Re: three paradigm shifts?
Bemmzim wrote: Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dogs 'n cats (was Re: three paradigm shifts?)
On 4/18/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. We had cats and a dog when I was a kid.. and I have had cats as an adult. But a few weeks ago, we got our first dog, Kairo, who is a Maltese (though a big one at 13 lbs.). We've been calling him Fluffy the last few days after using stuff called D-Mat on him to help remove and prevent mats in his hair (it's hair, not fur, which is why my wife's allergies aren't going crazy). Dogs certainly are different from cats. I like both, too. One of the most entertaining parts of my day is walking Kairo past Joey's house. Joey is a black-and-white cat who apparently loves dogs. The two of them wrestle for a while and then we continue our walk. Kairo tries to get romantic with Joey sometimes, even though he no longer has all the parts necessary for reproduction even within his species. He's still young enough that he's chewing everything. It's a bit of a battle to stay ahead of what he finds. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 17, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip^2 In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. The same can be said of humans who have been inculcated to believe in a strong social hierarchy or family values that neconservatives could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (generation whatever) as well as territorial behaviors (I'll give up my gun...). Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. Allow me to affirm your open-mindedness w/r/t cats and dogs. I think the whole dog person vs. cat person meme is not as useful as others seem to think it is. We had both dogs and cats when I was growing up, so I never saw myself as favoring one over the other. They're definitely different, but so are introverted and extroverted humans. While I am definitely the latter, and seem to gravitate towards other extroverts (and compete with them for airtime), I can get along with introverts, too. I may even be married to one, although her outgoing ways seem to mask her introversion. That said, my 9-year-old son wants /nothing/ to do with dogs of any size and personality, but adores our two cats Oreo and Fannie Mae. Dave Always Thinking Out Loud Land PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 18 Apr 2006, at 7:21PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. That variant spelling of extrovert only finds 236,000 pages on Google. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Cats (Was: three paradigm shifts?)
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage... in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Ronn, Ronn, Ronn...cats are inherently inexplicable. I suspect Midnight has his paws over his eyes at your obtuseness... ;-} Damon opined: Intelligence and inherent laziness obviously selected itself in cat evolution. In some circles, cats taking on us as their masters can be seen as a stoke of genius that outstrips the greatest of human achievements! Your cat(s) have obviously brainwashed - er, _trained_ - you well, but your understanding of the feline purpose underlying exploitation of humanity is a bit flawed. *Laziness* has little to do with it; rather, they desire leisure time to contemplate Big Ideas: the Good, the True, the Real, the Invisible, the Ineffable...and what Truth bits of string twitched across floors represent. ;-) Pat noted: We never domesticated them. They just took advantage of free food and shelter, in true predator style. Or, why doesn't your cat obey you? Pat, human servant to Dufus Claudius Felis and Spot Optimus Maximus Another human who clearly understands her place in the Great Food Chain. Your rulers have been a little harsh, perhaps, if they have never deigned to allow you the illusion of miniscule control; most felids find the antics of humans trained with the 'diminishing rewards'** system absolutely hysterical. `:-) **The diminishing rewards method involves initially frequent responses to human 'orders,' such as coming-when-called; then response should be lowered until it is entirely sporadic -- it drives many humans to massive expenditure of effort. While most cats see this as harmless fun, others feel it is unnecessarily humiliating for their thralls -- a rare few think that humans are too dangerously arrogant to be allowed even the illusion of having a measurable effect upon the universe. Rob stated: I'm not by nature a cat person. But our cats love me to death and will obey any imperative command I give (Get Down!...Get Back In The House!) especially if accompanied by a single clap. G They also know what the phrases Malt and Canned Cat Food mean and will come immediately if you ask them if they want some. (Malt is a malt or salmon flavored hairball gelapparently quite yummy) See?!?! A well-conditioned human, providing not only nourishment of Their Imperiousnesses' Mortal Frames, but delighting Their Incomparable Sense Of Whimsy as well! A miracle of felicitous cohabitation to behold! ;-) Getting back to a serious and scientific approach- Bob Z wrote: Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. It is true that cats must be 'imprinted' at an earlier age than dogs to truly attach to humans; it's ~ 8 weeks of age for kittens, while the figures I recall for dogs is more like 6-8 months of age. Feral cats can be tamed/trained, but having missed that early kittenhood experience, they will almost never accept a human as mother-figure. I have heard of adult feral dogs becoming family members, but this can still be dangerous - think of dingos. Cats relate to us as mother-figures: they call to us as they did to their dam, answer our calls as they would hers, greet us with tail-in-the-air as they did her, and learn from us as they would from her. Adult cats rarely call to each other except in mating heat, and greet by touching muzzles instead of kittenish begging (the raised tail). [Of course, some adult cats are very social with other adult cats, while others avoid or are openly hostile toward them. There was a fascinating British study of farm cats in which lion-pride-like behavior occurred: queens caring for and nursing kittens not their own, a creche-type kitten-sitting service, and friendly or at least mostly peaceful cohabitation with a large number of other queens and their kits. Toms are driven away from the creche, as they tend to kill kittens, much as invading male lions will destroy the cubs of a pride they conquer.] Dogs, OTOH, are pack animals, and therefore are more social than cats; there is a much higher degree of interdependence among wolves and their descendants, as a lone wolf will have a very difficult time raising any pups to adulthood, while a feral queen has a good chance of bringing at least one kitten per litter to independence. So for a dog, being a member of a pack is more a matter of life, while for a cat, being a member of the family is more a matter of pleasure or convenience. A very
Re: three paradigm shifts?
--text follows this line-- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hello (hello, hello)
Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Maybe I have the wrong title, but it's definitely a KL song on the High Adventure album; My bad. It's actually titled 'Welcome To Heartlight. I like the love And I like the peaceful I wish everyone I know could Stand in the heartlight... ...Can you feel the love thats in my heart Cant you see the flame weve got to start Burnin like a beacon in the night O welcome to heartlight I still like it, shampoo or no... Let's sing the Happy Happy Joy Joy song, boys and girls! Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Joy joy, Happy happy, Happy happy, Happy happy -- Joy! Debbi You Eediot! Maru;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. That first alliance with social wolves must have had a tremendous impact on hunter-gatherers: here were allies who could see in the dark, smell from afar, and race to attack, while puny humans had to cower near a fire or risk being carried off by equally 'magic' predators. So too, the reverence for Cow by the ancients: provider of milk, meat, and covering, and able to pull far heavier loads (plow) than humans alone; and to the needs of humans these large creatures *submitted* (more or less quietly). Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Debbi Equus Of The Shining Mane! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
At 09:00 PM Monday 4/17/2006, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: three paradigm shifts? Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:54:34 -0500 At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Meow Maru We never domesticated them. They just took advantage of free food and shelter, in true predator style. Some of you may remember this New York Times Science Times article from January. (Still available to registered members at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/science/06cats.htm.) Note the last sentence in this excerpt: DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Evolution By NICHOLAS WADE Published: January 6, 2006 Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell. [Photo of kitten exploring a clothes dryer] Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell. About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today. Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection. Or, why doesn't your cat obey you? Pat, human servant to Dufus Maybe _yours_ objects to being called Dufus . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 18/04/2006, at 11:59 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. It was commonly articulated around ethnology groups when I was doing zoology too. It's not a new thought, it's just one of those kind-of- obvious-ones that takes a while to trickle into common sense. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. And people ask why I chose Australia for my big solo trip... no large terrestrial maneaters is a good reason I feel! (s about the crocs and sharks... ;) ) Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Nice. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, advancing the sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for sainthood. As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Debbi Experiencing Pissy Mare Syndrome Untimely? Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. Yah. Great analogy. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. I went through heresy long ago, and well out the other side. Now it just seems all culty and weird, and I find it hard to tell the difference between any of the major religions. Kind of like how Europeans find it hard to distinguish Republicans and Democrats... (both are parties on the right, somewhat like the Conservative party...) Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Yup. I have this with my niece (age 8-1/2). She asks a LOT of questions. I have trouble answering them all but I try my best to at least be honest. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:05 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 18 Apr 2006, at 7:21PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. That variant spelling of extrovert only finds 236,000 pages on Google. Spot on, William. I searched for introvert OR intravert vs extravert OR extrovert and came up with closer, but still skewed results: intr(o|a)vert: 2,470,000 extr(o|a)vert: 2,150,000 Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land Apparently there was a party and we weren't invited. Well, you weren't. I'm an intravert. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Nick On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land Apparently there was a party and we weren't invited. Well, you weren't. I'm an intravert. You are? How odd. Google only has 13,500 pages for intravert, but pages for introvert. In fact, I'm not even sure that intravert is a word. Dictionary.com says: No entry found for intravert. Did you mean introvert? I notice that there are two ways to spell extravert/extrovert, because we'll come no matter what you call us. In fact, just try and stop us. Introverts, on the other hand, stubbornly sit there thinking about whatever the hell it is that you think about until we get around to addressing them correctly, as introvert, thank you very much. Dave ExtrEMEvert Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand. It's why I don't fault the Niceans for coming up with their (somewhat odd) Trinitarian belief: because it is an easy way out when you can claim that the left hand is truly ignorant of the doings of the right (as well as the easiest way to end a debate, by saying: hey, you are all right _at the same time_. 3=1, 1=3, God=devine human son=crazy near-pantheistic voodoo cloud). The soap opera digests that are Polytheism is just so much easier to explain/take in comparison. So what if Odin didn't always know the stupid stuff Thor and Loki were out doing? As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. As a kid I once spent quite a while explaining to someone why Marvel Comics were better morality tales than large parts of the Christian Bible. I also had so many arguments that the Luddite interpretation of Frankenstein was much less meaningful than the Creator abandoning his creation interpretation. It was weird how many adults around me told me I was stupid for siding with the poor creature. I've often wondered which one was the preferred interpretation of Mary Shelley. Her husband was a notorious Luddite, from what I'm told, and so its easy to see why Frankenstein might be anti-technological, but I always wonder if perhaps Mary Shelley found that sympathy with her creation (by way of the maniac Doctor) and realized that the technology was frightening, but the real morality is in what you _do_ with that technology. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. I started out very heretic, so I'm sometimes afraid there is nowhere to go but less. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
On 19 Apr 2006, at 12:56AM, Max Battcher wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 19/04/2006, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Precisely. It's yet more of why this loving god made less and less sense to me. There's just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this deity... just makes no sense. Mind you, neither does much else of it, to me. Not any more. I personally see it as the inherent flaw in the Judeo-Christian- Muslim religions. I can't understand why people would choose to worship a deity (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and simultaneously provides and supports with the other hand. It's why I don't fault the Niceans for coming up with their (somewhat odd) Trinitarian belief: because it is an easy way out when you can claim that the left hand is truly ignorant of the doings of the right (as well as the easiest way to end a debate, by saying: hey, you are all right _at the same time_. 3=1, 1=3, God=devine human son=crazy near-pantheistic voodoo cloud). The soap opera digests that are Polytheism is just so much easier to explain/take in comparison. So what if Odin didn't always know the stupid stuff Thor and Loki were out doing? Monotheism jumps the shark before it even gets started. God is good, but he is also evil - or is it the other way around? And as a story the Judas/Crucifixion thing makes no sort of sense of any kind. The son of god, who could beat up Superman with one hand tied behind his back, allows himself (or pretends) to be sacrificed for some obscure reason but then pops back to life again anyway. What??! Two millennia of fanwankery hasn't managed to patch up those plot holes. Elephants on the back of a giant turtle makes more sense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Most people have more than the average number of legs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Blog of interest
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/ He welcomes clarifications and corrections. I'm enjoying it. Oh, and he posted this link: http://www.math.northwestern.edu/%7Ematt/kleinfour/media/finite.wmv earlier this week. That's a fun one, IMO. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Was Judas a villain? I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ was divine and that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of the plan and cannot be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, advancing the sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for sainthood. As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. These words had impact on me at the time: Jesus! Youve started to believe The things they say of you You really do believe This talk of God is true And all the good youve done Will soon be swept away Youve begun to matter more Than the things you say Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in any way before I heard these words, even with a predisposition towards lenience. Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and broadened my concept of salvation. I think it is central to the meaning of life and the idea of salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry is required in order for there to be a choice and it is not always clearly defined what rightness requires us to do. In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. But I have problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Many many times I have thought this. But further reflection leads me to think that if THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION were laid out in front of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number portrait. And to extend the art metaphor, there would then be no bad art, and there would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness. Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as another planned betrayal. Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. It didn't ask to be made thusly. From a very early age my younger brothers and I would watch those old monster movies and sometimes one or another of us would cry when the monster died. The monster (Frankenstien's) was the child who did not understand the world and lashed out as a child will with a childs anger albeit with an adults strength. We *knew* the monster was us and we felt the creatures alienation and desire for acceptance or at least the desire to be left alone (let be). We were the wolfman too. We knew that desire would overwhelm us (for cookies or stuff) and that we could lose control and do bad things. We knew there was redemption in killing the desire (the wolf within). We knew Dracula too. Dracula was evil and unredeemable, but he was also the coolness of pursuasion, the tool of desire and an unconscious precursor of our male sexual awakening. The Mummy was the embodiment of revenge, of the rage that smoulders deep inside until opportunity presents itself. Those old films were effective to a great degree because they reflected the emotions of the inner child and are metaphors for our earliest feelings. xponent The Heresy Of Rob Maru I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. Because I said so! is perhaps appropriate for a 2 year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. Maturation comes in stages. G xponent Feeding My Inner Child Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blog of interest
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:13 PM Subject: Blog of interest http://goodmath.blogspot.com/ He welcomes clarifications and corrections. I'm enjoying it. Oh, and he posted this link: http://www.math.northwestern.edu/%7Ematt/kleinfour/media/finite.wmv earlier this week. That's a fun one, IMO. :) I'm heading for the blog right now, but I have to say that this clip kicks ass and needs to be produced without an audience. It is really that good! Philadelphia Street Singing Mathematicians xponent Musical Math Videos Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blog of interest
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Blog of interest - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:13 PM Subject: Blog of interest Oh, and he posted this link: http://www.math.northwestern.edu/%7Ematt/kleinfour/media/finite.wmv earlier this week. That's a fun one, IMO. :) xponent Musical Math Videos Maru rob And the lyrics: Finite Simple Group (of order two) A Klein Four original by Matt Salomone The path of love is never smooth But mine's continuous for you You're the upper bound in the chains of my heart You're my Axiom of Choice, you know it's true But lately our relation's not so well-defined And I just can't function without you I'll prove my proposition and I'm sure you'll find We're a finite simple group of order two I'm losing my identity I'm getting tensor every day And without loss of generality I will assume that you feel the same way Since every time I see you, you just quotient out The faithful image that I map into But when we're one-to-one you'll see what I'm about 'Cause we're a finite simple group of order two Our equivalence was stable, A principal love bundle sitting deep inside But then you drove a wedge between our two-forms Now everything is so complexified When we first met, we simply connected My heart was open but too dense Our system was already directed To have a finite limit, in some sense I'm living in the kernel of a rank-one map From my domain, its image looks so blue, 'Cause all I see are zeroes, it's a cruel trap But we're a finite simple group of order two I'm not the smoothest operator in my class, But we're a mirror pair, me and you, So let's apply forgetful functors to the past And be a finite simple group, a finite simple group, Let's be a finite simple group of order two (Oughter: Why not three?) I've proved my proposition now, as you can see, So let's both be associative and free And by corollary, this shows you and I to be Purely inseparable. Q. E. D. xponent Order Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Gospel Of Judas
Robert Seeberger wrote: In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. Yuck! I know you state can be and not the absolute are, but you still are positing that in some cases the ends justify the means and worse the intent justify the means. I'm only hurting you because I think in the end it will help you. Of all of the slippery slopes in Judeo-Christian ethics, this is the one that irks me the most, and one that has been used to do so much ill in the world. As a pragmatist I can certainly understand that there may be some situations where that might be the case. But I still see it as an awful moral slope to stand on as ones basic morality. In that sense I much prefer the (Nichiren) Buddhist focus on one's actions and their consequences. Not decisions, but actions. Less time in the head, more room for repercussions to hit you (karma, whether you believe it is cosmic or simply inter-personal). Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the golden-age where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) But it elevates stupidity, nostalgia and ignorance over knowledge and futurity! There was no golden age, ever. Just mindless, ignorant, brutal survival. The Bible is backward. It starts in beauty and ends in pain. Life so often starts with pain and ends with some semblance of beauty, albeit so often hidden in pain: the beauty of love, of experience and wisdom, of the power of family and society. Human history seems to have started amidst turmoil and pain, and I'd love to hope ends in brilliant beauty. I've always joked that I could write a better bible if I thought people might actually care to read it. Only problem is I'd have to conscientiously leave out the Monotheism, Patriarchal Society, Vengeance and Miracles, and then you don't have much of a bible. A good story, perhaps, but nothing people would battle to the death over, which appears to be such a major goal of Western Civilization's organized religion. (I sometimes wonder if the Greeks did too good of a job in trying to separate the useful Philosophy from Religion that all that was left was the Irrational stuff...) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I'm gonna win, trust in me / I have come to save this world / and in the end I'll get the grrrl! --Machinae Supremacy, Hero (Promo Track) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
