Quite a lot hath transpired in a mere 24 hours. Truly wish for a group hug. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to why we as a whole seem to mesh so swell. not perfectly, not seamlessly, but so well? It reminds me of our love question... what is the attraction. Ours is obviously not physical (or have I just missed to much by telneting??) attraction. And the apparent 'safety of anonimity' is a ruse because if we have revealed anything to one another, we have revealed our true thoughts, questions and in some cases... fears. WFAAILYA(u?) -- warm fuzzies all around I love you all (unconditionally?) *smile*

roflmpaiuu (rolling on floor laughing my philosophical ass into ultimate understanding)

hey, does that doggerel bite harder than I bark?

Good question, wer...time will tell... Stacey, I think you're right, we all deserve each other! LOLYOTVOFAATK (laughing out loud yet on the verge of falling asleep at the keyboard)

.....and then along came post 101..... I feel like one of those 9 kids in your class. The stuff you teach in your posts so often it's about how to get along with real glee --not how to get along in an instructional sense --but just how to do it by doing it yourself I'd totally undergo a seizure of disbelief if any of your students, when they reach their nineties and are lying there on their beds, as their lives are about to close and are asked by their great-great-grandkids if they can remember any teachers that they ever had that they liked and they say anything else but something like: well, Mildred, I mean Lucy, I'm sorry darlin', what's yer name again? oh, Oota? so it is....yes, well, Oota my memory can't get it goin' so good anymore but one teacher stands way way WAY out I had her in third grade, some 85 years ago aughhh, you're making me cry, now, Oota I'm really glad you asked me that it turns out to be a most beautiful question this teacher I could only wish upon you I wish you could have had her for a whole year like me she just did the impossible, that's all, day after day "whatdaya mean, great-great-grandaddy?" oh Oota, dearie, I had many dark and threatening clouds running me down....it was a life you won't have to have, yourself, hon' I needed an anchor, a patch of hope or I probably would've been eaten on the spot by my own dreaded, mixed-up despair and anger and personal demons I felt left out in the cold by what had been happening to me, you see and she was there in the middle of all that she was there in the room with me and the others she was there for me I found out that I was actually an okay person Oota, do you know what that can mean if it hadn't occurred to you? it's so bewilderingly uplifting it just makes you dumbfoundedly grateful you get to have your heart back and your heart drives over to your soul and asks it if it wants a lift anywhere my soul jumped right in and said, "hey, let's go all the way to the end of our lives" heart said, "no problemo, I know the way now" I gotta tell ya something else, too, Oota there were a few of us who really knew how to get teach goin' we would do somethin, whatever it was, and she'd crack up then she had this lightning quick ability to crack us all up right back and I mean time after time after time it could go on and on this was the purest fun that ever came my way and Oota, something else....Oota.... "yes, grandda.....granddad?....granddaddy?...." just a few moments later: "Mom, granddad's eyes closed he stopped breathing...... Mom....he had this.....a smile....he had this gentle smile, Mom"

amen

the meaning I find and hope to continue finding in my job is to have an impact even a fraction of what you just described. thank you.

WER, finally I get a chance to respond to the things you said earlier. I am sorry. I was wrong about you. I honestly thought you were this man who always wore a white hat, smoked alot of cigars every day, which he smelled of, and spent his nights in front of the computer with only virtual reality to keep him company, and not being able to find someone willing to counsel him. No, please don't laugh or get angry. It's just the way it was - I don't know why. But this week you were very different, so kind, and trying to help me, even though you don't like me much and all th t. You are really alot more sensitive than I thought, and not a control freak, and therefore my response was wrong too. I don't know what kind of women you've been dating, but you must find a different type altogether. Some people see the compromises that their partners are willing to make for them as a kind of submission, and see it as their right to control the other person. It's wrong and selfish. I think it is quite rare to find someone with whom, and who will want to be one's equal. That's the problem with love and relationships and all that. People take advantage of one another far too easily. It is a shame, b cause being another person's equal is so much more exciting and stimulating than standing above them. There is just so much more interaction, so much energy, and, oh, just so much more going on on the whole. Those who fancy control and the false sense of power and security it creates, will always be unhappy - because just taking or just giving is no fun - and deep down he/she will know that they will never truly be esteemed and loved for what they are.

(the control freak thing, at times, is a very correct summation)

And now you have control over my user name . . . the very thought is making me tremble. Does that mean I have to be nice to you from now on?

nope, go to http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/userinfo and change your password

Nah . . . I can handle you, I think. And besides, I like being so close to you . . . all those knives and forks rattling away as you speak - it gives a strangely musical ring to your voice . . .

that's because you're in Switzerland and aren't getting all the volume...

Oh. Must've been a cow bell I heard then. Sorry.

no need to be... so, where should this here conversation go now?

Let me think - this conversation, you mean, or should be stick to one conference, 'cos this is getting confusing!

this conversation in this topic... (and, actually, I need to run, see ya later)

Bye.

and the meaning in all this... or perhaps we could really stir up the mix and discuss 'hidden' meaning. Oh shit! Here come the worms!!!!!

Catch them and use them for bait next time you go fishing. The meaning? Bullshit is what makes the world go round?

Or at least the world seems to run on it. If it doesn't make the world go round then it's the primary lubricant on the gears. There is so much of it produced, It has to be good for something.

What gives meaning to your life, Tim?

My friends and my religion. How about you, riette?

Family, dreams, the idea that there's still more to see and do, and other spiritual feelings. I am not religious in the concrete sense - but I think alot about spiritual things too. Like where I come from where I'll be going after this, and what and who God is. Are you Catholic?

No I'm not Catholic at all. I'm religious in the concrete sense only. I helped Katie lay a slab of cement in the backyard where she's living. It's gonna be the foundation for her to do welding. She creates unusual-looking objects. I believe they call it art or something. But I haven't seen the slab since it was cement. Maybe it's concrete by now. It's been more than a week. I think I'll venture over there by way of a weeklong pilgrimage. I'll tiptoe the whole way, since it's only a couple miles. The slab is sacred. Intuitively I can already sense the visions I'll have when I arrive there will be holy and abundant.

I was born and raised Catholic. Attended catholic schools until college. Then I Started looking at the history of the Catholic Church and found that their teachings fly in the face of their history. I now attend the church of Christ. Each congregation is autonomous. There is no hierarchy. Our congregation is wealthy, by this I mean we take in many thousand more than we need in contributions. so we support missionaries. Currently we have two churches in Russia, one in Italy, two on Indian reservations in this country, and one in New Zealand. Our weekly contribution averages ten thousand dollars. and we only have 600 members.

That's pretty impressive! I knew you were Catholic though! Hence the many many many siblings!

Everybody says that. My godparents only had one child, and they were catholic. admittedly they were the exception to the rule. Right now, at afamily reunion, limited to first cousins and their children and parents, we have over 300 people

I was the youngest there

But wouldn't have been, had your answering maching been there too.

and they had said I could bring "somebody". I'm so self-centered. Didn't even think to ask it.

You'd have to buy it flowers. Is it male or female?

it's not even hermaphrodite.....it's an it. it turns off when I try to leave flowery messages.

I personally hate when that happens...

Buy whoever you are trying to reach, a new answering machine for Christmas.

He's trying to reach THIS answering machine! He's in love with it, you see. I don't think trading it for another is going to make it any happier though!

True, Riette, But if he trades for the one he wants. then he'll have it. It will be his alone to do with as he wishes.

PLUS it would have more buttons!

And many different kinds of squeaks!

And, he could make music with it.

The perfect partner! Why don't all people not do that? He is just so way ahead of us!

Riette, I definitely prefer the situation that I'm in right now.

You mean you're having a relationship with your hi-fi???

Well, Riette, If I have to depend on a Hi-Fi, I'm in trouble. Because I don't have one.

Master Blaster then - whatever that word is you use! It doesn't matter. But have you given her a name? Like 'Melody'? 'Cos she lingers on....

Perhaps, Riette, you meant boom box. And it is definitely not a woman, because...

You mean it has a THING sticking out somewhere to make it male? WHERE?

Riette, have you ever seen a collapsible antenna?

I see one every night, and every morning.

It receives, then collapses! Isn't that how they all work??

Well Riette, you understand the principle then!

Do you know what that means, Tim? You have a gay radio fetish!

Riette, I've heard of quantum leaps before, but that takes the cake. Explain, please.

I asked you if you had any particular fancy for telephone answering machines too? You said no. So asked about your Master Blaster, and whether you were in love with her too. You said, yes, except she's not a she. And I asked, 'huh'? So you said your Master Blaster is really a boom box, and has a collapsible antenna - which makes him male, right? Because all males have the collapsible antenna thing. So: if your Master Blaster is really a boom box, and male, then you're in love with a gay radio! See? It makes perfect sense!

Riette, that is what I get for not reading the responses through

No, it's too late for excuses, Tim - I know what you did last night!

So Riette, What little bird is talking to you?

off subject, tim, but do you mean the church of christ that one can find in practically any small town in texas? or is your church independent from that?

did i say something wrong?

Slightly, Nick, There is no central hierarchy in the church of christ. Every church is governed by it's elders. No two are the same.

thanks... but can you explain? did you think i was taking a shot at the church of christ? (i wasn't)... was only trying to figure out if you were referring to the church i was familiar with, or some same-named church (i have heard tell of them) with no connection at all... and it was interesting to me mainly because i was raised in the church of christ (which, again, should be regarded as no reflection upon the church)... interesting too because a recent period of church-lessness caused me to re-evaluate my old church, or the several of them, as well as my beliefs as a christian... and i was curious... anyway, if you did believe i was somehow denigrating the church or your choice of it or whatever, i do apologize... as i said, was not my intention at all...

Actually, It's my belief's that I was a little sensitive about. In these conferences, I have been put in the position of defending some really off the wall stuff, simply because whoever replied after me had a pet peave about how I expressed myself. I do not want to be put in that position again. so, when a male that I don't know asks a question about something that I'm not discussing at the time, I just ignore it. If a woman does the same thing I'll reply. The women in these conferences aren't into head games the way that some of the guys are.

i understand (i think)... i'll always have a place in my heart for the church of christ... from my experience growing up, i have nothing but positive feelings... the thing you always hear (from others when they find out that you belong) is the thing about no musical instrumentation (which was true in each of the churches i attended)... and the thing about the exclusivity of church-of-christers among the saved (which, as far as i can tell, has no root in reality at all, cause i never heard a single word about it during all those years)... did try, a year or so ago, to attend my old church (in cherokee, ever hear of it?)... but just outside the front door, just before i entered, i heard a bit of what the minister was talking about, and i sort of stopped in my tracks, and listened a bit... the entire sermon concerned homosexuals, and the tone of the minister (a man i did, and do not know) was stern, hostile even... the words made me blanch- won't relate any of it here, but it disturbed me enough to cause me to turn around and leave... my children were with me, too, and i certainly didn't want them to hear any more of what was being said... afterwards, reflecting upon it, i was a little puzzled by precisely what it was that had troubled me so... after all, i'm a liberal commie-type living in rural central texas... i'm quite accustomed to hearing points of view that i don't agree with, and have learned it best usually just to keep my peace, let it roll, whatever... but this really bothered me, and i guess the thing is, the guy was biblically basically sound in what he was saying... and that realization sort of shook my world, cause there was no way i could see to reconcile these two things that i knew to be true (or thought i did)... wasn't exactly what i would call a crisis of faith, but it was something of a reminder to me of my terribly inept powers of comprehension... have yet to resolve this within myself... (does this make any sense at all?)

Yes, it does, by taking words out of context, the bible can be used to justify anything. The bible does teach against homosexuality, but it does not rank it any worse than heterosexual promiscuity. The one is held to be equally as bad as the other. Also,(MAJOR POINT HERE) these teachings are in the old testament. The old covenant was done away with when Jesus died. A true Christian cannot hold a violation of old covenant laws against another. For that matter the Bible teaches the opposite. The Bible teaches tolerance. The new testament of the Bible says that we are all sinners, and all EQUAL in the eyes of god, no matter what the sin.

Tim, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the Old Testament regards homosexuality as a sin? And the new testament, do you feel it also regards homosexuality as a sin? Is there anything in the new testament that you disagree with? Are you okay with me asking you these things?

i've always viewed the sermon on the mount as a pivotal point in "changing" between the beliefs of the old and new testaments.

i agree regarding the distinction between old and new covenants (as well as the pivotal nature of the sermon on the mount in the understanding of it) don't think there's any doubt that according to the old testament, homosexuality is a sin (along with multitudes of other things)... in the new testament, 'sodomy' is listed as a sin (by paul) a couple of times, this definition presumeably inclusive of behaviors indulged in by heterosexuals as well... as well as 'effeminacy' (by paul again)... it may be instructive to note that paul also said something like, as christ was the head of man, man was the head of woman... that a woman could only rightly pray with her head covered, but that man needn't bother, because he (man) is the 'image and glory' of god... whereas, woman is merely the glory of man... neither of these beliefs is advanced in any way by the reported words of christ himself... so far as i know, christ never made mention of sodomy or homosexuality at all, and only mentioned the story of sodom in reference to other ideas... i think this is significant, because- logically- the most reliable words are those attributed to him... there has been much discussion re: the reasons for great similarities found in the synoptic gospels, originating as each did from geographically different areas, and containing enough deviations in each to make one being source for the others problematic... one explanation is the former existence of a 'Q' gospel, upon which all three were derived... another, more plausible to me, is that the words attributed to christ were by his express desire committed to memory by his followers... while the authorship of each document is open to question, i think it doubtful to the point of absurdity to conclude that eyewitnesses did not have at least some hand in their creation... therefore, when these books were, after the passing of some 30, 40, and 50 years, finally committed to written form they contained those particular synoptic qualities, christ's words... and this is important, especially from the point of view i allude to, because, no doubt, he would've been circumspect concerning which of his words posterity would remember... that he didn't speak of these issues at all rather disempowers those who later did (and do), or so at least is my hope... read that thomas jefferson actually cut christ's words from his bible, and assembled them together, pasted upon blank pages... this, he said, was his bible... .

That is pretty much the way I see it.

Jesus came up with two commandments to avoid sin. "LOVE GOD" "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF" And that's all folks.........

I like the second one, I'm not so sure about the first

Having just read this topic for the first time, my understanding has been confirmed by words written by others. I knew that and I hope I conveyed the fact that I did understand.

This is long, but really worth the reading... America's Thanksgiving holiday originated when the Pilgrims gave thanks to God for sending them an Indian friend named Squanto. This much you already knew. What you didn't know is that long before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, this same Squanto had been captured by two English sea captains, George Weymouth and John Hunt, and abused as a slave for fourteen years. Squanto had been free less than five years when Capt. John Bradford's Pilgrims arrived on the good ship Mayflower. Squanto had every reason to organize a killing party and wipe out the pale-skinned invaders, but he chose to help them instead. Gazing with pity at Bradford's pathetic band of would-be settlers as they huddled around Plymouth Rock, Squanto thought, "If I don't help these silly white men, they're all going to die in the coming winter." And with that, he walked out of the woods and introduced himself. Squanto died two years later of a disease contracted from these same Europeans. When I was a boy, all the movies were about heroic cowboys and evil Indians. And in virtually every one of them, courageous settlers had to circle the wagons to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks from ape-like Indians who said things like, "Ugh. Me want'um whiskey." Would you like to know how Indians actually spoke back then? Consider the musings of Ispwo Mukika Crowfoot, a Blackfoot Indian who was twenty years old in 1803, the year that Lewis and Clark launched their famous expedition. As he lay dying, Ispwo left us with these last words: "What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset." Was Ispwo Crowfoot a particularly eloquent Indian? Not at all. Fifty- nine years earlier, when George Washington was just a twelve-year-old boy, the Collected Chiefs of the Indian Nations met to discuss a letter from the College of William & Mary suggesting that they "send twelve of their young men to the college, that they might be taught to read and write." The Chiefs sent the following reply: Sirs, We know that you highly esteem the kind of learning taught in Colleges, and that the Maintenance of our young Men, while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinced, therefore, that you mean to do us Good by your Proposal; and we thank you heartily. But you, who are wise, must know that different Nations have different Conceptions of things; and you will therefore not take it amiss, if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same with yours. We have some experience of it. Several of our Young People were formerly brought up at the colleges of the Northern Provinces; they were instructed in all your sciences; but, when they came back to us they were bad Runners, ignorant of every means of living in the Woods,unable to bear either Cold or Hunger, knew neither how to build a cabin, take a Deer, or kill an Enemy, spoke our Language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for Hunters, Warriors, nor Counselors; they were totally good for nothing. We are, however, not the less obliged by your kind Offer, though we decline accepting it; and, to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take care of their Education; instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them.

Sect. 43 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations says that: "For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language." It is quite clear that here Wittgenstein is not offering the general theory that "meaning is use," as he is sometimes interpreted as doing. The main rival views that Wittgenstein warns against are that the meaning of a word is some object that it names--in which case the meaning of a word could be destroyed, stolen or locked away, which is nonsense--and that the meaning of a word is some psychological feeling--in which case each user of a word could mean something different by it, having a different feeling, and communication would be difficult if not impossible. Knowing the meaning of a word can involve knowing many things: to what objects the word refers (if any), whether it is slang or not, what part of speech it is, whether it carries overtones, and if so what kind they are, and so on. To know all this, or to know enough to get by, is to know the use. And generally knowing the use means knowing the meaning. Philosophical questions about consciousness, for example, then, should be responded to by looking at the various uses we make of the word "consciousness." Scientific investigations into the brain are not directly relevant to this inquiry (although they might be indirectly relevant if scientific discoveries led us to change our use of such words). The meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language, not something hidden inside anyone's mind or brain. This is not an attack on neuroscience. It is merely distinguishing philosophy (which is properly concerned with linguistic or conceptual analysis) from science (which is concerned with discovering acts). One exception to the meaning-is-use rule of thumb is given in Philosophical Investigations Sect.561, where Wittgenstein says that "the word "is" is used with two different meanings (as the copula and as the sign of equality)" but that its meaning is not its use. That is to say, "is" has not one complex use (including both "Water is clear" and "Water is H2O") and therefore one complex meaning, but two quite distinct uses and meanings. It is an accident that the same word has these two uses. It is not an accident that we use the word "car" to refer to both Fords and Hondas. But what is accidental and what is essential to a concept depends on us, on how we use it. This is not completely arbitrary, however. Depending on one's environment, one's physical needs and desires, one's emotions, one's sensory capacities, and so on, different concepts will be more natural or useful to one. This is why "forms of life" are so important to Wittgenstein. What matters to you depends on how you live (and vice versa), and this shapes your experience. So if a lion could speak, Wittgenstein says, we would not be able to understand it. We might realize that "roar" meant zebra, or that "roar, roar" meant lame zebra, but we would not understand lion ethics, politics, aesthetic taste, religion, humor and such like, if lions have these things. We could not honestly say "I know what you mean" to a lion. Understanding another involves empathy, which requires the kind of similarity that we just do not have with lions, and that many people do not have with other human beings. When a person says something what he or she means depends not only on what is said but also on the context in which it is said. Importance, point, meaning are given by the surroundings. Words, gestures, expressions come alive, as it were, only within a language game, a culture, a form of life. If a picture, say, means something then it means so to somebody. Its meaning is not an objective property of the picture in the way that its size and shape are. The same goes of any mental picture. Hence Wittgenstein's remark that "If God had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of." Any internal image would need interpretation. If I interpret my thought as one of Hitler and God sees it as Charlie Chaplin, who is right? Which of the two famous contemporaries of Wittgenstein's I mean shows itself in the way I behave, the things I do and say. It is in this that the use, the meaning, of my thought or mental picture lies. "The arrow points only in the application that a livi g being makes of it."