Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

On 12/28/2015 01:00 PM, Martin Bähr wrote:

Excerpts from Ben Coman's message of 2015-12-28 12:52:02 +0100:

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.

i'd like to second that. robert, the problem is that we are unfamiliar with the
terminology you are using. comparing pharo to religious concepts can be
interesting, but to make such a comparison, it would be necessary to explain
why such a comparison is relevant and what pharo users can gain from it. and
explain what each of the concepts are, in plain words.


Pharo may benefit from a broad analogy. It may help to attract new users.

But I got you. I will find a separate medium for explicitly spiritual. 
The meta-memes I would like to keep in scope here, with relevant limits, 
related to interactive fiction and overlay semantic proxies to color 
technical differently.  Vampires and mummies, perhaps! Just kidding. :)


best,
robert





I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of

you are breaking the rule of missing or loosing your audience.


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

religion should not be divisive.
if religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred, division, it is better to be
without it[1].

my personal corollary: if talking about religion leads to dislike, then i stop
talking about it.

greetings, martin.
[1|`Abdu’l-Bahá]



--
Robert
.  ..   ...^,^

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Martin Bähr]

Excerpts from Ben Coman's message of 2015-12-28 12:52:02 +0100:
> 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.

i'd like to second that. robert, the problem is that we are unfamiliar with the
terminology you are using. comparing pharo to religious concepts can be
interesting, but to make such a comparison, it would be necessary to explain
why such a comparison is relevant and what pharo users can gain from it. and
explain what each of the concepts are, in plain words.

> > I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of

you are breaking the rule of missing or loosing your audience.

> 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

religion should not be divisive.
if religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred, division, it is better to be
without it[1].

my personal corollary: if talking about religion leads to dislike, then i stop
talking about it.

greetings, martin.
[1|`Abdu’l-Bahá]

-- 
eKita   -   the online platform for your entire academic life
-- 
chief engineer   eKita.co
pike programmer  pike.lysator.liu.secaudium.net societyserver.org
secretary  beijinglug.org
mentor   fossasia.org
foresight developer  foresightlinux.orgrealss.com
unix sysadmin
Martin Bähr  working in chinahttp://societyserver.org/mbaehr/

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[stepharo]

To conclude this thread, Robert I suggest that you stay on a technical 
discussion.

Do not force us to ban you (we will do it if you continue) because people
are distracted.
Most of us do not understand all these spiritual points and do not want to
read about them in such mailing-lists.

Stef

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

On 12/28/2015 08:01 AM, Johan Fabry wrote:

Robert,

Consider it from my point of view: I am not forcing you to think about 
design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific language for 
robotics that am I building.


Good Lord in Heaven, please tell me more! I always love to learn more 
and I am right at home living inside a joint space perspective. I am 
highly interested in the JIT and robotics.


Best regards,
Robert



Greetings,

On Dec 28, 2015, at 08:29, Robert Withers > wrote:


Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still 
caught a knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to 
reference religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent 
thought in these models and they are familiar to the majority of the 
people on the planet, the average person, even if the intellectuals 
fail to resonate with it. This familiarity makes it a good model for 
the average person to interact. Seems to be a lack of knowledge on 
the side of the intellectuals.




---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry 
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  - 
 University of Chile




--
Robert
.  ..   ...^,^

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Johan Fabry]

Robert,

by talking about ‘a knee-jerk reaction’ and ‘a lack of knowledge’ you are being 
rude to us. Please don’t do that. In our mails we have been courteous and 
avoided using such hurtful expressions.

Also, there is a difference between lack of knowledge and lack of time. I am 
only human with limited time and matters which are more pressing than the 
discussion you insist on holding. Consider it from my point of view: I am not 
forcing you to think about design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific 
language for robotics that am I building. 

Greetings,

> On Dec 28, 2015, at 08:29, Robert Withers  wrote:
> 
> Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still caught a 
> knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to reference 
> religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent thought in these 
> models and they are familiar to the majority of the people on the planet, the 
> average person, even if the intellectuals fail to resonate with it. This 
> familiarity makes it a good model for the average person to interact. Seems 
> to be a lack of knowledge on the side of the intellectuals.



---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of 
Chile

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

Ben, I appreciate your reply. We were both involved in establishing 
boundaries: yours in the negative (don't post such here) and mine in the 
positive (I'll feel free to post on such matters).


I'll follow your lead and not respond anymore to this thread.

Best,
Robert

On 12/28/2015 06:52 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers
 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
 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
 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 eg

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Ben Coman]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers
 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
 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
>>  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 (

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

On 12/28/2015 04:58 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote:



2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers >:


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.




Hi Robert,
usually, I don't comment on this kind of discussion. It wastes 
resources we don't have.
I just want to let other peoples (like ben, phil, johan,...) know, 
that I share their opinion.
I don't like if people argue with "I am censored", because someone 
critisized you.

I don't like if people see every critic as a negative personel attack.

you post on this list, and people suggest to stay ontopic resp. 
explain how this things are related

to pharo. That's all.


Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still caught 
a knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to reference 
religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent thought in these 
models and they are familiar to the majority of the people on the 
planet, the average person, even if the intellectuals fail to resonate 
with it. This familiarity makes it a good model for the average person 
to interact. Seems to be a lack of knowledge on the side of the 
intellectuals.


Robert




nicolai

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.

Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.

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
   wrote:

*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 
  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 

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Nicolai Hess]

2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers :

> 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.
>
>


Hi Robert,
usually, I don't comment on this kind of discussion. It wastes resources we
don't have.
I just want to let other peoples (like ben, phil, johan,...) know, that I
share their opinion.
I don't like if people argue with "I am censored", because someone
critisized you.
I don't like if people see every critic as a negative personel attack.

you post on this list, and people suggest to stay ontopic resp. explain how
this things are related
to pharo. That's all.


nicolai



> 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.
>
> Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.
>
> 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 
>  wrote:
>
> *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  
>  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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert
> .  ..   ...^,^
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

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.


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.


Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.

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
 wrote:

*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  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.









--
Robert
.  ..   ...^,^

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

Thank you Offray, for a way out of this dreadful conversation of 
opposition to free-thinking. Ahh, irony. You make an exceelent 
observation of some limitations you say you have also run into and your 
thoughtful solution to this.


best,

--
Robert
.  ..   ...^,^



On 12/27/2015 01:54 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:

Robert,

I'm a newbie myself on this community, with near to a year in it, but 
not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back 
as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), so I 
don't know myself. I think that communities tend to be different on 
the way they behave according to on-topic or off-topic views. In the 
case of the Leo community, is not unusual some kind of public 
monologue about how to solve some issues, sharing "notes to myself" 
with all the list. In the case of Pharo/Moose the meta reflection 
seems better in places like blog post. I found this in my own case 
while asking questions in the Moose mailing list in long posts where I 
give a lot of background information and those did take a lot to be 
answered or where ignored at all. I remember that one meta-question I 
made to the list was "Am I asking wrong?" and after that I decided to 
test this combination of long background or panoramic/extra reflexions 
on blog post with more specific short questions in the respective 
mailing list or chat channel. I got better feedback in all channels 
(chat, mailing lists and blog comments) with this combination. See and 
example here:


http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-initial-progress.html

Hope this helps,

Offray

On 27/12/15 13:18, Robert Withers wrote:
Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say 
no need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second 
paragraph you censor me.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas]

On 27/12/15 13:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:


  but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer 
back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve),


Je je I meant "I regret not being able to answer back as quick as I get 
some feedback"


Cheers,

Offray

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Johan Fabry]

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers  wrote:
> 
> Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need 
> to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you 
> censor me.

You did not completely take into account my sentence. The second part says: 
"for your spiritual and/or religious point of view”.


> Alright, I ask you all.  Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in 
> my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able 
> to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These 
> consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are 
> well-defined models. 

I have no opinion on this, this is a design question for your work, and not 
straightforwardly related to Pharo itself. In my opinion and apparently in the 
opinion of others as well, this is not a topic for this mailing list. Sending 
multiple mails to the list about it can be considered bad netiquette.


---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of 
Chile

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Johan Fabry]

Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual 
and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. 

This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of 
traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the 
conversations here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and 
straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Ben’s 
message (+ Marcus’ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many 
other subscribers to the list also do so.

So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list 
experience for all.

Greetings,

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers  wrote:
> 
> I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts 
> made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related 
> as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the 
> censorship list.
> 
> I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness.
> 
> respectfully,
> robert
> 



---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of 
Chile

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were 
attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and 
commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, 
to be placed on the censorship list.


I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness.

respectfully,
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
 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  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.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

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. 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. 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.

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
 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  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.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

You know Ben, another option is to shun and ostracize me. Those be well 
oiled options. Truth.


On 12/27/2015 12:01 PM, Robert Withers 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. 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. 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.

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
 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  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.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Ben Coman]

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
 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  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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

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  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.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

[Robert Withers]

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  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.