Judith

I've attended a wedding at which the bride and groom both cracked up continually during the most solemn vows. This wedding was quite a formal affair, in a church. I was really disgusted by it. I can't imagine cracking up either in public or in private during such an event. Judith

(*laugh!*) Too bad it's unlikely no one ever read them! Would have been a hoot! Johnstown? I've driven through there on my "scenic" route back from Pittsburgh once or twice. I do have similar problems with Dickens, but I have other books written in the late 1800s with which I have no problems whatsoever. In fact, I like them a lot better than many of the books written today, filled with slang that will be obsolete in five years. And I can't bear TV. I literally watch zero hours a year. Some of the more recent films -- even if one could call 1991 recent with Stone's "JFK" -- I find hard to follow with the rapid scene shifts and jerky camera movements and apparent lack of continuity (often coupled with rapid and difficult to understand dialogue). One doesn't have those problems with films like "Spartacus" or "Ben-Hur" (1960 and 1959, respectively, if memory serves me correctly). Judith

I must remember this story if I get back to Turkey in the near future. (I was there when I was 12; all I remember is visiting the ruins of Ephesus and seeing phallic symbols in the stones pointing the way to the houses of ill-repute.) I actually had the chance to meet Ron Paul briefly at a fund-raiser when he was running for president on the LP ticket in 1988. I was more politically active then, and went out gathering petitions to get him on the ballot that year. Judith

Early, snappy plot developments of "Ninety-Three"? Slower than his others? Yikes. I'll have to pass. I've never, ever been able to get beyond two or three chapters of any of Hugo's books. I've tried "Les Miserables" about twenty times, but I get bogged down with the bishop and the candlesticks every time. I've tried "Hunchback". I've tried "Ninety-Three". Same thing, about the same length in. His prose is DEADLY. I expected more from someone loved by Ayn Rand, whose prose was tight and compulsively readable. Judith

(*wince*) Desecration! I've written in textbooks, but NEVER, EVER in my own private books. Not even in workbooks that provide space for you to comment as you work through them; in those I always, always write on a separate piece of paper. And if I read a book after someone else has, I don't WANT to read that person's comments; they'd distract me from the book. I do remember one textbook in which I couldn't help making comments and large exclamation points to a great extent. It was about twentieth-century law and Roosevelt's court-packing program. It horrified my libertarian soul. I then turned around and sold that book at the end of the semester, which I hadn't expected to do during the course. The guy who bought it from me probably got a mini-primer on libertarian thought without bargaining for it. Judith

(*laugh*) Add me to the list of those older women. I'm not a big fan of marriage, but desire comes with serious romantic love. If you've never been in love -- I mean as an adult woman, not teenage crushes -- you've never experienced desire, as opposed to lust. Desire can leave you lying motionless, unable to move because the one you want isn't there. It can make you feel like your bones are melting. It is the most intense thing you will ever experience. It will very likely happen to you. And you will never, ever forget your first love. Judith

(*laugh!*) I've noticed that the waiting time in offices seems to be inversely proportional to the quality of the reading material i've brought with me. Back in the mid '90s when I had to take my horse to a teaching veterinary hospital that had only opened the week before, the only magazines in the waiting room were things like People Magazine with Princess Di and her new baby. I don't know why they brought the old magazines over to the new hospital instead of buying new ones.... On that I've seen wide variety. Many of the books in which I've been interested have had little to no difference between the hardcover price and the Kindle price, which has surprised me greatly. (I can't find an example offhand; the price may change a few weeks after the book has been released.) Unless the device itself breaks. :-( I'm not quite so sanguine about Amazon never going out of business; someone told me that they have yet to make a profit, although I heard that BEFORE the first Kindle came out, so it may be old news. If I sound a bit paranoid about losing information, it's only because I value it so highly. Hardcopy is the ultimate backup (except for fires and other disasters, of course); if I knew how to back up the information, and could back it up in a standard format I could trust to be around for many years, I'd finally convert. :-) Judith

Welcome, John. I remember my visit to Scotland 19 years ago. Beautiful country. Judith

I can't decide whether to get one of these or not. I've found the original version to be quite klutzy in my hands, although I've heard that the new version is only 3/4 inch thick. On the original I found that I had to blow up the font to nearly its largest size and thus have to turn the pages every two or three seconds. I just bought a new house a few months ago to accommodate all my books, and I'm already wondering where they're all going to go considering the rate at which I buy them, and something like this would be a big problem solver. On the other hand, things like illustrations in color won't work very well on a monochrome device. (Of course, most of my books aren't illustrated.) I suppose my biggest worry is that the format will become obsolete, and that I'll thus lose thousands or tens of thousands of books that way. I also like having and looking at my biggest treasures, i.e., my books, in hard copy. But when I travel, my luggage is usually overweight because of the large numbers of books I have to bring with me. Sigh. If only it were an easy decision.... Judith

Michael's list and anonrobt's list included just about all of the ones I was thinking about in my earlier post when I said that there had been a number of books advertised in publications such as "The New Individualist". Go to it and see if you like them better than I did... Judith

Tends to favor links with a "liberal" slant. How's that? Something written into the algorithm? ??? Damned if I know. I've read a number of articles about it over the past few years. A quick search just now turned up a few examples: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...m-your-computer http://www.nyctv.com/google_manipulates_to...rch_results.htm http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44125 http://newsbusters.org/node/5477 Judith

Tends to favor links with a "liberal" slant.

There have been a number of writers who advertise in journals like "The New Individualist" who are explicitly Objectivist. I've bought a few of their books and usually been pretty disappointed. You might do better looking for "libertarian" fiction, in which Heinlein is more properly classified. Some of my favorites: J. Neil Schulman: The Rainbow Cadenza (out of print) F. Paul Wilson: An Enemy of the State Judith

I don't know that I buy Judith's assertion against my attack on #8 that my attack ignores a third dimension of knowing. Judith, maybe you can elaborate on your post yesterday why my argument against #8 ignores this 3rd dimension "eye of spirit." Concerning Rich's latest post, James asserted that mystical perceptions are transient. Therefore, either mystical perceptions don't relate to a need, or that other needs are wired to be more dominant in human awareness such that mystical perceptions are always buried and only surface occasionally. Actually, I don't buy James' statement that mystical perceptions are transient. I know of a number of "mystics" who speak in the moment of what they experience and know from that experience. Perhaps James referred to the smaller subset of mystical peak experiences. Adam has made some comments on #8, but I'm not sure I entirely understand his position yet. What is my position in the positive?... claims of "wholeness" and being more full when practicing mysticism (meeting the need that underlies mysticism) are very similar to claims made by people who integrate other parts of themselves (meet other needs) that are more accepted by society, such as valuing family, valuing other people, and pride in accomplishment - similarity - . Mysticism appears to be rooted in all people given the right training - biological - . Children have a sense of magic, awe, and description of events and the universe that seems to border very closely to mysticism (one example is my previous post of Piaget interviewing a child) - inherent -. It strikes me as reductionistic. Are the five physical senses "based on a need"? Yes, of course: perception. Is the intellect "based on a need"? Duh. And I'm not sure that it makes sense to compare children's experiences of awe to the experiences of an advanced monk or nun in the Buddhist tradition or that of Roman Catholicism or Hinduism. One is primitive and pre-rational, while the other is in the context of a fully developed adult mind. The hierarchial pyramid you mention in later posts is part of what I was thinking about as well: most people may never develop the third form of mentation ("third eye") and may get through life perfectly well without it because it is a more advanced and less necessary form of processing. Or they may not be hard-wired for it. There have been MANY studies on reproducing mystical states. Look up "temporal lobe transients" at www.dogpile.com. (I don't recommend Google anymore because its results tend to be politically skewed.) There have also been studies in labs in which Roman Catholic nuns were subjected to various fields and they experienced things very similar to what they experienced during ecstatic meditation. There's a guy somewhere (Canada, maybe?) who built a helmet in a lab that is something like 80 to 90 percent likely to give you the experience that God is in the room with you. What does it all mean? The religious tend to say that it means people are hardwired for God. Atheists tend to say that it means all religious experiences are physical artifacts. I just find it all fascinating. Judith

Don't those who practice it do it for the purpose of experiencing it? Is there a big difference between the two? Wherein lie those differences? Judith

This fits with Wilber's point that some people regress rather than progress when they attempt to have mystical experiences, but doesn't account for his "progressive" experiences. It also pretty much ignores the existence of the "third eye" that Wilber describes, sort of like ignoring the existence of a third dimension that one personally hasn't seen by trying to explain it in terms of the two dimensions that one HAS seen. Judith

Yikes. No air conditioning? Remind me not to vacation there... Judith

(*heavy sigh*) If we might get back on topic instead of this boring discussion of personalities... Joan Veon also seemed to discuss this document as if it were valid. I have a hard copy of it with a forward by the author explaining the circumstances under which it was written and explaining that it is a farce, which made me question Veon's research and/or wonder what she was getting at in mentioning it. Any comments out there? I'm not sufficiently interested in the September 11th event specifically to answer the poll. My main interest in those conspiracy theories is that one of my favorite authors (F. Paul Wilson) is coming out with a novel next month based on one of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I followed a number of Doug's links so that I would be familiar with them and know the background behind what the author did when I read the novel. But Michael, I can't find the blasted poll anywhere on this link even if I were going to answer it. Judith

I've always thought that Florida is what Hell would be like. Heat, humidity, lots of bugs so big that they don't die when you step on them... Look! A religious argument! Judith

I know. I kind of like it, so I use it. (I didn't see the movie until last night.) I read the history of the real Illuminati back in February. Judith

To comment further on some of the content, Alex Jones's take on this stuff seems to be quite grim in what he thinks "The Illuminati" are planning, in terms of prison-camp cities for most of humanity, a feudalistic society, life extension for only the favored few, etc., whereas Joan Veon's take, while not exactly benign, appears to be that "The Illuminati" are a bunch of capitalists who are trying to set up a world in which they can make lots of money -- not nearly as malevolent a view for "the masses". On the other hand, Jones seems to be somewhat more optimistic in terms of what can be done -- public education, etc. -- whereas Veon seems to think that about the only thing to do at this point is pray. Rich -- any comments? Judith

That was very good. Thank you! Yes, that concern did occur to me. :-) Judith

Well, the videos certainly provided some contradictory advice; for example, the first one you recommended definitely recommended against the gold standard, whereas the Alex Jones ones (or was it the Joan Veon one?) were for a gold standard. Just about all of the sources I've seen previously as well as these are pretty unanimous about the Bilderbergers and the CFR and the families, etc. Where I see differences are in whether they buy into conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor, Kennedy, 9/11, etc. I've never seen anyone come out against fractional banking before; it strikes me as a radical idea. Why would anyone go into banking under those terms? Wherein would lie the profit? What would the world be like without any banking at all? And is fiat money really such a good idea even if it did work for the colonies before the Revolutionary War? I suppose I'm picking at the small ideas because the totality of all the videos is kind of mind-blowing. Judith

Michael, how can a thread that no one is reading hurt forum traffic? Leave it alone; you never know when someone will post something interesting. My interest in the topic remains. Judith

(*laugh!*) What about "lone individuals"? I guess walking down the street by yourself is now a suspicious activity. Judith