Thursday, June 28, 2012

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

We can all use a little kindness, I have a feeling your gut instinct
rules here. Don't adopt a feral man on my account! lol But.. a little
scrub and polish may reveal a decent ship, on the cheap, handy-woman
special. I know my experience is a few leagues lower than many here and
I wouldn't know how to relate advice if I had any, so I'll belay proving
my stature. My tact (in person) is usually to show someone how
indecisive, confused and pensive someone can really get, by trying to
figure me out their problems seem easier. Someone out there just laughed. :)

Just commiserating about the trusty parts, they do take hell.

On 6/27/2012 12:50 AM, rigsy03 wrote:
> I don't know if you mean I should be kind or I should expect
> kindness.Sometimes the truth is not kind and rather than saying I
> didn't agree with this and that I let it pass- the red flags, I guess-
> till there was something concrete- although a minute part of the
> whole. It really isn't about housekeeping or snoring. I think you are
> trying to help. Thanks.//I'll take the south tower of a medieval
> castle and work on the tapestry, okay? :-)
> On Jun 26, 10:30 pm, James<> wrote:
>> The parts sort of develop a mind of their own! With time one can learn
>> to face it and interrupt the process by learning about triggers and
>> their relationship to the past. Mine seems to play out events and taking
>> everything apart and reassembling in different directions, scenarios,
>> just have to keep it pointed at constructive problem solving otherwise
>> the other parts will start responding badly. Yours sounds a little
>> familiar, not to mine but I won't go there tonight- suffice to say if we
>> were in your shoes we would appreciate kindness? Sent by grace
>> perhaps.. she dreamed I would grow up to be a preacher (a passionate
>> Southern Baptist no doubt). Heh, that always makes smile.
>> On 6/26/2012 8:23 AM, rigsy03 wrote:
>>> Well, thank you and others for not jumping all over me for
>>> heartlessness. Of course I have adapted to/cleaned up messes and
>>> snoring during my lifetime- this recent incident really triggered a
>>> dramatic response- maybe long overdue and rather than deal with it
>>> directly I am using the "busy" disappearance routine- also called
>>> "flight".//Sometimes my heart feels heavy or broken, other times light
>>> and dancing but my entire body feels various emotional responses-
>>> however, the adrenal gland or brain would not be much of a metaphor or
>>> image on greeting cards, would it?
>>> On Jun 26, 4:21 am, malcymo<> wrote:
>>>> The 'heart' is difficult to talk about as I believe that it is often used
>>>> metaphorically. I, being the coward that I am, tend to avoid reference to
>>>> it. It could be confused with love.
>>>> Malc
>>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:50:30 AM UTC+12, Ash wrote:
>>>>> When referring to the tangible object it is within normal operating
>>>>> parameters and conventional properties but we could switch it around a
>>>>> little, say, what we are referring to is a summation of object
>>>>> permanence derived from causal relationships resulting in the idea of a
>>>>> thing we call a heart, or perhaps a million other ways like numbers.
>>>>> But I think Molly was saying a bit more than that, and perhaps you are
>>>>> too- you sly fox! :)
>>>>> _pleease interpret as jovial_
>>>>> On 6/25/2012 9:23 AM, RP Singh wrote:
>>>>>> And where's the heart , Molly ? is it somewhere outside this body ?
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Molly<> wrote:
>>>>>>> The heart also responds to all the things you mention. Our physical
>>>>>>> organs and systems all respond to thoughts, feelings and awareness.
>>>>>>> The heartmath institute has done quite a bit of research in this
>>>>>>> regard. Our being (includes physical and all aspects) and experience
>>>>>>> are in dynamic relationship. The become one in paradox.
>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 11:22 am, RP Singh<> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is the brain which is essential for experiencing all feelings ,
>>>>>>>> thoughts , and states of awareness. Whatever is experienced has
>>>>>>>> physical basis because without the physical organs, whether it be
>>>>>>>> brain or sense organs , no experience is possible. God abides in
>>>>>>>> matter and guides it by well established laws.
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Molly<> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> brain worship is prevalent, but science can't measure mind, or the
>>>>>>>>> effect of thought on experience. Science can measure brain function
>>>>>>>>> as neuro-physical biochemisty, but not the complexity of thought and
>>>>>>>>> what it means to overall health. There is a state in sleep and
>>>>>>>>> waking, where thought is not required, and indeed, awareness is
>>>>>>>>> enhanced because of it.
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2:35 pm, RP Singh<> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Man is a physical creature , the only spiritual aspect in him is
>>>>>>>>>> awareness. It is the mind which thinks and mind is physical , cut a
>>>>>>>>>> portion of the brain and thinking will stop , cut another portion
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> awareness will be reduced to such a level as to be insignificant ,
>>>>>>>>>> and if you kill the brain even awareness which is the spiritual
>>>>>>>>>> aspect in life will be extinguished. The fact is that Spirit
>>>>> pervades
>>>>>>>>>> throughout matter and an individuality might cease to be , yet the
>>>>> One
>>>>>>>>>> Spirit which is eternal and immortal remains unchanged.
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Molly<>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mind is a non physical organ, like ego or our metaphorical heart
>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>>>> one what contains our emotions.) It's kind of like asking if
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> in different climates have different gall bladders because of the
>>>>>>>>>>> climate. At some point in our development, because the human being
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> adaptive and resilient, it is possible to find a harmonious life
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> all systems communicating and functioning together. We call this
>>>>>>>>>>> optimal health. And, at some point in our development, we may
>>>>>>>>>>> discover that the harmony of our being is more a reflection of our
>>>>>>>>>>> internal environment than external and that our lives are lived
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> inside out. Of course, not everyone comes to this realization, and
>>>>>>>>>>> continue throughout their lives to look for external causes for
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> problems or discomfort. Whatever our philosophy, the quality of our
>>>>>>>>>>> lives can dramatically change for the better is we look within for
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> answers. Our mind thinks. We can live and breathe without
>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet thinking is an important aspect of life, and one that directly
>>>>>>>>>>> effects the quality of our lives.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 12:06 pm, " kid"<>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to find out about this Chaz guy you were talking about...
>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> i was going through some really old posts.. but couldnt go really
>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>> back.. only till 2007... when was ME created? who started it? When
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a look..there are sooo many topics covered..its so exiting..
>>>>>>>>>>>> though i thought i saw some homophobic posts... but seriously..
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> range is so wide.. and there were so many members actively
>>>>>>>>>>>> engaging ... my own old posts seemed dumb to me.. i guess they
>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> are.. But its remarkable the range of this gla i joined
>>>>> it..
>>>>>>>>>>>> one can learn a lot.... also you guys think..different
>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>>>>> zones affect the nature of people?..i mean more than the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>> environment affects culture which affects to some degree human
>>>>>>>>>>>> nature(or at least superficial responses.).. are people in
>>>>> temperate
>>>>>>>>>>>> areas different in their mind than people from tropical sultry
>>>>>>>>>>>> areas...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 5:02 pm, rigsy03<> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read Barbara Ward's "The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations" in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> early '60's when my curiousity led me beyond liberal arts- also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carson's "The Silent Spring", and several books on WWII. 60 years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> later- and where are we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 8:44 pm, archytas<> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point above, I think, is that what appears very complex may
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points of simplexity where we can see the moral action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2:41 am, archytas<> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was attracted in to have a go at new google groups - utterly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unspeakable. These moral issues form the core of my new book
>>>>> (80%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done). Underlying the moral maze is the issue of frames of
>>>>> reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - most famously paradigms, though the Greeks knew. You can
>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make several powerful arguments about anything. You can't
>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide between the arguments because the root metaphors are
>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and incommensurable. The following were examples, exhausting
>>>>> if not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhaustive:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARADIGM (disciplinary matrices) KUHN 1970; BURRELL&
>>>>> MORGAN 1979
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MULTIPLE REALITIES JAMES1911
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALTERNATE REALITIES CASTANEDA 1970; 1974
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE STRUCTURES WHORF 1956
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORLD HYPOTHESES PEPPER 1942; 1966
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DREAM WORLDS (multiple frameworks) FEYERABEND 1975
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (instrumental v life-world rationalities) HABERMAS 1984
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOUCAULT 1977; 1980
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MODAL LOGICS, RELATIVITIES LEWIS 1926; 1929; 1946: MOSER
>>>>> 1989
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> METAPHOR MORGAN 1986
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A classic example was held to be Newton's mechanics and
>>>>> Einstein's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity and quantum theory. Very dense work by Snell and
>>>>> Ludvig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disproves this IMHO. I take a similar view and believe the
>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we work in the ready-to-hand and don't get down deep enough to
>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we are talking about. English Law does not allow the
>>>>> cabin boy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be eaten to survive when all else is lost - you have to give
>>>>> him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same shake of the dice everyone else gets.
>> ...
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -


Post a Comment