Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Is the world crumbling?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 112 in total
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #61
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
My own finding is that the world is not crumbling and humanity is not faced with extinction. Please someone explain to me why I am wrong in this. What am I missing?

The fact..Paul..that is all..your fear clouds your vision!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #62
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
And by the way, Mr Davidson, James HanSON, British industrialist, was the one who supported Margaret Thatcher NOT James HanSEN the American scientist

In 1988 NASA's Hansen used the US Congress as a platform for his views that nuclear should replace coal. Two months later UK PM Margaret Thatcher used that very speech to promote her policy to replace coal with nuclear. Her government then passed laws to allow the bypassing of democratic planning regulations to allow the proliferation of nuclear power plants across the UK, It is this policy which Hansen finds an outstanding step into the future and wants the world to copy.

As the following two articles demonstrate:


Thatcher Backs Nuclear Power in Fight Against Warming

November 09, 1989|From Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said Wednesday that nations can fight the threat of global warming by increasing the use of nuclear power and allowing free market forces to deal with the problem.

Thatcher said the "greenhouse effect" caused by carbon dioxide emissions poses clear dangers to the world.

"We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere," she told General Assembly delegates during a seminar on global warming.


James Hansen: Well, nuclear power -- the kind of nuclear power we have now is called second-generation nuclear power. It's comparable in cost to coal. Once you have the nuclear power plant, then the fuel is very inexpensive, so nuclear power is quite inexpensive. But it's difficult in the United States to get a nuclear power plant built, and it takes so many years that it drives the cost up. So now in England they've realized that they will need to have nuclear power in the future, so they've put a limit -- once a government commission decides on where the power plants will be built, the public will have one year to object to this and possibly get some changes. But they can't drag it out six or seven years, the way it happens in the United States, because that drives up the price tremendously.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #63
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Oh, you mean this James Hansen, from the world renowned US environmental group NASA who is also a multi-millionaire nuclear advocate:

Why do you insist on making an ass of yourself? NASA is not an environmental group. It's the US Space Agency. Even if what you say about Hansen was true, and I don't think it is, what does that have to do with his scientific findings which have not been proven wrong? In fact everyday he is proven right. Try to stay focused Mr. Davidson. You mind seems to wander with the least provocation.

The world, unfortunately, is crumbling whether you approve or not. So get over it and move on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #64
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
The fact..Paul..that is all..your fear clouds your vision!

What fear is that, Rick?

The climate of fear about Global Warming has arisen from falsities and promoted by mass media and interested parties, including NASA and Nuclear. But please do not rely on my words alone as you have built such a powerful and negative image about me.

So I would offer the following movie to all those interested in finding out just how easily the conditioned mind can be 'gulled' by mass propaganda. It will blow you away! It's called:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #65
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Why do you insist on making an ass of yourself? NASA is not an environmental group. It's the US Space Agency. Even if what you say about Hansen was true, and I don't think it is, what does that have to do with his scientific findings which have not been proven wrong? In fact everyday he is proven right. Try to stay focused Mr. Davidson. You mind seems to wander with the least provocation.

Actually Jack, all his substantive findings have been proven wrong. He uses false data, wrong theories, incorrect hypothesis, biased models and emotive bullying from a position of great authority in NASA to promote his anti-human agendas. But watch the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

You say NASA is not an environmental group and that it's the US Space Agency. But, under Hansen it gets $$$$$$billions to promote policies to convince the public of Global Warming and to get politicians to back Nuclear Power. What do you think they spend those mega-bucks on, the space shuttle? It is a political arm of the US corporate state machine. What do you think NASA is, unbiased?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 04 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #66
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
In fact everyday he is proven right.

Jack, you have posted a number of articles about environmental issues. None of them point to global warming. Your last one, was clearly about the El Ninyo effect, not global warming. It was stated clearly so in the article.

But probably you figured it was a clear example of the oceans rising up to engulf Polynesia. Do you know that there has been NO evidence of oceanic rise measured AT ALL? Do you know that these are all theoretical projections of a future state? Do you know that ocean mass expands at an incredibly SLOW rate due to heating up. Changes are usually registered after hundreds of years, not as you put it, "everyday."

Do you know that the Antarctic holds over 90% of the world's water supply (excluding the oceans) and that the ice has increased there over the last three decades, not decreased?

Do you know that the melting of ice at the Arctic (in so far as there may have been any, which is disputed) does not increase the ocean level AT ALL, due to ice being expanded water and decreasing in volume as it els in direct proportion to its projection above the water? As an iceberg melts there is no overall increase in water level. There is a thing called BUOYANCY which you may have heard about. The Arctic ice is all on water. There is no land ice at the pole. It is frozen sea.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #67
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Paul..have you seen what it did..1 bomb in Japan..now take that 1 bomb and add 30.000 more..and you may begin to see the point being raised? Now that was 66 years ago..or so. Now days we not only have more than 2 countries in possession of them..but some countries ...like the U.S. can send 15 war heads in different directions all at once..and I might add..much more powerful bombs at that! Apparently the President of the United States and the leader of the soviet union saw something real in it!

Utter ignorance of the subject matter and abject scare-mongering has led you to ill-advised humours my friend.

Hiroshima. Population of 200,000 and one 17 megaton bomb. Divide the total megatons in the world nuclear arsenal by 17, multiply the answer by 200,000, divide the answer into the total world population in 1963 and your answer is 15. Great mathematical exercise but the idea that the world's population could have been killed 17 times over at that time, or even once, is ridiculous. It would entail dividing humanity up into several hundred concentrations of 200,000 each and targeting them with one bomb each.

Rational, scientific estimates of the effect of an all-out nuclear war between the USSR, the US and Europe in 1963 have estimated that 10% of humans would have died.

One reason for this is the uneven dispersal of populations. Another is the concentrated targeting of certain sites (Washington DC was targeted by dozens of bombs alone). A third is that the holocaust would have been largely confined to the northern hemisphere. A fourth factor is the thermodynamics of multiple nuclear explosions in the same locations. Ten bombs does not give ten times the explosive force, in fact, hardly double. Plus, many bombs would fail to explode either due to accidental cause or more likely due to one explosion impeding another. There have been no trials of multiple explosions but it is considered highly probable that one bomb would not detonate in the midst of another simultaneous explosion.

Lastly, it may have escaped your notice (since you raised the point) that the world's nuclear arsenals have been dramatically decreased, not increased as you assert, over the last two decades. And the bombs have gotten smaller, not larger. And they have become more precisely targetable, not more indiscriminate. The largest bomb ever made (the tzar bomb) was too big to be carried. Anyhow, they got a LOT smaller than the fantastic projections of 'doomsday bombs' the military propagandists would have you believe they were building.

By the way, I don't believe in the 'nuclear winter' theory either (although it could have been a cool option to reverse the global warming.) It was a KGB hoax that gulled Carl Sagan like crazy!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #68
Thumb_295902_10150361346929121_667049120_8087939_521721644_n Angel Miolan Dominican Republic 179 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Paul: It’s important for me to say that I’m not trying to gain a dialogue with you. My interest is focused in explore the relation between centered thought and blocked states of mind in terms of proper observation. I found that from the center one can inspect, watch and analyze things but is not the state of observation in silent and plenitude that K., always talk. I also agree with you when you stay with the incapability of change the center, the “I” by the exercise of will. The center who wants to change is a fragment of the same conditioned mind. But I believe when you star watching this incapability without name it or try to change it, something can happen out of thought and desire. Angel

lobo de la estepa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #69
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Even if what you say about Hansen was true, and I don't think it is

And you 'hope' it isn't!

Why think at all, Jack? Do some research, as I said, and find out who and what you are dealing with. I did not know any of this until I began to research it. I did not come at it with a point of view. But I found out and it has opened my eyes to a hell of a lot I didn't know before and I can thank you for that.

Try to figure out why such a key militaristic institution such as NASA would keep on a guy like Hansen, who gets himself arrested at picket lines and calls on the coal chiefs to be arrested for genocide etc etc, why NASA would keep him head of the Goddard Space Institute with 600 scientists under him. He must be of some use to them, no?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #70
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Angel Miolan wrote:
But I believe when you star watching this incapability without name it or try to change it, something can happen out of thought and desire. Angel

Thank you Angel. And I agree with you entirely there, my friend. I 'agree' in a concrete way. I have seen it happen in myself.

I feel to a large extent now that I do not react from a centre about such things as we have been discussing on this thread. I do not react emotionally. I used to. I was an activist. I was even member of the Campaign Against Climate Change here in the UK. I had over thirty years of political activism. I am not 'against' activism. I have not become an 'anti-activist.' It is up to them. At least they are trying. But I see activism as part of the crumbling of society, not an agent preventative of that decay, which will continue, inevitably. So I stay out of it.

I 'care' about the suffering of humanity, but only in so far as I can actually 'care' and not some vague and sentimental posture of pity and complicity. Caring for me, is as K put it, about what you can actually do, which is limited, immediate and mostly local. I prefer to use the word 'sensitivity' to the word 'care' as care, for me, cannot outstrip one's capacity to act. Care is an action, not a sentiment.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 #71
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Angel Miolan wrote:
My interest is focused in explore the relation between centered thought and blocked states of mind in terms of proper observation.

And we are seeing here, 'centred thought,' driven by fear about an immanent collapse. My point has not been fundamentally driven by the science, but to understand how easily we are driven by our emotions by the collective thought of the prominent paradigms.

If I can participate in any useful way here, it is by questioning the assumptions that collectively drive us, such as global warming. And if anyone has taken this thread seriously, followed the statements, done their own research, they, like I, may have seen how affected one is and how conditioning is deeper than we imagined. They would have had quite an experience of self-observation. The reactions are incredible.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 04 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #72
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
James Hansen: Well, nuclear power -- the kind of nuclear power we have now is called second-generation nuclear power. It's comparable in cost to coal. Once you have the nuclear power plant, then the fuel is very inexpensive, so nuclear power is quite inexpensive. But it's difficult in the United States to get a nuclear power plant built, and it takes so many years that it drives the cost up.

I think that anyone who has gone into the nuclear issue will spot the obvious mistake in Mr Hansen's 'reasoning' here. But I will give you a clue. Does the word 'decommissioning' give a clue? Then, besides the huge decommissioning costs, there is security, waste disposal (really one shouldn't use the word 'disposal' as it is actually 'dispersal' they practice), disaster management (I guess Hansen didn't factor in Three Mile Island, Chernovil and Fukishima). But he is right, the plutonium rods are cheap (and even cheaper by the dozen!) Also Hansen does not factor in the environmental costs of the uranium extraction. Neither does he factor in the developmental costs borne by the tax-payer for the uranium enrichment, which is done through government funded particle accelerators.

Its like saying that space travel is cheap, once you have built the rockets.

And when you look at such biased statements, which have been proven totally wrong here in the UK, you see that the guy is a practitioner in false accounting. This goes all down the line on global warming.

Even the rate of global temperature increase is calculated wrongly. For example, one of the things I discovered this week is that in the last thirty years 75% of the weather stations which used to be used in calculating world climate are now excluded from the count. Mostly it is those weather stations placed in the colder and higher locations whose readings have been excluded. This has created a bias towards readings from coastal regions and plains where the temperatures are higher.

But to measure warming effects the key measurements should be of the troposphere, not surface temperature. This is done with weather balloons, not NASA satellites. The methodology is wrong. The theory is wrong. The practice is wrong. The numbers are wrong. And when they still read 'inconclusive' they are tweaked.

Please find out.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #73
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Ms Davidson, even if James Hansen were the only researcher of Global Climate Change, and he's certainly not, your conclusions about him are irrelevent. What you have said about James Hansen doesn't disprove his findings about climate change in the least. But he's not the only researcher as even you must realize. To an over-whelming majority of climatologists climate change is no longer a theory it is a provable fact. If you choose not to accept fact in favor of your own personal predjudices that's your problem. I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on a fool.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #74
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Mr Davidson, here's a more pertinent question for you. Why do you spend so much time on this forum? You obviously are addicted to being here. You post several times more than any other poster here and yet you offer very little in the way of relevent material.

You seem desperate for the validation of others on this site in the form of their agreement with your confused and never ending "ideas". Have you considered talking to a professional about this complusion of yours?

By dominating this site you not only don't add to any understanding of what K pointed out but you seem determined that no one else will have a voice here without having you yapping at their heels like a deranged puppy.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #75
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
even if James Hansen were the only researcher of Global Climate Change, and he's certainly not, your conclusions about him are irrelevent.

I gave you some evidence. It's up to you to disregard as you choose, and be gulled by the nuclear lobby. The facts are obviously more important than my conclusions. But please check the facts.

Jack Pine wrote:
What you have said about James Hansen doesn't disprove his findings about climate change in the least

What I said about him does nothing to disprove his ideas but it does question his impartiality and his authority.

Jack Pine wrote:
To an over-whelming majority of climatologists climate change is no longer a theory it is a provable fact.

The opinion that 'an overwhelming majority of climatologists' consider AGW a fact is not itself a proven fact. Please tell us where you have heard this and if you have checked it put Jack.

By the way, the question at stake here is not whether there is global warming, but its causation and its possible effects. The question is whether it is GW or AGW, ie. man-made. and whether it will lead to the catastrophic predictions made about it in some quarters.

Jack Pine wrote:
If you choose not to accept fact in favor of your own personal predjudices that's your problem.

What I am choosing not to accept is assertion Jack. I accept any facts. Do you have some? All you have done so far is make assertions. I have tried to open the discussion up with some factual understandings. You have shouted, ranted and personalised.

Jack Pine wrote:
I have neither the time nor inclination to waste on a fool.

Jack, please do not think of me as the only one here who reads your posts. You have a wider audience to communicate with. Just see how many viewings the thread has got so far. You are not talking to me. Did you think you were? But when you launch into personal insults you lose much of that audience.

Jack Pine wrote:
no one else will have a voice here without having you yapping at their heels like a deranged puppy.

I believe I started this post and you have been the yapper Jack. But never mind. By all means go elsewhere, start your own threads or participate however you wish. There are no limits here and there is no domination. I think there are about 500 threads open on this site and I am participating on a small handful. You are free to read or not read, as you chose. But please do not pose as the 'silent majority' Jack. You are far from being the silent type and you know it.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #76
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
All you have done so far is make assertions.

For example, you posted the piece about Arctic ice. I asked you very civilly why you had posted it, what you thought the causes and effects were. You answered me by telling me, more or less, to go to hell.

So, I did my own research and presented my findings on this thread.

The same pattern emerges with the other mass-media articles you have published. They seem to be pointing to something but you take no time or trouble to make the associations plain and you won't answer questions.

For example, the low-lying Pacific islands are being affected by the long-term weather affect called El Ninyo (sorry I do not have the 'tilde' accent on this keyboard). That was clear in the article. But you have to make the point that el Ninyo is caused by man-made global warming and you cannot because it is not.

Jack, I am becoming convinced that if you read an article saying there was snow in Alaska you would post that too as 'proof.'

And I still say, WATCH THAT FILM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #77
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
I think there are about 500 threads open on this site and I am participating on a small handful.

Paul there are currently 21 threads in the general discussion page..of which you are the author of 14..You see fond of math? What is that percentage of the total? Over 50% yes. Now that does not take into account any other of the remaining 50% which you also may be posting in! LOL

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #78
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
It was a KGB hoax that gulled Carl Sagan like crazy!

Well I guess it's nice to know that you have a better grasp on the actualities in science as well as philosophy Paul..is there anything left under the sun on which you do not have the definitive answer?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #79
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Paul there are currently 21 threads in the general discussion page..of which you are the author of 14..You see fond of math? What is that percentage of the total? Over 50% yes. Now that does not take into account any other of the remaining 50% which you also may be posting in! LOL

What, did you learn your statistics from James Hansen, Ricky?

There is not a General Discussion page, there are many pages. If you take the last five, of 144 threads I have started 34. That's around one quarter. But some of them were single point comments. If you find the mean for comments per thread and work out the ration on threads started per forum member you will get a number around 15% for the actual volume that threads started by myself have taken up in this forum.

If you then factor in that I have not started any threads whatsoever on any of the other three forums, you will find that over the year I have started 34 out of the 243 threads still open - but that does not count that other threads on two other forums have closed during that time. I estimate the total number of threads started this year to be around the 300 mark, which means my batting average is about 12% overall.

Now, we can look at Jumping Jack's assertion that, "You post several times more than any other poster here."

Well, I do post more, but 'several times more?" I ask you!! Here are the true figures for the top ten posters - from Sept 14 up to today:

Paul D - 223

Ganesan - 148

Dan - 130

Sudhir - 100

Rick - 90

Dhirendra - 71

Mina - 65

Max - 41

George - 23

John R - 20

Total - 911

Should George complain that Sudhir has posted four times as much as he? Should John Raica whine about how Rick has upped him by a whopping 450%? This is NOT a competition Rick. And if it was, you too are in the Major League of the top five.

But if you add other posters not mentioned the total is several hundred more. I reckon I have posted about 20% of all posts over the last three weeks.Not surprising as people have involved me in several heated disputes. I have tried to avoid the personalisations and get to the real issues but when you are surrounded by hyenas you have to learn to spit in many directions.

If you look at my usual participation over the last twelve months it is considerably less than has been the case of late. Only myself to blame of course, if you stand up in the coconut shie you must expect to get aimed at.

Hey Ricky, let's you and Jack do an insult index and see if Jack gets to win the rubber dolly.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #80
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Well I guess it's nice to know that you have a better grasp on the actualities in science as well as philosophy Paul..is there anything left under the sun on which you do not have the definitive answer?

Yet more personalisation. Rick, go research the matter, as I did. I am no expert but I do have access to the internet.

But just look at the evolution of wild claims over the last decades. In the seventies science predicted we were entering a new ice-age. Do you remember the headlines back then?

It was because temperatures had been dropping precipitously all through the post-war industrial boom period from 1945 to 1975. You would have thought we would have been heating up back then, wouldn't you?

You ask about things under the sun, Rick. Well, one thing under the sun is planet Earth. Do you think that big yellow ball up there might just possibly be having an impact on our weather? Could be, you know.

And Rick, I have very few 'definitive answers' to anything. It is Jack who has been screaming 'end of the world.' I have been questioning it and bringing evidence to bear. I simply do not know, but I do not trust the nuclear lobby who are pushing it. For Jack it is a done thing, proven. Not for me.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #81
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
There is not a General Discussion page, there are many pages. If you take the last five, of 144 threads I have started 34. That's around one quarter. B

Nice try Paul...but as was stated under the general discussion heading/page/whatever..currently displayed at the top..you have in point of fact 14 of 21 entries..which is more than half..50%. And as for insults they exist only in your mind..as far as from Rick goes!Why is it when ever you are challenged on any point..you insist on playing victim to insult?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #82
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yet more personalisation. Rick,

They are your words..thoughts that is all..you are that!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #83
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
And as for insults they exist only in your mind..as far as from Rick goes!Why is it when ever you are challenged on any point..you insist on playing victim to insult?

That's an old and feeble tale, Rick. If someone throws words at me like 'fool' and 'totally dishonest,' it is an effort to insult, whether or not it causes an 'insulted' reaction. I am pointing out the fact that Jack Pine prefers to hurl insults than to answer questions.

You allege that I am playing victim. Rick, I am not victim. You may have high hopes to victimise people and then repeat your neat little schoolyard rhyme, "sticks and stones" etc. But I say you hang around schoolyards too much.

If you see two politicians on the TV hurling insults at each other don't you feel it is a very ugly sight? And this is irrespective of how the insult is taken. It's just plain ugliness. I am not a victim, fortunately, and I do not answer back in kind. I am pointing to the failure of Jack to answer my questions and the fact that you are following him into personalised attacks rather than talking to the subject here, which is what are our responses to the fact of an ever-crumbling society. Is it fear? Is it fury at anyone who challenges our fears? Is it throwing insults at anyone who disagrees?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #84
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
They are your words..thoughts that is all..you are that!

I agree entirely, Rick. Those are my thoughts.

But more to the point, what are your thoughts on the subject of this discussion? Did you watch the film yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #85
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

The thing that started this ludicrous thread is that I mentioned in passing on another thread that because the world is crumbling it is even more important that each one of us look to ourselves to understand, not end but to understand, our own greed, envy, anger, fear, aggression and so on because we are the world. And until we can understand these conflicts in ourselves this strife will not end in either ourselves or the world. I further pointed out, and I am paraphrasing all of this, that the self is an invention of thought which is the past and is and of itself a block to what is, the now, the eternal present.

I could understand that if I posted the above statements on just any site on the internet, with no connection to K or what he pointed out, that I would probably by soundly criticised. But I was surprised and shocked to be set upon and criticised by someone on this thread for writing the above.

What I have written above is part of what K talked about over and over again for more than sixty years. If this forum isn't about what K pointed our what the hell is it about? Continual, endless juvenile nit picking? I certainly hope not. I am done with this ridiculous thread and am ready to move on with discussions about what K pointed out. Let's stay on subject and if anyone feels that they can't at least have enough consideration for the rest of us to go post somewhere else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 #86
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
I could understand that if I posted the above statements on just any site on the internet, with no connection to K or what he pointed out, that I would probably by soundly criticised. But I was surprised and shocked to be set upon and criticised by someone on this thread for writing the above.

Dear Jack (and I mean that),

I am sorry you feel set upon. I apologise. That pains me more than anything else. But please go back to Post One on this thread and see that I did not intend to attack you. I said there is something in the points you posed but I asked, what? I thought your point was posed incorrectly and may mislead. I said it was not the world that was crumbling but society. I invited a discussion on this and on our responsibilities to the ever-crumbling society we keep building.

Jack, I acknowledge that you have a passion and, particularly as in your last post, you can be a constructive force in discussion (I am not patronising but, please excuse, my words are clumsy). I do not take you to be an adversary but you yourself have so criticised and set upon me me personally that sometimes I have doubted if there can be any contact at all between us.

Look, we have done lots of work here and there is lots to salvage. It is by no means a disaster, this thread.

We agree on a number of things, Jack. Human beings are doing incredible damage to themselves and to other species. They do it in their ignorance and from the fear that ignorance engenders. The planet itself is big enough to take it. We do not have to defend the planet. We are specks on its surface. But look what we have done to that surface! Look how many species have vanished. Look how we have proliferated beyond the boundaries that can support us, HARMONIOUSLY.

I do not believe we face extinction. I do not believe the planet is crumbling. And those two factors do not figure in my motivation to change and transform, and those two factors do not inform my valuation of the teaching imparted by K. Surely we can respect that of each other Jack?

But I was saying something different here, about how no external motive can help us to understand our inner lives. No global threat can help focus our attention. It has to come from within. It has to be there.

And fear of an ending cannot be a valued factor in revolutionary change. It has to be on its own merit. Fear is a barren rock.

On the factual stuff on global warming. I came into this discussion as a believer. Now, due to this discussion, I am not. I have not exhausted the issue, in my own mind, but I have come to see something valuable, that I had no real grounds to believe in global warming. Thought had trapped me in another ideological package. Now I have thrown that off.

The film I have cited has very interesting material. I find that one of the participants, Piers Corbyn, a meteorologist here in the UK, was someone I worked closely with in the 1970's in the revolutionary movement in London. He is the brother of a left-wing Labour Party member of parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.

Piers left the movement to start his post-doctoral research into the effects of sun-spots on this planet's climate. His work, even at the time, was astounding. But he was one of the most environmentally astute and honest people I knew at the time. When I looked at the evidence this film presented, a number of things fell into place, inconsistencies in the GW argument I had believed in for so long, inconsistencies which I had hidden from myself.

I will tell you that I am still totally anti-nuclear. I simply do not believe it is wise or safe.

Now I see that there is no evidence on GW on which I can rely, so I drop that as a belief, but keep an open mind.

But as for society, let it crumble. We have to build anew, elsewhere. K was especially strong on this. There is no reform possible.

Let us drop the antagonistic postures, Jack, for the sake of this site if nothing else. But I hope it has its own resonance. Please.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 05 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2011 #87
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
My own finding is that the world is not crumbling and humanity is not faced with extinction.

Through your knowledge and skills, rushing forward you drive out of the sky and earth the evil deed of the enemy.( those having not the right perception)

Let those who seek find what they seek; let them receive the treasure given by the generous(Paul D - 223) and stop the greedy from what they want.

Let him find what what was lost before; let him push forward the man of truth. Let him stretch out the life span that has not yet crossed its
span.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 06 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2011 #88
Thumb_avatar me speak Sri Lanka 392 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I have tried to avoid the personalisations and get to the real issues but when you are surrounded by hyenas you have to learn to spit in many directions.

wah! as brother ravi would say.
when i pointed out in one of my initial posts that insult, praise, criticism, sarcasm etc all strengthen 'me' and this quality is so clearly visible in all of us, you warned everyone to stay away from replying to my posts. how difficult it is to learn to look at real 'you'!
why is it necessary to wear a mask here when the fact is that we are all alike, brother paul?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2011 #89
Thumb_avatar me speak Sri Lanka 392 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Let us drop the antagonistic postures, Jack, for the sake of this site if nothing else. But I hope it has its own resonance. Please.

and kill the 'individuality'? can't say this can happen 'over my dead body' as antagonism makes 'me' stronger, but hoping to see this change in the other first is never a possibility, brother paul!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2011 #90
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

me speak wrote:
you warned everyone to stay away from replying to my posts.

No. I said welcome yogi on seeing your posts. Muad then warned us not to feed you. paul he didn't say excepting his anguish.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 06 Oct 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 112 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)