Post by thread:[OT]politics - I shouldn't be posting it anyway bu

Wow. I read about this, I think, in some book by Deepak Chopra. Or I heard it anecdotally. One of the stories went something like this: A burning cigarette or something like that was put next to the plant and the needle went up. Ok. Then a sibling of the plant was hooked up and when its brother was tortured the needle went up. A bit far fetched. Then the brother was put in California and hooked up. When the sibling in New York was tortured the needle went up on the brother in California. Instantly (as in entangled particles instantly). If not true, it makes for a cool story (depending of course on what point one is trying to make by using it). (-: -----Original Message----- From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf Of petertwitchKILLspamhotmail.com Sent: 1. elokuuta 2008 23:08 To: .....piclistKILLspam.....mit.edu Subject: [OT]politics - I shouldn't be posting it anyway but Ihavenorestraint ------------------------------ Can't help on sci journals, but I did wire plants up to bio-feedback circuitry & got some fascinating experimental results...

What is open-minded? ----- Original Message ----- From: <EraseMEpetertwitchspam_OUTTakeThisOuThotmail.com> To: <piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: [OT]politics - I shouldn't be posting it anyway but Ihavenorestraint {Quote hidden}> ------------------------------ > > > > Lindy Mayfield wrote: > > >> And I admit that I don't have a very open mind about some topics. Things >> like magic spells, astrology, talking plants and flying horses I don't >> have much use for. I would be willing to discuss such things if they >> are exposed to the scientific method and written up in scholarly >> scientific journals subject to peer review. Now that, my friend, would >> yield some great discussions that I could learn a lot from. > > Can't help on sci journals, but I did wire plants up to bio-feedback > circuitry & got some fascinating experimental results... > > The device was a wheatstone bridge detecting changes of resistance from > electrodes attached to stems of Foxgloves & houseplants. Output created a > rising needle & rising audio pitch if resistance rose, & the converse if > resistance reduced.. > > With Foxglove, once the needle stabilised I tried talking to it, no > difference or a small fall. Tried torturing a leaf, slight rise. Then a > motor cycle passed by noisily, & the needle & pitch shot up, then slowly > went down again. > Then a gust of wind blew, & the needle fell. > > With a houseplant wired, I tried talking to it, small fall. I tried > torturing a leaf, barely discernable rise that quickly fell. Then I asked > a colleague to have a go. He wasn't interested but with cajoling he > turned & looked at the plant -from 15 feet distance the plant screamed! > Needle & pitch went off the scale & I had to turn down sensitivity & > readjust. He thought I was taking the piss. > I gave it a few minutes, there was a small fall, stabilised, then I > stepped away & asked Phil again to try. Once again from several yards > away he simply looked at the plant, & the plant's resistance shot up & a > scream came from the loudspeaker. This time there was no fakery possible > from me - I too was several yards away. > > I make no attempt to publish 'findings', & instead invite that others > also experiment... > > Peter > > > > > --

>>What is open-minded? >I wrote a nice explanation. Saw it was BS and erased it >for this better > answer. > No idea. That's a good start. But you may find you know less about it than you think. :-) That's meant to be funny. Meant ... :-) FWIW, open-mindedness nowadays extends to somewhere short of tolerating the severely intolerant. People with a strongly held position, regardless of whether it impacts others, must not be allowed to hold their foul ideas, let alone have the right to propagate them. I find this reasonably understandable, but interesting nonetheless. There's an interesting corollary to that. If you seek to alter the norm by being intolerant and seeking to persuade others to be intolerant as well, then it's not tolerated. So you succeed at increasing intolerance levels, but not of the sort you are targeting. However, if you seek to alter society by preaching" tolerance of all views, including those you espouse then you are tolerated, up to a point*. At that stage if you can master 'market forces' you are on a roll. * re 'up to a point' - there are the 'dark watchers' who don't care what you do or don't tolerate as long as you don't rock their boat. They may be organised crime, organised wealth or organised government and maybe a few more, or a combination thereof. Especially a combination thereof. If your market managing tolerance impinges on their patch excessively it will not be tolerated. eg All 3 mixed (arguably) against "FG / FD is good" in er, you know where. And the ICTHUS crowd in many countries. Russell

Apptech wrote: >>>What is open-minded? > >> I wrote a nice explanation. Saw it was BS and erased it for this better >> answer. > >> No idea. > FWIW, open-mindedness nowadays extends to somewhere short of tolerating > the severely intolerant. People with a strongly held position, > regardless of whether it impacts others, must not be allowed to hold > their foul ideas, let alone have the right to propagate them. I find > this reasonably understandable, but interesting nonetheless. I think it's the difference between "I think" and "you are wrong". The former doesn't necessary include a who's right and who's wrong, and for many questions there is no such thing anyway, possibly. In any case, keeping an open mind about that the other may also have a point makes for a more interesting (and more productive, and more efficient) conversation. The latter, especially when it kicks in before having understood the other fully, makes mutual understanding much more difficult -- independently of who's right (and independently of whether one is right) --, and therefore is a bit contrary to the general objective of talking with each other in the first place. I also think that there may have been a certain shift in the value of open-mindedness (and its meaning for some people). It seems that it used to be a good thing (and to me it still is, without any restraints), but just because some people confused "open-minded" with "not stating my opinion clearly" (which IMO is something very different), it became tagged with "PC" and became an enemy of the non-PC crowd. I'm not sure what the relationship between "open-minded" and "tolerant" is, but I think for that we'd have to first clarify each one for itself, then compare them :) In any case, I think they are related but not necessarily the same. As a first shot, "open-minded" seems to relate to events that happen in the mental area (reading, listening), while "tolerant" also includes actions. I think it's possible to be open-minded about an issue without being tolerant about it. Gerhard

The interrogative hardly presumes knowledge a priori. The questions may make more sense than the answers? I wonder just how many definitions we might find for "open minded?" It may mean one thing to one individual and something entirely different, even contradictory, to another. I say this NOT IN CRITICISM, but rather in curiosity. I became interested in these discussions because I noticed how language was being exploited; words and meanings are even bastardized in politics and political discussion. Not just idiomatically, but cleverly and often with duplicity. Charles Pierce, an odd fellow, wrote an article, I believe in the "Scientific Monthly, January 1898. No, I did not read the original regardless of what my kids say : - ) Forgive me if I am remiss on the details. The title of the article was "How to Make Our Ideas Clear." Wendell Johnson, later wrote in his essay "You Can't Write Writing," that clarity is the prerequisite to validity. It is said anecdotally that in Pavlov's laboratory, I cannot attest to its accuracy, that the use of a casual term to describe an observation was cause for a fine. I wonder how often we are understood or misunderstood because of how we use language. Have fun : - )) {Original Message removed}

Here, we can do an experiment and I'll play the guinea pig. This is how I understand the story that I'm sure most have heard about the cracker. http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html A man dressed in a special costume of magic casts a spell on some wine and a cracker. This spell turns the cracker and wine into the actual flesh and blood of a dead Jewish guy. Then, in some sort of bizarre cannibalistic ritual, the other people in the coven there eat his flesh and drink his blood. Except this isn't any ordinary Jewish guy. He was actually tortured to death 2000 years ago then buried for 3 days. He then came back to life, escaped and flew up into the sky to live with two other guys, one his father and the other a ghost. Now a student of a university who was present there didn't eat the cracker/flesh but wanted to smuggle it out to show to one of his friends. Some people saw it and got physical with him to stop it. But he got it out anyway. This upset the magic men very much. Some called it a hate crime, and some a kidnapping. If the cracker/flesh wasn't returned then the magic priests would have to cast a lot of extra spells in order to right this wrong. Historically this is a very bad thing for the magic men because in the past Jewish people would steal the cracker/flesh and drive nails through it, thereby actually doing actual physical damage to one of the gods (the former Jewish guy) that lived in the sky. This was a very bad thing. Many people were calling for this kid's expulsion from the university or some other sort of disciplinary action. I believe he got death threats. But for sure one biologist who blogged about the story did. And around the world there about approximately 1.1 billion people who think what this kid did was a mortal sin worthy of being burnt alive for all eternity. Now. How open-minded am I expected to be and how much of the other side's point of view am I supposed to understand? That's a serious question that I seriously ask myself time to time. I'm not trying to be funny. And how tolerant should I be? I'm not intolerant of peoples' right to get together in a coven and eat fake flesh and drink fake blood, but I am totally intolerant of any of this leaking into society in any way, for example into public schools, laws, science books, government policies, etc. {Original Message removed}

The meta-religious discussion has apparently jumped into being a religious discussion. I know you believe you're "just giving an example", but not a few of the PIClist's 2,000 members may be offended at your description of something they consider most holy, which discussion absolutely does not belong here. I'm no admin, but I strongly suggest that everyone step back onto firmly meta-religious discussion and avoid even possibly religious or political discussion. -Adam On 8/5/08, Lindy Mayfield <RemoveMElindy.mayfieldTakeThisOuTssf.sas.com> wrote: > Here, we can do an experiment and I'll play the guinea pig. This is how > I understand the story that I'm sure most have heard about the cracker. > http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org

> The meta-religious discussion has apparently jumped into > being a > religious discussion. > I know you believe you're "just giving an example", but > not a few of > the PIClist's 2,000 members may be offended at your > description of > something they consider most holy, which discussion > absolutely does > not belong here. > > I'm no admin, but I strongly suggest that everyone step > back onto > firmly meta-religious discussion and avoid even possibly > religious or > political discussion. I agree. I have no problem with the question per se, nor even of the one eyed obnoxious [[[ :-) ]]] manner in which it was put, when it could have been put in a way which didn't have 90% of the wind-people-up-on-purpose baggage [[[ c'mon, you know you did it :-) ]]]*. It MIGHT even have been able to be asked obliquely enough to have got a reasonable answer and been kept on list. Tooooo late. BUT Doing it on list in this forum is obviously not the way to do it. I'd be more than happy to comment on that offlist - ideally after the weekend as life is ramping up to 237% full until then. But there are issues on both sides (or all sides) there which are worth looking at and I'd say that nobody got it 100% right. FWIWIMHOYMMV and bar. AND I see the thread as it has been going as interesting and not too too far off what's OK here. I've been wondering how long it would last before it flamed out. What say we throttle it back to about where it was and see if it can be kept going civilly. I've put the FULL original subject line back on to remind us that restraint IS indeed needed if we are to address this sort of thing with some degree of usefulness. Russell * I thought about adding "What would you expect from a FORTRAN programmer, but that would have been too religious :-). FWIW FORTRAN was the first computer language I ever met. I loved it. Haven't used it for years.

Lindy, I think the limits of tolerance end where actual harm is done to people. I am not talking about the "psychological damage" caused by a Christmas tree in someone's back yard on the block you drive down, or the emotional torture because someone was subjected to the words "under God" but more like the tragic beating and murder of someone because he was Gay. Violence unleashed on others because of their beliefs or unbelief is intolerable in my view. How those beliefs are made manifest is a different thing (to wit 911). The questions of tolerance seem to arise when political action groups exceed the boundaries of reason. By that, I include even the mundane like "social engineering;" by creating unworkable programs that were ill-conceived and poorly implemented. For example, the idea of artificially creating a distribution of races in a particular agency, public body, corporate setting or in academia, regardless of the availability of skills, is to my thinking unwise and unnecessary. Academic opportunities should be open to all who have the necessary intellectual capacity and self discipline, regardless of financial circumstances. The operative words here are intellectual capacity. Your story intrigued me. With regards to the Catholic and Protestant controversy over Holy Communion, the Catholics adhere to a theological concept of transubstantiation, which means that by divine mystery the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the essence of the body of Christ and the wine is transubstantiated into the essence of the blood of Christ. The theological premise of communion is the co extant relationship with the essence of God by the mystery of transubstantiation. The eating of the Eucharist is not considered cannibalistic because it is not transubstantiated a priori but rather a posteriori in essence. The protestant theological premise is predicated on the principle of consubstantiation, which means that the Eucharist is symbolically representative of the body of Christ and the wine is symbolically representative of the blood of Christ, and, therefore, the communion is symbolic and not actual as in the Catholic theology. It is not considered cannibalistic because it is also not actual ingestion of the body and the blood, but the ingestion of a symbol. The idea of election to Glory (going to heaven) or to Perdition (going to hell) being imposed on unsuspecting persons is unknown to me. Predestination is a theological concept that is more complicated than the story you have advanced here. These are controversial issues even within the religious communities across the globe. The authority for all predestination or salvation arguments obtains from St. Augustine (354-430 C.E.) and St. Paul (5-67 C.E.). The most popular view about salvation is that it is open to anyone who asks for it through prayerful petitioning of God's Grace. No works done by man can assure salvation (election to glory) lest any man should boast. I find the story that you have related to be a distorted abstraction of these ideas, which I have contraposed here. Nevertheless, I find no harm in your presentation. Am I being tolerant in this? I think not. I do not see it as a matter either of tolerance or intolerance. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression under the U.S. Constitution are sufficient to protect your right to the presentation of any idea. However, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, (1763-1837), said that freedom of speech does not extend itself to yelling fire in a crowded theater. This about "hate speech" which I believe is a short step to "hate thoughts" raises my indignation. Now, we must use B.C.E. for before Christian Era because we cannot say Before Christ. We have to use C.E. instead of AD (anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord.") And here we are, not with respect to tolerance but with respect to intolerance, and back to my earlier fundamental question which was not intended to be facetious.

> Lindy, I think the limits of tolerance end where actual > harm is done to > people. I am not talking about the "psychological damage" > caused by a > Christmas tree in someone's back yard on the block you > drive down, or the > emotional torture because someone was subjected to the > words "under God" but > more like ... I found Rich's response useful and interesting. ******** HOWEVER ******** There seems about zero chance that we can remain at that level without wandering off into yelling and flaming and unpleasantness. IF we can in fact manage a civil discouse AND if there are no solid complaints we could let this go a while and see where it goes. BUT it really is outside the mandate and outer guidelines for this list and even OT so please walk carefully. If anyone raises any really stupid and insincere objections (eg if we don't like their face) ( :-) we could just have them excommunicated and continue ... . Seriously, though, please be gentle. We may or may not already be over the edge. Let's see how we can manage it. Russell

part 0 44 bytes his is a multi-part message in MIME format. part 1 908 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii (decoded 7bit) Rich wrote: > I am not talking about the "psychological damage" caused by a > Christmas tree in someone's back yard on the block you drive down I don't know, stuff like this sign my neighbors have in their front yard treads that line pretty closely - they run the risk of having someone plant a flaming bag of poo on their front porch. But I suppose it could be more offensive, like a picture of Muhammad. Even worse, Muhammad pooping. There'd be more burning than just a bag of poo. In my previous neighborhood, owning a Ford got me spat at and the car egged. People individually are OK, but in groups they can be real jerks. I think most people can be "tolerant" of others, but find it harder to be "accepting". Just don't say "Get a Chevy" to me, OK? Unless you're looking for an egg return. Cheerful regards, Bob part 2 13867 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; (decode) part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)

> Don't worry about me, I'll shut up. No need to shut up I'm sure. And, thanks for the offlist comment - appreciated. What I wanted to achieve was to pull up the coach this side of the precipice. It gets steep and rough right about there and usually little good comes out of it once we are over the edge. > Windup or no, that was just my honest perception of the > facts. I > absolutely would never insult anyone by assuming that they > would even > care - much less be offended - by any views I have about > anything. Talking is often good. But accurately gauging how what one says affects others is a fine art which I certainly haven't mastered after many moons. > Now, even the hint of not believing whole heartedly with > every fiber of > your being that global warming is a fact about which > cannot be > questioned: now _that's_ a windup that should not be > tolerated here. > Even in OT! Aye !!! (Walker) See my recent 3 hard science NASA environment posts which some miscreant agglomerated and added a GW heading to. Tch tch! :-). Even N' seem to be starting to run just a wee bit scared. > Oh, and (-: Indeed. Russell

Lindy Mayfield wrote: > Here, we can do an experiment and I'll play the guinea pig. This is how > I understand the story that I'm sure most have heard about the cracker. > http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html > Now. How open-minded am I expected to be and how much of the other > side's point of view am I supposed to understand? That's a serious > question that I seriously ask myself time to time. I'm not trying to be > funny. And how tolerant should I be? I think one of the first questions is "what do I want?" This usually gives me a good measure about what to do. There's nobody who's telling you how tolerant you should be, but it's you who can determine what you want and measure your actions on your goals. Back to tolerance and open-mindedness, In the described case, both sides seem to have missed several chances of tolerance. It also seems the guy has succeeded in tricking the church into helping him making a big ruckus about the issue. One could say he stole something that was given to him under the premise that he would treat it the way it is intended to treat, and he didn't do that. (Formally, that's probably not theft but something like fraud.) One could also say that if the church had treated this something like "hey dude, it seems you have a problem. how can we help you?" (which seems to me, from far away, more in the spirit of Christ than what they seem to be doing), we wouldn't even know something has happened. Anyway, I personally don't see anything to be worried about. People trying to provoke others are a reality, and that's just one more who succeeded. People letting themselves provoke needlessly are also a reality, and there are a bunch more. Now as much as I'd like that the guy would have gone into the church, maybe asked for permission before, asked how he'd be expected to behave, and then done that respectfully, or as much as I'd like that the church people would treat him either as a silly provoker that doesn't really deserve any attention or as a possibly slightly disturbed young man who needs some spiritual guidance and not legal action, none of that is within the realm that I can influence, so I just let them bicker it out. If that's how they want to live, that's their thing, not mine. > I'm not intolerant of peoples' right to get together [...] but I am > totally intolerant of any of this leaking into society in any way, for > example into public schools, laws, science books, government policies, > etc. You may be intolerant of this, but then you're into eternal suffering :) IMO it is an illusion that it is even possible that none of what people believe leaks into society at large. Of course it does; all our rules are based on what we believe. If you've read my posts about religion, you probably know that I'm no Christian. But I'm certain that much of what I think and feel is deeply influenced by Christian beliefs; I was born and raised and live in a basically Christian culture. I believe that this is true for everybody in this situation. Maybe even the idea of separation of church and state is a result of this same belief system of which Christianity in one realization; I'm not sure, but I think this idea wouldn't make much sense in a Buddhist mind frame. So I think we just have to accept that we live with the people we live with, that our rules are determined by what we believe (collectively), that there are many people who believe things that we don't. For me, that's not tolerance, that realism. (You can change the first of the three, within limits, by moving to another place.) Gerhard

I think we are close to the edge that people will tolerate here. But maybe not. I'm happy if y'all happy. One comment on content: > ... as much as I'd like that the church people would treat > him > either as a silly provoker that doesn't really deserve any > attention > or ... A very major point has, it appears, been missed here. For those involved, silly as it may seem to others, the 'young man' concerned did something that they would in some instances consider it worth THEIR dying to prevent. Many would believe that doing him violence was inappropriate, but some would be as ready to die to prevent what you identify as a 'provocation' as they may be to do so for their own family. The action was essentially seen as an unspeakably impermissible act - not just something a degree or two further up than provocation. [[To use a bad metaphor that can not be directly compared but is liable to engage similar areas of understanding in most people's brains - a person attempting to rape your wife and daughters is not involved in advanced provocation]]. Obviously people who don't understand their motivations don't understand their reactions. However, many would admire the commitment of a person prepared to die for their convictions. People prepared to kill for their convictions tend to get worse press. I'm not intending any comment on the merits of the above position - just noting that if you don't understand that provocation was not what was involved then you can't start to understand the situation. Trying to redefine the perspective or label it as bizarre don't address the key issue. Russell

>> Now, we must use >> B.C.E. for before Christian Era because we cannot say >> Before Christ. We >> have to use C.E. instead of AD (anno Domini, "in the year >> of our Lord.") > -nitpick/trivia- > C.E. --> common era > B.C.E --> before common era > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era See your nitpick and raise you a Mashie Niblick - the page you cite actually allows of both versions above and another for good measure :-) ie Christian / common / current. I'm well aware of the arguments against. Needless to say, I find them questionable. Changing the system after she is set in stone auld lang syne is at best questionable. The calendar was dated from the date on which it was believed Christ was born (actual date is April 17th 6 BC *). So what? Various other calendar systems are also dated from specific events (eg Japanese) and I suspect few of those are going to be changed on current whim. BC = Before Christ is just a statement of historical fact. AD = Anno Domini is more questionable due to the meaning of Domini. However the wiki eg Reference 12 is just plain stupid or wrong. Acknowledgement of Christ as Messiah is essentially orthogonal to the calendar title and has no meaning except in a Judao-Christian context. Their argument that the vast majority of the worlds religions do not acknowledge him as God is wrong if done on headcount. If done on religion count then spinning off a suitable number of 1 man religions would allow you to always make it true. AND the atheists don't care. Not if they're smart, anyway. I should be working! AaaagH! Russell * Yeah. I know :-) Star appears only in Matthew. Roman coins use Aries to represent the Jews. Jupiter went retrograde "when it entered the house of Aries in 6 BC, and next stood still again before changing to original direction". = birth of divine immortal and omnipotent person. April 17th 6 BC most likely date. Interestingly, this is astronomy and astrology combined. Do I believe it? - Probably not. Is it a possibility? - Of course. May an occurrence on this date which coincided with the astronomical happenings been correlated but not causal? - Of course. "We have seen his star in the East" - so what. Who told them to? Who said it was valid?

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Apptech wrote: > A very major point has, it appears, been missed here. > For those involved, silly as it may seem to others, the > 'young man' concerned did something that they would in some > instances consider it worth THEIR dying to prevent. Many > would believe that doing him violence was inappropriate, but > some would be as ready to die to prevent what you identify > as a 'provocation' as they may be to do so for their own > family. Another point about this point is that 'willing to die for a cause' can mean very different things to people. For some, dying for a cause is the greatest sacrifice you can give. For others, it means a ticket to eternal rewards in the afterlife which is not much of a sacrifice as a shortcut to 'wining the game'. -- Ian Smith http://www.ian.org