1a2bcio8

Hehe, it was the wheel of dharma from Buddhism but I can easily see why you thought it was a pirate wheel Way ahead of you.... I keep getting called jesus by unconnected groups of people, despite the fact I no longer have long hair. Might as well live up to the perceptions of others.

.

Well, I've decided to come out of the religious closet and admit my true nature.

Have your eyes ever dried up like raisons?

That's a good point as today I've not really drunk much for some reason. Suddenly I'm wondering if a lifetime of head pain is all self inflicted through dehydration? Buggary, if that's the case. It's quite easy to forget to drink though.

I have a splitting headache. Anybody else suffer from regular headaches and migraines? Sucks balls, as I can't concentrate for anything I actually want to be spending my time doing. Haii, btw. If that means "hi" and it wasn't a poor attempt at spelling hawaii?

I can imagine it would be with Jimmy, as with Ronnie. I've been following it all on the bbc. The Hendry - Murphy game was good but the O' Sullivan - Robertson game was awesome. Although, I would say that because I support Ronnie (shock).

No, Spider Lad converted to Islam and suicide bombed it

On this point, it was Christianity that initially installed an early capatalistic ethic in terms that weren't so isolating and harshly competitive. In contrast to contemporary capitalism where everybody is out for themselves regardless of the detriment to the livelihood of another, early capitalism existed with the standard whereby nobody would interfere with the livelihood of anybody else. The idea of undercutting somebody else was abhored. There was a definite consideration of your fellow man that followed from a religious moral, which in my opinion is a much more desirable one than the current mentality of greed which negates the consideration and thus worth of your fellow man.

I can actually see there's little point in discussing, arguing, etc. much with you because you are quite rigid in your views which leads you to be dismissive without much explanation. It is a shame about how dismissive you are though because you're clearly an intelligent chap and discussion with you about all this in a more reasonable fashion would be enjoyable and perhaps constructive. You're also more likely to leave me open to what you're saying if you actually explain yourself without the dismissive condescension. I will say though that my "eastern solution" above isn't about Buddhism or Daoism as a solution despite the fact they may or may not relate to human health and sanity. The point was to illustrate the differences of the various systems, practices, sects and histories that fall under the title of religion. Regardless of the benefits that may or may not entail from the practice of Buddhism, a consideration at least of its intents and a history of how it has manifested in a social sense is prudent for judging if it is also liable to the criticisms leveled at parts of Christianity and Islam. It's so important not to mistake a part for a whole. A proper 'rationalistic' approach certainly wouldn't dismiss across the board all variations of religion simply because of the actions of some. In the same way I do not judge all French people on the experience of just one, a few or even many. The situation is much bigger and more complex and needs to be appreciated as such with evidence pertaining to all variation where it exists. Another valid point, as mentioned above is that blaming religion seems to remove a consideration of general psychology that will apply itself regardless of whether religion is available or not. Political ideology has probably been just as harmful and as much an enemy of reason as religion. People gravitate toward dogma with reference to any system of thought, practice, etc. because there are psychological (albeit limited) benefits of doing so. We need to address the psychology of dogma and attachment, not the varying things that people get attached to and dogmatic about. It's the wrong end of the stick. I actually believe that we're in an era of scientifc dogma and faith, which although much more benign in certain senses, is incredibly malign in others. Science, unfortunately, doesn't do much to address morals or personal experience in terms of happiness. We don't want to simply end up as robot humans who only reason, which is probably impossible anyway. We have broader emotional requirements which require differing considerations which religious, and philosophical to a lesser extent, systems are able to offer. It's clear though that you're in line with individuals such as Dennet and Dawkins from the position you hold. As you suggested some reading material in the philosophy thread, perhaps you'd be interested in some antithetical material to each of them. "The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" by Bennet and Hacker and "Evolution as Religion" by Midgley against Dennet and Dawkins respectively, although Bennet and Hacker also have relevance against Dawkins regarding their "mereological fallacy" but this criticism really relates to the general conception of genetics within that science. A consideration of mereology is also applicable to our discussion, because it considers the relations between parts and wholes. I'm quite curious as to what exactly you mean by a "heterophenomenological point of view" that can lead you to dismiss my mystical experiences. If you could explain I'd be grateful? By the way, none of these experiences were of angels, demons, etc. They have all related to the way I feel or percieve my experience. For instance, do I indentify myself (via feeling) with my body, my mind, my thoughts, etc. Previously I identified with my body but I no longer do that and the feeling is that my body is just another part of my environment, similar in feeling to an object in my experience such as my laptop in front of me. I've also experienced this with thoughts/ego (mental chatter/imagery), which we easily identify ourselves with. Not identifying with these things alters your reaction to them in emotional terms; things become more peaceful. Do these seem really far out and without a doubt not true? I'm not exactly claiming that God is talking to me.

Although I appreciate what you're saying in one regard about certain religions, be careful about tarring all 'religion' with the same brush. Religions such as Buddhism and Daoism, both for a substantial part in terms of differing sects, are both reasoning and empirical practices. Specifically with Buddhism, some sects within these 'religions' are superstitious (devotional or "bhakti"), but usually this related to Buddhism amalgamating with a differing religion. The fundamentals of Buddhism however, relating to the Buddha's actual teaching is essentially atheistic (you might like to hear), in so much as he denies any importance to speculation regarding the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods. The Buddha simply wasn't interested in the potential of God. Buddhism is purely about developing your perception in line with the actual nature of existence in relation to the transcending of suffering. It's basically about truth, altruism, love and happiness. Then again, Buddhism has been used as an excuse for war in the past although this clearly does not relate to its proper intention. The point is to looking at the differing parts (sects and original meaning/intention) that constitute a religion and consider them in their own right and not confuse the actions of one for all. Exactly as we might a race or culture of people. "Mystics", pushing aside the interpretation that relates to certain new-age practices and faith, is a practice based on evidence through experience. I have had mystical experiences and they related to differing ways of considering the world that have emotional and perceptual consequences that carry with them very desirable benefit. So again, there is some of what you say that falls under the title of mystic but it is not all true. If however you are willing to totaly deny my position without any experience of what I refer to yourself, then you are liable to the same criticism you level at the "mystics". It's also interesting that you say of people that they should be able to take control of their lives and how they are governed but simaltaneously you are promoting the idea of potentially enforcing a situation whereby people aren't given the choice to chose of religion or not. Unless by campaining you mean something other constructing a law against religion? Sorry for picking on you, Danny but I enjoy debating (arguing?) with you. I do actually concur with much of your sentiments however just in a soemwhat differing way

I think that we typically are under the control of our egos, which essentially leads to the desire of this or that end; "I want a chocolate cake", "I want to be the best trials rider in the world", "I don't want to think of the world in a way that makes me less materialistic because I like materials" or even, "I can utilize the idea of the world as perfect as an excuse to rob old ladies and for it to be acceptable". If we shut down or simply see past this ego process, that we are normally slave to, I think we begin to see the world more clearly. There is a lot to gain for the ego by distorting our view of things. I've not had the pleasure of viewing the world without ego in any substantial sense but I have stepped out of ego and experienced a gap between 'myself' and it. Ego is a bit crazy when you watch it from the sidelines although I think it can be appropriately used in terms of psychological health - it's just we overuse it and are slave to what it wants. But yeh, consciousness is not ego and it's ego that tends to break down through drug usage. That's probably what's meant when we talk of leaving the grasp of consciousness?

Hehe, for most of then probably

Sure, it's a fair point. I can also see people acting how they want to in so much as they subscribe to the idea of everything is perfect. Their thinking and acting would be based on a misunderstanding of what is trying to be indicated however.

Sorry my posts aren't more succinct. I'm just making efforts to ensure my point is understood as I'm often criticised for being unclear I used to share the attitude that this realisation meant morals didn't mean anything. However viewing existence in the "first instance" doesn't have to negate the validity of morality. It certainly means that morality is a human construct but what's important is that moral behaviour can be considered as arising from the psychological needs of humans in the same way that the act of breathing and eating are the needs of human physiology. Morals make sense for humans because they can act as guiding principles for human health, on the individual and social level. We wouldn't deny that it makes sense to eat and breath but we all seem a bit confused over psychological needs = morals when doing their proper job should lead to a greater human health. It's certainly a choice to be moral but isn't it that way regardless of how we consider the universe or a potential god? I guess it's less of a choice if we fear the consequence of our actions because of a big scary judging universe or God but even people that do believe in those, especially the latter, still act in amoral fashions. Regarding pain there are many ways we can adjust our response to that type of experience. By realising pain in its most fundamental nature, in a purely non-conceptual way as 'pure experience' (so to speak), aside from the typical human response we have of reacting to pain with pain and that pain with more pain, etc. Although I can't do it with a great deal of pain, in meditation I've experienced what we normally call (muscular/head) pain in a purely observational and not unpleasant fashion - it was simply an event such as watching a leaf float by - it didn't mean suffering or being unhappy. This ties in to the broader act of seeing the universe more as it is in opposition to through our ideas, habits and instincts that otherwise normally define the way we experience life. Yeah I think the hierarchy of needs is a good model for considering human development. I certainly think it's accurate to consider the fulfilment of more basic needs a prerequisite for later more refined (human as opposed to animal) needs. When I'm hungry I can't really appreciate playing with a zippo lighter although I suspect certain insights about the nature of reality may make one able to maintain higher states of being despite certain lower deficits. Certainly not when trying to initially gain insights though. Maslow's model is unfortunately vague however and seems perhaps overly relative in that sense. I think it's good to fulfill subjective needs but I definitely think there are higher needs relating to all human beings. What's more fulfilling than to love, percieve 'objectively', understand, etc.? I think that's true of all people.

Good point and I think perhaps I should elaborate on what I mean by the word perfect. When I say perfection, what I mostly mean is a realisation of completeness regarding what happens in existence - all the types of events that we can experience. If we take the time to consider it, everything that happens is supposed to happen given its nature. A planet circles the sun because that's its nature and water runs down a river for the same reasons. Can existence do something wrong? I can't imagine how it could? In the first instance then, everything is perfect, complete or how it should be. However, following this first instance of things being as they should, humans via thinking make statements and have ideas of either how they would like things to be or how things should be in order to achieve an end of some sort which can be labelled as perfect or complete according to how well it matches up to our ideal or target - such as facebook chat imagined as being operationa; 100% of the time meaning it was perfect or near perfect. Both of these types of statement are quite valid in the sense of ideas. These ideas though have come to define and limit how we feel about our experience. Especially in the sense that we take a 'should' from the situation of trying to achieve something (an end of some sort) and place it into the situation of how we would like things to be - this is a type of confusion. When this happens, we end up saying things like, "Oh, I should have won that competition" or "I should have lots of money" or "I should not have been hit by that car". But this is not so because everything happens how it should in accord with its nature. The trouble is we take the prior and the just mentioned confused statements too literally and as a result we miss the perfection of existence in the first place. Our (convenient) ideas of existence take the place of existence as it is denying its initial perfection or completeness - this makes up our perecptual filter. We only experience "perfection" if a situation accords with our expectations. This is not to say that we should not have ideals and be able to rate stuff that happens in terms of how near or far from perfect it is regarding what we want to achieve but only that we should realise them as a convenience for judging the quality of something in terms of ideas, not reality as it is in the first place. Part of realising this however is the dropping of all ideas whereby we can look at our experience as it is - non-conceptual or idea-less awareness. In terms of human relativity of what makes perfect (and probably what makes us happy), there are relative and non-relative aspects. There are some things which are true of all human beings and something that are more subjective. Like I mentioned before, we can create our own individual ideas of what makes a situation perfect that are relative but we can also realise this truth about the nature of existence that is the same for all human beings. I actually happen to think that a realisation of this nature would brings happiness for probably all human beings. There are certain things which, like physiology (eating, breathing, etc.) bring certain healthy results in a psychological sense for all human beings. An example of psychological requirements for good mental health beyond the realisation of perfection that I'm talking about it is qualities like love, understanding, etc. which naturally make you feel better. Love is obvious and understanding allows us to avoid annoyance, hatred, etc. which don't feel good. Realiation of the inherent completness and correctness of existence means we don't end up with confused expectations that contradict its nature.

What if everything we already do is always perfection but we just don't realise it? It seems to me we frame perfection in terms of either cultural or random aspects of our experience which define when we allow ourselves to realise an inherent perfection to all existence - a perceptual filter if you will. Sport as an obvious cultural example and for myself, the opening and closing of a zippo lighter or running my hand across my facial hair as personal examples. Even then, we are still probably missing out on this "perfection" in any kind of deep sense. We are so often trapped in amongst our fragmented thinking and imagining that we don't really pay a great deal of attention to experience aside from that. I think it's quite credible that every moment could be realised as perfect if we were able to see beyond our cultural and personal perceptual filter, supported by an ability to drop our compulsive thinking and imagining. edit: Sorry I disappeared on you earlier, Mike. I tried saving a streamed video and it crashed firefox. When I restarted it, it wouldn't allow the facebook chat function again

Probably your camera compresses and converts footage from raw data into a different format (such as .mts) to save space because you're using a camera that records to a hard drive. CS3 doesn't support these compressed formats. CS4 does however. Alternatively, you can convert your current format into mpeg-2 or something similar that CS3 will support. I use Elecard converter studio for doing that. The unfortunate downside of this is that you will naturally lose quality. Unforunately also, the last time I used CS4 it seemed to be requiring a lot of computing power (too much) for smooth playback whilst editing. Rowan seems to think that updates have smoothed out that problem but I'm somewhat sceptical. Perhaps though, you've got a very powerful computer?

The important question is how does harming criminal offenders of this kind relate to the general welfare of society? And what I mean by this, is what does it mean for people's welfare, well being or happiness in a society if we support an eye for an eye, or perhaps eye for an ear (so to speak)? The basis of wanting somebody to suffer, regardless of what they have done before, can only follow on from hate or some other similar but also negative state of being. What use is hate to our society, to each of us individually? By definition, I'm not happy when I'm hating. I suspect that a better social and individual welfare follows from love rather than hate. Love carries with it forgiveness and wouldn't condone acts that are based out of hate - violence. This is not to say that action should not be taken against somebody who has raped or killed but rehabilitation is probably a healthier option in terms of individual and social welfare. At present, punishment is chosen ahead of rehabilitation, at the expense of love (and its natural consequence, happiness) and instead we find a wealth of hate (and its natural consequence, unhappiness). I think all moral choices should consider the underlying motivation and whether it follows or at least relates to love. Love as the guiding principle, I say.

Cheers for the additional advice, chaps. I shall it all under consideration. I'm down to the snooker hall tomorrow, so I'll have a try with some of the cues they have on offer. I am somewhat apprehensive because I'm assuming the snooker hall is not where I will get value for money but at least I'll get to try a cue first. I watched the Selby - O'sullivan game but didn't see you in a Jester costume. I'm guessing you were supporting Selby then? I've always wondered what it would be like to watch a match live but thought perhaps your point of viewing wouldn't be all that great. The camera angles on television are awesome at showing what's happening and I don't think I would want to lose that regardless of the atmosphere you might experience from actually being there.

Yes please, I'd really appreciate that actually

In relation to my recent bday, I got entry into a triathlon for next year. I also got a dvd, a powerball, some cycling gloves, overshoes and a book. Oh and lots of sweets, init

Ok, I think I shall follow your chaps advice and just find a cheaper cue at the local snooker hall. Cheers

Hehe, yeah I have played on a full sized table, it's just I've never commited to it, like say I have to trials, because I struggled with long potting due to being short sighted. I did manage to get quite competent in the past but again the bluriness of the table just made it frustrating. I want a sport that I can play for the most of the rest of my life. I don't want to buy a cheaper cue only to have to but another one again soon because it's no good. £150 (including case and accesories) isn't actually that expensive a cue when they go upto near £1000 in some instances. I guess also I've struggled with crapper cues as opposed to when I've been lucky enough to play with a better cue which definitely helps. I'm not entirely sure though and you may be right. I suspect some cues at snooker halls probably aren't even worth £20 so maybe one of those at that price range would be alright. Anyway, thanks for answering with reference to your 20 hrs experience

Hello, I've been wanting to play snooker for years but due to being short sighted and without contact lenses, it was too much of a struggle. I've finally started wearing contact lenses so it's time to start playing snooker. So now I need a cue and I'm a bit unsure of what to get. I guess I'd like to invest a bit more money to begin with although I accept this might not be sensible. I'm very sure this will be something I commit to though, especially as I have a great love for watching snooker - it's my favourite spectating sport. Currently I've found this snooker cue set. What I'm most unsure about is the weight. Is this purely a personal thing or is there a standard type of benefit between a heavier or lighter cue? Anyway, I'm hoping somebody out there is experienced and can give me advice regarding what I've said and perhaps also anything I might not have considered. I wonder if there are any snooker players out there though? Thanks in advance