Not familiar with his "rubber hose" but did read his "A History of Western Philosophy", some essays and portraits and thought he expressed himself easily- which is the hang-up for many in math and science- they can't communicate to the general public or even among themselves, at times. My youngest son took a course developed by Berkeley for 9th grade algebra which intended to balance that problem but the teacher was seductive and turned many of the young and parents off. Ah well... Others who wrote well were Durant and maybe Walter Kaufman. In some of my courses we read directly "from the horse's mouth" so to speak and Kierkegaard was always good for a nap but so was Henry James! :-) O the other hand, I probably acted out most math and scientific theories as a homemaker one way or another as I tackled most everything in an applied way. But homemakers these days are rather bottom of the barrel. X would yell out "Hey, Tolstoy!" when I was doing something incredible then switch to his roue when at parties. Men are so impossible.
On Dec 7, 5:54 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > His work on 'rubber hose' cryptanalysis is fascinating, and dare I say > perhaps even relevant today (for him in this very instance)! I was eying > that insurance.aes256 thing tempted to download it and use some work > computers to crunch, but the boss wouldn't pay me for such 'fun' time > and winters in MI are expensive heatwise. > > On 12/7/2010 9:38 AM, rigsy03 wrote: > > > > > Dear me- how did our government become so chatty and unsafe? Wasn't > > security solved in advance of the supposed threat of the millenium? > > How ridiculous to charge him due to a leaky condom or not using one. > > Could the women be charged with entrapment? Well, I think the > > comparison is apt considering Luther took on the Papacy. William > > Manchester had a terrific book- I forget the title- on Catholic > > scandals which included the botched attempt to nip Luther in the bud. > > Also recall that "kingdom for a horse" phrase...I gave a bad marriage > > another try over a station wagon which shocked my mother. Oh well, > > don't worry about my tombstone unless it is pizza! > > > On Dec 6, 10:14 am, gabbydott<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Na, that door won't open! Just like the demand to back up your > >> existence with your tombstone! To be a human being, Francis, the trick > >> is to keep breathing! Just like time only exists in its substantial > >> sense! Thanks for reminding us, RP. > > >> On 6 Dez., 15:34, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> For instance, is Julian Assange our Martin Luther? From the Diet of > >>> Worms to our can of worms? From 95 Theses to ? Think about it. :-) > >>> On Dec 6, 6:05 am, RP Singh<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Why think of time in any sense at all , but doesn't it seem reasonable to > >>>> believe that there have always been universes and life and death will > >>>> continue in infinity whereas it is accepted that this universe began and > >>>> will end. My point is that like God Creation with a chain of universes > >>>> will > >>>> continue in eternity. > >>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> RP I don't think that time exists in a substantial sense, except to > >>>>> explain sequences of events or provide reference states/events. From > >>>>> what we > >>>>> do know of it, if I am correct, time is relative, and I am beginning to > >>>>> think of it similarly to gravity. In my view the present can and the > >>>>> past > >>>>> has been affected by the future. Through this I accept causality but > >>>>> deny > >>>>> determinism. > >>>>> Now why cloak explanation in very human terms like happiness and > >>>>> loneliness? What is pleasurable and painful to this trans-being? This > >>>>> implies to me a changeful One, not eternal and omnipotent in the linear > >>>>> senses usually attributed. But something alive, with living parts which > >>>>> have > >>>>> an impact on the whole. Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, care > >>>>> to > >>>>> clarify more? > >>>>> On 12/5/2010 11:14 PM, RP Singh wrote: > >>>>> Ash my meaning is that God finds his happiness in his creation and > >>>>> therefore , though universes have a beginning and an end , Creation has > >>>>> no > >>>>> beginning and no end as there would always be universes before and > >>>>> after the > >>>>> present universes. In other words there would be no beginning or end of > >>>>> time. > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Ash<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> This leads us to the question of the existence of our universe at > >>>>>> all, if > >>>>>> a being existed: omnipresent, omniscient, eternal; what point would > >>>>>> there be > >>>>>> to creating our universe? > >>>>>> On 12/5/2010 12:12 PM, RP Singh wrote: > >>>>>> Francis , if creation were to have a beginning and an end the eternity > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> God would have no meaning as it is in creation that God's presence is > >>>>>> felt. > >>>>>> God would have become a very lonely fellow. > >>>>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:08 PM, > >>>>>> frantheman<[email protected] > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> RP, I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again: > >>>>>>> Who sez? > >>>>>>> Any of us can make pronouncements ... about anything. The trick is to > >>>>>>> back them up. > >>>>>>> Francis > >>>>>>> On 5 Dez., 16:09, RP<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> There is no beginning or end of God. He is eternal. There is no > >>>>>>>> beginning or end of creation. Before this universe there were other > >>>>>>>> universes and after this universe there will be other universes. In > >>>>>>>> fact there is no point in time when there was a first universe or > >>>>>>>> there will be a last universe. God and Creation are both eternal , it > >>>>>>>> is us beings that are finite.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
