Re: [Mind's Eye] antimatter

Basically it is simple matter and anti matter can not exist in the same space,, as opposites attract when they combine you get a energy release equal to the mass of both particals.

Allan

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:24 PM, pol.science kid <r.freebird@gmail.com> wrote:

um....i dont think i should be posting this here but i think there are
some science whiz kids on the group.... so would mind explaining to me
the whole deal behind antimatter....and its implications....i just
dont seem to get it....

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

*sigh
Would I be the first to suggest some good old fashioned makeup [whoopie]? Wow, talk about delayed gratification, kaboom! Earth - Shattering. 'Nuff said. Man I'd pay to hear it from a mile awa- nevermind. :D

Or a makeup hug works too. *puppy eyes

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Ash, as is obvious to most, gabby is attacking the person (http://
www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem ) rather
than the ideas. That and a projection as to my theological stance
which is clearly not one that I have ever said I identified with only
leave one with a vague nausea and a hope to a return to something
other than simple trolling.

I am quite happy that you found the core notions of the post to be of
interest and/or use. As to a 'competing theory', that which is
lacking as you so rightly address ...and for good reason... I wouldn't
hold my breath.

On Apr 30, 8:05 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am sorry to disappoint you Ash, but there is no competing theories here.
> > All is one. OM.
>
> Should I take this to mean that you have a conciliatory view on the proposed
> views? That would be interesting, and someone should put forward the
> potential argument behind it even if that's not what you're saying..

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

I am sorry to disappoint you Ash, but there is no competing theories here. All is one. OM.

Should I take this to mean that you have a conciliatory view on the proposed views? That would be interesting, and someone should put forward the potential argument behind it even if that's not what you're saying..

[Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

This seems to be an interesting subject for me to start with. But I
have to tell you first of all that I have been an old member of "Minds
Eye" under a different name, I was known as Manfraco then. So, I hope
you do not mind me jumping in just like that. Anyhow I do believe that
we all do a lot of thinking during our lives, so, I am interested to
follow this thread.
My regards to you all,
Menfranco

On Apr 30, 11:23 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> might thought be colored by the mind that engages it ....what is the realm
> of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and
> rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that thought...because
> ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the mind will
> automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does know....
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <nis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking separates, in
> > subject-object relationship.
> > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process. Thinking about
> > something
> > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious circle. You
> > cannot think
> > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take you to the
> > Truth.
> > But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself) which you have
> > otherwise
> > visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and limits, and
> > stands
> > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus reduced into
> > its essence.
>
> --
> \--/ Peace

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I get what you mean. The "first direct reference to the history behind this clash" was silently deleted by Orn, if that's what you mean. But then there is no clash. Silent deletion makes no sound. Also I don't see a versus in Buddhist and Western. Orn is a typical American Buddhist and he is happy with it. There is no internal struggle. All is just appearances which is why deleting or promoting doesn't mean anything to him.

I am sorry to disappoint you Ash, but there is no competing theories here. All is one. OM. 

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Ash <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:

I just finished the doc, intermittently disrupted for cleaning house and watching my older 'squirt'. ;) Sorry, bad joke, but my fiancee actually came up with it!

I believe this is the first direct reference to the history behind this clash since I came here, it might give some depth but doesn't  deal directly with the materials presented gabby. The first batch of links is pretty elementary stuff but the discussion of Buddhist perspectives on thought vs the 'Cartesian' Western materialism is definitely on subject. In fact it cuts right into the heart of my own internal struggle for truth so I find it very informative and valuable. However I am still considering where my own experiences lie in relation, though it is definitely in the right field, there is a large part undiscussed in it's body. Consider this an impromptu response Orn if you wish, I am working to sort out my own head still. More later, this is the merry chase!

And gabby if you would present a competing theory, just as I asked of OrnamentalMind, I would greatly appreciate it. The more we get on the table the better eh?

[Mind's Eye] Re: awareness

My fiancee keeps mentioning that I should look into autism more, but really how can you differentiate between traumas of life and genetics if the results get so twisted up? Evidently it is common for autistics to be trapped within themselves.

Thanks for the humor. :p Give it hell brother! To your last breath.

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

First, let me preface my comment by saying that I was being facetious about only believing my senses. I do believe that there are things out there that are as yet unexplained (note that I didn't say things that can't be explained).

Science has yet to come up with a truly consistent theory that explains all aspects of reality. However, it does seem reasonable to use the our senses as the foundation of a belief system that models our reality.

I would say it makes a very valuable contribution to say the least. We've made great progress in the sciences and more is sure to come. It is my belief that to ensure the continued survival of our species and evolution of sciences that it must continue to explore all the great mysteries of our world be they examining the mechanics behind our experiences, how things work or extraordinary claims that defy explanation.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that while some may look into a cloud of mist and see a ghost, I would tend to believe that the ghost is just water droplets being stirred around by the wind. I don't entirely reject the possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost. I just put the likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations.

That is something I agree to myself, and add that identifying someones explanation for an experience as improbable doesn't necessarily negate the experience itself. Strange and extraordinary things do happen despite people's inability to apply verifiable explanation to the events. I'm not sure if this is useful really, even for the conversation, just my perspective.

[Mind's Eye] Re: antimatter

all i know is its very expensive to produce , but is probably by far
the most powerful sorce of energy known , as in converting ,from, to
enery . like gas × 1000000000000000000000

pol.science kid wrote:
> um....i dont think i should be posting this here but i think there are
> some science whiz kids on the group.... so would mind explaining to me
> the whole deal behind antimatter....and its implications....i just
> dont seem to get it....

[Mind's Eye] Re: awareness

i shouldn't have said'' ,,sometimes,,''to gain perspective , but
'',,also,,''

Ash wrote:
> It can be too much, but if one can face the weight of this burden I think in
> deeds and works one would be able to do great things Tao. Hopefully one who
> was pushed enough to get trapped in that prison would find salvation before
> the foundations of the mind fell apart.

[Mind's Eye] Re: awareness

the foundations of my mind fell apart years ago
\ /
[@] [@]
"
VVVVV
VVVVVV

but thats ok it needed torn down dont think i'll ever be done
rebuilding , hope not

Ash wrote:
> It can be too much, but if one can face the weight of this burden I think in
> deeds and works one would be able to do great things Tao. Hopefully one who
> was pushed enough to get trapped in that prison would find salvation before
> the foundations of the mind fell apart.

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

I just finished the doc, intermittently disrupted for cleaning house and watching my older 'squirt'. ;) Sorry, bad joke, but my fiancee actually came up with it!

I believe this is the first direct reference to the history behind this clash since I came here, it might give some depth but doesn't  deal directly with the materials presented gabby. The first batch of links is pretty elementary stuff but the discussion of Buddhist perspectives on thought vs the 'Cartesian' Western materialism is definitely on subject. In fact it cuts right into the heart of my own internal struggle for truth so I find it very informative and valuable. However I am still considering where my own experiences lie in relation, though it is definitely in the right field, there is a large part undiscussed in it's body. Consider this an impromptu response Orn if you wish, I am working to sort out my own head still. More later, this is the merry chase!

And gabby if you would present a competing theory, just as I asked of OrnamentalMind, I would greatly appreciate it. The more we get on the table the better eh?

[Mind's Eye] antimatter

um....i dont think i should be posting this here but i think there are
some science whiz kids on the group.... so would mind explaining to me
the whole deal behind antimatter....and its implications....i just
dont seem to get it....

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Chris idealizes the time academics spend on reading and dealing with secondary literature. What you present us here, Orn, would not even count as tertiary scribbling with the direct marketing purpose not even hidden. Some have called you spammer for that reason, me included. 

As for why the days of the old I'll-explain-you-the-world types are becoming shorter is that the net provides the opportunities to contact almost every real and every self-proclaimed expert directly. It's up to me for which I fail. ;)

Knowledge generation is back at being seen as a group process. I'll preach you from the good old days that I never had are definitely out. And yet I hear that selling knowledge pills is a successful business model. LOL. Orn, maybe you should change your wrapping and all will be fine. 

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:43 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for the specific Ash...

When you add the 'that's all' at the end of "I would like to know what
is behind your [assertion]", I find it the height of
oversimplification. I've been looking at these areas of mind, reality,
etc. for decades and have read a lot as well as having done a lot of
meditation and contemplation in these areas too. Of course, quantity
does not assure quality; however, in this area, there is no simple way
to respond to your question.

I've mentioned the following on numerous occasions yet it seems to be
prudent to do so again. Here is a very short list of issues I have
with even the question being asked. The last one is the most relative
as I see it…at least when it comes to there being no simple answer.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reify
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question

(By the way Chris loves this sort of stuff…or at least he used to!)

And, to show that I'm not going to simply refuse to answer either,
here is one of numerous sources that addresses some of the more
salient issues:

http://www.alanwallace.org/ChoosingReality23.pdf

Over the years, I've presented many such articles and we used to have
very interesting discussions about them. Sadly, this no longer is the
case.

On Apr 29, 7:10 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 8:22:17 AM UTC-4, ornamentalmind wrote:
>
> > Rethinking it, perhaps you are asking about physicality? I just don't
> > know for sure...sorry.  In either case Ash, perhaps you could be real
> > specific in the question. These epistemological and ontological issues
> > get very deep very quickly and countless books have been written about
> > even small aspects of these larger issues.
>
> Sorry to jump the gun on you OM, I was hoping that instead of going back and
> forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" for several posts you could get a
> competing assertion on the table. The suspense was killing me. I am willing
> to do the foot in mouth routine if I've stepped on the dialogue here, it is
> known that I can be inept at the social interplay and dance.
>
> "But neuron(s) firing is." [a thought] - CB
> No, it isn't.- OM
>
> I think this pair of assertions has appeared at least twice in a row now,
> Chuck has provided his initial rationale for this assertion and I would like
> to know what is behind your. That's all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 5:11 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmind...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
> > > specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
> > > more of what you are responding to.
>
> > > In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
> > > about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.
>
> > > On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <ashk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a
> > useful bit
> > > > to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in
> > mind,
> > > > someone should ask..

Re: [Mind's Eye] Just a thought...

might thought be colored by the mind that engages it ....what is the realm of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that thought...because ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the mind will automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does know....

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <nistin@gmail.com> wrote:

Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking separates, in subject-object relationship.
Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process. Thinking about something
which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious circle. You cannot think
of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take you to the Truth.
But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself) which you have otherwise
visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and limits, and stands
revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus reduced into its essence.

--
\--/ Peace

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

agreeded

Allan

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh, and as for the group, I think that gabby had the best idea of all.

On Apr 29, 5:27 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?
>
> On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> > new law practice, and legal blog.
>
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
>
> > l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
> > > back his crown.
>
> > > Kierkecraig, keikercraig!
>
> > > On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me.
> > > ;)
>
> > > > It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or
> > > > Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the
> > > reins
> > > > has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the
> > > > influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five
> > > > years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how
> > > > little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist
> > > authoritarianism, I
> > > > bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned.
>
> > > > I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante,
> > > > Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have
> > > contributed
> > > > the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great.
>
> > > > I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy
> > > > with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that
> > > goes
> > > > into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I
> > > > haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other
> > > places
> > > > to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep
> > > the
> > > > pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the
> > > > conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate
> > > > points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize
> > > > this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my
> > > > business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I
> > > > simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in
> > > all
> > > > the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new
> > > > ideas and conversations being explored.
>
> > > > I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more
> > > manageable, I
> > > > hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to
> > > be
> > > > at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to
> > > > advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and
> > > new
> > > > ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among
> > > > those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.
>
> > > > And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold
> > > a
> > > > higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation.
> > > > It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of
> > > language
> > > > is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you
> > > can
> > > > un-ironically call me a grammar nazi.
>
> > > > I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly
> > > as
> > > > much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely
> > > agree
> > > > on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years,
> > > > although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed
> > > on
> > > > something. :^D
>
> > > > Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason;
> > > > they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally
> > > poorly
> > > > suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that
> > > > humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him
> > > as
> > > > the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude,
> > > > and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til
> > > > Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.
>
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our
> > > > > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the
> > > > > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not
> > > > > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating
> > > > > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in
> > > that
> > > > > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German
> > > > > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role
> > > in
> > > > > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of
> > > it -
> > > > > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your
> > > community -
> > > > >  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was
> > > Austrian
> > > > > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you
> > > Austrians
> > > > > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to
> > > viewing
> > > > > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has
> > > established
> > > > > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the
> > > grammar of
> > > > > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a
> > > language
> > > > > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the
> > > dark
> > > > > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your
> > > > > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over
> > > what the
> > > > > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and
> > > Orn and
> > > > > Molly cowards.
>
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> What is a prescriptive moral?
>
> > > > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really
> > > under
> > > > >>> discussion here?
>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> The term "morality" can be used either
>
> > > > >>>>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by
> > > a
> > > > >>>>    society or,
> > > > >>>>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > >>>>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > >>>>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> > > specified
> > > > >>>>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> > > > >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> > > > >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
> > > > >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may
> > > be
> > > > >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify
> > > behavioral
> > > > >>>> expectations within the group or society.
>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
> > > > >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of
> > > subjective
> > > > >>>>> morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
> > > > >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Thanks for the specific Ash...

When you add the 'that's all' at the end of "I would like to know what
is behind your [assertion]", I find it the height of
oversimplification. I've been looking at these areas of mind, reality,
etc. for decades and have read a lot as well as having done a lot of
meditation and contemplation in these areas too. Of course, quantity
does not assure quality; however, in this area, there is no simple way
to respond to your question.

I've mentioned the following on numerous occasions yet it seems to be
prudent to do so again. Here is a very short list of issues I have
with even the question being asked. The last one is the most relative
as I see it…at least when it comes to there being no simple answer.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reify
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question

(By the way Chris loves this sort of stuff…or at least he used to!)

And, to show that I'm not going to simply refuse to answer either,
here is one of numerous sources that addresses some of the more
salient issues:

http://www.alanwallace.org/ChoosingReality23.pdf

Over the years, I've presented many such articles and we used to have
very interesting discussions about them. Sadly, this no longer is the
case.

On Apr 29, 7:10 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 8:22:17 AM UTC-4, ornamentalmind wrote:
>
> > Rethinking it, perhaps you are asking about physicality? I just don't
> > know for sure...sorry.  In either case Ash, perhaps you could be real
> > specific in the question. These epistemological and ontological issues
> > get very deep very quickly and countless books have been written about
> > even small aspects of these larger issues.
>
> Sorry to jump the gun on you OM, I was hoping that instead of going back and
> forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" for several posts you could get a
> competing assertion on the table. The suspense was killing me. I am willing
> to do the foot in mouth routine if I've stepped on the dialogue here, it is
> known that I can be inept at the social interplay and dance.
>
> "But neuron(s) firing is." [a thought] - CB
> No, it isn't.- OM
>
> I think this pair of assertions has appeared at least twice in a row now,
> Chuck has provided his initial rationale for this assertion and I would like
> to know what is behind your. That's all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 5:11 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmind...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
> > > specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
> > > more of what you are responding to.
>
> > > In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
> > > about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.
>
> > > On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <ashk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a
> > useful bit
> > > > to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in
> > mind,
> > > > someone should ask..

[Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

I'm, Late to the party here, but greetings and welcome Chad. Hoping you are still around to respond.

Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking separates, in subject-object relationship.
Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process.

Knowing can facilitate the refinements needed to explore diverse routes of thinking. I think in that sense knowledge can serve a valuable purpose.

Thinking about something
which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious circle. You cannot think
of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take you to the Truth.
But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself) which you have otherwise
visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and limits, and stands
revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus reduced into its essence.

 I'm pretty sure I agree with this at times, it is very reflective, and I could be entirely wrong in my mental picture of what you are referring to.. This process of revealing, bringing into consciousness, is a way to explore a dynamic and changing stream of experience. It can be either a hindrance or virtue I think, as you can be faced with indecision as a result, but if you built a dynamic and robust knowledge and came to this revelation naturally it can promote perspectives that overcome the boundaries of your knowledge. Hmm.. (?)

[Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

Chris, I would like to keep knowing you behind the ban and moderation buttons of this list. I understand that you want to make a clear cut for yourself about the responsibility you haven taken up for this group. Thanks btw for this strong engagement. Yet I feel it would be far more democratic to give the real control to the people who are actually contributing to make the group existent. And to have administrators who push the buttons in accordance with the contributors as the result of an open and transparent talking. Make it an extra thread with an extra pin to satisfy your grammar nazi, but trust the people to be able to make the right choice. The promotion could be done by the contributors themselves by doing external linking to topics here or linking your google profile to your activities here. You wouldn't have to do anything, just be there for the power relations. As I said, I would like to keep knowing you behind the buttons to feel cool about the most obnoxious truth promoters. ;)

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

i didnt go through the entire post...but i vote for gabbs

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in that area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role in this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of it - only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your community -  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was Austrian (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you Austrians are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to viewing the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has established structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the grammar of the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a language is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the dark shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over what the world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and Orn and Molly cowards. 

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chuckb@gmail.com> wrote:

What is a prescriptive moral?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@gmail.com> wrote:

Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really under discussion here? 

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chuckb@gmail.com> wrote:

The term "morality" can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify behavioral expectations within the group or society.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective
morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
morality.

--
\--/ Peace

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

They're slowly but surely moving that way. Thanks for asking! :)

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:27 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?

On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> new law practice, and legal blog.
>

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
> > back his crown.
>
> > Kierkecraig, keikercraig!
>
> > On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me.
> > ;)
>
> > > It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or
> > > Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the
> > reins
> > > has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the
> > > influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five
> > > years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how
> > > little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist
> > authoritarianism, I
> > > bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned.
>
> > > I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante,
> > > Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have
> > contributed
> > > the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great.
>
> > > I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy
> > > with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that
> > goes
> > > into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I
> > > haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other
> > places
> > > to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep
> > the
> > > pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the
> > > conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate
> > > points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize
> > > this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my
> > > business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I
> > > simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in
> > all
> > > the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new
> > > ideas and conversations being explored.
>
> > > I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more
> > manageable, I
> > > hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to
> > be
> > > at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to
> > > advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and
> > new
> > > ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among
> > > those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.
>
> > > And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold
> > a
> > > higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation.
> > > It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of
> > language
> > > is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you
> > can
> > > un-ironically call me a grammar nazi.
>
> > > I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly
> > as
> > > much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely
> > agree
> > > on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years,
> > > although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed
> > on
> > > something. :^D
>
> > > Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason;
> > > they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally
> > poorly
> > > suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that
> > > humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him
> > as
> > > the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude,
> > > and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til
> > > Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.
>
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our
> > > > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the
> > > > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not
> > > > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating
> > > > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in
> > that
> > > > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German
> > > > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role
> > in
> > > > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of
> > it -
> > > > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your
> > community -
> > > >  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was
> > Austrian
> > > > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you
> > Austrians
> > > > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to
> > viewing
> > > > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has
> > established
> > > > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the
> > grammar of
> > > > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a
> > language
> > > > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the
> > dark
> > > > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your
> > > > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over
> > what the
> > > > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and
> > Orn and
> > > > Molly cowards.
>
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> What is a prescriptive moral?
>
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really
> > under
> > > >>> discussion here?
>
> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> The term "morality" can be used either
>
> > > >>>>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by
> > a
> > > >>>>    society or,
> > > >>>>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > >>>>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > >>>>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> > specified
> > > >>>>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> > > >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> > > >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
> > > >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may
> > be
> > > >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify
> > behavioral
> > > >>>> expectations within the group or society.
>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
> > > >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of
> > subjective
> > > >>>>> morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
> > > >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

On Friday, April 29, 2011 8:22:17 AM UTC-4, ornamentalmind wrote:

Rethinking it, perhaps you are asking about physicality? I just don't
know for sure...sorry.  In either case Ash, perhaps you could be real
specific in the question. These epistemological and ontological issues
get very deep very quickly and countless books have been written about
even small aspects of these larger issues.

Sorry to jump the gun on you OM, I was hoping that instead of going back and forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" for several posts you could get a competing assertion on the table. The suspense was killing me. I am willing to do the foot in mouth routine if I've stepped on the dialogue here, it is known that I can be inept at the social interplay and dance.

"But neuron(s) firing is." [a thought] - CB
No, it isn't.- OM

I think this pair of assertions has appeared at least twice in a row now, Chuck has provided his initial rationale for this assertion and I would like to know what is behind your. That's all.



 

On Apr 29, 5:11 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmind...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
> specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
> more of what you are responding to.
>
> In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
> about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.
>
> On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <ashk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a useful bit
> > to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in mind,
> > someone should ask..

[Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

Oh, and as for the group, I think that gabby had the best idea of all.

On Apr 29, 5:27 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?
>
> On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> > new law practice, and legal blog.
>
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
>
> > l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
> > > back his crown.
>
> > > Kierkecraig, keikercraig!
>
> > > On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me.
> > > ;)
>
> > > > It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or
> > > > Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the
> > > reins
> > > > has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the
> > > > influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five
> > > > years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how
> > > > little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist
> > > authoritarianism, I
> > > > bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned.
>
> > > > I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante,
> > > > Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have
> > > contributed
> > > > the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great.
>
> > > > I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy
> > > > with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that
> > > goes
> > > > into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I
> > > > haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other
> > > places
> > > > to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep
> > > the
> > > > pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the
> > > > conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate
> > > > points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize
> > > > this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my
> > > > business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I
> > > > simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in
> > > all
> > > > the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new
> > > > ideas and conversations being explored.
>
> > > > I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more
> > > manageable, I
> > > > hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to
> > > be
> > > > at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to
> > > > advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and
> > > new
> > > > ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among
> > > > those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.
>
> > > > And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold
> > > a
> > > > higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation.
> > > > It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of
> > > language
> > > > is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you
> > > can
> > > > un-ironically call me a grammar nazi.
>
> > > > I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly
> > > as
> > > > much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely
> > > agree
> > > > on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years,
> > > > although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed
> > > on
> > > > something. :^D
>
> > > > Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason;
> > > > they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally
> > > poorly
> > > > suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that
> > > > humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him
> > > as
> > > > the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude,
> > > > and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til
> > > > Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.
>
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our
> > > > > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the
> > > > > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not
> > > > > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating
> > > > > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in
> > > that
> > > > > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German
> > > > > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role
> > > in
> > > > > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of
> > > it -
> > > > > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your
> > > community -
> > > > >  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was
> > > Austrian
> > > > > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you
> > > Austrians
> > > > > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to
> > > viewing
> > > > > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has
> > > established
> > > > > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the
> > > grammar of
> > > > > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a
> > > language
> > > > > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the
> > > dark
> > > > > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your
> > > > > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over
> > > what the
> > > > > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and
> > > Orn and
> > > > > Molly cowards.
>
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> What is a prescriptive moral?
>
> > > > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really
> > > under
> > > > >>> discussion here?
>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> The term "morality" can be used either
>
> > > > >>>>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by
> > > a
> > > > >>>>    society or,
> > > > >>>>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > > >>>>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > > >>>>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> > > specified
> > > > >>>>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> > > > >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> > > > >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
> > > > >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may
> > > be
> > > > >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify
> > > behavioral
> > > > >>>> expectations within the group or society.
>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
> > > > >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of
> > > subjective
> > > > >>>>> morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
> > > > >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Guys? We need to talk.

Chris, did you ever get your finances back in order?

On Apr 28, 7:31 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh, I would if I thought it would make a difference. He's pounded with his
> new law practice, and legal blog.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Blow horn Chris, send up the call for the mighty owner to come claim
> > back his crown.
>
> > Kierkecraig, keikercraig!
>
> > On Apr 28, 3:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Aw shucks, Gabs. Keep this up and I might get the impression you like me.
> > ;)
>
> > > It's an interesting analogy you pose, but Minds Eye is not Germany, or
> > > Poland, or France, Italy, or even the U.S. My desire to hand over the
> > reins
> > > has nothing to do with any sense of guilt, and I note with some pride the
> > > influence I've had in growing and moderating the group over the last five
> > > years. As Lee noted above, the hallmark of our moderation has been how
> > > little it's ever been used. Despite the cries of Fascist
> > authoritarianism, I
> > > bet most current users can't remember the last person we banned.
>
> > > I do remember, however, the voices I truly miss around here; Atalante,
> > > Archytas, ThePeasantKing, and many others who along the way have
> > contributed
> > > the carefully articulated thoughts that make this group great.
>
> > > I would love to see the group grow and thrive again, and have been happy
> > > with how conversation has grown recently. However, there's a lot that
> > goes
> > > into group ownership which never gets talked about on here, things that I
> > > haven't been able to keep up with, like promoting the group in other
> > places
> > > to grow membership, and injecting quality conversation starters to keep
> > the
> > > pump primed. As the number of active users has dwindled, many of the
> > > conversations became broken records to me, rehashing the same obstinate
> > > points and unyielding positions over and over and over again. I recognize
> > > this to be my fault; in the last year, I've been struggling to get my
> > > business up and running, and working on many different media projects. I
> > > simply haven't had the time needed to be a good steward of the group, in
> > all
> > > the ways which though un-noticed, are critical to its growth, and to new
> > > ideas and conversations being explored.
>
> > > I have no intention of unsubscribing, and as life becomes more
> > manageable, I
> > > hope to rejoin the conversation regularly. However, someone else needs to
> > be
> > > at the reins, someone who loves the group enough to make the time to
> > > advertise it, grow it, start new conversations, introduce new people and
> > new
> > > ideas, and truly break out of the quagmire of thought which occurs among
> > > those who have had the same conversation a thousand times.
>
> > > And yes, I do enjoy the position of senior editor for Obnoxi.us, and hold
> > a
> > > higher editorial standard than is generally found in forum conversation.
> > > It's a different medium, with a different purpose, and clarity of
> > language
> > > is important. Given the analogy you've used (Hitler, et al), I think you
> > can
> > > un-ironically call me a grammar nazi.
>
> > > I've always enjoyed a good open argument with you, Gabs, and take nearly
> > as
> > > much pleasure in it as I do in those rare moments you and I completely
> > agree
> > > on something. I've also enjoyed butting heads with Orn over the years,
> > > although I'm not sure I can point to any moments we've completely agreed
> > on
> > > something. :^D
>
> > > Chuck, the trope of the Reluctant King is an eternal meme for a reason;
> > > they're the best kind. Those that actively seek power are generally
> > poorly
> > > suited for it. I knew Francis would decline the position, but it's that
> > > humility, even temper, and sincere diplomacy which make me think of him
> > as
> > > the perfect caretaker for this list. You seem to have the right attitude,
> > > and with three votes, you're the current board leader. I'll give it til
> > > Sunday at 10:00PM EST for everyone to weigh in, and then hand it off.
>
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our
> > > > common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the
> > > > English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not
> > > > having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating
> > > > innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in
> > that
> > > > area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German
> > > > background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role
> > in
> > > > this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of
> > it -
> > > > only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your
> > community -
> > > >  is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was
> > Austrian
> > > > (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you
> > Austrians
> > > > are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to
> > viewing
> > > > the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has
> > established
> > > > structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the
> > grammar of
> > > > the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a
> > language
> > > > is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the
> > dark
> > > > shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your
> > > > head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over
> > what the
> > > > world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and
> > Orn and
> > > > Molly cowards.
>
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> What is a prescriptive moral?
>
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > >>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really
> > under
> > > >>> discussion here?
>
> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling <
> > > >>> aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> The term "morality" can be used either
>
> > > >>>>    1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by
> > a
> > > >>>>    society or,
> > > >>>>       1. some other group, such as a religion, or
> > > >>>>       2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> > > >>>>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given
> > specified
> > > >>>>    conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
>
> > > >>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford
> > > >>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
>
> > > >>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may
> > be
> > > >>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify
> > behavioral
> > > >>>> expectations within the group or society.
>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
> > > >>>> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of
> > subjective
> > > >>>>> morality.  I contend that there exists no such thing as objective
> > > >>>>> morality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Rethinking it, perhaps you are asking about physicality? I just don't
know for sure...sorry. In either case Ash, perhaps you could be real
specific in the question. These epistemological and ontological issues
get very deep very quickly and countless books have been written about
even small aspects of these larger issues.

On Apr 29, 5:11 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
> specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
> more of what you are responding to.
>
> In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
> about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.
>
> On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a useful bit
> > to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in mind,
> > someone should ask..

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
more of what you are responding to.

In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.

On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a useful bit
> to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in mind,
> someone should ask..

Zardari Assets in and out of PAKISTAN

Agar 10 % commision liya jai tou banda itna kuch bana sakta ha :

ZARDARIS LOCAL ASSETS ARE: Plot no. 121, Phase VIII, DHA Karachi. Agricultural land situated in Deh Dali Wadi, Taluka, Tando Allah Yar. Agricultural property located in Deh Tahooki Taluka, District Hyderabad measuring 65.15 acres. Agricultural land falling in Deh 76-Nusrat, Taluka, District Nawabshah measuring 827.14 acres Agricultural land situated in Deh 76-Nusrat, Taluka, District Nawabshah measuring 293.18 acres Residential plot No 3 (Now House) Block No B-I, City Survey No 2268 Ward-A Nawabshah Huma Heights (Asif Apartments) 133, Depot Lines, Commissariat Road, Karachi Trade Tower Building 3/CL/V Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi House No 8, St 9, F-8/2, Islamabad Agricultural land in Deh 42 Dad Taluka/ District Nawabshah Agricultural land in Deh 51 Dad Taluka Distt Nawabshah Plot No 3 & 4 Sikni (residential) Near Housing Society Ltd. Nawabshah CafT Sheraz (C.S No.. 2231/2 & 2231/3) Nawabshah Agricultural land in Deh 23-Deh Taluka & District Nawabshah Agricultural property in Deh 72-A, Nusrat Taluka, Nawabshah Agricultural land in Deh 76-Nusrat Taluka, Nawabshah Plot No. A/136 Survey No 2346 Ward A Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Nawabshah Agricultural land in Deh Jaryoon Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Aroro Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Nondani Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Lotko Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Jhol Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Kandari Taluka Tando Allah Yar, Distt. Hyderabad Agricultural land in Deh Deghi Taluka Tando Mohammad Khan Agricultural land in Deh Rahooki Taluka, Hyderabad Property in Deh Charo Taluka, Badin Agricultural property in Deh Dali Wadi Taluka, Hyderabad Five acres prime land allotted by DG KDA in 1995/96 4,000 kanals on Simli Dam 80 acres of land at Hawkes Bay 13 acres of land at Maj Gulradi (KPT Land) One acre plot, GCI, Clifton One acre of land, State Life (International Center, Sadar) FEBCs worth Rs. 4 million bSHARES IN SUGAR MILLS INCLUDE: Sakrand Sugar Mills Nawabshah Ansari Sugar Mills Hyderabad Mirza Sugar Mills Badin Pangrio Sugar Mills Thatta Bachani Sugar Mills Sanghar   FRONT COMPANIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES: Bomer Fiannce Inc, British Virgin Islands Mariston Securities Inc, British Virgin Islands Marleton Business S A, British Virgin Islands Capricorn Trading S A, British Virgin Islands Fagarita Consulting INc, British Virgin Islands Marvil Associated Inc, British Virgin Islands Pawnbury Finance Ltd, British Virgin Islands Oxton Trading Limited, British Virgin Islands Brinslen Invest S A, British Virgin Islands Chimitex Holding S A, British Virgin Islands Elkins Holding S A, British Virgin Islands Minister Invest Ltd, British Virgin Islands Silvernut Investment Inc, British Virgin Islands Tacolen Investment Ltd, British Virgin Islands Marlcrdon Invest S A, British Virgin Islands Dustan Trading Inc, British Virgin Islands Reconstruction and Development Finance Inc, British Virgin Islands Nassam Alexander Inc. Westminster Securities Inc. Laptworth Investment Inc 202, Saint Martin Drive, West Jacksonville Intra Foods Inc. 3376, Lomrel Grove, Jacksonville, Florida Dynatel Trading Co, Florida A..S Realty Inc. Palm Beach Gardens Florida Bon Voyage Travel Consultancy Inc, Florida   ZARDARIS PROPERTIES IN UK ARE: 355 acre Rockwood Estate, Surrey (Now stands admitted) Flat 6, 11 Queensgate Terrace, London SW7 26 Palace Mansions, Hammersmith Road, London W14 27 Pont Street, London, SW1 20 Wilton Crescent, London SW1 23 Lord Chancellor Walk, Coombe Hill, Kingston, Surrey The Mansion, Warren Lane, West Hampstead, London A flat at Queensgate Terrace, London Houses at Hammersmith Road, Wilton Crescent, Kingston and in Hampstead.   ZARDARIS PROPERTIES IN BELGIUM ARE: 12-3 Boulevard De-Nieuport, 1000, Brussels, (Building containing 4 shops and 2 large apartments) Chausee De-Mons, 1670, Brussels   ZARDARIS PROPERTIES IN FRANCE ARE: La Manoir De La Reine Blanche and property in Cannes   ZARDARIS PROPERTIES IN USA  — in the name of Asif Zardari and managed by Shimmy Qureshi are: Stud farm in Texas Wellington Club East, West Palm Beach 12165 West Forest Hills, Florida Escue Farm 13,524 India Mound, West Palm Beach 3,220 Santa Barbara Drive, Wellington Florida 13,254 Polo Club Road, West Palm Beach Florida 3,000 North Ocean Drive, Singer Islands, Florida 525 South Flager Driver, West Palm Beach, Florida Holiday Inn Houston Owned by Asif Ali Zardari, Iqbal Memon and Sadar-ud-Din Hashwani   ZARDARIS BANK ACCOUNTS IN FOREGN COMPANIES ARE: Union Bank of Switzerland (Account No. 552.343, 257.556.60Q, 433.142.60V, 216.393.60T) Citibank Private Limited (SWZ) (Account No. 342034) Citibank N A Dubai (Account No. 818097) Barclays Bank (Suisse) (Account No. 62290209) Barclays Bank (Suisse) (Account No. 62274400) Banque Centrade Ormard Burrus S A Banque Pache S A Banque Pictet & Cie Banque La Henin, Paris (Account No. 00101953552) Bank Natinede Paris in Geneva (Account NO.. 563.726.9) Swiss Bank Corporation Chase Manhattan Bank Switzerland American Express Bank Switzerland Societe De Banque Swissee Barclays Bank (Knightsbridge Branch) (Account No. 90991473) Barclays Bank, Kingston and Chelsea Branch, (Sort Code 20-47-34135) National Westminster Bank, Alwych Branch (Account No. 9683230) Habib Bank (Pall Mall Branch). National Westminster Bank, Barking Branch, (Account No. 28558999). Habib Bank AG, Moorgate, London EC2 National Westminster Bank, Edgware Road, London Banque Financiei E Dela Citee, Credit Suisse Habib Bank AG Zurich, Switzerland Pictet Et Cie, Geneva Credit Agricole, Paris Credit Agridolf, Branch 11, Place Brevier, 76440, Forges Les Faux Credit Agricole, Branch Haute   Normandie, 76230, Boise Chillaum

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENGLISH Documents" group.
To post to this group, send email to englishdocuments@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to englishdocuments+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/englishdocuments?hl=en.

[Mind's Eye] Re: love

A valuable lesson Rigsy, perhaps we learn to be fair but encouraging of ourselves through the acts of compassion we discover in dealing with others? The Golden Rule in the house of mirrors perhaps.

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Heh Tao, it may seem, but I have a feeling there is more than one round in Chuck. As with most people who are capable of reasoning and being reasonable there is limitless potential to refine terms. Most give up on the duration, or back and forth personality clashes but OM has some obvious stamina. It could go on like this for hundreds of posts before reaching a probable stalemate or one of the two just gets bored and decides it would be more fun to shoot the shit or have a drink. :D Forgive the gross boxing vernacular.

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a useful bit to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in mind, someone should ask..

[Mind's Eye] Re: awareness

It can be too much, but if one can face the weight of this burden I think in deeds and works one would be able to do great things Tao. Hopefully one who was pushed enough to get trapped in that prison would find salvation before the foundations of the mind fell apart.

[Mind's Eye] Re: More on Effort

Thank you RP

On Apr 28, 7:08 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Orn , that's a yes.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, ornamentalmind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > RP, I couldn't tell, was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
>
> > On Apr 28, 9:55 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am an emanation of God and hence God is conscious in me , thinks in
> >> me and feels and acts in me. But I am just one emanation , God sees ,
> >> feels thinks and acts in all as all are emanations of God. I a petty
> >> emanation of God turn to the Father from whom the whole creation has
> >> emanated and ask Him to cast His benign eye upon me as I just a small
> >> part of God cannot think of myself to be God but his fragment. A
> >> finger of my hand will just remain a finger and not be myself. Even
> >> the whole Creation is just an emanation of God and cannot be called
> >> God as He is the source of all and the rays of the sun cannot be
> >> called the sun.
>
> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:35 AM, ornamentalmind
>
> >> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > RP, thanks again for responding.
>
> >> > I'll assume that you don't believe that god thinks conceptually the
> >> > way humans do, correct?...no thinking using words either, right?
>
> >> > On Apr 22, 7:07 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> God is aware in the sense that He is all or all emanates from Him and
> >> >> thus automatically He knows everything and doesn't have to be aware of
> >> >> things like us mortals. In my opinion , we should not conceive of Him
> >> >> to be conscious in the way that we are because our consciousness
> >> >> entails duality or is encompassed within borders. He is conscious in
> >> >> us , acts in us but in His separate state He is oblivious of all as He
> >> >> alone is and creation being changeable and subject to birth and death
> >> >> is just an illusion. In my view that which is not permanent can be
> >> >> called an illusion.
>
> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ornamentalmind
>
> >> >> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > RP, are you suggesting that god is not conscious at all?...that all
> >> >> > god is/does etc. is unconscious?
>
> >> >> > In either case, are you using one of the more common notions of what
> >> >> > conscious means…like being self aware and knowing what one is doing?
>
> >> >> > On Apr 22, 1:45 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> In my view , creation was not a conscious act of God , but rather the
> >> >> >> universe emanated from the unconscious mind of God. He doesn't look at
> >> >> >> us consciously , doesn't connect results with actions , rather
> >> >> >> everything is happening according to laws which exist in His
> >> >> >> unconscious mind. I don't think that any scripture can really lay down
> >> >> >> definitions of good and bad with His authority , rather thinkers among
> >> >> >> us can lay down rules which appear logical to them and accepted by us
> >> >> >> as such. I don't believe in an after-life and consider this life
> >> >> >> itself to be a spiritual experience.
>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Chuck Bowling
>
> >> >> >> <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:55 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
> >> >> >> > <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> Hey Chuck,
>
> >> >> >> >> I guess it depends on what you belive God is.
>
> >> >> >> >> If you believe that God is the creator then everything has Gods hand
> >> >> >> >> in it,  if you further belive that God is omipitant then God you are
> >> >> >> >> exactly the way that God has designed you to be.
>
> >> >> >> > I believe that god/goddess/gods etc. are icons. They are concepts that help
> >> >> >> > people cope with their own frailties and inadequacies. Whether it be to
> >> >> >> > blame bad things on, attribute good things to, or to provide us a path to
> >> >> >> > continue our existence beyond the grave.
>
> >> >> >> >> If you are a gardner, and you splice together two differant plants to
> >> >> >> >> gain a desird result, the plant does have a life of it's own, but
> >> >> >> >> works in the way you have designd it to.  So in a real way you are the
> >> >> >> >> manipulator of that plants life, your hand is in all that it does, as
> >> >> >> >> you have designed it.
>
> >> >> >> > Here I would say that the original design was altered. A much easier task
> >> >> >> > than the original design.
>
> >> >> >> > As I may have mentioned in a previous post, I readily accept the possibility
> >> >> >> > that some entity may have created this universe. And, I think that anything
> >> >> >> > with that kind of power would probably appear to be omniscient to us.
> >> >> >> > However, I also believe that it is VERY unlikely that any entity that could
> >> >> >> > have created this reality would bare even the slightest resemblance to
> >> >> >> > anything we describe as a god.
>
> >> >> >> > The reasoning for that seems fairly straightforward to me:
>
> >> >> >> > Most of the gods we have created seem to be pretty damn lame. I mean come
> >> >> >> > on. You want me to kill a goat, sacrifice a virgin, or set fire to a wax
> >> >> >> > stick in your honor. REALLY??? And you're going to send me to hell for
> >> >> >> > eternity because I thought the neighbor's wife was a hot piece of tail?
> >> >> >> > Jeesh. As gods go you suck dude.
>
> >> >> >> > Another thing. You would think that god would find a better way of
> >> >> >> > correcting bad behavior than to fry people for an eternity. Even we lowly
> >> >> >> > humans know that setting someone on fire is not the best way to convince 'em
> >> >> >> > to mend their ways.
>
> >> >> >> > Lastly but not finally. If god created this reality then at a minimum he
> >> >> >> > created one and possibly infinitely more universes. In this one there are an
> >> >> >> > estimated 300 sextillion stars. That's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
> >> >> >> > if you're looking for precision. You would think that with all that stuff
> >> >> >> > floating around out there that he/she/it would have better things to do than
> >> >> >> > make sure that little johnnies prayers are answered with a brand new bike on
> >> >> >> > his birthday.
>
> >> >> >> > My guess is that any entity capable of creating all of this would see us as
> >> >> >> > a minor infestation of germs at best.
>
> >> >> >> >> On Apr 20, 5:40 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > Whatever work I do and the effort that I make , is it God doing it ?
> >> >> >> >> > > No , I do it all , but It is God who gives me the strength to do it.
> >> >> >> >> > > Without His strength even the resolve to do anything wouldn't come to
> >> >> >> >> > > my mind.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Now when you say that God is giving you strength can you be more
> >> >> >> >> > specific?
> >> >> >> >> > Is he providing your mitochondria with more ADP or is he upping your
> >> >> >> >> > serotonin or dopamine levels to give you a greater feeling of reward for
> >> >> >> >> > your accomplishments?
>
> >> >> >> >> > And, if so, can you tell me exactly how he does that? I mean, is he
> >> >> >> >> > causing
> >> >> >> >> > re-uptake inhibition or is he actually producing a greater volume of
> >> >> >> >> > chemical messengers at the synapse?
>
> >> >> >> >> > I guess if it's psychological strength it would have to be the latter.
> >> >> >> >> > If it
> >> >> >> >> > were greater physical strength then you'd probably be able to lift cars
> >> >> >> >> > off
> >> >> >> >> > the ground.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -