Stosh

I think Id buy that one! Go ahead with the 'but Stosh ... ' Im curious

Heck , the Mammoth isnt long extinct maybe 10000 years , ecologically, its probably still feasible to have them in places.

And Its certainly not going to get up and walk on its OWN.

Like I already explained Judo, there is evidence they arent here. It is not that there is equally Zero evidence. I repeat there is evidence they arent here so this claim of ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE is bogus. Quit leaning on that weak phrase which doesnt apply. You are thinking inside someone elses box. Naughty Judo ! If I have a dozen eggs and one of them was eaten by Jane, I can see that there are only eleven eggs in the container. If there was a twelfth egg still in there , and one presumes light travels in straight lines ( and so forth) I would see it , as long as I can see visible eggs. For your logic to be true the egg would have to be invisible, Do you know of any chickens that have cloaking devices? Not Cloaca-ing devices.

Yes , I agree , The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. but we are not in a position of an absence of evidence. Regarding dinosaurs Since the existence of, is exclusive of ,the non existence of them,, proof that they arent here like , just looking around,, implies disproof of them being around. I didnt say they couldnt be anywhere, just that the evidence that they are nowhere we have looked , and weve done a statistically reasonable amount of looking on terra firma. One can find bones of them, and then there are none , one can age them , and then there are none even to do an age on. etc etc so they did leave bones and they are ageable and they would be expected to be visible , and so forth , so that which is not around may be a dinosaur. The two arguments arent equal in strength.

Im not taking any chances. Oh wait ! I am! OOps

If there is evidence to support conclusion A , and A is not B , and there is no evidence to support B , the evidence is proving B to be false. Should evidence for B be found then the issue isnt reconciled , but in the mean time , the more reasonable argument is to conclude A is true. For instance , I dont bother to wear my anti-dinosaur suit most days, because I believe they are extinct. ( excluding birds and tuatara if you want to include them as dinosaurs). I can prove there are no dinosaurs here in the room with me , and likewise everywhere we might look But you cant prove that they are anywhere lookable.

Im sorry , I dont know, not sure what you are asking. But .. Your fulfillment : that which you want out of life. Im with Sartre that one chooses a role for themselves,, you play that part , whatever part that is, and so you become the story that is enacted. You have this meaning , give yourself this direction, Tao doesnt. It doesnt have a personal bias.

Thanks I had to modify that one , I had your corrections in mind ( from back a ways)

If all roads go to the same place, how can one possibly go in the wrong direction? A person is always "one with the Tao" We can go up hills , we can do stuff that is self defeating, we can embarass ourselves by making presumptuous conclusions, or volunteering answers unbidden. But it is all allowed within the framework. The Tao just doesnt give a hoot and so ,you cant 'go against it' anymore than you can 'go against' a ham sandwich. What one can do, is fail to follow the natural flow of taos manifestations, intending to bring about ones own fulfillment, but not heading in the direction of it.

Well then we might actually be rather close philosophically , Im working now but Ill read the thing later.

Moment to moment there are things I figure Id prefer , and yes , I go for those. But whether they come to me or not isnt all that important, which includes any cultivation. Do you imply that your life is an endless chase of stuff you cant be satisfied with? If it is then you havent learned anything from the stuff you have read , in fact it would have become a new obstacle, a new attatchment . If he wants to say we are all individual and unique, he can say it. I read it, that he means to find a way to transcend this 'base evil' world, by recognizing some kind of weird unity. I as an individual have existance, I am also an American by birth, but the american thing is a confabulation, it is a false unity, though I fit the definition.

The true philosopher has left thought behind. 1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. 2. a person who is deeply versed in philosophy. 3. a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc. 4. a person who regulates his or her life by the light of philosophy or reason. 5. a person who is sensibly calm or rational, esp. under trying circumstances. The essence of a philosopher is the quest to understand the human condition, If one 'considers it all to be moot', doesnt consider it at all , or thinks they have it all figured out, then the label doesnt apply becasue they are not open to consider the issue. Definition 5 is not exclusive to those who are considered philosophers, so its a poor word choice.

"unsatisfactory earthly existence" Im satisfied with mine, Isnt that acceptance, Rather than grasping? We do not see that declaring our individual existence is as foolish as declaring that a coffee cup is for right-handers and not for left handers. No its not , yin and yang are polemic aspects of a whole, yet they do not equate otherwise all would be uniformity, since I disagree with you, all is not uniformity. ( besides, you can buy coffee cups that conform to one hand better than the other. Check out a circular saw while you are at it.)

I'm just wondering, maybe this is understood, so I am just tossing it out there, If a person starts a response, and decides to let that dog lie, if they hit the back button, the message will be aborted if it hasn't been submitted.

Darn , the hat suited him.

I respectfully disagree Sir. The human condition is inherently bipolar. There is both an imperative for individual fulfillment , and a social instinct. Law and order is the means by which these conflicting tendencies are both mitigated and fulfilled. Suggested reading ... LORD OF THE FLIES.

Mind is clearly linked to the brain and body. Drugs affect mind ,surgery affects mind ,diet affects mind. And so forth. The mechanism may be confusing, but for all intents and purposes..it just isn't wisely deniable.imo

They did put a limit on his religious expression. It couldn't cover his face. So it doesn't mean that leniency toward religion is going to destroy law and order, if it is judiciously applied. Besides that, the strainer adds to the amount of information available on the ID.

That i s probably the most beautiful post I have read yet. I'm not kidding.

Being from NewYork,, I'd say yes, we would ignore the hamsters , or notice them and move on. F### the hamsters ! I need to get to work.

As the the hulk said, "you wouldn't like when I am angry."

You may or may not be devastated by his pa§ing , every one reacts to these things in their own way regardless of how you felt about him. It does suck. Being black , doesn't mean you will or will not have the same destiny, stroke is common for anyone.Though I. Didnt know my own grandparents my sympathy goes out to both of you. It sucks big time.

I like that candor a lot . Though we are in opposition on the magic thing, I'd offer you this consideration, the pres , the rich, The educated etc all are conduits of forces beyond their own limbs. So you might as well put your healer in the running. Even such a person such as Putin is greatly constrained, realistically , he can't just drop his persona, dial up domino's, and play a friendly game of twister. Yes he can influence other folks lives, but to a large degree he is locked in to his own. Zerostao for instance , has a great deal of freedom in his own life, not in spite of not being tha Dalai Llama , but because of it. You - can indulge in frank communication on here and be appreciated for it.The president cannot.

I didnt see anyone contest the idea that the distressed might get some relief , or might be encouraged to adopt better habits, or even that there are no psychosomatic benefits , to what some of these folks may offer, In this part of the thread It is the throwing around of magic energies that some of us are skeptical about. And thats the issue you have danced around there Jetsun. Thats OK , its up to you , but if you're really in agreement with the skeptics , I see no reason why you shouldnt be able to say that. Or if you arent , you should be able to say that,, I am suspecting, that often its the fancy footwoork, rather than the substance, which is putting folks at odds, more often than not, regarding these things. ( yes I do it too)