Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents. Let me give a parallel example. This problem is unsolveable vs I cannot solve this problem. The first statement is a general statement concerning the nature of the problem. By saying this, one is claiming than anyone who states that they have solved this particular problem is making a false statement. Depending on the nature of the problem, you might be calling those that claim to have solved it ignorant, crackpots, etc. I see where you're coming from, but it's not exactly a parallel example, is it? If you're talking about a problem, what I think of is engineering, arithmetic, physics and so on -- not a philosophical conundrum or something subject to opinion. By saying something is indefensabile one is saying that it is impossible that such a defence is impossible. Those who claim they have a defence are not dealing with reality for some reason or another. They may be ignorant, they may be arguing in bad faith, they may be in denial, they may not use reason properly. Or, they just might be idiots. Or it might be a shortcut. Maybe one could track page after page of reasoning and carefully build an argument that renders a given position, ultimately, indefensible. Or you might just concede that we really do behave as though we're right, most of the time. I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. No, there isn't. But, that particular statement puts a tremendous burdon of proof on the affirmative. They would have to show that it was impossible to construct a reasonable case for the war...not just show that the negative case is far stronger. What's wrong with that? If I believe that the Iraq war is indefensible, please explain to me why the hell I should say otherwise. Why shouldn't I put the burden of proof on the affirmative? If I'm not convinced -- as I clearly am not -- that Iraq was a good idea, if I am pretty sure -- as I clearly am -- that attacking it was unconscionable, I'd like you to explain to me why you think it's reasonable for me to behave with anything other than the certitude I feel I have. Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth. Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in error, yet I don't see you hammering them over it). All I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, is that for the most part most of us behave, most of the time, as though our opinions are actually Absolute Truth. Saying I don't see the justification for something allows someone to give the justification and then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it. I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is. You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including in my view... and as I see it... and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: ... the Iraq war cannot be justified. (Or whatever.) So, you are saying that different sets of words do not carry different sets of information? No. I am saying precisely what I said. You must have read it, so I'm not sure why it's unclear. Let me restate it. No matter what kind of qualifiers you want to put on an opinion, ultimately you believe that opinion is true or else you wouldn't hold it. That's it. That's what I'm saying. That's all I said. I don't know where you got the ancillary baggage. I didn't add it and I did not imply it. You read it in. At this point I feel intensely frustrated because you seem unwilling to accept very simple statements without trying to read other ideas into them. You seem to be quite adept at that, when you want to be -- very willing to overlook the clear, simple statements I make and instead substitute a contorted reformulation that is not only inaccurate, but that attempts to cast me in an unreasonable light. This says a lot about whom you think you're talking
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. In the mid-80s, my mom was doing training to answer phones at a suicide prevention hotline. Part of the requirement for training was to attend an AA meeting (Narcotics Anonymous probably would have done, as well), for what reason I don't remember. Heh, that's interesting they'd require it. Maybe it was so the phone folks would have some understanding and/or context when talking to people with problems? Or maybe the feeling was that some firsthand experience of a 12-step program would help them know what to recommend and when... Anyway, there was a limit for her tolerance for cigarette smoke, and so she wanted to go to a smokeless AA meeting. She could find only one during the week she was supposed to attend an AA meeting, while there were probably at least 3 meetings per day during that period in the area in which she was looking. Right, that's another thing I've seen a lot of. Much, *much* smoking. So these folks were sober, but some of them were chain-smoking through the meetings, which might support your point. Maybe. It really is individual, it seems -- I mean I can't well deny that 12-step programs have helped millions of people over the years get their feet back. So obviously something they're doing is working, and it can be argued that it's working very well. Maybe it's just certain personality traits that don't mesh with the 12-step model. I don't know if anyone's done any in-depth studies on the subject; it might be interesting to see results and/or data, if there are any. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote: The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. ... 1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in conjunction with the Higher Power idea. 30 or 40 years ago, Charles Hampden-Turner (in, I think, The Delancy Street Asylum) said, if I remember rightly, that many people with addictions think of themselves as being able to overcome the addiction, but don't bother. !! That's really interesting. *Really* interesting. Only after they have made a major psychological shift do they bother. One way to make such a psychological shift is to give up and recreate. An anthropologist would call it a rebirth ritual. Or something like a charismatic case of being saved and getting baptized? Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more forgiving. Of themselves and their faults, you mean, or of the errant sheep in their communities? (Or both?) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. true The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken end true false Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action end false OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right? Whether or not the statements read differently, they are still expressions of personal ideas, not hard facts. My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say opinion. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to label every opinion as such, though. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 2:20 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. Really? No other options? Then what of all those that opposed the war, including almost every major religious organization across the globe? Was the Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq? The World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and on and on and on -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they opposed this war and proposed other options. I think that the answer to that is unequivocally yes, in effect. The policies advocated by the above would have resulted in Iraq's most recent democratic elections not happening. 1. There's no way you can prove that. 2. The above is dangerously close to ends justify means reasoning. You're fond of suggesting that those who opposed attaching a sovereign nation that had done nothing militarily against the US are also opposed to stopping, say, genocide in Rwanda (which we also didn't do, BTW) -- you've done a reductio ad absurdum. But your reasoning can be handled in the same fashion. If you believe it's acceptable to attack a nation because you don't like its leaders, then it's abundantly clear that no nation is secure from your bellicose policies, and that eventually every nation will be under attack from the US. Total War. That's the policy *you* are supporting, to take the same step into absurdity you have taken. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:47 PM, JDG wrote: First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as the anti-government Party. After all, you have previously defined the Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every* big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican opposition. That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu. You don't think it can be done? Even with the Liberal Media in the pocket of the Dems? Hmm, how about GWB, the Compassionate Conservative who Unites, not Divides, and Errs on the Side of Life? Liberal Media my eye. 1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the Democrats to argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take on another major... mission. I don't think that was the suggestion. The problem -- and it is valid -- is that US readiness for defense is at a nadir. Calling for rational behavior in military strategy is not at all the same thing as suggesting the armed forces should be preparing to go to war. Moreover, such a debate would inevitably turn into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the Republicans have already won the last time that was tried. They have? It doesn't seem so from this perspective. 2) You'll need your conspiracy theory regarding the purge of the Officer Corps to be picked up by the mainstream media and for some actual evidence supporting it to be gathered before a major political Party can start touting it. Why? I recall a major political party recently touting another crackpot idea, that a hunk of meat incapable of even swallowing on its own for the last 15 years had somehow miraculously begun to show signs of emergent consciousness. I even recall the mainstream (liberal?) media playing field hockey with emotions and ethics for over two weeks using that basis. Considering that the US Armed Forces have famously been restricting retirements in order to meet personnel goals, I think that if a purge were occurring, it ought not to be too difficult to document. I'd like to see documentation on it as well, as it happens; but your suggestion that the media cares about facts when there's a sensational story afoot is not particularly in keeping with observation. 3) There is no question that the biggest division in Republican ranks right now is the immigration issue. Again, the history of the Democrats makes this a difficult change to make. But I thought GWB was a uniter, *not* a divider. ;) 4) I don't find government secrecy to be a resonating issue - but I could conceivalby be proven wrong on that point. Well, there's continuing resistance to PATRIOT II, and there _is_ a steady minority of individuals who feel that the current administration is far too secretive. It's maybe a little like CO emissions from vehicles -- you're always aware of them on a low-key level, but every once in a while someone will jog the awareness into a higher level of consciousness and you'll be very focused on them for a while, ideally when you're contemplating a new vehicle purchase. All that screeching from 93-2000... and the result? ZERO indictments of Clinton-era federal officials for acts performed while in office. 5) Dr. Brin, your point about indictments is just plain false. Even worse, you know that they are false, as you admitted your error on this point once before.I find it very disappointing that not only are you repeating false statements even after they have been corrected, but using those same false statements to lambaste others gratuitously. The indictment of Mike Espy, Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture for accepting bribes from companies regulated by his department, is here: http://www.oic.gov/SMALTZ/briefs/dismis5m.htm Whoops, that's one. Are there more? 6) You may have heard that there is some economic growth going on China And I would also point out that Goldman Sachs projected prices in a range from $50 to $105, *not* $105. Your source misrepresented the projection. You misrepresented the statement, which was this: This week we have seen a projected price spike of $105 from Goldman Sachs. A *spike* is not the same thing as a *range*. It is, implicitly, a maximum value. And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway? Re suborning -- an interesting concern, but it might be hard to pitch if one wants to, on one hand, request that the government be less overweening while, on the other hand, asking that it watchdog itself with another layer of possibly-useful scrutiny. A more valid complaint is the internal subornation that goes on daily -- such as the way the credit card lobbyists have at last managed to later bankruptcy laws in favor of themselves and their predatory lending practices. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And, um, what has China to do with any of it anyway? It's been widely reported that the reason for high fuel costs is because of China's rapidly expanding economy. Ah. Not that widely apparently. ;) I'm not sure how valid that claim is. If the chart here is of any value, China's economic growth has been on a more or less steady rise since 1998 or so: http://www.chinability.com/GDP.htm ...while oil prices have been radically up and down over the same period, which would seem to indicate no tie between oil prices and China's economy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html Also, IIRC Shanghai in particular was undergoing a massive boom in the last several years, but oil prices didn't spike then either. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:08:54 -0400 (EDT), Robert J. Chassell wrote Nick Arnett wrote I cannot agree with the premise that underlies this -- that evil is out there and we in here, if powerful enough, can eliminateit. Well, how about a premise that includes people `in here'? that some of the people who gain governmental power, whether here or abroad, are evil I have no trouble agreeing with... or even better, there is evil in all of us, including our government leaders. That was the statement I thought you were probably leaning toward, myself. The idea of us vs. them is often toxic, though it can be useful as well. However, when we start getting into really vague and nonabsolute ideas, such as what is good and what is evil, and then start trying to portray the world in terms of us good, them evil, and *particularly* when we start projecting a whoever is not with us is against us attitude, we're in very deep trouble indeed. Your take on its being a worship of a nation is a new and interesting one to me. Though maybe it's not that new historically -- isn't that, after all, what is really meant by god-king? I think that The Fall or original sin, or whatever one might call it is mischaracterized as meaning that people are innately selfish, greedy, etc. It seems to me to mean that we have two sides to ourselves, or two hearts, if you will, which fight for supremacy. That's quite Lutheran, I might add -- simultaneously saint and sinner. It's certainly not in keeping with the dogma of Original Sin, which states explicitly that humans are in a fallen state and must climb out of it. Buddhists also teach that the fundamental nature of each of us is goodness, or in some teachings enlightenment or even buddhahood. That's why they bow all the time -- they're bowing to the nascent buddha in each person. It's refreshing to encounter traditions that assume *goodness* as the fundament of human nature rather than evil. It seems to me that a more sensible take on it would be one which assumes that people try to make the best decisions they can based on the information they have available *and* how they interpret it -- and that not all decisions will seem sensible to all people in all places at all times. IOW situational ethics must come into play, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should forgive the atrocities of a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. (Or a Hussein for that matter.) Because sometimes one society's situational ethics can trump that of another or of an individual. Contrarily, it's been argued that sanctions, etc. against Iraq weren't working after more than a decade -- but in places where empire did not impose itself on a regime to make a change, how long did it take for change to occur? With the USSR it was decades. With Africa, decades at least, and the same in India. Change didn't come to those regimes overnight, and I think based on those lessons it would be unreasonable to expect change in Iraq to occur in one generation as well. The generational time is probably not an accident. The old guard has to change out, there has to be new blood and new ideas born into a nation and its meme pool before change can really be effected. That's one reason I have serious doubts about Iraq's fledgling democracy. In effect it is *not* a democracy -- it is just another governmental system forced in Iraqis by a higher power. I'm not sure that it's operatively different from hegemony or dictatorship. But we didn't give the ideas time to take root. We didn't give Iraq five decades to ferment and grow. We invaded and imposed in an early stage, and while I know some are already trumpeting success, a *true* conservative will have to agree that the jury is still very much out on how well we've done the job. That we're talking about how well *we* have done the job -- as opposed to the Iraqi people -- might say more than any arguments anyone can put forward. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues
On Apr 12, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: Ah. Not that widely apparently. ;) Well they said so on CNN today! I don't work with the television on. The last time I looked at CNN -- couple days ago, I think -- there was interminable live coverage of a hostage standoff between a man and his ex wife. Completely irrelevant. Unfortunately the other feeds were rabbiting on about either the Pope or Chuck and Strumpet. I really really miss DW. Also, IIRC Shanghai in particular was undergoing a massive boom in the last several years, but oil prices didn't spike then either. Well, Shanghai is only one part of China, Oh, golly, do tell. ;) and its conceivable India has something to do with this too (I think the CNN report claimed as much too). No one here mentioned India until just now. But basing the claim on oil use just on the increase of China's GDP may not be the whole factor. At what point in GDP growth do people switch from riding busses or bikes to owning their own cars? Someone else correct me, but I believe one of the biggest consumers of petroleum are domestic, privately owned vehicles (POVs). If millions of Chinese are now earning enough to trade in their Huffy's for Chengdu SUVs, then there's where the spike in demand would occur... That's a good point, all right, and could have something to do with it. Let's see, it seems that in June of 2004, 3 in 1000 Chinese owned a car: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/ 0628_040628_chinacars.html Figure 1.2 bln people, that would have been about 3.6 million cars. Even if Chinese automobile purchases have increased tenfold in the last 10 months, then, that's 40 million cars, which is still not right; apparently as of 2004 2.3 million cars were being produced: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/113-4/focus.html That's still a fraction of the number of vehicles the US gobbles up annually, and yet we don't see spikes like this most recent one. (Of course a lot of it's not on my scopes; I own and use a Bianchi most of the time.) Worldwide there seems to be a prediction of about 1.3 billion motorized vehicles in 2005. That's apparently a large increase, but pointing the finger at China alone seems a little too pat. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed? Uh..I would think that knowledge was universal. What? You're suggesting that the concept of a hymen -- as well as a gynecologically safe way of examining whether a hymen was intact -- was known to the witch doctors of 2,000 years ago? If so, do you have some documentary evidence to support the suggestion? People back then knew how to tell if a woman was a virgin and would test the question if there was any question before a marriage. You mean the cask of wine test? If a non-virgin sits over an open cask of wine, the perfume of the wine passes through her body. The wine and can be smelled on her breath by a rabbi. On the other hand, if a virgin sits over an open cast of wine, the perfume of the wine does not pass through her body, and, naturally, a rabbi cannot smell it. Here is an account of the conversation between the bride, the groom, and the rabbi that describes the technique. http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_6.html The only other test mentioned for virginity (apart from personal affidavits) was the in/famous bloody sheet. If it wasn't, she wasn't either, basically. But that requires a complaint to be issued -- that is, the husband (or possibly his family) has to complain because the sheet wasn't bloodied on consummation night. I'd suspect that in many cases no complaints were forthcoming, because the bloodless sheet wasn't surprising to any of the parties involved. Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said virgin, he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much. Besides that, of course, the word virgin wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. True, but that is a separate question. Not really, I think. If we're arguing about whether the locals would be impressed by a virgin conception, and especially since the event was tied in to Isaiah, it seems to me the wording of the Hebraic passage would be very relevant, and not at all a separate issue. I think were are discussing multiple things in these threads. 1 Oral tradition and political influences have changed the original story and wording of scripture. True -- and they surely did so between the penning of Isaiah and 33 AD as well. ;) 2 People can see the miraculous in mundane events when suggested to do so. *And* when *prone* to do so. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? Because so many of them say things like calling it unjustifiable, when, of course, it's extremely justifiable. I don't think it is. We can't just bomb the crap out of a nation that's done nothing to us in the name of regime change. That's arbitrary and, I believe, wrong. As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. Wow, Warren, your ability to ignore everything that's happening in Iraq right now is pretty impressive. It appears to be, you know, working. I haven't ignored that, actually. It might be working. But at what cost to US image worldwide, at what cost in terms of incentive for further terrorism, and at what cost to human life? It might not, of course - I'd say it's something like 60/40 right now that it will, which are _far_ better odds than I gave it before the war, much less a few months ago. I asked you this before and you didn't have any sort of answer. What will you do if this works? I answered. You ignored it. Just like you ignored the cites I sent along disproving your claim that bald eagles aren't endangered. You're pretty good yourself at ignoring things, it seems. Here's a quick little piece of unsolicited advice: Admitting you were wrong about something will not kill you. It appears to be working. The odds for a democratic government in Iraq are better than they have ever been. 10 years from now, if Iraq is a stable democracy that looks sort of like Turkey - if it is the least-badly governed state in the Middle East- will it still be an unjustifiable war? Yes. Because it was not a war pressed by the Iraqis in the name of freeing themselves from a tyrant. It was an assault on a nation that did *nothing at all* to us. We have killed thousands of civilians, tortured dozens of prisoners and pushed Islamic extremists even further over the cliff. In the name of doing what? Establishing a democracy? Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the elephant in the room very few conservatives seem to want to face with honesty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:45 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:04 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. But the fact that we know how to do it now contradicts your absolute assertion that Virgin conception is impossible. I should have said asexual conception. That's what's meant, I think, by the term virgin conception. All it would prove if such a case did occur some 2 millennia ago is that it required intervention by someone or something with access to knowledge and technology at least equal to that available to a twenty-first-century doctor, whether that someone or something was space aliens or God. Or, much more simply, that Mary was not a virgin. That's a considerably more likely explanation than aliens or a deity. I think it's a real stretch, Ahem. :D -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:47 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. Well, when arguing facts, I tend to do that. I'm just as certain of gravity, Earth's rough sphericity and the heliocentric solar system. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. John, when he wrote Revelation, was using cryptic symbology that didn't make the book look like a polemic against the contemporary institutions of power, but that's what it was intended to be. He wasn't writing of events in either the year 1000 or 2000; he was writing about the world he lived in right then, ~70 AD, and how he hoped things would turn out in his lifetime. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 12:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. I think your lay scholarship isn't serving you too well here. :D The prophecy in question is not just that a young woman shall conceive, which, as you point out, is hardly news. I think the message of the prophecy is something like There will be this young woman, see, and she'll conceive and bear a Son, who will be... and it goes on from there. The point isn't that a young woman will conceive (well, duh), but that a particular young woman will conceive a particular son, who will be ... special. It's just a way of telling a story, that's all. Yes -- but then, as Dan points out, the people living in the time of Iasus would be familiar with the Isaiah scriptural reference. So really the claim could have been made about *any* particular man. The other thing, of course, is the Gospels' non-contemporary authorship. They were not eyewitness accounts, which makes it *feasible* at least that the Gospel stories were written with deification, or at least exaltation, in mind. That is, the authors said in essence This guy was a really great teacher -- maybe he was the one mentioned in Isaiah -- hmm, well... And so the maiden's conception, which could have proved applicable to any extraordinary individual born any time after Isaiah's claims, was attached to the Iasus story. To bring it back to the Seattle thing -- Behold, on the day that it raineth in the northern city of the high tower, there shall be a salmon flung that is unlike any other; and he who eateth it will find it to be delightful, yea, great shall be his delight in it, and he shall declare that the salmon verily is the product of a most divine source. There's really nothing extraordinary being claimed in that prediction. And that's what guarantees that eventually it will be true -- every circumstance I've described (vaguely) will be fulfilled. Does that mean the fish is literally the product of a god, and that I have the gift of prophecy? That's the problem I have with the story in Isaiah. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:46 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:08 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. Well, when arguing facts, I tend to do that. I'm just as certain of gravity, Earth's rough sphericity and the heliocentric solar system. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. As a scientist, I tend to make statements which allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, even though the claim I am making in the statement seems pretty certain in light of our current understanding. Fair enough. The trouble I have with remembering to use qualifiers is that they tend, I think, to weaken or water down a message. Of course, that can lead to misunderstandings, frex the different meanings that a scientist and a lay person assume for the word theory in the expression theory of evolution. I keep thinking of _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_... ARTHUR: Evolution! LANCELOT: Evolution! GALAHAD: Evolution! PATSY: It's only a theory. ARTHUR: Sh! John, when he wrote Revelation, Actually, I read your original comment as being dismissive of revelation in general (with the capitalization being due to its initial placement in the sentence), not the last book of the Bible in particular, hence the response I made. Ah. Well, I'm pretty dismissive of revelation in general as well. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Personally, I could be persuaded either way on this question. One could indeed argue that someone who's knowledge of Isaiah is from the Septuagint and who is aware of the other virgin birth narratives could weave this into the tradition relied upon by Luke and Matthew. But, it is also possible that Christians had to defend the irregular birth of Jesus. Or it could even be both; the early birth might have already been trouble, but the Isaiah prophecy provided them with a convenient escape that just happened to match their ideas about Iasus' divinity. The story that Mary was visited by an angel, BTW, is thirdhand at best. Presumably only she was privy to the vision (hallucination, dream, whatever) -- so she must have told someone, who told someone else, and it got written into the account. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed? I think it's a real stretch, BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. But what would those ancient people think? Would they necessarily know if such a thing occured? What difference would that make? Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said virgin, he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much. Besides that, of course, the word virgin wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Dave Land wrote: I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said things like I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion instead of the invasion was unjustified. The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? And my understanding is that opinions are generally taken by their holders as truth, and that only lengthy and occasionally quarrelsome debates are how those opinions got aired and maybe changed -- or at least altered. But it seems excessive to me to feel that we *must have* the in my opinion part before an opinion is actually rendered; to me it's a little like instruction manuals that label the English section English, the French section Français and the Spanish section Español. Assuming one has moderate background in various languages, context will tell one very quickly which language one is reading. One's native tongue will be easiest, of course, and doesn't need to be labeled at all. I sometimes feel the same is the case with a forum wherein various topics -- many of them having to do with opinions -- are discussed. Do we really actually need to label the opinions as such, or is context sufficient to let us discern them? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles are endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that many embryos never survived to full development. Is that a sufficient reason? It depends on priorities. We already eliminated malaria in the US. Using DDT, one can greatly reduce the risks of brain damage and death in Africa. See, this is a good example of missing communications. I thought the topic had to do with DDT usage in the States, not worldwide. I'm inclined to agree that mosquito/malaria abatement is *crucial* to health in the world, and from that perspective the use of DDT in some places, particularly developing nations, can be justifiable. Overuse is a problem, but so is disease. If there's a way to strike a reasonable balance between DDT usage and broader environmental concerns, I'm for it. A few years back there was some PBS special or other on the usage of GMOs to improve crop yields in parts of the world that desperately need it. This was another thing opposed by environmental activists, most of whom didn't really seem to know what they were really protesting or what the fallout might be. Result? Research was stopped. That's really crappy. This is fascinating, because it's the rich white conservatives *now* that are ignoring the status of poor brown people, such as those in the Sudan, Well, my Zambian daughter Neli said she hated to admit it but Bush pushed more than anyone else in power in the world to do something about it. Much beyond what was done, the only possibility was an even more unpopular unilateral war against Arabs. The US was regularly thwarted at the UN when they tried to push for stronger actions. The other side of that is that if the US had not been so engaged in Iraq, we might have had some extra troops to spare to stop the slaughter, UN be damned. or the thousands dead in Iraq because of a misbegotten war pressed electively on verified-false data. Why are you so sure that Bush does not believe in the vision he proclaims. From my perspective it's because the administration's focus kept changing. Once the slam dunk of WMDs was disproved, there were fallback stories. When the multiple excuses for the Iraqi invasion were first proposed, I saw them -- possibly cynically -- as a safety net. I remember thinking, if the WMD thing doesn't pan out, they'll have these other convenient ready-made excuses. There are other examples of ethically questionable -- at best -- behavior from the current administration. And when GWB goes from wanting bin Laden dead or alive to saying he doesn't even really think about where he might be any more, it's hard for me to believe his commitment to anything else he claims to be true to. I just don't think there's a lot of credibility in the administration in general. It's not just GWB -- it's apparently endemic to the administration. Of the public stands on this, Tom Friedman's comes closest to mine, although we weighed the factors differently and came to different conclusions. What's amazing to me now is how well things are going, considering the fact that we might not have been able to bungle things worse if we tried. I'm inclined to agree with that as well. If Iraq becomes democratic, the US won't be justified in taking any credit for it. I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for going the UN route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq. On a practical basis, I could see the criticism...but it seemed to me that your argument wasn't a nuts and bolts argument about the details of each, but an argument that you put forth as one of basic principals. Fair enough. Hopefully I've elucidated my reasoning enough to let you see it's not as arbitrary as one might suppose. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles are endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that many embryos never survived to full development. Is that a sufficient reason? Well, first, no, it's not a sufficient reason. Not at all. But, second, it's _not even true_. Bald eagles _aren't_ endangered. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSSpeciesReport http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring/ Seems it still is endangered. They're actually a _pest_ in parts of Alaska, there are so many of them. There's a lot more habitat in North America than Alaska. DDT used for malarial prevention - indoor spraying, daubing on the walls of homes, and DDT -implanted mosquito nets - doesn't even get out into the environment, much less pose a threat. And it's not relevant outside the US to bald eagles. As I mentioned to Dan I wasn't aware we were discussing *worldwide* DDT bans; I thought the discussion was about the US only. Finally, Warren, as usual you rant about Iraq. Two sentences doth not a rant make. Have you been paying attention to what's happening over there? You know, the successful election, the formation of a government with a Kurdish President, things like that. That's nice. Does it balance the thousands of dead civilians or the continuing insurgency? If Iraq does end up as a stable democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going to come back and admit that those evil neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest governments on earth and replaced it with something pretty good _while you did everything you could to stop it from happening_? You mean, if I was wrong for the right reasons while they were right for the wrong reasons? Interesting question. Who, in that equation, will have been looking out for poor, brown people who are far away? Interesting you bring up, elsewhere, that you're not rich white or liberal. Do remember that it was partly the efforts of rich white liberals (as well as activist judges) that put an end to slavery here, and that got the civil rights movement further along. It could be argued that the education you're getting now wouldn't have been possible but for the efforts of various rich white liberals who were interested in opening the halls of learning to *every* extraordinarily worthy student. Or are you going to contend that *their* efforts were also little more than preening? It seems the rich white liberal bludgeon can beat both directions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? Um, what? I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than truth, because you used the term believe in. No, self-evident truths definately qualify in my mind. Thus, I'd argue that secular humanists who believe in human rights act on faith, because there is no empirical evidence for human rights. Holding truths to be self-evident indicates that the founding fathers believed this too. It makes sense, because that understanding was very much a part of the enlightenment. But I don't buy the self-evident truths argument either. The entire phrase describing people being created equal, endowed by their creator, etc., etc., just isn't a strong argument for me because it falls back on deity. People are *not* equal. If we were I could be on an NBA team. I can't. Why? Because I can't do everything an NBA star can. Therefore we're not equal. What I think we should promote is the idea of equality of opportunity, to the extent that it's reasonable to pursue -- that is, I maybe should be free to try out for an NBA team, but hopefully I've got the wisdom to understand that doing so would waste the time of everyone involved -- but no fuzzy-headed ideas of universal equality, which simply cannot exist. That's good, really. As a supervillain pointed out recently, once everyone's super, no one will be. By extension, then, we don't -- or should not -- do those things to others, because they are ethically bankrupt actions. I agree we shouldn't; but I'm stating that there is no factual basis for human rights. I agree. The entire idea of human rights is a legal fiction that was invented, several times in history in various ways, and that has been enumerated in our own founding documents, with other nations doing the same thing in the most recent (~200 years) cycle of liberal humanism. I certainly have faith that they exist, but I realize that they are not objective, measureable quantities. They are not required parts of well verified theories. They're not even required parts of well ordered societies, as you indicate. All it takes is a little empathy to understand how the victim must feel in those situations. I wouldn't like anyone doing anything like that to anyone I know, so it's clear to me that those are behaviors I should not do unto others. ;) If that's all it takes, then why have so many people hurt others? That's a question for the ages, isn't it? Possibly because, it seems to me, there are priorities to human existence, on an individual level. Maybe I could prioritize the list (as I see it) thus: 1. Personal survival/security 2. Family survival/security 3. In-group survival/security To the extent that the first need is met, the second can then be considered; when the second is met, the third can then be dealt with. To the above I'd add education, learning, indulging curiosity, creation of art. etc. as items that can work in conjunction with the foregoing, but *only after the basic survival needs are met first*. Since the rather abstract idea of human rights requires philosophy, which requires some leisure time to develop, maybe it's not too surprising that, since a lot of human history has been stuck in meeting needs 2 and 3, we haven't seen so much of the extension of humanness to out-groups, the assignment of human rights to others, etc. In order to extend compassion, it might be argued that one has to be able to get out of survival mode first. Did I explain that in a useful way, or is my thinking on this still unclear? On a somewhat more general level, social breakdowns do happen, and again, they don't have to be judged against some kind of phantom truth to be seen as bad things. Hitler was just plain evil, and what he and the Nazis perpetrated was an atrocity. There's no reason to pull a deity or truth into the courtroom to indict him and his cohort. Are you arguing that good and evil are observables, like mass or velocity? Not exactly, no, but when you extend the earlier criteria -- I don't want anyone to rob me, so I won't rob anyone else -- to general behavior, we might be able to come across a provisional definition of actions that can be seen as good or evil. Can something that is socially acceptable be evil? Yes. The socially sanctioned murder of ~6,000,000 Jews by the Nazis, for instance. What about large, long-lasting civilizations that did not have a concept of human rights? What of them? Civilizations' duration is not the sole measure by which one can judge their ethical merits. Also, can you enumerate these civilizations? Perhaps I'm not perceiving history in the same way as you, or maybe I'm
Re: Is Supernatural Real?
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Alan Ackley wrote: I suppose it depends some on how the words are defined, but; If it happens, its real. If its real, it must be natural. There cant be anything beyond the boundary of it happens except for it cant happen or it doesnt happen. What was that Vulcan first principle of logic? Nothing unreal exists. I don't recall whose law that was, but the ref is from the _Trek IV_ movie. Starting with that sort of definition, there is no supernatural. Nonetheless, the bookshelves are replete with books reporting events that have been categorized as supernatural. Given the sheer quantity of reports, some of these events must be real, but unexplained, miscategorized, or simply beyond the reach of current human conception. Depends on the events. Things do happen which are not understood, or which are not well explained. Can you enumerate such events? I grew up in a household where occasionally things happened which defied conventional explanations. When arguments were happening, light bulbs would burn out, or the car tires might go flat. For events such as these Carl Jung coined the term synchronistic. A more parsimonious explanation would be that light bulbs burned out when there weren't arguments, and tires went flat when there weren't arguments, but no one really noticed them, so there wasn't a sense of correlation for those negative (in the sense of bearing a hidden meaning) occurrences. [snip Aikido discussion] When my inner tension was finally relaxed, after years of training, suddenly I had a deeper understanding of religious literature, and was also able to see more meaning in my dreams, which prior to this had eluded me. I was then able to make sense of the flow of the Tao, as described in Taoist writings, and could see that this was the same as the Holy Spirit as described in Christianity. What Usheiba Sensei (the founder of Aikido) called the ki of the universe, is apparently this same thing; The Tao, The Holy Spirit, the ki, (or in Chinese, chi). The language creation speaks to us in synchronistic external events, is the same language as dreams. This is also what Buddhists might describe as the union of mindfulness and awareness -- the pure focus of mind on one point, but with a broad awareness of everything else that falls into one's sphere of consciousness. It's a delicate balance and. the moment you're aware you have it, it goes away. Sigh. I got similar states in my own martial arts training (Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do), particularly in kata/form practice. But I got the same kind of states in programming a deep algorithm or writing some intense graf of prose. It's an available event in many pursuits that, when it happens, feels almost magical in its intensity of focus, its broadness of accessibility, and most especially its ephemeral nature. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:30 AM, I wrote: Also, since I don't have to weigh a given set of beliefs against my own to see if they agree -- and are therefore true -- I'm free to see validity in many different religious ideas. Where faith speaks of gods I can ignore it; where faith speaks of human values, I can cherish it. Here's my countertake: Bullshit, bullshit and, most especially, bullshit. Of the purest ray serene. We are talking bullshit prismed through a laser of remarkable fidelity. Bullshit so pure that it cannot harmonize even fractionally with other kinds of bullshit. Bullshit so astonishingly non-bullshit in its depth that if a universe were spawned of it tomorrow, there would be no quantum uncertainty; even on the quark level we'd be dealing with nothing but bullshit. I can't believe I got away with that graf on this list! What unutterable arrogance. Oh, I'm rational. Yes, what I think makes sense. Obviously it does. After all it's utterly lucid to me. What better measure of rationality is there? This is my Bull of Warrenal Infallibility. Of course I filter everything. Everything. I read opinions not to strengthen my arguments from a rational perspective -- I read them to see if they agree with what I already believe. If they do, well hey, I credit the author with his/her insight and acuity. This is a good opinion! It's powerful, lucid and direct. What a wonderful clarity of understanding. Couldn't have expressed it better myself. And cetera. And of course when I read something by someone who doesn't agree with me -- well. Spotty thinking, weak rationalizations, just-so solipsism, arrogance, intellectual elitism, pandering to The Masses, and cetera. The graf I quoted above is a scintillating example of intellectual arrogance, of blinkered non-reasoning, so true that I'd hope it could be featured in a text on logic just to show how self-deluded the rationalists can be. Foma, to borrow from Vonnegut. It's all a pack of foma. Trust me? Why? I can't even trust myself. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gun Free Household sticker
On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:52 AM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:31:53 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote I like little snakes. I don't trust big snakes. Must *every* conversation eventually turn to politics? I thought she was referring to sex . . . No, that would be a length vs. width thing. Sheesh. What about calibre? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent democracy in Iraq? Functionally, yes. What does that mean? I think it means He who is not with us is against us. But it seems Gautam is more comfortable discussing with others what my intentions are than he is dealing with my comments directly, so if you get an answer from him I'll be interestedly reading it as well. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:50 PM, maru wrote: I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of trying to turn our government into a theocracy. ... 'marginally-relevant texts'? An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the Bible (Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German nun in his /Passion/.). Perversions of the Bible don't affect its relevance as source material for wisdom. There's wisdom to be found in it, just as the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada and the Koran contain wisdom. The *marginal* relevance to which I referred is, in my mind, the way that Biblical myths have been used to assert the nature of reality. Six-day creation, Intelligent Design, and the Noachian deluge being the cause of the Grand Canyon, for instance. (BTW, if the deluge really happened, how does this explain the existence of Meteor Crater, which is +10,000 years old? Shouldn't the flood have filled it in with sediment? Wonder what ICS has to say about that...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:12 PM, maru wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:50 PM, maru wrote: 'marginally-relevant texts'? An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the Bible (Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German nun in his /Passion/.). Perversions of the Bible don't affect its relevance as source material for wisdom. There's wisdom to be found in it, just as the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada and the Koran contain wisdom. The *marginal* relevance to which I referred is, in my mind, the way that Biblical myths have been used to assert the nature of reality. Six-day creation, Intelligent Design, and the Noachian deluge being the cause of the Grand Canyon, for instance. (BTW, if the deluge really happened, how does this explain the existence of Meteor Crater, which is +10,000 years old? Shouldn't the flood have filled it in with sediment? Wonder what ICS has to say about that...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf Ah, so the marginal texts are the Old Testament books, as opposed to New Testament books. I see now. :D Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Lazarus was never dead. No one else was resurrected either. And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. As for the OT, the Decalogue contains some pretty sound ethics too. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. There was a case years ago of a woman who was a virgin and became pregnant because she engaged in anal sex and just happened to have a fissure between her rectum and her vagina. Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. I think it's a real stretch, BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Which is correct, afaik. And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. Lazarus was never dead. No one else was resurrected either. I take it you were there, then? I don't have to have been there. Resurrection is not possible. It has not reliably, verifiably occurred in the history of humanity, not once, not twice, not ever. And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: _There's nothing wrong with opposing the war_. Knowing what I know now about the competence of the Administration, I don't think _I_ would have supported the war (not knowing then what I know now, I don't regret my stance then - it was impossible for me to know then what I know now). What's wrong is pretending that _not_ going to war didn't also have costs. If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Gautam Mukunda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: We all know how opinions that differ from today's orthodoxy are treated here, so why should today be any different? Actually, Dave just doesn't pay attention very well. What? Did someone say something? Nothing significant. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More recognition for Wes
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Wes' dad just called me to say that the U.S. House will recognize him (probably) this afternoon around 4-5:30 following a vote. I'm about to look for a House Internet video feed... anybody know if there is such a thing? (No cable tv at the Arnett residence.) http://www.c-span.org/ There's stuff bottom center about live feeds for Real and WMP -- also maybe there'll be something useful in the broadband C-Span section. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 5, 2005, at 12:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: This is one of the problems with most of the modern interpretations of the Gospels. Where Iasus was being metaphorical, he is taken literally; and where he was being literal, he is taken metaphorically. I attended a seminar by Marcus Borg (http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml) on Friday, a Jesus Seminar fellow and prominent defender of the faith against Biblical literalism. He described two forms of Christianity: an earlier belief-based paradigm and an emerging transformational paradigm. The interpretations you rightly criticize above are the product of the former paradigm. The latter may well be the antidote to it. I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of trying to turn our government into a theocracy. Those who consider themselves moderate Christians really need to mobilize and push the radicals back into the fringe, where they belong. Else we're going to see more actions like the ridiculous Congressional invasion of the Schiavo case. And with No Child Left Behind -- a patent lie if ever there was one -- Fed standards dictate what's taught. Given the fact that Bush can't even pronounce nuclear correctly, do we really want his administration making decisions about what constitutes good education? Abstinence only and Intelligent Design are likely to be the bywords for a long time to come if these jack-booted thugs have their way. This kind of garbage should piss off any moderate; since I suspect a lot of the agenda is right-wing driven, there's got to be a backlash that originates in the Christian community to really have an effect. The emerging paradigm emphasizes that the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms us. This form of Christianity holds that scripture is a human product -- the wisdom tradition of Christianity's Jewish and Christian spiritual ancestors. It takes a historical/metaphorical view of Scripture, rather than a literal/factual view. As one wag put it, The Bible is true, and some of it actually happened. Biblical stories are poetry plus and not science minus, in the words of a Swedish proverb. Salvation is a process of transformation that begins now, is both personal and political, spiritual and social, affects temporal life, and is universally available. As you have noted this isn't that emergent; it might be one side of a seesaw though. The Enlightenment and Reformation, I thought, were also about emphasizing rational discourse over theocracy and monotheistic imperialism. Lay people *really need* to study the Bible's history as well as its contents, and they need to *not* rely on clergy to interpret the text for them. That was one reason James translated the Vulgate into (at the time) modern English. He wanted to get away from the text being under the control of the priesthood. Knowing that the pentateuch was not authored by one individual, but several, is alone a transformative experience for many of the faithful. Knowing that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses is another. Those threatened are they who hold the Bible to be infallible. Ignorance allows that idea to remain present in the churchgoing population. How anyone can, in good conscience, allow that ignorance to persist -- even encourage it -- is beyond me, but I am not a greedy, power-mad bastard. Personally, I think that this is what Jesus was talking about when (OK, if) he said I have come that you might have life, and have it abundantly, and the kingdom of God is among you. It's now, folks: enjoy it! Yes. The Kingdom of God is at hand does not mean there will be a second coming or an establishment of Heaven on Earth. It means, very simply, this is it. This is the kingdom of god, right here, right now. It's within your grasp. Pick it up or miss the message entirely. There are analogues in other teachings. Buddhists believe that we're all fundamentally good, that we all carry in us the seeds of enlightenment, realization, buddhahood. That's diametrically opposed to the Christian tenet of original sin. But I think that's what Iasus was trying to convey -- the Kingdom of God is within. It's already there. You don't have to do anything special to get there. Just uncover it in yourself. Ironically, viewing the Bible metaphorically strengthens, rather than weakens it, freeing it from the crazy idea that it must be considered factual in every respect. Untold millions of intelligent, sensitive people have been turned off by this unsupportable idea. The Bible is completely pre-scientific, assumes a world view in which slavery is a routine and acceptable form of labor, and plainly contradicts itself time and again. Viewing
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 5, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects. I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and far beyond religion. Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the rise, which I think is a typical outcome of social and economic injustice. And the Bible has a great deal to say about that. Not just injustice -- uncertainty. When there's a lot of social stress such as war, pestilence, famine, etc., it seems that hardline sects get stronger. People seem to want to find a meaning in the chaos, and since a lot of the fundie cults offer putative meaning, they become attractive. Thing is, there is no meaning. Jim Wallis makes a nice observation that the answer to bad theology isn't secularism, it's good theology. I'd imagine you think there's no such thing.. .? I think my atheology is pretty sound. ;) Don't know how WTG feels. If the choice is limited to extremist religious expression versus moderate, I'd rather see the moderate. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
On Apr 5, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:34:44 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote And if cutting veteran benefits is just a bargaining chip to take away from social services elsewhere, as many think, it's a lousy, rotten cynical move, playing politics with people who put their lives on the line for their friends. Look, criticism... :-( Nick the Hypocrite There was once a notorious thief who wanted to reform his ways. But he was having trouble. He stole all the time, compulsively, uncontrollably. He asked an itinerant monk for help. The monk told him, Next time you feel an urge to steal, be aware of it. And how do I sop myself from following the urge? the thief asked. The monk smiled. Don't worry about that. Only be aware of the urge. The thief agreed to give it a try. A year later the monk was in the same province again and enquired of the thief what progress he had made. The man had reformed; he was a thief no more. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:34:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Not just injustice -- uncertainty. When there's a lot of social stress such as war, pestilence, famine, etc., it seems that hardline sects get stronger. People seem to want to find a meaning in the chaos, and since a lot of the fundie cults offer putative meaning, they become attractive. Indeed. Simple answers become attractive. Thing is, there is no meaning. What do you mean? Mu. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:38:14 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote The monk smiled. Don't worry about that. Only be aware of the urge. Good story! :D Wasn't mine, though. It's an old Buddhist tale. Sometimes I'm convinced that spiritual growth, maturity, call it what you want, are other names for increased self-awareness. Who was it who defined the marks of a self-actualized person? Ah, Google. Maslow, Abraham Maslow. Characteristics of...: http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm ...and a very interesting paper on Taoism, Zen and self-actualization: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/chang.htm The best questions I ask myself are like these -- What is my intent? Am I attached to a certain outcome? What is my part in this? Those are good questions. One of my current favorites is What am I doing? -- meaning *now*. What exactly am I doing right at this moment? It tends to center the consciousness in the present. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They've taught me a great deal that helps me resist my natural tendency to criticize. I suspect that you are as aware as anyone of that trait in me, so what do you think? Is this a good thing at the microscopic level of our discussions here, if I am thus better able to refrain from criticizing, instead speaking to the values I hold? Nick My worry is that when you speak to the values [you] hold you're just asserting something. Would a rationale for those values help you with that concern? Since you root all of these in religion, you're asserting the unprovable and unfalsifiable. Ethics, based in anything, is hard to falsify, isn't it? You may be right or wrong, but it's essentially impossible to debate. If you then suggest that people who disagree with you are hypocritical or malign - as with the President in the last couple of days, for example - then it becomes difficult to do anything other than say, look, Nick thinks God tells him what to do in Iraq and that since I disagree with him, I'm disagreeing with God. Maybe that's not what you mean to say, but it's certainly what you _seem_ to say. The flipside of that is that this is precisely the subtext that is coming from the right wingers. In Wallis's case, it seems to me that all he's really saying is God agrees with me - and he pairs that with a pathetic anti-Americanism that goes down fine on the left, but that the other ~90% of the American population (correctly) rejects as something between actively morally malign and just equivocating between good and evil - and Christianity, I think, has something to say about equivocators as well. Where'd you get the ~90% figure? Preening seems like a big part of what he does. One could argue that it seems like a big part of the environmental movement as well, for example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example? Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles are endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that many embryos never survived to full development. Is that a sufficient reason? Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment - without really giving up anything, because malaria had already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor brown people far away die in order to emphasize their moral purity, well, so what?). If I had to point out the thing that really alienates the left from the rest of the country and makes it difficult for it to win elections, it's that attitude, and I suspect that Wallis will make things worse, not better. This is fascinating, because it's the rich white conservatives *now* that are ignoring the status of poor brown people, such as those in the Sudan, or the thousands dead in Iraq because of a misbegotten war pressed electively on verified-false data. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
Catlick Maru Roaming Catlick? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 3, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pffft. Developing implies some sort of progress. We're backsliding. Out of curiosity, how is that possible if you don't believe in truth? Um, what? I assume here you mean some kind of godly entity, rather than truth, because you used the term believe in. You don't have to believe in a god to know that if someone robs you, it sucks. If someone molests your granddaughter, you want to feed him his genitals. If someone kills your best friend, or you, it's awful. I don't see how you have to fall back on phantoms for any of the foregoing to be obvious. By extension, then, we don't -- or should not -- do those things to others, because they are ethically bankrupt actions. All it takes is a little empathy to understand how the victim must feel in those situations. I wouldn't like anyone doing anything like that to anyone I know, so it's clear to me that those are behaviors I should not do unto others. ;) Again, why does there have to be a belief in truth for the above to be so? On a somewhat more general level, social breakdowns do happen, and again, they don't have to be judged against some kind of phantom truth to be seen as bad things. Hitler was just plain evil, and what he and the Nazis perpetrated was an atrocity. There's no reason to pull a deity or truth into the courtroom to indict him and his cohort. This nation is slipping -- or at least parts of it are -- into an anti-intellectual morass of just-so mysticism heavily rooted in a very narrow interpretation of *one* eclectic, eccentric religious tome. Evolution taught in classrooms may be just a theory (which by the way is incorrect; evolution is a fact), but intelligent design isn't even that, and yet it's supposed to get equal time? IMAX movies can't show a film detailing current models about Earth's development -- incidentally mentioning the fact of evolution -- because of right-wing fundamentalist outcry? The US congress, in a blatant violation of separation of powers, attempts to meddle with decisions that have been reaffirmed for nearly a decade by state and federal courts, all in the name of keeping a hunk of meat warm? I don't see any need to revert to superstition to judge that *all* the foregoing are indications of problems. There's no need to believe in a truth to know that there's trouble afoot. That said, I suspect Doug was being tongue-in-cheek, as I was. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
On Apr 3, 2005, at 5:40 PM, maru wrote: No, the real question is, since there are (or should I say were?) countless Catholics praying for the Pope's recovery, and odds dictate that at least *one* of those oodles of Catholics shoulda had 'faith as a mustard seed', why didn't the Pope recover? since Jesus promised that believers with even minuscule (ref. the size o' a mustard seed) faith would have their prayers answered. This is one of the problems with most of the modern interpretations of the Gospels. Where Iasus was being metaphorical, he is taken literally; and where he was being literal, he is taken metaphorically. The mustard seed is just such an example of metaphor being taken as real. If you believe strongly enough you are not going to levitate and float around in the air, nor are you going to resurrect a dead man. Obviously Iasus was referring to the quiet sort of perseverance, the Faulknerian endurance, that lets life and even rational hope persist when conditions are so harsh as to suggest that there's no point at all in continuing. So too with the bread and wine, in this case a literal being taken as having deeper meaning than was intended. He wasn't suggesting that consuming bread and wine was a holy sacrament, and he certainly was not suggesting they would transubstantiate into flesh and blood. He was being very direct, very literal. The wine is life. The bread is life. Do without either -- discard food, or discard drink -- and you die. This is my body. This is my blood. When you are eating together, think of me. Remember the times we shared. Keep the message of hope alive. But politics, as it inevitably does, corrupted the messages. There's no holy spirit for anyone to serve, and there's no god directing hearts or minds, so naturally you have to expect typical human up-fuckery to get in the way. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 2, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Dan Minette wrote: The leading candiates are a Nigerian and a Brazilian. I would rate the odds of an American as 1000 to 1. So, Alberto may be able to use his ties to the new Pope to influence JDG in the future. :-) I'm holding out for a woman this time. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
On Apr 2, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: I don't imagine I'd give a damn about what the Catholic Church and their pope did except for the inordinate influence they have over so much of the developing world. Meaning, of course, the USA. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: reality glitches
On Apr 1, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Gary Denton wrote: I wish to apologise to any of you others I may have brought to this world with me. That was you? You bastard! Stop observing the universe! You're influencing it way too much with your pessimism! -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: reality glitches--QM
On Apr 1, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I haven't heard much from you since I started my QM tutorial. Did it make sense and give you something to mull over or wasn't I clear enough. Oh, I'm chewing it over. ;) Thanks again for all the work you've put in on it. I'm sure that I'll comment on *something* eventually. (That's a safe bet...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: tower of Babel theory
On Apr 1, 2005, at 9:37 AM, Alan Ackley wrote: Keel suggested that somewhere in the middle east, inside some unspecified stone monument, (the big stone in Mecca?) is a generator which has affected the mentality of mankind from then until now. The stone at Mecca is not big. It's a meteorite fragment that is small and light enough that four men can carry it by placing it in the center of a rug, gripping the rug at its corners. Muhammad himself proved that; it was how he prevented a tribal dispute. There's no way a meteoric chunk of stone small enough to be carried by a procession of pallbearers could contain any sort of radar or any other kind of mind-affecting generator. The effects the stone has upon the minds of believers are sourced in the minds of those believers, nowhere else. Undoubtedly using ELF waves (extra low frequency) this hypothetical device must still be in operation, and constantly interferes with human communication abilities contributing to war and strife worldwide. So god jammed our freqs and is continuing to do so? Why? Out of spite? Or is it satan instead -- and if so, why did god let it happen? Or is it more parsimonious to suggest that the Babel myth is a just-so story used to explain the variety of languages in the world? A radar jammer will pick up the radar frequency being used and will then broadcast a signal on the same frequency, but 180 degrees out of phase. Similarly I suspect a device which picks up broadcasts of human consciousness then rebroadcasts a wave 180 degrees (in opposition, to cancel or overrride) out of phase. In that case, there should be no human consciousness. One possible effect of this is to block human telepathy. Or perhaps there's no evidence of human telepathy for a much simpler reason. One odd observation relating to this; Only one? I've noted when I am meditating or deeply into writing or other deep mental states, I very often find the imagined position of my body to be reversed; ie, I awake to find I am faced North, when in the dream-state I was facing South, 180 degrees out of phase with my actual position. And this means what, exactly? It's not an uncommon experience... On the good side; to grow a population with immunity, you subject them to an environment full of the toxin. if we, (humanity) have been in the toxic presence of the Babble generator for thousands of years, perhaps we will or are generating a population that has a natural resistance to such interference. Do you have any evidence at all -- real, hard evidence, not anecdotal accounts -- that any single scrap of what you posted is in any way objectively valid, real or otherwise not hooey? Or is this all a big April Fool's prank? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dit-dot-dit
On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:10 AM, kerri miller wrote: At what cost does one follow a dream? How do you detirmine when a dream is a directive, a demand, rather than an idle fantasy of what-ifs? This is one of those questions you get to work out for yourself. Joseph Campbell was fond of the phrase follow your bliss -- sound adevice, I suppose, but it implies knowing what your bliss is... -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: more neocons
On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:54 AM, JDG wrote: At 07:51 PM 3/14/2005 -0800, Dr. Brin wrote: The following is from fomer brinneller Stefan Jones: It's almost as if being a conservative has come to mean never being wrong. Since you're never wrong, the rules for mere mortals don't apply. No need for apologies, doubt, or second thoughts. Which is why Bush's plans regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq have changed many, many, times over the years. No, John, his *story* has changed many, many times over the years. It's the coincidence of neocons and neofascism that concerns me. Perpetual war benefits both Halliburton and the pulpit. Bush and company lied about Iraq. That is a fact, and nothing will change it. It is what we call reality. Your continued attempts to justify a lying, traitorous administration are simply baffling. You seem to believe that many other people in the world have some kind of sinister agenda -- what is your agenda, John? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: off topic: WEb Video
On Mar 14, 2005, at 11:22 PM, Dave Land wrote: I'm actually quite astounded at how easy Apple has made it to get a web server up and running on Mac OS X You mean Apache on BSD? ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: more neocons
On Mar 15, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I do think there is evidence that senior officers who voice strong criticism of Rumsfeld's ideas do put their career at risk more than they would have under previous presidents. You mean like whatsisname, the Army general who advised more troops before the invasion and got booted out, and Colin Powell? It's not just evidence; it's historic fact, I'm afraid. I'm not sure if Dr. Brin is being hyperbolic or not when indicating that he's heard from others that there's a bit of a purge going on in the DoD. But I do know that Other Posters on this list have asserted claims and then, asked for cites, said they couldn't reveal their sources. This behavior seems to havve been accepted from them. Is it possible we've got a mirror of that here? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Star Wars, True story
On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn, Warren, et al, For Star Wars 2, I waved my arms softly, I repeated the magic chant, ''We are not the Jedi ticket holders you seek'' then my girlfriend and I walked right in, sat right down and baby, let our hair fall down. This is a true story. Wow. And you wasted all that mojo on SW2. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: off topic: WEb Video
On Mar 14, 2005, at 4:06 PM, maru wrote: Or, he could always just mirror it elsewhere, or make it a torrent (if say it was a large video file). Disadvantage there is the But I don't want to DL a BT client just to see this video whine. The option to include text stating a right-click will save is probably the optimal one. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Star Wars
On Mar 14, 2005, at 2:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We could have had these bad movies decades earlier, if Congress had only seen fit to fully fund Reagan's SW's program! Well, I'm holding out for the Special Edition. ;) The first two tests of the SW program, who's multitude of failures are legend, makes me leery of investing any more money with a doomed enterprise. A doomed Enterprise is another thread entirely... -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: off topic: WEb Video
On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Dave Land wrote: The option to include text stating a right-click will save is probably the optimal one. And doesn't violate How The Web Works, either, although it does activate Donald Norman's If you have to explain it, it is designed wrong meme. Well, maybe. The question is which it is misdesigned? The level of cruft required to get ANY web site to function is always tremendous. You works with what you gots. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: marching toward Iran
On Mar 11, 2005, at 12:56 PM, maru wrote: And who benefits? Well, the oil interests obviously do, though it seems rather foolish and needless (Isn't China's oil demand enough?), and obviously the Wahabists do, since they are Sunni, and Iran governed by Shi'ites. It ain't all about American neo-fascism. That's surely *a* motivating factor, but the elephant in the room is the ultra-right wing Paulino-christians who sincerely believe that the US is a holy scourge on the valley of Megiddo, and that it's about time to bring about rivers of blood in the name of hastening their long-dead god's return. As long as these freaks are permitted to speak without being challenged, we're going to see this outrageously stupid religion-based policy pushed toward fruition. There is no difference between Tim LaHaye and any Iranian Mullah who agitates for attacks on the States. Money's a bad problem. But we have faith-based idiots on both side of the border pushing us toward an all-out conflict. The Paulines' hoped-for Armageddon will not bring about the return of Jesus Christ or anyone else; however, it will incontrovertibly do tremendous damage, cost millions of lives, and likely spell the total ruin of the US. From there it's an easy slide into the last century, with each nation acting like a tribe and attacking anyone on its borders. Let's hear it for the wave of the future: The past. All who push for permanent war are traitors. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote: [those are some good refs, Dan -- I need some time to digest them though. ;) ] This is getting close to the time where the introduction of a bit of formalism might be helpful. I think I can do it without going too deep into the math. That's probably good. It has been lo many a moon since I've cracked calculus in any depth. But, first let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with eigenstates and superpositions? For example, if you measure the spin in the x direction, the spin in the y (which is orthogonal to x) is a superposition of up and down. |s = ( |+ + |-)/sqrt(2). Is that something you've seen and feel comfortable with discussions that assume that you know it? Not quite yet. Is there anything even approximating a usable metaphor, or something out of more classical physics I could assimilate more readily? It appears that there is some interest in the fundamentals of the issues, and I wouldn't mind putting together some stuff on those fundamentals. If there's a way to make QM look less totally outrageous (which means, to me, less metaphysical), I'd certainly be interested in exploring it. :D -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Satire] Flintstones Are Way Too Gay
On Mar 11, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Gary Denton wrote: I actually have some pictures of the Flintstones and the Rubbles swinging. This is so vastly into the realm of oversharing that it's actually downright spooky. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Satire] Flintstones Are Way Too Gay
On Mar 11, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Also, attempt to find menus for Chinese restaurants. (I didn't realize the restaurant reviewer's page for the restaurant was likely the only place that linked to an on-line copy of the menu until someone pointed it out to me. And now I'm debating whether or not to go with a group of people there in 10 days.) Because of the review, or because of the other people in the group? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Satire] Flintstones Are Way Too Gay
On Mar 11, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Hard to go wrong with veggie fried rice. :D Depends on the veggies. :) Strewth. My point was more that most veggies didn't start out life with tentacles and blastocysts. (I'm not too much of a squeamish goon; I'll try most things once. Tentacles don't bother me, but I draw the line at shellfish, because when their cousins show up on land, a la order Blattodea, I tend to stomp them flat.) I have food allergies, that's part of my pickiness. The rest is, well, just pickiness. The pickiness is an entitlement. The food allergy thing is a bit more dire. My stepfather's got a severe gluten allergy, and has to be painfully careful about restaurants. It's that or anaphylaxis. Besides, I've been rather partial to meat (at least the meat I can eat) for the past couple of years The glib part of me wants to make a comment about unbeatable meat, but it's just not quite jelling. Oh well. I guess fortune's smiling on many this night. Does the restaurant have a buffet? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
of where I think I'm coming from here. I feel that QM is telling us more about how we're perceiving than it is about what we're perceiving. Thanks for the lengthy comments; I appreciate the time and energy you put into them. Maybe I've done a little better in explaining my own take on things here as well. To me, assigning a meaning to QM's findings on the human scale is a bit like puzzling out the meaning of pi's transcendence. It's interesting -- fascinating, really. But it's just a number, a ratio expressed in decimal that is bottomless in a way it isn't when expressed as a fraction. The number line is infinitely full of such examples. Imputing a universal meaning to transcendental numbers might be, to me, a little like suggesting that QM requires (logically) the presence of qD. It's a leap I'm unprepared to take. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 7, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Have you had a chance to look into superstring ideas? One thing that goes away with that is the inability to determine a particle's location and motion simultaneously, Can you point out where you got this impression? _The Elegant Universe_, Brian Greene. He portrays the problem, IIRC, of particle interactions, describing how a pair of loops would interact in a way different from two particles -- they'd join for a while, forming one loop with different properties, and then separate once again into individual loops. Since we see this as a point-particle interaction, my understanding is that we have a hard time determining when or where the interaction actually takes place. Unfortunately the book is, like 99 44/100% of my life, in storage. So I can't dig up the reference or backcheck it. :\ And Greene is obviously a partisan, so whatever alternate explanations exist might get short shrift in his own arguments. Nova/PBS did a program a while back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ But I don't recall this part of it being discussed. Maybe it was deemed too deep for the audience. Or too abstract! -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Dan Minette wrote: But, you miss why QM is defended as it is. The reaction is as though you said but evolution is just a theory. What would be helpful in thinking about this is asking why Feynman's response was to say shut up and calculate instead of pursuing the same intuative path Einstein didand why his sucessors agreed with that assessment. Either you missed most of what I wrote or I didn't express it correctly. I'm not disputing that the equations in QM seem to show the things they seem to show. What I am suggesting is that the wrong conclusions are being reached, and that it could be because we're missing something fundamental. There isn't a physicist working in QM today who won't say that QM is incomplete. It's inelegant, it has no provision for gravity, and there are (last I checked) eleven possible and totally different interpretations of what QM means in the universal context. There are apparent self-contradictions as well. I referred earlier to the slit experiment's being reproduced on the time axis. If there really is such a thing as qD and state pointers, how can the slit experiment along the time axis work? Wouldn't a particle's emission *history* be enough to set the later state pointers such that all later particles emit in the same way? You'd think so, if there were real meat to quantum Darwinism, yet experiment indicates otherwise. An incomplete set of equations with multiple interpretations and apparently contradictory outcomes is not a basis on which to judge larger issues about the universe. You seem to think I'm taking a great leap of faith here, but I'm not the one acting on faith, or at least I don't see how I am. Not by pointing out that QM is probably telling us more than we realize about *ourselves* than it ever will about the universe we live in. Which, for the record, we do not make up as we perceive it. I can think of at least two very practical thought experiments to prove that assertion beyond reasonable argument. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 4, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM (not just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since QM is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false. Almost as though it's a religion. So what about indeterminacy? I've been ruminating that one for a while. Indeterminacy sure does look like it's there (though superstring proponents believe they've explained that one, and I'm half inclined to agree), but TTBOMK we only see indeterminacy with subatomic particles, and then only some of them, such as electron or photon wavicles. When you're looking at a macroscopic item -- sure, why not, Buckingham Palace -- indeterminacy is overwhelmed by other, much larger effects. That's why, for instance, all the particles in your body don't just randomly decide to vaporize at once. You might get some state changes on the subatomic level because of indeterminacy, but think of it as a finite chance of any one indeterminacy effect happening at any one point in any one entity, and then in fairly ordered ways, as in electron shells -- where exactly in the shell the electron is is indeterminate; but it's proximally certain that it is *someplace* within that shell zone. So you do get indeterminacy in a human body, but if at any one point the likelihood of loss of a single electron to it is, say, 1:1,000,000 (I don't know at all what the odds are of various indeterminate effects happening, but it wouldn't surprise me to know that someone has calculated it), you'd have to poll one million electrons each moment before you were reasonably sure of losing *one* to indeterminacy. That's a lot of electrons, and if your odds of losing one are balanced out by similar odds of gaining one, you still get an outcome that is simply too small to notice. The net effect is toward coherence, not randomization. QM's indeterminacy effects are really quite small. If it were otherwise, we'd have a pretty interesting cosmos, with stochastic tunneling taking place all the time on the macroscopic scale and things spontaneously passing through other things. (As just one example.) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote: FYI Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23, 2004) http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html I saw the same idea floated a couple months back on another list. My reaction then is what it is now: What a load of anthropocentric crap. Here's why. The article has this statement: Because, as Zurek says, the Universe is quantum to the core, this property seems to undermine the notion of an objective reality. In this type of situation, every tourist who gazed at Buckingham Palace would change the arrangement of the building's windows, say, merely by the act of looking, so that subsequent tourists would see something slightly different. Yet that clearly isn't what happens. == Yeah? Prove it. The suggestion that the universe is as it is because we see it that way -- and that what exists around us is somehow inherited from some predecessor consciousness -- is no different from the assertion that we shape the universe each moment by our simple interaction with it. IOW until I woke up this morning nothing else in the world existed. In fact I never even woke up. I only came into existence a fraction of a second ago, with a collection of false memories of a history that never happened. I certainly can't think of a way to prove, beyond any shadow of possible doubt, that Buckingham Palace has not been changed by observation; in fact, I bet it can't be proved totally that it *exists*. This is such a blatant load of horse dung that it should go a long way toward driving a coffin nail or two into the entire QM paradigm. I'm not trying to suggest that QM is 100% wrong. But when you're studying something that leads you to such a clearly bizarre assertion -- that we've observed the universe into existence, essentially -- either the underpinning of QM is fundamentally flawed, or our perceptions of reality are. Or, at the very least, understanding of QM is faulty. The strange effects that take place on the quantum level don't have to manifest on the grosser levels, after all. Indeterminacy for a single quark in a brick doesn't cause an entire palace's façade to change. The other problem I have with the idea of quantum Darwinism is that you more or less have to assume a god. That's actually *more* likely to be true, in my mind, than quantum Darwinism. It's much more likely that the fault lies in our ability to perceive, not in what it is we are observing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
[two replies combined here, one to RS and one to maru] On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. So.in your opinion Schrodringers Cat is a false or unfalsified theory? Schrödinger's Cat is not a theory; it's a model to illustrate one of the more unusual effects of QM at a subatomic level. It's a kind of real-world interpretation of (example) the electron slit experiment (BTW, apparently that experiment has been replicated in a modified way, this time along the time axis -- and it still happens.) I know that there are various tests that confirm observation appears to cause some events to collapse into realities that, until the observation is made, don't exist (or exist equally, which amounts to the same thing). I'm not questioning that the math behind QM, the science, appears to work. I am simply suggesting that there are some very wrong conclusions being drawn about how the universe happens, and they're based in QM. Or rather, we are vastly miscomprehending what QM is telling us about ourselves. The weak or strong anthropic theories? Those aren't valid either, IMO; I think they're inverses of the situation. That is, we seem to think this universe is ideal for (weak:life || strong:human life) because we happen to live in it. Well, obviously if nothing lived in a given universe, one conclusion to be drawn would be that it's nonoptimal for life, but there wouldn't be anyone there to figure that out. It's only the inhabited universe/s where you get life saying, Huh, how interesting; if things weren't just so, we wouldn't be here... Let me express that in a slightly different way. Imagine a gingerbread man looking at the cookie cutter that has just cut him out of the dough. He thinks to himself, Gosh, it sure is amazing how well that cutter mold fits around me -- obviously this cutter has to exist in this way. That would be the strong piskotothropic principle. Or he might think, If the conditions of this oven weren't just right, I couldn't be baking here in this pan right now. That would be the weak piskotothropic principle. But his reasoning is inverted; he seems to fit the cutter so well only because he has been so precisely molded by it. That's what I think is happening in this universe; the anthropic principles -- either one of them -- are a bit like the gingerbread man fantasizing that his presence somehow implies rules about how the cookie cutter can be shaped, or how the oven, eggs, flour, sugar and pan can work. Or he might think By seeing the cutter, I've caused it to come into existence. My observation has shaped the cutter, and in fact observation has caused the oven, the heat, *and* the pan to all come into existence. Until I and my kind saw these things, they simply weren't there at all. That's the quantum Darwin principle, and it is by far the most ridiculous conclusion the gingerbread man can reach. The objections I have to quantum Darwinism are certainly emotional, or maybe you could call them philosophical. From the perspective of an atheist, I don't like what qD suggests about the history of this universe or the way it leaves a big gaping hole for a deity to appear. From the perspective of a pragmatist or realist, I don't like what qD suggests about history; it might render history meaningless. Ethically and philosophically, don't like what qD suggests about *us* -- if we're really shaping the universe, then starvation, genocide and general human and animal suffering must exist only because we've dreamt them up, and every moment we let it endure is another moment of needless suffering foisted off on millions. We die only because we believer we do? Horseshit. Worst of all, that qD would mean the rock-fondlers are correct in their blatherings about consensual reality and other inane, feel-good drivel. But I *also* don't think quantum Darwinism is particularly parsimonious. It suggests there *must have been* observers (other than us) in the past, which is not necessarily false but a tall thing on which to hang one's hat; or it suggests that our observance of the past -- possibly by the lightyear delay in astronomy, who knows -- has affected the history of the universe even as we observe it, and frankly I think prior observers are more likely in this case. Otherwise, again, all of history is useless. It is rendered, to quote Ford, bunk. qD suggests that consciousness has a deep underlying effect on all of what might be called objective reality; and at its core it seeks to re-enthrone humanity in a way that hasn't been viable since the Copernican revolution. That said
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. What wiggle room? Do you realize what you are saying? Yes, I do. I am saying that QM is incomplete, that our understanding is incomplete, and that it's unwise to use an incomplete understanding to purport anything like total comprehension of a thing. As to the wiggle room -- did you read what I wrote? There's plenty of it. ;) You are saying that you trust your feeling about how things should be better than a scientific understanding of the universe. Not at all. I am saying that it is the height of folly to use an incomplete theoretical system to posit *anything* about the universe as anything *except* conjecture. Science is our best means of understanding how the universe works. Aristotle got things very wrong when he used gut level feel. So tell me again why you think this god idea is valid...? The models that best fit observations are, by definition, the best descriptions of what we observe. Since the universe, the totality of phenomenon, is what we observe, how can you say that the universe is different than what our best models of it give us. What special source of information do you have, other than observation and the ability to model that observation. Dan, are you aware of how many interpretations there are of QM? Are you aware that all those interpretations are valid? In what specific best model do you think I should place my trust? Which one of those interpretations is the correct one? Isn't it just possible that none of them are correct, that we've got only the vaguest clue what's going on out there, that QM is just the latest phantom idea? Before we start assuming that we know how things operate, doesn't it make sense to see if our ideas are leading us to silly conclusions? I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. No, there is a much better explanation than this. The universe is phenomenon, not a collection of things-in-themselves. There is no such thing as a thing in itself; I'm very aware of that. If you only drop your insistence that the universe must fit your beliefs, then what we observe is quite understandable from a variety of metaphysical viewpoints. You, like some other QM defenders, have it inverted. It is QM that states the universe fits our beliefs. I'm saying hogwash. By supporting QM you are the one declaring that the universe operates according to people's observations, that consciousness alters outcomes. That is one of the key tenets of QM. And it's a key reason I think *some* of the conclusions reached via QM are dead wrong. Indeed, it makes sense that we observe QM effects as we do. How? Also, its worth noting, that there have been experimental confirmation of macroscopic quantum statesnot just macroscopic effects. Do you mean the electron-slit thing, or are you referring to something else here? In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a separate reality but the interface between that separate reality and our minds, a lot of things fall into place rather nicely. Sure, even more so if you accept the mumbo-jumbo that wishing something is true is sufficient to make it so. That's what really lies at the core of strong QM defense, I think. What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM (not just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since QM is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false. Almost as though it's a religion. Quasi-realism is extremely messy and virtually every effort to come up with quasi-realism has fallen apart very quickly. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, I wrote: In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a separate reality but the interface between that separate reality and our minds, a lot of things fall into place rather nicely. Sure, even more so if you accept the mumbo-jumbo that wishing something is true is sufficient to make it so. That's what really lies at the core of strong QM defense, I think. What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM (not just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since QM is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false. Almost as though it's a religion. That reads a little harsher than I intended. I was thinking of the nonspecific you in that first graf; I should have written it as ...even more so if one accepts the mumbo-jumbo that... The second graf isn't meant to be a slam on religion, but rather on the fervor with which I have seen *some* people defend QM. (That's not targeted at Dan either, BTW, and neither is the following.) Sometimes I feel like Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope -- there's a vast outcry from a throng of individuals, not all of whom seem to have thought fully about what QM's suggestions really mean; the analogy is to the huge number of holiday Catholics who were up in arms because of Sinead's gesture, all of whom seemed to forget that they were really *Christians*, and not particularly devout ones either. When there are nearly a dozen possible equally sensible interpretations of QM's effects on the universe, isn't it just a little odd? When QM says that the universe is the way it is because of how it's been observed in the past, doesn't anyone else get a yellow light? Can the universe really be that plastic? Doesn't it seem just a little hubristic to suggest that reality is, quite literally, what we make it out to be? Is that truly the most likely case, or is it instead more feasible that we're not there yet, that we aren't fully clear on everything? Just before Einstein published his paper on relativity, physicists were saying that there was virtually no research left to be done in physics, that it was soon to be a dead science. Boy were they wrong. Isn't it feasible that we're just as wrong to assume that QM is really a fully legitimate, deeply descriptive and entirely accurate model of reality? Particularly when there still isn't agreement about how to interpret what QM tells us? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soon to be seen at a major fellowship site
On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Our own Gautam is the recepient of a 2005 Sorros fellowship. Details concerning this fellowship are given at http://www.pdsoros.org/ Nice, very nice. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tits (a womans perspective)
On Feb 27, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Thanks For The Mammeries Maru Cute. Personally I've never been that motivated by overendowment. I always imagine what it'll be like in the fourth or fifth decade, after gravity's had its way. My ideal has always been something just large enough to fill a palm -- about half a grapefruit. More than that seems, to me, too much. Less isn't a problem, though, which is interesting. (I mean I'm not sure why, but I don't fall into the more is better category here.) Now as far as the male side of things goes -- size definitely does matter. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A very good NYT article on intelligent design
On Feb 27, 2005, at 4:14 PM, d.brin wrote: [from the NYT article] So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they're told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence -- extraterrestrial scientists, say. Those wacky wolflings. At least they're starting to figure it out! -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: PKD (spoiler space)
On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:36:56 -0700, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a lot of great info about PKD novels and stories. Warren, thanks for the great analysis. I have not read any PKD, and now I know where to start. :D I do like da'guy. Also, as there's soon to be a film version of _A Scanner Darkly_ coming out, you might want to consider that novel as well. And please don't hold the dreadful film _Paycheck_ against the short of that same name. Gary Sinise was in a sleeper called _Impostor_ that was based on a PKD short. After _Blade Runner_ it's my favorite text-to-screen adaptation; it stayed fairly true to the story and its ending was *not* the same one PKD wrote -- but it would, I think, have met with his approval. Which version of the movie? The original and the director's cut have different endings. Ah, you've seen the short version as well as the theatrical release. To my mind, the short version was just fine as it was... Are both of them different from PKD's original? Yes! Which one is closer? Ha, neither! (IIRC -- it's unfortunately been about 2 years since I've been able to see that movie...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: PKD (spoiler space)
On Feb 21, 2005, at 5:08 AM, G. D. Akin wrote: I hadn't read much of PKD before this class. He's quite good! At least his short stories are. I was reading Fair Game in bed last night. My wife came in and asked me why I was laughing so hard. Always a fun question to be asked when one is in bed. PKD wrote *very* fast; he cranked out something like 40 novels in his career, and died just as his work was becoming a bit more recognized. Characteristics of his fiction are mistrust of authority and inability to say with certainty what is really happening in a given character's life. There's a heavy undercurrent of paranoia; a surreal scene from _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ takes place in an android-duplicated police station that's meant to be indistinguishable from the real thing. His later works start exploring the philosophy of deity. After reading _Divine Invasion_, _VALIS_ and _The Transmigration of Timothy Archer_ in the early 90s, I found most of what was presented in _The Matrix_ to be actually predictable. PKD went Gnostic for a while and evidently had an episode wherein he thought a pink beam of light spoke to him abut the secrets of the cosmos. Later still he seemed to question the authenticity of that event. A lot of the ideas in his fiction seem to be based in a moderately schizophrenic and/or paranoid and/or manic depressive outlook. Compelling reading, but his product was not consistent. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's possible to get your mitts on one of the less-stellar books of his and wonder why he's got the fan base he has. Let's see -- I'd probably recommend _The Man in the High Castle_, the aforementioned _Androids_ and possibly _VALIS_ or maybe _UBIK_ to get a sense of the range of his writings in novel form; for shorts, check out The Pre-Persons, Minority Report and Second Variety (the latter made into the movie _Screamers_). Also We Can Remember it for You Wholesale, which turned into _Total Recall_. (The Pre-Persons was his means of protesting abortion; it's the story of several kids trying to avoid being taken away -- if they're caught, they're retroactively aborted. It's a fairly powerful story.) Gary Sinise was in a sleeper called _Impostor_ that was based on a PKD short. After _Blade Runner_ it's my favorite text-to-screen adaptation; it stayed fairly true to the story and its ending was *not* the same one PKD wrote -- but it would, I think, have met with his approval. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we? Not lately, no, we're not. We've done a hell of a lot to be ashamed of in the last couple years, and it looks like some nations, such as Iran and Syria, are worried -- justly so -- that we've got a lot more horrible deeds ahead of us. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't care to discuss anything further. You call what you were doing discussing? Ha! Aren't you overdue for your meds? Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse? When one is dealing with a child, occasionally the child needs to be spanked. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: *Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child. Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children at that stage of development cannot be reasoned with. A spanking is more effective (seems to me) with a two-year-old than a twelve-year-old. So far, every situation I've encountered personally, there was a better alternative to spanking. Well, sure, but my tranquilizer darts are in storage. :\ And it's more productive to reward good behavior than to punish bad behavior -- you get the results you're after more quickly, if it's a matter of handling a bad habit. If the behavior is about attention-getting, sure; when it's bleating for the sake of making noise, there might be better ways than even duct tape suggests. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq vote
On Feb 16, 2005, at 5:22 AM, William T Goodall wrote: I was thinking of Christians ;-) Oh, *those* cannibals! -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
On Feb 16, 2005, at 6:35 AM, JDG wrote: You say that Social Security reflects a view where Americans were willing to sacrifice a little to ensure that seniors did not suffer privations or go hungry.My point, however, is that if those were really the values that Social Security were reflecting, then one would expect Social Security to, say, primaly provide benefits to those who were in danger of suffering privations or going hungry. TTBOMK that is precisely what it does. There are certainly exceptions; no one's arguing otherwise, I think. But if you doubt that SS is meeting its goal, or at least *gesturing* toward meeting its goal, I suggest you locate a few retirees and ask them if they're living off personal savings or SS. If you take a genuinely random sample, I believe you'll find your supposition is flawed. One might also expect it to demand the most sacrifice of those who most able to do so, rather than funding its benefits through regressive taxation.Based on the evidence, however, I can only conclude that Social Security is designed to reflect some other values - with the benefits to those who might suffer privations or go hungry being mere side effects. I don't think anyone's arguing that SS isn't broken; there are definitely problems with the system. There are abuses. And there are plenty of cases one can point out that show some people are not paying into the system anywhere near as much as they might be able to. However, it should be pointed out that it's administrations such as Bush II which encourage these dodges; the shift of taxation to the destitute is something that has happened chiefly in the last four years. And again, highlighting troubles with a system doesn't qualify as justification for eliminating the system; rather, it's a good punch list of places to start making changes. As for living off the next generation -- to some degree this is a fair payoff. If the next generation had not been raised, looked after and educated by the previous generation, it wouldn't have the plum jobs it has, nor the opportunity to pay into a system that helps ensure the elders whom it owes are not living in undue suffering and misery; and it helps that generation make sure the *next* one is as prepared to uptake its maintenance duties when the time comes. So SS can be looked at as a way any given society can look after its elders, to whom I believe it owes at least nominal gratitude. As the Germans say, one hand washes the other. Finally, presupposing a fault in the stock market is hardly the gamble you make it out to be; it's guaranteed to happen. Assets cannot build indefinitely simply because there are not infinite resources with which to create them. There must be a leveling off, but history shows that we don't get leveling actions. We get valleys, corrections, crashes, whatever you want to call them. The truly erroneous presupposition is that SS will be bankrupt in a few decades, which (it is argued) makes it somehow sensible to discard it utterly right now. For someone arguing a conservative viewpoint, this approach is hard to defend, because it absolutely is neither conservative nor even particularly prudent. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq vote
On Feb 15, 2005, at 6:27 PM, William T Goodall wrote: But, if an elected body accepts Islamic law as a basis for civil law, then I see us not having the ability to overrule that body. But Islamic Law is Evil. The stoning, the beheading, the chopping off hands... if they choose it then they are not fit to choose. That is only one variety of Islamic law; there's no guarantee that we'll see a re-emergence of a caliphate by election. There are millions more moderate Muslims than fundamentalists; the seeds for a civil society not unlike the American version (in ideal) exist in Islamic teachings every bit as much as the ones which were found for the US. That is, while the US absolutely, emphatically was *not* founded as a Christian nation, many of the tenets embodied in its founding documents could be said to come from *some* Christian ideals. Very similar tenets could be drawn from Muslim ideals. If a bunch of cannibals vote to continue cannibalism then it is obvious they need a bit more schooling in decent behaviour before they get to run their own affairs. Um, um, no. Sorry. What kind of cannibalism do you have in mind here? Are you referring to icky nasty people going out and killing others just so they can eat them, or are you instead referring to the practice of devouring an enemy slain in war, or do you mean the reverential consumption of a family member after natural death as part of the funerary rite? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica renewed
On Feb 13, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: I think in the old series the Cylons were the robotic soldiers of a dead race. IIRC the original Cylons were lizards or something... My recall of it's vague too, but I believe the centurions had only one brain lobe and the Imperious Leader had three; there was a two-lobed version that never appeared in the series as well. (This is from one of the books, actually.) There was something about the Cylons that made me think of Daleks, and it might have had something to do with degenerate mutations. Also, didn't they spend an inordinate amount of time watching Fox News Channel? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: This was absolutely pathetic. Way to totally avoid any worthwhile consideration of social security. [...] Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Way to live in fantasy land. Almost unbelievable that you consider this a worthwhile article. [...] Anyone want to place bets on when Erik figures out why no one's talking to him? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica renewed
On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Warren said: My recall of it's vague too, but I believe the centurions had only one brain lobe and the Imperious Leader had three; there was a two-lobed version that never appeared in the series as well. Was the Imperious Leader the more human-looking one with the conical(?) head? Or was that an intermediate caste? I think the IL was the humanoid one, yeah, with the weird red coral (?) growing from his skull. Also, didn't they spend an inordinate amount of time watching Fox News Channel? No, that last part was Babylon 5 not Battlestar Galactica. Oh, right, I'm thinking of the Shadows. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica renewed
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:04 AM Monday 2/14/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: My recall of it's vague too, but I believe the centurions had only one brain lobe and the Imperious Leader had three; there was a two-lobed version that never appeared in the series as well. I suppose that explains why they have three Cylons in their fighters, and that Cylon pilot in one episode reported that We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us. Was that really a line? (I wouldn't be surprised) -- but yeah, that was the reason there were three Cylons in a raider. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SpamAdaption
On Feb 11, 2005, at 6:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft has proposed many different solutions to solving the spam problem. Its is largely the corporate world that balks at the use of these solutions, because they utilize it so frequently. Microsoft has seen fierce resistance against limiting spam, from the largest of corporations. Do you have citations to support these statements? However, my complaint now is largely the spyware and adware that is plagueing the Internet. Microsoft, and most anti-virus companies were caught unaware of the destructiveness of these programs. MS can't plead ignorance; it's a natural offshoot of the massive security holes they introduced deliberately in their OS. How about a plan of multiple Spam nexus (nexi?) where registered spammers can send mail to their recipients. People can then decide to reject all spam if it does not come from a specific or registered nexus. Too complicated. I have a much simpler solution. 1. Track down the spammer. 2. Shoot him thro' the head. This has the added advantage of being a hell of a deterrent. You mean I can be shot for sending junk email? ...and maybe we can add a rider to eliminate chain letters too. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SpamAdaption
On Feb 12, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Nick Lidster wrote: Have to ask how shooting someone will make people stop sending spam? did thedeath penealty stop peoople from committing murder? I realize that on the internet one expects to see emoticons to act as cues for determining whether a poster is happy, sad or winking; I *occasionally* prefer to leave people in the dark as to my intent, allowing the cues in the text itself to act as tone. My post can be read as wry, sarcastic, serious, what have you. Do you honestly believe I'd advocate shooting spammers? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SpamAdaption
On Feb 12, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Nick Lidster wrote: On Feb 12, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Nick Lidster wrote: Have to ask how shooting someone will make people stop sending spam? did thedeath penealty stop peoople from committing murder? I realize that on the internet one expects to see emoticons to act as cues for determining whether a poster is happy, sad or winking; I *occasionally* prefer to leave people in the dark as to my intent, allowing the cues in the text itself to act as tone. My post can be read as wry, sarcastic, serious, what have you. Do you honestly believe I'd advocate shooting spammers? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books Well i certainly did understand that you were tring to make a funny. However Where im from if your making a funny... it had better be able to be defended if challenged. Huh; where I'm from that's called taking people far too seriously. [ ;) ] Namely this happens with jokes that make you go hmmm well it is funny... but it just does not sound right. AS for your statement it did put a smile on my face at the point of the adding a rider for chain mail, I found it cute. Thanks. The best part would be advocating the passage of the legislation via spam/chain letter, of course. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica renewed
On Feb 10, 2005, at 12:29 PM, kerri miller wrote: I was never exposed to the original series, but I'm loving BG so far - it has a wonderful B5 feel to the darkness. The original series was OK in some respects, but *awfully* silly in many others. Much of the mythology mentioned in it was lifted more or less wholesale from Mormon beliefs, which made more than a few Mormons upset. I don't know if it was out of a sense of their beliefs being mocked or disrespected, or because in the context of the series the beliefs made sense, more or less -- but when promoted by the LDS church as truth, the image of Lorne Greene solemnly making declarations about sealing and such was what prospective new members ended up with rather than the sense of awe that the LDS church preferred. On top of that the FX were ... well, the scenes were *tolerable* but the same footage kept getting used over and over. Obvious budget issues. And the hair ... oh my, 1970s disco hair. Every. Where. Not as bad as _Buck Rogers_, but still, pretty bad. If you're in the mood for a giggle, rent the movie sometime to get a feel for what the series entailed. and note the changes; there are many, most of them improvements. AND isn't it nice to see the same special effects shop that did Firefly getting work? They do some wonderful techniques. They do. It's nice seeing an RCS on a spacecraft rather than traditional atmospheric maneuvering techniques, and using projectile weapons instead of beam type devices makes the whole thing a little more grounded in what we like to think of as reality. (Of course the lightspeed stuff is another matter...) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica renewed
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:49 PM, kerri miller wrote: Wouldn't it be cool to have a show where the cast changed every week because it took them 14 generations to get to the next star system? That might be a stretch for most viewers, but a multiple year arc a la B5 or possibly in the spirit of _Robotech_ might be intriguing. Season 1 is the departure; season 2 is the transition phase with a whole new cast (plus cameos from age-makeup'd season 1 oldsters); season 3 is the arrival, with another cast. All 3 seasons would have plenty of room for adventure and lots of fun for set design as the once-pristine craft becomes aged, patched and takes on a lived-in look. And later seasons could have other cameos from the previous years in holographic avatar form or whatever -- recordings of earlier inhabitants used for reference or something. (My, I just realized I'm borrowing a little from Alastair Reynolds here, but I kind of like the idea.) Season 4 could be the well-established colony launching another craft for the generational return to Earth, with some of the crewmembers, being the great-grands (etc.) of the originals, the same cast from the first season (family resemblance). Hmm. Someone get someone on the phone. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: what happens when they show the movie Free Enterprise
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A.Six Democrats stand up and denounce it. B.Someone notices it's Ron Gulart playing Capt. Kirk. C.Freedom of Information documents reveal, the Dept. of Education mistakenly paid for the movie, thinking it was an educational film. Later, the head of DoE becomes a successful Hollywood producer, from his cabana in the south of Spain. D. Activists begin picketing outside the white house with placards bearing the message, Free Enterprise NOW! E. SPAM bogus charity emails written in very poor English begin surfacing, all beginning something like: My dear, Please do not feel sad for me because I believe every show has to be cancelled someday... F. The French government issues a statement denouncing the loss of Free Enterprise just when sanctions were really beginning to work. G. In San Francisco, thousands of people gather for a three-day rock fest called Artists for Showbiz Security. Mistaking the initials for something else, Rick Santorum publicly denounces the ASSfest as a further example of perversity and debauchery. H. At ASSfest, Jolene Blalock has a Wardrobe Malfunction. The internet is shut down by the flood of searches for Jolene Blalock ASS and, over the next several days, no digital commerce can proceed. I. The United States economy, already on shaky ground, collapses. J. Bush II blames the failure of the US economy on Clinton and slashes taxes to the wealthy while cutting finances to programs that are mandated but underfunded. K. Everyone packs up and leaves for Canada except die-hard residents in the South. L. The Vulcans, who have been monitoring the events from Saturn's orbit, send an envoy to offer emergency relief. The envoy is met by a crowd of hangers-on in what's left of the US, and are immediately shot on the grounds their presence might compromise White Racial Purity. M. The Vulcans respond by razing half of North America with a particle weapon, leaving much of what was once swampland as a charred and cindered plain. The American Southwest becomes a vast expanse of glass. N. Pat Robertson claims that the only reason the Vulcans were able to do anything at all was because of the prevalence of homosexuality in US society. O. The Defense of Marriage Amendment is passed by what's left of Congress. P. Britney Spears tries to get married, then divorced, in Vegas to an old school chum. Unfortunately the Constitutional amendment had a rider defending marriage, not just from gays and polygamists, but also from *divorce*. In a media circus she surrenders her virginity for the first time ever, really, no kidding. Q. Madonna wants in on the action too, but the Vulcans claim she is illogical and beam her into the sun's core. R. France surrenders. S. Bush II mobilizes what's left of the US population in an attempt to track down the Vulcans, but becomes distracted in a search for Denobulan weapons of mass destruction. The Vulcans are untouched but a cache of more than 50,000 tribbles is found on the far side of the moon. France surrenders again. T. Rick Santorum is caught sodomizing a puppy and, in a fit of shame -- an emotion he has never felt before -- eats his own head. U. The Vulcans vaporize Pat Robertson. V. A tribble is used to prove that Dick Cheney is actually a Klingon, and Bush II is ousted from Washington. W. John McCain is universally hailed as the next President of the Remaining United States. X. Peace descends. Y. William Shatner memorializes everything by doing a VERY bad cover of By-Bye, Miss American Pie. He is promptly vaporized by the Vulcans. Z. France surrenders. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] It sounded like the plan was to create an original film with new characters, set in the Trek universe. An original film with new characters... Without a television series to enable the characters to truly take life, I'm not sure how the Trek crew could avoid a hollowed out husk of a movie. That is, if it's intended to be anything more than a mindless action film. You haven't seen the last few Trek movies, have you? Mindless action film is a pretty good description for any one of them. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:11 AM, Damon Agretto wrote: You haven't seen the last few Trek movies, have you? Mindless action film is a pretty good description for any one of them. That's the way its been for a while. Star Trek stopped being about SF and started being a character driven franchise a long time ago. Actually if it *had* been legitimately character driven it might have been tolerable. Character-driven here meaning exploring the lives, ideals and mores of the characters, how they relate to the universe and what they learn from it. That's why Kirk had to have a noble death...can't get by with a cheap death in his bed of old age (like most ranking officers), but by saving the universe. Well, that would have been OK too, but the construction around Kirk's death was stupid. Really really stupid. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: But we were still dealing with temporally developed characters. Consequently, we the audience have certain character-specific expectations - i.e. the goosebumps a die-hard Trekkie/Trekker (the latter being my generation) gets when Kirk is laughing at the superior intellect of Khan whilst kicking the genetically engineered crap outta said bad guy. That's all I'm saying. A feature film with an entirely new cast of characters = no goosebumps. Ah, OK, I see. But is that really necessary? Aren't there other movies that start from a premise of unknown characters and leave you chilly, simply because they're well written, -directed and -acted? I can think of a few. If the expectations of the Trek franchise have sunk so low that there's not even a realistic hope of a square-one story having a truly meaningful impact, then I say let it lie on the shelf and stay there until some truly talented people come along and pick it up again. Paramount is right. They have to kill Trek in order to save it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] His cheap death comes in the form of his poetry. lol I want to sleep with common people, like you. -Bill Shatner/some song off his new album- The poetry comment *is* funny. The quote -- hmm, does he mean like you are, or like you do? Um. Why the hell do I care anyway? I don't think I do. After trying to like the first Tek war novel I gave up totally on Shatner's writing abilities. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Hostage a little stiff...
On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Feb 2, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I read somewhere (maybe on this list) recently that satire is [reportedly] specifically forbidden by the Koran . . . Hmm. That would surprise me. Why? At its core satire is meant as a call for change. And what religious institution wants to change? It would surprise me because the Koran is really more flexible than that. As an example, during the first few hundred years after Islam's coming to the world stage, Muslim science was vastly superior to the European variety. There was no sense that the finding of fact about the world in any way conflicted with how Allah wanted the faithful to behave; contrarily (IIRC) it was regarded as laudable to study Creation if for no other reason than to marvel at the complexity of work that Allah had wrought. Similarly, humor, satire and other like pursuits are extensions of intelligence. I don't think there's ayah in surah that can be quoted as forbidding learning or forbidding expression of one's Allah-granted wit. I would be *very* surprised to learn that Allah had explicitly forbidden humor in *any* of its forms. Googling for the exact phrases koran forbids humor or koran forbids satire yields no results. A search of the etext at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/koran.html for either humor or satire also comes up null. I don't recall coming across any such passage, and while not a Koranic scholar, I have read the text in three translations. (Well, two plus a good interpretation.) However, there might be something in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) that says otherwise. There certainly are passages to be found in the Hadith that can be -- and have been -- quoted to support terrorism as jihad. But the Hadith are not part of the Koran. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shitner novels
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought Ron Goulart ghost wrote the novels and Shatner cashed the checks. That's even worse. Because the novels really truly are unreadable. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Feb 8, 2005, at 6:26 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://tinyurl.com/3rtec Fans are attempting to organise to pay for another season. There are times when democracy is not a good thing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chimera
On Feb 6, 2005, at 5:28 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Creating chimeras, she said, by mixing human and animal gametes (sperms and eggs) or transferring reproductive cells, diminishes human dignity. Based on that criterion, fully 40% of the human race should be extinguished. (Which 40%? Depends who you ask. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: IPod Loading
On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Robert wrote: An iPod loader can earn several hundred dollars for converting a large collection, but hour by hour, the money is modest. Transferring a single full-length CD takes five to nine minutes on a standard computer, which means that most computers can generate $6 to $12 an hour. Even a computer capable of transferring a CD in three minutes would generate no more than $20 an hour. Actually it would take a lot less time than that once you established a comprehensive database on you computer. Not exactly legal, maybe, but you can transfer MP3s (or whatever) a good deal faster than you can translate a CD. Of course, to do that you'd have to have an MP3 version of every possible song ever. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life
On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002172407_mars06.ht ml http://tinyurl.com/58hnw Global warming may be a scourge on Earth, but injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of Mars might be just the thing to turn the barren planet into a living, breathing world that could support future human colonies, NASA researchers said. And why not? Left Behind-reading, Biblical-literalist eco-terrorists are plotting the demise of Earth in order to force God's hand and bring about the end of days anyway. Oh? Have you heard some news of which I'm unaware? They need somewhere for La Haye's sick fantasy of suffering for people who don't believe just like him and his kind to take place. And how appropriate it would be a place like Mars, named after a PAGAN god, who was an earlier PAGAN god under the Greeks, and we all know what *they* were famous for.** God help us. Um. Years ago I had a button that read, Dear lord, please protect me from your followers. However, I'd appeal to something a little closer to material reality for help. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ** The answer is: Cheesecake. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SpamAdaption
On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Robert G. Seeberger wrote: And that comes right after AOL claimed that spam was going down and that everybody was saying that spammers had given up It seems that spammers have adapted. How can they use the ISP's infrastructure and why can't the ISPs prevent them from doing it? And in case anyone is wondering what the answer is to that last question... it's that the spammers are hijacking computers via malware and exploits and then using the victim's ISPs to send spam. The ultimate source of these problems is at least partly a corruptible operating system. A class-action suit against Microsoft would go a long way toward addressing spam, since UNIX, Linux, BSD and Mac systems don't have these kinds of security issues. It's impossible for Windows' current engine to be fully secured; the integration of VBscript guaranteed it, and VBS is built so deeply into the platform that it can't be removed without a top-down rewrite. Eliminate Windows and you'll eliminate spam. As well as proximally all viruses extant today. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
