| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2007 07:08:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
DharmaTroll wrote:
"In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
evolutionary expense."
-Susan Blackmore
George Cherry wrote:
From today's NY Times.
Here're just the first two paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses - bursts of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
So when scientists wrote in a recent issue of the journal Nature that they
could induce phantom effects - the sensation of being haunted by a shadowy
figure - by stimulating the brain with electricity, it made perfect
neurological sense. One could even argue that the existence of such
sensations explains away the so-called supernatural. In fact, as The Times
reported, the researchers promptly concluded that ghosts are mere "bodily
delusions," electrical misfirings and nothing more.
DT> What wonderful common sense wisdom, George. I always am puzzled
that anyone in the 21st century can actually question this.
Interesting, though, that the passage that you quote about the mind,
when the brain is ignored, can be taken to be reality-denying idealism.
Then again, like Robert, I secretly think it would be so cool were I
to be offered the red pill...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You
take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay
in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-The Matrix
When my 25 year old son can still watch Mr. Rogers
on TV it makes me wonder how people can still
claim there are no ghosts.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "tara" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 07:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:08:10 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167872890.505282.128870@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):
DharmaTroll wrote:
"In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
evolutionary expense."
-Susan Blackmore
George Cherry wrote:
From today's NY Times.
Here're just the first two paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by
electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses - bursts of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
So when scientists wrote in a recent issue of the journal Nature that they
could induce phantom effects - the sensation of being haunted by a shadowy
figure - by stimulating the brain with electricity, it made perfect
neurological sense. One could even argue that the existence of such
sensations explains away the so-called supernatural. In fact, as The Times
reported, the researchers promptly concluded that ghosts are mere "bodily
delusions," electrical misfirings and nothing more.
DT> What wonderful common sense wisdom, George. I always am puzzled
that anyone in the 21st century can actually question this.
Interesting, though, that the passage that you quote about the mind,
when the brain is ignored, can be taken to be reality-denying idealism.
Then again, like Robert, I secretly think it would be so cool were I
to be offered the red pill...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You
take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay
in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-The Matrix
When my 25 year old son can still watch Mr. Rogers
on TV it makes me wonder how people can still
claim there are no ghosts.
What did you watch or read when you were growing up? I'll just bet that
those things will mean something to you when you are old.
Ghosts? Ghost's are as real as we are.
tara
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 07:28:08 PM |
|
|
Note: I am merely rejecting the no-archive. -- Sphere.
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 9:15 pm).
tara wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:08:10 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167872890.505282.128870@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):
DharmaTroll wrote:
"In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
evolutionary expense."
-Susan Blackmore
George Cherry wrote:
From today's NY Times.
Here're just the first two paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by
electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses - bursts of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
So when scientists wrote in a recent issue of the journal Nature that they
could induce phantom effects - the sensation of being haunted by a shadowy
figure - by stimulating the brain with electricity, it made perfect
neurological sense. One could even argue that the existence of such
sensations explains away the so-called supernatural. In fact, as The Times
reported, the researchers promptly concluded that ghosts are mere "bodily
delusions," electrical misfirings and nothing more.
DT> What wonderful common sense wisdom, George. I always am puzzled
that anyone in the 21st century can actually question this.
Interesting, though, that the passage that you quote about the mind,
when the brain is ignored, can be taken to be reality-denying idealism.
Then again, like Robert, I secretly think it would be so cool were I
to be offered the red pill...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You
take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay
in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-The Matrix
When my 25 year old son can still watch Mr. Rogers
on TV it makes me wonder how people can still
claim there are no ghosts.
What did you watch or read when you were growing up? I'll just bet that
those things will mean something to you when you are old.
Ghosts? Ghost's are as real as we are.
tara
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tara" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 07:34:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:28:08 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167874088.674684.141360@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
Note: I am merely rejecting the no-archive. -- Sphere.
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 9:15 pm).
Yup. I believe in ghosts. By no-archiving, I'm just going with the flow.
The no ghost flow, of course ;) It's fun.
tara
tara wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:08:10 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167872890.505282.128870@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):
DharmaTroll wrote:
"In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
evolutionary expense."
-Susan Blackmore
George Cherry wrote:
From today's NY Times.
Here're just the first two paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by
electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses - bursts
of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to
stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this
when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into
the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
So when scientists wrote in a recent issue of the journal Nature that
they
could induce phantom effects - the sensation of being haunted by a
shadowy
figure - by stimulating the brain with electricity, it made perfect
neurological sense. One could even argue that the existence of such
sensations explains away the so-called supernatural. In fact, as The
Times
reported, the researchers promptly concluded that ghosts are mere "bodily
delusions," electrical misfirings and nothing more.
DT> What wonderful common sense wisdom, George. I always am puzzled
that anyone in the 21st century can actually question this.
Interesting, though, that the passage that you quote about the mind,
when the brain is ignored, can be taken to be reality-denying idealism.
Then again, like Robert, I secretly think it would be so cool were I
to be offered the red pill...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You
take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay
in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-The Matrix
When my 25 year old son can still watch Mr. Rogers
on TV it makes me wonder how people can still
claim there are no ghosts.
What did you watch or read when you were growing up? I'll just bet that
those things will mean something to you when you are old.
Ghosts? Ghost's are as real as we are.
tara
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tara" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 07:57:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:34:49 -0500, tara wrote
(in article <0001HW.C1C1C3E9001EF6F6F02845B0@news.usenetmonster.com>):
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:28:08 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167874088.674684.141360@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
Note: I am merely rejecting the no-archive. -- Sphere.
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 9:15 pm).
Yup. I believe in ghosts. By no-archiving, I'm just going with the flow.
The no ghost flow, of course ;) It's fun.
tara
P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your words will be
there for future....what?
that was then, this is now.
I don't think that my words are that important. Not for posterity anyway.
So, I take advantage of Googles choice. thanks google.
tara
tara wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:08:10 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167872890.505282.128870@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):
DharmaTroll wrote:
"In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
evolutionary expense."
-Susan Blackmore
George Cherry wrote:
From today's NY Times.
Here're just the first two paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by
electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses -
bursts
of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to
stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this
when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into
the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
So when scientists wrote in a recent issue of the journal Nature that
they
could induce phantom effects - the sensation of being haunted by a
shadowy
figure - by stimulating the brain with electricity, it made perfect
neurological sense. One could even argue that the existence of such
sensations explains away the so-called supernatural. In fact, as The
Times
reported, the researchers promptly concluded that ghosts are mere
"bodily
delusions," electrical misfirings and nothing more.
DT> What wonderful common sense wisdom, George. I always am puzzled
that anyone in the 21st century can actually question this.
Interesting, though, that the passage that you quote about the mind,
when the brain is ignored, can be taken to be reality-denying idealism.
Then again, like Robert, I secretly think it would be so cool were I
to be offered the red pill...
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You
take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay
in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-The Matrix
When my 25 year old son can still watch Mr. Rogers
on TV it makes me wonder how people can still
claim there are no ghosts.
What did you watch or read when you were growing up? I'll just bet that
those things will mean something to you when you are old.
Ghosts? Ghost's are as real as we are.
tara
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 08:42:14 PM |
|
|
tara wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:34:49 -0500, tara wrote
(in article <0001HW.C1C1C3E9001EF6F6F02845B0@news.usenetmonster.com>):
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:28:08 -0500, Sphere wrote
(in article <1167874088.674684.141360@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>):
Note: I am merely rejecting the no-archive. -- Sphere.
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jan 10, 9:15 pm).
Yup. I believe in ghosts. By no-archiving, I'm just going with the flow.
The no ghost flow, of course ;) It's fun.
tara
P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your words will be
there for future....what?
We are memory.
I'm a programmer. Back in 1971 I was interested in
"computer aided collective decisionmaking." In 1980
I started working on the first commercial email system --
which eventually lost to SMTP. I came home one day
in about 1991 to find that my 11 year old son had taken
over my computer to run a BBS.
An unarchived post is like a neuron which has died. The
ripples are still there, but the root is gone.
Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the
arisen in abidance as long as practicable...if it doesn't
reduce the holding of others.
(No purpose...other than one of my own choosing.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DharmaTroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 10:34:38 PM |
|
|
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
William James wrote: "I believe that 'consciousness,' when once it
has evaporated to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of
disappearing altogether. It is the name of a nonentity, and has no
right to a place among first principles. Those who still cling to it
are clinging to a mere echo, the faint rumor left behind by the
disappearing 'soul' upon the air of philosophy."
James' even sounds like a mystic when he writes, "The instant field of
the present is at all times what I call the 'pure' experience. It
is only virtually or potentially either object or subject as yet. For
the time being, it is plain, unqualified actuality, or existence, a
simple that."
tara> Ghosts? Ghost's are as real as we are.
DT> Only if by 'we' you mean selves, consciousness, or souls, which are
of course as equally non-existent as ghosts!
Sphere> The ghosts I see on TV can be pointed at, and are
reproducable.... if you were to walk the streets of London in the 1700s
telling people that many have seen dead men talking, and were to ask
them what it was that was seen I bet almost all of them would say
"ghosts."
DT> Until you explained that they were merely sophisticated versions of
books, and they they'd point out that these were static 'talking books'
and not conscious ghosts. Don't be silly with the word play! As for
talk of our senses susceptible to being tricked:
Dirk> Yet being able to stimulate real senses by direct neural
interaction and creating, say, phantom smells, does not invalidate that
sense. I don't see how stimulating the temporal lobe and perceiving
other kinds of phantoms is supposed to discredit it as a possible
sensory organ for "other worldly" stuff.
DT> It's not a matter of discrediting (you're getting good at the spook
talk with your Art Bell type of show, I see, by phrasing that in the
shift-the-burden-of-proof tactics). Rather, the fact that probing the
brain in some place can cause the sensation of smelling chocolate and
so forth doesn't at all suggest any "perception" of real spooks or
beasties. You'd have to explain how they physically get through the
skull and poke the brain, and so forth. We have tons of mythology and
ghost stories, and no evidence for any spooks, psychic powers, or any
other paranormal anything, ever. But don't tell your audience that --
it would put you out of business!
Stumper> What makes you so certain that you are not the person Tang
calls Jigme?
DT> First, I -am- the person Tang 'calls' Jigme, or more specifically,
that he calls 'Jigme (the fake DharmaTroll)'. But I'm not Jigme. I'm
certain simply because the physical animal Tom plays DharmaTroll and
the physical animal Steven plays Jigme. My real physical body/brain
has the properties of being young (compared to most old-timers here)
and single and living in Washington, versus being old, married with
children, and living in Korea. That's what's 'real'. DT might not be
'real', but is 'real' in the sense of being parasitic off of Tom's
extant brain. Tang's surface claim is that Steven actually got the
email passwords from Tom and now is posting this from Korea; though
Tang's 'real' claim is that DT sounds so much more intelligent and
enlightened and has grown so much -- unlike the stagnating Tang who
still quotes at people to impress them, locks himself into loops of
claims of serenity, and tells tall tales about how Jigme and Sphere and
Fu have 'crashed' -- that the present DT must be Jigme!! Tang still
hasn't figured out that his ranting is both a compliment to my being a
faster and stronger Superhero than ever, as well as undisputable proof
that Tang is wacko, deluded, loony-tunes. I hope Tang remains deluded
in this way -- not that I wish him to suffer -- but so that everyone
will continue to see that he's a helpful savant but not a real
Buddhist, just a nutcase, and thus will not get led astray by him and
his masturbatory closed loops.
Tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be
there for future....what? that was then, this is now.
DT> That was zen and this is tao?
Tara> I don't think that my words are that important. Not for
posterity anyway. So, I take advantage of Googles choice.
DT> Or is it egoistic -- bumping it up a level by being holier than
thou by being so humble, eh? Heh.
Well, I think your words are important. What if people misquote you in
replies or even deliberately misquote you and then reply to the
misquote to slander your memory? Why, even now, Dr. Evil Tang is
secretly counting on that so that only his version of your 'crash' will
be archived when you stop posting! (Hah -- I connected and integrated
the themes of all these posts in the thread into one coherent flowing
reply!) All that will be left will be Tang's imaginative and insulting
rendition of your childhood; then some psychologist like Janice will
have to sort out that it's really Tang who feels "lacking and failing,
empty and worthless," by holding such high "norms and standards" of
perfection over his own head. And that extra deciphering will all have
to be done because you didn't archive your posts, Tara, you naughty
ghost, you.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
=====================
Tang<<Sphere and Fu got knocked out flat by spiritual experiences that
they got in their teenage and never recovered, still haven't recovered
now (Sphere presumably is in his fiftes, Fu in his sixties). For the
rest of their lives (the entirety of their adult lives) they stood in
thrall to them, took them to be the acme of their lives and used them
as yardstick to measure the rest of their lives. Of course when held up
to such norms and standards, the rest of their lives (the entirety of
their adult lives) would be lacking and failing, empty and worthless.
At least Sphere was honest and knew that they never occurred again
afterward, during the rest of his life (the entirety of his adult
life), but couldn't let go of them and take them to be merely pleasant
memories. He lived his whole adult life in the shadow of such a massive
and overwhelming flash. He lived his whole adult life in the past, so
to speak, and the nostalgia of that brief, glorious past dwarfed his
present, though he knew that there was no going back.
Fu was different. He started reading Buddhist and Zen books at the age
of fourteen, around the time his father died after an hour of ecstasy
due to a heart attack during a session with a French prostitute. At
sixteen/seventeen he had his major garden-variety experience, which
impressed him for the rest of his life (the entirety of his adult
life). Shortly thereafter, in his early adulthood, he landed in
Thailand, but he was too much of an extrovert mesmerised by external
stimuli to succeed in it. He then had a choice, a stark choice. Either
own up to reality and admit that his teenage experiences were gone for
good, or fool himself into thinking that they still recurred all along
his adult life.
Faced with such an existential choice, which would affect the rest of
his life (the entirety of his adult life), he chickened out and chose
to fool himself. Once he made that decision, he would have to live the
rest of his life, not in truth but in falsity. He would have to live
the rest of his life in bad faith to himself. He had chosen to hang on
to the ghost of his teenage experiences and to stunt and obliterate his
present by it. He had chosen defeat in front of his uncontrollable
nostalgia for his teenage experiences. The bulk of his life was lived
in teenage, and afterward it was a continual replay of that brilliant
and fateful period. The present was a mere shadow.>>
Now I know why I like this --
It's just like Dr. Evil's monologue in Austin Powers! Cool!
Now compare Dr. Evil to Tang:
<<The details of my life are quite inconsequential... very well, where
do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie
owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for
buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe
with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would
make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he
would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that
only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was
typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat
helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten
with reeds -- pretty standard, really. At the age of twelve I received
my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma
ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a
shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking -- I highly suggest you try it.>>
OMG! Tang is Dr. Evil! Shaggadelic, baby!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
03 Jan 2007 11:18:05 PM |
|
|
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarhat" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
04 Jan 2007 08:54:32 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
05 Jan 2007 07:50:52 PM |
|
|
Lazarhat wrote:
Sphere wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Better check your Pali/Sanskrit dictionary. Kamma/Karma
means 'action'. Any notion of cause and effect here is
reification, pure and simple.
(Buddha DID consider the mind to be the greatest fetter,
so interpreting karma as intention is understandable.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ali" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 09:17:52 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2007 17:50:52 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Better check your Pali/Sanskrit dictionary. Kamma/Karma
means 'action'. Any notion of cause and effect here is
reification, pure and simple.
The root "kr" = work, activity, action. I think some shcolar has
already posted that interminably. Cause and effect are also Newtonian
and Einsteinian, not just Buddhistic or Christic- certainly
reification is a stupid, stupid term to use. The entire point of it
all is that all action breeds reaction.
And a breeder reactor gone bad is a turrrrrrrrible thingk!
(Buddha DID consider the mind to be the greatest fetter,
so interpreting karma as intention is understandable.)
That's also too simplistic. Buddha (and all the other teachers) said
the mind was the fetter, as well as the tool of liberation, and
"proper mental cultivation" was the raft. When the mind has built a
dharma, it can be dropped like the stage of a rocket that has
fulfilled its design.
Mongo, otoh, knew the true role of a buddhist- "Mongo only pawn in
game of life."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keynes" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 10:13:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:17:52 GMT, Ali <lookn4@cha.com> wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 17:50:52 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Better check your Pali/Sanskrit dictionary. Kamma/Karma
means 'action'. Any notion of cause and effect here is
reification, pure and simple.
The root "kr" = work, activity, action. I think some shcolar has
already posted that interminably. Cause and effect are also Newtonian
and Einsteinian, not just Buddhistic or Christic- certainly
reification is a stupid, stupid term to use. The entire point of it
all is that all action breeds reaction.
And a breeder reactor gone bad is a turrrrrrrrible thingk!
(Buddha DID consider the mind to be the greatest fetter,
so interpreting karma as intention is understandable.)
That's also too simplistic. Buddha (and all the other teachers) said
the mind was the fetter, as well as the tool of liberation, and
"proper mental cultivation" was the raft. When the mind has built a
dharma, it can be dropped like the stage of a rocket that has
fulfilled its design.
Mongo, otoh, knew the true role of a buddhist- "Mongo only pawn in
game of life."
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is
fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is
discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is
discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is
unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away
is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.
"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
AN. III. 47
(Compliments of Norbu Tragri.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 06:03:28 PM |
|
|
Keynes wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:17:52 GMT, Ali <lookn4@cha.com> wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 17:50:52 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Better check your Pali/Sanskrit dictionary. Kamma/Karma
means 'action'. Any notion of cause and effect here is
reification, pure and simple.
The root "kr" = work, activity, action. I think some shcolar has
already posted that interminably. Cause and effect are also Newtonian
and Einsteinian, not just Buddhistic or Christic- certainly
reification is a stupid, stupid term to use. The entire point of it
all is that all action breeds reaction.
And a breeder reactor gone bad is a turrrrrrrrible thingk!
(Buddha DID consider the mind to be the greatest fetter,
so interpreting karma as intention is understandable.)
That's also too simplistic. Buddha (and all the other teachers) said
the mind was the fetter, as well as the tool of liberation, and
"proper mental cultivation" was the raft. When the mind has built a
dharma, it can be dropped like the stage of a rocket that has
fulfilled its design.
Mongo, otoh, knew the true role of a buddhist- "Mongo only pawn in
game of life."
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is
fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is
discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is
discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is
unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away
is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.
"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
AN. III. 47
(Compliments of Norbu Tragri.)
Will you buy me a copy of the books by numbers?
I want to paint.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 06:28:43 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
<big bang!>
Will you buy me a copy of the books by numbers?
I want to paint.
And not having a book is stopping you?
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ali" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 12:16:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:13:51 -0600, Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:17:52 GMT, Ali <lookn4@cha.com> wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 17:50:52 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Better check your Pali/Sanskrit dictionary. Kamma/Karma
means 'action'. Any notion of cause and effect here is
reification, pure and simple.
The root "kr" = work, activity, action. I think some shcolar has
already posted that interminably. Cause and effect are also Newtonian
and Einsteinian, not just Buddhistic or Christic- certainly
reification is a stupid, stupid term to use. The entire point of it
all is that all action breeds reaction.
And a breeder reactor gone bad is a turrrrrrrrible thingk!
(Buddha DID consider the mind to be the greatest fetter,
so interpreting karma as intention is understandable.)
That's also too simplistic. Buddha (and all the other teachers) said
the mind was the fetter, as well as the tool of liberation, and
"proper mental cultivation" was the raft. When the mind has built a
dharma, it can be dropped like the stage of a rocket that has
fulfilled its design.
Mongo, otoh, knew the true role of a buddhist- "Mongo only pawn in
game of life."
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is
fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is
discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is
discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is
unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away
is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.
"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
AN. III. 47
(Compliments of Norbu Tragri.)
Monks, by all means, use fabric softeners.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
04 Jan 2007 08:24:10 PM |
|
|
Lazarhat wrote:
Sphere wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Yes and no, I think. Action and it's results are not really seperable.
A Zen teaching is "Inga ichinyo" ("Cause and effect are one").
Saying that they are separate is a sequential, linear thing. Another
way of saying it is "Cause does not precede effect."
-DaveK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
05 Jan 2007 08:51:18 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Sphere wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Yes and no, I think. Action and it's results are not really seperable.
A Zen teaching is "Inga ichinyo" ("Cause and effect are one").
Usual Mahayanist monism.
Saying that they are separate is a sequential, linear thing. Another
way of saying it is "Cause does not precede effect."
I cannot live without a liver, but there'd
be no liver without a me to have it.
-DaveK
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 07:28:41 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Dave K wrote:
Lazarhat wrote:
Sphere wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
tara> P.S.: What is the purpose in being archived? So that your
words will be there for future....what?
Sphere> We are memory.... I'm a programmer.
DT> 'Persons' to a large degree are sets of memories. Yet we are
realized in a tangible brain. And we are dynamic and constantly
changing, unlike, say Mozart's symphonies, which are also information,
not existing separately, yet not being any particular realization in
the hardware of any particular CD. Of course, the problem of
universals and particulars has been fascinating and unresolved since
Plato. As we've been discussing metaphysical views lately, it's nice
to see you Sphere -- you round out the set of differing views here.
Bwahahaha.
Sphere> Like any good metastable holon, I'll look to keep the arisen in
abidance as long as practicable... if it doesn't reduce the holding of
others.
DT> Sphere, in the past, has taken a different approach from the
Dualists, Idealists, and Physicalists around here -- he is a Neutral
Monist -- a very interesting position. He holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is thus in agreement
with idealism and physicalism. What distinguishes neutral monism from
its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature
of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim
also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither
mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral
between the two. Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and William James held
versions of neutral monism that are somewhat like Sphere's view.
While in the past I have played with the notion of a God
which is complete and whole in a rotting leaf, I have
decided against monism. (This play was before we talked.)
Pantheism is nice, but not what I believe.
Instead, I have rejected the notion of ultimate reality
as merely an idea. I do occasionaly still say that
there is only action (karma), but as this is generally
taken in a reificationist sense I'm finding it not all that
useful. Trying to use words to express the inexpressible
is, to say the least, rather frustrating.
For the most part, I stick with a completely negative
expression of my system of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Yes and no, I think. Action and it's results are not really seperable.
A Zen teaching is "Inga ichinyo" ("Cause and effect are one").
Usual Mahayanist monism.
Why does everything have to be an -ism around here? Or even an -ist
for that matter...
Saying that they are separate is a sequential, linear thing. Another
way of saying it is "Cause does not precede effect."
I cannot live without a liver, but there'd
be no liver without a me to have it.
Anthropic..ism!
-DaveK
-DaveK
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Ludd" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 07:55:19 AM |
|
|
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168090121.276211.308320@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Yes and no, I think. Action and it's results are not really seperable.
A Zen teaching is "Inga ichinyo" ("Cause and effect are one").
Usual Mahayanist monism.
Why does everything have to be an -ism around here? Or even an -ist
for that matter...
Because the meager human mind can not conceive of any individual
thing, no matter how tiny, in all its multifaceted uniqueness. The
meager mind must compress things into stereotypes and abstractions
in order to do its job of thinking.
The brain within its groove
Runs evenly and true;
But let a splinter swerve,
'Twere easier for you
To put the waters back,
When floods have slit the hills,
And scooped a turnpike for themselves,
And blotted out the mills.
- Emily
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 08:22:08 AM |
|
|
Ned Ludd wrote:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168090121.276211.308320@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Probably going around in circles because action is NOT karma but is
better said to be the inevitable result of action, Sphere. Action is
simply action and the potentiality for humans to act and react. Karma
is the effect. Not the cause.
-Laz
Yes and no, I think. Action and it's results are not really seperable.
A Zen teaching is "Inga ichinyo" ("Cause and effect are one").
Usual Mahayanist monism.
Why does everything have to be an -ism around here? Or even an -ist
for that matter...
Because the meager human mind can not conceive of any individual
thing, no matter how tiny, in all its multifaceted uniqueness. The
meager mind must compress things into stereotypes and abstractions
in order to do its job of thinking.
The brain within its groove
Runs evenly and true;
But let a splinter swerve,
'Twere easier for you
To put the waters back,
When floods have slit the hills,
And scooped a turnpike for themselves,
And blotted out the mills.
- Emily
Creation all shall hymn the plan
Of its creator superman
Who, loving living things so much
Could not bear to see them separate as such
And so imminent incarnation
Totalistic integration
FFF
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Ludd" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 09:35:10 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:509pkeF1eu0qjU1@mid.individual.net...
Why does everything have to be an -ism around here? Or even an -ist
for that matter...
Because the meager human mind can not conceive of any individual
thing, no matter how tiny, in all its multifaceted uniqueness. The
meager mind must compress things into stereotypes and abstractions
in order to do its job of thinking.
The brain within its groove
Runs evenly and true;
But let a splinter swerve,
'Twere easier for you
To put the waters back,
When floods have slit the hills,
And scooped a turnpike for themselves,
And blotted out the mills.
- Emily
Creation all shall hymn the plan
Of its creator superman
Who, loving living things so much
Could not bear to see them separate as such
And so imminent incarnation
Totalistic integration
FFF
Dirk
I took my power in my hand,
And went against the world;
'Twas not so much as David had,
But I was twice as bold.
I aimed my pebble, but myself
Was all the one that fell;
Was it Goliath was too large,
Or was myself too small?
- Emily
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 11:04:07 AM |
|
|
Ned Ludd wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:509pkeF1eu0qjU1@mid.individual.net...
Why does everything have to be an -ism around here? Or even an -ist
for that matter...
Because the meager human mind can not conceive of any individual
thing, no matter how tiny, in all its multifaceted uniqueness. The
meager mind must compress things into stereotypes and abstractions
in order to do its job of thinking.
The brain within its groove
Runs evenly and true;
But let a splinter swerve,
'Twere easier for you
To put the waters back,
When floods have slit the hills,
And scooped a turnpike for themselves,
And blotted out the mills.
- Emily
Creation all shall hymn the plan
Of its creator superman
Who, loving living things so much
Could not bear to see them separate as such
And so imminent incarnation
Totalistic integration
FFF
Dirk
I took my power in my hand,
And went against the world;
'Twas not so much as David had,
But I was twice as bold.
I aimed my pebble, but myself
Was all the one that fell;
Was it Goliath was too large,
Or was myself too small?
- Emily
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
FFF
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 12:35:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:04:07 -0500, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote
(in message <50a346F1faiknU1@mid.individual.net>):
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than arguing
on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden mockery more than
rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler (Ven.
Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was apparently
too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html) even for them.
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with Zenmar's
authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at darkzen.com , and
Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy, and
welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
--
We talk about just about everything.
And a lot of buddhists are of the opinion that no matter what you talk
about, it's about buddhism. ---bonfils, absfg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 12:51:39 PM |
|
|
Uncle Weasel wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:04:07 -0500, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote
(in message <50a346F1faiknU1@mid.individual.net>):
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than arguing
on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden mockery more than
rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler (Ven.
Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was apparently
too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html) even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with Zenmar's
authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at darkzen.com , and
Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy, and
welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different from
any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Ludd" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 02:03:22 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 02:09:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:22 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote
(in message <egTnh.7177$pQ3.2164@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
Like Ned says.
But aside from rejecting anatman in favor of a soullike True Self, a
decoder-ring esoteric interpretation of sutras, a rejection of zazen, an
obnoxious personal elitism, and an antipathy to all other Zen institutions,
not much different from other zennies.
Just be careful of "tea and cookie" night! Their magic tends toward the, um,
savory.
---Uncle Weasel
--
[Concerning the Common Sense of Vermonters]
You kiddin' me? They live in a state that frosts over year 'round, whose
two seasons are "this winter" and "next winter", whose poetry is about
rocks freezing in walls, and think that displays common sense? Hmmmm.......
---Wally Chapman, absfg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 02:16:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:09:59 -0500, Uncle Weasel wrote
(in message <0001HW.C1C56C4700568BA1F03865B0@News.Individual.NET>):
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:22 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote
(in message <egTnh.7177$pQ3.2164@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
Like Ned says.
But aside from rejecting anatman in favor of a soullike True Self, a
decoder-ring esoteric interpretation of sutras, a rejection of zazen, an
obnoxious personal elitism, and an antipathy to all other Zen institutions,
not much different from other zennies.
Just be careful of "tea and cookie" night! Their magic tends toward the, um,
savory.
Oh, yeah! They're also psuedo-Gnostic cryptomonotheists . . .
---Uncle Weasel
--
"In the seen there will be just the seen" and "What and
what they think it, it is otherwise." That's as close as it
gets within mentational parametres. ---Tang Huyen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 02:48:05 PM |
|
|
Uncle Weasel wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:09:59 -0500, Uncle Weasel wrote
(in message <0001HW.C1C56C4700568BA1F03865B0@News.Individual.NET>):
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:22 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote
(in message <egTnh.7177$pQ3.2164@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
Like Ned says.
But aside from rejecting anatman in favor of a soullike True Self, a
decoder-ring esoteric interpretation of sutras, a rejection of zazen, an
obnoxious personal elitism, and an antipathy to all other Zen institutions,
not much different from other zennies.
Just be careful of "tea and cookie" night! Their magic tends toward the, um,
savory.
Oh, yeah! They're also psuedo-Gnostic cryptomonotheists . . .
---Uncle Weasel
Aren't we all, depending on the day of the week?
FFF
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM 104.4
http://www.resonancefm.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 02:21:23 PM |
|
|
Uncle Weasel wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:22 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote
(in message <egTnh.7177$pQ3.2164@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
Like Ned says.
But aside from rejecting anatman in favor of a soullike True Self, a
decoder-ring esoteric interpretation of sutras, a rejection of zazen, an
obnoxious personal elitism, and an antipathy to all other Zen institutions,
not much different from other zennies.
Just be careful of "tea and cookie" night! Their magic tends toward the, um,
savory.
---Uncle Weasel
Do they have a hot chick with tentacles? Cuz if so I'm totally in...
--
[Concerning the Common Sense of Vermonters]
You kiddin' me? They live in a state that frosts over year 'round, whose
two seasons are "this winter" and "next winter", whose poetry is about
rocks freezing in walls, and think that displays common sense? Hmmmm.......
---Wally Chapman, absfg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Spooks and Ghosts |
06 Jan 2007 06:05:32 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
Uncle Weasel wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:03:22 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote
(in message <egTnh.7177$pQ3.2164@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:50a9drF1eeh91U1@mid.individual.net...
Whatever happed to David Oller and Dark Zen?
David finds selling quality incense by mail-order more rewarding than
arguing on usenet. Something I have accommodated by using hidden
mockery more than rational argument.
Dark Zen had an apex when Zenmar and Mark were joined by Kenny Wheeler
(Ven. Shakya Aryanatta), but they had a falling out because Kenny was
apparently too bizarre (http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/swastika.html)
even for them.
LOL! - excommunicated for turning Asatru?
Then Mark married a Falun Gong person, and apparently had it with
Zenmar's authoritarianism. You can still see a feeble remnant at
darkzen.com , and Zenmar still posts as kojizen once in a while.
At least, that is my take on things. I make no warrant on its accuracy,
and welcome correction.
---Uncle Weasel
I could never quite make out why dark Zen was all that different
from any other Zen. Maybe you can enlighten me?
FFF
Dirk
It's the cookies. They have a secret ingredient.
Ned
Like Ned says.
But aside from rejecting anatman in favor of a soullike True Self, a
decoder-ring esoteric interpretation of sutras, a rejection of zazen, an
obnoxious personal elitism, and an antipathy to all other Zen institutions,
not much different from | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
