Thanks. In the last few days, I've been enjoying a bit of Scotch a friend brought from a trip to Paris. It should have been Cognac, but I'm not going to quarrel with that. So, without implying I'm a lush, my errors grow proportionately to the number of drinks. I do find them, the errors. I wish I could go back and correct them. I learned to speak French many years ago and I realized I had it when I started dreaming in French. I still cross words between all three languages, Spanish, English and French, even though I've forgotten a lot of French. My handle Étude is not simply a reflection of a French word but because, as jgnat points out, it's a musical form and I play some on the piano.
Posts by Etude
-
97I like you more if you are literratte
by usualusername inas a daily visitor of this site i am shocked by how judgemental i am.. .
if someone makes a valid point but does not spell well it colours my judgement.. .
if someone who is a clown has excellent grammar i give them leeway.. as an aside i am a gramaphobe.. .
-
-
-
54
Religion vs. Spirituality
by Oubliette inreligion is for people who are scared to go to hell.
spirituality is for people who have already been there.
- bonnie raitt .
-
-
Etude
Whatever it is, it seems to serve a purpose, in at least the fact that the reduced stress and longevity observed in some individuals may be the result of prolonged and regular spiritual experiences. In one case, they tested a nun. She was close to 90 years old and had achieved a way, via a lot of rote and practice, to enter a contemplative state. Another case used a Buddhist monk. Buddhists are not necessarily religious and achieve a similar (often deep) state of contemplation via meditation techniques. The findings are significant enough that it’s taking some re-education to cause Drs to consider it in their diagnosis. Here’s an abstract of such findings.
No. It is profound contemplation as opposed to mild or casual contemplation. You know, like your attention span, like when you temporarily space out.I posted about this topic 8 years ago and had a picture of that helmet. It’s really not that new. The link is broken now but it was the same crude helmet. The studies I mentioned had nothing to do with that helmet, so I take it the reference about the flaws in methodology involving the helmet are not an issue since the experiments I’ve seen were done in medical facilities by researchers either from academia or independently sponsored.
-
194
Bethel Rules
by brotherdan inthis was brought up just in passing on another thread.
but i wanted to see if there are any bethelites or ex bethelites that remember some of the crazy rules we had to follow when we were there..
-
-
Etude
Yeah, this thread really deserves a bump. I read it all and I'm reminded of how much I've forgotten. I'm still so cloudy about my 2 1/2 years (mid 70s) that I'm going to need a hypnotist to retrieve my suppressed painful memories. I do remember the following:
- No bulletin boards (at least when I was there)
- No bear bottles to decorate anything
- No pressed blue jeans (at least at the farm, but you could in Brooklyn)
- No extra furniture in your room (unless it was authorized, which was seldom)
-
97
I like you more if you are literratte
by usualusername inas a daily visitor of this site i am shocked by how judgemental i am.. .
if someone makes a valid point but does not spell well it colours my judgement.. .
if someone who is a clown has excellent grammar i give them leeway.. as an aside i am a gramaphobe.. .
-
-
Etude
I'm suddenly remembering of a joke regarding a grammatical Nazi: A man walks up to another on the street and asks, “Can you tell where the library is at?” The other person says: “You should never end a sentence with a preposition.” “OK”, says the first man. “Can you tell me where the library is at, asshole?”
-
97
I like you more if you are literratte
by usualusername inas a daily visitor of this site i am shocked by how judgemental i am.. .
if someone makes a valid point but does not spell well it colours my judgement.. .
if someone who is a clown has excellent grammar i give them leeway.. as an aside i am a gramaphobe.. .
-
-
Etude
I have a multiple problem. It is misspelling as well as having omissions and sometimes extra words in my writing. I have a pretty good vocabulary and have learned the nuances of using a particular word that conveys a better meaning than some other synonym. But the real problem I have is the language pattern left over from my first language, Spanish. So often, I'll start a sentence, backspace to restructure it and leave an article or conjunction behind. That looks really strange when you see it. I have to re-read the sentence several times to figure out how it should be.
English is an infuriating language to learn compared to Romance languages. It seems it has more exceptions than rules. However, its dominance in the world can't be denied. When writing here (since the browser spell checker doesn't work when composing), I have to write in Word and then copy and paste. That will correct most misspellings but won't fix a correct word that was left over or omitted because my brain happened to be in another mode or because I'm having a scotch (or two) while on the forum. So, I don't come down on people for having bad spelling, unless they misspell something while trying to be insulting. I figure that if they want the insult to be effective, they should at least spell it correctly.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
I really don’t need to speak to anybody. The fact that Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett have promoted it doesn’t change anything. You can put feathers on a dog but that doesn’t make it a chicken. I don’t even understand why I would have to defer to them. Here’s why: “…it [meme] was coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) That’s all I need. I also read a reference from Dawkins in “The God Delusion” about how he came up with the name. So quit making it like it’s not his bastard child. Your persistence in not addressing the issue is why I use the word “worship”. It seems that to you he can do no wrong and you’re wrong about that.
No. Fallibility is not unique in anyone or anything. But from the noise I’m getting here just for pointing a few issues out, it seems that nobody wants to consider let alone admit that perhaps Dawkins doesn’t have the answers in at least the area I mentioned. If, like you said “some [of his] evolutionary matters are likely going to be proven wrong”, why are we even arguing? That’s all I’ve been trying to say all along! I have indication of that because of the controversy other scientists have raised. If Dawkins ever corrects the situation and comes up with a better explanation or some demonstration, he will effectively silence critics like Wilson who by-the-way is an Evolutionary Biologist.
Maybe “worship” is a bit much. But just a bit. I used it in the sense of unshakable reverence for someone in spite of some kinks in the armor. That’s what I’m sensing from some here. So, I didn’t say it out of immaturity but out of understanding. So, that’s not going to shame me at all no matter how strongly you point that ignominious finger at me. I’m not challenging the foundations of science, Evolution or Natural Selection. I, because of other experts, have come to understand that some of what Dawkins concludes is not sustainable. So, unless you can find some specifics where I’ve done otherwise, I’m not sure what it is you’re arguing about.
Don’t be silly. C’mon man, you know what I mean. Do you really need to remind anyone on levitation and whether that is possible or not? Nobody needs that just like nobody needs to be reminded that “kissing up” to or “worshiping” someone does not necessarily involve any part of the anatomy or any sort of religious hocus pocus.
-
54
Religion vs. Spirituality
by Oubliette inreligion is for people who are scared to go to hell.
spirituality is for people who have already been there.
- bonnie raitt .
-
-
Etude
I have settled on the word “spirituality” as a real event. Before, I didn’t care what you called it, it being that sensation of connectedness with the universe and the awe experienced when watching a marvelous event or thinking deeply about something.
What convinced me was the work of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, a behavioral neurologist who made several important discoveries while at U.C. San Diego. But that was just the start. Since that encounter, I have seen several experiments conducted which demonstrate specific areas of the brain are stimulated when someone is in a state of meditation or deep prayer or in a state of profound contemplation. They do this in several ways: one way is by placing electrodes and “mapping” the chatter of specific areas of the brain, for which there is also a control map. Another way is to do this while at the same time under an MRI detector. The results are pretty consistent.
The experience has a soothing and calming result that seems to bring inner peace. At first, they had discovered a predominant area in the right temporal side of the brain (just above and behind the ear), which was quickly labeled as the “G” spot. Now, they are noting that there are other concurrent areas of the brain which also help coordinate that experience. The experience can be reproducible via electrode stimulation of the brain. So, it’s not an aberration or pseudo science. It’s a real effect. What does it mean? Who knows? But something in our makeup is directly responsible for what we call “spirituality”. The difference is that Big Bad Voodoo Daddy in the sky does not have to be involved.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
"dawkins could be a genocidal, infanticidal, racist, sexist, homophobic, murderer .... But unlike the god of the bible, his message is backed by evidence"
Essentially I agree with your statement. I don't completely because it implies (whether purposely or not on your part) that everything Dawkins states is backed by science and therefore correct. Even if his entire discussion is founded on science, not all of his conclusions necessarily follow without fault. I guess that's the subtle point I feel has been missed throughout this entire conversation. I think the guy is brilliant. But I also think he's fallible and can sometimes be smug in his criticism of those who have the right to criticize him. I'm not suggesting that would be you or me, but instead credentialed individuals who know what they're talking about.
I keep looking back at my previous posts to find if I have made a denial of Evolution or Natural Selection or if I've even suggested that what Dawkins writes is crap. I think he is a bright and provocative individual with a lot of good things to say. But I fail to understand those who worship him and don't want to take note of the flaws that other scientists point out about his work. It seems that not only are the other scientists somehow diminished but also anyone else who points to those authoritative individuals.
I have read three of his books. I've seen many interviews with him and have heard a lecture or two from him. I'm not an authority on him as you seem to be. However, I don't need to be in order to explore both sides of an issue the way experts debate them. That I have done. And that is my main incentive for concluding that Dawkins is not correct in some of his postulates. I've admired him for exposing religious hypocrisy and vitriol, not only in a historical context but by current examples. Yet, I differ from others in that I don't believe the guy walks on water. Perhaps that is an exaggeration of how vehemently he is defended. But the lack of effort from many individuals to directly address some of Dawkins' problematic proposals is enough reason for me to think they lack a certain degree of criticality.
-
-
-
Etude
Well, I don't know much about the site. It rang true to me because I've read examples in the Watchtower publications with similar stories. The one I have in mind is the account of a woman who was DFed and tells of her experience being shuned. Eventually, after she couldn't stand it, she returned to the JWs. The example was printed to illustrate that shunning works.
-
-
-
