Artists & Celebries & Entertainment: February 2019

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Mind's Eye Re: Midnight Oil

John Stuart Mill ca,e to mind - As one would expect, he also seems to be worried by the use of social pressure as a means of limiting speech. Chapter III of On Liberty is an incredible assault on social censorship, expressed through the tyranny of the majority, because he claims it produces stunted, pinched, hidebound and withered individuals: "everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship… and it does not occur to them to have any inclination except what is customary"

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 21:48:43 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:

Midnight 0il
Illuminating written words
Trapping thoughts

Confusion spinning
Wildly through out the night
Freeing fear within

Spinning circles
Ever tighten madness binding
Inner thoughts trapped

Soul screaming
Pen slicing through cycle burning
Oil of Midnight.

Allan
do no harm

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mind's Eye Re: Midnight Oil

Yep - get some of that.

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 21:48:43 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:

Midnight 0il
Illuminating written words
Trapping thoughts

Confusion spinning
Wildly through out the night
Freeing fear within

Spinning circles
Ever tighten madness binding
Inner thoughts trapped

Soul screaming
Pen slicing through cycle burning
Oil of Midnight.

Allan
do no harm

Re: Mind's Eye Doomsday

Socialism, at least in Marxist origin, is so clapped-out I'm amazed to see younger people posturing it. Hochdeutsch racism justified by amoral economics imo. They are so uppity they throw panzic fits if you criticise their green new deal by pointing out the old new deal had a lot of nent problems. We need a radical green global peace but they think you're racist if you point out severe problems beyond the US umbrella we've been living under. This said, if there's anything left of us in 10K on - it will be cyborg.

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 11:28:26 UTC, Don Johnson wrote:

Nah. Homo saps have AT LEAST another 10k years left in us. Barring a giant meteor strike anyways.

WWIII in the next 100 years? Likely. The sheer idiocy of this freshman batch of Congress people the USA just voted in shocks even me but it's not a harbinger of extinction. Just Socialism.

dj

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:42 PM Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
Within very recent memory there were scientific reports predicting the end if man within less than 100 years.. (there I am being very generous) it was much closer like in 25/50 years
I have seen no change from that path.. And I don't want to bury my head in the sand and ignore the issue.
the truth is it will not be my problem as I will be in my next reality. I dislike doomsayer's and now I seem becoming one of them. I am not pointing to some prophecy but to scientific evidence say something is going to break and unfortunately the weakest point is man.
I am wondering what other thoughts there are.???o no harm

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye War between India and Pakistan

I agree channe. Education has some very odd effects we can see in, for instance, doctors and medical health professionals acting in considerable ignorance towards mentally ill people and sexual abuse cases. We know what Allan is saying is true and yet can't build sensible responses to stop it.

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 00:22:31 UTC, channe wrote:

Prevailing education system throughout the world has done nothing to the development of the affective domain/human qualities/heart of the man..Even for a petty gain we kill, harm and destruct others around us..Knowledge gained or created help them to plan all crimes and disasters

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:15 AM Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
scary that is certain. I only know what I was taught. A very sad situation was created. very similar to the situations being created today by the US snd the world wide MIC.

do no harm

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 16:04 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
The news is scary. Two nuclear powers are 'at it'. Can we make any sense of it all? Should we buy a fully-functioning deep hole in the ground from my mate Don? I'm reading a book about art historians in the Third Reich. My interest is in the shameful role of education and upper-class professionals in the worst of human behaviour. The educated professors played a disproportional role in the Third Reich (even 48% of doctors were signed up as Nazis) and the later Stazi in East Germany. A key concept for me is ponos - educated toff behaviour in Ancient Athens - the show of virtue whilst mapping a new economy through slave purchase and exploitation. The whole world seems to run on elites professing virtue and erudition or holiness whilst actually being crude beasts interested in slaking desire and having the trouser-geld and power for this self-interest.

Why would India and Pakistan engage in this idiot behaviour? Those of us who have been hiding under the US arms' umbrella can hardly claim to see this with any clarity given what we ignore of our countries' "exploits".

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Doomsday

I would hope so.. except the problem I actually see is areas I used to like living in is slowly becoming uninhabitable I wonder a temperature of 50°C (122°F) which in reality is really not survivable. Rainfall patterns are changing.. parts of the oceans are literally dead. (I have ideas how to at least slow it down if not reverse) Ocean storms are becoming stronger. Earthquakes well I went through one as a child it was a ¿5.6? and according to the university geology department was about as strong as they could get...(😂 Right.. got it)..

what is occurring has me wondering especially since it is not included in.current prophecy.

do no harm

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 12:28 Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:

Nah. Homo saps have AT LEAST another 10k years left in us. Barring a giant meteor strike anyways.

WWIII in the next 100 years? Likely. The sheer idiocy of this freshman batch of Congress people the USA just voted in shocks even me but it's not a harbinger of extinction. Just Socialism.

dj

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:42 PM Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
Within very recent memory there were scientific reports predicting the end if man within less than 100 years.. (there I am being very generous) it was much closer like in 25/50 years
I have seen no change from that path.. And I don't want to bury my head in the sand and ignore the issue.
the truth is it will not be my problem as I will be in my next reality. I dislike doomsayer's and now I seem becoming one of them. I am not pointing to some prophecy but to scientific evidence say something is going to break and unfortunately the weakest point is man.
I am wondering what other thoughts there are.???o no harm

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Doomsday

Nah. Homo saps have AT LEAST another 10k years left in us. Barring a giant meteor strike anyways.

WWIII in the next 100 years? Likely. The sheer idiocy of this freshman batch of Congress people the USA just voted in shocks even me but it's not a harbinger of extinction. Just Socialism.

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:42 PM Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:

Within very recent memory there were scientific reports predicting the end if man within less than 100 years.. (there I am being very generous) it was much closer like in 25/50 years
I have seen no change from that path.. And I don't want to bury my head in the sand and ignore the issue.
the truth is it will not be my problem as I will be in my next reality. I dislike doomsayer's and now I seem becoming one of them. I am not pointing to some prophecy but to scientific evidence say something is going to break and unfortunately the weakest point is man.
I am wondering what other thoughts there are.???o no harm

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Mind's Eye Doomsday

Within very recent memory there were scientific reports predicting the end if man within less than 100 years.. (there I am being very generous) it was much closer like in 25/50 years

I have seen no change from that path.. And I don't want to bury my head in the sand and ignore the issue.

the truth is it will not be my problem as I will be in my next reality. I dislike doomsayer's and now I seem becoming one of them. I am not pointing to some prophecy but to scientific evidence say something is going to break and unfortunately the weakest point is man.

I am wondering what other thoughts there are.???o no harm

Re: Mind's Eye War between India and Pakistan

Prevailing education system throughout the world has done nothing to the development of the affective domain/human qualities/heart of the man..Even for a petty gain we kill, harm and destruct others around us..Knowledge gained or created help them to plan all crimes and disasters

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:15 AM Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:

scary that is certain. I only know what I was taught. A very sad situation was created. very similar to the situations being created today by the US snd the world wide MIC.

do no harm

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 16:04 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
The news is scary. Two nuclear powers are 'at it'. Can we make any sense of it all? Should we buy a fully-functioning deep hole in the ground from my mate Don? I'm reading a book about art historians in the Third Reich. My interest is in the shameful role of education and upper-class professionals in the worst of human behaviour. The educated professors played a disproportional role in the Third Reich (even 48% of doctors were signed up as Nazis) and the later Stazi in East Germany. A key concept for me is ponos - educated toff behaviour in Ancient Athens - the show of virtue whilst mapping a new economy through slave purchase and exploitation. The whole world seems to run on elites professing virtue and erudition or holiness whilst actually being crude beasts interested in slaking desire and having the trouser-geld and power for this self-interest.

Why would India and Pakistan engage in this idiot behaviour? Those of us who have been hiding under the US arms' umbrella can hardly claim to see this with any clarity given what we ignore of our countries' "exploits".

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mind's Eye Midnight Oil

Midnight 0il

Illuminating written words

Trapping thoughts

Confusion spinning

Wildly through out the night

Freeing fear within

Spinning circles

Ever tighten madness binding

Inner thoughts trapped

Soul screaming

Pen slicing through cycle burning

Oil of Midnight.

Allan

do no harm

Re: Mind's Eye War between India and Pakistan

scary that is certain. I only know what I was taught. A very sad situation was created. very similar to the situations being created today by the US snd the world wide MIC.

do no harm

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 16:04 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

The news is scary. Two nuclear powers are 'at it'. Can we make any sense of it all? Should we buy a fully-functioning deep hole in the ground from my mate Don? I'm reading a book about art historians in the Third Reich. My interest is in the shameful role of education and upper-class professionals in the worst of human behaviour. The educated professors played a disproportional role in the Third Reich (even 48% of doctors were signed up as Nazis) and the later Stazi in East Germany. A key concept for me is ponos - educated toff behaviour in Ancient Athens - the show of virtue whilst mapping a new economy through slave purchase and exploitation. The whole world seems to run on elites professing virtue and erudition or holiness whilst actually being crude beasts interested in slaking desire and having the trouser-geld and power for this self-interest.

Why would India and Pakistan engage in this idiot behaviour? Those of us who have been hiding under the US arms' umbrella can hardly claim to see this with any clarity given what we ignore of our countries' "exploits".

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mind's Eye Re: What to do about the rich?

NOTES on the last statements: (just REread 4 "other way to be")

> tie silly thy into nail "control objective?"

> by any destruction of others & way sly same sin the eventual"final solution!"

4 ?qi! people, only the ONE word BALANCE needed to explain the whole thing, but…

===================================================================================================

hard<?q>easy<i!>answer:

survival of the fittest??

hints: the ONE command, tic-tac-toe, game theory of LIFE

On Friday, March 8, 2013 at 1:44:10 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. (Justice
Louis Brandeis)
The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are
materially independent so long as their property rights remain
recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves, that is by
buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for them. But
this power of command also generates a social distance from society
that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since they don't
depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example, few of them
have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in general
about whether they deserve goodwill.
That means that the rich don't have the same political interests as
the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated
communities come with private security) or the quality of public
education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can buy) or
affordable accessible health care, job security, public parks, gas
prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues that the
rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about
politically since they are outside of our individual powers to fix.
The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the provision of
public goods, but in furthering their private interests, whether their
personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This is why
Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their self-
serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264).
It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing
of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they
need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that
makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that
there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But
that 'job creator' thesis is out of date and back to front.
First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that
economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits
this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the
economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle-
class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business
development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our
pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).

Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the
economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well
as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly
transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they
don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all
the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest
1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not
increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic
command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith
defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself
will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the
market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation.
Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision
the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those
people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the
rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and
aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the
category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a
cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well
done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a
potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or
whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever,
leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich
are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life
for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into
citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure
they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family
and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive.

Mind's Eye Re: What to do about the rich?

ref. 4 next statements:

> Trump is mostly "being read as a liar" <but at the same time> there's "brutal honesty" in him

> "ANGER" is the key word: by Trump's quote (NOT his exact words, but it shall be SAME)

> i can't remember b/f or after he was-elected as president - imho, Trump himself was NOT so ANGRY at that time

"a lot of ANGER from people i met"

===================================================================================================

<initially, it's only the "control objective" - eventually, destruction of others by any ways & means is the "final solution">

(seek-read below notes & REread Reagan's evangelical speech further down this page)

On Friday, March 8, 2013 at 1:44:10 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. (Justice
Louis Brandeis)
The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are
materially independent so long as their property rights remain
recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves, that is by
buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for them. But
this power of command also generates a social distance from society
that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since they don't
depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example, few of them
have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in general
about whether they deserve goodwill.
That means that the rich don't have the same political interests as
the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated
communities come with private security) or the quality of public
education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can buy) or
affordable accessible health care, job security, public parks, gas
prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues that the
rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about
politically since they are outside of our individual powers to fix.
The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the provision of
public goods, but in furthering their private interests, whether their
personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This is why
Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their self-
serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264).
It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing
of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they
need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that
makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that
there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But
that 'job creator' thesis is out of date and back to front.
First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that
economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits
this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the
economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle-
class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business
development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our
pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).

Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the
economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well
as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly
transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they
don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all
the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest
1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not
increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic
command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith
defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself
will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the
market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation.
Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision
the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those
people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the
rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and
aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the
category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a
cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well
done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a
potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or
whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever,
leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich
are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life
for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into
citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure
they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family
and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive.

Mind's Eye Re: What to do about the rich?

being rich itself is NOT wrong (it's the 10% of 1% are convicts of the forbidden sin = {money power lust CONTROL network} aka {the WALL}

...

finally: the money EON empire

...is the biggest WALL of all works-in-progress...

hints: em-ARSE-gods may learn from the Mongolian & ??: it's the *people-be* the best "wallaw":

"build the wall" to "destroy the people"

(hints: public education, healthcare…)

that's the ONLY way to "protect the empireS" = "national security" of Trump, China CP, Vietnam CP & other C?P's

that's WHY it's a "do or die" 4 em-ARSE-gods, the wall must be built at any cost (not the PUNY 5.6 B Trump requested)

...

On Friday, March 8, 2013 at 1:44:10 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. (Justice
Louis Brandeis)
The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are
materially independent so long as their property rights remain
recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves, that is by
buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for them. But
this power of command also generates a social distance from society
that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since they don't
depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example, few of them
have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in general
about whether they deserve goodwill.
That means that the rich don't have the same political interests as
the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated
communities come with private security) or the quality of public
education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can buy) or
affordable accessible health care, job security, public parks, gas
prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues that the
rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about
politically since they are outside of our individual powers to fix.
The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the provision of
public goods, but in furthering their private interests, whether their
personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This is why
Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their self-
serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264).
It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing
of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they
need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that
makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that
there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But
that 'job creator' thesis is out of date and back to front.
First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that
economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits
this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the
economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle-
class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business
development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our
pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).

Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the
economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well
as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly
transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they
don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all
the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest
1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not
increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic
command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith
defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself
will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the
market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation.
Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision
the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those
people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the
rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and
aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the
category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a
cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well
done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a
potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or
whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever,
leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich
are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life
for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into
citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure
they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family
and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive.

Mind's Eye War between India and Pakistan

The news is scary. Two nuclear powers are 'at it'. Can we make any sense of it all? Should we buy a fully-functioning deep hole in the ground from my mate Don? I'm reading a book about art historians in the Third Reich. My interest is in the shameful role of education and upper-class professionals in the worst of human behaviour. The educated professors played a disproportional role in the Third Reich (even 48% of doctors were signed up as Nazis) and the later Stazi in East Germany. A key concept for me is ponos - educated toff behaviour in Ancient Athens - the show of virtue whilst mapping a new economy through slave purchase and exploitation. The whole world seems to run on elites professing virtue and erudition or holiness whilst actually being crude beasts interested in slaking desire and having the trouser-geld and power for this self-interest.

Why would India and Pakistan engage in this idiot behaviour? Those of us who have been hiding under the US arms' umbrella can hardly claim to see this with any clarity given what we ignore of our countries' "exploits".

Monday, February 25, 2019

Mind's Eye Re: Free will

The science on this is tough. We live consciously in the past.

On Tuesday, 9 January 2018 13:17:50 UTC, RP wrote:

A human being works like a machine under the control of nature but we must also realize that our Will is the central part of this machine and it is in this that our freedom lies. And herein lies our accountability.Whatever we do is with our brains and hence normal people are accountable for their actions where as insane are not.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Free will

RPS, actually I do understand what you are saying, geometry years ago was fasinating including the 3 4 5 triangle ,, your problem is you seem to have a basic in ability to communicate effectively.. I know I have same problem , incomplete sentences. ect in my case my mind running faster than my pen.. and I have a ¿habit? of functioning in different realities at the same time. is it Atman the one you see as candy man? I guess meditation could be considered as candy..

oh well, I will go back to contemplating can be one and separate at the same time. Or just being silent..

Vam how do I buy a copy of your books

Allan

do no harm

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 11:19 Rajendra Pal Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:

Once in 11th class the reverend who taught us maths called the brightest boy in the class and asked him to solve a geometry problem on the blackboard. The boy solved it but I stood up and said, " Brother, I don't understand." The reverend looked at me and coolly said, " I can't give you understanding".
Thus it happens sometimes, we are unable to understand the other person's viewpoint .

On Tue 19 Feb, 2019, 6:44 AM <allanh1946@gmail.com wrote:
RP ,, I would listen to Vam. Many of us come from a different culture and are not Hindu. I find it personally fascinating the beliefs of others. I am not interested in converting some one to my view point, I must admit I like pushing buttons.
Like Vam my health is failing . I have learned a great deal from him over the years. I have received far more than I have. Our view points on reincarnation are similar they are different.
You would be wise to listen to him.. he knows your culture far better than I ever could .
Personally I have been very great full for the knowledge he has shared freely

Do No Harm

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajendra Pal Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Free will

I am thinking with freedom, my friend, but you seem to have a prejudiced notion that I am not. Further let Neil speak for himself, if you have a problem I am ready to heed it.

On Mon 18 Feb, 2019, 9:12 PM Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com wrote:
RP, I sense that the quality of your posts will lead to better conversation when you understand that Neil is neither denying nor disputing the spiritual dimension in human affairs.

He is just focused on the affairs becoming better, with more freedom and leisure enough for men to think for themselves.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Free will

Vam you can not even discuss concepts with those who can not comprehend. According RPS no one understands as RPS does because after all he is enlightened.😱

do no harm

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 10:08 Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:

I DO NOT accept in the least the purpose behind such argumentation.

Let me state : If I really want to walk even with a broken leg, nothing in the universe can stop me from doing so, not even the God you worship !

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Free will

RPS, I have read you for several years and for me your ramblings. lol ,,, well I don't see me running to follow or even really listen to what you have say. You remind of an Evangelical fundamentalist bible thumper.

lot of words little actual comprehension.

so sad to bad.

do no harm

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 04:38 Rajendra Pal Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not telling you what to do, I have just asked you for an explanation. You say, " will is subjected to thought". I would have thought that it is the will which makes you think.

On Mon 25 Feb, 2019, 9:03 AM ashok tewari <atewari2007@gmail.com wrote:
RP, you might restrain yourself telling other people what they should do.

What I've stated is what I know, in a structured composition.

On Monday, February 25, 2019, Rajendra Pal Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:
You say, " will follows emotion", and again you say," will is subjected to thought". Vam, you must first decide what you mean by will.

On Mon 25 Feb, 2019, 7:41 AM Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com wrote:
Human brain decodes sensory inputs availed through five senses.

It is experienced with related karmic impressions from before, in human subconscious, alongwith current judgement of the experiencing self : like or dislike, want or no-want.

The experience itself is an emotion, a reactive feeling in one's vitality.

Will follows emotion, by the desire prompted by our judgement of the experience, objectified as an association embedded in the thing, object or being perceived, from which the sensory input is availed.

Will essentially is the drive, to desire, want or possess the object if the experience is pleasing; or to drive away, negate or remove the object (or oneself) from the encounter.

Before the will is actually unleashed, causing action, it is subjected to conscious thought, analysis and evaluation. Those who do not subject the will to examination would be categorised as brutes.

That conscious deliberation offers us the window of opportunity, instantaneous or over the longer term, to choose from seeming options and alternatives : this or that, now or later, do or not.

That is the whole story of free will. That is, I repeat, if one is not a brute !

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
ASHOK TEWARI

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mind's Eye Re: Free will

FATE & FEAT

(during the conversation period duTHEcope, from Sep 17, 2015 to early 2016)

i say: "one has total freewill?"

the silent voice replies: "not quite!"

nevertheless, 4 "the forbidden sin" CONTEXT :

**everybody has total freewill, regardless of one own's circumstance**

everybody be 4 ONESELF in determining one OWN's continuing being: Existential Responsibility

since "the forbidden sin" - as its so-called imply - can NOT be forgiven

do the crime and then pay the time

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 8:17:50 AM UTC-5, RP wrote:

A human being works like a machine under the control of nature but we must also realize that our Will is the central part of this machine and it is in this that our freedom lies. And herein lies our accountability.Whatever we do is with our brains and hence normal people are accountable for their actions where as insane are not.

Blog Archive

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Monday, February 25, 2019