possible egotisical motives for being here

Post questions or suggestions here.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

L: The point is, however: this is, apparently, intended to be a public forum. How can you have a public forum and not let the world in?

K: It's not the point. If one's values are recognised as valid, then they get perpetuated. That destroys worldly values. End of story.
So, what's the problem?

Why this:
My vote is to make one single forum, dedicated to discussing the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
And then this:
I don't mind if there are two fori or one, as long as there aren't too many.

I'd like to see single-mindedness of purpose, that's all.
K: You are pushing my values out of your mind.


I think there’s probably a little bit more to it than that.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

As I understand it, the Pharisees were as much a religious group as they were political. Wikipedia states: "The relationship between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism (exemplified by the Talmud) is so close that many do not distinguish between the two." And if we look at the New Testament, it is made clear that Jesus attacked them for their spiritual falseness.

For example:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

- Matthew 23:13
-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Leyla Shen wrote:David: Imagine people saying to Jesus, "Look Jesus, you keep on talking about the glories of Heaven and the need to devote our lives to God. This is all very well, but don't you get tired of saying this same stuff over and over? I certainly get tired of hearing it! Don't you want to talk about other things? What about political situation in Israel? Or the criminal trial of James the robber? Or the inequities of the Roman tax system? There are hundreds of things we could be talking about. But no, with you, it's always God this and God that. God, God, God, God, God!"

Leyla: Imagine??? Isn't that just about the entire subject matter of the New Testament? Jesus had a great deal to say about politics! Remember the Pharisees?

Kelly: Jesus *was* a politician. He was telling people how they ought to behave.

Leyla: Yet, he is held up here only as a wise man -- and his politics are never touched. Why? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with your above statement, Kelly.
My definition for politics:

Wisdom. Not the "let's talk about justice but not get anywhere near talking about Ultimate truth" kind.

Thus, Jesus was a politician. He didn't bother about entering the legal system as Attorney-General Jesus of Nazareth. He took his place as a plain man, with the consciousness of the Infinite, and spoke plainly about the core of right and wrong.

He wasn't judging people relatively, saying, "Mary is the better person because she's listening to me, compared to Martha, who isn't listening to me." Rather, he judged based on the Infinite (you know he said, "God alone is good.")

So, he said, "Mary is better than Martha because she is concerned about God, rather than looking after my - or other people's - needs."


-
Terry
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Gear Box

Post by Terry »

Hello.

This is a fine opportunity for stating my reasons for signing up here, of all places.

I'm suffering from ontological short-sightedness; I believe some of the folks here may be able to correct my vision. Just as the optometrist asks you which lens is better or worse and you respond with a "yes" or "no." This progresses until one eventually reaches the best or most suitable perspective.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Leyla Shen wrote:L: The point is, however: this is, apparently, intended to be a public forum. How can you have a public forum and not let the world in?

K: It's not the point. If one's values are recognised as valid, then they get perpetuated. That destroys worldly values. End of story.

L: So, what's the problem?
Marsha had the same question; I answered it over in the Main Forum. For convenience:

Those who can't judge accurately need to be confronted with two distinct types of judgment: inaccurate, and accurate. Since there's no obvious contrast in their mind between them, they cannot see what values are valid. So they are destroying valid values unconsciously.

Kelly1: My vote is to make one single forum, dedicated to discussing the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Kelly2: I don't mind if there are two fori or one, as long as there aren't too many. I'd like to see single-mindedness of purpose, that's all.
The first vote was based on wanting to see single-mindedness of purpose. The second vote (same intention) allowed that most people need to see a contrast between slavery and single-mindedness - more obvious if there is a visual-spatial segregation, as if slavery is a place.

The same kind of symbolic contrast is the idea between heaven and hell, and even different places, in heaven and hell. It's about helping people transition slowly between the idea of being bodily located to being spiritually located and then to having no location.

K: You are pushing my values out of your mind.

L: I think there’s probably a little bit more to it than that.
You mostly don't value single-mindedness of purpose, but probably do value it a little bit?
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

Cunt Jones actually wrote to Leyla:
You mostly don't value single-mindedness of purpose, but probably do value it a little bit?
What condescension.

On what do you base your superiority? Don't give me a bunch of Genius crap.

Faizi
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Since there was never a question raised about there being more than two fori, who the fuck are you arguing with?

The question, as raised by Marsha, was only ever about the dumping aspect. On that basis, you voted for one forum. And now you’re trying to make it about something else entirely.

I see you doing this. Subtle, but I see it.

It is a sign of insanity, despite what you consider to be accurate judgement, which is in fact nothing more than off-topic, off-subject redefinitions and recasting that you use to twist a whole conversation into something else and come up trumps.

Someone defines A. You say X about A. Someone replies. You introduce B and pretend subject B was A all along.

What a fucking mess.

Reasoning like that fucks the whole world up.

And I agree with Marsha, it is entirely egotistical.

Kelly wrote:
The same kind of symbolic contrast is the idea between heaven and hell, and even different places, in heaven and hell. It's about helping people transition slowly between the idea of being bodily located to being spiritually located and then to having no location.


You've managed to internalise to some degree some decent insights. What you don’t see is that mostly what you appear to be addressing in others is what is occurring in yourself. Whose problem is it if you’re not enlightened enough to accurately see single-minded purpose, Kelly.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Marsha wrote:
On what do you base your superiority? Don't give me a bunch of Genius crap.
I'd be interested in hearing it, too.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

David Quinn wrote:
I consider your reaction to this to be a touch over-dramatic, to say the least.
Well, of course, you do.

"The better to dismiss you with," said The Wolf.

"So, eat me," said Little Red Riding Hood.

Essentially -- how nice to keep things rolling along without serious objection. How nice to have all the little duckies in a row, bowing and scraping.

Been that way for a while. It is no wonder that you view objection to your nice, controlled little world as drama.

I think you need some fucking drama. Personally, I am tired of all the sucking up.

Faizi
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

I believe some of the folks here may be able to correct my vision.
Poor thing. I think you should head for the hills.

Incoming!!


Faizi
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

MKFaizi wrote:K: You mostly don't value single-mindedness of purpose, but probably do value it a little bit?

MK: On what do you base your superiority? Don't give me a bunch of Genius crap.
I base my judgments on how people ought to behave on reasoning what is good for them. "Good" is God: what doesn't change.

Is that not meaningful ?


-


How about writing your truthful thoughts, and discard the emotion?


-
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi »

What about universities and schools, Marsha? Do you believe there should be a complete absence of rules and have anarchy reign? What do you think the result would be if discipline broke down, the atmosphere of learning dissipated and the kids could do whatever they please?
I do think kids should have more freedom than they do now. I do not think kids should be subjected to medical discipline, for instance. I think that kids do need some experience learning that fire burns. I think kids have to be allowed to make mistakes.

Because I have no one else for comparison, I must use my own kids as examples. Having grown up in the Redneck Ghetto, both of them know all about crack and cocaine and alcohol and marijuana. They especially know about crank -- meth.

They know the destruction of it very well.

Some kids will never know about all that and some kids will never have to know about it. Wonderful if you can remain a virgin.

Then, some kids will walk into the fire without knowing how it can burn and they will suffer. They will be prone to all sorts of chemical addictions because they have never been exposed to it. As young adults, many will enjoy the freedom of breaking the stingent rules that they had to obey as children.

Kids have a tendency to rebel against their parents. In some ways, this is healthy but, when there are too many rules or too strict rules, they break bad. Having watched many kids grow up, this breaking of rules in adolescence is interesting to observe.

Often, the wildest kids are those who grew up with strict discipline.

I never had many rules for my kids because I could not enforce them. I was a single mother plus, somehow, I generally had six or seven kids in my home though I was the mother of only two. I often had twenty or more kids.

When limits are not set strictly, kids learn to set their own limits. My daughter regularly stole my car when she was twelve but, by sixteen,
she would never dream of driving illegally. When she was twelve, she took my car when I was asleep and drove over the mountains. She is an excellent driver.

Of course, I do not believe in anarchy. You again try to dismiss me. I do believe in self discipline. Self discipline is not learned through obedience. It is learned through consequence.

Neither of my kids ever responded through "time out" or spankings. When I put either of them in time out, they set their rooms on fire.

I am certainly not against higher education. I think college can be a good thing for self discipline. Often, it is only then that young adults learn that the fire does burn.

I have been friends with many people who were well educated -- PhDs
or Masters graduates. Both of my husbands were well educated -- one with dual masters in Fine Arts and Psychology. The other with a Masters
in Journalism. Sometimes, education can be a calming influence.

But one thing that I have learned is that an asshole is an asshole.

The bitch I encountered yesterday was an educated asshole. But an asshole nevertheless. I rarely get angry at anyone. Plainly, he is accustomed to dealing with bimbos. I do not have a degee of higher
education but I do not fit the bimbo mold and I resent someone trying
to force me into fitting the bimbo mold. I have to work for a living but there are some indignities that I will not suffer, no matter what. At some
point, you just have to stand on your own two feet and say, "Fuck you."

I will not have my intelligence insulted by an asshole. At a certain point,
you have to stand your ground.

When I revolted, he told me that I needed a more positive attitude.
That is code for saying, "You need to be more obedient."

He is not my boss. He is not even employed by my corporation. Yet, he
was telling me and the others what they could and could not do.

My only regret is that I was not more outspoken.

Southern women are very obedient. They get upset by overt confrontation so I try to hold it down some. In the past, I have been more outspoken.

I try to keep my mind and my job separate.

Once in a while, the mind takes over.

I can walk out of there and get another job the same day. I think I may start speaking my mind more often.

Faizi
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Leyla Shen wrote:Since there was never a question raised about there being more than two fori, who the fuck are you arguing with?
No one.

The question, as raised by Marsha, was only ever about the dumping aspect. On that basis, you voted for one forum. And now you’re trying to make it about something else entirely.
It's the same thing. The moving of Brothel-like threads makes the Genius Forum's "place" more distinct. I.e. its single-minded purpose.

As the notion of single-minded purpose was making some people uncomfortable, I backed down slightly, in order to clarify what I meant. It's no use getting people in a rage, such that they cannot think clearly.

It may seem inconsistent, but wasn't actually.


It is a sign of insanity, despite what you consider to be accurate judgement, which is in fact nothing more than off-topic, off-subject redefinitions and recasting that you use to twist a whole conversation into something else and come up trumps.
It's how definitions and meanings are made. Thinking is "worldly and unsterile".


Someone defines A. You say X about A. Someone replies. You introduce B and pretend subject B was A all along.
Let's see how that works, out of curiosity (my worldly, unsterile mind bringing in extra ideas):

"Someone defines A":
Marsha says, why dump threads to the Brothel, if the discussions about enlightenment can occur anywhere?

"You say X about A":
Kelly says, to clearly contrast accuracy of judgment with inaccuracy of judgment, for those who need the contrast. [also says, put single-mindedness of purpose in the limelight, and to Leyla: "You are pushing my values out of your mind"]

"Someone replies":
Leyla says, are you changing your story, from "be single-minded and have one forum dedicated to enlightenment" to "have any number of forums, but just emphasise single-mindedness of purpose"?

"You introduce B and pretend subject B was A all along":
Kelly says, clearly contrast accuracy of judgment with inaccuracy by having two fora. [also probes Leyla's reply "There's probably a little more to it than that" by defining "it" as "reasons for pushing single-mindedness of purpose out of the mind", and therefore defining "a little more than that" as its opposite, namely, "not single-mindedness"; then redefined using "a little bit more" to mean uncertainty, thus, "valuing single-mindedness a little bit".]

What a fucking mess.

Reasoning like that fucks the whole world up.

And I agree with Marsha, it is entirely egotistical.
Not entirely, no.



K: The same kind of symbolic contrast is the idea between heaven and hell, and even different places, in heaven and hell. It's about helping people transition slowly between the idea of being bodily located to being spiritually located and then to having no location.

L: You've managed to internalise to some degree some decent insights. What you don’t see is that mostly what you appear to be addressing in others is what is occurring in yourself. Whose problem is it if you’re not enlightened enough to accurately see single-minded purpose, Kelly.
Are you saying that there's no need to clarify the difference between inaccuracy and accuracy of judgment in the Genius Realms?

Also, "internalise" is quite an expressive word to indicate thinking via locations, ie. embodying thought as if it is a self. I suppose this is why there's been such a fuss over what I wrote.


-

[edit: I assumed it, but forgot to express, that I view the ability to judge accurately as driven by single-mindedness, ie. the courage to think logically comes beforehand.

The Genius Realms would need to be presented in such a way that a newcomer would need to get an inkling of it, along with the emphasis on truthfulness.

So, I suppose this would work with having two fora on the splash page, as there'd be a subconscious awareness of having to choose spiritually, before actually choosing (will to consciousness --> consciousness).]


--
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Terry wrote:Hello.

This is a fine opportunity for stating my reasons for signing up here, of all places.

I'm suffering from ontological short-sightedness; I believe some of the folks here may be able to correct my vision. Just as the optometrist asks you which lens is better or worse and you respond with a "yes" or "no." This progresses until one eventually reaches the best or most suitable perspective.
Hi Terry.

Already you seem to know logic is a good lens.
So the perspective of logic would provide the best accuracy to look at things.

What are you aiming to see?


-
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

OK, let me try it this way!

David wrote:
Imagine people saying to Jesus, "Look Jesus, you keep on talking about the glories of Heaven and the need to devote our lives to God. This is all very well, but don't you get tired of saying this same stuff over and over? I certainly get tired of hearing it! Don't you want to talk about other things? What about political situation in Israel? Or the criminal trial of James the robber? Or the inequities of the Roman tax system? There are hundreds of things we could be talking about. But no, with you, it's always God this and God that. God, God, God, God, God!"
My point is, David, that you won’t "go out into the world apostle style" because a similar fate that awaited Jesus awaits anyone with such a lofty goal.

But this did not stop Jesus. He carried right on through in thick of it.

Then, he was crucified. (Even as a metaphor this speaks volumes.)

The specific politics of Israel, however, were not.

You preach the words and wisdom of the man but do not seem to have the same guts and conviction. Or, was he -- in the end -- just stupid?

I cannot understand this desire to take Jesus the wise man out of the bible whilst attempting to leave Jesus the stupid man in it.

Even I am more Jesus-like in my call for the redemption of the Jews than you.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

God damn it, Kelly. You surely are a handful. Or should that be a mouthful?

I'll give you something more substantial soon.
Terry
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Gear Box

Post by Terry »

MKFaizi wrote:
I believe some of the folks here may be able to correct my vision.
Poor thing. I think you should head for the hills.

Incoming!!
What? Where?! AHHHHH!!!!

I *did* bring my industrial strength Tyvek suit. One should never philosophize without it.
Kelly Jones wrote:Hi Terry.

Already you seem to know logic is a good lens.
So the perspective of logic would provide the best accuracy to look at things.

What are you aiming to see?
I don't know.

Indeed I do believe you've hit upon something. However, I think there's a trade-off when you do logic. Experience is more concrete and vast because it has much, much more data. Logic grabs the experience and narrows things down to focus better on them. You can bring concepts together and take them apart and such. In my view, the main confusion comes from when the logical products are mistaken for the richer reality itself. Now whether they do help us find what we're looking for is another question entirely.

I'm ignorant of what I aim to see. Because if I knew what I wanted, then I would have never been here in the first place.

I'll stick around as long as it provokes entertainment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Kelly,
L: Since there was never a question raised about there being more than two fori, who the fuck are you arguing with?

K: No one.


In my view, your reply here speaks of a yet predominantly rote (mechanical might be better -- especially since I have come to the conclusion that you are attached to that idea) understanding of emptiness. The second you take a view, whether it be considered emotional or reasonable, you appear -- and you appear in contrast to something/someone else. That is the nature of non-inherent existence.

Naturally, it cannot be otherwise. Hence, the thoughtful among us pursue reason. Sometimes, emotion gets in the way afterwards.

It has been said, a few times, that a fully enlightened Buddha can do anything; not suffering attachment, he has no fear and is not confined to identities (or egoid existences) and sufferings therefore.

Returning for a moment to the unpalatable subject of killing babies, even presenting such a notion falls under the above scrutiny. Since the fully enlightened Buddha is fully enlightened, there is never a time when he himself would raise the idea and suffer the consequences of sensationalism in the final analysis. One still on the road to enlightenment, however, would. This can only be expected. When it occurs, the wisdom to be found in it for the pursuer of enlightenment lies in the quarters of his own mind not in dialogue to others, since these others are merely the appearance he needs for fine tuning.

I note your haste and determination and the ideas that dominate your mind. I note that you consider yourself to be the single-minded purpose you desire to see in others. But I also note that in order for that to be, it must appear not to exist in others.

The difference between your view on this matter and mine is that I do see single-minded purpose and feel there is no need for change. However, where I see it in Marsha, you do not seem to.

It is my conclusion that David has, overall, needlessly and unfruitfully engaged in some sort of effort to castigate Marsha on the issue, yet she is arguing for the same thing as he is. David’s focus -- mistakenly on this issue with Marsha, I say -- has been for the same argument on the more superficial level of the appearance of the forum: the symbolic. But Marsha’s focus, on the same argument, has been about substance. That is how it appears to me. Now, I may add to that appearance anything I so choose, be it emotional or reasonable. However, there is still the matter of A. And when A is noted exactly for what it is (an idea you have recently related to Jason), the results bear the fruits of truth.

It is fine to philosophise. Desirable, even. But never at the expense A=A.

Who is Marsha, Kelly? She is definitely a different person to you than she is to me. I dare say, she's different again to herself.
Terry
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Gear Box

Post by Terry »

Kelly Jones wrote:An aside: I've been using some Linux forums lately, and noticed hardly any female members, and a lot of fairly logical (though not in philosophy) problem-solving. The point is, these are bright people, non-Windows users, and quite a few of your downloadable files are in the Windows .chm format, David. If a Linux or other OS system doesn't have a dual-boot environment or a Windows emulator, they can't open them.
I hate Linux. But I use it anyway because Windows is too annoying to live with these days. Have you tried WINE? It's a pretty good Windows compatibility layer. I run Windows Office XP Professional, SPSS 11.0.1 and IE 6.0 SP1 over it.

ThisWiki article may help in opening those elusive files. You need the apt tool or one of the CHM tools listed on the page.
Kelly Jones wrote:Further to files downloadable in Linux/Unix etc:

I was making some PDF versions of these .chm files, since Adobe Acrobat is a common Linux application.
It was a master document, to contain internal master documents (to download as one, or put on a CDROM). The pages were designed to be easily read on the computer, with no scrolling, and internal navigational bookmarks. I was also trying to keep the conceptual points or sub-chapters to one screen page, to help read the works as a sequence logically (if that was how they were written).

It's a big job though, and I got distracted.-
Perhaps converting them to LaTeX may make the Postscript/PDF process easier? I believe there's an XML/HTML to LaTeX convertor. If there was some way to decompress the CHM to HTML and then convert once more to TeX, it may be worth something interesting (and a possible trainwreck of conversions!). TeX supports easy indexes and cross-references. And it's all in ASCII text format, so future conversions will be less painful.

Good luck.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Marsha, for some reason, you didn't address my question:

Do you believe there should be a complete absence of rules in schools and have anarchy reign? What do you think the result would be if discipline broke down, the atmosphere of learning dissipated and the kids could do whatever they please?

-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Terry,

I define logic as the means of determining what is true and what is false.

Clearly, any "richer world" or "narrower world" is determined to be what it is, using logic. Thus, logic is in operation no matter what type of perspective one takes.

If one aims to "see" what is ultimately true for all things, using logic, then one has an absolute perspective.


--


Re: Cross-platform e-book application (read and write):
Terry wrote: Have you tried WINE? It's a pretty good Windows compatibility layer. I run Windows Office XP Professional, SPSS 11.0.1 and IE 6.0 SP1 over it.

It's part of my distro package. It would enable me to read chm files, but not to create e-books - which is at least as important. So I haven't installed it.

ThisWiki article may help in opening those elusive files. You need the apt tool or one of the CHM tools listed on the page.
Thanks.

Perhaps converting them to LaTeX may make the Postscript/PDF process easier? I believe there's an XML/HTML to LaTeX convertor. If there was some way to decompress the CHM to HTML and then convert once more to TeX, it may be worth something interesting (and a possible trainwreck of conversions!). TeX supports easy indexes and cross-references. And it's all in ASCII text format, so future conversions will be less painful.
TeX would make reading the chm files possible. But it isn't a DTP kind of application, which is what I'm looking for.

I'd like to avoid converting files across from Windows to Linux, and instead to use a cross-platform application that creates e-books. OpenOffice files are too easily manipulable, even though they are smaller than PDF files; I've used it because there's a PDF export option.

HTML files can't be downloaded in one package.

This isn't a priority, but worth investigating sometime. I've heard that Scribus (?) exports to PDF, getting close to QuarkXPress, but it hasn't reached a stable release yet.


--
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Leyla wrote:
My point is, David, that you won’t "go out into the world apostle style" because a similar fate that awaited Jesus awaits anyone with such a lofty goal.
Not yet, no.

But this did not stop Jesus. He carried right on through in thick of it.

Then, he was crucified. (Even as a metaphor this speaks volumes.)

The specific politics of Israel, however, were not.

You preach the words and wisdom of the man but do not seem to have the same guts and conviction. Or, was he -- in the end -- just stupid?

It depends on one's perspective, doesn't it. Kierkegaard used to address this issue with great sincerity:

God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions,
either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out
so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way
that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is
my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New
Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be
noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible
to say: I dare not.


I cannot understand this desire to take Jesus the wise man out of the bible whilst attempting to leave Jesus the stupid man in it.

In what way was Jesus stupid, do you think? You were speculating above that his very work for wisdom (his apostlizing and getting crucified) was stupid. But here you seem to be refering to something else.

-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Sorry, I misunderstood your suggestion. It means I could take an HTML or CHM file, convert or extract+convert to TeX, open the TeX in OpenOffice (assuming this words), re-design it for reading on a computer screen, and export to PDF.

This leaves the OOo and the PDF format constraints. I think this is really what has caused me to drop the project.

The bits I'd like for making e-books, such as tabbed sheets for quick reference, easy internal and external navigation (rather than bookmarking every single link, and using a mix of characters rather than graphics files for hyperlinks because there's no snap-to-grid parameter, and graphics files for internal links because these conflict with character links), and webpage format (I've customised dimensions) - are not in OOo or Acrobat.

It's no drama. It would be good to find a program that works well, since I am not about to learn C++ at this point.

A search on download.com for e-book software comes up with a range of Windows e-books, or software. I haven't looked at RPM sites yet.

I still prefer using Linux, as I have (otherwise) quite simple needs. It's stabler than Windows (the relatively stable part, anyway).


-
Terry
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Gear Box

Post by Terry »

Kelly Jones wrote:Sorry, I misunderstood your suggestion. It means I could take an HTML or CHM file, convert or extract+convert to TeX, open the TeX in OpenOffice (assuming this words), re-design it for reading on a computer screen, and export to PDF.

This leaves the OOo and the PDF format constraints. I think this is really what has caused me to drop the project.
Use an editor for LaTeX like LyX, Kile, or TeXmacs. I don't know how well OOo handles TeX. It's no TeX editor to my knowledge. LyX doesn't require any previous knowledge in LaTeX, so you can follow the tutorials and go forward. The others are more like text editors. You should be able to find them on RPM repositories. I don't know the repositories that have them. I use Slackware; I tend to get my binaries from Linuxpackages.net or compile from source.

You can convert many kinds of formats into PDF through Ghostscript. First convert to Postscript then use Ghostscript.
The bits I'd like for making e-books, such as tabbed sheets for quick reference, easy internal and external navigation (rather than bookmarking every single link, and using a mix of characters rather than graphics files for hyperlinks because there's no snap-to-grid parameter, and graphics files for internal links because these conflict with character links), and webpage format (I've customised dimensions) - are not in OOo or Acrobat.
LaTeX is perfect for complex stuff like that. Plus you can convert it to HTML or PDF later on.
It's no drama. It would be good to find a program that works well, since I am not about to learn C++ at this point.

A search on download.com for e-book software comes up with a range of Windows e-books, or software. I haven't looked at RPM sites yet.
Research your format options. Use WINE if nothing good for Linux shows up. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet in the free software world. I'm not a programmer either and you don't have to be one to do these things. RTFM and everything will go just about terribly fine.
I still prefer using Linux, as I have (otherwise) quite simple needs. It's stabler than Windows (the relatively stable part, anyway).
I just wish stability didn't come with so much initial maintenance. However all's smooth once it's set up and running. That is...until you update. I've had many SNAFUs involving glibc updates, kernel mismatches, and gawd knows what. It's a rough jungle out there, but it's less stupid than Windows by a long shot.

I'm allergic to RPMs because their dependency mechanisms are half-baked. I've had many horrendous adventures in installing mismatched libraries of several versions just so the binaries would shut up. Not only that, but over time you have to reinstall the entire operating system. The dependency hell becomes unbearable. RPMs lack house training and leave messes behind.

I haven't tried deb yet, so I can't say how much better it is by comparison. When I finally have the cash, I'm plunging in for a Mac. I want my computer to "just work" without propagating so much idiocy and aggravation. If only FreeBSD wasn't so awful in the hardware support department, I would've adopted it a long time ago.
Last edited by Terry on Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Leyla Shen wrote:In my view, your reply here speaks of a yet predominantly rote (mechanical might be better -- especially since I have come to the conclusion that you are attached to that idea) understanding of emptiness.
The more truthfulness, the less attachment. That may be rote to you, but it's still true.

The second you take a view, whether it be considered emotional or reasonable, you appear -- and you appear in contrast to something/someone else. That is the nature of non-inherent existence.
Your meaning is that one cannot judge a thing to be what it is, because Reality is not a thing? And yet that understanding this is having judged correctly?

It has been said, a few times, that a fully enlightened Buddha can do anything; not suffering attachment, he has no fear and is not confined to identities (or egoid existences) and sufferings therefore.
The Buddha doesn't make Kelly Jones or Leyla Shen disappear out of all existence. It just reveals their "confinements" to be illusions, games of the mind, and not worth patrolling the borders of.

Returning for a moment to the unpalatable subject of killing babies, even presenting such a notion falls under the above scrutiny. Since the fully enlightened Buddha is fully enlightened, there is never a time when he himself would raise the idea and suffer the consequences of sensationalism in the final analysis.
I define "killing babies" as "becoming fully conscious", because I give the meaning of "undeveloped form of consciousness that most slightly more developed forms have an instinctive desire to protect" to "babies".

A Buddha would certainly discuss the killing of babies. Doing so does not create suffering, it merely brings suppressed suffering to the surface where it can be dealt with.


One still on the road to enlightenment, however, would. This can only be expected. When it occurs, the wisdom to be found in it for the pursuer of enlightenment lies in the quarters of his own mind not in dialogue to others, since these others are merely the appearance he needs for fine tuning.
Since others are part of one's own consciousness, if there is any babyishness that appears, it ought to be discussed, and killed.


I note your haste and determination and the ideas that dominate your mind. I note that you consider yourself to be the single-minded purpose you desire to see in others. But I also note that in order for that to be, it must appear not to exist in others.
Kelly Jones' isn't the only existence that represents single-minded purpose in my consciousness. Whenever that purpose appears, it certainly contrasts with what it isn't, which may also be Kelly Jones.

I don't mind appearing obsessive and fastidious, a fanatic even. That's part of being single-minded: the drive to attain deep consistency.

I'm another of those "professional maniacs".


The difference between your view on this matter and mine is that I do see single-minded purpose and feel there is no need for change. However, where I see it in Marsha, you do not seem to.
When there's a matter of degree, single-mindedness doesn't exist. It's all or nothing. This is why I do not see single-mindedness in yourself or Marsha - and frequently I do not see it in myself (Kelly).

Hence the line in the "Violent Spirit of Love" thread that a philosopher serves one master alone.


It is my conclusion that David has, overall, needlessly and unfruitfully engaged in some sort of effort to castigate Marsha on the issue, yet she is arguing for the same thing as he is.
What are you arguing for?


David’s focus -- mistakenly on this issue with Marsha, I say -- has been for the same argument on the more superficial level of the appearance of the forum: the symbolic. But Marsha’s focus, on the same argument, has been about substance. That is how it appears to me. Now, I may add to that appearance anything I so choose, be it emotional or reasonable. However, there is still the matter of A. And when A is noted exactly for what it is (an idea you have recently related to Jason), the results bear the fruits of truth.
David's argument is A, which isn't symbolic.


It is fine to philosophise. Desirable, even. But never at the expense A=A.
There's no separation between the two.


Who is Marsha, Kelly? She is definitely a different person to you than she is to me. I dare say, she's different again to herself.
"Marsha" is a word for thousands of existences, all of which are sequentially inside each other. The largest one, ie. the one with the largest population of different existences, is probably inside the 8420th existence.

No joke. That's where she spends most of her time, under the basement.

(If she attacks in anger, thinking this is unfair and false, it is because she thinks she is one, but has mistaken the ego's multiplicity as the absolute one).


---
Locked