Caraccioli

What a neat dream! I don't bother to remember dreams as a general rule. I do like that sort of twilight state, right before you fall asleep, when you can play with ideas and concepts and pictures - when things sort of fluidly drift between one state and another. It's like dreaming, but you're sort of aware of it. I could probably spend my whole life there and be happy. (Well, except for the part where I'd starve to death or become completely dehydrated - that part of it might suck if I were marginally aware of it...which I'm not sure I would be.)

Further proof that there is too much governing going on in government! (I wonder what it cost us, per word, for them to write that Iraq resolution?) When reviewing history, I found it interesting how contentious the United States' entry into World War 2 actually was. A lot of people didn't want to see us get involved with the war. Some people thought (and some people still do think) that security was generally lax and that the relaying of messages between Pearl Harbor and the mainland was intentionally fouled up so that Roosevelt could galvanize the people in the US. (I personally think this is pretty far-fetched, but it is still interesting.) All this stuff you hear about a united US when it came to WWII is simply not true. But it makes for a nice (hi)story.

This co-ed volunteer group I belong to has decided to have a baby shower for one of the really active members. I expect it will be unlike most traditional baby showers, but it will still be a shower. (I've not yet attended a "traditional" baby shower...thank God.) I've had to attend two wedding showers in my life: my own (all that pain and suffering endured [er, I'm talking about the shower] only to wind up divorced) and a "couples" shower put on by a friend. It actually wasn't that bad, but it also wasn't that good. It had some of those fool games that seem to go with these affairs, although not quite nearly at the scale of the other one I went to. They're just so...saccharine or something to me. Silly contests, enforced gift-giving, loads of nattering chatter... I've actually cornered some of my female friends and gotten candid responses from them about this whole thing and most of them seem to hate showers. (Sampling population = about 6. Std. deviation unknown.) Yet they feel compelled to attend them anyhow. Am I missing something here? Is there a good reason for continuing to do these events that the attendees seem to dislike?

War is an arbitrary and capricious thing. It is built around instilling hatred in the opposing forces, sometimes against their better judgment. Check out the fascinating and factually-based movie Joyeux Noel (although be prepared for subtitles.)

I requested a Goldfinger banana plant cutting on Saturday from the local greenhouse. They're looking into it to see if they can get me one.

Yeah, that's about right. The whole homeland security thing is just creepy. And it happened under a Republican-lead House, Senate and President. This is not responsible governmental behavior. It increases the size and power of the government and it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. However, your comments on the constitution have nothing whatsoever to do with Sir Eric's point, Long Tom. He seems (to me) to be pointing out how the members of the government love to load up a bandwagon. (It reminds me of that slogan, "I'm their leader. Which way did they go?") The war was approved by all three branches of government, despite whatever fine points anyone presents to the contrary.

I just watched the last show in season one last week... They sure give you plenty of cliffhanger situations to consider, don't they? (Almost too many, actually.)

Ok, let me un-sticky it again for a little while. (I don't know if this helps or not; I just know I don't usually see the thing when it's stickied at the top of the forum.) Here's the link again if you want to enter your name and location on our Pyracy pub map. (Let William know he's not alone): http://www.frappr.com/pyracypub

So now there's a study out there that says the more trees we have above the 20th Northern Parallel, the more it contributes to Global Warming! (You can see the abstract for the report here.) (Note that this is based partially on computer modeling, of which I am notably skeptical when it comes to complex systems like the environment.) Apparently while tropical forests reduce global warming, trees north of the 20th North parallel absorb solar energy and cover solar-reflecting snow (which reduces GW). The researchers suggest that by 2100, northern forests will warm surface temps in their area by about 10 degrees F. Their model suggests that if all the forests were cut down, the global mean temperature would decrease by about .5 degrees. Interestingly, trees are also responsible for contributing to global warming in another way: the emit water vapor. Water vapor is the largest component of the natural greenhouse gases. (WV is 1st, CO2 is 2nd and Methane is 3rd.) The thermal effect of the water vapor is more than ten times that of the carbon dioxide (CO2 is what the anthropological GW folks are hopping mad about - mostly, I suspect, because that will give them the greatest political leverage...and power). The thermal resistive or insulating properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide are almost identical. So the insulation of the earth (which is essentially what the greenhouse effect does) for water vapor might be even more troubling than that of carbon dioxide. And the trees are contributing! (I can't help it. It just gets sillier and sillier.)

Except for sandalwood, I second all of those (especially mushrooms (and onions) cooking in butter. Morels...mmmmmm...). (I won't even tell you what the scent of sandalwood reminds me of - it's a mental association that would make little sense to anyone else.) That Indian store reference reminds me of something else...have you ever stepped into an old-fashioned general store? The type with well-worn creaky tongue-and-groove wood floors and glass jars filled with candy? I can smell it right now. (But I sure can't describe the scent.)

Perhaps. I suspect there are other important components as well. Usually, someone whose willing to stay with something long enough to master it likes it. This doesn't mean they are natural geniuses (to use the term once again), it just means that they're interested. I think interest will actually take you much further than natural skill. I also think that when you struggle to learn anything you start out interested and then sort of lose interest when you encounter a significant obstacle in your learning path. It's at this point that the 90% you propose wander off to do something else that looks fresh and shiny and trouble-free. So you have to have the will to stick with it. Finally, I think once you get past the rote aspects of learning something, it begins to unfold and reveal the really interesting parts of itself to you. you begin to understand its secret and, like all mastery, you understand its power. Once you grasp this magnificence, you are inclined to stay with it. This is where the teaching aspect I mentioned wayyyyyy back in the beginning comes to bear. You understand the beauty of what you've learned and you want to help others to understand it as well. (If for no other reason than to make sure they get it right.) (The physics thing is not dead. Duchess and I are still talking about it. I think she's trying to figure out where the heck I'm coming from with all this noise. )

Beyond my capacity, perhaps, to reach them - in which case, for all intents it's a waste of my time to try. So you choose not to try. I do the same. We all do. There's nothing wrong with that IMO. It sort of reminds me of a story I heard. A woman came up to the pianist after a piano recital and said, "You play beautifully. I would give anything to play like that." The pianist responded, "No you wouldn't." The woman was taken aback, of course, and said, "What do you mean?" "I mean you wouldn't actually 'give anything' to play like I do. I spent 20 years learning to play like this, practicing my instrument for 4 hours every day. If you would have done likewise, you could play similarly to the way I do, perhaps even better. But you didn't. And that's all right, because most people are like you." Blunt? I suppose so, but it was true. Whatever we would like to do can probably be done by us if we are committed to doing it. But few people are natural geniuses at anything. (Note: we're back to talking about mastery again. )

Having taught in one capacity or another for over 30 years, I used to believe that. Now? Now I KNOW there are some that are just beyond reach. Beyond human reach? Doubtlessly. Beyond one individual's reach when it is not beyond another's...I have doubts that that's true. (Call me an optimist. Why not? I have become an optimist. I used to be a realist (This is the code that pessimists use to describe themselves. I digress again...)) I think there are things that people are not inclined to achieve (through a combination of personal preferences, beliefs, lack of natural skills and (most importantly) lack of true desire.) I think there are things that people would like to achieve until they reach the point where they have to really work or persevere in the face of challenging situations. I even suspect there are subconscious elements that subvert our ability to achieve. (We could speculate all day on where these things come from, so I won't even touch that.) And I will even concede that there appear to be some very select things that might be physically impossible for certain people to achieve. (Although I wonder if this isn't in some weird way stemming from a lack of will or subconscious fear or some such, rather than true impairment.) However, I like something a teacher once said to me. It goes sort of like this: Take out your favorite reason (or excuse) for why you can't achieve __X__. Then make it your business to search through history and see if anyone has ever achieved __X__ despite having the same reason (or excuse). If they have, you know it is at least possible. Then take out your next favorite reason (or excuse) and...well, you get the idea. Disagree with me? I've no doubt some of you do and nothing I say will make it otherwise for you. However, I think our minds are much more powerful than we can even begin to comprehend. But I'm an optimist. "For myself I am an optimist- it does not seem to be much use being anything else." - Sir Winston Churchill

There was this scene where Apollo flies into the heart of a Cylon outpost on a world containing mine-able fuel in a attempt to blow up the outpost. He comes out of a tunnel or something and kind of floats there a bit, flips his ship over, finds his target and releases his bombs. Overhead is a bunch of Cylon cover fire and other activity. That was cool. They have some great visual space effects for a TV show. I was watching the "political" episode about the election of the VP and figured, "Oh, this will be dull." Except, of course, it wasn't. I thought they captured the real-world trouble with trying to make rapid decisions to get what you want out of the process quite well. (Plus, after a heartbeat, I suddenly realized that the political "bad guy" (well - no one seems to be wholly "bad" on this show) was actually Richard Hatch! It made all those scenes with the new Apollo on the prison ship so much more poignant.) One thing I wish they would tone down is the sudden, jerky camera close-ups. It sometimes adds an element of urgency to things, but it also sometimes adds an element of irritating amateurism when the close-up doesn't have a good reason for being used. I hadn't noticed it much before that political show. (Now I suppose it's going to irritate the heck out of me because I'm aware of it.)

Which inevitably leads us back to absolute truth (and the lack thereof) and worlds created by individual perception. But we're in the wrong thread, aren't we? Circles, circles, everything describes circles... (BTW, Duchess reminds me that different local police reports are notoriously difficult to compare and aggregate. What one precinct considers one thing, another does not. This I learned when reading my books on how statistics are improperly used. Perhaps I will dredge that book up when I get home tonight. However, I do know that one of the reasons we have guns here in the US to protect us from the centralization of power in the government. Those who do not know their history...)

And someone was able to win a large financial settlement against a large corporation for sticking a HOT coffee down their pants because they were being responsible for themselves. And this can lead to TONS of other citations of successful lawsuits for personal injury where the plaintiff was obviously responsible for their own actions? Yes, there are many examples of people not shirking their responsibility. So should those who do take responsibility (and I suggest that they are the majority) be punished for those who don't? Wouldn't dream of it. I think an open discussion of the issues is important and often increases interest in a forum, myself. (Although (in general - not talking to Michael specifically here) I always look for what we think of as facts to back up opinions...you know what they say about opinions... )

Glad you two (oderlesseye and RumbaRue) enjoyed my little new found, homemade craft skill! Anyone who might be interested in finding how I waste my precious hours on occasion, feel free pm me. I have a whole bunch of stuff just waiting to be assembled for those who are a-plundering.

Who, so far, has tried to make this argument you're attempting to refute? With greater risk, comes greater responsibility. However, greater perceived safety does not produce lesser risk. In fact, it produces greater, although somewhat hidden, risks. The US was founded, as much as any country in history has been, on assuming personal responsibility. This is not to lose sight of the victims of cowards who refuse to take any responsibility for themselves, but neither should it be license to take away some of the few rights that Homeland InSecurity hasn't managed to snatch. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Gun law? *Shudder* It is tragic, but that is no reason to give up more of our rights. Doing so will not prevent future events like this, I can almost guarantee you that. It will just change the pattern some. Rather than listening to NPR (which almost has the decency to admit their bias - but not quite), go back and read the history of our country. We have more to be afraid of from the government banning guns (and becoming the sole legal possessors of them) than we do from not doing so. I dated a girl (sort of, I guess) who was at Virginia Tech. In fact, I met her there. (It's a nice campus.) She wound up working for IBM and buying a green Jag. She was the sort of girl who would do that.

So the mystics are right about physics?

To begin with, my original comment concerned the spiritual self-help industry's co-opting of the statement by physicists that "We alter things by observing them." This is not provably true in every case so far. The physicists were talking about the affect light has on electrons at the quantum physical level. That's it, no more. When I first heard this statement used in spiritual self-help stuff, it bothered me because it didn't make sense at some level. So I didn't use it in my own material. However, like most errors of this type, it has acquired a life of its own and the error has been repeated enough that some people consider it fact because it pops up in so many places. I dislike repeating an incorrect statement and was pleased to finally figure out what I intuitively didn't like about it. As to your assertion that our instincts or our body or our subconscious is capable of detecting all outside observers - that is not provable in every case either. You can dismiss science in this case, but it isn't repeatable and thus we enter the realm of faith. I have no problem with faith, but I would not repeat something like this simply because it could be proven wrong in many specific cases. "I can't do that." "I tried doing this and it didn't work." We can make excuses for this (yes, they probably have to be regarded as excuses) and say that this person is not sensitive enough and so forth and they may be true. But until you can prove it, you don't really know - unless you take it on faith. Faith is a pretty poor method in my mind when I'm trying to teach others something. (Especially in the case of something I consider to be a minor point in what is most important. There are far greater latent skills most people need to be made aware of IMHO.) I suppose I could dismiss the people who "can't do (something)" as hopeless or stupid (If there's a hobby more popular among we humans than deciding that there are a large mass of "other people" much dumber and hopeless than we individually are, I'm not sure what it might be. I've been guilty of it myself.), but that just makes me a poor teacher. Now, as for intent...I doubt we have the same view of intention at all. However there are some things I've noticed in my case about intention (and who else can I reliably report upon than myself?) First, intention is the key to accomplishment of anything. If you want to do something, you must develop enough intent to take action. Second, intent directed at making someone else do something will fail unless that person adopts your intent. You cannot "force" people to do anything. You can cajole, convince, pressure, scare or somehow or another get them to adopt your intent for them into their consciousness IF AND ONLY IF (IFF) they are willing to accept it. They are ALWAYS free to resist, however. ALWAYS. The consequences may be dire to them, but it is their choice as to whether or not they are willing to accept your consequences (providing you can indeed impose them) for resisting your intention for them. So, in the case of your swordsman, it is the fault of the other swordsman who was cowed by the gaze (or whatever) of the first swordsman. He chose to alter his world such that he quit without fighting. Anything else hints at mind control, which I believe is impossible. We create our own world. It is a central tenet in my personal philosophy that I mentioned and you agreed with previously. As such, another person only molds our world if we allow them to. Even small children resist the instruction of their parents. I like to think that I'm open-minded. I'm interested in everything. The purely scientific approach has several limitations, but so does the purely spiritual approach (I'm being very broad here with my definition of "spiritual.") Being open-minded, I like to find a balance and understand both. I do believe they can co-exist quite comfortably. Incidentally, I do believe in God. I even attend regular spiritual services. However, I don't adopt all (or even most) of the facets of the particular religion I observe, but I find a sort of formal connection soothing on some level. I personally think God is pretty hands-off and has a wonderful sense of humor. God also gets to get the real insight on what is actually true and what isn't - something we don't appear to get. Maybe we're lucky. The more we understand, the more responsibility we have.

Electrons aren't really clouds (although that explanation was popular at one point.) Electrons move in ways that are like nothing physical that we have to compare them to. Either way, the statement "as we're BEING observed, our senses pick up those altered clouds, either attracting or repelling them. Thus, changing us." isn't provable in every case. (Kind of like the effect of God, actually.) We may change our behavior when we know we're being observed (the psychological factor), but what happens when we don't know we're being observed? It's not a consistent effect, so I don't think it's possible to say that observing something changes it in every case. In physics, it's the nature of the tool required for observation that changes the electron, not the act of observation itself. In psychology it is the nature of the mind that knows its physical manifestation is being observed that changes our behavior, not the observation itself. We do not always alter something simply by observing it. There are other, physical factors involved. That's important.

I'd say it's 50/50 probability at this point. If I buy an airline ticket, I'll let you know. (That'll be the clincher.) Right now it sort of depends on a couple imponderables.

We haven't seen this topic for awhile and there are several new people... I still have the same screen on my desktop as was seen previously, but I've always had a different one for my laptop: (A virtual nickel to anyone who knows who that is and what movie role they played.)

The ultimate complex system! I say indulge him! (I had hamsters from about the age of 8 to 15.)