GRACE GRACE GRACE UNTO SS UNTO GRACE GRACE GRACE On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Serenity Smiles < gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Lonnie, Indeed so God did create and approved Buddha to have > allowed his existence and path and dharma to exist as tried and tested as it > stands. To the power of Om > A > True > Tested > And > Biologically > Originated > Yidam!! > > Marvellous > > Love and prayers > > > *From:* Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:13 AM > *To:* epistemology@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [epistemology 11990] Re: our current system or $ > > GOD is omnipresent, immanently manifesting as anything and everything as > GOD chooses. Furthermore, GOD's topological tree of manifestation is utterly > beyond understanding by any awareness except GOD's own. GOD is not only > stupendously stupefyingly parallel in GOD's manifestations, but also > RECURSIVE, with GOD extending both up and down the TREE OF TREE OF..., > acting upon GOD's predecessor and subsequent manifestations in a timely > manner, so that GOD's foresight is infused with information from future > versions of GOD, and also that GOD can plumb backwards into the depths of > GOD's past iterative manifestations to obtain an ineffably utterly sharp > snapshot in living color of any of GOD's past experiences, permitting GOD to > RETROACTIVELY PREEMPT the occurrence of any situation which evolved > unsatisfactorily according to GOD's OWN PLANNED DESIGNS... > > One might well ask (understanding the above statement) "WHY IN GOD'S NAME?" > is there so much strife turmoil anguish suffering unhappiness conflict etc > etc etc upon MOTHER EARTH's sacred grounds? The answer is simple, and was > presented long ago by William Shakespeare - "Life is but a STAGE..."... > > BTW SS - ATTABOY ATTABOY! > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Sunday, May 1, 2011 11:00:31 PM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote: >> >> lonni, god does not exist in formlessness ? >> >> Serenity Smiles wrote: >> > GOD is still conceptualised thought only existent in form created from >> emptiness >> > >> > From: Lonnie Clay >> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:25 AM >> > To: episte...@googlegroups.com >> > Subject: [epistemology 11971] Re: our current system or $ >> > >> > GOD knows no boundaries. GOD is limitlessly expanding. GOD's rate of >> expansion is constantly increasing miraculously due to the huge number of >> derivatives of velocity, acceleration, etc in GOD's rate of expansion. GOD >> has achieved victory! Religion on the other hand is a fool's game. If there >> is not a burst of pleasure at these statements, then I do not know what to >> say! >> > >> > Lonnie Courtney Clay >> > >> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:47:36 PM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote: >> >> > 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 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. > -- 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.
