My mom always said my eyes were bigger than my stomach.. Allan mind stomach are you sure that is not a diet group?
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > Stomach's Eye? > > On Aug 25, 2010 7:59 AM, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Aug, 21:50, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *laughing* Indeed, sir, although I have not plugged that project here, > given > >> that it's not really the right venue for it. > >> > > > > Perhaps Mind's Stomach?? > > > >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, ornamentalmind > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> ... > >> > >> read more »- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> - Show quoted text - > -- ( ) I_D Allan Be Paranoid. God is always building a better idiot!!!
