From: Drui Area: Metaphysical To: Nightstar 7 Apr 94 04:07:00 Subject: all'n'any UpdReq Hello, finally.... Since you may not cruse other conferences, for the last month I've been off-line. In Celtic a moderator 1) said I'd dropt out of sight (wrong: people she knew had my address; I'm in the phone book in the city she knew I was in before); and 2) offered full issue photocopies of my journal (full issues, as you know, is not "fair usage" but copyright violation). My lawyer says it IS illegal, even for free, but because I'm in a different country, it'd cost too much to fight - money was never the point, only I uploaded free files to PODS, and the journal had been a PRIVATE one. I have been involved in this mess so wasn't here to answer your replies. Over all, the copyright aside, I am not impressed by the conferences here. The Celt people continue to plague me with how much they want what I have and how glad I should be to "share" my stuff on ancientg Ireland, not realizing what an insult this is ("share" assumes they have something of value to say that I want, and one is never happy to be "popular" if that means quantity over quality). Tho I thought you deserved a personal I note why I hadn't yet answered. If we had our own conference, I do NOT want to be moderator. After this mess, I feel like not only going back into the tower - the wizard is not alone in the tower - but putting booster rockets under it and going into very distant orbit. At most I now see this is a place to, with difficulty, find people with whom one then continues hard-copy private discussion using postage stamps. - Drui ___ X SLMR 2.0 X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Drui Area: Metaphysical To: Gardenstone 7 Apr 94 04:07:02 Subject: towers UpdReq >If a wizard lives in a tower, people outside can't get enough knowledge >about those wizards to get a better based opinion. The "people" do not need an opinion about the wizards as long as the wizards stay in the tower. It's a modern sickness that the "public" should have an opinion on everything (e.g. I have no opinions on auto mechanics, team sports, algebra, African mythology, Japanese politics, the zoology of fruit flies, and about 100,000 other topics - I am internationally published, national award-winning blah blah in a number of areas, have an IQ reputedly (culturally bias tests!) of 170+ blah blah but I'd feel like an idiot to venture an opinion on biocarbon chemistry or how to repair a broken radio. >Well, if he don't care for 'people', if he don't need 'people', he might >get back into the tower. As said, there are other wizards in the tower. They may not be "people" but they are human. "People" is worthless as it/themselves. Individuals are highly valuable. One must separate one from the other. You cannot eat "food": you eat an apple or lettice or a pork-chop (or junk poison because "people" call and sell it as "food"). >As Dutch is my dayly language. Depending on how fluent is stumbling around I can stumble or fluentize in 9-12 languages, but "neemt u mij niet kwalijik, ik begrijp het niet" is already over-taxing my use of one which isn't one of them. Dutch is below Sanskrit on my "to do" list and this time around I doubt I'll get to Sanskrit, so... (if van Gogh wrote poetry like he painted, you'd have me!) >P.P.S. As this echo is ment for articles and similar things But articles on WHAT? It said "metaphysics"... I doubt I'll be around much more or if so, maybe not often, and will return to the stone-age tech of ink, paper, and placing myself at the mercy of postage stamps (which since it is a ascending-ratio rate, favour long writings over short ones (50 pp costs the same as 2 post cards!). - Drui ___ X SLMR 2.0 X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Drui Area: Metaphysical To: Nightstar 7 Apr 94 04:07:04 Subject: Re:PATH EVALUATION GUIDE UpdReq >assumes that the person is following an existing path, not >creating one. You answered the Buddha yourself: it's a redone Hinduism. You may know the old Greek story of replacing the ship board by board and when/if does one have trhe same ship. I doubt it is possible to create a truly new path. One's language, experience, and genetic make-up (human range of senses alone!) pre-structure. There are probably a limited number of BASIC possibilities, each with variations. I doubt any are "created" in the pure sense (which I accept as only non-existantly abstract), but are discovered or refined/subdivided (see below). >mixing and matching Always bad, as said. One refines and can encorporate. >to not change would be stagnation. So? "Progress" is viewed by many as sick and destructive. Many societies (Egypt, some New World v hall) were/are dedicated to maintaining equilibrium. This may be, again, more ontology-of-time than "social planning". If one wants change, even here it may be the individual who indeed may change on the path, but the path need not change (note word: at any point on the path, all of it is not visible, so it may SEEM to "expand" but this is like saying "Patagonia is new" - well, it may be for you or me, but it's there, is if we go there or not, OUR position changes but Patagonia (daily weather and earthquakes over-extend this metaphor) doesn't change. Some paths are open-ended, although all the infinite "extension" follows, within the path's OWN logic and structure, from the (to one's limited view) "beginning" - nothing "changes" the path itself and each (to one's limited experience) "new" thing can be seen, omce it's met and integrated with, to fit the rest of the path. In many ontological matrixes, time is not "flow" but "field" - "new" is indeed like Patagonia in that one "goes there" and can "leave it" - the path/world is not "changed" but "in another part of itself". One's personal (limited) experience is of "later" and literal time-travel is not possible but the worl;d/path does not age, one simply accumilates more "places" (a new experience is like learning new data - one's PERSONAL store of data/ experiences is greater, but the Whole-of-Data isn't changed. (re above, one3 could not mix'n'match very much and have a valid reality - not just a self-delusion that won't hold up when tested - because the path is ALREADY there to be followed. a "new" path is not created but discovered. Indeed re "stagnation" versus "change" - many cultures view the change and progress as a suicide-trip. This is eaily heard in music: music is NOT a "universal language" and such a claim is racially bigotted. Many cultures' music doesn't "go anywhere", to the western-brainwashed ear it "meanders and just ends anywhere". WESTERN music has "developement", it goes from theme-A to -B to a re-statement of -A, it has an "overture" and a "finale" - just that, it has an END. Westerners say "all things end" and want to enjoy the change/evolution of reaching the (dead)-end. From a DIFFERENT prespecyive, all progress has this subconscious death-wish. Mind, from a yet-another different view progres can "keep going forever" - I am not here argueing for "progress" or against it, only showing that many folks view it, validly, as undesirable, and their art. music, religion, eyc., all are, for them, extremely rewarding and fulfilling by NOT having change or progress. Much "tradition" is not "to do" anything, but to "not do", i.e. to hold, lock, preclude, to keep people on the path (because ALL paths have liabilities and someone may not like theirs). - Drui ___ X SLMR 2.0 X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Drui Area: Metaphysical To: Nightstar 7 Apr 94 04:07:06 Subject: quotes UpdReq >the quotes aren't for you, or for me, they're for everyone else. One reason I won't be doing a great deal of at length cominicating in such a medium. I have never wanted to have public sex in front of an audience, and I have the same feelings of serious in depth discussions infront of a peanut gallery. If you're on a bus and reading a book, do you wait to turn the page until the guy reading over your shoulder (very much more slowly) is ready for you to go on? Your approach to quotes suggests that you would wait (and he is a VERY slow reader...). Exchanging ideas means doing so lucidly, and a lot of quotes makes it non-lucid for the person it's addressed to. You could all just address all messages to "all". If a message is addresed to ME, then the >>>>s make it hard to read and if these are only meant to service [sic] eavsesdroppers, then don't address it to ME, but address it to the eavesdroppers. All this assumes that "everyone else" who's reading is some sort of a "public" out there. May the "public" rot in the worse of all hells! The only value of a "public" is that, within it, there are individuals. Once the "public" is treated as a thing-in-itself it becomes a vile evil, idiot zombie lowest-denominator. To value "public" is mass-mind robot all-is- same thinking. The individuals, who have great value, will separate themselves out without the re-re-quotes and introduce themselves. Just as one skims a book in a store, reading a paragraph here and there to get an idea if one wants to buy it, the exchanges minus quotes are more than enough to give any intelligent person a good idea what's going on and if s/he wants to join in. Mind, a FEW SHORT quotes are Ok. I could have skipped that above and said "regarding your comments on quotes" - which in paraphrase IS a quote! I am objecting to the 10-20 line quotes I have had thrown back at me. I have gotten back quotes that fill the whole bloody monitor screen! That is not a quote, it is a Readers' Digest Condensed Edition! If you say "yes" in reply, you should say what "yes" is to (e.g. "Yes, the bible is right, it took 7 days" - but you do NOT need to quote the whole Book of Genesis so it takes me almost as long to RE-read what i already know than it tooks His Omniship to create the world!). - Drui ___ X SLMR 2.0 X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718