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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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<malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The 'heart' is difficult to talk about as I believe that it is often used
> >> metaphorically. I, being the coward that I am, tend to avoid reference to
> >> it. It could be confused with love.
>
> >> Malc
>
> >> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:50:30 AM UTC+12, Ash wrote:
> >>> When referring to the tangible object it is within normal operating
> >>> parameters and conventional properties but we could switch it around a
> >>> little, say, what we are referring to is a summation of object
> >>> permanence derived from causal relationships resulting in the idea of a
> >>> thing we call a heart, or perhaps a million other ways like numbers.
>
> >>> But I think Molly was saying a bit more than that, and perhaps you are
> >>> too- you sly fox! :)
>
> >>> _pleease interpret as jovial_
>
> >>> On 6/25/2012 9:23 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> >>>> And where's the heart , Molly ? is it somewhere outside this body ?
>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The heart also responds to all the things you mention. Our physical
> >>>>> organs and systems all respond to thoughts, feelings and awareness.
> >>>>> The heartmath institute has done quite a bit of research in this
> >>>>> regard. Our being (includes physical and all aspects) and experience
> >>>>> are in dynamic relationship. The become one in paradox.
>
> >>>>> On Jun 24, 11:22 am, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> It is the brain which is essential for experiencing all feelings ,
> >>>>>> thoughts , and states of awareness. Whatever is experienced has
> >>>>>> physical basis because without the physical organs, whether it be
> >>>>>> brain or sense organs , no experience is possible. God abides in
> >>>>>> matter and guides it by well established laws.
>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> brain worship is prevalent, but science can't measure mind, or the
> >>>>>>> effect of thought on experience. Science can measure brain function
> >>>>>>> as neuro-physical biochemisty, but not the complexity of thought and
> >>>>>>> what it means to overall health. There is a state in sleep and
> >>>>>>> waking, where thought is not required, and indeed, awareness is
> >>>>>>> enhanced because of it.
>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 23, 2:35 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Man is a physical creature , the only spiritual aspect in him is
> >>>>>>>> awareness. It is the mind which thinks and mind is physical , cut a
> >>>>>>>> portion of the brain and thinking will stop , cut another portion
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>> awareness will be reduced to such a level as to be insignificant ,
> >>>>>>>> and if you kill the brain even awareness which is the spiritual
> >>>>>>>> aspect in life will be extinguished. The fact is that Spirit
> >>> pervades
> >>>>>>>> throughout matter and an individuality might cease to be , yet the
> >>> One
> >>>>>>>> Spirit which is eternal and immortal remains unchanged.
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Molly<mollyb...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Mind is a non physical organ, like ego or our metaphorical heart
> >>> (the
> >>>>>>>>> one what contains our emotions.) It's kind of like asking if
> >>> people
> >>>>>>>>> in different climates have different gall bladders because of the
> >>>>>>>>> climate. At some point in our development, because the human being
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>>> adaptive and resilient, it is possible to find a harmonious life
> >>> with
> >>>>>>>>> all systems communicating and functioning together. We call this
> >>>>>>>>> optimal health. And, at some point in our development, we may
> >>>>>>>>> discover that the harmony of our being is more a reflection of our
> >>>>>>>>> internal environment than external and that our lives are lived
> >>> from
> >>>>>>>>> inside out. Of course, not everyone comes to this realization, and
> >>>>>>>>> continue throughout their lives to look for external causes for
> >>> their
> >>>>>>>>> problems or discomfort. Whatever our philosophy, the quality of our
> >>>>>>>>> lives can dramatically change for the better is we look within for
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> answers. Our mind thinks. We can live and breathe without
> >>> thinking.
> >>>>>>>>> Yet thinking is an important aspect of life, and one that directly
> >>>>>>>>> effects the quality of our lives.
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 12:06 pm, "pol.science kid"<r.freeb...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I wanted to find out about this Chaz guy you were talking about...
> >>> so
> >>>>>>>>>> i was going through some really old posts.. but couldnt go really
> >>> far
> >>>>>>>>>> back.. only till 2007... when was ME created? who started it? When
> >>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> have a look..there are sooo many topics covered..its so exiting..
> >>>>>>>>>> though i thought i saw some homophobic posts... but seriously..
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> range is so wide.. and there were so many members actively
> >>>>>>>>>> engaging ... my own old posts seemed dumb to me.. i guess they
> >>> still
> >>>>>>>>>> are.. But its remarkable the range of this forum..im gla i joined
> >>> it..
> >>>>>>>>>> one can learn a lot.... also ..do you guys think..different
> >>> climate
> >>>>>>>>>> zones affect the nature of people?..i mean more than the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>> environment affects culture which affects to some degree human
> >>>>>>>>>> nature(or at least superficial responses.).. are people in
> >>> temperate
> >>>>>>>>>> areas different in their mind than people from tropical sultry
> >>>>>>>>>> areas...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 5:02 pm, rigsy03<rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I read Barbara Ward's "The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations" in
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> early '60's when my curiousity led me beyond liberal arts- also
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carson's "The Silent Spring", and several books on WWII. 60 years
> >>>>>>>>>>> later- and where are we?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 19, 8:44 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My point above, I think, is that what appears very complex may
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> points of simplexity where we can see the moral action.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2:41 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was attracted in to have a go at new google groups - utterly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unspeakable. These moral issues form the core of my new book
> >>> (80%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> done). Underlying the moral maze is the issue of frames of
> >>> reference
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - most famously paradigms, though the Greeks knew. You can
> >>> usually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> make several powerful arguments about anything. You can't
> >>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decide between the arguments because the root metaphors are
> >>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and incommensurable. The following were examples, exhausting
> >>> if not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exhaustive:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PARADIGM (disciplinary matrices) KUHN 1970; BURRELL&
> >>> MORGAN 1979
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PICTURE THEORY OF MEANING WITTGENSTEIN1922
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE GAMES WITTGENSTEIN 1958
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MULTIPLE REALITIES JAMES1911
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ALTERNATE REALITIES CASTANEDA 1970; 1974
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE STRUCTURES WHORF 1956
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PROBLEMATICS ALTHUSSER 1969; BACHELARD 1949
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> INTERNALLY CONFLICTING WORLD VIEWS PIRSIG 1976
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WORLD HYPOTHESES PEPPER 1942; 1966
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DREAM WORLDS (multiple frameworks) FEYERABEND 1975
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> EVALUATING THE RATIONALITIES OF SOCIAL ACTION AND ACTION
> >>> SYSTEMS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (instrumental v life-world rationalities) HABERMAS 1984
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AN INSURRECTION OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGES IN A WEB OF POWER KNOWLEDGE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOUCAULT 1977; 1980
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> MODAL LOGICS, RELATIVITIES LEWIS 1926; 1929; 1946: MOSER
> >>> 1989
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY WHITEHEAD 1969
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> METAPHOR MORGAN 1986
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TWO DIRECTIONAL TEXT AND RETRO-VISION BURRELL 1997
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A classic example was held to be Newton's mechanics and
> >>> Einstein's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity and quantum theory. Very dense work by Snell and
> >>> Ludvig
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> disproves this IMHO. I take a similar view and believe the
> >>> problem is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we work in the ready-to-hand and don't get down deep enough to
> >>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what we are talking about. English Law does not allow the
> >>> cabin boy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be eaten to survive when all else is lost - you have to give
> >>> him
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same shake of the dice everyone else gets.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment