Pat, on a purely monetary level, gold retains its value. See this entry on “Laws of Nature”: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/
On a deeper level Pat, it is my understanding that the attraction to gold is its analogy with things spiritual. It is rare, incorruptible (doesn’t rust), pure, represents "the One" etc. It also is found in numerous theological and metaphysical stories throughout history. See: Paracelsus and other alchemists including the Egyptians. Plato on gold: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/23-73-4/me-gfk3.htm The “Golden Mean”, “Golden Rule”, “Golden Fleece” etc. are well known to humanity as using the notion of gold as an analogy for balance, purity, perfection, the divine, the eternal etc. Some within Christianity address it (gold) along with the Trinity: http://www.iep.utm.edu/trinity/ >From a Theosophical site – includes numerous historical references to gold including its association with the sun and solar light etc. Associated with truth: Truth is the trial of itself And needs no other touch, And purer than the purest gold, Refine it ne'er so much. Associated with highest ‘spiritual longings’: Rise up, Cassandra, Do not lie and weep. Raise up thy golden heart, Let it grow within and leap . . . Along the arteries of heaven Into that luminous place, Where all men are brothers, Members of the Solar Race. http://theosophytrust.org/tlodocs/articlesSymbol.php?d=Gold-0582.html&p=150 In fact, it is a real recognition for those who can perceive it…see: “Golden Flower” (Chinese Taoists) http://www.rexresearch.com/goldflwr/goldflwr.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_the_Golden_Flower As an aside, it is also used in some medicinal traditions for cures. So Pat, our ‘golden boy’, what say you now about gold? (not "fool's gold") ;-) On Jun 7, 5:45 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > While the Chinese government may still retain some power, overall the > > issue as it is around the globe is corporations. The SOEs (State Owned > > Enterprises) in China are on the decline and relatively few remain. > > These SOEs are being replaced by ‘Listed’ (stock mark) > > ones.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation#People.27s_... > > > A few Chinese corporations are even setting up shop in the USA because > > about all expenses (except wages) are much less here these > > days.http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/news/international/china_america_full... > > > Of course, on the other hand, US (in name at least) corporations have > > been operating in China for decades and the list is quite > > substantial.http://www.jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm > > > What I see is that multinationals are the real global power with few > > exceptions. > > > As a side issue, this isn’t great news for our planet and its > > environmental concerns. > > > As to ‘owning the USA’, the majority of Chinese economists would > > rather own > > gold.http://www.chinastakes.com/2009/3/survey-over-two-thirds-of-chinese-e... > > Which itself is amazing. Why do humans rate gold so much? Shiny, > malleable, metal. Is it purely the colour? Silicon is pretty in its > raw form and has, in CPUs, given us far more than gold has. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 - > > ... > > read more »
