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.
>
