On Jun 6, 12:41 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sweet can't wait to read it mate. >
The Chinese aren't going to like it though. I've named them as Magog (the big question is: Who is Gog?). I strongly suspect that it will be banned in China because of that; however, in my specific advice to China, I state much more (and I do praise them in certain areas, too) and I know that the leadership will read it and THEY are the intended audience (of the advice!), so their ban won't affect that aspect in any way. I warn them that, if they continue to buy the U.S. treasury (by buying the Treasury Notes and Bills as they are doing), that they are buying a huge responsibility and have reminded them that, when America fights, it has plenty of history to demonstrate it can fight dirty: Guerilla warfare against the British rank and file, handing out blankets infected with smallpox to Native Americans and being the only company to ever use nuclear weapons, when they KNEW no one could retaliate in kind are the examples I laid out. America may not be happy with that either, but it's all history. I want China to know that owning America's pocket might not be as advantageous as they may think. And, of course, I remind them that, whilst their van is strong, there rear is weak and then outline the way to defeat China in battle. Of course it's nasty (biological!) but I want China to realise that they are not invulnerable and that they should not act on the premiss that they are invincible. if they are going to own America, then they need to act wisely and with due consideration or face an unruly bunch who are armed to the teeth, which is not something I want to see in the future (that kind of conflagration, that is). > On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 1:08 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > It is finished then Pat? > > > Not quite. I have to finish the 'Conclusion' section and finish off > > an appendix that offers advice to specific countries and I'd like to > > add a glossary. Once those are done, I'll start re-reading it from > > the top and add or modify as I go. When that's finished, repeat that > > step and THEN it should be done. 2-3 months max!!! First person I > > ran into who did publishing of any kind already has a draft copy for > > reading and is practically begging me to let him publish it. So...all > > is going very well indeed. Cheers!! > > > > On May 31, 1:53 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On May 18, 11:09 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It get harder than even the following standard philosphy Lee: > > > > > Since a Cartesian substance is a thing that is ontologically > > > > > independent (Principles I:51–52), a complete thing is an ontologically > > > > > independent thing. When we clearly and distinctly perceive mind and > > > > > body to be complete, we know that they are substances. When we still > > > > > clearly and distinctly perceive them to be substances after clearly > > > > > and distinctly perceiving them apart from each other, we know that > > > > > they are not the same substance under different descriptions. On this > > > > > view, Descartes holds that mind and body are ontologically independent > > > > > substances, and their distinctness consists in their ability to > > > > > continue to exist even after God separates them.[36] > > > > > As you might remember, in my theory, thre is only energy. Yet that > > > > energy works on three different levels: the physical, consciousness > > > > and the purely abstract. This represents three ways of energy > > > > expressing itself as a different Cartesian 'substance', even though, > > > > in fact, it is all the same substance. A simple half-twist and a turn > > > > around a dimensional corner and the underlying string can work in > > > > three ways at once. Descartes and I agree on most things and this is > > > > another, although I have the advantage of all the science after Rene!! > > > > > > An alternative interpretation of Descartes on the real distinction > > > > > between mind and body reads the distinction as consisting in the > > > > > ontological independence of mind and body, but not in their > > > > > separability.[37] Descartes holds that a sufficient condition for > > > > > establishing a real distinction between two things is clearly and > > > > > distinctly perceiving them to be non-identical substances (“Synopsis > > > > > of these following six Meditations,” AT 7:13, CSM 2:9; Fourth Replies, > > > > > AT 7:221–223, CSM 2:156–58). If so, he holds that the substantiality > > > > > of two non-identical substances does not consist in their being > > > > > separable but is just an indication of their separability.[38] On this > > > > > view, mind and body are separable for Descartes; it's just that their > > > > > separability is a consequence of the (different) fact that they are > > > > > really distinct.[39] > > > > > > A third reading of the Cartesian real distinction stresses the > > > > > difficulty in making room for unactualized possibilities in Descartes' > > > > > system. The reading also highlights that Descartes holds that our > > > > > clear and distinct perceptions are veridical but says (in his proof of > > > > > real distinction) that God can bring about whatever we clearly and > > > > > distinctly perceive. Descartes is clear in other texts that the reason > > > > > why he mentions God's power in the proof of real distinction is to > > > > > remind us that no matter how unlikely we think it is that our > > > > > intimately united minds and bodies could also be really distinct, God > > > > > has enough power to have made all of our clear and distinct > > > > > perceptions veridical. > > > > > Yup and I can put the physics behind his assertion. And, will do so > > > > (have done so!!) in my book. I do give Descartes a lot of credit in > > > > my book with respect to picking up where he left off. > > > > > > I'd rather swim in your sea mate! Science gets like this in its > > > > > conceptions. It's seriously entertained that distance is a complex > > > > > illusion. > > > > > > On May 18, 11:05 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Duality and non duality. It's a hard one to get the head around. > > > > > > > I belive that Ik on kar, that duality is indeed an illusion, but > > > > > > it's > > > > > > a bit one way and a bit the other. > > > > > > > If God has granted us free will, that is the freedom to choose God > > > > > > or > > > > > > not, then that points towards non duality, but does it really? > > > > > > > I see it like water. The sea is the whole, the ik on kar, but it is > > > > > > made up of individual drops. We are both the individual drops and > > > > > > the > > > > > > whole. > > > > > > > On May 18, 10:14 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have no religion. But I studied and grew up as a Hindu. > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM, the taoist shaman > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > RP ---what is the name of your religion > > > > > > > > > RP Singh wrote: > > > > > > > >> In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the > > > > > > > >> observed > > > > > > > >> , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In > > > > > > > >> Non-Duality > > > > > > > >> there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , > > > > > > > >> remains > > > > > > > >> what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and > > > > > > > >> death. God > > > > > > > >> ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its > > > > > > > >> expression.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
