lonni it is impossible to read your mind to a tee but the- main theam-
( great song by P floyd ) seems obvious , i think ...
Lonnie Clay wrote:
> ACK ACK, YAKKITTY YAK, YAKKITTY YAK! Don't Come, BACK!
>TS. dont be a smart ass - dont attack - more likely a referance to coming
>back to god
> If You don't Come, then You'll BE Sorry!
>TS. if u dont come back to god u will be sorry
> Come ONE, Come ALL, The Big Tent is OPENED, The BIG EVENT is about to BEGIN!
>TS. the tent is love / god and is open to the public
> Love IS, Never Having, To Say, You're Sorry!
>TS. in the returning to god there is reberth / pureity , no more shame
> 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!
TS. in re berth your old self is that more sorry ass than u ,
a pleasureable thought
>
> 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!
TS. the lion is god and u and i are the lion taimer un harmed by
what once nearly destroyed , god roars in joy training the taimer
>
> 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
>
>DONT FORGET HUMILATY LONNIE
( )
(@\ /@)
" "
vVVVVv
vVVVVv
> 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.
