On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers <robert.w.with...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you > but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction, > having just been exposed to what that is.
I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in the right context. Its just a *distraction* from the technical content. Your posts have interesting technical questions but the spiritual padding obfuscates them such that I can't understand what you are asking and makes me feel unqualified to any answer - so can only ignore such posts. But actually I don't like doing so, thus I sought to advise you in a concise way that did not pollute the mail list too much. I'm sure others in the community are in the same boat, so really you are narrowing your opportunity for useful responses from the community. > In addition I am connecting this to an educational process > and picture of some unique areas of Pharo. > I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of > unless you have dominion, agency and possession to be establishing such a > rule at > this time. Interesting that you take such an adversarial position to a polite request. Religion is divisive and any particular doctrine can alienate community members of some other doctrine, similar maybe to how you feel about my request. This divisiveness is best left to other forums. There are no written rules and I'm not establishing a new one. But any community has an established culture and expectations of content, which anyone should be able discern from observation of the majority posts. It behoves you to pay attention to this of your own accord. Indeed my comment should not have been necessary - but entropy dilutes community standards unless they are actively maintained. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Robert Withers <robert.w.with...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough > for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really > needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change > in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical. It was a hard decision for me to speak out. Its a fine line balancing community norms against open discussion and I don't want to be the arbitrator. But again community standards don't maintain themselves. Now it is was not that particular thread but rather the spiritual padding pervading many of your posts. > I was unwilling to let that go by as an implicit restriction on the > substance of my posting, into the future. ...and the thread is twice as > long. Not my doing. Some things must be challenged. Online communities cooperate together under many implicit rules, so they sometimes can be missed. Rather I was explicitly bringing this rule to your attention. I do this publicly to provide the opportunity for other community members to correct me if I'm wrong. > Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion. Or say yes to playing well with others. > If so, I will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the > ancient sources of psychology and sociology for application to the best damn > little programming environment every other language fails to emulate. > > Once again, my apologies this upsets you. Its not upsetting, just tedious to have to twice take my time to advise to you of community expectations. But this is only a request, and its not a productive discussion so will be my last post on the topic. Take a free right of reply and I'll follow up in private. cheers -ben > Sincerely, > Robert > > > On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual >> level, >> but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, >> (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted >> responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail >> often hide) >> >> cheers -ben >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers >> <robert.w.with...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have >>> always >>> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The >>> VM >>> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image >>> together, >>> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead. >>> >>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was >>> the >>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form. >>> >>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for >>> #random. :) >>> >>> nameste, >>> robert >>> >>> >>> -- >>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas): >>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya), >>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita), >>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga), >>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and >>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as >>> being death. >>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha) >>> >>> >>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was >>> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the >>> analogy >>> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is >>> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that >>> have >>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:). >>> >>> cheers, >>> robert >>> >>> --- >>> >>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. >>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer >>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am >>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the >>> very source of creation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <g...@atmarama.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> Hello Robert, >>> >>> Good day Saša, >>> >>> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge >>> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and >>> a good thing too. >>> >>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not >>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating. >>> >>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration >>> and >>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge >>> supplants older limited knowledge. >>> >>> >>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: >>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;) >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is >>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this >>> speculation when you find #new! :-) >>> >>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas, >>> >>> Haribol and Happy New Year! >>> >>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat! >>> >>> --- >>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My >>> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what >>> they >>> have. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, >>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the >>> transcendent self. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
