PyratePhil

What interests me is...what will come next? What is so far outside of our limited awareness that we cannot understand it? What form will the next iteration of earth-based lifeforms take?

Two words:

Paris Hilton.

...I maintain that all the components are natural, ergo, the actions are likewise - proceeding from nature.

From Freedictionary.com:

nat·u·ral, adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature

We are thus. We ascribe traits to ourselves as being beyond nature because that is (heh) our nature. If we are components of nature (which I maintain we are), then what we produce is also a component of nature. Curiously, the notion that we might produce "unnatural" conception hints that we are stealing a trait we (naturally) ascribe to God. Thus, for it to be "unnatural" our definition of God must also be "unnatural." Which I do not believe. (Alas, beliefs are impossible to argue, so we are most likely at an impasse there.)

But using THAT model, NOTHING would ever be un-natural. Which in itself is not bad - just not useful for friendly debate.

There should probably be, if not a definite line, then at least a gray-area between natural and un-natural. How else to describe synthetic vs. all-natural? Using your argument, even synthetics are natural, since they hail from organic matter.

And that takes all the fun out of deriding un-natural things.

Well, "malice" is an ascribed trait. It's a concept we have created. We could argue all day about whether animals experience "grief" or not. (Any pet owner will maintain a view on this ranging from "impossibly so" to "impeccably so.") However, consciousness as a physical trait of humanity is still beyond the grasp of science, let alone what might be going on in the heads of our allegedly "dumb friends." So I don't see where we can incontrovertibly say one way or the other.

To me, "malice" just means plain ol'-fashioned meanness. A lack of consideration or caring about anyone else but yourself. That might be "natural" to some predatory animals, but Man is supposedly far evolved from that point. Yet, every day I see examples of Man's inhumanity to Man.

Other:

Cats "toy" with their victims not as play, as I'm sure you realize, but as a learning and practice application.

Sorry, Brain - I fergot about ruling the world!

All I know is, right here, right now - I'm not always real impressed with Man's supposed evolution. To me, he's taken more steps toward being UN-natural than he has toward a unification with Nature.

So Phil, how will you feather your empty nest?

My nephew starts Jr. High this year...I don't know how he got so much older so fast. I know I didn't

I really don't know - we've been a crew of three for so long, it'll feel all wrong.

I was actually just thinking tonight that since my youngest (9) doesn't seem to be THAT fanatical about pyrates and will probably be even less so without his brother there, I might end up doing a solo act.

And yes - the "getting older" thing - it seems like yesterday I was attending his grade-school graduation. And I still had all my hair.

*sigh*

Actually pretty good - looking forward to the last Faire with both my sons next Saturday (2 days later my oldest goes off to college).

Like it or not. Some people seem to think we're above it or below it or whatever else they can come up with in relationship to "it", but all our actions are, by definition, natural. Our minds are composed of components of this earth and thus are natural. Anything they might come up with is also, arguably, natural. (Good and bad. As Tennyson noted, "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." and all that.)

No, I disagree.

Our minds, as well as our bodies and spirits, are "natural" only at the moment of birth...wait...that's not right...

...because now they're messing with embryos and fetus'...OK...let's rephrase it that we're only natural at the moment of concep....

Damn - artificial insemination.

IN THE CASE OF natural conception and child birth, at the moment of birth we are "natural", perhaps. As soon as we're exposed to the ways and prejudices of our caretakers, however, we start becoming UN-natural.

If our actions are described as "natural" simply because we're part of "nature", then you might also believe that a person is "sexual" because they have a "sex", or that I'm "virginal" because I was once a "virgin".

We're probably the only species that ACTIVELY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT strives AGAINST nature, with the full knowledge that doing so will cause harm to ourselves and others.

Other creatures are simpletons compared to us - lucky them. They're not the ones responsible for screwing up the planet - it's Man and his wonderful quest for knowledge and advancement.

All hail Man, the Ultimate Living Organism in the Universe!!!

As I have mentioned, I'm also scouting solar energy. It's still too expensive, but eventually it will become pragmatic.

That's exactly what they said in the '70's...

...I'm still waiting...

...or you can just get a goldfish.

Love it as long as you both shall live...

...then when he croaks, flush that puppy and get a new one!

Misson- it's only fairly late in life that I've learned not to try to change people. It was (and still is) a Taoist principle that I knew of long, long ago but thought that it didn't apply to ME.

Riiiight...

They say "opposites attract" - that might very well be, but what happens when the bloom is off the rose? Seven-year itches, separations, and divorces. Likewise, two similar personalities shoved together could lead to insanity.

"They" also say that the longer you're with one person, the more your thoughts and, oddly enough, facial features become similar.

This might explain Aunt Agatha's mustache, though...

That being said, I think more couplings are like Oscar and Felix than Chang and Eng.

PS: Holmes is a two-faced schmuck. What about "THAT woman" - Irene Adler?

Talk yourself out of THAT one, Holmes old chum!

Could it be because they want the tax and medical plan benefits that married couples have?

When it is put in terms like this it always sounds so mercenary. That is kind of unfortunate.

...

And yet when it is put in terms like "they just want the benefits," it makes them sound somehow greedy. (not saying Phil intended it that way, but many who oppose gay marriage cast it in that sort of mercenary light.)

As you said, I didn't intend it that way - Hell's bells, I lived in Greenwich Village for 7 years!

I was just echoing what I often hear in the discussions about gay marriage. And I agree - that's a big weapon for the "opposition".

Me? I couldn't care less what they do - if they want the ties that bind, so be it.

Bess, I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I had a similar relationship for about 5 years - when it ended (due to circumstances seemingly beyond my control), I said "That's it - never again". And yes, a big part of me died that day.

Misson - makes sense. We seek to complete the circle; once we complete it, we go off in search for something else and forget the feeling of completion.

Which is a shame, really, because I think most people have never and will never experience true love. If it lasts just for five minutes, I'd rather have felt it than lived a lifetime of lust and satyrism.

Christine, I think your relationship is quite outside the boundaries of conventional marriage AND conventional common-law couplings...

You have that other element going on which, you have to admit, changes things considerably.

As for the love discussion, the problem is that often there are expectations - I've been fool enough to have them before, and they played havoc with my head. Since I changed my thinking around I've been a lot...not happier...let's just say "safer".

My main concept is that everyone changes constantly - you never know when you or your partner will "fall out of love". If you're enmeshed in the bondage of marriage, you'll have a hard time getting out - legally and emotionally. The Kurt and Goldie thing is great if you can pull it off, and if there IS a time for splitting, at least the legal troubles are minimized (unless those damn palimony suits are brought up again).

Patrick - and WHY do the gays want to be married? I don't follow that whole debate at all, so the reason is probably right in front of my nose. Could it be because they want the tax and medical plan benefits that married couples have? Are they fighting for equality?

Or are they just being stupidly stubborn, when they could just be living together and making the most of it without broadcasting their revolutionary zeal?

Ignore her and become a monk.

Trust me - it's much less painful.

If we agree with the Ideal Gas Law:

pV=nRT

Then we might also be able to apply:

(mV /(Bu)) = mEGW

Where:

m=money

Bu=Bureaucracy

V=Volume

E=Empty Space in Wallet

G=Greed

W=Waste

This tells us that ANY volume of money will expand to fill all empty spaces in a bureaucrat's wallet, regardless of the temperature of the times or the pressure of the constituents.

Me and the two powder-monkeys'll be there Saturday...

"To describe Christine, one would have to say that of all the Goddesses she is the most adored, respected and feared."

Funny - that's what it said on the copy I saw...

Yeah, the whole car thing - I got into it also because at first I couldn't find any mechanics that knew about the kind of cars I drove, then when I found them they were scandalously expensive. (Funny synchronicity here, Jill, with your friend - at the time, I was on my 3rd Triumph TR-6).

Plus I'd always been a tinkerer, so it just came naturally. Plus an older brother who'd been into cars that I watched as a wee tadpole. Plus stubbornness.

LOTS of stubbornness. As in, I was firmly convinced that I could do a better job than the mechanics I did find. And, after a few small mishaps, I did.

Misson - not only did my friend fix the car AND play violin, she'd finish the first one, wash her hands, then go right into the second. But no - no writing music - just playing quite well.

Alas - the charms of a general contractor as wealthy as her Dad and twice as old as her proved my undoing, since a 20-year old had nothing that could beat THAT hand.

Ah, okey-dokey. *whew*

Yeah - Lucy is one-of-a-kind.

...I just haven't figured out yet a kind of WHAT...

Surprised there is no Internet Gestapo yet....lol...send them to the Gulag

There is - they just use the name Google.

Jill - you've intrigued me - what did you drive?

It was a special edition Mustang GT - the 83-1/2 year model. It was snuck in for true enthusiasts before the 20th anniversary model and I managed to get one of them. I never did get it up to its top speed, but can tell you that it did go 0-60 in under six seconds. It was the fastest non-exotic car for that year.

Also, I grew up driving modified, VERY fast cars.

Nice! I hope you drove it like you stole it.

Of course, you know that Vettes and 'stangs are mortal enemies - almost as bad as the Mongoose and Cobra War

Well, I'm fairly certain I used to -

-I've just misplaced 'em.

Oh, now that IS a gorgeous coat.

...wonder how many drunks I'd have to roll to get one?

My son is also a huge Hats fan. Victoria isn't with them anymore? I liked her - we had fun during our local Ren faire doing improvs...of course, my first love will always be Lucy.

Disgusting, isn't it?

Yes, there ARE girls like that - SEE: Red-Handed Jill

And yep, I let her get away...Greek/Italian, tall and willowy, Daddy was an OB/GYN, they had a summer place in the Hamptons...

*sigh*

I bet his walking stick won't be as cool...

My son was there this past Sunday and was seriously underwhelmed.

Said that PARF is far better. Not sure of the details yet, but he said the jousting was strange (1st joust no helmets - 2nd joust used foam lances?); the melee fighting was poor with cheap-looking weapons (speaking of weapons, they have that stiff no-weapons policy for visitors); the beer-drinking, instead of being confined to one area like PARF, had people wandering the faire with their trusty cups; yet the crowd was (for him, anyway) the biggest he'd ever seen at a faire.

Said he wouldn't be in a hurry to return.

So are the only real reasons to buy one for appearance and ruggedness? I wonder how many people actually take them off the tarmac? (They do look cool. Whenever I see a real jeep, I look to see who the person driving it is. I figure they're adventurous and potentially interesting. So I guess the appearance thing works, right?)

For me, it was a matter of pure utility. I lived up the side of a mountain with a one-mile dirt driveway leading to the house, which also crossed over a small stream that would flood. In the winter, if you didn't have a SnowCat, you'd be doomed. So it wasn't for appearance - it was utility.

(A real chick would drive a real Jeep, right? Adventurous.)

Naw - a real chick would drive (like a college GF did) a '63 split-window Vette, that she did all her own work on - including balancing and blueprinting the engine and re-doing the tranny - then go inside and practice her violin.

Great Neptune I miss that girl

Merc - you have to get a NASCAR-approved ride, then! Get a Monte Carlo or some such...

Jill - you've intrigued me - what did you drive?

Plus, I might end up killing someone (namely myself) with the way I drive. Jeeps turn over crazy mad easy and I thinking breaking around corners is for sissys

See? SEE?

If you had a Caddy, you could kill yourself, then put yourself in the ...

...ummm...

...never mind.

BTW - the whole "Jeeps/SUV's flipping" thing is a big joke. If you drive it like a car then yes, it'll flip. The big secret is, you DON'T drive it like a car. It was never meant to be driven that way. But people want to go fast, even if it's just down the driveway to the mailbox, so of course they flip.

But of course, you warned me with the "sissy breaking" thing...

Misson - I had a CJ-7 back in the day. I called it the MachoMobile, because you had to be crazy to drive that thing 7 days a week, year round, like I did.

But man, did that thing GO. Anywhere.

Jill - Yeah - I coulda' worked for Tony "The Nose" Tragliamonte at his "Previously Enjoyed Cadillac" lot.

Rogue - where I grew up, it was more of a practical, everyday consideration.

The stickers on the used cars in the lots had "MPG", "MPH" and "NOBIT" -

"Number of Bodies in Trunk"