DamnYummy!
On Aug 24, 12:11 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > *laughing* > > +1 for you, maam. > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm > > > On Aug 24, 2:29 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The only thing transcendent about me is my cooking. :) > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Our interior back and forth can be much like that - oppositional - non > > > > dual - oppositional - non dual - EGO - transcendent... > > > > > The bigger picture eventually allows us the smile. We did establish > > > > the fact in this group long ago that the battle of the fallacies was > > > > more a distraction than any real exchange of ideas. And yet, like our > > > > interior dialog, we fall back to it now and again. If the workings of > > > > the group actually are merely a reflection of our individual interior > > > > workings, we can all smile with this exchange, and keep hope alive for > > > > mutual evolution. > > > > > On Aug 24, 8:18 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 20 Aug, 22:31, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#weaselhttp:. > > > > .. > > > > > > I can only think to respond with: > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem > > > > > > But, after a little more thought, I simply think you decided to not > > > > > think about what I wrote. Which is a bit: > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged > > > > > > Or, were you actually responding to me? You may have been responding > > > > > to DWB, in which case your response here is: > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#state > > > > > > All with a big ;-) of course. > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 6:28 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 18 Aug, 20:59, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gabby...I have and continue to listen. So far as admirable as > > his > > > > > > > > intentions are, they fail. > > > > > > > > As long as you realise that it wasn't me who stated that “all of > > our > > > > > > > reality must be defined mathematically”. I use mathematics to > > > > > > > describe those things that CAN be described by it, but I wouldn't > > > > know > > > > > > > where to begin if you asked me for the 'formula' for such > > concepts as > > > > > > > 'today'. Firstly, in order to stand a chance, you'd have to know > > the > > > > > > > full quantum state of the universe, which I've stated, time and > > time > > > > > > > again, no human will ever have. My intentions don't fail, BTW. > > They > > > > > > > may not 'convince' but how can my intentions 'fail'? One would > > have > > > > > > > to be fully conversant with everything I know in order to make > > that > > > > > > > judgement and there is no one other than myself who is so > > qualified. > > > > > > > So, I'm afraid that, logically, no one but ME can state, as fact, > > > > that > > > > > > > my intentions have 'failed'. Although, almost anyone can presume > > it. > > > > > > > But that, by definition, is presumptive, and prone to failure. > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 12:35 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Try to listen to what Pat is saying, orn. Cause that's what > > his > > > > maths > > > > > > > > > is all about. Bringing it from the plain inaccurate flatworld > > to > > > > > > > > > vertical and other dimensions. > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Aug., 19:18, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As useful as math is for humans, the notion that “all of > > our > > > > reality > > > > > > > > > > must be defined mathematically” is outdated and just plain > > > > inaccurate > > > > > > > > > > … at least based upon our current level of mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 8:50 am, DarkwaterBlight < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see what you're saying here Ash and can't help but > > think > > > > that all of > > > > > > > > > > > our reality must be defined mathematically. If I fart in > > a > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > place and call the guy next me a nasty bastard, he'll > > denie > > > > that he > > > > > > > > > > > passed gas. If I just shrug my shoulders and imply that > > I'm > > > > in fact > > > > > > > > > > > the nasty basard who done the deed the effect is the > > same... > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > > smells my stench and I'm still the nasty bastard. If you > > come > > > > to my > > > > > > > > > > > house for dinner and lick the plate I would't think any > > less > > > > of you > > > > > > > > > > > but please excuse yourself before passing gas or you will > > not > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > reinvited. No one wants to smell ass at the dinner table. > > The > > > > point is > > > > > > > > > > > that we each have our own formula for relationships and > > when > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > process the information correctly the result comes out > > within > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable tolerances. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2:48 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/9/2010 9:52 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that usage is not particularly scientific but > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > colloquial. Deane answer, below, is more the > > scientific > > > > view. Also, > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must remember that "good person" couldn't possibly > > > > apply to those > > > > > > > > > > > > > that are not "Homo Sapiens", yet evolution applies to > > ALL > > > > species. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, even if I train my dog to have perfect > > "Western" > > > > table manners, > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's still not a 'good person'--might be a great dog > > and > > > > a helluva > > > > > > > > > > > > > canine, but not a good person. And, of course, table > > > > manners are no > > > > > > > > > > > > > show of evolution despite the fact that there are > > people > > > > who display > > > > > > > > > > > > > them who feel that they are "a product of better > > > > breeding"; whereas, > > > > > > > > > > > > > in truth, it might just be better 'training' (i.e., > > table > > > > manners is > > > > > > > > > > > > > little more than 'stupid human tricks' and certainly > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate whether or not a person is 'good' or have > > any > > > > bearing on > > > > > > > > > > > > > their evolution). As an aside to this and to link > > them > > > > together in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > sideways kind of way, I suppose the habit that > > Englishmen > > > > have of > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'holding the knife with the right hand' whether or > > not > > > > the individual > > > > > > > > > > > > > is using it, MAY actually BE good evolution, as it > > > > affords them a > > > > > > > > > > > > > better chance at defending themselves if attacked > > whilst > > > > eating!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this thread has covered habit, habitat and now > > > > habituation :), > > > > > > > > > > > > and I agree often walking and talking like one may be a > > > > sign, but then > > > > > > > > > > > > what is this 'duck' anyways? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surprise a southpaw might keep the knife in the right > > for > > > > more practical > > > > > > > > > > > > reasons, one might want to reserve the greatest asset > > to > > > > flexible use, > > > > > > > > > > > > in a split second how many people will drop a knife for > > one > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of other effective weapons at a dinner table. > > Well > > > > the thought > > > > > > > > > > > > crossed my mind recently when I wondered why I was > > cutting > > > > awkwardly > > > > > > > > > > > > with my right. I switched for ease but was annoyed at > > the > > > > fact this gave > > > > > > > > > > > > away tactical information. After consideration I > > decided it > > > > is best to > > > > > > > > > > > > keep a hot cup of coffee at the table, glass plates, > > and > > > > preferably a > > > > > > > > > > > > table/chairs with wooden legs and not bolted to the > > floor. > > > > There's large > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers of people around, all pretending to be caught > > up in > > > > little > > > > > > > > > > > > table-worlds, conspicuous consumption at it's best. > > Worst > > > > of all, I > > > > > > > > > > > > can't lick my plate. :( I should stand up before > > leaving > > > > and do that > > > > > > > > > > > > sometime just to see what it feels like, would I feel > > the > > > > cruching > > > > > > > > > > > > anxiety of people judging me or would I feel free? I > > could > > > > think to > > > > > > > > > > > > myself I feel free of judgement, while the onlookers > > would > > > > say look what > > > > > > > > > > > > society is devolving into. My secret is while most > > people > > > > would think > > > > > > > > > > > > this doglike behavior, I have pride in it, I remember > > how > > > > little most > > > > > > > > > > > > know of dogs (people, or reality) or what it is like to > > > > starve like one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing directed at you personally Pat, just ranting > > > > somewhat in context.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
