On Aug 18, 2:53 am, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:> Kisai wrote, On 8/17/2007 3:46 PM:
>
>> On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>> Kisai wrote, On 8/16/2007 1:55 PM:
>
>>> Tock, tock, tock. (Taps on screen)
>>> Hello, is anyone home in there?
>
>> Nobody lives inside your monitor, Melty. You're [personifying] a cathode
>> ray tube.
>
> No. Actually I am simultaneously expressing my amusement at your
> lack of a profound sense of the length of time involved in the
> process of Cosmic development, as opposed to the length of time
> that humans have even existed; and my own words glowing on *your*
> CRT or LCD screen.
I don't know what 'Cosmic' development means, Melty, because you
capitalized the word, and then failed to explain anything about it.
You seem to have this real need to communicate with other people, but
feel no need at all to care to make any sense whatsoever. That's the
behavior of a crazy person.
>
>
>
>
>>>>> To say I cannot use modern jargon because the ancients
>>>>> did not have those concepts is very foolish. Even though
>>>>> the ancients thought the world was large and flat-- it
>>>>> still was an infinitesimal blue speck then as it is now.
>>>> You're missing the point. The ancients wouldn't describe or even
>>>> think of the world as an [infinitesimal] blue speck. That is a point
>>>> of view brought along by modern [telescopes], and a modern viewpoint.
>>>> You are confused.
>>> No. *You* are confused, *nothing* has changed just because we have
>>> telescopes; in fact it makes things a whole lot clearer.
>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Holy Alfred E. Neuman, Patron Saint of Stupid People....
>
>> 1)Pre telescopes:
>
>
>
>> 2)This man:
>
>
>> and this man:
>
>
>> And a whole lot of argument and scientific refinement later:
>
>
> I don't even have to click on those links to see that you have
> entirely missed the point of what I said. I will try again:
> Nothing has changed just because we have telescopes. The Earth
> was an infinitesimal blue speck in 1,000,000 BCE just as it is
> now. No ifs, ands, or buts about it--It Didn't Matter That There
> Were No Telescopes In The Ancient Days; the Earth was *still* an
> infinitesimal blue speck scattered amongst the local cluster of
> galaxies, mixed with the awe inspiring concept of galaxies like
> grains of sand. It doesn't matter that the ancients had no idea
> of the shear *SIZE* of the observable universe as compared to
> our own little planetary system (we didn't until the 1920s).
So... you're *agreeing* with me that Jacob's dream in the desert
wasn't about modern notions that you have about archetypes, because
archetypes are a postmodern 'collecting' of various ideas of various
symbols in various cultures. Ancient peoples do not treat their ideas
as abstract representions. They treat them as a map on how the
universe actually works, just as modern folks use physics as their map
on how the universe works. Neither do ancient folks perceive stars to
be possibly infinite distances away, because they are treated to being
almost immanent to their lives, and if not in this life, then
assuredly after death. And also, the idea of "multiple universes" is
still in the realm of science fiction. Ancient peoples do not have to
postulate unexplored universes because their own world is still
largely unexplored to them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>> My views are after I have contemplated the "clues" left behind by the
>>>>>>>>> ancients--including the Hebrew people.
>>>>>>>> Oh, "clues" left behind by "ancients". That makes so much sense!
>>>>>>> I know it does sweetie pie.
>>>>>> Errr.. no it doesn't. If you possess a knowledge that you wish to
>>>>>> transmit, like Gautama Siddhartha did, you write it (or have it
>>>>>> written down) very clearly, you write many copies, and you make sure
>>>>>> that your disciples are on the same page as you are. Even if your
>>>>>> message goes under permutations, like his did, there's still the
>>>>>> original message waiting for all to understand.
>>>>> Right. The texts say that when the Buddha finished the discourse that
>>>>> lead to Kaundinya to become his first disciple, the earth quaked, and a
>>>>> dazzling light illuminated the Cosmos momentarily. (The Buddhist
>>>>> Religion, Richard Robinson)
>>>> I didn't say "the Buddha". I said Gautama Siddhartha. You're
>>>> confusing the legend with the man. The point is the message of the
>>>> man lives on despite the legend, which is excellent work on his
>>>> part. You're examining later commentaries on the legend and looking
>>>> for meaning in things that the man would not agree with.
>>> The later commentary I quoted paraphrased the actual text; which is the
>>> actual message as has been handed down. Now I understand that little
>>> snippet of scholarly commentary, but you're right about examining later
>>> commentaries, *cough* so let's look at the text itself shall we:
>
>> Before you quote a commentary. How about citing what you're quoting
>> from?
>> I bet you a dollar that it wasn't written in Siddhartha Gautama's
>> lifetime.
>
> You would be right, since in Siddhartha Gautama's time it was strictly
> an oral tradition committed to memory by Siddhartha Gautama's monks.
How would I know that...? Ah yes... *Nobody* has been credited with
being a god in their own lifetime with any serious intent. Not even
the pharoahs of Egypt. People become considered gods at a
considerably post-mortem time.
So this proves my point that it is possible to have one's message
transmitted clearly and concisely to future generations without the
need to cloak it in occult claptrap.
>
>
>>>>>> Your "clues left behind by the ancients" methods invites fools to
>>>>>> extrapolate meanings based on their own guessworks.
>>>>> Which happens all the time sweetums.
>>>> Which proves my point: You're confused.
>>> When you gather your thoughts together, try again sugarlump.
>
>> That's a feeble riposte! How about quoting some of those amazing
>> "clues" that you've been going on about? Why, *those* would just drop
>> my jaw!
>
>> Naw, I'm kidding, there's no clues... You already agreed with me that
>> your method sucks.
>
> When you gather your thoughts together, try again sugarlump.
You still haven't posted any "clues", Melty. Your emperor wears no
clothes.
Perhaps you're using the "Archie" defense. "I refuse to verify
anything on the grounds that I hate your guts."
