S.S. hello , do u know of any reliable web sights where i can explore the fundamental roots of zen , hindo , shaman , tora , ect. ?
or nom 9 , or the other guy whos name i forget or who ever Serenity Smiles wrote: > G.A.V.E. God, Allah, Vishnu, Emptiness gave to grave. Free from constraints > and empiric advances, humble with no projection of ego, we are "gave" until > the "r" of grave. Salutations of meritous joy to all you givers. Your > patience and acceptance is always our best adornments. > > -----Original Message----- > From: the taoist shaman > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:35 AM > To: Epistemology > Subject: Re: [epistemology 11983] Re: our current system or $ > > lonni it is impossible to read your mind to a tee but the- main theam- > ( great song by P floyd ) seems obvious , i think ... > > > Lonnie Clay wrote: > > ACK ACK, YAKKITTY YAK, YAKKITTY YAK! Don't Come, BACK! > > >TS. dont be a smart ass - dont attack - more likely a referance to coming > >back to god > > > If You don't Come, then You'll BE Sorry! > > >TS. if u dont come back to god u will be sorry > > > > Come ONE, Come ALL, The Big Tent is OPENED, The BIG EVENT is about to > > BEGIN! > > >TS. the tent is love / god and is open to the public > > > Love IS, Never Having, To Say, You're Sorry! > > >TS. in the returning to god there is reberth / pureity , no more shame > > > > Sometimes if You're Sorry enough, then you cry Tears of JOY, as YOU > > realize > > that IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE AN EVEN MORE SORRY ASS, than you already ARE! > > TS. in re berth your old self is that more sorry ass than u , > a pleasureable thought > > > > Tears of JOY are cried at BIG EVENTs when the lion tamer's head comes out > > of > > the lion's mouth unscathed, as the lion roars! > > TS. the lion is god and u and i are the lion taimer un harmed by > what once nearly destroyed , god roars in joy training the taimer > > > > Did anyone comprehend that skeleton of a three dimensional logic chain? Is > > there anyone out there with the GUTS to add flesh to the bare bones which > > I > > just gave? Did anybody even read this post? Who knows, Who cares? Ten > > minutes to construct it as a pre-breakfast exercise was a GOOD WORKOUT... > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > >DONT FORGET HUMILATY LONNIE > > ( ) > (@\ /@) > " " > vVVVVv > vVVVVv > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2011 1:16:40 AM UTC-7, Serenity Smiles wrote: > > > > > > Dear Lonnie, Blessings and thanks for the kind words and thoughts, but > > > it hardly has anything to do with the topic we are discussing, our > > > current > > > system or $. The point being that everything evolves or has evolved > > > with > > > the exception to being how we award merit and credit. Personally, I > > > stated > > > that my belief that money may have been good when Alexander the Great > > > invented it but it does not work now, is for myself endorsed throughout > > > time and history and was curious to ask just how a contemporary planet > > > could > > > ever evolve both the nature of politics as well as merits and credits to > > > balance itself towards a fairer greener existence with less ignorance > > > and > > > issues if it ever desired the change. > > > > > > Love and prayers, > > > > > > *From:* Lonnie Clay > > > *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:47 AM > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [epistemology 11975] Re: our current system or $ > > > > > > Serenity Smiles : Be Calm! Be Serene! Contemplate the BEAUTY of Mother > > > Nature! When you have become bored with contemplations such as that, > > > then > > > rejoin life's game with reinvigorated spirits. For life is but a stage > > > upon > > > which we play, as we are evolving toward perfection, in a race against > > > time > > > (for some) but in a spirit of companionship for all but a pathetic few > > > who > > > feel that domination of others is the route to success. THE whip will > > > crack > > > on a dominator as sure as THE weather! > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:18:08 AM UTC-7, Serenity Smiles wrote: > > >> > > >> With Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen highlighting the media, I think I > > >> have > > >> > > >> the right to question the validity of sanity. What is insane?? lmao. > > >> Surely the insane are those who vote and watch and endorse such crap in > > >> the > > >> first place. anyone "Politically right" would be disturbed at such > > >> mindless > > >> behaviour of Donald Trump and the buying into audience of the US of A > > >> who > > >> love insanity. I thought paying and laughing at imbeciles was supposed > > >> to > > >> > > >> be a thing of the past?? Ignorance still prevails and if it is insane > > >> to > > >> think that this world is run by morons where a birth certificate is of > > >> more > > >> significance than the contents of the mind really proves my point. > > >> Insanity > > >> is sanity, sanity is insanity. if life is like an air flight where the > > >> take > > >> off and landing is all that is of significance then there is only the > > >> road > > >> > > >> to nowhere. Everything we know is conceptualised, labelled cognitive > > >> creation, of no more import than the paper that was created to mark it > > >> on. > > >> > > >> If you are going to buy into someone else's creation does that not show > > >> your > > >> own lack of cognitive ability?? So to not to buy in, is the sanest > > >> option > > >> > > >> and to live for free scratching ones ass and giving the finger to > > >> foolish > > >> ego achieves what. No stress, no contest, no winning, no losing, no > > >> judgement. According to Buddha the ripest conditions for reaping > > >> accumulative merit. Exactly what is "right employment" for a > > >> contemporary > > >> > > >> Buddhist?? I cannot for the life of me buy into a planet such as this > > >> endorsing ignorance, fear, hatred, attachment and prejudism. > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: the taoist shaman > > >> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:47 AM > > >> To: Epistemology > > >> Subject: [epistemology 11966] Re: our current system or $ > > >> > > >> what do u think of religion / god > > >> > > >> nominal9 wrote: > > >> > Hi TS.... > > >> > Don't get too involved in the links, if they bore or just confound > > >> > you... it's something that anyone has to build up to, and you have to > > >> > have an interest in the subjects...Anyway, as to Mind's Eye.... a > > >> > fellow-friend of mine was from this Group... Chaz... was banned from > > >> > Mind's Eye and although they didn't ban me... I left their group , > > >> > then and there... I have this "thing" about censorship.... despise > > >> > it... > > >> > Anyway. nice making your acquaintance, anytime that you want to > > >> > discuss any topic, I'd be glad to talk with you... I like politics a > > >> > lot myself, and we appear to have the same "leanings"..... let's say > > >> > NOT RIGHT WING..... > > >> > nominal9 > > >> > > > >> > On Apr 27, 1:42 am, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > damn rigs was off hey lee > > >> > > > > >> > > the taoist shaman wrote: > > >> > > > u seem like ur Not a dumb F , ill take the time to read the links > > >> > > > u > > >> > > > previously sent , the people of minds eye r children who love to > > >> > > > hate , i tend to lean to the 2nd intention but realize it hase > > >> > > > limitations , if not u end up w/ people like the kkk . my 2nt > > >> > > > intention is more focused on nature in relation to society and > > >> > > > personal relation as well as philosophy and religion , --- does > > >> the > > >> > > > name riggs ring a bell for you ? > > >> > > > > >> > > > ~ > > >> > > > > >> > > > nominal9 wrote: > > >> > > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance / TS > > >> > > > > >> > > > > I agree... Empiricism is at the root of, at least, Realism and > > >> > > > > Nominalism.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Idealism and Phenomeology tend more toward "logic"... although > > >> there > > >> > > > > really isn't much sense to most of their so-called "logic"... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > W. of Ockham is probably best appreciated by me for FIRST > > >> > > > > making > > >> > > > > "the" > > >> > > > > distinction between the way the self-conscious mind > > >> > > > > understands > > >> > > > > "reality" either through FIRST INTENTION or subsequently > > >> > > > > through > > >> > > > > SECOND INTENTION > > >> > > > >http://dictionary.die.net/first%20intention > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 5. (Logic) Any mental apprehension of an object. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > First intention (Logic), a conception of a thing formed by > > >> > > > > the first or direct application of the mind to the > > >> > > > > individual object; an idea or image; as, man, stone. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Second intention (Logic), a conception generalized from > > >> > > > > first intuition or apprehension already formed by the > > >> > > > > mind; an abstract notion; especially, a classified > > >> > > > > notion, > > >> > > > > as species, genus, whiteness. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Anyway... FIRST INTENTION operates on what Ockham calls > > >> "intuition" > > >> > > > > but nowadays is better understood as "Empirical Examination"... > > >> > > > > or > > >> > > > > maybe direct "Factual Experimentation" on something... like > > >> > > > > dissecting > > >> > > > > a frog... or putting some bit of matter stuff through a mass > > >> > > > > specrtometer.... etc. that is to say... the conscious mind > > >> considers > > >> > > > > a > > >> > > > > single and specific factual "thing"....or maybe even a mental > > >> thing, > > >> > > > > off sorts, like the feeling of an emotion....but mental > > >> > > > > considerations > > >> > > > > are mostly of the other sort... below > > >> > > > > >> > > > > SECOND INTENTION, according to Ockham, is when the conscious > > >> > > > > mind > > >> > > > > thinks about all sorts of things in its memory and starts > > >> > > > > making > > >> > > > > possible connections of all sorts between them... the more > > >> > > > > common > > >> > > > > ones > > >> > > > > are like one man as distinguished from the generalized notion > > >> > > > > of > > >> all > > >> > > > > men....Jim for example is different from Tom.... but they are > > >> alike > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > at least some ways... they are both (or all) "men....the > > >> distinction > > >> > > > > between the individual... the species and the genus... etc. but > > >> also > > >> > > > > consider other sorts of "abstract" thinking... like numbers and > > >> > > > > doing > > >> > > > > math... etc.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Anyway.... Ockham though this up... this separation between > > >> > > > > direct > > >> > > > > empirical experience and abstracted "'thought" > > >> > > > > constructions.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Pretty fundamental stuff.... and really revolutionary, I > > >> think..... > > >> > > > > but try to tell it to the strict Realists, Idealists or > > >> > > > > especially > > >> > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > Phenomenologists.... they either don't get it.... or don't > > >> > > > > WANT > > >> to > > >> > > > > get it.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ignorance... sure is possible even for Nominalists.... > > >> > > > > sometimes > > >> the > > >> > > > > specific conscious mind either doesn't have the "brains" to > > >> > > > > come > > >> up > > >> > > > > with the right idea... or sometimes the "thing" just can't be > > >> > > > > experimented on in the right way to understand it.... Pretty > > >> > > > > much > > >> a > > >> > > > > state of constant agnostiicism (Don't- Know- Itedness)....But > > >> > > > > with > > >> > > > > time and more brains and progress working at it.... more > > >> > > > > "stuff" > > >> if > > >> > > > > learned about more and more things.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > PS... most of the "techie" guys around here don't know crap > > >> > > > > about > > >> > > > > this > > >> > > > > stuff, either....HAR > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Apr 20, 10:13 am, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable > > >> > > > > > , > > >> to > > >> > > > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > >> > > > > > > Hi TS... nice to make your acquaintance....I guess you just > > >> > > > > > > don't have > > >> > > > > > > the interest, now.... but if you ever do, I suggest that > > >> > > > > > > you > > >> try > > >> > > > > > > some > > >> > > > > > > of the "classical" so-called philosophers... instead of > > >> > > > > > > taoist > > >> > > >> > > > > > > shamans > > >> > > > > > > or metaphysical quasi-religious sorts , like buddhists or > > >> > > > > > > tanscendentalists and such as a way toward understanding > > >> > > > > > > things... > > >> > > > > > > folks like Plato ( beginning Idealism) or Aristotle > > >> > > > > > > (beginning > > >> > > > > > > Realism) or Kant (beginning Phenomenology) or W.of Ockham > > >> > > > > > > (beginning > > >> > > > > > > Nominalism) ... then you can go to the ones (other > > >> philosophers) > > >> > > > > > > who > > >> > > > > > > took the original threads and carried them on in different > > >> > > > > > > ways....Anyway, my own very general way of understanding it > > >> > > > > > > is > > >> > > >> > > > > > > that > > >> > > > > > > there's a basic division in Reality and a thinking being's > > >> > > > > > > understanding of it... a sort of interplay between the > > >> thinking > > >> > > > > > > brain > > >> > > > > > > and the outside world it tries to understand (alog with > > >> > > > > > > self- > > >> > > > > > > consciously understanding itself, of course)... the > > >> > > > > > > difference > > >> > > >> > > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > basically one between the Idea and the Thing... otherwise > > >> > > > > > > put > > >> as > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > Concept and the Reference...Mind and Matter > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Idealists think that both the Idea and the Thing are > > >> subjective, > > >> > > > > > > entirely dependent on what the self-conscious brain > > >> > > > > > > ultimately > > >> > > >> > > > > > > thinks" > > >> > > > > > > they (Concept and Reference) are... SUBJECTIVE > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Realists think that both the Idea and the Thing are > > >> > > > > > > objective, > > >> > > > > > > entirely dependent on what the Thing forces the > > >> > > > > > > self-conscious > > >> > > >> > > > > > > brain > > >> > > > > > > to understand about them (Concept and Reference)... > > >> > > > > > > OBJECTIVE > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Nominalists think that there's a split in the way the > > >> > > > > > > self-conscious > > >> > > > > > > brain and the outside reality operate....The > > >> > > > > > > self -conscious > > >> > > > > > > brain > > >> > > > > > > operates subjectively as to its own Ideas (or Concept) but > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Thing > > >> > > > > > > is completely separated or foreign from the self-conscious > > >> brain > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > the Thing (or Reference) is itself objectively controlled > > >> > > > > > > by > > >> > > > > > > its own > > >> > > > > > > ways and means of being and operation... SUBJECTIVE / > > >> OBJECTIVE > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Phenomenologists also think that there's a split in the > > >> > > > > > > way > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > self- > > >> > > > > > > conscious brain and the outside reality operate... but > > >> > > > > > > Phenomenologists posit that the self-conscious brain > > >> > > > > > > operates > > >> > > > > > > objectively and that the self conscious brain contains a > > >> perfect > > >> > > > > > > Idea > > >> > > > > > > (or Concept) of what the Template or "Essence" of all > > >> > > > > > > outside > > >> > > >> > > > > > > reality > > >> > > > > > > Things should be... the outside reality Things then become > > >> mere > > >> > > > > > > subjective or imperfect manifestations of those perfect > > >> > > > > > > Essences.....OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Now, my guess is that as a self-described taoist shaman.... > > >> you > > >> > > > > > > might > > >> > > > > > > tend toward the Phenomenological view of ideas and > > >> > > > > > > things.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Whereas myself, I am a Nominalist leaning Person when it > > >> > > > > > > come > > >> to > > >> > > > > > > my > > >> > > > > > > view of ideas and things... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Can You see that you and I would tend to think just the > > >> opposite > > >> > > > > > > at a > > >> > > > > > > very fundamental level? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > nominal9 > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > thats way too much reading , and very confusing , im not > > >> > > > > > > > familiar w/ > > >> > > > > > > > proper terms , am i a realist or a dreamer i think was > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > subject of > > >> > > > > > > > the reading , but i only skimmed it so , ? all dreamers > > >> > > > > > > > see > > >> > > > > > > > themselves > > >> > > > > > > > as realist or the dream would be dead. i am a defeated > > >> dreamer > > >> > > > > > > > , like > > >> > > > > > > > the living dead u know ! > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > Ever Hear of William of Ockham.... Nominalism... more > > >> > > > > > > > > as > > >> an > > >> > > > > > > > > "empirical > > >> > > > > > > > > way" to think rather that as the opinions that you or > > >> anyone > > >> > > > > > > > > should > > >> > > > > > > > > hold....? > > >> > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/ > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Nominalism > > >> > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/ > > >> > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Idealism... Realism.... Phenomenology...Nominalism > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Anyway... there's a lot of them... after a while... > > >> > > > > > > > > others > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > (and after > > >> > > > > > > > > them me too) started to see "patterns" or threads > > >> > > > > > > > > between > > >> > > > > > > > > them and > > >> > > > > > > > > thought that most "philosophies" fall under one of the > > >> above > > >> > > > > > > > > broad > > >> > > > > > > > > headings.... and that they differ > > >> > > > > > > > > logically one heading from the nextr.... anyway, I > > >> > > > > > > > > chose > > >> > > > > > > > > nominalism.... you may want to consider decidiing or > > >> trying > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > understand which one you yourself prefer....I was about > > >> your > > >> > > > > > > > > age when > > >> > > > > > > > > I tried to make my choice decision judgment.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Mind's Eye.... > > >> > > > > > > > > THAR be Censors THAR.... > > >> > > > > > > > > Censors Be folks who thinks they knows it All... when > > >> they > > >> > > > > > > > > really > > >> > > > > > > > > don't know shit... > > >> > > > > > > > > It's important to know shit, at least. HAR.... > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:54 pm, the taoist shaman > > >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > how long before all the welth is held by a small > > >> > > > > > > > > > group , > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > and what > > >> > > > > > > > > > happens to the rest of us ? is there a way to stop > > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > storm on the > > >> > > > > > > > > > horizon , or is there no storm at all ? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > >> Groups > > >> "Epistemology" group. > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> [email protected]. > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > >> > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
