Wow...now that's ambitious.
On Jun 11, 4:03 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice find Archy, nice diversity of subjects at your link. > > Here is another interesting > onehttp://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project-introduction/aims-pro... > Also haven't checked too deep, just a random find but they don't seem to > say much.. > > On 6/10/2011 3:49 PM, paradox wrote: > > > > > Looks interesting; thanks! > > > On Jun 9, 10:43 pm, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I did find this site -http://www.humansfuture.org/-but haven't > >> explored it much yet. > > >> On Jun 9, 5:51 pm, paradox<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Perhaps pairing up is not the miracle, rigsy03; biology doing its > >>> thing. Perhaps staying paired is the real miracle. > >>> On Jun 8, 3:30 pm, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> No- I am a beautiful elder female. :-) However, you may be used to a > >>>> different mindset regarding interests and ideas from your experiences > >>>> with females so I understand your confusion about my gender though I > >>>> do think it is a miracle that males and females have managed to pair > >>>> up at all sometimes. We really are quite different. I am also > >>>> different from many females I have known in my lifetime and I suppose > >>>> that is traced to my family and a different kind of childhood from my > >>>> peers among other influences. For the most part, I grouped with middle > >>>> class and beyond liberal-progressive-Democrats but found them > >>>> insincere and I can't abide insincerity.:-) > >>>> In regards to manipulation by culture/ads and the advantage of > >>>> education and it continuation in adult life, I would say it allows us > >>>> to see through the obvious exaggeration, lack of logic and attempt to > >>>> create an artificial want/need/desire. In fact, the exercise is pretty > >>>> humorous but I do admit to having a few shopaholic moments in my own > >>>> life so I have also been gullible. > >>>> On Jun 7, 10:15 pm, Chuck Bowling<[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hummm... For some reason I had the impression you were male. > >>>>> At any rate, I don't think education or economic status has much to do > >>>>> with > >>>>> our susceptibility. We can all be manipulated into believing things that > >>>>> aren't necessarily true. Take the social prerogative to stay one up on > >>>>> the > >>>>> next door neighbors. Millions are spent on commercial campaigns that > >>>>> try and > >>>>> convince us that we should have a bigger TV, newer car, or better > >>>>> furniture. > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Yes- history is a violent version of Musical Chairs. > >>>>>> General populations with poor educations/economies believe anything in > >>>>>> order to thrive/survive. > >>>>>> I am female so we obviously have different sins on our souls. > >>>>>> On Jun 6, 10:06 am, Chuck Bowling<[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Germany and Spain as well as every other country and culture has it's > >>>>>>> own > >>>>>>> version of normal. Our view of the norms in Nazi Germany are that it's > >>>>>>> repugnant. But, Nazi propaganda convinced a significant minority that > >>>>>> Jews > >>>>>>> were abnormal. The general population accepted the propaganda as the > >>>>>>> norm > >>>>>>> irregardless of their individual beliefs and it became the norm. > >>>>>>> We are all liars and we are all thieves. Can you honestly say that > >>>>>>> you've > >>>>>>> never stolen an extra bite of mac& cheese off someone's plate or told > >>>>>> your > >>>>>>> wife that you didn't mind her stockings hanging in the shower? > >>>>>>> - It's the norm. > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:56 AM, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Fitting into what??? Nazi Germany? The Spanish Inqusition??? What if > >>>>>>>> "normal" is psychotic? Or shallow? (What happened to your > >>>>>>>> Objectivism?) Our "own experience" is not unique- it is a way of > >>>>>>>> identifying with moral stuggles in a universal sense. Societies may > >>>>>>>> become dazzled with their innovations but human character really > >>>>>>>> hasn't changed much over the centuries- a liar is still a liar- a > >>>>>>>> thief is still a thief, etc. > >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:46 pm, Chuck Bowling<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I believe that social norms are simply a metric for fitting into a > >>>>>>>> society. > >>>>>>>>> The closer one is to achieving the 'norm' within that particular > >>>>>> society > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> more integrated and accepted he is in that society. Being 'normal' > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> subjective quality that only applies in the society where it is > >>>>>> defined. > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:59 AM, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, the greatest teacher is still our own experiences unless > >>>>>>>>>> life is vicarious. Education can expand our options. It takes some > >>>>>>>>>> time to shake off family or tribal/clan behaviors. Ethics responds > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> real time/historical eras- what is a good life?- how ought we > >>>>>> behave?- > >>>>>>>>>> so that branch of philosophy remains active. I don't think that > >>>>>> what a > >>>>>>>>>> society accepts as norms should be so readily accepted as a guide > >>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>> should be examined and tested. > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 11:05 am, Chuck Bowling<[email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> If by education you mean learning from the experiences of others > >>>>>> then > >>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>> definition that would be a social behavior. > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:56 AM, rigsy03<[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree- our behavior options have changed- radically. We > >>>>>> change > >>>>>>>>>>>> more from education than our enviornment as long as learning is > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> life- > >>>>>>>>>>>> long affair. > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 10:09 pm, Chuck Bowling< > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that if you're going to talk about human behavior you > >>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>> differentiate between social and individual behavior. I don't > >>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of humans as individuals has changed much since we > >>>>>>>> climbed > >>>>>>>>>> out > >>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the trees. As social animals I think we are constantly > >>>>>> evolving > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> adapting > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to our environments. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, rigsy03<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should reduce the time frame to 3 or 4 thousand > >>>>>> years. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dragged you into my midnight thoughts and remembered a > >>>>>> film- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Japanese- "Roshoman" which I saw later than its release > >>>>>> time of > >>>>>>>>>> 1950 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which got into this "what is reality" business and made > >>>>>>>> somewhat of > >>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impact on my thinking along with "point of view". I suppose > >>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>> might > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead off into empathy but it still would not solve the > >>>>>>>> definition > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "What Is Reality?". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will post another topic that is related to "human nature"- > >>>>>>>> "human > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 6:00 pm, Chuck Bowling< > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm not even sure what 'human nature' > >>>>>> means. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to reality, I think that we all struggle to try and > >>>>>>>> understand > >>>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists want to define it with logic and theologians > >>>>>> want > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> define it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with religious belief. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM, rigsy03< > >>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think human nature will change- ever? Then it > >>>>>> really > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter about reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 29, 7:36 pm, Chuck Bowling< > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nanotech is just the implementation of another layer > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe. I think we still have a long ways to go > >>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a firm grasp on the true nature of reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Menfranco Laws< > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everybody! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well said Ash, where is Pat indeed when we need him > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> say > >>>>>>>>>>>> God's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things, because for me when you are talking about > >>>>>>>> nanotech > >>>>>>>>>>>> makes me > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing about God and ask myself this question; Is > >>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>> nanotech > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link between us and God? Perhaps once we have > >>>>>> learned > >>>>>>>>>> enough > >>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this nanotech we be able to understand how God > >>>>>> works? > >>>>>>>> Who > >>>>>>>>>>>> knows? it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a thought. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 24, 9:48 am, Ash<[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where's Pat when we need him? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, > >> ... > > >> read more �- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
