Stosh

Yes, because I unabashedly span the gamut of the human condition. I see zero reason to try to conform to your brand of predictability. I am that which I am , as you are, and we each are a package deal. With me, what you get is what you see .... If your sight is clear... which I dont think it is if you think laughing equates to denigration.

Like I explained, I dont consider chuckling ,or even laughing at myself, denigration. I think its terrific in fact ,curative of some plagues. I Laugh recognizing my own errors and flaws, I laugh at the ironic ,the futile ,, all sorts of stuff. I dont laugh at misery of others, nor compassion by them,nor good will intended, nor the unfortunate . I dont see these things as mitigated. At my own mothers funeral I both wept and laughed. In corporeal life , I figure most folks find me mercurial and confusing, difficult. remembering that day I still weep a bit, though I know it serves no rationale, and I can laugh at my own predicament,,but that is not denigration..and I have no intent to 'fix' it.A few moments of greif in memory does not make me 'broken,' it means Im human and I loved my mother, and rationality be damned.

"Fun ? You ask a serious question and presumably you wish to have a serious answer. You wish me to give a fun answer to make you laugh ?" Were you unaware that I usually enjoy posting with you back and forth? Yes I do sometimes chuckle , often at myself , sometimes at you , but Im not laughing at you Karl . Theres a difference (a chuckle being connoted as warm welcoming patient and accepting ). Other times you present a vehicle for me to express my thoughts , and I figure I do the same reciprocally. But In the end , I remind myself not to take this left-brain stuff too seriously , since I think much of the life we live is perceptual rather than factual . I think Other folk truly do see the world from a different perspective , in accepting that , I am only conceding that which I cant change anyway. I sometimes do get emotionally or intellectually wrapped up in a conversation , and dont want to let go of my own expectations and preconceptions , I admit that ,, but I also see it that I can indeed let go of that imperative to have an intended effect , to be recognized for some factoid etc, not every inconsistency needs to be 'fixed' to conform with some structured hypothetical "right view",, since as Ive said otherwhere, the human condition isnt wholly one of true rationality. (where one progresses in some consistent pattern of thought finding an answer to all things by some recipe) While you probably vehemently disagree about that last part , all it means, is that on this we don't agree, its not how you see and weigh things.Though I indeed will continue to promote my own view , when I do promote.

True, so ... what possesses you to think that any of us needs meaning? This is whats called a question made by me , directed at you Karl As far as Sophie is concerned, I'm expendable. This is anecdotal intended for additional clarity What does meaning mean ? :-) ask your cat, or the plants. This is you ignoring my question , and giving me a nonsensical directive rather than making a declarative statement of your own It relates two ,in a parasitic bond. This is my answer , indicating I don't have to ask my cat since I already know what I'm talking about. You are saying that meaning is defined as 'two in parasitic bond' ? This is you looking to confirm my meaning ,presumably so you can well formulate a response Yes, Im saying thats what is indicated traditionally ,,regardless of the guilding one might smear on it. This is me not trying to be tricky and helpfully confirming what the statement means and elaborating so you can formulate your response. You aren't actually saying anything I can understand. I can take you a very long way if you want, but my intention wasn't to lecture but to see if you could grasp the sense of your own question and why it implicitly contains the answer. Finally theres you , not responding to the question , not rebutting my answer but saying you dont understand -but going off on an instructional tangent any way. I found this whole last interchange disappointing, ,Sometimes we have fun but your heart isnt in this one. Well thats how I see it anyway... I came in to work for a bit and then tuned in enthusiastically to see what you'd have for response ,, whether we agreed or not , This was deflating.

Well, I'm waiting for your rebuttal... really ? None? hmmm

Yes, Im saying thats what is indicated traditionally ,,regardless of the guilding one might smear on it.

It relates two ,in a parasitic bond.

True, so ... what posesses you to think that any of us needs meaning? As far as Sophie is concerned, I'm expendable.

My cats alive.

Ummm IMO Korzybski is making a semantic argument about the word illusion , correcting it with the term abstraction, but the world itself isnt an abstraction either , he says so himself . IT is what it is. He figures that to be a process , fine , but the abstraction is still a mirror , not actually what the external world is. Illusion , implies that there's an untrue aspect to our impressions. Otherwise said ..In an illusory situation our impressions do not accurately represent what externally is. Since he is seeing a disk where there is a fan blade , his abstraction-mirror, is a faulty representation of what actually is , and so its an illusion , or inaccurate abstraction( rather than an accurate abstraction ,which would be a true mirror of the world itself)

Why 'bother' if it indeed has meaning?

Oh dont drift away, I havent seen your posts much, and theyre always food for curious thought.

I looked around and it doesnt seem like it ever Had a real title. I figure that it Could have been a text in a much larger canon. Laozi, im told is basically an honorific... come to think of it, Im not sure the Bible has a real title either.

Writing on Here can be very remote. Spoil yourself with a counsellors time, if its available to you. Life can be tough, and sometimes its nice just to ramble on to another human ,, whether they actually understand or not. Talking to folks we Do know ,is often tougher .

Much better

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm This section was a discussion about the unmoved mover , the author is presenting an argument in the form of a 'question' that there is an underlying unity , which Aquinas concluded was god in his Five Ways thing.

I doubt reincarnation works that way. Mine, Sophie, may have been a mouse or lion once, but now she whatever it is she is. (I imagine being barnacles would be a peaceful step up for us.) Anyway,, I like her manner and company, I think thats mutual, but dont see why anyone really needs to have some kind of exclusive loyalty from a cat , I dont require that of her, shes a cat! just my regular ol cat, But that doesnt mean that I as a human ,feel cat like about her. That would be screwy. The beauty of the stars is in our minds, not in hot gasses.I love my widdle kitty whether shes as mushy as I am or not.

The vinegar tasters may all be concluded incorrect or correct, but if we ignore the verdicts of correctness as being moot, one presumably enjoys the vinegar that the others do not. And to this individual, bitter vinegar sounds pretty nasty.

What we dont own we cant give, and whats outside our purview isnt ours to control anyway. That taken into consideration, you can only attempt to bring about how you want things to be, aware thatwhat you attempt may not go as you would have it. Aware of that, it would be stupid to get bent out of shape about results due to your own actions.

In the way that a performance, a life, a progression could reasonably be considered a noun or verb ... thing.. one might stress an aspect of that idea more than another without error. So I for one agree , that the author was not feeling he or she, would let themselves be constrained in what they were conveying by conventional grammatical habit, since the Subject spoken of didnt fit either. But I wont ever forgive you,'...'..............' since I cant, since you are faultless, and Im not even the host.

I didnt, but can now see it that way.

The man of little knowlege, is also the man who is not likely to interfere, and therefore cunning. The trap is tripped, when one one makes a differentiation based on imagined dualistic style virtue. big de ja vous!

I understand that, I just didnt want it so abridged.No biggie.

Thanks for trivializing my post. My error is the same as always.I posted it. In doing so, I made it manifest, gave the idea form . Leaving it unsaid, theres no possibility of agreement ,or objection. So if I was paying attention to ch 1 , and following the lead of it, I would be in harmony. Desiring communication, desiring the accumulation of the 10000 factoids, one moves on. This I do get, since its just the human condition to have the desires and motivations,

Hi, before yall rush along to the next chapter , Id just like to insert 2¢ I think its important to remember ,or just consider ANd keep in mind ,, the ol phrase ,about heaven and earth " so going" similarly. This means that one can consider the behaviors of the realms as operating according to the same theme! the One can be either , a symbol for the big universe, a model for a society , a descriptor of a mind. It may also be all of them. and It might not be any of those Simultaneously! It really just depends on how youre looking at the relationships. So, often ,I think, very often, ,,...,,, pardon my grammar,, the sentiments these dudes presented for us are really! difficult to word... ..the exact translations are EXPRessly Un important, other than to strike a chord of a particular persons understanding. From a state of non differentiation we progress to a process which does exactly that, differentiate according to imagined merits as they relate to our own perspective. Undifferentiated ,without distinctions or parameters, there is no good or bad, up down cold hot etc. I see folks immediately jump away from that very significant origin of undifferentiation, and disagree respectfully understanding why its done, yet disagreeing anyway. Ones opinions are not the undifferentiated holistic unity of The the tao, the soul,or merit of mankind. One is already departed from the objectivity of the one, and not in perfect harmony with the " Greater Tao" when uttering the first word, having the first judgement ,feeling the first motivation. Again , sorry for my horrible wording .