California vegetable experience for those with "nature deficit disorder" (food, rated)

[NewToCA]

OK, time to close this thread up???

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I will toss in one thought... I do not see "suffering" in the physical sense of pain or death...... I see "suffering" as a mental state... an awareness if you will a construct of the mind.

anyway
later.. taters...

True.
But to have that kind of mastery of mind and emotion and to have that kind of objectivity is quite an advanced state of being.
But it's good to aim high.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Good grief! Sure there are people living outside a culture while existing within it. There are people here who know how to tie their shoes and get through the day but who don't buy into any of the bull**** ...

Umm....huh? Yeah, culture is a bit more deep than simple activities. How does one use a language, yet exist outside of that language? They don't....and the very language they use castes the world in a particular light. Everyone grew up in a particular culture and nobody can remove all the cultural conditioning they received throughout their childhood.


As far the "Singularity", I don't use the term and I'm not really a fan of Kurzweil. But in terms of whether developing Artificial Intelligence, Artificial life, etc is "meaningless", I don't find that question of any interest. I can certainly come up with reasons why I'm interested in developing AI, but do any of them give it "meaning"? No...not really. Is anything meaningful? I don't know....and I have no idea how to address the question in the first place. I stopped thinking about this sort of thing years ago...

As far your assertion that they can't know what "existence" is, well, its self-defeating. In order to know that someone can't know what "existence" is, you'd have to know what "existence" is......

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by user_id

I agree, that is why I don't debate matters with those with religiously held beliefs. There needs to be an agreed methodology, a methodology that can determine what is correct and what isn't, without such a methodology dialogue is just hot-air.

And yes, the views you are stating are religious in nature.


Awesome, but I believe things because the evidence suggests they are true...whether they are "cliche" to some particular person is immaterial.


I love this sort of thing....while you yap about me being arrogant what you're basically saying is that you're right about everything and people that disagree need to "evolve" and become more like you....that is because you believe that you are super special....an "old soul" no doubt.

Anyhow, would you like to rant some more about me?

There is a difference between spirituality and religion.
And i certainly don't think that i'm right about everything (more often than not i'm in an "i don't know" state of mind - that's the best way to be imo as it supports an open attitude where there's space to receive the new and/or the true) but i do recognize that minds are more and less open and that we're all on a scale of relative awareness.
I don't want anyone to be more like me or like me at all.
I just like it when people are receptive and not rigid and don't hold fast to beliefs.
And "old soul"? I have no idea what that means.
And we're all "special" and all very much like each other too.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by jaijai

There is a difference between spirituality and religion.

There isn't, but I realize that the spiritual stuff is often defined in contrast to "religion" despite the fact that, anthropologically, its just like any other religion. Its the non-religion, religion....

Originally Posted by jaijai

I just like it when people are receptive and not rigid and don't hold fast to beliefs.

You mean, you like when they are receptive to the things you happen to believe. As far as rigidity, do you believe that you've behaved as someone that doesn't "hold fast to beliefs"? I mean, does the fact that you spent an entire paragraph insulting someone for merely disagreeing with your beliefs...not register with you? How about the fact you you keep applying your worldview to other people, you have "awareness" and other such notions...others have heaven/hell, etc. But in all cases, the views are used to interpret everything.....including the thoughts/behavior of people that aren't part of your system. I don't care about what you call "awareness", I'm utterly unconcerned with "spirit", etc.....yet you'll still speak about these things in relation to me....thereby insisting that I acknowledge them as being reality-based..

Its funny that people that talk so much about being "open", react so violently to being disagreed with.

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by user_id

There isn't, but I realize that the spiritual stuff is often defined in contrast to "religion" despite the fact that, anthropologically, its just like any other religion. Its the non-religion, religion....


You mean, you like when they are receptive to the things you happen to believe. As far as rigidity, do you believe that you've behaved as someone that doesn't "hold fast to beliefs"? I mean, does the fact that you spent an entire paragraph insulting someone for merely disagreeing with your beliefs...not register with you?

Its funny that people that talk so much about being "open", react so violently to being disagreed with.

My responses to you have not been violent in any way and if you're referring to the post that i think you are i was just trying to skillfully point out to you that you are less than open and that you have your mind made up about a lot of things and that it doesn't allow for any kind of growth or learning.
There most certainly is a difference between religion(s) and spirituality. And i'm not attached to "beliefs" but it would take more energy than i have at the moment to explain to you what i mean by that.
Also, realizing our true nature and understanding the nature of mind and and realizing the interconnectedness of all things and realizing the nature of all phenomena and becoming more aware of our connection with each other and with the world around us and with the planet and all of its inhabitants and with the cosmos is not a "religious" pursuit (not in the way that i define "religious" anyway) although religions are more and less (most not much) supportive of such endeavors.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

OK, time to close this thread up???

Oh geez ... just when I brought out the sprinkles for the broccoli!

[user_id]

Originally Posted by jaijai

My responses to you have not been violent in any way....

Yes, of course not.

Originally Posted by jaijai

...realizing the interconnectedness of all things and realizing the nature of all phenomena and becoming more aware of our connection with each other and with the world around us and with the planet and all of its inhabitants and with the cosmos is not a "religious" pursuit...

Any reason why you're assuming any of these things exist? For example, that "interconnectedness" thing? The nature of all phenomena? Is that something you just realize one day? Everything you are saying is laced with your religious beliefs, yet you are pretending to be "open".

Anyhow, as I was saying, without a methodological foundation to resolve disagreements there isn't anything to discuss. And this is precisely the sense that science conflicts with religion, scientific methodology provides such a methodology and religions do not. There is no way to refute ones religious beliefs, so why even talk about them?

But hey, what do I know? I lack an "interconnectedness" with all things and haven't realized the nature of all phenomena...heck I'm not even sure what any of that means...I must be really behind.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm....huh? Yeah, culture is a bit more deep than simple activities. How does one use a language, yet exist outside of that language? They don't....and the very language they use castes the world in a particular light. Everyone grew up in a particular culture and nobody can remove all the cultural conditioning they received throughout their childhood.


As far the "Singularity", I don't use the term and I'm not really a fan of Kurzweil. But in terms of whether developing Artificial Intelligence, Artificial life, etc is "meaningless", I don't find that question of any interest. I can certainly come up with reasons why I'm interested in developing AI, but do any of them give it "meaning"? No...not really. Is anything meaningful? I don't know....and I have no idea how to address the question in the first place. I stopped thinking about this sort of thing years ago...

As far your assertion that they can't know what "existence" is, well, its self-defeating. In order to know that someone can't know what "existence" is, you'd have to know what "existence" is......

Well just hold on a minute there ... we were discussing "propaganda", not culture. Now, I can post definitions, but you can look them up yourself, so I'll save the space. Let's not go off on tangents of tangents too far (we're all pretty far out there already). No one said anything about removing all the cultural conditioning. There is a difference between accepting some cultural conditioning with a shrug and knowing it is there -- and being subliminally influenced by special-interest propaganda, which is what I thought we were referring to. Propaganda being deliberately designed and placed, typically subliminal, messaging to influence behavior toward specious political, religious, or marketing goals. As I said, many people can un-identify with that sort of nonsensical brainwashing -- even while accepting some marginal cultural constraints and involvements.

As for "meaning", correct: how would mere mortals know? ... and that is my point: the sense of destiny with which some developers of futuristic technologies identify their "mission" is ridiculous. "Mission" to what? But they continually use phrases to the effect of "imagine what man can do with _______ insert possibility of the moment here." If you don't have a long term understanding of wtf you are doing, then beware of the laws of unintended consequences.

Your final observation about knowing or not knowing what existence is -- right. Part of my point. Don't act on improving existence when you don't know what it is to improve upon. Precisely.

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes, of course not.


Any reason why you're assuming any of these things exist? For example, that "interconnectedness" thing? The nature of all phenomena? Is that something you just realize one day? Everything you are saying is laced with your religious beliefs, yet you are pretending to be "open".

Anyhow, as I was saying, without a methodological foundation to resolve disagreements there isn't anything to discuss. And this is precisely the sense that science conflicts with religion, scientific methodology provides such a methodology and religions do not. There is no way to refute ones religious beliefs, so why even talk about them?

But hey, what do I know? I lack an "interconnectedness" with all things and haven't realized the nature of all phenomena...heck I'm not even sure what any of that means...I must be really behind.

There is something called "direct experience" and has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
And you don't "lack an interconnectedness" with anything or anyone.
You're just not aware of the connection(s).
I said in a previous post that we're all on a scale of relative awareness.
There are countless beings who are vastly more aware and evolved than i.