Commenter Archive

Comments by Scott Miller

On “Everybody Did Get Stoned

@ CK MacLeod:
Obviously, cocaine does not a cosmetologist make. I'd take a 60's style pot smoking stylist over a 70's style one any day. Just look what one did to Linda.

"

@ miguel cervantes:
Admittedly, I am and was only going by second hand info in terms of being positively taken by his Jesuit days. What I know of Jesuits impresses me, but things are not always as advertised. I bow to your personal experience, Miguel, and go back to my original point about Jerry the mayor of Oakland. That one's probably safe since you were probably not schooled by one of those. I take it the Jesuits weren't big on ending sentences with a punctuation mark

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Okay. The truth is, he had me at Jesuit priest.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Glad you feel that way. When Jerry became the mayor of Oakland was the moment I really started digging him. It did show an absolute willingness to experiment combined with as deep a sense of integrity as you're going to get from a politician.

"

Thank you, Colin. Bob is music to my ears as I type. This was the feel-good blog experience I've been looking for. It was perfect to read one of Miguel's unstoned stoned comments first. "Doesn’t California prove they’ve been stoned long ago, and what’s the insinuation about the Grizzly" No punctuation. No question mark. Why bother
Just that "Grizzly" word floating out in space. You can't make that shit up. Thank you all.

On “Theo-Anthropology and the Essence of Christianity

The other challenge when it comes to comparing things to Buddhism is that there are three kinds: hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana. The last one is tantric. That means all bets are off with it. Vajrayana equals "Crazy wisdom" level of practice. Naturally, that's my favorite. The other ones relate more to the reasonableness and rationality that the world thinks of as Buddhist--"the Buddhism without belief" part. Tantric Buddhism even includes a kind of Buddhist form of worship in connection with Chenrezig, which was Avilakeshvara in the pre-Buddha, Hindu days of compassion oriented spiritual teaching.

"

bob wrote:

The reason the Dharma does not change is because the content of thought is irrelevant. So yes, the content can change, but so what?

Agreed. That's why I think what Colin was getting at with the Hegelian philosophy really connects more with the dualistic aphorisms of the Yoga Sutras than Buddhism. Some people think the Sutras are a yogic response to Buddha's teachings. The only problem with that idea is that they probably came first.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
This is very "Ken Wilber." As a Buddhist, it was unique for Wilber to put forth the idea that things had changed from the time of Buddha even from an Ultimate (not just a relative) perspective. He has been criticized for thinking that the Buddha's philosophy needs updating. Wilber explains why in context of Form and Formlessness. All Buddhists, including Wibler, see it is as a mistake to connect Buddha's realization of Emptiness to the transcendence of "illusion." "Form" is not just an illusion. Everything is empty, including Formlessness. To see things differently would create a dualistic perspective. Buddhists always see dualism in a negative light and that's okay in connection with the Buddha's ideas (not in connection with yoga). So Form is as eternal as Formlessness and no less real. Form is Formlessness and Formlessness is Form. Therefore, as you point out in a different way, Form will impact Truth. What was True for the Buddha is different now. Like I stated, most Buddhists don't go for that idea. They think of the Buddha's dharma as Ultimate Truth that does not change. You really should check out Ken Wilber's writing. I know he has written about Hegel extensively. I'll research which books would be the best.

"

@ fuster:
Great song. I still think Colin is right, however. Admit it, George, you really are a Sag.

"

@ miguel cervantes:
That brought a smile to my face, Miguel. No shit. Really? A Libra. I would not have guessed that, but now that I think about it, I get it. You're not out actually causing the conflict you advocate. So, okay. Libra.

"

@ George Jochnowitz:
But you do have powers, George. I wrote a whole response to your earlier astrology question, posted it, and then it came up "this post is under moderation." Then, when I posted another comment, the earlier one disappeared. Maybe it had to do with the Cabbala word in it. Anyway, I explained the relevance of astrology along Carl Jung lines. You probably wouldn't have related to it anyway.
The best part was that I commended the Tsar for this quote: CK MacLeod wrote:

I thought Scorpios were supposed to be secretive. You must have some other sign burglarizing your House.

He was right. Dead on. But I'm not telling him what the other sign in the other "House" is. It's a secret.

On “Shouting FIRE in a crowded world

bob wrote:

Scott, I was supporting Colin’s point. The archeological record shows a lot of conflict in that transition.

Bob, you know me well enough to know that the facts are relatively inconsequential in my world. In lieu of research, it was as close as I was going to come to support, so I jumped on it. Again, for the millionth time, just go with me here. It will be easier on both of us in the long run.

On “Among the things about which I have no time to care

@ CK MacLeod:
You would ask that. Miguel is right. Whatever I call for, the opposite happens. Too bad it only works when I'm being sincere, otherwise I could just pretend to call for all kinds of things I don't want and then the opposite would happen. So, giving it a shot:
You don't cling to anything, Colin, and I hope you never allow yourself to be a cry baby.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Since you have admitted to being more of a Marxist type in your early days, you didn't really get to ever enjoy the feeling of being a part of this "truly exceptional American idea" which you speak of as being pretty much a "was" at this point. Naturally, sympathetic liberals like myself relate too much to the suffering of minorities etc. to ever look at America in terms of it ever having been exceptional. But in any case, with you, it's in the past. I can tell from your writing that you know what America has been about in respect to human rights. So do you think maybe you fantasize about a reality that you like believing in because it's not okay with you as a conservative to just be a cry baby like us liberals? And I'm not relating this to the reality of whether America was exceptional. In this context, that doesn't matter. I'm asking about whether it's an emotional need of yours to have something conservative to believe in. I think it matters because like all humans, your writing is effected by your emotions, which are defended by your brilliance. I'm not advocating that you become a cry baby--it doesn't seem like it's really part of your nature and it would affect your writing too much--but just a little bit of it might make a positive difference.

"

To stave off unnecessary commenting, I should be clear about what I mean by "conservative." I'm not going by what people refer to themselves as. I'm talking about people's nature. in a nutshell, a conservative person is someone who hates to waste energy and resources, including money and lives. In terms of nature, there are no extreme conservatives and no extreme liberals in office. Extreme conservatives wouldn't waste energy running for office and extreme liberals would be too warn out being overly sensitive to everything around them in the campaign process to actually end up elected. Most of the public personalities who refer to themselves as conservatives are anything but conservative by nature. They advocate all kinds of waste, most obviously the waste of war. (Now Colin can spin that the other way somehow).

"

Just a note about "losing" me. My appreciation of CK's writing does include his logic, but I don't agree with him much except when it comes to art. I like what he teaches me about communication and how he expresses himself. He's an artist. I don't expect genius to be right on a normal level. It wouldn't be as interesting that way, and frankly, I've known very few wise conservatives and if I had the power to develop them I would. Even though I am radically liberal about most things, I don't want liberals to win. I want balance. We need smart conservatives. By our very nature, liberals are reactionary and our impulsiveness gets us into trouble. Smart, normal conservatives (not Colin) could keep us out of trouble. Unfortunately, they have been in extremely short supply--really non-existent. So we've been in a lot of trouble.

"

The others may consider my siding this way as a point against you, Rex, but I thought your argument tracked very well. Hang in there.

On “Flamesem & Japesem (Operation American Freedom)

@ bob:
Again, with the critique about something already put on the table as if it hadn't been. I posted a reply to my own post. So, yes, I knew I was having a conversation with myself at a certain point. It was humorous. What isn't humorous is to then read your conversation with yourself that even though it has been inspired by my posts, is still about you wondering if I recognize that I'm having a conversation with myself. Not fun. I hope we can do better. I will stay positive.

"

@ Scott Miller:
Since CK is supposed to be doing his duty, I decided to respond to my own comment. Now I'm really blogging.

"

CK MacLeod wrote:

but I have no way to assess the import of that statement – how I or we or anyone would go about his or her business differently if Being was the Ground of Consciousness, or Ground the Consciousness of Being or of was the the Being Ground Consciousness

Surely someone creative enough to write a sentence like that is creative enough to imagine how you and me and everyone else would go about our business differently if we all believed that since Consciousness is the Ground of Being and things therefore can't be set in stone, we can always have a positive affect on life.

"

@ miguel cervantes:
Space yes. Matter no. No matter equals "empty space."

"

@ CK MacLeod:
You're supposed to be doing your duty.
My original statement was simple. The physics terms were appropriately applied. Bob subverted that by bringing in the phenomenon issue without addressing how it related to the physics. He jumped over the physics to make a point that is always made because it's what usually applies and works as a defense. But I had been very careful not to apply any terms that I don't understand or that could qualify as speculative type science in the process of being proved or disproved. So there was no need for this type of discourse. I was obviously writing with an understanding of how this usually goes and helping us all steer clear of it. But a person should be able to write what I wrote with the anticipation that if I do steer clear of what we can now refer to as phenomenon issues, the old ammunition won't be shot off anyway. That sucks. It's unnecessarily defensive and contentiousness. You did the right thing. No real response to the first point. It wasn't really called for and there was no real opening there. The only thing you could have done was contest the idea that there is hardly any matter in the Universe. And now, if either of you can find any reputable physicist who believes that the Universe isn't primarily empty space and that things are really as solid as they appear, then let me know. Otherwise, in this case, what physicists say about matter is consistent with what I wrote about it, and the terms as stated are appropriate to any discourse. That was my whole damn point in writing things the way I did. Being aware of how people talk about physics in terms that are inappropriate I was careful to keep the physics points attached to ideas that are simple and uncontested. That's why you needed Bob to write what he wrote before you wrote what you wrote. I was careful not to give you an in. You were supposed to be doing your duty by the time I responded to Bob. Plus, you shouldn't mix the two things. My response to Bob gave you what you needed to talk about terms that are only appropriate to the second discourse, not the first and mixing the two was a mistake. The concepts mean very different things in different contexts. Now, you go do your duty.

"

@ bob:
That's why I kept it specific. Yes, lots of viewpoints find validation in in the idea of quantum physics. No one really understands the whole thing, so it is easily misapplied. I don't think I misapplied the physics. I kept it simple. I also distanced myself from the phenomenon. You connected it anyway. You did that without making a real point. Since you're contentious, you expect others to be contentious back, so you write in a way that deflects imagined contentiousness. I'm trying not to help you create that reality, but it's hard. Your implied point is that because all the isms are "likely candidates for the phenomenon" there most be something wrong with the phenomenon. And maybe there is. But I'm making a point about physics, not the phenomenon. The part we can all understand is that there is not enough matter to establish "a macro world." It doesn't exist. You want to believe that you're not defending the macro world, just living in it, but your contentiousness says otherwise. You came up with something you could be contentious about. You made it about the "phenomenon." If I was in the habit of critiquing things in a Bob-like manner, I would focus on the "Hinduism and shamanism seem like likely candidates for the phenonomen as well" idea. If I wrote that sentence, I could see you responding with something like, "So Hindus and Shamans are candidates for being affected by the laws of nature? Aren't we all candidates then?" The alternative is to just roll with you. I know you were referring to the social phenomenon, not physics itself, so I'll roll with you. But it's not easy. At this point, the best I can do is tell you that there are several Hindus at the forefront of the theoretical physics world today. They are not just validating Hindu philosophy, they are proving that Consciousness is the Ground of Being. Since they understand quantum physics better than anyone else, they could lord that over everyone. Instead, they try to communicate in simple terms. Of course, some people still react contentiously and, not coincidentally, those people are always defending a belief in the macro world's supremacy.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Feel free to ignore this if you're doing your duty, but since you've opened the door to points of physics, I must add something. Trust me, I know the difference between new-age pop-physics and regular physics. I also know you'll have your reasons for dismissing the hopefulness of regular physics, and I know you already know what I'm going to point out, but the basic points I'll relate are not "What the Bleep Do We Know" stuff. It has to do with what theoretical physicists refer to as "actualization." Our observation of reality actualizes reality into existence in keeping with quantum mechanics. This relates to the famous phenomenon reported by scientists who first realized that the movement of quarks were linked to their observation of them. But we can keep it simple without losing the real points of the physics. What is indisputable is that there is very little matter in the Universe. There's so much empty space that nothing can be even remotely solid. The most solid seeming thing (like the relatively physical part of an hour glass) is still 99.99999 percent empty space. So we have to "actualize" things into being the way they are. This is why things are always more hopeful than they seem. Yes, the sand in an hour glass is probably going to run from top to the bottom, but you never know. Plus, your old boys Hegel, Nietzsche and the rest didn't have all the information. We can affect things in a positive way just by believing that good things are going to happen. This is particularly important in respect things like your "duty." I'm sending you positive energy. Okay, that last part is new-agey.

Related

From the Featured Archives

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins