From: oldernow@dev.null
On 2024-02-04, D wrote:
Okay, laziness has me wanting to combine our five threads into
one so it's less uncreative work in the terminal. Maybe I need to
investigate being able to automate uploads of multiple posts...? I
honestly couldn't imagine USENET was anymore such that I'd suddenly
be hovering over five threads (image of five eggs in a nest came to
mind), so working 'slrn' manually didn't seem like too much work. But
the ex-developer within quickly leans automation... so... hmmm,
doesn't slrn have an API...? Is there some other programmable nntp
interface...?
> The local concert house decided to ban all russian
> classical composers due to the war in Ukraine. I can for
> the life of me not understand that at all. Is the next
> steps to burn all Dostoyevsky books? Wagner didn't like
> jews, so what?
>
> 1. I refuse to judge historical people by todays standards and
> 2. The music is still great.
Ditto on 1. For me the example is some hysteria that arose over
things Woody Allen *allegedly* did. Fuck that and those in the throes
of what I want to called self-righteous fundamentalism who rushed to
"cancel" Woody from their lives over such. He's brought me way too
much joy for decades.
As for 2, I don't know enough of the work of Russian classical
composers to have an opinion.
> Sigh, seems like sometimes we are just barbarians in nicer
> clothing and with better technology. =(
I change a couple light fixtures today, and while looking for some
wherewithal to accomplish that came across some "smart outlets" I
used to struggle with, and smiled when the phrase "I rarely feels as
dumb as I do not long after putting my faith in 'smart' devices". :-)
> Same here, but only briefly and I left before the dreaded
> september and only got back into the game recently. My
> great hope is that since google is about to abandon
> usenet for good, the quality will increase and the spam
> decrease. Let's see what happens!
I'm sure Murphy ("Law" fame) will want to have a say in it. :-)
> Neither did I. No twitter or facebook. I do read/write
> on mastodon from time to time but it's mostly for light
> entertainment and memes, and nothing serious. I find the
> GUI there absolutely horrible for serious discussion.
Mastodon has sounded interesting at times, but I just plain don't
have time for such. My wife's already hinted I've been spending too
much time with the computer again, and that's mostly *your* fault. :P
> Well, I discovered that the older you get, the more common
> it becomes to have to interact with the young ones. ;)
I love when simple math suffices in the explanation department!
> Interesting. During my more existential moments,
> I love comparing religious texts and I've found a
> lot of similarities between christianity, taoism and
> buddhism. I believe that what all religions are getting
> at, is the same fundamental experience, that has been
> written down, interpreted, re-interpreted, throughout
> millenia and therefore we have these very (sometimes)
> cryptic texts. This is also why I believe that you can only
> point or indicate, but in order to fill these texts with
> personal meaning, you have to, at some point, experience.
I completely agree.
*But*, I think a more esoteric version - or "going beneath the
surface - aka beyond appearance(s)" would say the "real" beyond
is "within" personal experience, which might be referred to as
impersonal (with)in-sperience.
By definition, experience implies a person/experiencer/subject apart
from not-person (objects) to be experienced, and said experience
is mediated by knowing/knowledge of re-presentation.
"In-sperience" or "in-seeing" finds the experiencer is just another
object, but with the magical power of being able to convincingly
(to itself) be (*seem*, but with "reality bit" set to true such
that it feels more like "be" than merely "seem") apart/separate to
be knowing/experiencing that which it doesn't consider itself.
And in a realm of re-presentation, the experiencer object is
a collection of thoughts defining a be-ing separate from all but
itself that can have infinitely subdividable/nested thoughts about
itself ("I'm this and that and ) and about not-itself (ditto on the seemingly
infinite nesting ("drilling down", "rabbit holing", etc.).
It's merely a matter or awareness direction:
- Awareness away/out-from itself generates "all this"
(an individual experiencing itself and not-itself as
objects) (see also "objectification")
- Awareness in/upon itself: ineffable for there being no
separate individual to "know" (aka *name*) itself and
requisite separate not-individual objects
Ack. I'm feeling some anxiety that I'm not ex-pressing this
sufficiently clearly, and yet also know (haha) that attempts are
ex-pressing (aka re-presenting) must fall short of raw, unnamed
awareness.
> I think a lot of rituals we see today, are the empty husks
> of something which at one point in time was actually living
> and full of energy. It solidified and today most people
> no longer are touched and the rituals no longer evoke the
> proper responses and that is why so many people turn away
> from yesterdays formal religions.
I'm suddenly wondering if rituals - done properly - facilitate the
"be still" part of "be still and know I AM God"...?
> To me, the kingdom of god, is the transcendental,
> proto-experience that has caused people to write these
> texts. I prefer to not define it or try to define it. I'm
> quite a fan of the via negativa.
Oooh. I'd not heard of "via negativa" before. Thanks!
> There is the taoist version of being still letting the
> mud in the pond settle and once it settles the pond
> becomes clear.
Nice!
Funny due to coincidence with past thoughts of mind being akin
to getting one more objects suspended in, well, *mind* due to
a stirring of sorts thereof. And we do speak of being (personally)
"stirred"... by what... *thoughts*....
Actually, the image of that I mostly enjoyed was of the guy that
(typically on a "variety show" back in "olden times" (i.e. my
childhood)) can get and maintain a bunch of plates spinning atop
a bunch of sticks that he holds with hands, knees, shoulders,
forehead, chin, etc.
> Last night, I was reading the gospel of Thomas and they do
Oh, wow, I'd completely forgotten about The Gospel of Thomas.
> talk about the one who deciphers the saying not tasting
> death. My interpretation of this is that we have the
> "proto-experience", and we have the ego. The ego evolved
> ...
> By definition, the I is no longer the ego, which dies
> with the body, but a common experience and perhaps,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
