Re: Informed questions on Thiering pesher for the hidden history of the life of Jesus Christ are welcome

In article <2YWdnaFqD9_uZH_XnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Marshall Price <marshallprice@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
In article <slrnhdqdtd.752.usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Seebs <usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Trying to throw them away sounds like "ignoring" them -- as in, not taking
them as valuable input.

I don't see emotions as valued input.

No, they're internal. Nobody sees them as input, except perhaps to
some other internal thing.


They come from somewhere and go somewhere. Ergo to some parts of our mental
processing they constitute input.

They are things which needlessly interfere with my quality of life,
to my detriment.

No, you might be special, but you're not that special.


We are all special.

Emotions like joy and happiness...

Which emotions are like those?


Are you incapable of easily understanding abstract concepts, such as joy and
happiness.

... I arrive at second hand by finding it in others, or by giving it
to others.

What's "it", your detriment? That's the last possible referent of
"it". Your life? Your quality of life? I don't think they're "it",
either.

It -- obviously referred to joy and happiness. Cutting things mid sentence
really obfuscates things.


Yes but a right does not fix a wrong.

There's a saying, but that's not it. It's "Two wrongs don't make a
right".

I said what I meant to say. I am not obliged to use prior sayings.


Besides, what you said makes no sense. What fixes wrong things is
usually a right thing. A court of justice seeks justice.


Nothing can fix a wrong thing. A wrong thing exists at a point in space-time
and since we cannot go backwards in time, the wrong thing can never be fixed.
It is as a consequence of existing part of this universe for all time.

One may be able to try to compensate for a past wrong, or mitigate its
consequences. But the wrong itself just is.

Also you seem a tad naive in imagining courts of justice seek justice. Was
it justice that Tad Williamson got.


There are mistakes made once...

You mean "There are mistakes, once made,..."

... that I'll not make twice.


No the mistakes are as concrete as I am. "Once made" is looking back on a
mistake. "made once" is recognising the moment in time the mistake was
made.

Don't you say "that I won't..." in England? Or is "that I'll not..."
the norm?

I think "I'll not" more assertive than "I won't". "I won't" seems to me
passive -- as in making a promise. "I'll not" seems categorical and certain.


Knowing that I'll not make them twice doesn't alter the fact
I made them once.

That's redundant. You said you made them.

I think you just pretended to make some obscure point because you
didn't want to admit you hadn't thought of one.


Either that or you don't have the hardware to relate to my hardware.

Yeah. I guess, you know. Since it can't be fixed, oh well. I don't think
much about things unless they'll affect future choices.

People find my philosophy strange but I see the future as entirely abstract
and the past as entirely concrete. Philosophically I find it easier to make
my concern one for the concrete rather than the abstract. So while the
future is very much of concern to me, I see the issue as what are we going to
make future pasts.

"Do" is the word you were looking for.


And where should it be placed in the sentence.

Catching the last blue tuna...

Bluefin.


Ok.. corrected.

... is a vague prediction ...

"Catching" and "prediction" aren't the same.


Both are vague when the future tense is used. The prediction is no
more than a prediction and so vague. The suggesting that the last bluefin
tuna will be caught likewise vague. It might die of old age.

...about some likely unknown point in the future.

Is it "likely to be unknown", or "likely, but unknown"?


Both. As in the dormouse breathing when he sleeps and sleeping when he
breaths. But I prefer the second reading.. the first is hardly worth
emphasising.

A point in time is simply a time.

It is the past in which this fish
is no more which horrifies me.

It's not any sort of "past"; it's just a time.


Of course it is past.. I might even live to see it my past.

Mentally I try hard to not see this universe
as existing in the present,

If you try something mental, you rarely have to point out that it's
mental.

If I said that I did not imagine the present existing, people might think
that was how my brain naturally worked. By saying "Mentally I try hard"
I am stressing that I work at the mental exercise of ... If I had left
out the "Mentally", you might have imagined that my means of not seeing
the universe as existing in the present was to close my eyes, or to take
magic mushrooms.

"Hard" goes without saying. So would "easily", unless you're
thinking of comparisons.

It is hard, just as it is hard to imagine the earth going round the sun
rather than the sun going round the earth. It demands a change of perspective
which we are not easily able to grasp.


"Not to see" avoids splitting an infinitive, which is always good.

Logically, you can't succeed in seeing the present universe as
un-present. I don't even think you can try.


Of course I can. It is not that I see the present as un-present. It is
that I see the present as no more a special point in the universe than
the point your feet are on in space when you read this. There is nothing
more special about where I am and what I am doing right now than any of
the other posts I've made here the last 9 years. I just happen to be
at that point in time where I am as consequence making this one. It
doesn't invalidate all the other points in time that I have existed.

but being a four dimensional reality in which one
is as free to move through time and space.

One isn't free to do any such thing, of course, and "as" makes no
sense there.

You're cutting my words mid-sentence makes it impossible to reply in
any useful fashion. Am I expected to know what I wrote down to the
word from one post to the one days later.

I am certainly free to move forwards in time. I have no theoretical
difficulty in winding my clock forwards a million years so as to find
out what happens a million years from now. While the theory might not
permit physical matter to travel backwards in time I strongly suspect
that advances in physics will establish that things can happen non
locally in time, just as they can non locally in space. Indeed this
is what the delayed quantum eraser experiment already reports... that
experimentally cause can occur later in time (from our perspective)
than effect.

I try to remove myself from the equation.

You haven't indicated an equation, not even a metaphorical one.


The equation of life, the universe and everything. The one whose answer
is 42.

I went to a lecture on how we might help this planet, and got to hear the
standard eat less meat; ...

That's a sentence and a quotation.

...drive honda's rather than hummers.

Unless you're trying to be poetic or something, you need a
conjunction between the two clauses.


I'm trying to communicate.. you to teach me grammar. Perhaps I am trying to
be poetic or something.. I'd far rather try to be poetic, than be a
grammararian.

No one said have fewer children.

What are we to conclude? That the lecture was lacking? That it
wouldn't help the planet? That nobody thought of it? That there were
"time constraints"?

That people do not look at situations at all objectively. Is it not rather
amazing that in a lecture expressing concern that our population is likely
to reach 9 billion, no one suggested doing anything about population.


I got to hear how much better the japanese lifestyle
is for the planet because they eat less meat.

Why you, not "we"?

Which you are you referring to, and where would you insert the "we".

And why "got to hear"? Is it that you want to point out that you
were granted the opportunity to hear and took advantage of it?

Certainly so. Tickets were made available at 9:00am electronically and by
9:03am they were sold out. So as I said "I got to hear".

What do you make of the statement that made it worth mentioning?


I think the bit about saying that the japanese lifestyle was better for
this planet (more green) because they ate less meat while ignoring the
fact that this was consequence of the japanese having veritable mountains
of octopus available everywhere (almost certainly non-sustainable), a
lifestyle which encourages turning the most endangered animals in the
ocean into sushi, etc.

No one spoke up for the
octopuses, the whales, or the blue fin tuna. But these are the most
intelligent mollusc, the largest mammals, and the fastest fish.

And...?


We are not solving the current environmental problems by adding to the
list of species to no longer exist on this planet.

People
were not concerned for the future..

That's not believable. Such a person wouldn't live long.

...they were only concerned that bad
futures were moved back...

"Back" is not the way we usually express "toward the future".
"Ahead" is more appropriate, or "forward", or "later", but they're all
redundant, because you go on to say:

far enough that their existence not be roiled.

I suspect that you're referring to more than a single existence. And
clearly, "roiled" doesn't apply to "existence"; look it up. At least,
I've never heard of roiled existence.


roil /r??l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [roil] Show IPA
Use roiled in a Sentence
See web results for roiled
See images of roiled
?verb (used with object) 1. to render (water, wine, etc.) turbid by stirring up sediment.
2. to disturb or disquiet; irritate; vex: to be roiled by a delay

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/roiled

as in:

far enough that their existence not be disturbed, disquieted, irritated, or
vexed.



Perhaps you were looking for an elegant way of saying "lives" not be
"affected" or "spoiled". Elegant speech isn't as appreciated as you
might think.


You might contribute more by saying elegant things yourself than by merely
being a pedant. Can you wax lyrical, or when you walk do you look at your
feet in preference to the sky.

ped·ant /'p?dnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ped-nt] Show IPA
Use pedant in a Sentence
See web results for pedant
See images of pedant
?noun 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People talked about pandemics. I had to be almost alone in wondering to
myself if ...

Even if you do think you're a very, very special person, it's not in
good taste to dwell upon it, and it'll probably drive you nuts in the
long run.


It may be that others thought it, but none questioned the speaker in claiming
on a presentation on the question of how to be environmentally friendly that
his concern about pandemics being bad was out of place. Perhaps if I wrote
in a more neutral venacular so as to remove myself from the equation, you
would stop perceiving that some special me was on a soap box.

...it is not pandemics but our ability to fight them which is bad
for this planet.

Well, it's not surprising that more people are in favor of progress
than against it, and of living than dying, is it, especially if it can
save millions of human lives? You could always sacrifice your own, but
how much would it help the planet? There are better ways to prevent
overpopulation, if that's what you mean by "bad for this planet".


There is a distinction between bad for this planet and bad for humanity.
Too often the presumption is that these are two ways of saying the same
thing.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: {OT} The Global Warming KooKs have snow....
    ... warming the planet. ... The planet is warming, but not ... And the universe plays into it as much as the planet. ... Saying man has anything to do with what's happening is like saying man has ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE
    ... severe pain and the loss of my business and then my family I could take no ... Temperatures are rising all over the planet, ... She would know when someone was in trouble and she would call them ... will and wrote letters saying good by to my kids and family. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
    ... nature of the universe means the future is highly...unpredictable. ... There is no where else for humanity to exist. ... How can we possibly thrive on a cold, barren planet ... we must find more resources/energy to sustain the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • More on Timewaves
    ... of the Confederation would wish to be a stumbling block for any. ... love and in the light of the one infinite Creator, ... It is not a time lateral that concerns the planet as a whole. ... This instrument is fond of saying that she likes to leave a room ...
    (talk.religion.newage)
  • Re: Insanely Silly Rationalization Time!
    ... Among several strange and interesting differences from our universe, ... I'm now imagining giant 'gravity mills' set up on the edges of worlds to ... drifting in towards the planet. ... 'rest frame of timeless space'. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)