Stosh

Ive been wondering what would happen to our system , if instead of having to vote For a candidate, one had the option to vote against a candidate , ( subtracting the value of one 'For' vote.) Because right now hating a candidate looks like you're endorsing the other , which ..isnt exactly accurate. ..

No one is collectively anything really. You do see the FAct of that right? Grouping people applies justice or injustice to each person of a group whether they actually Did any thing ,or not. You can still be upset about things you consider wrong, you are welcome to that upset. Go ahead cherish it! Hold it to your heart and give it a warm hug, because it tells you that you have moral superiority, It allows you to vent, It joins you in a caraderie with like minded folks and obviates further examination of people. Hate and anger , when its in Your hands in particular, is a good thing Sionnach. It becomes a weapon of love! Or, you could stand-down which would isolate you, make you less significant, make it appear that you have no collective guilt, other than to stand by and let the world roll on, while you quietly frolicked in a private eddy as best you could.

Watching the political discussions, I am pretty much sure that two lines of mutually exclusive bullshit doesnt guarantee either is sincere. But in some circumstances I think self contradiction is fine. The thousands of things which cross ones mind dont require or allow every thought to be expressed anyway,, besides, my, and presumably anyones sentiments are often arrived at irrationally. Its the universes problem if they dont hook up neatly all the time. Most opinions are a matter of perspective anyhow, and that perspective changes with circumstance so the best guide is knowing well where you want to be rather than which vector to be loyal to. I figure.

Im thinking this passage offers insight into how ones bones were ..considered as representative of. Bones are not so changeable as muscles and bellies, one dies the skeleton reveals the deeper more constant form. Muscles flex , get tired etc. So in the passage the bones of the foot are representing a sort of physical representation of the mans inner nature. The many deformities mentioned , mirror this time-honored literary technique. Its like having the bad cowboy wear a black hat , or Ahab, 'dis-masted' , and sporting a lightning bolt shaped scar on his face. The dude in the embellished version , is of such strong moral character that he is described as never having his foot bones , which would have enabled him to run away. His nature , being footbone-less, ensured a destiny for him. If he had been more like other men in form/character , his destiny would not likely have been the same. When we read of the alternately formed , Im thinking these things should be considered as indicative of the character of the person, and not make a basic assumption that they are 'flaws' by definition. We are merely being shown in a physical representation aspects of the persons deeper character and their destiny resulting from these characters.

Im sorry Im not clear on this , the slit doesnt collapse the wave function right?... its the method of observation that does? If the slit did , one would nnever see an interference pattern, im thinking.

Would I be correct to presume, that after observing the electron, and allowing it to pass through the slit, that at some farther distance , one would again see an interference pattern, from a second slit pair ? OR is the collapsed wave function similar to polarizing a photon? where the photon would proceed perpetually as a defined -collapsed wave function , until being absorbed by something....( if that happens)

Being that there is some disagreement as to the content of the text,, it seems appropriate to assume that its the common elements of the two versions would display the most significant issue. There is a question regarding the special-ness of the military officer retaining a high position despite missing a foot. Has he been trained to excel despite this , is it a peculiarity of his nature, or was it taken from him. (The ol nature vs nurture debate) The answer is offered that men being molded , results in the standard molded form,, whereas the unique drive or ability of such a man as this must be due to his own merit. (And If his foot had been removed - molded- for crimes , then he wouldnt have his rank.) IMO , he doesnt have it in him to run away.

Well, she should recognize that not every person in any culture shares the same values as every other person , and could then laugh off or take pride in , Japanese underpants vending machines , as a sign of tolerance.

A place to start... I came across this dude when I was doing archaeology in the Mohawk valley , an amazing story St. Isaac Jogues, S.J. (January 10, 1607 – October 18, 1646) was a Jesuit priest, missionary and martyr who traveled and worked among the Iroquois, Huron, and other Native populations in North America. He was the first European to name Lake George, calling it Lac du Saint Sacrement (Lake of the Blessed Sacrament). In 1646, Jogues was martyred by the Mohawk at their village of Ossernenon, south of the Mohawk River. http://everything2.com/title/Iroquois+torture https://www.na.fs.fed.us/fire_poster/nativeamer.htm Dont mistake this however for being anti anybody, its just that they , like everyone else , had a destructive and violent side as well as the Europeans. They modified the land , had wars , made peace , grew crops, killed things and so forth, ,, it was a Whole culture , not a fake fantasy one,, and I think it could be seen as a disrespect ! even,, to pretend they were all peaceful gatherers of berries.

Not enough data there , likely there wouldn't ever be enough data for you to get his motive other than making broad sweeping assumptions which could still be off base. What a person does,, when one does it ,, is 'concrete -ify' the sum total of their experiences ,perceptions, conclusions , sentiments ,situation and so forth. That output , is not confidently predictable for individuals , yet statistically some stuff is fairly predictable. The useful conclusions IMO are that ,, 1) of the many many things that cross ones mind , at any instance there is only the one output which results... and thats really all that one should conclude is the sum total of the guys mind on the subject. 2) You cannot understand fully what other peoples motivational stance is,, nor our own. 3) what a person does, may depend most , on the situation

http://emojipedia.org/poultry-leg/ Its not showing , hmmm , security wont display that emoji here. ☯ Festivus Miracle ⚖ Looks like the classic ones are incompatible? but the facebook ones can simply be cut and pasted into the edit box

What would the emoticon be intended to mean?

Exactly, so the butcher has to .

So can cause and effect as you understand it now, explain how it is that your consciousness can move your finger? I think not, unless one construes it that they actually have no free will, (which doesn't fit into cause and effect). ( but I didnt say image of a cat , I was saying that from inorganic materials fabricated the creature which we call a functional cat.. modern science suggests that from inorganic stuff the parts of new life are made, a chicken is a complicated pile of materials which has no special virtue granting life to the chicken other than its organization, equating to the low odds event of rubble being assembled , and yet the chicken , simply an assemblage of materials , may lay an egg-- I think youd agree that the components of any chicken are recycled , it has some consciousness , and the egg compiles yet more materials to become a functional chicken ,, basically) Ive tried to explain the idea , I think I did just fine , if at this juncture you still wish to balk at it , thats fine , I'm done dividing this down.

I'm just giving the force a name , we could call it abracadabra. Abracadabra would be random outside a brain. The earthquake involved forces though , which would still be that which they are now, and operate by cause and effect newtownianly. If the earthquake however by miraculous!! event , happened to shake the rubble into the form of a cat , it would start hunting mice, because it was a new organized center of abracadabra. Heck we could even call it chi ! Aside from the bias imparted by a mind , the rocks have no desire to crush or not crush people. Theres no intent to create the cat or not create the cat.

As far as the consciousness thing goes, ,, I guess I am extending an unproven idea. Anywhere in the universe, as far as we know , if you assemble the situation in which fire can happen, you'll get fire. The entire universe isnt on fire, we figure, because the conditions don't fit. Similarly, Assemble a baby and a consciousness is assembled along with the matter, ,, I suppose one could imagine a 'divine spark' being handed down, but that seems pretty imaginative to me. But on the teenie tiny scale Ive read some stuff that suggests that in some circumstances theres an element of non-immediacy,or undefined-ness. In a newtonian world how can one explain if the fire didnt happen sometimes , or , more confusingly , if the fire didnt happen initially, and then happened later? I'm not suggesting rocks are smart , but Im playing with an idea that consciousness has a simple basis connecting what we physically do to what we consciously intend and maybe on the submolecular level , organized intention could make things happen., so long as ,, they were potentially possible. ( the remaining intention force, being disorganized ,would account for things which happen with randomness- more simply put, our intentions would have effect because they were not neutralized by disorganization ) Im not writing a paper on this , its just fun speculation.

Wu wei (traditional Chinese: 無爲; simplified Chinese: 无为; pinyin: wú wéi; a variant and derivatives: Japanese: 無為(むい); Korean: 無爲(무위); Vietnamese: Vô vi; English, lit. non-doing) is an important concept in Taoism that literally means non-action or non-doing. I figure it fits with that there definition. But Im personally not really certain wei wu wei is a legit , thing , behavior , or attitude, as people connect the term- to a certain kind of virtue set. I'll leave that for Mr. Tt to address the traditional view , (but answered if you were trying to get what point I was saying. )

Its true though , that there's a world of difference between understanding things academically and intuitively,, I don't think I'll ever run like the wind blows, as Gump did , and maybe that's Ok too. In the circumstances that befell him, his simplicity worked out to yield him a rich life , others have other blessings and other circumstances. One cant intentionally emulate him , to live his life.

Mine too.. It goes like this, consciouness is obviously a possibility, in this universe. Its associated with matter, in the form of brains. Consciousness must be a higher order natural principle which matter may manifest. Brains facilitate animation ,but how could this principle make matter do things? In the story the guy butchers but exerts no effort. The intent would be all that was required ,since no work was done ,,,in a situation not requiring any work intent alone would effect events. Hence, no chi blockage,,, and thy will be done. For all I know it could be the same thing that makes brownian motion go.,and predicates radioactive decay.

I wonder if this additionally implies that the spirit can animate the flesh , simply because theres a frictionless relationship,a concurrencey ,, a symbiotic relationship of mind and matter. No work being actually done no "blockage". dunno ,, but it strikes me as a fun speculation.

I think nourish could and should be replaced with 'minister' or 'expedite', but wouldnt argue with the opinion already expressed. One could also construe it to suggest ambivalence , neutrality , or passivity,, but those would require one to overlook that he actively exerts his influence.

When one says "just" a dream, I think its their view that a certain validity is, or would not be ,present. I think he did not apply this judgement. The passage, to me , shows us he equates the validity of either perspective relative to the other. We presumably know there is both the experience of the woken man ,and of the sleeping man.,, if we dispense with judgement about validity , there's no uncertainty in the view one would have, and it would be a moot point,, if the life we are experiencing is that of the woken or sleeping.

Don't kids love their parents, pets, siblings ,friends, stuffed toys,and even blankets? Imo love is a more basic principle which sometimes is related to sex. I dont think the other view was well thought out, and wouldnt entertain it long.

Well , I am fine with the way I am.