G.A.V.E. God, Allah, Vishnu, Emptiness gave to grave. Free from
constraints
and empiric advances, humble with no projection of ego, we are "gave"
until
the "r" of grave. Salutations of meritous joy to all you givers. Your
patience and acceptance is always our best adornments.
-----Original Message-----
From: the taoist shaman
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:35 AM
To: Epistemology
Subject: Re: [epistemology 11983] Re: our current system or $
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.
