The End is the Beginning?



[ You say, and also in your poem, that the end is the beginning. But
what do you mean by this, it is very difficult to try to understand it?
]



It is simple. My existing at the end of my trip here and back to from
whence I came, was the same in the end as it was in the beginning. Like
a circular trip. But the end, for me, was another beginning, and I came
back here again, from there; for the second time. From eternity for this
purpose. One could also say the end is the same as in the beginning, it
is the same thing, and the same thing by the living experience of it.
One knows that one is home there. Now, if you are from a different place
and return to a different place then fine, and find out what that is and
where it is and what it is like. But I know where I came from. And the
end of a life here is the same as the beginning. That is what it means.
But you cannot stay there, it is a womb; the womb of life and
consciousness. Well, mine anyway. See if yours is the same when the time
comes.  But you will not be able to tell me.  I like my home very much,
and I like it here too, even more. I have no freedom there you see. And
good though it is I like freedom better. So, from eternity for this
purpose you see. And the end is as the beginning and the beginning is as
the end. They are not two things, they are the same thing. That is what
I found so that is what I wrote down for the testimony of it. And it is
not up for debate.  For it is so.  That which is in-between the
beginning and the end is what I call a lifetime. Hope you understand
now.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In the final days before the election I wish the Dems would pound home points:
the obstructionist House of Reps, their wish to shrink government while
contradictorily wanting to involve it in women's reproductive rights; and the
fact that ObamaCare hasn't even been fully implemented to help even more people.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> I think Obama likes being president. He is very good at it  and seems a
natural in the role. Philosophically he is very clean  with little overt
religion  and  a worthwhile objective of giving the common man a fair shake. He
is making progress and I am happy to support him.
>  Romney is a whole different bag of worms. Why does a rich man  want power so
badly? He seems driven to power but why? What is his true motovation and where
does it come from. For six years he has been pounding away at  becoming
president.
> Philosophically he is a dense  subtrafuge of the hidden agendae of mormanism.
He does not say what he will do and that is true to his mormon  secretivness. I
cannot accept a secret man from a secret religion as a leader of a free people.
This candidate is  a true pig in a poke. He comes from a cartel/cult that hides
in a temple  and just says trust me. In one of the few things I agree with the
christian right about is I do not trust Mitt. He is mean and secretive and that
sounds  like the formula for a reincarnation of Richard Millhouse Nixon. I
conjure up  visions of Mitt  wandering the corridors of the White House asking
for the help of Joe Smith and then doing whatever  pops into his deluded mind. I
can see a very capricous  man knocking at the doors of power. He needs to be
locked out. Bill
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> In the final days before the election I wish the Dems would pound home points:
the obstructionist House of Reps, their wish to shrink government while
contradictorily wanting to involve it in women's reproductive rights; and the
fact that ObamaCare hasn't even been fully implemented to help even more people.
>
> Mary
> Mary, I readily agree with that as I have always known that the republican
base understands it cannot elect  a president they must secure  the base and
then move to the middle. They plot their strategy like wolves and then set out
in sheeps clothing. The dems need to reintroduce the middle ground sheep to the
ways of wolves. Reintroduce them to the ways of bain capital and the ways of the
right to life fanatics. Beat them and then go after what they  really hide and
defend. That is the bloated and unnecessary defense budget. Rip their money
machine away from them  and only then will they return to rationality and good
citisenship. The lies they told  in their flight to the middle are all in the
open and you are  correct, keep pointing them out. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > I think Obama likes being president. He is very good at it  and seems a
natural in the role. Philosophically he is very clean  with little overt
religion  and  a worthwhile objective of giving the common man a fair shake. He
is making progress and I am happy to support him.
> >  Romney is a whole different bag of worms. Why does a rich man  want power
so badly? He seems driven to power but why? What is his true motovation and
where does it come from. For six years he has been pounding away at  becoming
president.
> > Philosophically he is a dense  subtrafuge of the hidden agendae of
mormanism. He does not say what he will do and that is true to his mormon 
secretivness. I cannot accept a secret man from a secret religion as a leader of
a free people. This candidate is  a true pig in a poke. He comes from a
cartel/cult that hides in a temple  and just says trust me. In one of the few
things I agree with the christian right about is I do not trust Mitt. He is mean
and secretive and that sounds  like the formula for a reincarnation of Richard
Millhouse Nixon. I conjure up  visions of Mitt  wandering the corridors of the
White House asking for the help of Joe Smith and then doing whatever  pops into
his deluded mind. I can see a very capricous  man knocking at the doors of
power. He needs to be locked out. Bill
> >
>

Bill,

I've never seen such pathetic lying and photo ops in all my days. I won't miss
the bad acting and robotic gestures. These people have no hearts; who are they
trying to kid?!?

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > In the final days before the election I wish the Dems would pound home
points: the obstructionist House of Reps, their wish to shrink government while
contradictorily wanting to involve it in women's reproductive rights; and the
fact that ObamaCare hasn't even been fully implemented to help even more people.
> >
> > Mary
> > Mary, I readily agree with that as I have always known that the republican
base understands it cannot elect  a president they must secure  the base and
then move to the middle. They plot their strategy like wolves and then set out
in sheeps clothing. The dems need to reintroduce the middle ground sheep to the
ways of wolves. Reintroduce them to the ways of bain capital and the ways of the
right to life fanatics. Beat them and then go after what they  really hide and
defend. That is the bloated and unnecessary defense budget. Rip their money
machine away from them  and only then will they return to rationality and good
citisenship. The lies they told  in their flight to the middle are all in the
open and you are  correct, keep pointing them out. Bill
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Obama likes being president. He is very good at it  and seems a
natural in the role. Philosophically he is very clean  with little overt
religion  and  a worthwhile objective of giving the common man a fair shake. He
is making progress and I am happy to support him.
> > >  Romney is a whole different bag of worms. Why does a rich man  want power
so badly? He seems driven to power but why? What is his true motovation and
where does it come from. For six years he has been pounding away at  becoming
president.
> > > Philosophically he is a dense  subtrafuge of the hidden agendae of
mormanism. He does not say what he will do and that is true to his mormon 
secretivness. I cannot accept a secret man from a secret religion as a leader of
a free people. This candidate is  a true pig in a poke. He comes from a
cartel/cult that hides in a temple  and just says trust me. In one of the few
things I agree with the christian right about is I do not trust Mitt. He is mean
and secretive and that sounds  like the formula for a reincarnation of Richard
Millhouse Nixon. I conjure up  visions of Mitt  wandering the corridors of the
White House asking for the help of Joe Smith and then doing whatever  pops into
his deluded mind. I can see a very capricous  man knocking at the doors of
power. He needs to be locked out. Bill
> > >
> >
>

Bill,

Your Mormon libel against Romney is reminiscent of the Catholic libel against
your Democrat icon John Kennedy. But now, as then, neither group is monolithic
and both men show independence. As to reproductive rights, both presidential
candidates reject absolute restrictions on abortion -- be it exceptions for
health, life, rape or incest -- though as a practical matter technological
innovations like Depro-Provera and the morning after pill have made feminine
reproductive control a fait accompli. And to harp on Republican fundamentalist
pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing street preachers among the
Democrats is petty partisanship. Let's not forget Nietzsche's admonition that
the leveling, destructive force of egalitarian resentment emanates from
religiosity and socialism alike.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > In the final days before the election I wish the Dems would pound home
points: the obstructionist House of Reps, their wish to shrink government while
contradictorily wanting to involve it in women's reproductive rights; and the
fact that ObamaCare hasn't even been fully implemented to help even more people.
> >
> > Mary
> > Mary, I readily agree with that as I have always known that the republican
base understands it cannot elect  a president they must secure  the base and
then move to the middle. They plot their strategy like wolves and then set out
in sheeps clothing. The dems need to reintroduce the middle ground sheep to the
ways of wolves. Reintroduce them to the ways of bain capital and the ways of the
right to life fanatics. Beat them and then go after what they  really hide and
defend. That is the bloated and unnecessary defense budget. Rip their money
machine away from them  and only then will they return to rationality and good
citisenship. The lies they told  in their flight to the middle are all in the
open and you are  correct, keep pointing them out. Bill
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Obama likes being president. He is very good at it  and seems a
natural in the role. Philosophically he is very clean  with little overt
religion  and  a worthwhile objective of giving the common man a fair shake. He
is making progress and I am happy to support him.
> > >  Romney is a whole different bag of worms. Why does a rich man  want power
so badly? He seems driven to power but why? What is his true motovation and
where does it come from. For six years he has been pounding away at  becoming
president.
> > > Philosophically he is a dense  subtrafuge of the hidden agendae of
mormanism. He does not say what he will do and that is true to his mormon 
secretivness. I cannot accept a secret man from a secret religion as a leader of
a free people. This candidate is  a true pig in a poke. He comes from a
cartel/cult that hides in a temple  and just says trust me. In one of the few
things I agree with the christian right about is I do not trust Mitt. He is mean
and secretive and that sounds  like the formula for a reincarnation of Richard
Millhouse Nixon. I conjure up  visions of Mitt  wandering the corridors of the
White House asking for the help of Joe Smith and then doing whatever  pops into
his deluded mind. I can see a very capricous  man knocking at the doors of
power. He needs to be locked out. Bill
> > >
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Your Mormon libel against Romney is reminiscent of the Catholic libel against
your Democrat icon John Kennedy. But now, as then, neither group is monolithic
and both men show independence. As to reproductive rights, both presidential
candidates reject absolute restrictions on abortion -- be it exceptions for
health, life, rape or incest -- though as a practical matter technological
innovations like Depro-Provera and the morning after pill have made feminine
reproductive control a fait accompli. And to harp on Republican fundamentalist
pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing street preachers among the
Democrats is petty partisanship. Let's not forget Nietzsche's admonition that
the leveling, destructive force of egalitarian resentment emanates from
religiosity and socialism alike.
>
> Irvin
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the final days before the election I wish the Dems would pound home
points: the obstructionist House of Reps, their wish to shrink government while
contradictorily wanting to involve it in women's reproductive rights; and the
fact that ObamaCare hasn't even been fully implemented to help even more people.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > > Mary, I readily agree with that as I have always known that the republican
base understands it cannot elect  a president they must secure  the base and
then move to the middle. They plot their strategy like wolves and then set out
in sheeps clothing. The dems need to reintroduce the middle ground sheep to the
ways of wolves. Reintroduce them to the ways of bain capital and the ways of the
right to life fanatics. Beat them and then go after what they  really hide and
defend. That is the bloated and unnecessary defense budget. Rip their money
machine away from them  and only then will they return to rationality and good
citisenship. The lies they told  in their flight to the middle are all in the
open and you are  correct, keep pointing them out. Bill
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think Obama likes being president. He is very good at it  and seems a
natural in the role. Philosophically he is very clean  with little overt
religion  and  a worthwhile objective of giving the common man a fair shake. He
is making progress and I am happy to support him.
> > > >  Romney is a whole different bag of worms. Why does a rich man  want
power so badly? He seems driven to power but why? What is his true motovation
and where does it come from. For six years he has been pounding away at 
becoming president.
> > > > Philosophically he is a dense  subtrafuge of the hidden agendae of
mormanism. He does not say what he will do and that is true to his mormon 
secretivness. I cannot accept a secret man from a secret religion as a leader of
a free people. This candidate is  a true pig in a poke. He comes from a
cartel/cult that hides in a temple  and just says trust me. In one of the few
things I agree with the christian right about is I do not trust Mitt. He is mean
and secretive and that sounds  like the formula for a reincarnation of Richard
Millhouse Nixon. I conjure up  visions of Mitt  wandering the corridors of the
White House asking for the help of Joe Smith and then doing whatever  pops into
his deluded mind. I can see a very capricous  man knocking at the doors of
power. He needs to be locked out. Bill
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of your
comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would not
join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill

Irvin,

You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you should align
yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of racist
stereotypes.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of your
comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would not
join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
>

Classic Writers on Mysticism?



[ There have been so many writers on mysticism, and so much written
about it, that no living person could read it all and take it all in. If
they tried to then they would not know what to believe or what is the
truth about it. So who really are the classic writers on Mysticism?
Perhaps that is why so many people believe that there is no absolute
truth about it, or no absolute truth at all about anything. ]



In which case then perhaps that is a good thing, and they might stop
believing in anything at all. And I wonder what it is that they are each
calling `mysticism'; and why so :- )  Ask them. It would be
interesting if a real count was done on as to how many books have been
written on `mysticism' and how many on chess. But, you know, it
does not really matter, for chess is just a game. So too is religion and
its various forms of `mysticism'. Just a game.  But life is not
a game however, nor is consciousness, and nor is conscious experience.



As to what makes a classic writer on mysticism then presumably it would
be the ones who the most people adhere to and buy the books of and
choose to believe in and then follow. Sad isn't it. Life by proxy! I
would keep out of it all if I were you. And just live your life. See
what comes along. That is what I did, and I have no complaints, and I
don't believe in a danged thing and never did.  As the body gets
older and more decrepit I might need a bloody stick to lean on ( I hope
not) but I sure have not gone through life leaning on anything or
anyone.  So, why not take it as you find it?  It ain't too bad you
know; and it sure is mysterious. And if there were no mystery then you
would never ask any questions would you. If I had a pound for every
question I have asked myself, and sometimes others, then I would be very
wealthy indeed :- ) But, you know, and dang it, life does not give me
any money when I ask a question :- )  But I sometimes get an answer to
them. And sometimes is better than never innit.



Here is a good one for you to work on ( I had to do it once; and I
recommend it) Work out as to how you know when you have got an answer to
something. Study yourself.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Death and Judgement?



[ Most if not all of the major Western religions have this credo of
death and a judgment, and from which they will either be saved or, or
whatever. Where do you think this idea comes from? ]



Politics. There is nothing quite as effective for putting the fear of
some judgmental cretin in your path when you leave here :- )))))  If it
did not work on people to control their behaviour then it would not be
effective. But plainly it works; so they used it :- ) THAT is where it
comes from, and the reason for it. The people love to be fooled so
fooled let them be. It plays up to the emotions, especially fear, well
indeed.  But if they did not fall for it then of course it would not
work and they would all be out of a job. Added to which of course is
that people cannot know what it is like when they are not here if they
have never experienced the not here. And because of that some of them
find themselves open to all the crap which is invented for them to
believe in. You know well enough that it works, just look around you;
the world is full of this shit.



When I left here the only judgment I found was me judging myself and the
life I had left behind. Given that it was over I was assessing as to
what had been important to me. I have written about it. The only other
judgment I encountered was when that journey through Limbo was over and
I was in the eternal domain of the Ground of Being. And I judged living
that to be good. But while there I knew nothing else anyway, I could not
remember any of this out here or any past life.



So, when I came back I found that life there was good and so was life
here good. So wherein is the problem? There wasn't one. The only
problem I ever found (in life here) was in trying to rationally
understand some things and blend it all into a synthesis. But it was not
really a problem it was more a fun activity.  I always loved tackling
problems and trying to solve them. That is why I liked chess so much
when I was a kid, for it totally consumed the mind for a while on
something which was, for me, highly enjoyable activity; and every move
was a different problem to solve.  This is why when the game was over
the addiction was to immediately start another one, and off you go again
:- ) Sometimes I have played chess all through the night, and never even
got tired :- ) The energy was boundless.



Most of the real problems in daily life here however is simply getting
enough food and drink to keep the show going. So, if somebody is
preventing you from getting what you need of that then take them out,
get them out of your way. REVOLUTION ! WAR ! if need be. If you win then
you get enough grub. If  you lose you will not be bothered about grub
anyway :- )))) If you cannot get enough grub by the rules which they
make then don't play by their rules. But you don't need more
grub than you need, so don't be greedy. Greed will bugger your life
up. When you ain't hungry then don't eat, just live. Do things.
There is so much to live here for. And let us face it, it does not last
very long does it. So, do things while you have the chance to do them.
You will not do them when you ain't here. And that is a fact.



Hey, in the West there is also this `philosophy' of DO AS YOU
WILL. Not that I concur with it. However, if you do do as you like all
the time it is a good way of finding out what works for the best or not
:- ))))  It would be a reasonable way of learning.  So, if you wish, do
as you like and see the effects of it. You will soon change your ways in
some things.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The NOT HERE?



[ I do not subscribe to any religion either, but I find myself intrigued
with what you call the `not here'.  How many times have you
found this `not here' during your lifetime? Would not finding it
ten or twenty times during your life, and being the same each time, give
more credence to it? And what if it was not the same each time? ]



:- )  NO !  You cannot find yourself IN IT twice let alone ten times or
twenty times or a million times; that is impossible :- )  I have
explained all this in the book, for they were asking that question near
on fifty years ago before I wrote them down :- )



The reason you cannot find yourself in it twice is because it is beyond
memory. You cannot be in it and remember being there before. Neither can
you think. So you could not think to yourself `Oh I remember being
here before :- ))) So, you don't even need it twice in one lifetime.
But you need it once.



However, suppose somebody went there twice or thrice, or three hundred
times in one lifetime; and they could remember all those occasions of
going there.  So what? It would be the same each time, so no more would
be learned and understood. Once is all you need. It IS what it IS and
you find out what it IS by going there once. MAYBE I have been there a
million times, but who cares, for I cannot remember that. There is no
reason to think that I have been there a million times and there is no
reason to think that I have not been there a million times. It just
ain't important. There is no reason to even think about that.



Moreover, the term NOT HERE does not just apply to that mode of Being.
What about the journey through Limbo; or as I usually call it Crossing
the Styx?  For that is not here either. So where the frig IS IT?  It is
the journey down through your system of emanation (the Psyche). That is
an extremely common experience, as I have said a thousand times before.
And that is indeed different every time. But Limbo is only the journey
to the Ground of Being.  Do you see?



So, NOT HERE applies to both.  It really means NOT IN SPACETIME life.
They are BOTH transcendent of Spacetime life. But LIMBO is not
transcendent of time. For things change there. But the Ground of Being
IS transcendent of Time, and nothing there changes or evolves. So, the
Ground of Being is not a lifetime; it is LIFE. In it is root of Being.
It is ME where I start.  It is Home.  Do you see?  How do you KNOW that
it is home while there? Well, that is not easy to answer I am afraid.
You just KNOW it.  It is axiomatic and unarguable.  It is mysterious.
And will always remain so. We have knowledge and understanding in the
Ground of Being. But don't ask me how it got there for there is no
way of finding that out. But it is there. And once you KNOW it then it
becomes one's own private guide book on behaviour here. You only
need it ONCE. That does the job. But you will not find it here or in
spacetime. And that is a fact. You have to go where IT IS.  We are
constructed of THREE parts.  And that requires a mysterious journey
through the sub conscious and Limbo. I hope that has helped a little.
But best find it for yourself, then you will KNOW.  BUT, as I have also
said before, DONT mess with the psyche and sub conscious, for it is a
veritable Pandora's box of weird stuff. But go there willingly when
you hear the Sirens call from the depths. You will be just fine.




In the meantime try and enjoy your life. And give some of it away. A joy
shared is better than a pain shared. And so many of them try to make it
a valley of bloody tears don't they. So, be different.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Twentieth Century?



[ I don't ever recall any mystical experiences, even though I enjoy
reading about them; but when looking at the way things are going, and
being near enough your own age, people lives are looking to become
rather artificial and in a non caring world. I get the feeling that in
time to come people might look back and envy those who lived through the
twentieth century. ]



Well, I hope you are wrong, but who knows eh. But I take your point well
enough and I lived through quite a large chunk of it myself. It is
certainly one to go down into history.  I cannot think of any past
century which would have been half as hectic, diverse, turmoil,
uncertainty, traumatic, high hopes, and exciting, as the twentieth
century. It was almost as if we lived through the very best that life
could offer and the very worst, all at the same time, in the same
century.  But then again, it is the only one I know.  The only one I can
judge. I wonder what they will think of us. But, I also often look back
at it all and simply think WOW ! :- )  It kind of takes your breath away
just thinking about it.  Maybe that is why we like those old costume
period dramas where life seemed so easy, slow and unchanging; a rural
idyll; a wee bit of temporary escapism for us :- )  But, I have no
reason at all to think that people living in any century will not still
value the same essential things in life that most of us do. I hope not
anyway. But as always, it will largely depend on the individuals views
and perspective on things.  One can also look at it in the light that
the way things are going it could also be very exciting in times to
come. But I wish them well and hope that there is a somewhat better
world for them to live their lives in. Life here is too precious to have
it fucked up by many of the things I have seen and known through that
century.



rwr






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mary,

I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the "Back to
Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp on
Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing street
preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an accidental
quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset, needn't impugn
the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than rabid white
fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of racist
stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Irvin,
>
> You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you should align
yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of racist
stereotypes.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of your
comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would not
join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> >
>

A Priori Knowledge?



[ Is there such a thing as a priori knowledge or does all knowing have
to be derived from experience? ]



What kind of a priori knowledge did you mean? Did you mean the type of
`knowing' derived at by logical deduction in word-play or did
you mean the type of knowing by hearsay of something which is known by
somebody who does know it?  For neither of those two types of
`knowing' derive from one's own direct experience of a thing
known.



Logical deduction in playing word games does not prove the truth of
anything. "I am married to this woman".  How is logic going to
prove the truth or falsity of that claim? `All bachelors are
unmarried'. But we have previously decided what the words bachelor
and married mean. It is a word game.



But, we need words which point to things found if there is to be any
communication. So each phenomena and variant thereof found needs a name
in order to communicate about it.  Thus words have a meaning. But does
an invented word which points to nothing found have a meaning? Go back
to a time before language was constructed then could there have been a
knowing of something prior to that something having been found to exist?
To KNOW has to have a thing which is KNOWN.  Knowing isn't an empty
jug. So, what do you know Joe?



But what has to exist in order that KNOW can be KNOWN? There has to be a
KNOWER. So what is that?  A pint pot is a pint pot whether there is any
fluid in it or not. And it has the capacity for holding a pint of fluid.
How can it be made to have a two pint capacity? And if that is achieved
then it will still be the same stuff but it will not be a pint pot.



So, is hearsay (hearing something without personal experience of it)
knowledge or not? No, it is not KNOWING. It is knowing OF something,
prior to the experience of it. But if you hear something then it may be
true and it may not be true as far as the hearer of it is concerned. How
would they KNOW if it was SO?  They would NOT KNOW.  So no, there is no
such thing as a priori knowing. But assuming that somebody is telling
somebody else of something which they truly know by their direct
experience of that phenomena then the hearer of it has heard OF it. And
they must do with that what they will until they find that thing for
themselves. If they never do find it then that is not proof of anything
except that they have not found it. So, best be very sceptical about
claims made; for we do  KNOW that human being can lie. But as for
determining  WHAT IS by way of logic and word games then that is
ridiculous. The finding comes first and then the word for it comes after
finding it.



But then comes the far better question of as to how anything can exist
to know anything. That is a mystery. And remember that an empty pint pot
can always be filled up and then it will not be empty. If the CONTENT
within the cup was KNOWLEDE then an empty cup would not know that it had
none and that it was empty.



There is a small river which runs close by to here which has been named
the Doniford Stream. You could read a million articles about it and have
a million people tell you about it, and you could accept the truth of it
(or not) but you still would not KNOW it. You would only know OF it.
Unless you went there of course. Then you would KNOW it.



Dick Richardson






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Howard Fineman fears a right wing backlash  if Romney loses. He says the flight
of the republican party to the rural south  has imbued it with  a rebellous  and
bitter core that will cause more than political  problems. He sees a separation
from the rest of the country that leaves them more secessionist than american .
Haley Barber cannot  even abide with Miks Blumbergs allignment with Obama. Haley
just refuses to accept it happned. It is that sort of denial  that leads to
insurections. Haley is an astute politician and smells defeat  coming and
already is blaming  the jews and italians who are really not republicans  in his
lexicon. Chris Christy is as turncoat as Blumburg and  the rural south  just
implodes into a tighter and tighter pit. Fineman thinks it will go critical mass
and explode. Just what form that explosion might take  he does not say . If it
remains a civil insurrection the  repurcussions  might be  held to political
sanctions but if it goes to the streets  the end of the republican party we have
now may be at hand. Barbour is already  saying  that house republicans  will
continue to stonewall and try to run the country from a minority position. With
a second term president that is unlikely especially with sequestration just
around the corner. So real change may be coming  but it may be injurious to the
country and especially to the south. So look to Virginia first and then Ohio.
Its  crunch time. Bill

Howard Fineman fears a right wing backlash  if Romney loses. He says the flight
of the republican party to the rural south  has imbued it with  a rebellous  and
bitter core that will cause more than political  problems. He sees a separation
from the rest of the country that leaves them more secessionist than american .
Haley Barber cannot  even abide with Miks Blumbergs allignment with Obama. Haley
just refuses to accept it happned. It is that sort of denial  that leads to
insurections. Haley is an astute politician and smells defeat  coming and
already is blaming  the jews and italians who are really not republicans  in his
lexicon. Chris Christy is as turncoat as Blumburg and  the rural south  just
implodes into a tighter and tighter pit. Fineman thinks it will go critical mass
and explode. Just what form that explosion might take  he does not say . If it
remains a civil insurrection the  repurcussions  might be  held to political
sanctions but if it goes to the streets  the end of the republican party we have
now may be at hand. Barbour is already  saying  that house republicans  will
continue to stonewall and try to run the country from a minority position. With
a second term president that is unlikely especially with sequestration just
around the corner. So real change may be coming  but it may be injurious to the
country and especially to the south. So look to Virginia first and then Ohio.
Its  crunch time. Bill

I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color and why
you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly opposed to
the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the "Back to
Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp on
Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing street
preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an accidental
quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset, needn't impugn
the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than rabid white
fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of racist
stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
>
> Irvin
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Irvin,
> >
> > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you should
align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of racist
stereotypes.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of your
comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would not
join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > >
> >
>

Mary,

Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better to let
Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.

All the best,

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color and why
you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly opposed to
the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> >
> > Mary,
> >
> > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the "Back
to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp on
Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing street
preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an accidental
quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset, needn't impugn
the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than rabid white
fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of racist
stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> >
> > Irvin
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Irvin,
> > >
> > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you should
align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of racist
stereotypes.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of
your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would
not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

A World of Mystics?



[ You see the coming into awareness of these esoteric things, and deep
inner parts of our own being, as being a part of an evolutionary
process. How do you think the world would be if everybody was like this?
]



A world of mystics? Obviously I have tried to imagine that scenario; but
right now it is an extremely academic venture to even try thinking about
it and imagining it. It would be totally different to what it is like
living here now, or has ever been in the past. So, one cannot say it
would be like this or like that for there is no known past to compare it
with.



However, if there were a world of mystics then there would not be any
mystics, for living with these things would be the norm, common, an
everyday part of reality for everybody. Try and imagine if you can a
world without religions, without political parties, without money,
without national borders, try and imagine that just for a start. It is
not easy to imagine it.  It would be so radically different from
anything known as yet. Also imagine given how long that would take, as
to how much knowledge and technology, the arts and sciences, would have
advanced by that time. You mention the word esoteric, but there would be
no such thing. All these thing I have mentioned I do not see them as
esoterica, but just the daily norm; all as natural as breathing is. Is
there such a world somewhere out there now? I find even thinking about
that is an utter waste of time and it does not matter one jot if there
is or if there ain't. We should be thinking  about this place and
other places which we will be able to get to. We should be thinking
about today and tomorrow, and next year, not some imaginary place way
off in the future. We should be thinking about and planning for a world
fit for the next generation and their progeny to live in. Which right
now it ain't.  Truly, I look around this world as it is now, today,
and I want to throw up.



I hear people talking about  the dark ages as though they had made some
giant leap forward.  They have not, they are still in the dark ages. I
want more than this. I have said that I don't fit in here; it is
true, I never did feel as though I fit in here. And they think all this
is fun.  It isn't all fun. It could be. But not here as one has to
live in it now. But we ARE living in this world here and now, so one has
to get on with it and do the best one can. Many seem to think that
mystics live in some la-la land, but they don't, they are living on
this one here and now; warts and all. Some have said to me over the
years, go and talk to him or her. But I have no wish to paddle in a deep
ocean only up to my ankles.  Some say to me, `I want this and I want
it now, how can I get it'. Would they really want it if they knew
what it is like living with it here and now amid what it is like here
and now?  No, it  sure ain't me who is living in a la-la land.



So, what would it be like living on a world full of mystics?  Best
concentrate on what it is like living on this world here and now, and
then judge it as it is here and now. And then do something about it
today. For tomorrow. One day at a time. Nothing else is going to do it.
But they want something else to do it  for them don't they; to save
them from their own bloody mess they have made. The world that humanity
has made is not a reflection of the world it is a reflection of them.
Their stomach works better than their head.  And it ain't good
enough. Their existing ideals are not fit to feed to the pigs; and half
the world seems to be on drugs as a cop-out to doing anything positive.
Today?  No thank you.



Anyway; you did ask.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rome. Political Corruption. Astrotheology?



[ Do you know of this man Jordon Maxwell?  I would be interested to hear
your views on this if you can make the time to watch some of it.



http://jordanmaxwell.com/ <http://jordanmaxwell.com/>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p_rrTs_WfQ
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p_rrTs_WfQ>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf01juYAwt4&feature=related
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf01juYAwt4&feature=related>  ]



The no hope advocate :- ) He seems to see himself as powerless in a
diabolical world of angels and demons and he can do nothing about it.
This man is not a mystic and not coming at all this from mystics view of
it all. But I do feel that he might be something of a psychic, and
perhaps the dark and shallow side of it, which leaves him in a
pessimistic viewpoint. Also, he is doing what he is doing in the most
dangerous place on earth to do it – the USA. The most controlled
nation on earth. However, I do admire the amount of research that he has
done and would recommend that people watch it and also do their own
research. But there is MORE.  MUCH MORE.  But the people who need to
watch it will not watch it; and they do not do their own research. Not
yet anyway.  So, he has studied all this stuff because he has found
links and so much corruption; and maybe some psychic experiences. But I
studied religion and politics BECAUSE of mystical experience.  But he
knows nothing of this personal inner evolution and a growing awareness;
and his own powers. But I don't think mainstream people are as
stupid and blind and hopeless as he seems to make them sound to be. That
which he does mention is really all old hat. I see him and those like
him as I said before – as folks padding up to their ankles on the
edge of a very deep and wide ocean.  The ocean that the mystics dived
into willingly and went to the bottom of it and came back up again.
Other than that I see no point in making any more comments on it, for I
did all that myself years ago, and more;  and wrote about it long ago.
So, not really interested in it; but thanks anyway.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Higher Vibrational Living?



[ You mentioned living a higher vibratioanl level of conscious existence
which was in harmony and union with the outer world and which enhanced
all the senses to experience it that way; and this was after
experiencing the union with the primordial and eternal root of life. If
there is one thing which the governments and religions do not want it is
people who's minds they do not have control over and who live their
life independently of those inflicted mind control dogmas and their
think tanks.  So, in a way you are a terrorist; and you keep yelling
freedom. You are not alone.  You don't like to call it enlightenment
or illumination because it smacks of old religions that go way back into
antiquity, so you call it Psychognosis. But by any name it is what it is
and the world seems to be heading that way despite all the inflicted
dogmas and mind control. I wish you well. ]



Thank you; and you too. My beef, if one can call it that, is not really
with the natural slowness of evolution of the inner unfolding, for it is
slow BUT sure, and it works.  So the real beef is with the man-made
processes which are put in the path of that which slows it down to keep
people in a bondage to the mind control systems of their liking.  As to
what the real metaphysical understandings were prior to about five
thousand years ago then I have no idea what they were or what they were
like. Neither do I care.  But as far back as I can get information on
there has been control by priestcraft which they probably now call the
political new world order. But I have never played to their rules and
codes anyway so none of it has ever effected me. I went my own way from
the beginning of my life here.  And it has been good. I have never
needed anything to live by which did not come with the package of my own
inner being. But I agree that a name is only a name and not at all
important – other than as a means of communication.  So, the world
order can go its way and I will go mine. As I always did anyway.  THAT
is freedom. And the natural unfolds easer that way of its own accord and
rhythm. They called it the music of spheres didn't they? :- ) I
think the really ancient druids and mystics must have known about it to
some extent. And they of course were the deadly pagans who refused to be
converted by Rome ;- )



(X)



Merlin of Exmoor







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Irwin,

Rather condescending to Bill, and I trust you've miscalculated any perceived
disconnect between his personal philosophy and election activism. Perhaps you'll
win your little tug of war, perhaps not. I know one thing for certain; he's
called you a xenophobe, and for that I'm eternally grateful. There's simply no
reason to refer to another's superficial physical characteristics unless it's to
address oppression, and in this case, voter suppression.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better to let
Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.
>
> All the best,
>
> Irvin
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color and
why you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly opposed
to the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mary,
> > >
> > > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the
"Back to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp
on Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing
street preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an
accidental quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset,
needn't impugn the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than
rabid white fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of
racist stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> > >
> > > Irvin
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Irvin,
> > > >
> > > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you should
align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of racist
stereotypes.
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out of
your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would
not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Two guys I know have come back from Afganistan. It changed them . One just hated
the place. He found it  a bronse age place that subsists on war and smuggling.He
talked about the combat pilots  and spoke about their  stress levels that are
off the charts. He talked about the starving children just outside the base
gates. He told of the enormous costs  with truck drivers  making  160,000/yr and
vacations  to australia in luxury condos. He was a mess and would be  placed in
Hawaii to do R&R. I hope  a few months in paradise will revitalise him. He paid
a great price to try and end that war.
The other stud came back and wants to be in the military for the rest of his
life. Both these young people are impressive individuals  and I think they will
both do very well. These men  defy my criticism of the american young. We have 
first rate young  people who have already given a great deal for their
countries.
To Irvin: Hold on little buddy, very soon you can blather on in broken academic
language about nothing. I expect it of you  as it is kind of like missing a fart
in the wind. You can get used to almost anything. Bill

Mary,

The stuff of art and life is replete with discription and portrayals. Some, but
not all, are political; though where the political intrudes, the concept of
oppression cuts many ways, and may itself mask resentment and provide
justification to disparage and dispossess the virtueous. And there is, of
course, xenophobia -- and xenophilia. Depending upon one's disposition, one may
associate the former with an abundance of precaution, or the latter with an
abundance of the kind of curiosity known to kill the cat. I tend towards
precaution until obtaining Nietzsche's threshold familiarity, at which time one
can have discreet commerce with some but not all, and to know just which streets
one shouldn't tread.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Irwin,
>
> Rather condescending to Bill, and I trust you've miscalculated any perceived
disconnect between his personal philosophy and election activism. Perhaps you'll
win your little tug of war, perhaps not. I know one thing for certain; he's
called you a xenophobe, and for that I'm eternally grateful. There's simply no
reason to refer to another's superficial physical characteristics unless it's to
address oppression, and in this case, voter suppression.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> >
> > Mary,
> >
> > Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better to
let Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Irvin
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color and
why you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly opposed
to the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mary,
> > > >
> > > > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the
"Back to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp
on Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing
street preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an
accidental quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset,
needn't impugn the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than
rabid white fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of
racist stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> > > >
> > > > Irvin
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Irvin,
> > > > >
> > > > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you
should align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of
racist stereotypes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out
of your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would
not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Fair and sensible comments but only if they apply universally. I doubt anyone
automatically 'embraces' others on the basis of superficiality. That is simply
foolhardy. In other words, are you as sceptical of all white English speaking
people?

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> The stuff of art and life is replete with discription and portrayals. Some,
but not all, are political; though where the political intrudes, the concept of
oppression cuts many ways, and may itself mask resentment and provide
justification to disparage and dispossess the virtueous. And there is, of
course, xenophobia -- and xenophilia. Depending upon one's disposition, one may
associate the former with an abundance of precaution, or the latter with an
abundance of the kind of curiosity known to kill the cat. I tend towards
precaution until obtaining Nietzsche's threshold familiarity, at which time one
can have discreet commerce with some but not all, and to know just which streets
one shouldn't tread.
>
> Irvin
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Irwin,
> >
> > Rather condescending to Bill, and I trust you've miscalculated any perceived
disconnect between his personal philosophy and election activism. Perhaps you'll
win your little tug of war, perhaps not. I know one thing for certain; he's
called you a xenophobe, and for that I'm eternally grateful. There's simply no
reason to refer to another's superficial physical characteristics unless it's to
address oppression, and in this case, voter suppression.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mary,
> > >
> > > Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better to
let Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Irvin
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color
and why you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly
opposed to the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in the
"Back to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who "harp
on Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing
street preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an
accidental quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset,
needn't impugn the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than
rabid white fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of
racist stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Irvin
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irvin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you
should align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of
racist stereotypes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you out
of your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you would
not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for the
Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five  iron?
Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew Irvin
you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm always especially proud when standing in voter lines. Today there was a 93
yr. old woman whose ballot was rejected because she 'marked outside the lines'
but a poll worker escorted her back to get another ballot. There were people of
different colors, ages, and languages chatting and deferring when necessary. We
also had signage in Spanish. I'm proud of our First Lady whose project has been
to help veterans, but I'm also shocked at their suicide rate. There's so much
more for everyone to do, I really can't see much point in polarization and
gridlock.

I see no reason that philosophy can't be a beacon, if only for the purpose of
contrasting those writers who champion the individual exclusively with those who
don't. There is still much to be parsed, and I suspect the changes the younger
generation are pondering deal with these very different philosophies. I'm
looking forward to watching the British television documentary series "The
Century of the Self" after the election is decided, whenever that happens.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> Two guys I know have come back from Afganistan. It changed them . One just
hated the place. He found it  a bronse age place that subsists on war and
smuggling.He talked about the combat pilots  and spoke about their  stress
levels that are off the charts. He talked about the starving children just
outside the base gates. He told of the enormous costs  with truck drivers 
making  160,000/yr and vacations  to australia in luxury condos. He was a mess
and would be  placed in Hawaii to do R&R. I hope  a few months in paradise will
revitalise him. He paid a great price to try and end that war.
> The other stud came back and wants to be in the military for the rest of his
life. Both these young people are impressive individuals  and I think they will
both do very well. These men  defy my criticism of the american young. We have 
first rate young  people who have already given a great deal for their
countries.
> To Irvin: Hold on little buddy, very soon you can blather on in broken
academic language about nothing. I expect it of you  as it is kind of like
missing a fart in the wind. You can get used to almost anything. Bill
>

Mary,

Notions of precaution and familiarity would apply universally, though the time
and effort associated with acquisition of familiarity are lower respecting those
with whom we already share a macro-familiarity of language and culture.

Irvin

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Fair and sensible comments but only if they apply universally. I doubt anyone
automatically 'embraces' others on the basis of superficiality. That is simply
foolhardy. In other words, are you as sceptical of all white English speaking
people?
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> >
> > Mary,
> >
> > The stuff of art and life is replete with discription and portrayals. Some,
but not all, are political; though where the political intrudes, the concept of
oppression cuts many ways, and may itself mask resentment and provide
justification to disparage and dispossess the virtueous. And there is, of
course, xenophobia -- and xenophilia. Depending upon one's disposition, one may
associate the former with an abundance of precaution, or the latter with an
abundance of the kind of curiosity known to kill the cat. I tend towards
precaution until obtaining Nietzsche's threshold familiarity, at which time one
can have discreet commerce with some but not all, and to know just which streets
one shouldn't tread.
> >
> > Irvin
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Irwin,
> > >
> > > Rather condescending to Bill, and I trust you've miscalculated any
perceived disconnect between his personal philosophy and election activism.
Perhaps you'll win your little tug of war, perhaps not. I know one thing for
certain; he's called you a xenophobe, and for that I'm eternally grateful.
There's simply no reason to refer to another's superficial physical
characteristics unless it's to address oppression, and in this case, voter
suppression.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mary,
> > > >
> > > > Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better
to let Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Irvin
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin color
and why you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're clearly
opposed to the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mary,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in
the "Back to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who
"harp on Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing
street preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an
accidental quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset,
needn't impugn the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than
rabid white fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of
racist stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irvin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irvin,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe you
should align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of of
racist stereotypes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you
out of your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you
would not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for
the Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five 
iron? Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew
Irvin you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Irvin,

True, but sometimes these obstacles must be surmounted, especially when not
doing so only exacerbates alienation.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> Notions of precaution and familiarity would apply universally, though the time
and effort associated with acquisition of familiarity are lower respecting those
with whom we already share a macro-familiarity of language and culture.
>
> Irvin
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Fair and sensible comments but only if they apply universally. I doubt
anyone automatically 'embraces' others on the basis of superficiality. That is
simply foolhardy. In other words, are you as sceptical of all white English
speaking people?
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mary,
> > >
> > > The stuff of art and life is replete with discription and portrayals.
Some, but not all, are political; though where the political intrudes, the
concept of oppression cuts many ways, and may itself mask resentment and provide
justification to disparage and dispossess the virtueous. And there is, of
course, xenophobia -- and xenophilia. Depending upon one's disposition, one may
associate the former with an abundance of precaution, or the latter with an
abundance of the kind of curiosity known to kill the cat. I tend towards
precaution until obtaining Nietzsche's threshold familiarity, at which time one
can have discreet commerce with some but not all, and to know just which streets
one shouldn't tread.
> > >
> > > Irvin
> > >
> > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Irwin,
> > > >
> > > > Rather condescending to Bill, and I trust you've miscalculated any
perceived disconnect between his personal philosophy and election activism.
Perhaps you'll win your little tug of war, perhaps not. I know one thing for
certain; he's called you a xenophobe, and for that I'm eternally grateful.
There's simply no reason to refer to another's superficial physical
characteristics unless it's to address oppression, and in this case, voter
suppression.
> > > >
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than conflating philosophy and politiking, it's probably better
to let Bill vent his campaign and reserve philosophical discussion for later.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Irvin
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm trying to understand why you need to refer to someone's skin
color and why you require Bill to be fair with his criticisms when you're
clearly opposed to the principle of equal opportunity in the first place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mary,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't recall a too constant resort to "swarthy," but its use in
the "Back to Motive" thread, referencing the petty partisanship of those who
"harp on Republican fundamentalist pests, while ignoring swarthy, rabble rousing
street preachers among the Democrats" was indeed apropos. Simply stated, an
accidental quality common to both a genus and a small, but vulgar subset,
needn't impugn the greater (and this subset, I may add, is no less vulgar than
rabid white fundamentalists). As to aligning oneself with someone to be rid of
racist stereotypes, I'd recommend the eminent black intellectual Thomas Sowell,
especially for ridding oneself of the fallacies underlying egalitarian and
diversity ideologies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irvin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Irvin,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You constant resort to the term "swarthy" is offensive. Maybe
you should align yourself with the Black Republicans in order to rid yourself of
of racist stereotypes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mary
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I thought the old  call to sword and nobility  might bring you
out of your comfortable slime. Sturgeon,Gar, ?Your money must be right  as you
would not join the troglidites out of fancy. You seem to have a real hard on for
the Kennedy`s  , Why?  Did they beat your little sister to death with a five 
iron? Did your sister refuse to give it up to a kennedy scout? Give us a clew
Irvin you don`t have to be so afraid, or do you? Bill
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

It seems such a short time ago that  I heard of a senator  named Obama. A few
months later he was at my door  asking for my vote against Hillary Clinton. I
liked and trusted Hillary but went for Obama. The rest is all history and six
blocks from here, last night Obama  had his last rally. It seems impossible that
his campaign life is over. It seems it just began  and I must say I feel older.
I have voted  and know  that will be the last vote I  will cast for  this
president. It felt good but with a sense of nostalgia. No president in my
lifetime  has been so favorable to me. I think he has done a great job under 
harsh circumstances and made the big decisions with wisdom and candor. I am
waiting for the first returns and hope this country can count on  Obama
leadership for another term. The greater portion of the modern world agrees that
Obama  is the best man for the entire world. If he wins I will continue to
support him  but I feel  somewhat in shock that the last rally and final vote 
are history. Either way I wish this great american  the best. For me he is  a
hero and I salute him. Bill

It seems such a short time ago that  I heard of a senator  named Obama. A few
months later he was at my door  asking for my vote against Hillary Clinton. I
liked and trusted Hillary but went for Obama. The rest is all history and six
blocks from here, last night Obama  had his last rally. It seems impossible that
his campaign life is over. It seems it just began  and I must say I feel older.
I have voted  and know  that will be the last vote I  will cast for  this
president. It felt good but with a sense of nostalgia. No president in my
lifetime  has been so favorable to me. I think he has done a great job under 
harsh circumstances and made the big decisions with wisdom and candor. I am
waiting for the first returns and hope this country can count on  Obama
leadership for another term. The greater portion of the modern world agrees that
Obama  is the best man for the entire world. If he wins I will continue to
support him  but I feel  somewhat in shock that the last rally and final vote 
are history. Either way I wish this great american  the best. For me he is  a
hero and I salute him. Bill