Stosh

So what are you thinking would define promotion of a moral or bias? As it stands Im thinking I havent flubbed the implied challenge since at least friday, and moreover think its relatively uncommon for me... outside this venue. Im really quite a quiet and retiring personality. Childlike and innocent.

These Pretzels are makin me thirsty !

There are answers, and responses which dont really answer. Questions whose purpose is really to prompt, not enquire. ..One can indeed march on, content to hear oneself speak, or to evade the pitfalls of involvement in anothers tale, one may keep quiet. Thats it, Im promoting no moral or bias today.

Oh, and while youre at it, look around and check out how successful the self hatred thing has been so far. ....NOT! Personally,however, I dont think humanity is emotionally ready for the collective power we could weild. Abilities are only well put to use when spiritually ones head is screwed on correctly. We are going over that cliff folks , because we choose not to row together, having evolved to think the way we do,and strive against each other more than aanything else! That challenge inflated our brains to the point where ability or vision isnt the weak link. Its encouraging to see in some of these posts, some similar sentiments, and its nice not to be sure about the doom and gloom prophecies.Its one of those times when I hope to be proven wrong...

The oxygen we breathe is waste product from bacteria. This highly destructive gas, killed everything that couldnt adapt to it, modified the atmosphere to such a degree, it altered the chemical make up of even the stones themselves,,for so long, that new life had to develop which could use it. This idea that humanity stands alone as being destructive and bad, is basically a form of self loathing. The climate change happening could be attributed to natural or human processes.. which doesnt matter one bit,, the self loathing thing ,becomes an escape from taking action preventing drastic change to the planet we enjoy as it currently is. Which is the important thing. We like it as it IS Or HAS BEEN, and should take steps to keep it that way. Nature doesnt give a shit about either us OR polar bears. Thats OUR potential contribution to the stewardship of the planet. The days are gone when we could just let nature entirely run its own show.Collectively we need to take an active interest or we and the life on this planet is in for a horrendous collapse. ... but no, you just go rightt ahead and whine about how BAD us humans are, and how kind nature is.

Case in point.

Dont those contradict anarchistic policy? If you expect the Kiwi to be left standing at the door hat in hand.. Ex , a person just asked me a question from organic chem, I didnt know the answer to off the top of my head either ,I expressed that , and tried some google fu with her there ,to get the answer , , found it ,, told the person what it meant because she wasnt clear on it. Well she ends up with her arms crossed , uncomfortable for not having known this, and Im here not getting the point , since I said I hadnt known either , and we got the answer she needed. It did me no good to be of 'help' , she wasnt happy being helped. So im thinking the smarter play would have been to just leave her to figure it out for herself.. with me not interfering .

Do you think its an error to either- entreat , or be accommodating?

"Oh the long and winding road that leads to your door Will never disappear, I've seen that road before It always leads me here, leads me to your door"

The image ,to me, suggests that the author thinks monotheism is universal for humans. An incarnation of Moby Dick or some other deity ,to tiny forest dwellers...with a side order of five elements. As far as the claim about taoism beginning ,buddhism ending, suggests to me the speaker thinks the two have a relationship that puts the two things apart. The sentence could be figured that either one of them is a starting point, for the other. But Im thinking that, in practice they can possibly be juxtaposed harmoniously... Isee it that these faiths have a very broad , or variable span of ideas ,,which makes the such opinions speculative or really just based on what preconceptions one has of ,,those ,,, groups.

I dont think thats what they mean when they say, " get out and enjoy nature" though. Which Im planning to do this morning if I can figure Where to.

define book.

The other weekend I followed google maps to a park ,discussed on the web , linked with a google map link . I'd driven a long way, having 'arrived at my destination' , there was nothing there ,but the end of a cul-de-sac at the end of someones driveway. I wonder if people purposely dick with the maps to gain a cloak of invisibility.

Oh yeah I forgot the birds, which is funnier, in my haste . But Im thinking the effect of the vaporizing water , is counterbalancing gravity which is still there,.,, otherwise the water drop would just ..'get up and leave'.

No

How accurate do you want the answer?

Umm not everything is a mental construct , the chair in a dark room has potential to trip up , or uphold a person though the construct is not made since they cant see in the dark.. but youre close. Student says to master , there is a table ,, he replies "there is no table", the student persists, "Then there is wood". The master continues, "There is no wood". The student says , "well then , what is there?" The master concludes,, I dont know , but yes, there is something. So the student says, "Then what can I learn from you! ", the master says ,"Nothing, I can only show you what to forget."

I wasnt thinking of his paradigm , but I do see how it kind-of fits.

Need is also a mental construct Karl.

Events dont actually occur , since events are mental constructs which begin and end at arbitrarily decided points , consider a war ending , well is that when paper is signed , people agree fighting halts, reparations made ...

Do Do coconuts fall on unpopulated islands ? .. perhaps they fly towards the sky when ripe?

Oh well, we disagree here. ,since Im thinking the rules are the real thing not the objects or even our mathematical descriptions of the rules. I dont think I can prove it this morning though.

Thanks for that assumption, but as Ive aged I've begun to notice that I really dont know much of what I think. Its mostly a black box event,,if you get my drift.

Things dont act on one another, the rules of the universe dictate causality. Ex, moon in orbit of earth, follows gravitational constant rule , which pervades everywhere and is observed local to mass bodies.

So what are you saying?