China.
On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While the Chinese government may still retain some power, overall the
> issue as it is around the globe is corporations. The SOEs (State Owned
> Enterprises) in China are on the decline and relatively few remain.
> These SOEs are being replaced by 'Listed' (stock mark) ones.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation#People.27s_...
>
> A few Chinese corporations are even setting up shop in the USA because
> about all expenses (except wages) are much less here these days.http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/news/international/china_america_full...
>
> Of course, on the other hand, US (in name at least) corporations have
> been operating in China for decades and the list is quite substantial.http://www.jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm
>
> What I see is that multinationals are the real global power with few
> exceptions.
>
> As a side issue, this isn't great news for our planet and its
> environmental concerns.
>
> As to 'owning the USA', the majority of Chinese economists would
> rather own gold.http://www.chinastakes.com/2009/3/survey-over-two-thirds-of-chinese-e...
>
> On Jun 6, 6:05 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:41 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sweet can't wait to read it mate.
>
> > The Chinese aren't going to like it though. I've named them as Magog
> > (the big question is: Who is Gog?). I strongly suspect that it will
> > be banned in China because of that; however, in my specific advice to
> > China, I state much more (and I do praise them in certain areas, too)
> > and I know that the leadership will read it and THEY are the intended
> > audience (of the advice!), so their ban won't affect that aspect in
> > any way. I warn them that, if they continue to buy the U.S. treasury
> > (by buying the Treasury Notes and Bills as they are doing), that they
> > are buying a huge responsibility and have reminded them that, when
> > America fights, it has plenty of history to demonstrate it can fight
> > dirty: Guerilla warfare against the British rank and file, handing out
> > blankets infected with smallpox to Native Americans and being the only
> > company to ever use nuclear weapons, when they KNEW no one could
> > retaliate in kind are the examples I laid out. America may not be
> > happy with that either, but it's all history. I want China to know
> > that owning America's pocket might not be as advantageous as they may
> > think. And, of course, I remind them that, whilst their van is
> > strong, there rear is weak and then outline the way to defeat China in
> > battle. Of course it's nasty (biological!) but I want China to
> > realise that they are not invulnerable and that they should not act on
> > the premiss that they are invincible. if they are going to own
> > America, then they need to act wisely and with due consideration or
> > face an unruly bunch who are armed to the teeth, which is not
> > something I want to see in the future (that kind of conflagration,
> > that is).
>
> > > On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 1:08 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > It is finished then Pat?
>
> > > > Not quite. I have to finish the 'Conclusion' section and finish off
> > > > an appendix that offers advice to specific countries and I'd like to
> > > > add a glossary. Once those are done, I'll start re-reading it from
> > > > the top and add or modify as I go. When that's finished, repeat that
> > > > step and THEN it should be done. 2-3 months max!!! First person I
> > > > ran into who did publishing of any kind already has a draft copy for
> > > > reading and is practically begging me to let him publish it. So...all
> > > > is going very well indeed. Cheers!!
>
> > > > > On May 31, 1:53 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 18, 11:09 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It get harder than even the following standard philosphy Lee:
> > > > > > > Since a Cartesian substance is a thing that is ontologically
> > > > > > > independent (Principles I:51–52), a complete thing is an ontologically
> > > > > > > independent thing. When we clearly and distinctly perceive mind and
> > > > > > > body to be complete, we know that they are substances. When we still
> > > > > > > clearly and distinctly perceive them to be substances after clearly
> > > > > > > and distinctly perceiving them apart from each other, we know that
> > > > > > > they are not the same substance under different descriptions. On this
> > > > > > > view, Descartes holds that mind and body are ontologically independent
> > > > > > > substances, and their distinctness consists in their ability to
> > > > > > > continue to exist even after God separates them.[36]
>
> > > > > > As you might remember, in my theory, thre is only energy. Yet that
> > > > > > energy works on three different levels: the physical, consciousness
> > > > > > and the purely abstract. This represents three ways of energy
> > > > > > expressing itself as a different Cartesian 'substance', even though,
> > > > > > in fact, it is all the same substance. A simple half-twist and a turn
> > > > > > around a dimensional corner and the underlying string can work in
> > > > > > three ways at once. Descartes and I agree on most things and this is
> > > > > > another, although I have the advantage of all the science after Rene!!
>
> > > > > > > An alternative interpretation of Descartes on the real distinction
> > > > > > > between mind and body reads the distinction as consisting in the
> > > > > > > ontological independence of mind and body, but not in their
> > > > > > > separability.[37] Descartes holds that a sufficient condition for
> > > > > > > establishing a real distinction between two things is clearly and
> > > > > > > distinctly perceiving them to be non-identical substances ("Synopsis
> > > > > > > of these following six Meditations," AT 7:13, CSM 2:9; Fourth Replies,
> > > > > > > AT 7:221–223, CSM 2:156–58). If so, he holds that the substantiality
> > > > > > > of two non-identical substances does not consist in their being
> > > > > > > separable but is just an indication of their separability.[38] On this
> > > > > > > view, mind and body are separable for Descartes; it's just that their
> > > > > > > separability is a consequence of the (different) fact that they are
> > > > > > > really distinct.[39]
>
> > > > > > > A third reading of the Cartesian real distinction stresses the
> > > > > > > difficulty in making room for unactualized possibilities in Descartes'
> > > > > > > system. The reading also highlights that Descartes holds that our
> > > > > > > clear and distinct perceptions are veridical but says (in his proof of
> > > > > > > real distinction) that God can bring about whatever we clearly and
> > > > > > > distinctly perceive. Descartes is clear in other texts that the reason
> > > > > > > why he mentions God's power in the proof of real distinction is to
> > > > > > > remind us that no matter how unlikely we think it is that our
> > > > > > > intimately united minds and bodies could also be really distinct, God
> > > > > > > has enough power to have made all of our clear and distinct
> > > > > > > perceptions veridical.
>
> > > > > > Yup and I can put the physics behind his assertion. And, will do so
> > > > > > (have done so!!) in my book. I do give Descartes a lot of credit in
> > > > > > my book with respect to picking up where he left off.
>
> > > > > > > I'd rather swim in your sea mate! Science gets like this in its
> > > > > > > conceptions. It's seriously entertained that distance is a complex
> > > > > > > illusion.
>
> > > > > > > On May 18, 11:05 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > > > > > <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Duality and non duality. It's a hard one to get the head around.
>
> > > > > > > > I belive that Ik on kar, that duality is indeed an illusion, but it's
> > > > > > > > a bit one way and a bit the other.
>
> > > > > > > > If God has granted us free will, that is the freedom to choose God or
> > > > > > > > not, then that points towards non duality, but does it really?
>
> > > > > > > > I see it like water. The sea is the whole, the ik on kar, but it is
> > > > > > > > made up of individual drops. We are both the individual drops and the
> > > > > > > > whole.
>
> > > > > > > > On May 18, 10:14 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I have no religion. But I studied and grew up as a Hindu.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > RP ---what is the name of your religion
>
> > > > > > > > > > RP Singh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the observed
> > > > > > > > > >> , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In Non-Duality
> > > > > > > > > >> there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , remains
> > > > > > > > > >> what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. God
> > > > > > > > > >> ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its expression.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment