to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially
quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to some
kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be carefull to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake to leave maya i
advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and get totally sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of
spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially
quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to
some kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be carefull
to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake to leave
maya i advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and get totally
sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd of
reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery finding out
about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made a mistake!
On 2021-07-06 12:35 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 04.07.2021 um 21:07 schrieb Venus as a Boy:move to a new country
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of
spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially
quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to
some kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real reality. >>>> So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be
carefull to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake
to leave maya i advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and
get totally sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd of
reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery finding out
about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? Well
they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
Am 04.07.2021 um 21:07 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of
spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially
quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to
some kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be carefull
to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake to leave
maya i advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and get totally
sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd of
reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery finding out
about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? Well they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
Am 06.07.2021 um 22:27 schrieb %:
On 2021-07-06 12:49 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 06.07.2021 um 21:47 schrieb %:move to a boat
On 2021-07-06 12:35 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 04.07.2021 um 21:07 schrieb Venus as a Boy:move to a new country
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of >>>>>>> spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature
especially quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of
maya opposed to some kind of waking up and relising the horrific >>>>>>> truth of real reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be
carefull to never look into the stars, but if you made the
mistake to leave maya i advise you to immediatly visit a
psychiatrist and get totally sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd
of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery
finding out about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made
a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? Well
they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
I am not one of them!
Am 06.07.2021 um 22:54 schrieb %:
then shut up and stop complainingmove to a boatmove to a new country
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some
kinfd of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into
misery finding out about our system and shit, so this "being"
kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police?
Well they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car! >>>>>>>
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
I am not one of them!
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally upfront
about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
Am 06.07.2021 um 21:47 schrieb %:
On 2021-07-06 12:35 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 04.07.2021 um 21:07 schrieb Venus as a Boy:move to a new country
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of
spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially
quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to
some kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real
reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be
carefull to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake
to leave maya i advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and
get totally sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd of
reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery finding out
about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? Well
they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
then shut up and stop complainingmove to a boatmove to a new country
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd >>>>>>> of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery
finding out about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made >>>>>>> a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police?
Well they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
I am not one of them!
On 2021-07-06 12:49 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 06.07.2021 um 21:47 schrieb %:move to a boat
On 2021-07-06 12:35 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 04.07.2021 um 21:07 schrieb Venus as a Boy:move to a new country
Am 04.07.2021 um 18:14 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
to advise you to NEVER take any form of drugs or read any kind of
spiritual/religious book not even scientific literature especially >>>>>> quantum physics and stay in your dreaming world of maya opposed to >>>>>> some kind of waking up and relising the horrific truth of real
reality.
So: keep your heads to the ground and watch the floor and be
carefull to never look into the stars, but if you made the mistake >>>>>> to leave maya i advise you to immediatly visit a psychiatrist and
get totally sedated!
Good bye and thank you for the fish!
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some kinfd
of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into misery finding
out about our system and shit, so this "being" kinda made a mistake! >>>>>
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? Well
they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car!
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
On 2021-07-06 2:09 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 06.07.2021 um 22:54 schrieb %:i don't go to posted web sites
then shut up and stop complainingmove to a boatmove to a new country
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some
kinfd of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into
misery finding out about our system and shit, so this "being" >>>>>>>>> kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? >>>>>>>> Well they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car! >>>>>>>>
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world!
I am not one of them!
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally
upfront about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
On 7/6/2021 5:09 PM, Venus as a Boy wrote:
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally
upfront about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
In order for a deterrent to be credible, it must be up
to date and reliable.
Am 06.07.2021 um 23:11 schrieb %:
On 2021-07-06 2:09 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 06.07.2021 um 22:54 schrieb %:i don't go to posted web sites
then shut up and stop complainingmove to a boatmove to a new country
My latest conclusion
This so called "Supreme Being" made us all curious for some >>>>>>>>>> kinfd of reason, but that curiosity actually leads us into >>>>>>>>>> misery finding out about our system and shit, so this "being" >>>>>>>>>> kinda made a mistake!
The gaslighters pissed into my flat. I should call the police? >>>>>>>>> Well they didn't even care when they spilled gasoline in my car! >>>>>>>>>
I will, but they'll probably have their gimps all over the world! >>>>>>>
I am not one of them!
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally
upfront about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
Then i'll tell, you they called their latest icbm "Sword of Armageddon"!
Am 07.07.2021 um 00:01 schrieb ansaman:
On 7/6/2021 5:09 PM, Venus as a Boy wrote:
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally
upfront about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
In order for a deterrent to be credible, it must be up
to date and reliable.
I think that humanity is vain, why they are even thinking about such
stuff, and i think nowadays the whole fucking world is like this and
would do such if they could:
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/11/21/the-us-tried-to-detonate-a-nuke-on-the-moon-usaf-colonel-says-someone-intervened-when-we-did/
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally upfront
about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
Another good one:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/jeff-bezos-petition-for-him-not-to-return-from-space-surpasses-150000-goal/
Am 08.07.2021 um 22:35 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Another good one:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/jeff-bezos-petition-for-him-not-to-return-from-space-surpasses-150000-goal/
So the worldsociety always complains about the holchaust, takes it as an >argument to ban fascism, but if you would look at the history of so
called civilization and its record of years of suffering of people and
how many dead, it should be a good argument against so called
"civilization"!
Am 07.07.2021 um 01:17 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Am 07.07.2021 um 00:01 schrieb ansaman:
On 7/6/2021 5:09 PM, Venus as a Boy wrote:
No! Now to something completely different, they are now totally
upfront about it and not even ashamed (the name!):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36744219/ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
In order for a deterrent to be credible, it must be up
to date and reliable.
I think that humanity is vain, why they are even thinking about such
stuff, and i think nowadays the whole fucking world is like this and
would do such if they could:
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/11/21/the-us-tried-to-detonate-a-nuke-on-the-moon-usaf-colonel-says-someone-intervened-when-we-did/
A very fun video to watch:
https://youtu.be/cGRroNrNGso
Am 08.07.2021 um 22:35 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Another good one:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/jeff-bezos-petition-for-him-not-to-return-from-space-surpasses-150000-goal/
So the worldsociety always complains about the holchaust, takes it as an argument to ban fascism, but if you would look at the history of so
called civilization and its record of years of suffering of people and
how many dead, it should be a good argument against so called
"civilization"!
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:02:08 +0200, Venus as a Boy
<rainbowguardian@web.de> wrote:
Am 08.07.2021 um 22:35 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Another good one:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/jeff-bezos-petition-for-him-not-to-return-from-space-surpasses-150000-goal/
So the worldsociety always complains about the holchaust, takes it as an
argument to ban fascism, but if you would look at the history of so
called civilization and its record of years of suffering of people and
how many dead, it should be a good argument against so called
"civilization"!
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
Noah Sombrero
On 2021-07-08 4:16 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Venus as a Boy:do you eat soap
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god is
pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Actually god is so evil that it announeced to me that it wants to try
to anihilate me in semptember but gives me some joytime until that lol
what a hillarious joke!
If someone wants to mention that god beats its beloved children,then i
say i don't want such love!
If someone wants to say i will be punnished for my sins, then i must
ask why it wants to punnish me for the way it created me? Conclusion
God is evil/crazy!
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god is
pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Actually god is so evil that it announeced to me that it wants to try to anihilate me in semptember but gives me some joytime until that lol what
a hillarious joke!
If someone wants to mention that god beats its beloved children,then i
say i don't want such love!
If someone wants to say i will be punnished for my sins, then i must ask
why it wants to punnish me for the way it created me? Conclusion God is evil/crazy!
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god is
pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:34 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:02:08 +0200, Venus as a Boy
<rainbowguardian@web.de> wrote:
Am 08.07.2021 um 22:35 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Another good one:
https://www.unilad.co.uk/technology/jeff-bezos-petition-for-him-not-to-return-from-space-surpasses-150000-goal/
So the worldsociety always complains about the holchaust, takes it as an >>> argument to ban fascism, but if you would look at the history of so
called civilization and its record of years of suffering of people and
how many dead, it should be a good argument against so called
"civilization"!
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
Noah Sombrero
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god is
pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Am 09.07.2021 um 01:43 schrieb %:
On 2021-07-08 4:16 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Venus as a Boy:do you eat soap
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god
is pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Actually god is so evil that it announeced to me that it wants to try
to anihilate me in semptember but gives me some joytime until that
lol what a hillarious joke!
If someone wants to mention that god beats its beloved children,then
i say i don't want such love!
If someone wants to say i will be punnished for my sins, then i must
ask why it wants to punnish me for the way it created me? Conclusion
God is evil/crazy!
Shove the soap up your cunt!
Am 09.07.2021 um 01:43 schrieb %:
On 2021-07-08 4:16 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Venus as a Boy:do you eat soap
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god
is pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Actually god is so evil that it announeced to me that it wants to try
to anihilate me in semptember but gives me some joytime until that
lol what a hillarious joke!
If someone wants to mention that god beats its beloved children,then
i say i don't want such love!
If someone wants to say i will be punnished for my sins, then i must
ask why it wants to punnish me for the way it created me? Conclusion
God is evil/crazy!
God is an evil sick basterd
God=Saten makes people enjoy chidsacrifices and god being saten, it
enjoys it itself!
On 2021-07-08 4:16 p.m., Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 09.07.2021 um 00:37 schrieb Venus as a Boy:do you eat soap
On how to overcome grief
What helped me was some black cynical humour in realising that god is
pure evil and you take a piss/shit back at it!
Actually god is so evil that it announeced to me that it wants to try
to anihilate me in semptember but gives me some joytime until that lol
what a hillarious joke!
If someone wants to mention that god beats its beloved children,then i
say i don't want such love!
If someone wants to say i will be punnished for my sins, then i must
ask why it wants to punnish me for the way it created me? Conclusion
God is evil/crazy!
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
On 2021-07-08 8:17 p.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:un natural stuff
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
On 7/8/2021 11:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Putting a hunter gatherer in a city with concrete and stop lights
everywhere is about like putting a lion or a grizzly in a zoo. Ever
seen a lion going mad with frustration? Back and forth, back and
forth. This is not how it was supposed to be he thinks.
Ah so you have this little box called hunter-gatherer
and you have put mankind in it and declared that natural,
but man is not the only hunter-gatherer and he is far
more than that. Mankind creates and uses tools (indeed
some animals have exhibited some tool making).
That does not make your city dweller unnatural. Mankind
also creates records and culture. Mankind is the master
manipulator, but I do not see how that makes him unnatural.
That is not how YOU think he is supposed to be. He has
chosen all these things, if not personally, then by
previous generations.
Ask Ned, there is evidence that cities were formed
to facilitate making beer, for defense, for storage
and creation of food, for trading of goods, for
exploitation of specialized skills, for religion.
There are a lot of reasons for cities and that does
not make them unnatural.
The bubbling from underneath, like gasses escaping from a tar pit,
comes in humans because they somehow believe concrete and stoplights
is exactly how things should be.
Metaphorically.
Noah Sombrero
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
Putting a hunter gatherer in a city with concrete and stop lights
everywhere is about like putting a lion or a grizzly in a zoo. Ever
seen a lion going mad with frustration? Back and forth, back and
forth. This is not how it was supposed to be he thinks.
The bubbling from underneath, like gasses escaping from a tar pit,
comes in humans because they somehow believe concrete and stoplights
is exactly how things should be.
Metaphorically.
Noah Sombrero
ansaman wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't
mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act?
Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Noah had written:
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Don't worry...be happy.
Unreasoning reasonings is fun for some of us. That is all that
matters. Fun. If there would be impending doom, then dance around
it. Doom, baby, doom.
Everything is always deniable, if it suits your politics.
Noah wrote:
ansaman wrote:
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also, >>mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
Unless it is for some other, so-called, reason.
Chopping, slicing and dicing, hedging and rationalizing, poison
can be poisonous and kill individuals on occasion. To defend
a position, words might be taken out of context such as, only,
the only time, or, naturally, etc.
When killer bees sting or snakes bite or ants make war, excuses
can be given, such as, they do it, naturally, to eat. They must
defend their hives or nests, so they can eat, and reproduce.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
A saying can be said, humans evolved brains. Brains
equip humans to do what other animals don't do, naturally.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
To say, humans were meant, or not meant,
might mean something. As if evolution has meaning
other than to select naturally a species fit to survive.
While at times, given an evolutionary theory of natural
selection the fittest might be the best fit, it's not always
the fittest who survive. Merely a fit that fits will fit.
And finally, it is known that humans age as their cells become less
able to deal with the products of metabolism, like urea. The solution
to not growing old, is enable our cells to become able to handle urea
as in the past. Why not, they could do it before? Yes, researchers
are working on it. In time, yes, humans will refuse to die, refuse to
be natural.
A saying could be said, animal bodies are
not natural for spiritual beings to inhabit.
Energy-beings, being eternal beings, now, at present
may take shape and form their bodies naturally as well
as by intentional or artificial works of art, naturally.
Being in the moment, eternally, the present unfolds.
Always now, some spiritual beings know they have bodies
and at the same time are not those physical bodies, naturally.
Not meant too... That suggests that somebody did the meaning.
Some body such as your
very own self, naturally, as you wrote.
Not
necessary. There is only the contrast between what we were not too
long ago and what we are now. Our brains are wired for the old life, >>haven't had the million years it takes to adapt to the new one.
Cooking might have been discovered after fire
burned a bite of meat to a slight crisp and then
when inventions were invented, stoves grew
naturally as Being evolved through Existence.
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away.
Expanding and contracting,
Mother Nature breathes
Her creatures in to Being.
Climates change and Natural Selection selects
using its god-like power which species survive
and which are extinct at times in the blink of
the Eye that sails to Sea and seizes the day.
Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe.
Some humans, maybe.
Some want to keep pets in tanks, cages, on a leash.
Some want to save the whales, ecosystems, live and let live.
No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
Personally, I'm ready to go, to leave like a tree leaves
without making a stand or stay, today of all days in a daze.
To want to live, physically, forever
does not impress me as being all that great.
What, I want to be the only one here? I don't want that.
Misery loves company?
Of course you don't.
Naturally, some people fall in love.
Some might hate, or not. Emotions vary.
But the things humans generally do want will
eventually cause that.
Extinction events are natural.
Who cares about mosquitoes and frogs? The mosquitoes eats you, the
frog eats the mosquito, the heron eats the frog. Messy. Great Blue
Herons are so beautiful. Put a plastic one in your front yard.
- have a beer! Cheers!
ansaman wrote:
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also, >mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
And finally, it is known that humans age as their cells become less
able to deal with the products of metabolism, like urea. The solution
to not growing old, is enable our cells to become able to handle urea
as in the past. Why not, they could do it before? Yes, researchers
are working on it. In time, yes, humans will refuse to die, refuse to
be natural.
Not meant too... That suggests that somebody did the meaning.
Not
necessary. There is only the contrast between what we were not too
long ago and what we are now. Our brains are wired for the old life,
haven't had the million years it takes to adapt to the new one.
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away.
Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe.
No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
What, I want to be the only one here? I don't want that.
Of course you don't.
But the things humans generally do want will
eventually cause that.
Who cares about mosquitoes and frogs? The mosquitoes eats you, the
frog eats the mosquito, the heron eats the frog. Messy. Great Blue
Herons are so beautiful. Put a plastic one in your front yard.
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Unreasoning reasonings is fun for some of us. That is all that
matters. Fun. If there would be impending doom, then dance around
it. Doom, baby, doom.
Everything is always deniable, if it suits your politics.
Sounds plausible if not rhetorical hyperbole.
Being apolitical has its merits.
While a form of Taoism may suggest
being apolitical is best, at the same time
with and without politics could be viewed as
a coin, minted from a duality factory meeting specs.
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
- visions vary ... Cheers!
On 7/8/2021 11:24 PM, % wrote:
On 2021-07-08 8:17 p.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:un natural stuff
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
Circular argument. What is natural and what is
unnatural? How can we tell?
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 06:26:44 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also, mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away. Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe. No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
On 7/9/2021 8:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 06:26:44 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also,
mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
That is absolutely untrue. Not even close to being true. Lions kill
cubs of their harem's previous mates. Prairie dogs hunt down and kill
ground squirrels.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
This sounds dangerously close to a values judgement rather
than a scientific judgement. The record shows that humans
are far more adept at killing than lions and indeed they enslave
animals to kill at their leisure.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
You obviously have not heard of the bow and arrow that has been
to stand a distance away and take down large prey.
In fact, one of
humans most effective means of predation is the run down. We pursue
far faster animals for such a long time that they fall over from
exhaustion.
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away. Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe. No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
I guess you are something other than human. You get to declare
what is natural even if not based on anything other than
your value system
and you point the finger as if you are not human, too.
I got bad news for you... there is no such thing
as an individual human, you are part of the whole and its
aggregate behavior.
On 2021-07-09 3:12 a.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:24 PM, % wrote:nothing is natural
On 2021-07-08 8:17 p.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:un natural stuff
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
Circular argument. What is natural and what is
unnatural? How can we tell?
On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 07:32:10 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Not inane?
Unreasoning reasonings is fun for some of us. That is all that
matters. Fun. If there would be impending doom, then dance around
it. Doom, baby, doom.
Everything is always deniable, if it suits your politics.
Sounds plausible if not rhetorical hyperbole.
Being apolitical has its merits.
While a form of Taoism may suggest
being apolitical is best, at the same time
with and without politics could be viewed as
a coin, minted from a duality factory meeting specs.
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
- visions vary ... Cheers!
Noah Sombrero
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Unreasoning reasonings is fun for some of us. That is all that
matters. Fun. If there would be impending doom, then dance around
it. Doom, baby, doom.
Everything is always deniable, if it suits your politics.
Sounds plausible if not rhetorical hyperbole.
Being apolitical has its merits.
While a form of Taoism may suggest
being apolitical is best, at the same time
with and without politics could be viewed as
a coin, minted from a duality factory meeting specs.
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
- visions vary ... Cheers!
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 06:26:44 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also, mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
On 7/9/2021 8:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 06:26:44 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:44 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 23:17:18 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
The natural thing was that humans would be hunter gatherers.
Since leaving that behind, lots of other unnatural objections to
nature's way have come along, like wanting to eat but refusing to be
eaten (as much as possible).
That is the right of the apex predator, totally natural. Man
is the ultimate apex predator.
Not when he is living in his natural role as hunter gatherer. Also,
mosquitoes need to eat too. Diseases are organisms that need to eat.
The only time an animal kills another naturally is to eat.
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just make
the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances of
survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting >technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short >distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking to pursue
prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence hunter must be
able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The
strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and
by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest hunting >strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively by the San >people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people of
Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by early >hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or without[8] >projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run down
an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five hours
and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much as 42
°C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of sight.
By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches up with it >before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade. The animal is >repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too exhausted to run. The >hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may also
have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal,
the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from
northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the
day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to >persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
People will line up for hours in a theme park for 10 minutes of
inanity. And the ridiculous costumes in Disneyland are a big part of
the draw. It sells.
And don't worry...be happy.
There was a popular song in the charts 10 years ago or so that
consisted entirely of that lyric.
On 7/9/2021 11:44 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
People will line up for hours in a theme park for 10 minutes of
inanity. And the ridiculous costumes in Disneyland are a big part of
the draw. It sells.
And don't worry...be happy.
There was a popular song in the charts 10 years ago or so that
consisted entirely of that lyric.
The first time I saw this one, I cried.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZSe6N_BXs
But of course, you might want to join the
Church of Despair where all white people
are racist and privileged, all people with
money are evil, all drug companies are
predatory, all oil companies just want to
destroy the environment, the Jews are
practicing apartheid... need I go on?
For them, everything is a fight 'cause
nothing is right.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just make
the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances of
survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking to pursue
prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence hunter must be
able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The
strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and
by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people of
Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run down
an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five hours
and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much as 42
°C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of sight.
By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade. The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may also
have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal,
the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from
northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the
day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can
say what is meant to be.
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it
is, it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just
make the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances
of survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting
technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over
short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking
to pursue prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence
hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of
time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild
dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest
hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively
by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people
of Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by
early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or
without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run
down an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five
hours and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much
as 42 °C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of
sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches
up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade.
The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too
exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may
also have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land
animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen
from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat
of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy
sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can
say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >demented doddering old fool.
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just make
the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances of
survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting
technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short
distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking to pursue
prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence hunter must be
able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The
strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and
by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest hunting
strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively by the San
people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people of
Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by early
hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or without[8]
projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run down
an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five hours
and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much as 42
°C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of sight.
By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches up with it
before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade. The animal is
repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too exhausted to run. The
hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may also
have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal,
the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from
northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the
day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
On 7/9/2021 1:36 PM, ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it
is, it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just
make the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances
of survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting
technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over
short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking
to pursue prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence
hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of
time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild
dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest
hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively
by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people
of Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by
early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or
without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run
down an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five
hours and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much
as 42 °C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of
sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches
up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade.
The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too
exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may
also have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land
animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen
from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat
of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
Anything that is not "in harmony with nature" will very soon cease to
exist.
Nature is reality and reality always wins.
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it
is, it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just
make the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances
of survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting
technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over
short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking
to pursue prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence
hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of
time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild
dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest
hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively
by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people
of Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by
early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or
without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run
down an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five
hours and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much
as 42 °C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of
sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches
up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade.
The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too
exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may
also have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land
animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen
from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat
of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>>>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can
say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a
demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free
and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
On 7/9/2021 1:36 PM, ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it
is, it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just
make the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances
of survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting
technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over
short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and tracking
to pursue prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A persistence
hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of
time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild
dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest
hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively
by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people
of Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by
early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or
without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run
down an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five
hours and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as much
as 42 °C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away out of
sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter catches
up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in the shade.
The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it is too
exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may
also have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land
animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen
from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat
of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
I actually like all of that, especially your "Church of Despair"
concept. It fits the feeling I get from the doomers. And "existential >horror"! We don't hear talk like that very much these days.
I've read 18th century explorers talk about the "bleak and fearsome >desolation" of the wilderness. Today we consider the natural world a >soothing respite from civilization.
But those guys knew something that we mostly don't think about. They
weren't as far removed from what nature is really about, "red of tooth
and claw". If they were attacked by an animal or another human, broke a
leg or got a fever from an infected cut, there was a pretty good chance >they'd die out there, in great pain and maybe all alone. There was no
rescue service to rush them to an emergency ward and no doctor within
many days travel. Personal experience with existential horror was close
by and very real.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can
say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a
demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt.
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>>>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can
say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a
demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free
and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
Control populations. It is historical that the Emperor Constantine
had his priestly types invent the Catholic Church with exactly that in
mind. But yes, before the invention of churches and religions,
ancient traditions were about grief and horror,
On 7/9/2021 1:36 PM, ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 12:51 PM, Wilson wrote:
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it
is, it is meant to be.
At any rate, spears (like guns) are unnecessary to hunt. They just
make the end result easier and less dangerous (improving the chances
of survival for the users).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
"Persistence hunting (sometimes called endurance hunting) is a
hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey
over short distances, use a combination of running, walking, and
tracking to pursue prey until it is fatigued or overheated. A
persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an
extended period of time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids
such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting is believed to have been one of the earliest
hunting strategies used by humans.[2][3] It is still used effectively
by the San people in the Kalahari Desert, and by the Rarámuri people
of Northwestern Mexico.
Persistence hunting was likely one of a number of tactics used by
early hominins,[2][6] and could have been practised with[7] or
without[8] projectile weapons such as darts, spears, or slings.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the
central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa. The procedure is to run
down an antelope, such as a kudu, in the midday heat, for up to five
hours and a distance of up to 35 km (22 mi) in temperatures of as
much as 42 °C (108 °F). The hunter chases the kudu, which runs away
out of sight. By tracking it down at a fast running pace the hunter
catches up with it before it has had time to rest and cool down in
the shade. The animal is repeatedly chased and tracked down until it
is too exhausted to run. The hunter then kills it with a spear.[10]
The Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico in the Copper Canyon area may
also have practiced persistence hunting.[11]
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land
animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen
from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the
heat of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their
goats.[12]
In the absence of hunting tools, people have occasionally reverted to
persistence hunting, as with the Lykov family in Siberia."
Shhhh! He has this treasured image of hunter gatherers as a lifestyle
and in harmony with nature. The same folks who lived 35 years if they
were lucky and who lost a vast portion of their children to disease.
You wonder where religion comes from? The Church of Despair says it
was designed to control populations. I say it was to ameliorate grief
and existential horror.
Anything that is not "in harmony with nature" will very soon cease to
exist.
Nature is reality and reality always wins.
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
Oh, yes. On the other hand, respite from civilization is a real need,
and the feeling that "I didn't choose this" is close at hand for many
of us.
On 7/9/2021 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Oh, yes. On the other hand, respite from civilization is a real need,
and the feeling that "I didn't choose this" is close at hand for many
of us.
I maintain that the real nature is not quite what you
think without all our technology.
You have a romanticized
idea of what that is like. Go into the wilderness with
maybe what food you can carry and a little bit of kindling
and see to your own shelter and resupply. Get the real
experience.
I used to hike deep into the woods and build a fire
and have a weenie roast and spend many hours there,
but I made sure it was winter when all the vermin
were safely tucked in their beds and I didn't stay
long. I also was a very healthy 17 year old.
I actually like all of that, especially your "Church of Despair"
concept. It fits the feeling I get from the doomers. And "existential horror"! We don't hear talk like that very much these days.
I've read 18th century explorers talk about the "bleak and fearsome desolation" of the wilderness. Today we consider the natural world a soothing respite from civilization.
But those guys knew something that we mostly don't think about. They weren't as far removed from what nature is really about, "red of tooth
and claw". If they were attacked by an animal or another human, broke a
leg or got a fever from an infected cut, there was a pretty good chance they'd die out there, in great pain and maybe all alone. There was no rescue service to rush them to an emergency ward and no doctor within
many days travel. Personal experience with existential horror was close
by and very real.
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits
and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't understand. Didn't choose.
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
Humans are part of nature. Yes, we have strayed
from our roots and some of us miss being caught in
the weather of all types, starvation and malnutrition,
disease and short life spans... BUT the landscape was
so pretty!!
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs triumphs and you get all
the basics, but then you start to go soft on us and
yearn for the "good ol' days.
As my sig suggests, the Electric Nose Picker is
the maximum triumph of our technology and everything
is downhill after that... until we invent the
Combination Nuclear Shit and Piss Sucker!
No need to strain on some awful toilet! No need
to go looking for a place to piss... this
automatic machines senses when you have stool
and urine and automatically sucks it out of you
with the never needs a recharge tech of atoms!
After that, there will be a machine that will
tease the semen out of you in the most amusing way
and deliver it to the nearest ready cervix!
When the time comes, the baby is automatically
extracted and taken care of. We never have to
get up from in front of the television or
computer with a vast array machines seeing to
our every need!
On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits
and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't
understand. Didn't choose.
I think we understand it way too well. No matter what
obstacles we overcome, we are never seemingly winners
because we then raise the standards. Buddha pointed
that out. We are never satisfied. If there is no suffering,
we generate it with ever greater desires. I have better
food, better living conditions, better medical care,
and more entertainment than anyone alive on the day
my grandfather was born in 1900. Of course, others
have a lot more than me and they are not satisfied.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly. I am sorry, your perspective is totally
out of whack. Yes, we can do a lot more to preserve
the environment and we ARE doing a lot more. Where
did all these electric cars come from? All these
low energy LED light bulbs we don't burn fossil
fuel to run? The clean air standards that started
under Nixon! The environmental cleanup? Sorry, but
look at India and China... they have made their
countries into garbage cans, but who gets the
fingers pointed at them? We do because that suits
the forces that are competing with us politically
and economically on the world stage.
There is always room for improvement, but the
Church of Despair sells dissatisfaction wholesale
and it keeps the money rolling in.
On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits
and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't
understand. Didn't choose.
I think we understand it way too well. No matter what
obstacles we overcome, we are never seemingly winners
because we then raise the standards. Buddha pointed
that out. We are never satisfied.
If there is no suffering,
we generate it with ever greater desires. I have better
food, better living conditions, better medical care,
and more entertainment than anyone alive on the day
my grandfather was born in 1900. Of course, others
have a lot more than me and they are not satisfied.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
I am sorry, your perspective is totally
out of whack. Yes, we can do a lot more to preserve
the environment and we ARE doing a lot more. Where
did all these electric cars come from? All these
low energy LED light bulbs we don't burn fossil
fuel to run? The clean air standards that started
under Nixon! The environmental cleanup? Sorry, but
look at India and China... they have made their
countries into garbage cans, but who gets the
fingers pointed at them? We do because that suits
the forces that are competing with us politically
and economically on the world stage.
There is always room for improvement, but the
Church of Despair sells dissatisfaction wholesale
and it keeps the money rolling in.
no , " we " don't need to do anything ,
i certainly don't need to do anything ,
because you get an idea ,
i do whatever i like when ever i want and ,
you get to sit there and put up with it
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Not inane?
On 2021-07-09 3:12 a.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:24 PM, % wrote:nothing is natural
On 2021-07-08 8:17 p.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:un natural stuff
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
Circular argument. What is natural and what is
unnatural? How can we tell?
On 7/9/2021 11:32 AM, % wrote:
On 2021-07-09 3:12 a.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 11:24 PM, % wrote:nothing is natural
On 2021-07-08 8:17 p.m., ansaman wrote:
On 7/8/2021 6:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:un natural stuff
As a matter of fact. Civilization is an unnatural act. That doesn't >>>>>> mean that humans will stop trying to make it work.
What makes it an unnatural act? Are you saying that
man is not a natural phenomena? What do you base that on?
Circular argument. What is natural and what is
unnatural? How can we tell?
Then the word has no meaning.
Noah wrote:
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away. Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe. No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
I guess you are something other than human. You get to declare
what is natural even if not based on anything other than
your value system and you point the finger as if you are not
human, too. I got bad news for you... there is no such thing
as an individual human, you are part of the whole and its
aggregate behavior.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Unreasoning reasonings is fun for some of us. That is all that
matters. Fun. If there would be impending doom, then dance around
it. Doom, baby, doom.
Everything is always deniable, if it suits your politics.
Sounds plausible if not rhetorical hyperbole.
Being apolitical has its merits.
While a form of Taoism may suggest
being apolitical is best, at the same time
with and without politics could be viewed as
a coin, minted from a duality factory meeting specs.
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
- visions vary ... Cheers!
I don't think I know you, but I like "the cut of your jib."
one had written:
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
For your reward is in heaven?
Noah asked:
one had written:
Render unto rulers the measures they measure.
Context might be a king when semantics are at play.
For your reward is in heaven?
Duality has its own reward.
There's a price on its face.
Hakuna matata, as a dizzy knee philosophy,
may have an effect of sorts on a singer there a bouts.
To get back to the Garden, metaphorically, Ways
might be Ways, to a point and work, for a spell.
To suppose there is one and only one Way, aka, Tao
that works all the time in every situation may
be what the Tao Te Ching says is not.
While a Tao can be said to exist, e.g. the Zone,
the center of balance, emptiness or the void,
being able to find that Tao and stay there
at all times in every circumstance can
be sold by hucksters and as oils.
- beware of serpent in Tree ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
Don't worry...be happy.
Aye. Tis a fine philosophy. Nine
out of ten optometrists may agree.
Not inane?
Aye. The tenth was not an optimist.
His glasses were not progressive lenses.
With Taoist philosophy, as a group of texts,
worry might be viewed as not Tao in a Way.
Not being in the groove, the flow, the zone;
worry could be a bit of a downer kinda sorta.
Being in the zone, duality vanishes to a point.
Similar to a train of thought tracks.
- on a horizon line ...
It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural.
Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes.
Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise?
The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
Wilson wrote:
Noah wrote:
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair.
The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free >>and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
Great.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
Humans are part of nature.
Yes, we have strayed
from our roots and some of us miss being caught in
the weather of all types, starvation and malnutrition,
disease and short life spans... BUT the landscape was
so pretty!!
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs triumphs and you get all
the basics, but then you start to go soft on us and
yearn for the "good ol' days.
ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
Humans are part of nature. Yes, we have strayed
from our roots and some of us miss being caught in
the weather of all types, starvation and malnutrition,
disease and short life spans... BUT the landscape was
so pretty!!
No, it isn't about pretty landscapes.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits
and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't
understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
On 7/9/2021 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits
and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't
understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there.
Feelings are
experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is
real outside yourself.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:01:49 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits >>>>> and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't
understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there.
Different kind of feeling.
Feelings are
experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is
real outside yourself.
As I said they are not rational. Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really simply another human among the
masses. That does not mean that love is to be ignored as irrational.
It is part of what makes life worth living along with other feelings.
We simply must honor them. The "I did not choose this" feeling as
much as any. Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in cities and spend
a large part of their lives working for a paycheck.
Noah Sombrero
ansaman wrote:
Noah wrote:
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in
an endless cycle, are going away. Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and
cat pets, maybe. No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
I guess you are something other than human. You get to declare
what is natural even if not based on anything other than
your value system and you point the finger as if you are not
human, too. I got bad news for you... there is no such thing
as an individual human, you are part of the whole and its
aggregate behavior.
And the news gets better.
There is no such thing as an individual species.
All so-called species are part of the whole.
When carving an Uncarved Block (UB) where
two begin and one never stops
tribbles multiply.
- given: an Enter prize ...
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>>>>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free
and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
In other words, the lion would be exactly as frustrated whether he put himself in a zoo or we did it to him.
Noah Sombrero
Wilson asserted:
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural.
If that's a fact, then, there's a hat,
and a cat, bred to be, such as it is, they argh.
Because humans are
a part of nature, the end result of natural processes.
Causality is a paradigm.
Who are you, in
your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise?
He's Noah, naturally.
He was meant to say what he said.
By Jove. Who established what was established.
The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
When people extinguish a species
known to people as people, as a form of self
destruction naturally it might be called a fact that
they destroyed their own selves, unless it was just the Self
who was playing at being all beings as Being, naturally.
- given: myths, moths and utter ants
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is, >>>>>> it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of
what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you
would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free
and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
Great.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:11:03 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:01:49 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits >>>>>> and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't >>>>>> understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there.
Different kind of feeling.
Feelings are
experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is
real outside yourself.
As I said they are not rational. Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really simply another human among the
masses. That does not mean that love is to be ignored as irrational.
It is part of what makes life worth living along with other feelings.
We simply must honor them. The "I did not choose this" feeling as
much as any. Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in cities and spend
a large part of their lives working for a paycheck.
It is part of the modern human experience. We want to do something
that we are not content to do. And the challenge of being in the
modern world. Humans simply must learn to understand themselves.
ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Carving an Uncarved Rock (UR).
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilitiesHumans are part of nature.
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
On 7/10/2021 10:15 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:11:03 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:01:49 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits >>>>>>> and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves.
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't >>>>>>> understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there.
Different kind of feeling.
It's the same sort of feeling, though. Experiencing what is not there.
Feelings are
experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is >>>> real outside yourself.
As I said they are not rational. Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really simply another human among the
masses. That does not mean that love is to be ignored as irrational.
It is part of what makes life worth living along with other feelings.
We simply must honor them. The "I did not choose this" feeling as
much as any. Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in cities and spend
a large part of their lives working for a paycheck.
It is part of the modern human experience. We want to do something
that we are not content to do. And the challenge of being in the
modern world. Humans simply must learn to understand themselves.
You say that other human beings "forgot that what we really needed to
change was ourselves." But I keep hearing people say that, so clearly
we haven't forgotten it.
Perhaps it's a choice to be discontent. The lion paces at the edge of
his cage. He could be content but is not. You might say "that is his >nature" and maybe you'd be correct. But what about the lion that is
happy, eating her free meat, playing and swimming in the pool? Is her >contentedness not a part of her nature as well?
If what we need to change is ourselves, why do you focus on the outer
world and the choices other human beings make when they decide to live
in cities?
Are you purely the effect of your feelings? Or are you potentially the
maker of them?
Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really
simply another human among the masses.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there. Feelings are experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is
real outside yourself.
Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in
cities and spend a large part of their lives working
for a paycheck.
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of >>>>> what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you >>>> would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free >>> and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
Great.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
That's what you're saying, not what I'm saying.
I take it from your response you might not have a clue.
You said, "Humans were not meant be able to stand a distance away and
kill buffalo with guns."
And I say, yes we are.
Your idea that we're not meant to do certain things that we are clearly
doing is a denial of reality.
On 7/9/2021 3:55 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped >>>>>>>> to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be
able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value
judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of >>>>> what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth
in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you >>>> would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with
the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free >>> and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
In other words, the lion would be exactly as frustrated whether he put
himself in a zoo or we did it to him.
Noah Sombrero
To not accept reality as it is, is a choice.
Visionaries make new realities out of their dreams.
Visionaries do not attempt to deny other humans the choices available to >them. When they do that they stop being visionaries and become wanna-be >despots.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 11:38:22 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 10:15 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:11:03 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:01:49 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2021 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 17:57:14 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2021 4:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Then there is the problem about how we invented all kinds of whatzits >>>>>>>> and forgot that what we really needed to change was ourselves. >>>>>>>>
Humans are now hunter gatherer brains living in a world they don't >>>>>>>> understand. Didn't choose.
We created this world. We chose it willingly and
knowingly.
Sorta. It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Phantom limbs have feeling even though they are not there.
Different kind of feeling.
It's the same sort of feeling, though. Experiencing what is not there.
Feelings are
experienced, but they are not tangible and may not square with what is >>>>> real outside yourself.
As I said they are not rational. Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really simply another human among the
masses. That does not mean that love is to be ignored as irrational.
It is part of what makes life worth living along with other feelings.
We simply must honor them. The "I did not choose this" feeling as
much as any. Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in cities and spend >>>> a large part of their lives working for a paycheck.
It is part of the modern human experience. We want to do something
that we are not content to do. And the challenge of being in the
modern world. Humans simply must learn to understand themselves.
You say that other human beings "forgot that what we really needed to
change was ourselves." But I keep hearing people say that, so clearly
we haven't forgotten it.
Perhaps it's a choice to be discontent. The lion paces at the edge of
his cage. He could be content but is not. You might say "that is his
nature" and maybe you'd be correct. But what about the lion that is
happy, eating her free meat, playing and swimming in the pool? Is her
contentedness not a part of her nature as well?
I must have missed seeing that lion at the zoo.
If what we need to change is ourselves, why do you focus on the outer
world and the choices other human beings make when they decide to live
in cities?
Are you purely the effect of your feelings? Or are you potentially the
maker of them?
Potentially somewhat. Do you get to "choose" who to love?
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:47:27 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be >>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans
were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act."
Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value >>>>>>> judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of >>>>>> what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have
created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth >>>>> in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you >>>>> would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with >>>> the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free >>>> and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
Great.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday
jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
That's what you're saying, not what I'm saying.
I take it from your response you might not have a clue.
You said, "Humans were not meant be able to stand a distance away and
kill buffalo with guns."
And I say, yes we are.
Your idea that we're not meant to do certain things that we are clearly
doing is a denial of reality.
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
I certainly would not do that. But I can notice that humans are
sometimes not content when they get what they want.
Cities are just as "natural" as spears.
The human brain not being ready for all of this however actually makes
sense.
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:47:27 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:31:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:18:00 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/9/2021 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Humans are dangerous animals, but there are others far better equipped
to be predators. Humans are omnivores, not lions who must hunt. >>>>>>>>>>
Humans in groups can kill large herbivores like buffalos with pointy >>>>>>>>>> sticks, but it is a dangerous undertaking. Humans were not meant be >>>>>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns.
Who are you to say what is "meant to be"? Who are any of us? If it is,
it is meant to be.
Talking about what was and what is, does not mean that I think I can >>>>>>>> say what is meant to be.
Yet somehow one paragraph above you said, "Humans were not meant be >>>>>>> able to stand a distance away and kill buffalo with guns."
That is not how it was done when the earth was young. When humans >>>>>> were in tune with nature.
Look. I know you're a fan of Biden but that's no reason to act like a >>>>>>> demented doddering old fool.
How about if I act like a president doing a perfectly good job?
The statement I quoted was, "civilization is an unnatural act." >>>>>>>> Perhaps the problem is that some people are applying their value >>>>>>>> judgments to "unnatural".
More weasel words.
If you don't like what they say.
Here's a fact for you: If it exists it is natural. Because humans are >>>>>>> a part of nature, the end result of natural processes. Who are you, in >>>>>>> your tiny bubble of the finite, to say otherwise? The separation of >>>>>>> what humans create from what is "natural" is artificial and a
destruction of the tapestry of creation and nature.
It is not about what can be defined as natural if you manage your
words well enough. It is about how we feel about the world we have >>>>>> created for ourselves. Like the lion in the zoo going back and forth >>>>>> in frustration. Don't see a parallel? That's ok, I didn't expect you >>>>>> would.
I do understand exactly what you're saying. To be out of harmony with >>>>> the world around us as it is, is to soak in despair. The lion in
captivity feels despair and frustration because his nature is to be free >>>>> and bounded only by the abilities that nature gave him.
Great.
What I'm saying though? Do you have a clue?
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilities
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday >>>> jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
That's what you're saying, not what I'm saying.
I take it from your response you might not have a clue.
You said, "Humans were not meant be able to stand a distance away and
kill buffalo with guns."
And I say, yes we are.
Your idea that we're not meant to do certain things that we are clearly
doing is a denial of reality.
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
Cities are just as "natural" as spears.
The human brain not being ready for all of this however actually makes
sense.
If what we need to change is ourselves, why do you focus on the outer
world and the choices other human beings make when they decide to live
in cities?
Are you purely the effect of your feelings? Or are you potentially the >>> maker of them?
Potentially somewhat. Do you get to "choose" who to love?
Potentially somewhat, yes. Somewhat no.
On 7/10/2021 10:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really
simply another human among the masses.
Tell that to children of rape.
On 7/10/2021 10:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in
cities and spend a large part of their lives working
for a paycheck.
Did you earn this position of speaking for everyone?
Is it conferred in some sort of ceremony?
Why aren't you in charge if you read the mind of
the animus mundi?
On 7/10/2021 12:52 PM, Wilson wrote:
Cities are just as "natural" as spears.
The human brain not being ready for all of this however actually makes
sense.
We are NEVER ready and always adapting and changing.
It has always been so.
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
The natural world is constantly changing and always has been. We are
just the latest of a long line of disruptions.
On 7/10/2021 12:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
I certainly would not do that. But I can notice that humans are
sometimes not content when they get what they want.
That is certainly correct for some humans.
For some, returning to their hunter gatherer roots
would not make them content either.
On 7/9/2021 9:20 PM, % wrote:
no , " we " don't need to do anything ,
i certainly don't need to do anything ,
because you get an idea ,
i do whatever i like when ever i want and ,
you get to sit there and put up with it
Oh my... you are such a rebel... I am so
impressed. How come you are not some international
superstar already? I just don't get it.
I am so happy for your independence and
freedom of action! I will be sure to build
a shrine to you in my home and burn incense
and mutter unintelligible magic words.
On 7/10/2021 7:58 AM, one wrote:
ansaman wrote:
Noah wrote:
Meanwhile ecological systems, where the worm eats dead things in the
soil, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds, cats die and feed the
worms, and everything that lives is in balance with everything else in >>>> an endless cycle, are going away. Humans don't like that, it is
messy. Humans simply want to be the only ones here except for dog and >>>> cat pets, maybe. No diseases, no death, forever. It is natural to
want that, but not to actually be able to do it.
I guess you are something other than human. You get to declare
what is natural even if not based on anything other than
your value system and you point the finger as if you are not
human, too. I got bad news for you... there is no such thing
as an individual human, you are part of the whole and its
aggregate behavior.
And the news gets better.
There is no such thing as an individual species.
All so-called species are part of the whole.
When carving an Uncarved Block (UB) where
two begin and one never stops
tribbles multiply.
- given: an Enter prize ...
I bet you could also say we are all
"Part of the Hole" since we all get
fucked sooner or later!
On 7/10/2021 9:48 AM, one wrote:
ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Carving an Uncarved Rock (UR).
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilitiesHumans are part of nature.
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday >>>> jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
This is the second time you used that term.
Rough ashlar?
On 7/10/2021 10:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in cities and spend
a large part of their lives working for a paycheck.
Did you earn this position of speaking for everyone?
Is it conferred in some sort of ceremony?
Why aren't you in charge if you read the mind of
the animus mundi?
On 7/10/2021 10:11 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
 Love being necessary to the making
of babies, but the loved one is really simply another human among the
masses.
Tell that to children of rape.
On 7/10/2021 12:56 PM, Wilson wrote:
If what we need to change is ourselves, why do you focus on the outer
world and the choices other human beings make when they decide to live >>>> in cities?
Are you purely the effect of your feelings? Or are you potentially the >>>> maker of them?
Potentially somewhat. Do you get to "choose" who to love?
Potentially somewhat, yes. Somewhat no.
I have found that with enough cash, you not only
get to choose, you get delightful post-coitus mints!
On 7/10/2021 12:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
I certainly would not do that. But I can notice that humans are
sometimes not content when they get what they want.
That is certainly correct for some humans.
For some, returning to their hunter gatherer roots
would not make them content either.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
(And also because they couldn't talk).
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is
no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
and you are the ass of the hole
I bet you could also say we are all
"Part of the Hole" since we all get
fucked sooner or later!
So humans tell themselves. As an entire town burns down in summer
fires in Calif a couple of years ago and now another this year in BC.
And the ocean rises, and storms are more frequent and more severe. If
you want to notice, that is. It might help ameliorate things a little
if humans could learn to be a little less disruptive.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy
sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they
were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is >>>> no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had
time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
(And also because they couldn't talk).
On 7/10/2021 1:56 PM, % wrote:
and you are the ass of the hole
I bet you could also say we are all
"Part of the Hole" since we all get
fucked sooner or later!
It is a tough job but someone has to do it!
There was an argument between all the body
parts about who was most important.
The heart said, "I keep the blood flowing!"
The stomach said, "Without me you would all starve!"
The eyes said, "I let you see things and know where to go!"
The mouth said, "Well I get the food ready for the
stomach and I communicate in the most amazing way."
The brain said in a deep booming voice, "I am in charge here!"
Then the asshole said, "Listen you all need to shut up
because if I don't do my job, you are fucked!"
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But theySo are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
can't because they are all dead!
On 7/10/2021 1:19 PM, ansaman wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:56 PM, Wilson wrote:
If what we need to change is ourselves, why do you focus on the outer >>>>> world and the choices other human beings make when they decide to live >>>>> in cities?
Are you purely the effect of your feelings? Or are you potentially >>>>> the
maker of them?
Potentially somewhat. Do you get to "choose" who to love?
Potentially somewhat, yes. Somewhat no.
I have found that with enough cash, you not only
get to choose, you get delightful post-coitus mints!
Some day I might tell you about that time in Key West at the "Bath
House" ...
:-)
On 7/10/2021 9:48 AM, one wrote:
ansaman wrote:
On 7/9/2021 3:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Carving an Uncarved Rock (UR).
And it is also our nature to be free and bounded only by abilitiesHumans are part of nature.
nature gave us. Nature did not give us cities to live in and workaday >>>> jobs. Humans did that to themselves.
This is the second time you used that term.
Rough ashlar?
Not only do we not understand the world,
but we also do not understand ourselves.
... It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
In time, out of time. Be cause. There's all ways choices.
one spoke of a wheel:
Carving an Uncarved Rock (UR).
This is the second time you used that term.
Rough ashlar?
On Sat ansaman wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:52 PM, Wilson wrote:
Cities are just as "natural" as spears.
The human brain not being ready for all of this however actually makes
sense.
We are NEVER ready and always adapting and changing.
It has always been so.
Of course, things have always been changing. Ever since humans
decided to take up agriculture anyway. Yes, humans are not, never
have been ready. Males still want to go catch one rabbit and bring it
home to wife and kids for dinner.
The pattern now is that wife and husband must catch rabbits all day
long and give 95% to the boss. Then they must go home and deal with
the little monsters. Let the TV do that.
The past 150 years have been overwhelming. Never before has change
been so complete and so rapid.
ansaman wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in
cities and spend a large part of their lives working
for a paycheck.
Did you earn this position of speaking for everyone?
Is it conferred in some sort of ceremony?
Why aren't you in charge if you read the mind of
the animus mundi?
You, of course, are free to be the exception.
I think it is valid to
explore patterns in human behavior. Not that everybody conforms.
To not accept reality as it is, is a choice.
Visionaries make new realities out of their dreams.
Visionaries do not attempt to deny other humans the choices available to >them. When they do that they stop being visionaries and become wanna-be >despots.
Noah wrote:
ansaman wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
Being rational does not make life worth living, Mr.
Spock, and it does not make humans content to live in
cities and spend a large part of their lives working
for a paycheck.
Did you earn this position of speaking for everyone?
Some writers and speakers use pronouns ad hoc. You
might say you, not you of course, someone, when he
or she means his or her own self as if selves were.
You, in this case, meaning, ansaman.
Noah may choose to use the word, we, when he
could be speaking for his own personal self and
generalizing, assuming he is not the only one.
Is it conferred in some sort of ceremony?
Some people like groups. Group-think reinforces
what was forced on children given: language.
Thinking of being a being, an individual being
for example, most if not all are given: names.
Identification and alienation, us/them occurs
when thought streams converge and diverge.
Why aren't you in charge if you read the mind of
the animus mundi?
You, of course, are free to be the exception.
Aye was content, living in a city, working for decades
until being able to retire. Then, suddenly, when asked
if to return to visit where working took place, what then
emerged was a very strange kind of anger. Aye hated it.
I think it is valid to
explore patterns in human behavior. Not that everybody conforms.
Being content, knowing how being alive, a form of Life,
might require work in some form, even if only as a bum,
enabled me to endure a work-place environment, aye.
- for a spell ...
Noah wrote:
Not only do we not understand the world,
but we also do not understand ourselves.
Those who don't understand their
supposed, selves, might assume they have or are, selves.
... It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Some individuated beings may realize how
given a figure-ground type reversal of Being, they simply are
forms of energy at play, seeking various levels which
could be called, their own, sewing two speak.
With harmony emerges disharmony, naturally,
when an Uncarved Rock (UR) is carved.
Dualistic modes of thought last
as long as they may dew.
- evaporation rates vary ...
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
So humans tell themselves. As an entire town burns down in summer
fires in Calif a couple of years ago and now another this year in BC.
And the ocean rises, and storms are more frequent and more severe. If
you want to notice, that is. It might help ameliorate things a little
if humans could learn to be a little less disruptive.
No more important than one of those little globes.
Shake it up and there is a terrible blizzard in
that little world.
Take the longer view. You will be less troubled by all this
change.
Growing up in a valley called, the Valley, in the 50s and 60s life was somewhat as you describe for me. Dad brought home the bacon.
Mom let us do as we pleased. Doors were never locked and
that lasted until the city crept in on its big cat feet.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
Not only do we not understand the world,
but we also do not understand ourselves.
Those who don't understand their
supposed, selves, might assume they have or are, selves.
... It still feels like "I did not choose this" to many.
Feelings, of course, are not rational. They simply are.
Some individuated beings may realize how
given a figure-ground type reversal of Being, they simply are
forms of energy at play, seeking various levels which
could be called, their own, sewing two speak.
With harmony emerges disharmony, naturally,
when an Uncarved Rock (UR) is carved.
Dualistic modes of thought last
as long as they may dew.
- evaporation rates vary ...
I am sure that every word you say is true. But they are not solutions
to the "lion trapped in the zoo" problem. Escape the zoo and then
ponder non-duality if that is how you bend.
aye wrote:
Being content, knowing how being alive, a form of Life,
might require work in some form, even if only as a bum,
enabled me to endure a work-place environment, aye.
Yes, work in some form.
But not necessarily the situation where you
hunt rabbits all day long and then give 95% to the boss, if you catch
the metaphor.
Better to bring one rabbit home, which pleases the wife
who prepares it and feeds it to happy children whose play is not
supervised, who know how to entertain themselves, who do not need
expensive toys, who enjoy you and you enjoy them, etc. All YMMV, of
course.
- for a spell ...
Notice, I am not talking about the 1%. Or even about professionals, >necessarily. Although I might be. There is the situation where the >professional feels cramped by the decisions of the 16 year old he once
was.
On 7/10/2021 7:52 PM, aye wrote:
Growing up in a valley called, the Valley, in the 50s and 60s life was
somewhat as you describe for me. Dad brought home the bacon.
Mom let us do as we pleased. Doors were never locked and
that lasted until the city crept in on its big cat feet.
San Fernando Valley or Simi Valley?
My late wife was from there.
ansaman wrote:
Noah Sombrero wrote:
So humans tell themselves. As an entire town burns down in summer
fires in Calif a couple of years ago and now another this year in BC.
And the ocean rises, and storms are more frequent and more severe. If
you want to notice, that is. It might help ameliorate things a little
if humans could learn to be a little less disruptive.
No more important than one of those little globes.
Shake it up and there is a terrible blizzard in
that little world.
Take the longer view. You will be less troubled by all this
change.
Unfortunately you and I are inside that little globe and the forecast
(from those who know) is that those flakes aren't going away any time
soon. I can be untroubled. That is simply a choice I make. But I
refuse to believe untruth for any reason.
San Fernando Valley or Simi Valley?
My late wife was from there.
i lived in camino ,
now i live near alaska ,
no one around here ever locks doors and there has ,
never been a murder in the history of the town
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy >>>>> sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they >>>>> were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is >>>>> no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had >>>>> time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >>>> Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
On 7/10/2021 2:18 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy >>>>> sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they >>>>> were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is >>>>> no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had >>>>> time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >>>> Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
(And also because they couldn't talk).
Actually they have been found deep, deep in the earth.
They are hiding out as extremophiles. These organisms
are the radicals of cellular life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2021 12:45 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
What I say is that when humans lived as hunter gatherers with pointy >>>>>> sticks for weapons and the ability to outlast a deer sometimes, they >>>>>> were living within natural systems, not destructive to them. That is >>>>>> no longer the case. And I also say that the human brain has not had >>>>>> time to adapt to civilized life.
It is true that I did not say that very well. Here is another
attempt.
That is more comprehensible, but just remember that long before
mankind, other organisms destroyed the natural systems they lived in. >>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >>>>> Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >>>>>> Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
Noah Sombrero
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation >>>>>>> Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>>>>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived
anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>>>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria >>>>>>>>>>> came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:23:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 12:45 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:it doesn't matter what you learn ,
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at >>>>>>> your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such
information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it matters who you can convince you know
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know
when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
It matters that you learn this kind of information and not the other
kind.
It does not matter what anybody thinks about you or whether they value
what you have learned.
That does not mean that you can completely disregard what everybody
else thinks, but you get to decide what to accept and what not, using
the standards of what is good information that you have learned.
Noah Sombrero
On 2021-07-11 1:38 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:23:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
On 2021-07-11 12:45 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>it doesn't matter what you learn ,
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at >>>>>>>> your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my >>>>>>>> universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such >>>> information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it matters who you can convince you know
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know
when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
It matters that you learn this kind of information and not the other
kind.
It does not matter what anybody thinks about you or whether they value
what you have learned.
That does not mean that you can completely disregard what everybody
else thinks, but you get to decide what to accept and what not, using
the standards of what is good information that you have learned.
Noah Sombrero
you could know everything and no one would ever know
On 2021-07-11 12:45 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:it doesn't matter what you learn ,
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at >>>>>> your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such
information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it matters who you can convince you know
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>Pretending to know is not knowing.
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on >>>>>>>>>>>>> as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells.
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution.
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it doesn't matter what you learn ,
it matters who you can convince you know
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know
when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:48:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 1:38 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:23:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
On 2021-07-11 12:45 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>it doesn't matter what you learn ,
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at >>>>>>>>> your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>>>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information. >>>>>>>>>
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my >>>>>>>>> universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot.
You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such >>>>> information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it matters who you can convince you know
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know
when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
It matters that you learn this kind of information and not the other
kind.
It does not matter what anybody thinks about you or whether they value
what you have learned.
That does not mean that you can completely disregard what everybody
else thinks, but you get to decide what to accept and what not, using
the standards of what is good information that you have learned.
Noah Sombrero
you could know everything and no one would ever know
Doesn't matter if they know. You know. Actually they have the same
problem you do. They must learn how to know good information and
learn that. It is not necessary that they learn it from you.
But if they know that, and you know that, they won't have any quarrel
with you. On the other hand, they might disagree with you. That
happens all the time to everybody. If they do disagree you get to
decide if that matters. They will do the same for themselves.
Noah Sombrero
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
agree.
Noah Sombrero
On 2021-07-11 2:19 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:48:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:so go ahead and walk around like you know everything
On 2021-07-11 1:38 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:23:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
On 2021-07-11 12:45 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:38:19 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>it doesn't matter what you learn ,
On 7/11/2021 12:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:34:50 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>You're a putz because you believe a university degree makes you
On 7/11/2021 11:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:47:39 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:20 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/11/2021 10:48 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:51:44 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2021 3:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:18:30 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:You don't actually know that.
On 7/10/2021 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:15:15 -0400, ansaman <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote:Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
That is not a destruction. That is an evolution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
During the Archean Eon, all the life on this planet lived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobically. There was little free oxygen until the cyanobacteria
came along and produced what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation
Event. They filled the atmosphere with oxygen and they live on
as the symbiotic chloroplasts within plant cells. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>>>>>>> your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at >>>>>>>>>> your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information. >>>>>>>>>>
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my >>>>>>>>>> universe.
Putz.
Learning in a university makes you a jerk? That explains a lot. >>>>>>>
qualified to state as truth things you don't know are true.
I think going to university teaches you things. I understand how such >>>>>> information is derived, which give me confidence that it is true.
Noah Sombrero
it matters who you can convince you know
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know >>>> when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
It matters that you learn this kind of information and not the other
kind.
It does not matter what anybody thinks about you or whether they value >>>> what you have learned.
That does not mean that you can completely disregard what everybody
else thinks, but you get to decide what to accept and what not, using
the standards of what is good information that you have learned.
Noah Sombrero
you could know everything and no one would ever know
Doesn't matter if they know. You know. Actually they have the same
problem you do. They must learn how to know good information and
learn that. It is not necessary that they learn it from you.
But if they know that, and you know that, they won't have any quarrel
with you. On the other hand, they might disagree with you. That
happens all the time to everybody. If they do disagree you get to
decide if that matters. They will do the same for themselves.
Noah Sombrero
but don't ever tell anyone
On 7/11/2021 4:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
It matters that you know what good information looks like, how to know
when it was gathered without bias or political intent.
Damn near everything has political intent these days
because even in academia, politics controls the MONEY.
Say the wrong thing, even if you have a good idea
that it is correct and the money dries up.
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
agree.
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:04:51 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
agree.
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless. It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
Noah Sombrero
On 2021-07-11 5:20 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:04:51 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
agree.
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless. It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
Noah Sombrero
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 19:05:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 5:20 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:04:51 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
agree.
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless. It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
Noah Sombrero
So I do share what I have. Maybe you will get something.
Noah Sombrero
On 2021-07-11 7:37 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:I only have one way to do that.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 19:05:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:only if you tell it like i said
On 2021-07-11 5:20 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:04:51 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not >>>>>> agree.
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless. It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
Noah Sombrero
So I do share what I have. Maybe you will get something.
Noah Sombrero
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 19:46:28 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2021-07-11 7:37 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:I only have one way to do that.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 19:05:17 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:only if you tell it like i said
On 2021-07-11 5:20 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 17:04:51 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
On 2021-07-11 4:51 p.m., Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:49:22 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
On 2021-07-11 3:57 p.m., ansaman wrote:Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not >>>>>>> agree.
On 7/11/2021 4:48 PM, % wrote:see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
we would never know so he believes he will be read
Noah Sombrero
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless. It's use is in the use I make of >>>>> it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make >>>>> of it.
Noah Sombrero
So I do share what I have. Maybe you will get something.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
Noah wrote:
% wrote:
Noah wrote:
% wrote:
Noahwrote:
% wrote:
ansaman wrote:
% wrote:
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
Reminds me of the old man, the young man and a star-fish.
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
Road runners could be Taoists.
Compared to chickens, who cross the Road,
those who go with the Road, may go farther and further.
see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
we would never know so he believes he will be read
Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not >>>>>> agree.
but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
Knowing nothing, emptiness, the void, the zone;
in more than one place; what is useless is viewed
as being what is essential for being, being nonbeing,
given: Taoist philosophy texts.
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless.
Knowing how words work without working, how jnana yoga
is able to be as an other-yoga is, how enlightenment cans
can a strange phenomena and are sold, at times, one is.
Being free, entirely, from all cares, one wonders
does Mother Nature care. Does the Universe matter
with intent or does such an it simply do as it does.
Water nourishes all forms of life, without intent.
So may suggest a Taoist text. Utility of the useless
information waves, like a pebble in a pond, reach.
Without reaching a near to here, skipping stones
without being stoned, for the sake of its own,
one may own forms of knowledge ore knots.
It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
This morning, aye, learned how birds are more than lizards are said
to be dinosaurs on account of their hip bones are connected to their
thigh bones in the same Way. Semantics pertaining to extinction
varies and vary, depending on how a word is used changes
a meaning ever sewn slight a bit in horse's body-p'art.
if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
So I do share what I have. Maybe you will get something.
Once upon a time there was one
and only one single cell. That very one
was the first one, naturally. Until it divided.
Now, trillions and trillions speak to each other using language,
some known only to their selves as if they had or were, selves.
Private languages vary, naturally, unless they are artificial ones.
At times, language flowers flower.
Consciousness flowers flower.
To suppose a necessity exists, that a knowledge flower needs
to be shared, on or off the plant or vine, one could. Yet to know
how the flower flowering for no reason,
s one simply does, and
is not separate from an entire universe one may sail to see how
an it is the universe its own self that flowers.
- being pointless ... given: aWay ...
Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they >>>>>>>> can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem.
You don't actually know that.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again.
Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
% wrote:
Noah wrote:
% wrote:
Noahwrote:
% wrote:
ansaman wrote:
% wrote:
it don't mean anything if you can't show it to anyone ,
you could know everything and no one would ever know
You are correct. I am a super genius just like
Wile E. Coyote. I even have a business card that
says so, but alas, nobody listens to me. That is
why I turned to joking. It is even OK if they
laugh at me instead of with me since they are
still laughing.
see , here's an example , if he didn't tell us ,
we would never know so he believes he will be read
Of course, ansa call tell us all kinds of things. But we might not
agree.
but if he never told then we wouldn't know ,
there would be nothing to know , he has to ,
state his knowledge or its useless ,
its not what you know its who you tell it too
Oh, no knowledge is never useless.
It's use is in the use I make of
it. If I tell you, I gain no usefulness from any use you might make
of it.
if you don't tell it you get nothing and i get nothing
So I do share what I have. Maybe you will get something.
Reminds me of the old man, the young man and a star-fish.
Twas written:
Pretending to know is not knowing.You don't actually know that.Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Aren't birds, dinosaurs, in a Way?
If so, the dinosaurs are not all dead.
The very first cells remain alive, assuming Life
began as single cellulars who divided and multiplied.
Those cells are immortal naturally.
They simply divide. Tis odd, how one divides. Two emerges.
Given an environment, makes a form of a three, even still.
From the three, 10k-things are born. Sew goes a myth.
Multi-cellular beings, organisms, who evolved
and began to do all sorts of intentional as well as doing
unintentional activities continue an unbroken line of time beings.
- as if the universe was not one entire noun-thing ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
To suppose a necessity exists, that a knowledge flower needs
to be shared, on or off the plant or vine, one could. Yet to know
how the flower flowering for no reason,
Actually flowers do flower for a reason,
Actually, causality is a paradigm.
From another pov, all is one.
Other povs are available.
As wells, depths vary.
if you are the plant doing the flowering.
If you separate
the flower from the plant from the soil and
the soil from the Earth, the Earth from the Sun and
don't see all things as being one, Being, then,
a carving of what is Uncarved is done.
The fact that flowers seem like simple ornaments for
pretentious houses, if the owner feels like ornamenting, is hubris on
the part of humans. Flowers are the way flowering plants do sex. A
very necessary purpose, humans seem to think concerning themselves.
Seeing reproduction as a reason, the reason,
one among many for any effect is possible
for those who carve in terms of causal
relationships sailing seas of Being.
Selective perceptions may give rise to a view
for those who care to see shells by a shore thing.
One might assert, flowers flower to flower. Water waters.
Suns shine. Planets spin. Then again, such is to divide.
Chemistry, pure chemisty, is how chemicals appear to chemists
who see the world through chemical eyes. Aye. There are no
flowers, no birds nor bees nor sex. In reality, actually, all
that exists are chemicals and chemistry. That's it.
To see a flower as a plant's way of making more flowers
or a seed as being a seed's way of making more seeds,
to ascribe a need, a necessary purpose a proposer
might propose what is suitable to plant a seed.
Seeds of thought able to sprout wings, may be.
Carving a system, flowers and pollen spreaders whether
on the wind or an antenna, seeing sex as very necessary,
in order to produce and reproduce, flowers of thought spring.
The dog in your back yard is there for his own reasons, even though he >>might wag his tail, and lick your hand.
There were two coyotes in the back yard once.
Presumably they were after the neighbor's chickens were
in the neighbor's yard, if one were to carve them, the coyotes,
the yards, mine and theirs, chickens and all things from each other.
The cat sunning in your
window owns you if it decides to do that, rather than you own it, if
you notice carefully.
When looking at being separate from, all things appear.
To own, be owned, to identify with being an individual
a family, a tribe or a species, one might do that and
not give the process any second thoughts, aye.
Humans are not the center of the universe, which exists for its own >>purposes. Humans are allowed to go along for the ride. Not that the >>humans know what those purposes are.
Carving people out of a universe might be natural,
as if people were not the universe as it peoples
its planets, at least one. Apples could be said
to not be an apple tree when they fall too.
To assume a universe has a purpose, is possible.
To assume its purpose is not each and every point,
not all the many individuals it is, galaxies, stars, planets
flowering plants, insects and its people as well is possible.
One may say, you are the purpose of the universe
in which you live, for no reason other than being.
All beings are by nature, naturally, as beings.
A rock is the point
of a mountain peak and is
at the same time the mountain its
very own self, as if neither were the earth,
the Earth that mountains its self, nor any utter thing.
To say a wave is not an ocean that waves,
to say it is the wind, a mind moves as thought waves.
s one simply does, and
is not separate from an entire universe one may sail to see how
an it is the universe its own self that flowers.
Humans not being mindless (when they are not mindless) can decide to >>purposefully do.
Oar, so they may think and feel, naturally, given: language.
From a physicist's perspective, given: causality, there is no
free-will seeing as how every atom is simply an effect of
cause and causality, like turtles, is all there is and are.
Humans exists for their own purposes too, like the
dog in your backyard. You get to decide. Do you want to purposefully
do, or simply do?
Wu-wei is basically Taoism without question.
Wei-wu-wei is next in line in a train of thought.
To simply be, without-doing, without-intent, one
may find thought springs, thought streams and just
as water flows without knowing going to a sea for me
to see a notion, an ocean of thought, occurs now and
then, suddenly without notice, from Being Uncarved,
10k-things appear, separate from all other things.
Naturally, a cycle cycles.
Aye, to spin words like a planet, ore, a star.
In veins may run a mine of mine to mine.
Two seek and find, causality, naturally.
- being pointless ... given: aWay ...
Thanks! Cheers!
one wrote:
Reminds me of the old man, the young man and a star-fish.
Great story. One day, the mutant starfish
army will rise up out of the deep and pull
people apart with their mighty suckers,
but that guy and all like him will be
spared and kept as pets.
one wrote:
To suppose a necessity exists, that a knowledge flower needs
to be shared, on or off the plant or vine, one could. Yet to know
how the flower flowering for no reason,
Actually flowers do flower for a reason,
if you are the plant doing the flowering.
The fact that flowers seem like simple ornaments for
pretentious houses, if the owner feels like ornamenting, is hubris on
the part of humans. Flowers are the way flowering plants do sex. A
very necessary purpose, humans seem to think concerning themselves.
The dog in your back yard is there for his own reasons, even though he
might wag his tail, and lick your hand.
The cat sunning in your
window owns you if it decides to do that, rather than you own it, if
you notice carefully.
Humans are not the center of the universe, which exists for its own
purposes. Humans are allowed to go along for the ride. Not that the
humans know what those purposes are.
s one simply does, and
is not separate from an entire universe one may sail to see how
an it is the universe its own self that flowers.
Humans not being mindless (when they are not mindless) can decide to >purposefully do.
Humans exists for their own purposes too, like the
dog in your backyard. You get to decide. Do you want to purposefully
do, or simply do?
- being pointless ... given: aWay ...
ansaman wrote:
one wrote:
Reminds me of the old man, the young man and a star-fish.
Great story. One day, the mutant starfish
army will rise up out of the deep and pull
people apart with their mighty suckers,
but that guy and all like him will be
spared and kept as pets.
Differences make all the difference
for those and to sum all things add up.
Subtraction may give one traction to a point.
A few verses in a Taoist text arrive to mine.
To gain ground, a flower flowers in the eyes
of those who can't see a flower being for no
reason other than one, two, three & 10k be.
A flower reaches for a star, a sun, the Sun.
To say it does sew to reproduce its elf, its
elves may sound like myth, ore moths.
Doing nothing, a flower is drawn to flower
by all the factors which draw it near to be
no thing other than what it is, to flower.
Asking why, the reason, children's dew
condenses out of learning language.
Those who seek knowledge, gain.
Ways are Ways, is a given, axiomatic.
Those who seek Tao can be said to be yet
another one of all the ones that are.
Finding the Tao that is the Tao,
one could be said to be, not-always,
not-common, unusual, two say the least.
Civilization springs from the earth, Earth,
flowering as it flowers. As if it exists and is
separate from. Those who carve, carve.
- metaphors vary ... Thanks! Cheers!
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Twas written:
You don't actually know that.Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>>
Epistemologies vary.
Premises can make a valid argument consistent to a point.
Whether premises are taken for granted, as granted, can vary as wells.
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>>Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of >>>>>> your universe.
Butterflies cause hurricanes. A single flap of a wing
is able to destry cities across the face of a world
view viewers view. Chaos theory one oh one.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program, >>>>> you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Aren't birds, dinosaurs, in a Way?
If so, the dinosaurs are not all dead.
Actually they are.
Birds are dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are all dead.
Assertions vary, actually.
Statements made, given: contexts.
Semantics are at play quite often.
The very first cells remain alive, assuming Life
began as single cellulars who divided and multiplied.
The fact that all organisms have a common ancestor sometime a billion
years ago, does not make them the same.
If there was one, and only one, first cell, then
all living beings are that one and only one cell
which divided and multiplied even unto this day.
Those cells are immortal naturally.
Or immortal.
Or immortal, artificially, by dividing
and dividing the first cells from all other cells, as well
as being wells of the Earth, not the Earth its own self
the selves of the cells do spring froth there from.
They simply divide. Tis odd, how one divides. Two emerges.
Given an environment, makes a form of a three, even still.
From the three, 10k-things are born. Sew goes a myth.
Multi-cellular beings, organisms, who evolved
and began to do all sorts of intentional as well as doing
unintentional activities continue an unbroken line of time beings.
- as if the universe was not one entire noun-thing ...
This appears to be true, in a conjectural sort of way. On the other
hand, if you and I are to talk to each other, we must do it through a >>phantasmagoric electronic device sending electronic impulses around
the world.
Must, like a seed, a mustard seed, grows.
From a pov of there being a universe, the Universe,
all beings of Being, of Existence, are sock-puppets there of.
To reify, making nouns, things, people and places place
language as a key of sorts to Unblock a block here and there
for one to hear can take an ear to the ground where tracks
on which trains of thought run, going without going far oar near.
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate
wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the
moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
To simply be, without-doing, without-intent, oneI have had this happen. It is usually when I am
may find thought springs, thought streams and just
as water flows without knowing going to a sea for me
to see a notion, an ocean of thought, occurs now and
then, suddenly without notice, from Being Uncarved,
10k-things appear, separate from all other things.
It sounds like you see two options. Carve or not carve.
Awareness of things or awareness of unity.
There is at least one more, refusal to be aware.
Another might be, not carve means nothing can be better so don't try;
stare at the wall.
There are more, I'm sure.
You get to choose. Your not carve viewpoint is a choosing, your
carving.
Unity is beside the point for separate awarenesses that choose to be
aware, and think something can be better, whatever that means.
I'm sure cats would approve. All windows should have sunny window sills
on which to snooze. I think it is ok for cats to be happy rather than >otherwise, even if I am at unity with the cat.
one wrote:
Twas written:
You don't actually know that.Those anaerobic bacteria would like to have a word with you. But they
can't because they are all dead!
So are dinosaurs, but not because they destroyed the ecosystem. >>>>>>>>
Better to say, I know it, but you don't. That universe thing again. >>>>>>Pretending to know is not knowing.
True, but the pretending is only perceived from the perspective of
your universe.
If you want to know like I know, you can get a degree in biology at
your local university. If that topic is not covered in your program,
you will at least know where to look to find the information.
Otherwise, you have your resources, but they don't apply in my
universe.
Aren't birds, dinosaurs, in a Way?
If so, the dinosaurs are not all dead.
Actually they are.
The very first cells remain alive, assuming Life
began as single cellulars who divided and multiplied.
The fact that all organisms have a common ancestor sometime a billion
years ago, does not make them the same.
Those cells are immortal naturally.
Or immortal.
They simply divide. Tis odd, how one divides. Two emerges.
Given an environment, makes a form of a three, even still.
From the three, 10k-things are born. Sew goes a myth.
Multi-cellular beings, organisms, who evolved
and began to do all sorts of intentional as well as doing
unintentional activities continue an unbroken line of time beings.
- as if the universe was not one entire noun-thing ...
This appears to be true, in a conjectural sort of way. On the other
hand, if you and I are to talk to each other, we must do it through a >phantasmagoric electronic device sending electronic impulses around
the world.
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate
wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the
moment, irrelavent even.
Noah wrote:
It sounds like you see two options. Carve or not carve.
Carve and not carve is a third.
Either/or paradigms tend two be m'ore limited.
A feature of Taoism, and prehaps Buddhism, can be
the neither-nor opt-ion of the many and neti-neti.
A Hindu view could include tat-vam-asi.
Awareness of things or awareness of unity.
Perspectives give rise to appearances.
To say, what is. To say, reality. People say.
Language has its objects, subjects who object and
what, assuming a what is can be, goes without saying.
There is at least one more, refusal to be aware.
Aye. Like a coin with five sides.
Most have two plus an edge until seeing
how they have their inside and outside while
a common notion is their outside isn't them, them
being their inside only, naturally.
Then, then again, dimensions are able to reveal
materials a coin is said to have, said to be.
Is a coin its inside in a vacuum. Hmm.
Being made, some in the shade, coins exist.
At times people, some people, might say the Universe is
made, created in a Way. Again, language plays its parts.
Another might be, not carve means nothing can be better so don't try;
stare at the wall.
Doing without doing. Spontaneous, naturally, people may be.
To suppose hunters and gatherers are more natural
than city dwellers can be to dwell and plumb a deep well.
There are more, I'm sure.
Aye. Like the one about a frog, and a sea-turtle.
Tis a Taoist tale told in the Chuang-tzu of all texts.
You get to choose. Your not carve viewpoint is a choosing, your
carving.
If you say sew. T'here you are.
Free-will, free-choice, choosing is a paradigm.
Presupposed, taken for granted as granite is a body, some
body, anybody who, given: language, exists.
Nouns, e.g. people, and things, e.g. will,
are governed by grammar, naturally.
To choose, as a verb, creates action.
Actionless-action can be a Taoist term.
Who does the doing when there is no self.
When no body is other than the Universe is.
Then and there, prehaps, to pare a dime shifts.
Unity is beside the point for separate awarenesses that choose to be
aware, and think something can be better, whatever that means.
Aye. Progress. Assuming seasons are going some where.
Better and better, for that pair there is no end.
Perfection never arrives, given such a scenario.
Yet, for an awareness at times, perfection is.
A flower, a cloud, a gnarly tree is.
All are examples of perfection, naturally.
I'm sure cats would approve. All windows should have sunny window sills >>on which to snooze. I think it is ok for cats to be happy rather than >>otherwise, even if I am at unity with the cat.
Some people keep, quote their, cats in their, house.
Some keep dogs on a lease, fish in tanks, birds
with clipped wings in cages they remain, unphased.
It's natural for people, some people, to ride horses.
With bits in their mouths, to kick them and yet,
the Chuang-tzu has a chapter about t'hats.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#9
Taoist philosophy has its points, naturally.
Civilized life, small villages and towns are
not all bad all the time. Big cities too may be.
- cheers!
It sounds like you see two options. Carve or not carve.
Awareness of things or awareness of unity.
There is at least one more, refusal to be aware.
Another might be, not carve means nothing can be better so don't try;
stare at the wall.
There are more, I'm sure.
You get to choose. Your not carve viewpoint is a choosing, your
carving.
Unity is beside the point for separate awarenesses that choose to be
aware, and think something can be better, whatever that means. I'm
sure cats would approve. All windows should have sunny window sills
on which to snooze. I think it is ok for cats to be happy rather than otherwise, even if I am at unity with the cat.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:14:47 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:
Noah wrote:
It sounds like you see two options. Carve or not carve.
Carve and not carve is a third.
Either/or paradigms tend two be m'ore limited.
A feature of Taoism, and prehaps Buddhism, can be
the neither-nor opt-ion of the many and neti-neti.
A Hindu view could include tat-vam-asi.
Awareness of things or awareness of unity.
Perspectives give rise to appearances.
To say, what is. To say, reality. People say.
Language has its objects, subjects who object and
what, assuming a what is can be, goes without saying.
There is at least one more, refusal to be aware.
Aye. Like a coin with five sides.
Most have two plus an edge until seeing
how they have their inside and outside while
a common notion is their outside isn't them, them
being their inside only, naturally.
Then, then again, dimensions are able to reveal
materials a coin is said to have, said to be.
Is a coin its inside in a vacuum. Hmm.
Being made, some in the shade, coins exist.
At times people, some people, might say the Universe is
made, created in a Way. Again, language plays its parts.
Another might be, not carve means nothing can be better so don't try; >>>stare at the wall.
Doing without doing. Spontaneous, naturally, people may be.
To suppose hunters and gatherers are more natural
than city dwellers can be to dwell and plumb a deep well.
There are more, I'm sure.
Aye. Like the one about a frog, and a sea-turtle.
Tis a Taoist tale told in the Chuang-tzu of all texts.
You get to choose. Your not carve viewpoint is a choosing, your
carving.
If you say sew. T'here you are.
Free-will, free-choice, choosing is a paradigm.
Presupposed, taken for granted as granite is a body, some
body, anybody who, given: language, exists.
Nouns, e.g. people, and things, e.g. will,
are governed by grammar, naturally.
To choose, as a verb, creates action.
Actionless-action can be a Taoist term.
Who does the doing when there is no self.
When no body is other than the Universe is.
Then and there, prehaps, to pare a dime shifts.
Unity is beside the point for separate awarenesses that choose to be >>>aware, and think something can be better, whatever that means.
Aye. Progress. Assuming seasons are going some where.
Better and better, for that pair there is no end.
Perfection never arrives, given such a scenario.
Yet, for an awareness at times, perfection is.
A flower, a cloud, a gnarly tree is.
All are examples of perfection, naturally.
I'm sure cats would approve. All windows should have sunny window sills >>>on which to snooze. I think it is ok for cats to be happy rather than >>>otherwise, even if I am at unity with the cat.
Some people keep, quote their, cats in their, house.
Some keep dogs on a lease, fish in tanks, birds
with clipped wings in cages they remain, unphased.
It's natural for people, some people, to ride horses.
With bits in their mouths, to kick them and yet,
the Chuang-tzu has a chapter about t'hats.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#9
Taoist philosophy has its points, naturally.
Civilized life, small villages and towns are
not all bad all the time. Big cities too may be.
Right, it is a probability. What is more likely to give less bad more
of the time.
- cheers!
Noah Sombrero
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Other
expressions don't see the point of that. As soon as the universe
figures out what it wants, us expressions will be a lot less confused.
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
Using language to get beyond language, is the hammer holding a nail
and wondering how this thing works.
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
That is the existing that seems to
do itself. Has no reason, simply is.
That does not mean that there
is no reason, only that humans on this planet don't know what it is.
Other planets might have creatures that do know.
Earth life is based on reverse entropy fueled by energy from the sun.
The rule seems to be that energy once trapped must remain in the
system as long as possible, as organisms pass it from one to another
as they eat each other in one way or the other.
That also seems to do
itself. Still, other creatures on other planets might understand how
that happens.
To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself)
simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.
In the mean time, I know you as a separate awareness.
I must deal
with you in terms of that separateness.
To assume other realities is
not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really
going on.
Perfection never arrives, given such a scenario.
Yet, for an awareness at times, perfection is.
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
That is the existing that seems to
do itself. Has no reason, simply is.
Tis the Law!
Sew the physicists weave
their spell on their own very s'elves.
That does not mean that there
is no reason, only that humans on this planet don't know what it is.
Other planets might have creatures that do know.
Jah-mon.
You can be the reason. You are.
Each point is the point beyond being a.
Earth life is based on reverse entropy fueled by energy from the sun.
Obviously, Earth exists.
Obviously, the Sun rises and sets.
Know. Wait. That the Sun only appears
to rise and set is what appears when it appears.
When appearances appear to appear such
that reality shifts that reality from being
the one and only Reality, appears.
The rule seems to be that energy once trapped must remain in the
system as long as possible, as organisms pass it from one to another
as they eat each other in one way or the other.
The purpose of porpoises is to eat, to reproduce.
Not to surf any waves. Nay. No fun for them. Ever.
None are able to be simply,
simply to be for the Being that is.
A myth may say, Being is. Bliss is. And
going further, consciousness is. Sat-chit-ananda.
Once existence exists, devolution occurs. Being involved.
Involved beings of Being, of Existence get, like, all involved.
That also seems to do
itself. Still, other creatures on other planets might understand how
that happens.
Big fish eat little fish and sew on and on fish are.
Eating to eat. Reproducing to reproduce. For no reason other
than being Energy at play. A dance, the Dance to dance, naturally.
To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself)
simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.
To assume a reason exists prior to existence
can be to hitch up a horse, which is, unnatural.
First, ontologically, Existence is.
Immediately, a reification occurs.
Given: Being is. Existence is.
Then, a cause, causes, a reason, reasons, emerge.
Carving is what carvers carve out of what is, naturally, Uncarved.
To place reason prior to existence, one can.
One cans a can full of worms and may box with a box
of being, being how frogs are and sea-turtles know how to swim.
In the mean time, I know you as a separate awareness.
Given: Tao Chia, assuming that's a topic among topics.
While the well-frog was astonished at the sea-turtle's domain,
at the same time the sea-turtle remained unable to get
beyond a knee in to where the well-frog dwelled.
I must deal
with you in terms of that separateness.
Well, if you must then
then you must then.
To assume other realities is
not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really
going on.
Assuming a really, really is, going on.
- naturally! Cheers!
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation. It is
true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But
this is the best we have now.
The purpose of porpoises is to eat, to reproduce.
Not to surf any waves. Nay. No fun for them. Ever.
Thus we can have covid vaccine, for instance, based on tentative
preliminary study, and which works quite well, while we wait ten years
for definitive analysis.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Other
expressions don't see the point of that. As soon as the universe
figures out what it wants, us expressions will be a lot less confused.
The universe.
It wants.
To suppose, the universe, exists, is to reify.
To superimpose, desire, suggests an odd feature.
Articles of language, e.g., the, a, an
may give rise to what words work without working
to a point, beyond which, language maps map and the map,
as the first line in a Taoist text may suggest isn't always territory.
Categories are able to categorize eyes to sea.
Does a thing, Life, exist. One may say, yes. Oar know.
As forms of Life, does Life want its forms to all eat.
To eat its other forms forms in the mind, aye.
Does this, Life, reified thing, exist.
Is the noun other than a mind thing, a category.
Sew two with any universe, let alone, the, Universe.
To project desire, reason, wants, purpose, is possible.
Roar shocks blot.
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
How to say, using words, one shines the stars.
One is a point, the point of many points, of Being.
Using language to get beyond language, is the hammer holding a nail
and wondering how this thing works.
- beware of Being all thumbs ... Cheers!
On 7/13/2021 12:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation. It is
true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But
this is the best we have now.
At one time, the best we had was, "Thor causes the Thunder
and Lightning with his Mighty Hammer."
We now enjoy that fiction as we need more heroes and
real life heroes are far and few between (at least
the ones we recognize)
one wrote:
Civilized life, small villages and towns are
not all bad all the time. Big cities too may be.
And since the universe has not decided whether cities or towns or
something else is less bad most of the time, humans are left to do
that for themselves taking as many considerations as possible into
account, including the fate of humanity, using the computational power
we now have. In ten years, available computational power then might
give a different answer. As always, the best thing is to go with the
best we know now, until we know better.
Thus we can have covid vaccine, for instance, based on tentative
preliminary study, and which works quite well, while we wait ten years
for definitive analysis.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
It is
true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But
this is the best we have now.
To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself)
simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.
To assume a reason exists prior to existence
can be to hitch up a horse, which is, unnatural.
Right, assume nothing, admit you do not know.
To assume other realities is
not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really
going on.
Assuming a really, really is, going on.
Assume neither. But it remains possible that there is a real real
going on. So, it doesn't help to assume otherwise.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Civilized life, small villages and towns are
not all bad all the time. Big cities too may be.
And since the universe has not decided whether cities or towns or
something else is less bad most of the time, humans are left to do
that for themselves taking as many considerations as possible into
account, including the fate of humanity, using the computational power
we now have. In ten years, available computational power then might
give a different answer. As always, the best thing is to go with the
best we know now, until we know better.
Thus we can have covid vaccine, for instance, based on tentative >>preliminary study, and which works quite well, while we wait ten years
for definitive analysis.
Lots of presumptions go without saying.
People tend to be sentimental.
Survival of their bodies, families, nations
and as a species might fill the minds of many.
The more mouths to feed, the more food is needed.
The more old people age, the more care, caged.
The more who are born, the more will die.
Quality can be said to be of an essence.
Quality of life. Quality of death. How much is enuf.
A virus that eliminates a great number is bad, very bad.
Attempting to keep alive the sick, systems overwhelmed.
When old folks die, death is not surprising. Not as bad
as when an infant or a young one perishes naturally.
Naturally, tragedy, by accident or premeditated,
with billions and billions, more and more will occur.
Climate change, another worry. Floods, fire, land slides
and houses consumed by mud, water and flame. Bad.
People are to blame.
So say those who play a game.
Nature, natural disasters as well, to blame.
All too real for those involved.
Yet to evolve, what might that mean.
Without blame, without playing that game, being serious.
Without being serious, light hearted, night falls. Knights
going to the rescue on a quest. Knowing full well.
- well frogs and sea turtles ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then
entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.
Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most
important results in modern logic, and have deep
implications for various issues. They concern the
limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.
The first incompleteness theorem states that in any
consistent formal system F within which a certain amount
of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the
language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F
According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal
system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent
(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a
great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.
There have been attempts to apply the results also in other
areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these
attempted applications are more controversial.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
To presuppose, the universe,--
can be what goes without saying.
To divide, the universe, to say,
energy is or matter is, one may.
As if energy and matter are not equal.
As if they are not, the universe, fully filled.
Space, time, spacetime, gravity. Geometry,
mechanics, Newtonian, classic. Einstein's theories
of relativity encounter problems as maps. Levels vary.
It is
true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But
this is the best we have now.
The best for the west, for the east, north and south.
What is the best suggests the worst exists.
Taoist philosophy has some sayings as wells.
When everyone knows what a thing is, not-that-thing is.
As long as better is, worse will be.
Better and better might be thought.
As being how to be, know doubt.
With civilization arrives tribbles. Smog, like a dragon.
Congestion, as in traffic. Too many people, crowded.
Better and better, for what species. You were saying.
... snip ...
To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself) >>>>simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.
To assume a reason exists prior to existence
can be to hitch up a horse, which is, unnatural.
Right, assume nothing, admit you do not know.
Being right here, right now, leaves me left.
As a leaf of a tree, the Tree of Life, leaving.
Forms of trees are the trees. Forms change.
As a drop in a bucket of water is water.
An ocean of water. A river. A stream
of thought flowing without going
any where in particular. To be
and not to be without question.
With reason and without reason,
beyond both, the two emerge from
a one that is neither.
Given a point, a point of view, a pov, aye,
you are the reason. Each one is the reason.
How does one know. Epistemology grows.
To assume there is a reason or not a reason
can be to assume, presume, to carve, basically.
Paradigms vary.
... snip ...
To assume other realities is
not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really
going on.
Assuming a really, really is, going on.
Assume neither. But it remains possible that there is a real real
going on. So, it doesn't help to assume otherwise.
A great feature of philosophy for me is
how without use one can be.
Taoist philosophy, how to be in the Zone.
How to go where no one is, ore cans be.
Prior to one is said to be Tao.
Is there one. Are there many.
Tao walked. Tao talked.
Going without going.
Round after round.
- square pegs too! Thanks! Cheers!
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:32:17 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then
entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.
Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
That's cute. Let's see if we can be a little more precise:
First note that these are theories, not proofs.
Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most
important results in modern logic, and have deep
implications for various issues. They concern the
limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.
The first incompleteness theorem states that in any
consistent formal system F within which a certain amount
of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the
language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F
1+1=2.
Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.
So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.
According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal
system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent
(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a
great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.
There have been attempts to apply the results also in other
areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these
attempted applications are more controversial.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.
It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of
mind.
To presuppose, the universe,--
can be what goes without saying.
To divide, the universe, to say,
energy is or matter is, one may.
As if energy and matter are not equal.
As if they are not, the universe, fully filled.
Space, time, spacetime, gravity. Geometry,
mechanics, Newtonian, classic. Einstein's theories
of relativity encounter problems as maps. Levels vary.
It is
true, humans might have a better approximation in 100 years or so. But
this is the best we have now.
The best for the west, for the east, north and south.
What is the best suggests the worst exists.
Taoist philosophy has some sayings as wells.
When everyone knows what a thing is, not-that-thing is.
As long as better is, worse will be.
Better and better might be thought.
As being how to be, know doubt.
With civilization arrives tribbles. Smog, like a dragon.
Congestion, as in traffic. Too many people, crowded.
Better and better, for what species. You were saying.
... snip ...
To assume there is no reason (it simply is a process doing itself)
simply because you don't know the reason is hubris.
To assume a reason exists prior to existence
can be to hitch up a horse, which is, unnatural.
Right, assume nothing, admit you do not know.
Being right here, right now, leaves me left.
As a leaf of a tree, the Tree of Life, leaving.
Forms of trees are the trees. Forms change.
As a drop in a bucket of water is water.
An ocean of water. A river. A stream
of thought flowing without going
any where in particular. To be
and not to be without question.
With reason and without reason,
beyond both, the two emerge from
a one that is neither.
Given a point, a point of view, a pov, aye,
you are the reason. Each one is the reason.
How does one know. Epistemology grows.
To assume there is a reason or not a reason
can be to assume, presume, to carve, basically.
Paradigms vary.
... snip ...
To assume other realities is
not useful simply because I am ignorant concerning what is really
going on.
Assuming a really, really is, going on.
Assume neither. But it remains possible that there is a real real
going on. So, it doesn't help to assume otherwise.
A great feature of philosophy for me is
how without use one can be.
Taoist philosophy, how to be in the Zone.
How to go where no one is, ore cans be.
Prior to one is said to be Tao.
Is there one. Are there many.
Tao walked. Tao talked.
Going without going.
Round after round.
- square pegs too! Thanks! Cheers!
Noah Sombrero
one wrote:
Perfection never arrives, given such a scenario.
Yet, for an awareness at times, perfection is.
I have been saying this for years.
What we think of as perfection is not
perfection because it reflects its
environment and that environment
changes.
Perfection is not static.
Perfection is a process, not a destination.
I have even claimed that which we think
of in many cases as God is the underlying
hardware of the universe and its processes.
God is not a thing. God is a series of events.
Physics to Chemistry to Biology to Culture
to Science to Technology to Philosophy
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Also to suppose not.
In the meantime, humans are left to decide what
is best.
So far they have considered little beyond how to sell a city
plot with house or a rural plot with farm for a million dollars or
better. So they have little evidence as to what might be better for
humans who are not real estate agents. I suggest that such evidence
might be useful, as opposed to the proposition that there are no uses,
only the universe doing itself.
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
Human needs are now of much larger scope,
but also without knowing
how. Maybe it might be useful to know how to do these more difficult
things.
On 7/13/2021 11:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Thus we can have covid vaccine, for instance, based on tentative
preliminary study, and which works quite well, while we wait ten years
for definitive analysis.
There is a segment of society that thinks that
the vaccinated will be stricken with horrible
disease with this "untested" and "unapproved"
vaccine.
I suppose they would think it was better to
either destroy the world economy with lockdown
forever or have many more people die.
As it
stands, the whole thing is far from over and
we have yet to see what variant arises.
It is
indeed possible that an even MORE transmissible
variant is generated, but that is less dangerous
and more an inconvenience.
"We got through the Black Death, we will get
through this without all your science witchery!"
As far as the Chinese and the possibility it was
engineered and escaped from the lab, they will
NEVER admit it even if someone comes forward and
says, "I took it out of the lab because I got
a bad evaluation and I took it to town and spread
it far and wide."
The Turks deny the Armenian genocide and some still
deny the Holocaust, and the Uyghurs are still in their
camps being reeducated or perhaps exterminated.
one wrote:
The purpose of porpoises is to eat, to reproduce.
Not to surf any waves. Nay. No fun for them. Ever.
This is demonstrably untrue at least as far as
bottlenose dolphins are concerned, they play
and do many things they seem to enjoy for its
own sake.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Also to suppose not.
Aye. Duality springs
spring from what, a what,
which includes both and
at the same time is
neither/nor.
In the meantime, humans are left to decide what
is best.
Some humans are left. Some are right. Right.
To the left of left many are. A middle path exists.
One mite says, many middles Paths are. Tao. Plural.
So far they have considered little beyond how to sell a city
plot with house or a rural plot with farm for a million dollars or
better. So they have little evidence as to what might be better for
humans who are not real estate agents. I suggest that such evidence
might be useful, as opposed to the proposition that there are no uses,
only the universe doing itself.
Those who seek money may find
beyond some amount, they render.
Tender may be legal and yet knot.
... snip ...
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
Human needs are now of much larger scope,
Many humans, as humans, have needs they knead.
but also without knowing
how. Maybe it might be useful to know how to do these more difficult >>things.
Strategies vary. What works once, twice, three times
might fail on the fourth attempt. Still one mite tries.
Being still, a still mite knows.
Beyond a singularity, mathematics and physics can't go.
- domains of a map's map may vary ...--
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.
Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference
between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.
Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is
shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,
just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.
The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.
It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is
the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are
said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.
Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.
Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.
Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.
Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero
or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.
Is it not you and you not it or
is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.
--If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then
entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.
Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
That's cute. Let's see if we can be a little more precise:
First note that these are theories, not proofs.
Good point. Aye.
Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most
important results in modern logic, and have deep
implications for various issues. They concern the
limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.
The first incompleteness theorem states that in any
consistent formal system F within which a certain amount
of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the
language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F
1+1=2.
Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.
So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.
Trying to prove what is axiomatic might be fun.
Semantics might be able to dictate, to define, what is.
If 1+1+1 is the same as 3, then it is.
The two are not different other than by degree.
Names name and seam as they weave.
One apple, one orange and one tree are three.
The three are not other than all the ones naturally.
Natural numbers, counting numbers, numbers exist.
Once upon a time there was a Life tree which
branced off of a Universe tree and they both gave
without giving brave beings a chance to explore
going where beings never went before ... .
According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal
system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent
(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a
great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.
There have been attempts to apply the results also in other
areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these
attempted applications are more controversial.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.
It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for >>philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of
mind.
I don't mind his theories nor theorems much, nor if
on some level of speaking 1+1 can't be proven to be
equal to 2. In the Chuang-tzu is a saying about words.
When words accomplish what they are set out to do
then they can be set aside. We have communicated,
you and I, on various levels and a playing field is
what can be said to have provided us a means.
Mouths of the Universe might speak and eat.
Swallowing a camel if one can imagine that.
- straining out gnats ... Thanks again! Cheers!
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then
entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.
Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
That's cute. Let's see if we can be a little more precise:
First note that these are theories, not proofs.
Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most
important results in modern logic, and have deep
implications for various issues. They concern the
limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.
The first incompleteness theorem states that in any
consistent formal system F within which a certain amount
of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the
language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F
1+1=2.
Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.
So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.
According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal
system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent
(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a
great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.
There have been attempts to apply the results also in other
areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these
attempted applications are more controversial.
How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.
It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for >philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of
mind.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Also to suppose not.
Aye. Duality springs
spring from what, a what,
which includes both and
at the same time is
neither/nor.
It doesn't matter from where it springs. It matters whether there is >sufficient milk in the fridge for parents and kids to have breakfast.
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands
just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
In the meantime, humans are left to decide what
is best.
Some humans are left. Some are right. Right.
To the left of left many are. A middle path exists.
One mite says, many middles Paths are. Tao. Plural.
That is the problem. Humans cannot agree on what is best so very
little gets done, other than accumulate wealth.
Those who have wealth
agree that is best, and since wealth brings power, accumulate wealth
is what happens.
So far they have considered little beyond how to sell a city
plot with house or a rural plot with farm for a million dollars or >>>better. So they have little evidence as to what might be better for >>>humans who are not real estate agents. I suggest that such evidence >>>might be useful, as opposed to the proposition that there are no uses, >>>only the universe doing itself.
Those who seek money may find
beyond some amount, they render.
Tender may be legal and yet knot.
All the bank robbers are not in prison. Then there are the robber
banks. Very dual, but it does interfere with the supply of milk for >breakfast.
... snip ...
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
Human needs are now of much larger scope,
Many humans, as humans, have needs they knead.
but also without knowing
how. Maybe it might be useful to know how to do these more difficult >>>things.
Strategies vary. What works once, twice, three times
might fail on the fourth attempt. Still one mite tries.
Being still, a still mite knows.
Beyond a singularity, mathematics and physics can't go.
Oh, I suspect modern physics is far beyond that whether physicists
know it or not.
- domains of a map's map may vary ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>>>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>>>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Also to suppose not.
Aye. Duality springs
spring from what, a what,
which includes both and
at the same time is
neither/nor.
It doesn't matter from where it springs. It matters whether there is >>sufficient milk in the fridge for parents and kids to have breakfast.
Without civilization, there'd be no fridge.
Are refrigerators natural. Freon is as bad as neon
lights that make artifical beings more artificial
not to mention napalm.
Is a feature of reality good.
Is a phenomenon bad. Both. Neither. What matters, matters.
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands
just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Hunters hunted when hungry, presumably.
Gatherers gathered and learned to plant seeds, naturally.
Agriculture sprang from the earth as Earth peopled its self.
Its elves were imagined and from there the gods ruled.
In the meantime, humans are left to decide what
is best.
Some humans are left. Some are right. Right.
To the left of left many are. A middle path exists.
One mite says, many middles Paths are. Tao. Plural.
That is the problem. Humans cannot agree on what is best so very
little gets done, other than accumulate wealth.
Democracy has its merits and can be problematic.
Two parties, three parties, party animals party.
In a land, an artificial mythical place, China,
much is able to get done begotten of its nature.
Before China was China, old men, the Lao Tzu passed
on their wisdom and through a gateless gate at a pass
in a long longing for what was beyond empire buildings.
Those who have wealth
agree that is best, and since wealth brings power, accumulate wealth
is what happens.
To have riches beyond material things
a mystic, a metaphysician may know, jnana
knowing how what is non-physical goes and is.
If civilization is seen as bad, the view is.--
If one's country, or any nation-state of mind is viewed
then one has entered a map making-reality, that reality.
When one has a body or is some body, an individual so-
called to be apart from all others, then that's t'hat.
Being a part of, one's outside is one as is one's inside
and the skin being full of holes might be holy cow man!
So far they have considered little beyond how to sell a city
plot with house or a rural plot with farm for a million dollars or >>>>better. So they have little evidence as to what might be better for >>>>humans who are not real estate agents. I suggest that such evidence >>>>might be useful, as opposed to the proposition that there are no uses, >>>>only the universe doing itself.
Those who seek money may find
beyond some amount, they render.
Tender may be legal and yet knot.
All the bank robbers are not in prison. Then there are the robber
banks. Very dual, but it does interfere with the supply of milk for >>breakfast.
Toilet paper was another story.
Indoor plumbing, how civil that is.
Sewage treatment plants a flag.
... snip ...
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
Human needs are now of much larger scope,
Many humans, as humans, have needs they knead.
but also without knowing
how. Maybe it might be useful to know how to do these more difficult >>>>things.
Strategies vary. What works once, twice, three times
might fail on the fourth attempt. Still one mite tries.
Being still, a still mite knows.
Beyond a singularity, mathematics and physics can't go.
Oh, I suspect modern physics is far beyond that whether physicists
know it or not.
What works, works. Effort is kneaded.
What works-without-working is easy.
- domains of a map's map may vary ...
- thanks again! Cheers!
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
And my cat can decide it owns a different human resident
in this household and not me. Such being the experience of separate >>>>>>>>wills. The atomic unity is not so significant for us in living the >>>>>>>>moment, irrelavent even.
Aye. Agree. A natural Way for people is to people
their world with separate individuals, so-called, by name.
So, the universe as expressed by you wishes to unname itself.
Water has no wishes
and yet it, as a thing, nourishes.
To suppose some universe, wishes, sounds like fishes.
Also to suppose not.
Aye. Duality springs
spring from what, a what,
which includes both and
at the same time is
neither/nor.
It doesn't matter from where it springs. It matters whether there is >>sufficient milk in the fridge for parents and kids to have breakfast.
Without civilization, there'd be no fridge.
Are refrigerators natural. Freon is as bad as neon
lights that make artifical beings more artificial
not to mention napalm.
Is a feature of reality good.
Is a phenomenon bad. Both. Neither. What matters, matters.
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands
just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Hunters hunted when hungry, presumably.--
Gatherers gathered and learned to plant seeds, naturally.
Agriculture sprang from the earth as Earth peopled its self.
Its elves were imagined and from there the gods ruled.
In the meantime, humans are left to decide what
is best.
Some humans are left. Some are right. Right.
To the left of left many are. A middle path exists.
One mite says, many middles Paths are. Tao. Plural.
That is the problem. Humans cannot agree on what is best so very
little gets done, other than accumulate wealth.
Democracy has its merits and can be problematic.
Two parties, three parties, party animals party.
In a land, an artificial mythical place, China,
much is able to get done begotten of its nature.
Before China was China, old men, the Lao Tzu passed
on their wisdom and through a gateless gate at a pass
in a long longing for what was beyond empire buildings.
Those who have wealth
agree that is best, and since wealth brings power, accumulate wealth
is what happens.
To have riches beyond material things
a mystic, a metaphysician may know, jnana
knowing how what is non-physical goes and is.
If civilization is seen as bad, the view is.
If one's country, or any nation-state of mind is viewed
then one has entered a map making-reality, that reality.
When one has a body or is some body, an individual so-
called to be apart from all others, then that's t'hat.
Being a part of, one's outside is one as is one's inside
and the skin being full of holes might be holy cow man!
So far they have considered little beyond how to sell a city
plot with house or a rural plot with farm for a million dollars or >>>>better. So they have little evidence as to what might be better for >>>>humans who are not real estate agents. I suggest that such evidence >>>>might be useful, as opposed to the proposition that there are no uses, >>>>only the universe doing itself.
Those who seek money may find
beyond some amount, they render.
Tender may be legal and yet knot.
All the bank robbers are not in prison. Then there are the robber
banks. Very dual, but it does interfere with the supply of milk for >>breakfast.
Toilet paper was another story.
Indoor plumbing, how civil that is.
Sewage treatment plants a flag.
... snip ...
Names name. So a second line in an ancient text may suggest.
A name that is unusual if not beyond names, naming that
has bins of hats is impossible, naturally.
- being beyond language ... Thanks again! Cheers!
Being beyond language is fine if you are staring at a wall.
It's even more better, in the Zone.
Know words, knowing words, intellectually,
one mite wonders, how does one ride a bike.
Beyond language, one beats one's own heart.
One grows one's hair, without knowing how.
Human needs are now of much larger scope,
Many humans, as humans, have needs they knead.
but also without knowing
how. Maybe it might be useful to know how to do these more difficult >>>>things.
Strategies vary. What works once, twice, three times
might fail on the fourth attempt. Still one mite tries.
Being still, a still mite knows.
Beyond a singularity, mathematics and physics can't go.
Oh, I suspect modern physics is far beyond that whether physicists
know it or not.
What works, works. Effort is kneaded.
What works-without-working is easy.
- domains of a map's map may vary ...
- thanks again! Cheers!
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Why say, descends?
Why assume total disorder isn't total order?
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.
Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.
Humans experience atomic vibration as heat.
Assuming so-called humans, atomes, heat
and experience exist, naturally, okay.
Absolute zero is where
atoms have stopped vibrating.
A point which is never reached, given: a theory.
It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The >>problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it
is that does not provide heat?
Why would one care to store an it
in an atom which does not exist?
Does a single atom ever exist?
An understanding of mine is, molecules exist.
To suppose a single say, gold atom exists
might be given, given: a periodic table of sorts.
Sorts are sorts, naturally.
People sort, carve and divide, to a point.
When a gold atom is divided, one is no longer gold.
Once upon a time, a golden lion was.
Said to be, all that is, it was such as it was.
Forms of it formed, all being gold.
The lion roared. Its ink blots blot
a mind which divides all things.
But as Neil Tyson says, the universe is not obligated to make sense to
you.
Astonishing to me, many so-called things are.
Processes as well well and dwell in a mind of mine.
More than one mine may be mined. Aye.
Knowing how things eat other things, how bizarre.
What's going on. Is there a what. Forms eating forms.
Digesting thought, thought waves wave. At me. Two me.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is
gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference
between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like
ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do
mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
Light waves frequently.
One drops a pebble. Water waves.
All at once, two are not two. Two is knot.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
From a pov, only atoms exist. From another, only chemistry.
We
can say that the universe cannot be understood from our limited finite >>perspective.
Aye. We may agree.
That does not mean there is no perspective from which it
could be understood.
From a pov of some, thing in a fridge. We may chill.
Beer is a thing. It's enjoyed by a form of me.
What is this thing, me. What is a you.
Is you a who, and a form of me too.
To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.
Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is
shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,
just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.
The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.
It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is
the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are
said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.
Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.
Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.
Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.
Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero
or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.
It seems it expands but will not contract. So we think. That does
not mean that such thinkings are without merit.
Observation. Observers. Nouns are observed.
Actions vary. At times a Zone is. Why carve. Why chop.
Given a given, reasons emerge, after the given is given.--
Purpose may be presupposed. As if Existence were not prior.
Categories, invented, mapped. Carving, chips fly. Imagine, hats.
Is it not you and you not it or
is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.
You are something the universe is doing right now, so said somebody or >>other.
To be the Universe as it unfolds, one may be One, all t'old.
Tales for the telling, stories built. Story up on story.
Buildings building civilizations arise. Artificial.
All natural. Semantics. Contexts.
Fragments of the sentences
sentenced for a spell.
- smoke and mirrors, eye. Cheers!
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.
Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.
Humans experience atomic vibration as heat.
Absolute zero is where
atoms have stopped vibrating.
It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The >problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it
is that does not provide heat?
But as Neil Tyson says, the universe is not obligated to make sense to
you.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is
gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference
between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like
ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do
mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
We
can say that the universe cannot be understood from our limited finite >perspective.
That does not mean there is no perspective from which it
could be understood.
To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.
Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is
shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,
just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.
The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.
It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is
the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are
said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.
Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.
Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.
Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.
Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero
or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.
It seems it expands but will not contract. So we think. That does
not mean that such thinkings are without merit.
Is it not you and you not it or
is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.
You are something the universe is doing right now, so said somebody or
other.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Why say, descends?
Why assume total disorder isn't total order?
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
Entropy must decrease, if.
There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.
Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.
Humans experience atomic vibration as heat.
Assuming so-called humans, atomes, heat
and experience exist, naturally, okay.
Absolute zero is where
atoms have stopped vibrating.
A point which is never reached, given: a theory.
It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The >>problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it
is that does not provide heat?
Why would one care to store an it
in an atom which does not exist?
Does a single atom ever exist?
An understanding of mine is, molecules exist.
To suppose a single say, gold atom exists
might be given, given: a periodic table of sorts.
Sorts are sorts, naturally.
People sort, carve and divide, to a point.
When a gold atom is divided, one is no longer gold.
Once upon a time, a golden lion was.
Said to be, all that is, it was such as it was.
Forms of it formed, all being gold.
The lion roared. Its ink blots blot
a mind which divides all things.
But as Neil Tyson says, the universe is not obligated to make sense to
you.
Astonishing to me, many so-called things are.
Processes as well well and dwell in a mind of mine.
More than one mine may be mined. Aye.
Knowing how things eat other things, how bizarre.
What's going on. Is there a what. Forms eating forms.
Digesting thought, thought waves wave. At me. Two me.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is
gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference
between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like
ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do
mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
Light waves frequently.
One drops a pebble. Water waves.
All at once, two are not two. Two is knot.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
From a pov, only atoms exist. From another, only chemistry.
We
can say that the universe cannot be understood from our limited finite >>perspective.
Aye. We may agree.
That does not mean there is no perspective from which it
could be understood.
From a pov of some, thing in a fridge. We may chill.
Beer is a thing. It's enjoyed by a form of me.
What is this thing, me. What is a you.
Is you a who, and a form of me too.
To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.
Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is
shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,
just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.
The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.
It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is
the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are
said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.
Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.
Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.
Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.
Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero
or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.
It seems it expands but will not contract. So we think. That does
not mean that such thinkings are without merit.
Observation. Observers. Nouns are observed.
Actions vary. At times a Zone is. Why carve. Why chop.
Given a given, reasons emerge, after the given is given.
Purpose may be presupposed. As if Existence were not prior.
Categories, invented, mapped. Carving, chips fly. Imagine, hats.
Is it not you and you not it or
is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.
You are something the universe is doing right now, so said somebody or >>other.
To be the Universe as it unfolds, one may be One, all t'old.
Tales for the telling, stories built. Story up on story.
Buildings building civilizations arise. Artificial.
All natural. Semantics. Contexts.
Fragments of the sentences
sentenced for a spell.
- smoke and mirrors, eye. Cheers!--
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands
just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Good, now you must return to the mundane world where there might not
be milk in the refrigerator. And you must find a way to supply it.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:53:30 -0700, one <being@apolka.sign> wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands >>>>>just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Good, now you must return to the mundane world where there might not
be milk in the refrigerator. And you must find a way to supply it.
Spontaneously is best for me.
Thinking about going, doing, getting
and betting on what Way will suffice may
be problematic if not necessary all too often.
I wasn't thinking you might be foreseeing it, but that you might
encounter it.
--
The future, the past, does the present exist.
Does the present unfold as a gift by its own self.
Causality works wonders.
Things being things of their own selves, uncaused,
can be a can of Taoist worms called tzu-jan
or ziran using a modern spelling.
Milk finds its Way to the fridge naturally.
To say a cause was found could be said.
Cook Ting could have split hairs of an ox.
His knife stayed totally vorpal.
- thanks again!
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
one wrote:
Noah had written:
Humans cannot agree on what is best so very
little gets done, other than accumulate wealth.
Democracy has its merits and can be problematic.
Two parties, three parties, party animals party.
Unfortunately there is nobody here but us to people these structures
meant to manage human imperfection.,
In a land, an artificial mythical place, China,
much is able to get done begotten of its nature.
Before China was China, old men, the Lao Tzu passed
on their wisdom and through a gateless gate at a pass
in a long longing for what was beyond empire buildings.
Those who have wealth
agree that is best, and since wealth brings power, accumulate wealth
is what happens.
To have riches beyond material things
a mystic, a metaphysician may know, jnana
knowing how what is non-physical goes and is.
So it seems. The wisdom beyond material things must stay in the >non-material. That does not mean that such wisdom is not wise, or
that material does not have it's imperatives.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands
just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases.
Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Good, now you must return to the mundane world where there might not
be milk in the refrigerator. And you must find a way to supply it.
Spontaneously is best for me.
Thinking about going, doing, getting
and betting on what Way will suffice may
be problematic if not necessary all too often.
The future, the past, does the present exist.--
Does the present unfold as a gift by its own self.
Causality works wonders.
Things being things of their own selves, uncaused,
can be a can of Taoist worms called tzu-jan
or ziran using a modern spelling.
Milk finds its Way to the fridge naturally.
To say a cause was found could be said.
Cook Ting could have split hairs of an ox.
His knife stayed totally vorpal.
- thanks again!
Am 15.07.2021 um 18:31 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
Funny thing from the 30ies of last century regarding the speed of light:
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
https://www.facebook.com/nobelprize/photos/a.164901829102/10158358125764103/?type=3&theater
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah had written:
Humans cannot agree on what is best so very
little gets done, other than accumulate wealth.
Democracy has its merits and can be problematic.
Two parties, three parties, party animals party.
Unfortunately there is nobody here but us to people these structures
meant to manage human imperfection.,
To state, very little gets done can be a state one
finds one's elf in when seeing very little getting done.
How little is little and how much is too much.
From being a work in progress to a play at recess,
people go and do. For me, the least is the best, usually.
Hunting and gathering sounds ideal. Almost as good
as waiting for food to fall from trees in a jungle
full of life, where shelter isn't needed nor
shoes on one's feet.
Taoism is nostalgic at times. Texts hearken back
to before when Warring States of minds were
not and before any empires were.
On another hemisphere of a pale blue dot,
tribes of people lived in what's deemed a stone age
for the most part. While they had iron, flint was better.
Did they live in peace. Were they happier than modern
humans who see their own actions as detrimental.
For ten thousand years the hemisphere was pristine.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
In a land, an artificial mythical place, China,
much is able to get done begotten of its nature.
Before China was China, old men, the Lao Tzu passed
on their wisdom and through a gateless gate at a pass
in a long longing for what was beyond empire buildings.
Those who have wealth
agree that is best, and since wealth brings power, accumulate wealth
is what happens.
To have riches beyond material things
a mystic, a metaphysician may know, jnana
knowing how what is non-physical goes and is.
So it seems. The wisdom beyond material things must stay in the >>non-material. That does not mean that such wisdom is not wise, or
that material does not have it's imperatives.
Dreamers dream of a scene seen in the future
when all beings are at peace, one imagines.
Countries, religions and competitions exist
without being too serious, knowing how,
why and what limits are. People agree
to play with and against each other.
- as if there were, others ...--
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Why say, descends?
Why assume total disorder isn't total order?
That is a matter of definition. As long as we understand what the
words mean, we can communicate.
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
No. Without a reverse entropy system like the earth, entropy never >increases.
It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The >>>problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it
is that does not provide heat?
Why would one care to store an it
in an atom which does not exist?
Single atoms can exist. It is a lot easier to cool one than a
million.
Does a single atom ever exist?
An understanding of mine is, molecules exist.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is >>>gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
...snip response...To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference >>>>between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like
ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do
mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
It really doesn't matter.
Trees are part of the landscape in which we
find ourselves. It is useful to talk about them. Not useful to
suppose they do not exist, regardless of what non-material wisdom
says.
one wrote:
To be the Universe as it unfolds, one may be One, all t'old.
Tales for the telling, stories built. Story up on story.
Buildings building civilizations arise. Artificial.
All natural. Semantics. Contexts.
Fragments of the sentences
sentenced for a spell.
Useful till you and I put them down and walk away. They might then be
picked up by others and be useful again.
Am 15.07.2021 um 23:30 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Am 15.07.2021 um 18:31 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
Funny thing from the 30ies of last century regarding the speed of light:
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
https://www.facebook.com/nobelprize/photos/a.164901829102/10158358125764103/?type=3&theater
Hello Noah not intersetd into looking into the articel?
Here's a quick summary of the important facts:
Light can travel lower than the speed of light! lol!
Particles can travel at faster speed than the speed of light!
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
Good, now you must return to the mundane world where there might not
be milk in the refrigerator. And you must find a way to supply it.
Spontaneously is best for me.
Thinking about going, doing, getting
and betting on what Way will suffice may
be problematic if not necessary all too often.
I wasn't thinking you might be foreseeing, but that you might
encounter it.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
But when seated on a mat on the floor, with legs crossed and hands >>>>>>just so, one can think about non-duality all day long if one pleases. >>>>>Returning to a Tao, indeed without deeds pleases me.
When finding a Tao in action, inaction, so to speak can be key.
Good, now you must return to the mundane world where there might not
be milk in the refrigerator. And you must find a way to supply it.
Spontaneously is best for me.
Thinking about going, doing, getting
and betting on what Way will suffice may
be problematic if not necessary all too often.
I wasn't thinking you might be foreseeing it, but that you might
encounter it.
Milk might somehow have failed to find its way, as happens more
frequently than actually finding its way and depositing itself in your >refrigerator.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
Point being, entropy increases, usually.
Maybe entropy must decrease when energy is added
to a system and more order of some sort occurs.
At light-speed, distance and duration are zero
from the pov of what ever-is at light-speed.
Photons arrive immediately, naturally.
Why must spacetime be space and time
when doing mathematics. Grids provide
Ways of measuring, of mapping, points.
Lines, planes, dimensions vary.
Phenomena appear to eyes that see,
to ears that hear, and other senses we
happen to have yet to ask why means
a carving has bins carved.
Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
Why say, descends?
Why assume total disorder isn't total order?
That is a matter of definition. As long as we understand what the
words mean, we can communicate.
Aye. Okay.
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
No. Without a reverse entropy system like the earth, entropy never >>increases.
My understanding of what the word means differs.
... snip ...
It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The >>>>problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it >>>>is that does not provide heat?
Why would one care to store an it
in an atom which does not exist?
Single atoms can exist. It is a lot easier to cool one than a
million.
Single atoms do appear to be able to be made in a lab
beyond oratory, naturally. Thanks!
Research indicates some individual, single, atoms
that are not in molecular form are able to form,
or be, as the case may be. Thanks again!
Does a single atom ever exist?
An understanding of mine is, molecules exist.
Archaic is a thought wave at times.
Learning new information is fun for me.
... snip ...
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>>>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is >>>>gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
Absolute zero is never going to happen
according to some theories. The lowest will be
about 10 to the minus 30 kelvin.
...snip response...To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference >>>>>between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like >>>>ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do >>>>mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Nouns are fun things
and even more fun when they're places and
the most at times is as people.
To say, the Universe is full of things
might suggest that it is not the things. That the things
are somehow other than and separate from, it.
Being all things, as a whole, it exists.
Being only the things, it doesn't exist.
There are only the things, their selves.
So too with a forest. One may say one exists.
Another may say nay, only trees exist. Forest is
a category word. And one may suggest so are trees.
What entitles some one to say what one says to a point
can be to point. When all the stars and galaxies are
no longer what they were for a time, when only
dark, xuan, mysterious matter and energy
are what is a round to it, what is it then,
this Universe thing. Nothing. Kinda sorta.
Full of empty dark matter.
Unless all that is gone as well.
Full of empty dark energy expanding.
Space, for all time, spacetime, going nowhere.
Being the one thing, invisible energy, we shall be.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
It really doesn't matter.
To a forester they may.
Trees are part of the landscape in which we
find ourselves. It is useful to talk about them. Not useful to
suppose they do not exist, regardless of what non-material wisdom
says.
Are trees in a forest singular beings or
do they play a part in a great unfolding of being
along with mycelium, birds and bees. A single organism
a forest might be seen. Earth as well such as She is.
- and peoples her self with ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
To be the Universe as it unfolds, one may be One, all t'old.
Tales for the telling, stories built. Story up on story.
Buildings building civilizations arise. Artificial.
All natural. Semantics. Contexts.
Fragments of the sentences
sentenced for a spell.
Useful till you and I put them down and walk away. They might then be >>picked up by others and be useful again.
Children, some children, some times, like stories.
They learn the word, why, and are told, reasons are.
Kids learn to carve and whittle the world.
When some of them play, they play to play.
To say they play for a reason, one may.
Some sing to sing and dance to dance.
Perhaps Earth spins without ulterior motive.
Being, of itself sewn, beings emerge for a spell.
To say there is no purpose other than what
one chooses, no cause to fight for other
than what presents its elf, one could.
- for the time beings ...--
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:Why must entropy decrease?
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>>> disorder. Entropy must decrease.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
one wrote:
For ten thousand years the hemisphere was pristine.
It is as if humans have become self aware sometime between then and
now. Then it did not matter what humans did, nature was able to
absorb it all because humans were so few.
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And
we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause
that.
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the
most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about
dying ecosystems?
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
Dreamers dream of a scene seen in the future
when all beings are at peace, one imagines.
Countries, religions and competitions exist
without being too serious, knowing how,
why and what limits are. People agree
to play with and against each other.
It is not enough to dream.
Venus as a Boy wrote:
Am 15.07.2021 um 23:30 schrieb Venus as a Boy:
Am 15.07.2021 um 18:31 schrieb Noah Sombrero:
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?Funny thing from the 30ies of last century regarding the speed of light: >>>
We don't get to know.
https://www.facebook.com/nobelprize/photos/a.164901829102/10158358125764103/?type=3&theater
Hello Noah not intersetd into looking into the articel?
Here's a quick summary of the important facts:
Light can travel lower than the speed of light! lol!
Particles can travel at faster speed than the speed of light!
Under certain circumstances for various reasons.
But why is the speed of light what it is?
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
For ten thousand years the hemisphere was pristine.
It is as if humans have become self aware sometime between then and
now. Then it did not matter what humans did, nature was able to
absorb it all because humans were so few.
Perhaps.
Maybe, as nomads, they knew
what to do and what not to do to excess.
Whether they were happier, living as nomads
was a question. Could be their moods were as mine are.
In the morning full of energy, life is good. After a nap,
my energy is not as great and takes a while to return.
Some days are better than others.
With no plans and nothing to do, my joy is high.
Having things to do, responsibilities and obligations, not so much.
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And
we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause
that.
Did ancient people sweep their dirt floors clean.
Did they know what it means to be high-tech or low-tech.
Did children play without a care. Without concern for the future.
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >>non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the
most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about
dying ecosystems?
When ocean levels rise, people on the coasts move inside the land
where they land for a spell until another option is available.
When weather is rough they batten down hatches.
Some may try to stem the tide.
Some will go along for the ride.
In a short run, with less carbon spewed by them,
they may feel proud of an accomplishment. Then the ice, sheets
of glaciers moving down from the poles will consume cities
to a far north or south and they'll wonder, gee, it may
be global warming wasn't such a bad idea.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
After the next period of glaciation, when cities are razed
and people are amazed at how little control they had,
vast rivers and lands will return, naturally.
--Dreamers dream of a scene seen in the future
when all beings are at peace, one imagines.
Countries, religions and competitions exist
without being too serious, knowing how,
why and what limits are. People agree
to play with and against each other.
It is not enough to dream.
Nature knows how to take its own course.
Of course, some people feel as if they are
not natural in their own species-doing.
When grasses grow and wabbits multiply,
seasons change and wolves run in packs.
When the ice returns, a great crowd of
animated forms of Life might be found
round an imaginary line, the equator.
- for a spell ...
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
Point being, entropy increases, usually.
Maybe entropy must decrease when energy is added
to a system and more order of some sort occurs.
At light-speed, distance and duration are zero
from the pov of what ever-is at light-speed.
Photons arrive immediately, naturally.
Why must spacetime be space and time
when doing mathematics. Grids provide
Ways of measuring, of mapping, points.
Why why? Isn't it enough to know what?
You are lucky to know that much.
There are fish in the river if you wish, and rabbits in the field.
But keep milk in the refrigerator or your wife will accuse you of not
caring for your child.
Lines, planes, dimensions vary.
If they can be proven.
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
No. Without a reverse entropy system like the earth, entropy never >>>increases.
My understanding of what the word means differs.
Although it can come loaded with potential straight from the sun and
descend from there.
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases. >>>>>>Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs. >>>>>There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>>>>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is >>>>>gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
Absolute zero is never going to happen
according to some theories. The lowest will be
about 10 to the minus 30 kelvin.
In that case you get to chose your favorite theory. But that does not >discount the usefulness of theorying.
...snip response...To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference >>>>>>between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like >>>>>ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do >>>>>mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Nouns are fun things
and even more fun when they're places and
the most at times is as people.
To say, the Universe is full of things
might suggest that it is not the things. That the things
are somehow other than and separate from, it.
I recommend that you do not say that.
Being all things, as a whole, it exists.
Being only the things, it doesn't exist.
There are only the things, their selves.
So too with a forest. One may say one exists.
Another may say nay, only trees exist. Forest is
a category word. And one may suggest so are trees.
There is far less confusion if when it becomes necessary to talk about
a tree
or
trees
or
a forest
We know these differences, it is not necessary to confuse yourself.
What entitles some one to say what one says to a point
can be to point. When all the stars and galaxies are
no longer what they were for a time, when only
dark, xuan, mysterious matter and energy
are what is a round to it, what is it then,
this Universe thing. Nothing. Kinda sorta.
And huge chunks of rock, which is not nothing.
Full of empty dark matter.
Unless all that is gone as well.
Full of empty dark energy expanding.
Space, for all time, spacetime, going nowhere.
Being the one thing, invisible energy, we shall be.
The universe does appear to be going no where. It is not necessary
therefore to be confused about it.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
It really doesn't matter.
To a forester they may.
Trees are part of the landscape in which we
find ourselves. It is useful to talk about them. Not useful to
suppose they do not exist, regardless of what non-material wisdom
says.
Are trees in a forest singular beings or
do they play a part in a great unfolding of being
along with mycelium, birds and bees. A single organism
a forest might be seen. Earth as well such as She is.
- and peoples her self with ...
More important than earth peopling with humans and trees is the use
they can make of each other.
We have no real knowledge of this
peopling thingy, but it is nice to talk about on a rainy afternoon,
when use of trees has been made to create shelter and warmth from
fires.
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
To be the Universe as it unfolds, one may be One, all t'old.
Tales for the telling, stories built. Story up on story.
Buildings building civilizations arise. Artificial.
All natural. Semantics. Contexts.
Fragments of the sentences
sentenced for a spell.
Useful till you and I put them down and walk away. They might then be >>>picked up by others and be useful again.
Children, some children, some times, like stories.
They learn the word, why, and are told, reasons are.
Kids learn to carve and whittle the world.
When some of them play, they play to play.
To say they play for a reason, one may.
Some sing to sing and dance to dance.
Perhaps Earth spins without ulterior motive.
Being, of itself sewn, beings emerge for a spell.
To say there is no purpose other than what
one chooses, no cause to fight for other
than what presents its elf, one could.
One could say that but it would be refusing to acknowledge the refusal
of most humans to live like that.
- for the time beings ...
one wondered:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
For ten thousand years the hemisphere was pristine.
It is as if humans have become self aware sometime between then and
now. Then it did not matter what humans did, nature was able to
absorb it all because humans were so few.
Perhaps.
Maybe, as nomads, they knew
what to do and what not to do to excess.
Whether they were happier, living as nomads
was a question. Could be their moods were as mine are.
Struggling to overcome early death and the chewing of lions. Grieving
since they cannot succeed in these efforts.
Perhaps not happier, but not subject to the consequences of
destructive successes.
In the morning full of energy, life is good. After a nap,
my energy is not as great and takes a while to return.
Some days are better than others.
With no plans and nothing to do, my joy is high.
Having things to do, responsibilities and obligations, not so much.
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And
we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause
that.
Did ancient people sweep their dirt floors clean.
Probably not so much, since they had not learned the modern obsession
with cleanliness.
Did they know what it means to be high-tech or low-tech.
Hemp broom instead of straw? I'm sure they were not overwhelmed by
that.
Did children play without a care. Without concern for the future.
As they do now.
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >>>non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the
most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about
dying ecosystems?
When ocean levels rise, people on the coasts move inside the land
where they land for a spell until another option is available.
When weather is rough they batten down hatches.
Some may try to stem the tide.
Some will go along for the ride.
In a short run, with less carbon spewed by them,
they may feel proud of an accomplishment. Then the ice, sheets
of glaciers moving down from the poles will consume cities
to a far north or south and they'll wonder, gee, it may
be global warming wasn't such a bad idea.
You assume that ecosystems will fluctuate as before and not die.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
After the next period of glaciation, when cities are razed
and people are amazed at how little control they had,
vast rivers and lands will return, naturally.
This is your dream. Rest in that. Perhaps it might sorta maybe come
true.
Noah wrote:
one wondered:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
For ten thousand years the hemisphere was pristine.
It is as if humans have become self aware sometime between then and >>>>now. Then it did not matter what humans did, nature was able to
absorb it all because humans were so few.
Perhaps.
Maybe, as nomads, they knew
what to do and what not to do to excess.
Whether they were happier, living as nomads
was a question. Could be their moods were as mine are.
Struggling to overcome early death and the chewing of lions. Grieving >>since they cannot succeed in these efforts.
Perhaps not happier, but not subject to the consequences of
destructive successes.
I'm happy living in today's world.
A thought was, as a young man, that to live off the land
in South America would be grand. Simply eat what grew
naturally. Seamed ideal. Then a friend who'd lived there
said, such a life is not easy on the digestive system.
In the morning full of energy, life is good. After a nap,
my energy is not as great and takes a while to return.
Some days are better than others.
With no plans and nothing to do, my joy is high.
Having things to do, responsibilities and obligations, not so much.
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And
we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause
that.
Did ancient people sweep their dirt floors clean.
Probably not so much, since they had not learned the modern obsession
with cleanliness.
Did they live near a stream, or need to carry water to a camp
where they camped until moving to some other place
to place what few items they had, if any.
Little kids might have been full of energy, bliss and
without consciousness of good and bad seeing
as how they didn't eat that Tree metaphorically.
Sat-chit-ananda depicts a Hindu myth.
Tat-vam-asi could be another one could be.
Did they know what it means to be high-tech or low-tech.
Hemp broom instead of straw? I'm sure they were not overwhelmed by
that.
Did they smoke, eat 'shrooms and know
they are gods or God or Mother Nature
Her own self. Did their shamans cure
their ills, assuming they had them.
Did children play without a care. Without concern for the future.
As they do now.
So, little children, to them may belong a paradise.
Forms of Paradise might be viewed as being Reality.
That is unless and until one is consumed by knowing
bad, and good, right from wrong and one is left
kicked out of the Garden sewing two speak.
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >>>>non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the
most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about >>>>dying ecosystems?
When ocean levels rise, people on the coasts move inside the land
where they land for a spell until another option is available.
When weather is rough they batten down hatches.
Some may try to stem the tide.
Some will go along for the ride.
In a short run, with less carbon spewed by them,
they may feel proud of an accomplishment. Then the ice, sheets
of glaciers moving down from the poles will consume cities
to a far north or south and they'll wonder, gee, it may
be global warming wasn't such a bad idea.
You assume that ecosystems will fluctuate as before and not die.
Ecosystems have died ever since being carved
out of a larger system naturally. Eons give and pave Ways.
Eras erase what was prior and will be erased by the next era.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
After the next period of glaciation, when cities are razed
and people are amazed at how little control they had,
vast rivers and lands will return, naturally.
This is your dream. Rest in that. Perhaps it might sorta maybe come
true.
Icy Taoism freezes water. How to describe the ancients
a Tao Te Ching may advise caution. As when crossing a stream
of thought frozen in winter. When one thought siezes
a time being in its being, disasters loom, at times.
Tao Chia, Taoist philosophy, may be geared to flow
without having any cogs nor being a machine for
an individual and point to how a society may
be for the best when left alone.
Trying to fix what are viewed as problems
may induce other problems going unseen
until the emerge on the scene and then
to fix those problems, sew an it goes.
Buddhism could offer advice.
How to see coins like desire/suffering.
How to stop a train of thought in its tracks.
- assuming one can imagines that ... of worms, etc ...--
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total >>>>>>>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
Why must entropy decrease?
Why must the speed of light be what it is?
We don't get to know.
Point being, entropy increases, usually.
When sugar or salt dissolves, entropy increases.
Generally speaking, entropy is said to usually increase.
Maybe entropy must decrease when energy is added
to a system and more order of some sort occurs.
At light-speed, distance and duration are zero
from the pov of what ever-is at light-speed.
Photons arrive immediately, naturally.
Why must spacetime be space and time
when doing mathematics. Grids provide
Ways of measuring, of mapping, points.
Why why? Isn't it enough to know what?
Asking for a why presumes a what. To ask what, carves.
To presume a what, a noun, may stem from language.
You are lucky to know that much.
Aye. Knowledge may breed funny quest-
ions as charged as they go like knights of a realm.
There are fish in the river if you wish, and rabbits in the field.
But keep milk in the refrigerator or your wife will accuse you of not >>caring for your child.
Growing old, some Taoists were alone. Hermits. Reclusive
ones among the many who were philosophically amusing.
Confucians took life more serious. Rules, regulations, rites
and music to be played lost their joy of playing simply
to play for a time being too serious, naturally.
Lines, planes, dimensions vary.
If they can be proven.
Axoims tend to be taken for granted.
Theorems follow from postulates. By definition, a point
might be defined as having zero dimensions.
A line, as a given, connects two points.
A line of reason moves to another dimension.
Presumptions, e.g. a what, a phenomenon, observed
could be taken for granted without asking why it is.
Is it natural. Is it artificial. Does it have a name.
What is it. Two begin width. A form of a line.
... snip ...
Given your understanding of entropy;
without additional energy added to a system,
doesn't entropy increase?
No. Without a reverse entropy system like the earth, entropy never >>>>increases.
My understanding of what the word means differs.
Although it can come loaded with potential straight from the sun and >>descend from there.
A form of life, assuming such an it exists, has little entropy
compared to when in death, as a form of death, the form decays.
When a body decays, its entropy increases.
When order, so-called, turns to disorder, entropy increases.
... snip ...
An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases. >>>>>>>Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs. >>>>>>There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some >>>>>>billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is >>>>>>gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
Absolute zero is never going to happen
according to some theories. The lowest will be
about 10 to the minus 30 kelvin.
In that case you get to chose your favorite theory. But that does not >>discount the usefulness of theorying.
Theories are fun, ore cans be.
Take Intelligent Design for example.
A physicist might insist, it isn't a scientific one.
To suppose a purpose exists, for existence,
might be similar to presuming Life exists, with its forms.
One may assume Death exists and the gods are born.
Science worked, given its method, and the gods died.
One remains and hangs by a hair in the minds of sum.
Going only so far as a form of mathematics allows,
what was prior to the Singularity, the Big Bang, is
beyond a reach of a reacher reaching a point.
Why was it. Why is it. What's the reason, the purpose.
Does a noun-thing, Life, exist. What about Death.
Are not all forms of Life actually forms of Death?
Is Earth or the Universe alive? Conscious?
does Mother Nature
care and watch a sparrow fall from the sky and know why?
...snip response...To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference >>>>>>>between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like >>>>>>ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do >>>>>>mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe.
Nouns are fun things
and even more fun when they're places and
the most at times is as people.
To say, the Universe is full of things
might suggest that it is not the things. That the things
are somehow other than and separate from, it.
I recommend that you do not say that.
No duality today, eh.
Being all things, as a whole, it exists.
Being only the things, it doesn't exist.
There are only the things, their selves.
So too with a forest. One may say one exists.
Another may say nay, only trees exist. Forest is
a category word. And one may suggest so are trees.
There is far less confusion if when it becomes necessary to talk about
a tree
or
trees
or
a forest
We know these differences, it is not necessary to confuse yourself.
Aye. To ask, why, why, why, for the reason, a reason
might be a good question when a problem occurs.
Where's the milk, for example.
Why is it all gone or sour.
Is more milk possible or did the climate change
suddenly and without notice. The fridge died.
The grid was overloaded and now look!
Look at what people have done!
Oh m'eye.
What entitles some one to say what one says to a point
can be to point. When all the stars and galaxies are
no longer what they were for a time, when only
dark, xuan, mysterious matter and energy
are what is a round to it, what is it then,
this Universe thing. Nothing. Kinda sorta.
And huge chunks of rock, which is not nothing.
Entropy increases until protons dissolve.
Rocks evaporated long before then.
All there will be expansion, faster than light.
Spacetime's geometry, with no matter in it will have bit
what is no longer dust in the wind. There won't be a breeze.
A trillion years is a drop in a bucket.
Ten to the 100 years, if protons decay.
People will have gone from thinking they are.
Their bodies no longer. Or will they? Are they bodies?
Were they their bodies or did they have bodies
as vehicles for some other form of mysterious, xuan,
dark energy which is the stuff, most of all of it
that the Universe is said to be unmade of.
Full of empty dark matter.
Unless all that is gone as well.
Full of empty dark energy expanding.
Space, for all time, spacetime, going nowhere.
Being the one thing, invisible energy, we shall be.
The universe does appear to be going no where. It is not necessary >>therefore to be confused about it.
To be confused about civilization, whether it's natural
or if life was better as hunter-gatherers, one may be.
To be confused if climate-change is normal seeing
how it occurred in the past and will occur again, many are.
To suppose people can fix the world can be a Taoist wonder.
There are lines in verses versus allowing the world to be.
To let the mud settle. To simply be. Aye. Dust too.
Dust on a mirror. What mirror.
To make a brick shine, some try.
Categories are able to be invented
to describe, two map. Does a forest exist. Do trees.
It really doesn't matter.
To a forester they may.
Trees are part of the landscape in which we
find ourselves. It is useful to talk about them. Not useful to >>>>suppose they do not exist, regardless of what non-material wisdom
says.
Are trees in a forest singular beings or
do they play a part in a great unfolding of being
along with mycelium, birds and bees. A single organism
a forest might be seen. Earth as well such as She is.
- and peoples her self with ...
More important than earth peopling with humans and trees is the use
they can make of each other.
People who use people might think a bit.
We have no real knowledge of this
peopling thingy, but it is nice to talk about on a rainy afternoon,
when use of trees has been made to create shelter and warmth from
fires.
The trees may have preferred taking a stand,
to be left standing, as a group naturally.
- oar as one ... Thanks again!--
one found:
When sugar or salt dissolves, entropy increases.
Generally speaking, entropy is said to usually increase.
Reduced entropy means move to a lower energy state.
There is a continuum:
zero entropy - no order, no stored energy
max entropy - there is no limit so, one might imagine
So the continuum is
0---------to--------no limit
When you dissolve sugar or salt, molecules disperse in a liquid. The
energy state of the molecules has not changed.
When you consume salt or sugar, your body uses the molecules to
release energy (reducing entropy), driving the life of your body.
When
a lion eats your body, it gains entropy rich molecules which it uses
do drive the life of its body.
So, entropy cycles through living
creatures, augmented by new energy from the sun trapped by plants.
Without that, even if other factors necessary for life remain the
same, life cannot continue because they reverse entropy cycle leaks
energy which must be replenished by an energy source like the sun.
Noah wrote:
one found:
When sugar or salt dissolves, entropy increases.
Generally speaking, entropy is said to usually increase.
Reduced entropy means move to a lower energy state.
Reduced entropy, to me, means more order and less disorder.
Ice has less entropy than liquid water.
When ice melts, entropy increases.
Liquid water molecules are less ordered than when in a lattice.
Dropping a cube of sugar into liquid water,
entropy increases. The sugar crystals disperse
mixing with the water molecules.
Whether the energy state is higher or lower
from solid to liquid to gas, perhaps it is
said to be one or the other originally.
A saying has bin said, typically energy is conserved.
When water freezes, its energy is less, I guess.
Where the energy goes, is unknown to me. May be
it goes in to making the ordered lattice of structure.
Maybe it has more potential and less kinetic energy.
In the frozen state, there is less entropy. Okay.
To say, as you said, entropy must decrease
didn't make sense to me on at least two levels
of meaning given the words: must, and, decrease.
There is a continuum:
zero entropy - no order, no stored energy
Hmm. When in a highly ordered state, that's low entropy
as far as I understand the meaning of the words.
There is plenty of potential energy stored
in ice, presumably. We don't appear to agree.
max entropy - there is no limit so, one might imagine
An example I've seen is a gas.
For purposes of this example, at first, the gas molecules are
all kept in one corner of a room and then released and
as they expand, entropy increases. There is a limit.
When, say, frozen molecules melt and liquid molecules
evaporate the entropy increases to a point of equilibrium.
That might be what maximum entropy means, to me, or not.
So the continuum is
0---------to--------no limit
Maybe in theory approaches to those exist.
I don't know much about any of that really.
When you dissolve sugar or salt, molecules disperse in a liquid. The >>energy state of the molecules has not changed.
Okay.
When you consume salt or sugar, your body uses the molecules to
release energy (reducing entropy), driving the life of your body.
Okay.
When
a lion eats your body, it gains entropy rich molecules which it uses
do drive the life of its body.
Okay.
Looks to me as if, the entropy of the salt or sugar increases
as the entropy of my body decreases, then, the entropy of
my body increases as that of the lion's decreases.
Overall, in that system, it'd remain the same.
--So, entropy cycles through living
creatures, augmented by new energy from the sun trapped by plants.
Okay.
Without that, even if other factors necessary for life remain the
same, life cannot continue because they reverse entropy cycle leaks
energy which must be replenished by an energy source like the sun.
When energy is not replenished, entropy increases.
When energy is pumped into the system, entropy decreases.
- that's my understanding, fwiw
one wrote:
Growing old, some Taoists were alone. Hermits. Reclusive
ones among the many who were philosophically amusing.
Not caring for children having no wives, does not mean that their
perspective was superior to those who have such
Confucians took life more serious. Rules, regulations, rites
and music to be played lost their joy of playing simply
to play for a time being too serious, naturally.
Wives and children do not loose their joy making if played well.
Lines, planes, dimensions vary.
If they can be proven.
Axoims tend to be taken for granted.
1 is 1 must be granted. 1+1 is 2 must be granted. Not great leaps
into mystery. They make useful foundations for things that humans
need to do.
Living life is driven by entropy. When
that life dies, entropy drops away, but is still enough for other
forms to benefit from. Like trees.
When a body decays, its entropy increases.
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Growing old, some Taoists were alone. Hermits. Reclusive
ones among the many who were philosophically amusing.
Not caring for children having no wives, does not mean that their >>perspective was superior to those who have such
When Chuang-tzu's wife died, his friend, Huizi, found him, Zz
banging on pots and pans and having a great time.
How could you, Huizi asked. She was the
mother of your kids. Why are you
not mourning, grieving, etc.
Zz explained his philosophy,
given: a Daoist tale.
Confucians took life more serious. Rules, regulations, rites
and music to be played lost their joy of playing simply
to play for a time being too serious, naturally.
Wives and children do not loose their joy making if played well.
A point was how rules and regulations may confuse
one's innate or natural inclinations. Freedom can be
a point of interest. How to be and/or stay free.
Taoism contrasts with Confucianism.
Buddhism contrasts with Hinduism in a Way.
To suppose there is a self, an individual entity who
reincarnates on the Wheel of Eighty-four, samsara may
be problematic for some minds. No escape for those then.
Yet without a permanent self, problem solved.
While a body, be it a wife or a child, is born, dies
and might be viewed as a reincarnation of a sort,
without a self, a paradigm shifts. Shapes vary.
--Lines, planes, dimensions vary.
If they can be proven.
Axoims tend to be taken for granted.
1 is 1 must be granted. 1+1 is 2 must be granted. Not great leaps
into mystery. They make useful foundations for things that humans
need to do.
Aye. Counting on counting numbers, natural numbers
might make for a ruler, naturally, given a count of sorts.
... snip ...
Living life is driven by entropy. When
that life dies, entropy drops away, but is still enough for other
forms to benefit from. Like trees.
Thanks for sharing your understanding. You say,
entropy drops away. I may say, entropy increases.
When a body decays, its entropy increases.
- thanks again!
one wrote:
I'm happy living in today's world.
A thought was, as a young man, that to live off the land
in South America would be grand. Simply eat what grew
naturally. Seamed ideal. Then a friend who'd lived there
said, such a life is not easy on the digestive system.
It is true, it would not be grand, would require more sacrifice than
is acceptable to most. That does not mean that ecosystems can stand
us much longer.
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And >>>>>we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause >>>>>that.
Did ancient people sweep their dirt floors clean.
Probably not so much, since they had not learned the modern obsession >>>with cleanliness.
Did they live near a stream, or need to carry water to a camp
where they camped until moving to some other place
to place what few items they had, if any.
They would not notice the inconvenience, since it was all they knew.
Us lately, know easier ways.
Did they know what it means to be high-tech or low-tech.
Hemp broom instead of straw? I'm sure they were not overwhelmed by
that.
Did they smoke, eat 'shrooms and know
they are gods or God or Mother Nature
Her own self. Did their shamans cure
their ills, assuming they had them.
Not very effectively. Ill's were not there so they could be cured,
even though humans were required to wish it.
Did children play without a care. Without concern for the future.
As they do now.
So, little children, to them may belong a paradise.
Forms of Paradise might be viewed as being Reality.
Little children don't know the difference.
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >>>>>non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the >>>>>most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about >>>>>dying ecosystems?
When ocean levels rise, people on the coasts move inside the land
where they land for a spell until another option is available.
When weather is rough they batten down hatches.
Some may try to stem the tide.
Some will go along for the ride.
In a short run, with less carbon spewed by them,
they may feel proud of an accomplishment. Then the ice, sheets
of glaciers moving down from the poles will consume cities
to a far north or south and they'll wonder, gee, it may
be global warming wasn't such a bad idea.
You assume that ecosystems will fluctuate as before and not die.
Ecosystems have died ever since being carved
out of a larger system naturally. Eons give and pave Ways.
Eras erase what was prior and will be erased by the next era.
Never died. Even though things did change from time to time.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
After the next period of glaciation, when cities are razed
and people are amazed at how little control they had,
vast rivers and lands will return, naturally.
This is your dream. Rest in that. Perhaps it might sorta maybe come >>>true.
Icy Taoism freezes water. How to describe the ancients
a Tao Te Ching may advise caution. As when crossing a stream
of thought frozen in winter. When one thought siezes
a time being in its being, disasters loom, at times.
Tao Chia, Taoist philosophy, may be geared to flow
without having any cogs nor being a machine for
an individual and point to how a society may
be for the best when left alone.
Trying to fix what are viewed as problems
may induce other problems going unseen
until the emerge on the scene and then
to fix those problems, sew an it goes.
All true. The thing we know is that the problem we refused to fix
fearing this or that, remains unfixed.
Buddhism could offer advice.
How to see coins like desire/suffering.
How to stop a train of thought in its tracks.
All good in the non-material realm.
- assuming one can imagines that ... of worms, etc ...
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
I'm happy living in today's world.
A thought was, as a young man, that to live off the land
in South America would be grand. Simply eat what grew
naturally. Seamed ideal. Then a friend who'd lived there
said, such a life is not easy on the digestive system.
It is true, it would not be grand, would require more sacrifice than
is acceptable to most. That does not mean that ecosystems can stand
us much longer.
Who your, us, is, is
given your parsing of you and yours
as a collective. Perhaps you will be or will
not be assimilated. Naturally. Ore knots. Veins vary.
... snip ...--
These days, humans know that ecosystems can be harmed, can die. And >>>>>>we know (some of us know) that humans in their billions can cause >>>>>>that.
Did ancient people sweep their dirt floors clean.
Probably not so much, since they had not learned the modern obsession >>>>with cleanliness.
Did they live near a stream, or need to carry water to a camp
where they camped until moving to some other place
to place what few items they had, if any.
They would not notice the inconvenience, since it was all they knew.
Us lately, know easier ways.
You appear to have a plural sense of nouns
going on in some fraction of your brain, assuming
your heart is not in on the paradigm you contain.
Speaking of we, us, they and them, an it occurs
to me of all people assuming, aye, am one of them.
You are, as a being. You exist. As an it. You
as a third-person singular could be called a form
of a singularity, as a wave-form collapses up on its elf.
Are you a form of Life?
Are you a form of Being?
Perhaps you and yours are a form of a Species.
Gold occurs at this time in a mind of mine to mine.
Forms of gold vary. Gold remains the same.
Some is pure. Some is refined. Times change.
Ore knots and to oar knots verbs are
sentenced in sentences to complete a thought.
Do we exist. When us are, they is. It is.
To divide, words dew and condense.
Thought patterns pattern there.
Selves emerge, naturally.
... snip ...
Did they know what it means to be high-tech or low-tech.
Hemp broom instead of straw? I'm sure they were not overwhelmed by >>>>that.
Did they smoke, eat 'shrooms and know
they are gods or God or Mother Nature
Her own self. Did their shamans cure
their ills, assuming they had them.
Not very effectively. Ill's were not there so they could be cured,
even though humans were required to wish it.
People suffer. People cling. Static
electricity. Ionization. Identities vary.
What would a buddha do.
Soteriologies vary.
Did children play without a care. Without concern for the future.
As they do now.
So, little children, to them may belong a paradise.
Forms of Paradise might be viewed as being Reality.
Little children don't know the difference.
Aye. The bark of the Tree is advised to be
untouched and yet, naturally, people touch it.
People judge. People divide.
Assuming people are. Presumptions vary.
... snip ...
So it is time to choose. Do humans forget it all, mumbling about >>>>>>non-material wisdom. Or do they forget it all, mumbling about the >>>>>>most luxurious way to ride to work? Or do they do something about >>>>>>dying ecosystems?
When ocean levels rise, people on the coasts move inside the land >>>>>where they land for a spell until another option is available.
When weather is rough they batten down hatches.
Some may try to stem the tide.
Some will go along for the ride.
In a short run, with less carbon spewed by them,
they may feel proud of an accomplishment. Then the ice, sheets
of glaciers moving down from the poles will consume cities
to a far north or south and they'll wonder, gee, it may
be global warming wasn't such a bad idea.
You assume that ecosystems will fluctuate as before and not die.
Ecosystems have died ever since being carved
out of a larger system naturally. Eons give and pave Ways.
Eras erase what was prior and will be erased by the next era.
Never died. Even though things did change from time to time.
So, ecosystems never die.
Ecosystems change, as your thought patterns, and remain.
Naturally natural oar did they sew it seams.
Weaving and boating, fishing rivers and lands
were vast, unencumbered by cities full of cars.
There seeming to be no way to go back to vast rivers and lands.
After the next period of glaciation, when cities are razed
and people are amazed at how little control they had,
vast rivers and lands will return, naturally.
This is your dream. Rest in that. Perhaps it might sorta maybe come >>>>true.
Icy Taoism freezes water. How to describe the ancients
a Tao Te Ching may advise caution. As when crossing a stream
of thought frozen in winter. When one thought siezes
a time being in its being, disasters loom, at times.
Tao Chia, Taoist philosophy, may be geared to flow
without having any cogs nor being a machine for
an individual and point to how a society may
be for the best when left alone.
Trying to fix what are viewed as problems
may induce other problems going unseen
until the emerge on the scene and then
to fix those problems, sew an it goes.
All true. The thing we know is that the problem we refused to fix
fearing this or that, remains unfixed.
What problem?
Does your we have a problem? A tribble? Do you?
Buddhism could offer advice.
How to see coins like desire/suffering.
How to stop a train of thought in its tracks.
All good in the non-material realm.
Realms vary. When material ones exist, sew two.
Metaphysical realms are as wells. Depths vary.
- assuming one can imagines that ... of worms, etc ...
- thanks again! Cheers!
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Growing old, some Taoists were alone. Hermits. Reclusive
ones among the many who were philosophically amusing.
Not caring for children having no wives, does not mean that their >>>>perspective was superior to those who have such
When Chuang-tzu's wife died, his friend, Huizi, found him, Zz
banging on pots and pans and having a great time.
How could you, Huizi asked. She was the
mother of your kids. Why are you
not mourning, grieving, etc.
Zz explained his philosophy,
given: a Daoist tale.
Which does not mean there was no joy in it for him. There is also the >>story of the master whose son died. The master weeps inconsolably.
But didn't you tell us that all is illusion, his students ask. Yes,
the master says, but he was such a beautiful illusion.
It might be that these stories are more to make a point than a
recounting of actual events.
Actually, percept-
ions of events, so-called sew
seeds of discontent when promulgated.
From a pov, one is.
From a pov, many are.
Given a point, a view emerges.
Language may suggest if not dictate, one is, you are, they, us,
we and, then, suddenly or gradually an ecosystem is. Eco-
systems are. Are they one. Is there One. Is there a
sum of all purposes equal to the, the Purpose.
Thought fragments what, actual, is. Actuals
are as events unfold. Carvings of what is Uncarved
as an entire tea ceremony takes place given a space and time.
Some brains might take trains
of thought to the future, to the past,
forgetting the present as a gift which unfolds.
Here. Now, Herenow you are.
Reading this. These words. Reality.
To imagine the future. Civilization. Ecosystems.
Cutting one may, Prehaps you dew and thought condenses.
Confucians took life more serious. Rules, regulations, rites
and music to be played lost their joy of playing simply
to play for a time being too serious, naturally.
Wives and children do not loose their joy making if played well.
A point was how rules and regulations may confuse
one's innate or natural inclinations. Freedom can be
a point of interest. How to be and/or stay free.
There will be no joy in your family relations if they are a matter of
rules and regulations for you.
Aye at times. And yet, obligations may bless
me of all people going and doing, none-the-less.
Taoism contrasts with Confucianism.
Buddhism contrasts with Hinduism in a Way.
To suppose there is a self, an individual entity who
reincarnates on the Wheel of Eighty-four, samsara may
be problematic for some minds. No escape for those then.
Yet without a permanent self, problem solved.
While a body, be it a wife or a child, is born, dies
and might be viewed as a reincarnation of a sort,
without a self, a paradigm shifts. Shapes vary.
But it might be ok to mourn the beautiful illusion.
Zz stopped mourning. He mourned. Then he stopped.
Aye. Me of all people being one, am involved.
Evolution, to evolve, to not identify
at times may solve a problem.
You'd appeared to appear to a form of me
as saying hunting and gathering was better than
civilization as it is at present.
You seamed. You lamented
how destruction of ecosystems by your species who people
a planet, Earth, are to blame. Aye. To figure whether
the weather, the climate, can be changed.
To reverse a process. Taoism, Tao Chia, may
suggest, don't try. Simply be. Leave the world alone.
Tis a pov. A topic of a newsgroup. A chapter in the Chuang-tzu.--
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#11
<< I HAVE HEARD OF LETTING the world be, of leaving it alone;
I have never heard of governing the world. >>
Contexts may be rulers when semantics are at play.
- hm6of1
one wrote:
Noah wrote:
one wrote:
Growing old, some Taoists were alone. Hermits. Reclusive
ones among the many who were philosophically amusing.
Not caring for children having no wives, does not mean that their >>>perspective was superior to those who have such
When Chuang-tzu's wife died, his friend, Huizi, found him, Zz
banging on pots and pans and having a great time.
How could you, Huizi asked. She was the
mother of your kids. Why are you
not mourning, grieving, etc.
Zz explained his philosophy,
given: a Daoist tale.
Which does not mean there was no joy in it for him. There is also the
story of the master whose son died. The master weeps inconsolably.
But didn't you tell us that all is illusion, his students ask. Yes,
the master says, but he was such a beautiful illusion.
It might be that these stories are more to make a point than a
recounting of actual events.
Confucians took life more serious. Rules, regulations, rites
and music to be played lost their joy of playing simply
to play for a time being too serious, naturally.
Wives and children do not loose their joy making if played well.
A point was how rules and regulations may confuse
one's innate or natural inclinations. Freedom can be
a point of interest. How to be and/or stay free.
There will be no joy in your family relations if they are a matter of
rules and regulations for you.
Taoism contrasts with Confucianism.
Buddhism contrasts with Hinduism in a Way.
To suppose there is a self, an individual entity who
reincarnates on the Wheel of Eighty-four, samsara may
be problematic for some minds. No escape for those then.
Yet without a permanent self, problem solved.
While a body, be it a wife or a child, is born, dies
and might be viewed as a reincarnation of a sort,
without a self, a paradigm shifts. Shapes vary.
But it might be ok to mourn the beautiful illusion.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 118:57:55 |
| Calls: | 2,073 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 11,135 |
| Messages: | 947,283 |