lol, take a chill pill Lonnie, deep breath, relax, dont buy in buy out.
From: Lonnie Clay
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 3:11 PM
To: epistemology@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11978] Re: our current system or $
ACK ACK, YAKKITTY YAK, YAKKITTY YAK! Don't Come, BACK!
If You don't Come, then You'll BE Sorry!
Come ONE, Come ALL, The Big Tent is OPENED, The BIG EVENT is about to BEGIN!
Love IS, Never Having, To Say, You're Sorry!
Sometimes if You're Sorry enough, then you cry Tears of JOY, as YOU realize
that IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE AN EVEN MORE SORRY ASS, than you already ARE!
Tears of JOY are cried at BIG EVENTs when the lion tamer's head comes out of
the lion's mouth unscathed, as the lion roars!
Did anyone comprehend that skeleton of a three dimensional logic chain? Is
there anyone out there with the GUTS to add flesh to the bare bones which I
just gave? Did anybody even read this post? Who knows, Who cares? Ten minutes
to construct it as a pre-breakfast exercise was a GOOD WORKOUT...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:16:40 AM UTC-7, Serenity Smiles wrote:
Dear Lonnie, Blessings and thanks for the kind words and thoughts, but it
hardly has anything to do with the topic we are discussing, our current system
or $. The point being that everything evolves or has evolved with the
exception to being how we award merit and credit. Personally, I stated that my
belief that money may have been good when Alexander the Great invented it but
it does not work now, is for myself endorsed throughout time and history and
was curious to ask just how a contemporary planet could ever evolve both the
nature of politics as well as merits and credits to balance itself towards a
fairer greener existence with less ignorance and issues if it ever desired the
change.
Love and prayers,
From: Lonnie Clay
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:47 AM
To: episte...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11975] Re: our current system or $
Serenity Smiles : Be Calm! Be Serene! Contemplate the BEAUTY of Mother
Nature! When you have become bored with contemplations such as that, then
rejoin life's game with reinvigorated spirits. For life is but a stage upon
which we play, as we are evolving toward perfection, in a race against time
(for some) but in a spirit of companionship for all but a pathetic few who feel
that domination of others is the route to success. THE whip will crack on a
dominator as sure as THE weather!
Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:18:08 AM UTC-7, Serenity Smiles wrote:
With Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen highlighting the media, I think I have
the right to question the validity of sanity. What is insane?? lmao.
Surely the insane are those who vote and watch and endorse such crap in the
first place. anyone "Politically right" would be disturbed at such
mindless
behaviour of Donald Trump and the buying into audience of the US of A who
love insanity. I thought paying and laughing at imbeciles was supposed to
be a thing of the past?? Ignorance still prevails and if it is insane to
think that this world is run by morons where a birth certificate is of more
significance than the contents of the mind really proves my point.
Insanity
is sanity, sanity is insanity. if life is like an air flight where the
take
off and landing is all that is of significance then there is only the road
to nowhere. Everything we know is conceptualised, labelled cognitive
creation, of no more import than the paper that was created to mark it on.
If you are going to buy into someone else's creation does that not show
your
own lack of cognitive ability?? So to not to buy in, is the sanest option
and to live for free scratching ones ass and giving the finger to foolish
ego achieves what. No stress, no contest, no winning, no losing, no
judgement. According to Buddha the ripest conditions for reaping
accumulative merit. Exactly what is "right employment" for a contemporary
Buddhist?? I cannot for the life of me buy into a planet such as this
endorsing ignorance, fear, hatred, attachment and prejudism.
-----Original Message-----
From: the taoist shaman
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:47 AM
To: Epistemology
Subject: [epistemology 11966] Re: our current system or $
what do u think of religion / god
nominal9 wrote:
> Hi TS....
> Don't get too involved in the links, if they bore or just confound
> you... it's something that anyone has to build up to, and you have to
> have an interest in the subjects...Anyway, as to Mind's Eye.... a
> fellow-friend of mine was from this Group... Chaz... was banned from
> Mind's Eye and although they didn't ban me... I left their group ,
> then and there... I have this "thing" about censorship.... despise
> it...
> Anyway. nice making your acquaintance, anytime that you want to
> discuss any topic, I'd be glad to talk with you... I like politics a
> lot myself, and we appear to have the same "leanings"..... let's say
> NOT RIGHT WING.....
> nominal9
>
> On Apr 27, 1:42 am, the taoist shaman <bry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > damn rigs was off hey lee
> >
> > the taoist shaman wrote:
> > > u seem like ur Not a dumb F , ill take the time to read the links u
> > > previously sent , the people of minds eye r children who love to
> > > hate , i tend to lean to the 2nd intention but realize it hase
> > > limitations , if not u end up w/ people like the kkk . my 2nt
> > > intention is more focused on nature in relation to society and
> > > personal relation as well as philosophy and religion , --- does the
> > > name riggs ring a bell for you ?
> >
> > > ~
> >
> > > nominal9 wrote:
> > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to
> > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance / TS
> >
> > > > I agree... Empiricism is at the root of, at least, Realism and
> > > > Nominalism....
> >
> > > > Idealism and Phenomeology tend more toward "logic"... although there
> > > > really isn't much sense to most of their so-called "logic"...
> >
> > > > W. of Ockham is probably best appreciated by me for FIRST making
> > > > "the"
> > > > distinction between the way the self-conscious mind understands
> > > > "reality" either through FIRST INTENTION or subsequently through
> > > > SECOND INTENTION
> > > >http://dictionary.die.net/first%20intention
> >
> > > > 5. (Logic) Any mental apprehension of an object.
> >
> > > > First intention (Logic), a conception of a thing formed by
> > > > the first or direct application of the mind to the
> > > > individual object; an idea or image; as, man, stone.
> >
> > > > Second intention (Logic), a conception generalized from
> > > > first intuition or apprehension already formed by the
> > > > mind; an abstract notion; especially, a classified notion,
> > > > as species, genus, whiteness.
> >
> > > > Anyway... FIRST INTENTION operates on what Ockham calls "intuition"
> > > > but nowadays is better understood as "Empirical Examination"... or
> > > > maybe direct "Factual Experimentation" on something... like
> > > > dissecting
> > > > a frog... or putting some bit of matter stuff through a mass
> > > > specrtometer.... etc. that is to say... the conscious mind
considers
> > > > a
> > > > single and specific factual "thing"....or maybe even a mental thing,
> > > > off sorts, like the feeling of an emotion....but mental
> > > > considerations
> > > > are mostly of the other sort... below
> >
> > > > SECOND INTENTION, according to Ockham, is when the conscious mind
> > > > thinks about all sorts of things in its memory and starts making
> > > > possible connections of all sorts between them... the more common
> > > > ones
> > > > are like one man as distinguished from the generalized notion of all
> > > > men....Jim for example is different from Tom.... but they are alike
> > > > in
> > > > at least some ways... they are both (or all) "men....the distinction
> > > > between the individual... the species and the genus... etc. but also
> > > > consider other sorts of "abstract" thinking... like numbers and
> > > > doing
> > > > math... etc....
> >
> > > > Anyway.... Ockham though this up... this separation between direct
> > > > empirical experience and abstracted "'thought" constructions....
> >
> > > > Pretty fundamental stuff.... and really revolutionary, I think.....
> > > > but try to tell it to the strict Realists, Idealists or especially
> > > > the
> > > > Phenomenologists.... they either don't get it.... or don't WANT to
> > > > get it....
> >
> > > > ignorance... sure is possible even for Nominalists.... sometimes the
> > > > specific conscious mind either doesn't have the "brains" to come up
> > > > with the right idea... or sometimes the "thing" just can't be
> > > > experimented on in the right way to understand it.... Pretty much a
> > > > state of constant agnostiicism (Don't- Know- Itedness)....But with
> > > > time and more brains and progress working at it.... more "stuff" if
> > > > learned about more and more things....
> >
> > > > PS... most of the "techie" guys around here don't know crap about
> > > > this
> > > > stuff, either....HAR
> >
> > > > On Apr 20, 10:13 am, the taoist shaman <bry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to
> > > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance
> >
> > > > > nominal9 wrote:
> > > > > > Hi TS... nice to make your acquaintance....I guess you just
> > > > > > don't have
> > > > > > the interest, now.... but if you ever do, I suggest that you
try
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > of the "classical" so-called philosophers... instead of taoist
> > > > > > shamans
> > > > > > or metaphysical quasi-religious sorts , like buddhists or
> > > > > > tanscendentalists and such as a way toward understanding
> > > > > > things...
> > > > > > folks like Plato ( beginning Idealism) or Aristotle (beginning
> > > > > > Realism) or Kant (beginning Phenomenology) or W.of Ockham
> > > > > > (beginning
> > > > > > Nominalism) ... then you can go to the ones (other
philosophers)
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > took the original threads and carried them on in different
> > > > > > ways....Anyway, my own very general way of understanding it is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > there's a basic division in Reality and a thinking being's
> > > > > > understanding of it... a sort of interplay between the thinking
> > > > > > brain
> > > > > > and the outside world it tries to understand (alog with self-
> > > > > > consciously understanding itself, of course)... the difference
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > basically one between the Idea and the Thing... otherwise put
as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Concept and the Reference...Mind and Matter
> >
> > > > > > Idealists think that both the Idea and the Thing are subjective,
> > > > > > entirely dependent on what the self-conscious brain ultimately
> > > > > > thinks"
> > > > > > they (Concept and Reference) are... SUBJECTIVE
> >
> > > > > > Realists think that both the Idea and the Thing are objective,
> > > > > > entirely dependent on what the Thing forces the self-conscious
> > > > > > brain
> > > > > > to understand about them (Concept and Reference)... OBJECTIVE
> >
> > > > > > Nominalists think that there's a split in the way the
> > > > > > self-conscious
> > > > > > brain and the outside reality operate....The self -conscious
> > > > > > brain
> > > > > > operates subjectively as to its own Ideas (or Concept) but the
> > > > > > Thing
> > > > > > is completely separated or foreign from the self-conscious
brain
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the Thing (or Reference) is itself objectively controlled by
> > > > > > its own
> > > > > > ways and means of being and operation... SUBJECTIVE / OBJECTIVE
> >
> > > > > > Phenomenologists also think that there's a split in the way
the
> > > > > > self-
> > > > > > conscious brain and the outside reality operate... but
> > > > > > Phenomenologists posit that the self-conscious brain operates
> > > > > > objectively and that the self conscious brain contains a
perfect
> > > > > > Idea
> > > > > > (or Concept) of what the Template or "Essence" of all outside
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > Things should be... the outside reality Things then become mere
> > > > > > subjective or imperfect manifestations of those perfect
> > > > > > Essences.....OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE
> >
> > > > > > Now, my guess is that as a self-described taoist shaman.... you
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > tend toward the Phenomenological view of ideas and things....
> >
> > > > > > Whereas myself, I am a Nominalist leaning Person when it come
to
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > view of ideas and things...
> >
> > > > > > Can You see that you and I would tend to think just the
opposite
> > > > > > at a
> > > > > > very fundamental level?
> >
> > > > > > nominal9
> >
> > > > > > On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, the taoist shaman <bry...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > thats way too much reading , and very confusing , im not
> > > > > > > familiar w/
> > > > > > > proper terms , am i a realist or a dreamer i think was the
> > > > > > > subject of
> > > > > > > the reading , but i only skimmed it so , ? all dreamers see
> > > > > > > themselves
> > > > > > > as realist or the dream would be dead. i am a defeated
dreamer
> > > > > > > , like
> > > > > > > the living dead u know !
> >
> > > > > > > nominal9 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ever Hear of William of Ockham.... Nominalism... more as an
> > > > > > > > "empirical
> > > > > > > > way" to think rather that as the opinions that you or
anyone
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > hold....?
> > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/
> > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Nominalism
> > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
> > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
> >
> > > > > > > > Idealism... Realism.... Phenomenology...Nominalism
> >
> > > > > > > > Anyway... there's a lot of them... after a while... others
> > > > > > > > (and after
> > > > > > > > them me too) started to see "patterns" or threads between
> > > > > > > > them and
> > > > > > > > thought that most "philosophies" fall under one of the
above
> > > > > > > > broad
> > > > > > > > headings.... and that they differ
> > > > > > > > logically one heading from the nextr.... anyway, I chose
> > > > > > > > nominalism.... you may want to consider decidiing or trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > understand which one you yourself prefer....I was about
your
> > > > > > > > age when
> > > > > > > > I tried to make my choice decision judgment....
> >
> > > > > > > > Mind's Eye....
> > > > > > > > THAR be Censors THAR....
> > > > > > > > Censors Be folks who thinks they knows it All... when they
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > don't know shit...
> > > > > > > > It's important to know shit, at least. HAR....
> >
> > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:54 pm, the taoist shaman <bry...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > how long before all the welth is held by a small group ,
> > > > > > > > > and what
> > > > > > > > > happens to the rest of us ? is there a way to stop the
> > > > > > > > > storm on the
> > > > > > > > > horizon , or is there no storm at all ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epis...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
