> On Apr 30, 12:18 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Apr 30, 1:58 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Apr 27, 7:16 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On Apr 27, 9:09 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>> On Apr 27, 5:35 pm, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Apr 27, 5:36 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:36:04 -0700 (PDT), turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>On Apr 27, 3:24 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Opus7x tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>Neil Peart is a very talented and thought provoking lyrisist and
>>>>>>>>>>drummer for the Rock band Rush.  His world view and other options are
>>>>>>>>>>discussed in a YouTube video.

>

>>>>>>>>>>Check it out!

>

>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apMcG1fgQOw

>

>>>>>>>>> Because all purposes and functions of all "God" stories
>>>>>>>>> are for the practitioners of the stories. The actual situation
>>>>>>>>> is meaningless, therefore arbitrary, including suffering.
>>>>>>>>> Such is the way of a peripheral collateral inconsequential
>>>>>>>>> situation. Thus we practice meaning giving stories that
>>>>>>>>> may even give rise to various questions about suffering.

>

>>>>>>>>> BTW, the situation sucks.

>

>>>>>>>>and Neil is happy in his world.

>

>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C6bVckO_CM

>

>>>>>>> Insanity does help. It can pay the bills.

>

>>>>>> yeah great heh. roll the dice.
>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9hqCCbl-2Q

>

>>>>> Wasn't alittle erlier than that, right about at the absolute peak of
>>>>> the sexual revolutioncokedsexedhighway...?

>

>>>> And they crashed back down onto the mercy of bog?

>

>>>> And cherry pick guru stories to *elevate that guilt of sitting on top
>>>> of a pile of gold?

>

>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhVWJgIzftE

>

>>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=ABqh9N-Mw5E

>

>> hahaha.

>

>> i mean to say *alleviate the guilt. perhaps not guilt. i'm sure they
>> feel ordained. ok some must just feel lucky to be sitting on a huge
>> pile of gold.

>

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5KxcggVZl8

>
> probably applies to everybody who looks in a mirror, from combing
> their hair to getting penis implants and all points inbetween. You
> seem to have drawn a line with wealth where this becomes questionable
> but, if we suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge
> and the dispute is to be settled rationally, there must be some means
> for settling it.

> It would do no good of each side simply to assert its
> position without argument. So how would a standard of knowledge or
> "criterion of truth," be defended in relation to appearance
> manipulation before we notice some difference worth distinguishing
> here? Beside then it could only be defended by reference to some
> standard or other and if the standard under dispute is invoked, then
> the question has been begged. If another standard is appealed to, the
> question arises again, to be answered either by circular reasoning or
> by appeal to yet another standard. So either the process of invoking
> standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in
> neither case would the dispute be settled rationally. So please reveal
> your criterion and its creteria, I see what you mean already though.