relevance... is also there
in our thought and eye, as in it pre-exists and is consciously or
subconsciously applied, for the home-objects of our emotion as well.
For a lifetime, we carry that pitch to manage, manipulate, decide and
deal with what is outside us to acquire the material home-object in
our aim ... a domain that, for all practical purposes, encompasses
everything. For everything, external and internal, is outside the
agency, the ego-person, we are through the pursuit after our aim.

What is concurrent within, inside of us - the "ego-person," is a build
up and an intensification of VANITY... which expresses as : " I
possess;" " I win;" " I will acquire;" " I am successful." It is all a
matter of process that is normal to our drive and inevitable to our
search. But, as surely as sure can be, it is Vanity that also blocks
our evolution and progression into the true Home to our emotion -
which is Love, to our thought - which is Silence, to our identity -
which is Zero, and to our spirit - which is Bliss Infinite. Because it
limits us to what we have, even as it automatically makes us pore over
all that we does not have; and, it is limiting because while with it
we can never give up that " pitch " we have internalised along the
journey and can hence never view and see things with Love and Silence,
and be Zero with Bliss Infinite.

These are the real aspects and issues to spirituality : Home and
Vanity. It is these that I find more pertinent than God or whatever.
It is these that will make us be better and excel, that will address
the monstrous twists with which people reduce the best of systems and
opportunities to gutter, that will redress the moral deficit in our
public and personal lives.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-24T17:00:00.001-08:00

I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.

On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is
> brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,
>
> When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more
> difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> because it is very profitable to them.
>
> I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> on the present economic crisis.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > versa.
>
> > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > just the public's trust.
>
> > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> >> marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
> >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> >> duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
> >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> >> or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
>
> >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> >> ..
>
> >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> >> > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> >> > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> >> > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> >> > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> >> > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> >> > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> >> > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> >> > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T23:32:00.001-08:00

the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,,

When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess because it is very profitable to them.

I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought on the present economic crisis.

Allan

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:

I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa versa.

Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know, is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil, I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently) just the public's trust.

I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy companies. It's a conundrum.

Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at covering his ass though. Very, very good.

dj

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T18:44:00.000-08:00

I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa versa.

Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know, is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil, I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently) just the public's trust.

I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy companies. It's a conundrum.

Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at covering his ass though. Very, very good.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-23T17:55:00.001-08:00

Me neither Kenny, me neither. Thing about jobs is they don't exist to keep us all making money. They exist to provide a service or build a product. In the case of the Iphone China gets the jobs of making the product. As a direct result of our economic policies it's simply impossible for the U.S. to manufacture these nifty devices here in the States. Innovation and progress would stall if the focus changed from providing services to keeping alive outdated jobs. We need a regulation revolution in this country to compete. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:19 PM, kenny <goatsrrunnin@gmail.com> wrote:

problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething

On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Mind's Eye Re: i see

2012-01-23T14:19:00.001-08:00

problem is, is that the people entrusted to see that this, or any new,
technology won't negativaly effect us, are probably not oing their
jobs right, and get paid way too much money which is y they ain't
doing their jobs right. just a thought. idk much about nething

On Jan 23, 9:57 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We all claimed to come in Wendy's in days of tales from behind the
> bike sheds Kenny. I'm all for technology taking over work - the
> problem being income distribution. Eye candy is as fictional as any
> hologram and no doubt produces sexual diabetes.
>
> On Jan 23, 2:42 am, kenny <goatsrrun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that this i phone holographic technology stuff will whiz up everywhere
> > soon. the fast food billboards will soo be images coming up from a
> > projector implanted in the ground. changing, moving images. and hell.
> > add some speakers too. "come to wendy's" says a voice behind the
> > wendy's girl image that you can walk through. i said something of this
> > nature to my friend and all he said was something about how it's gonna
> > just take our jobs.... i don't need that fancy shit. i'll keep my job
> > for a lil bit of eye candy.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T14:10:00.000-08:00

Wow, ignore the top thoughts, my editing got mixed up. I meant to
submit the direct responses inline. o.0

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I do agree
>
> Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
> I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
> books or the words I speak.
>
> I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
> in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
> would be to make the same error as to call it one.
>
> To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
> give up power for
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
> I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
> we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
> our identity (characteristically).
>
>> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
> They are all hypothetical gods to me.
>
>> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
>> wives... " !
> I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
> with the reference.
>
>> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
>> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
> Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
> explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
> in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
> a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
> like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
> with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
> awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
> care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
> however he likes. And for round 2?
>
>> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>>
>>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>>> > preoccupies you.
>>>
>>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>>
>>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>>
>>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>>
>>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>>
>>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>>
>>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T14:09:00.001-08:00

Well, I do agree

Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
books or the words I speak.

I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
would be to make the same error as to call it one.

To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
give up power for

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
our identity (characteristically).

> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
They are all hypothetical gods to me.

> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
> wives... " !
I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
with the reference.

> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
however he likes. And for round 2?

> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>>
>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > preoccupies you.
>>
>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>>
>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>>
>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>>
>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>>
>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
>> >> >> > called an atheist.

Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

2012-01-23T13:44:00.001-08:00

If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T12:39:00.001-08:00

Thank you , old man !

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right RP is a confused child and for me not worth the effort.
> Allan
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:06 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree RP - religion can be very comforting in adversity. I don't
>> agree with Allan on what you put forward in this thread - I take this
>> to be about misconception of your stance in others. I would rather
>> share honest enquiry in fellowship, but there is little of this.
>>
>> On Jan 23, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your
>> > very
>> > opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an
>> > atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.
>> >
>> > I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear
>> > position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
>> > Allan
>> > On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
>> > > dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
>> > > directed at us.
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
>> > > > vile behaviour.
>> >
>> > > > On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
>> > > >> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
>> > > >> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind
>> > > >> Vam,
>> > > >> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
>> > > >> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring
>> > > >> minds
>> > > >> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>> >
>> > > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>> >
>> > > >> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
>> > > >> > preoccupies you.
>> >
>> > > >> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of,
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know
>> > > >> > of
>> > > >> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>> >
>> > > >> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches
>> > > >> >> a
>> > > >> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows
>> > > >> >> his
>> > > >> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
>> > > >> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at
>> > > >> >> times
>> > > >> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on
>> > > >> >> exercising
>> > > >> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get
>> > > >> >> wet in
>> > > >> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world
>> > > >> >> without
>> > > >> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>> >
>> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
>> > > >> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>> >
>> > > >> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
>> > > >> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
>> > > >> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the
>> > > >> >> > answers.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>> >
>> > > >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories
>> > > >> >> >> that
>> > > are
>> > > >> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it
>> > > >> >> >> that
>> > > >> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine
>> > > >> >> >> any
>> > > truth
>> > > >> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this.
>> > > >> >> >> I
>> > > often
>> > > >> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is
>> > > about
>> > > >> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>> >
>> > > >> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and
>> > > >> >> >> > not
>> > > real ,
>> > > >> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
>> > > uncertainty in
>> > > >> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's
>> > > >> >> >> > will
>> > > is
>> > > >> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates
>> > > >> >> >> > from
>> > > Him
>> > > >> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the
>> > > >> >> >> > question
>> > > of
>> > > >> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any
>> > > >> >> >> > event as
>> > > it
>> > > >> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice
>> > > >> >> >> > and
>> > > hence
>> > > >> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question
>> > > >> >> >> > of
>> > > >> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In
>> > > >> >> >> > that
>> > > case ,
>> > > >> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism ,
>> > > >> >> >> > I
>> > > can be
>> > > >> >> >> > called an atheist.
>
>
>
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
>
>

Re: Mind's Eye Re: I , an atheist

2012-01-23T10:17:00.000-08:00

You are right RP is a confused child and for me not worth the effort.

Allan

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:06 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree RP - religion can be very comforting in adversity. I don't
agree with Allan on what you put forward in this thread - I take this
to be about misconception of your stance in others. I would rather
share honest enquiry in fellowship, but there is little of this.

On Jan 23, 11:40 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That RP is the exact oppiste of what you were saying earlier. In your very
> opening statement last line I believe u said specificly you were an
> atheist. I do believe that statement to be true.
>
> I just don't believe what ever you say, there seems to be no clear
> position.. so I am assuming your original statement is the corrt one.
> Allan

> On Jan 23, 2012 8:40 AM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some God concepts give us the moral courage to continue on bravely in
> > dire circumstances .Also, we are better able to tolerate vile behavior
> > directed at us.
>

> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we are lucky we don't need god concepts to comfort us or excuse
> > > vile behaviour.
>
> > > On Jan 22, 6:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> > >> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> > >> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> > >> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> > >> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> > >> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> > >> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> > >> > preoccupies you.
>
> > >> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> > >> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> > >> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> > >> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> > >> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> > >> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> > >> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> > >> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> > >> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> > >> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> > >> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> > >> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> > >> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> > >> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> > >> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> > >> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that
> > are
> > >> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> > >> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any
> > truth
> > >> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I
> > often
> > >> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is
> > about
> > >> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> > >> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not
> > real ,
> > >> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of
> > uncertainty in
> > >> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will
> > is
> > >> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from
> > Him
> > >> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question
> > of
> > >> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as
> > it
> > >> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and
> > hence
> > >> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> > >> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that
> > case ,
> > >> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I
> > can be
> > >> >> >> > called an atheist.

--
(

)

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.