Here and Now...What's Happening?

[araucaria]

According to the forum software, this post is too short – go figure.
Some thoughts on free speech in relation to the forum. We know how this thread and some others have contributed over the years to make Avalon a friendlier place. By the same token, I suggest that freedom of thought is similarly contagious. The fact that people here can and do express all kinds of experiences and ideas where the degree of truth and the level on which it is true can sometimes be problematic, to say the least, provides an atmosphere in which others, who may actually accept very little of what they are reading, can come out with their own material. This is where style actually becomes more important than content; that is because there are many more ways to misunderstand than understand what is going on. Whatever the value of any given content, it has the effect of opening the reader’s mind and taking it ‘out of the box’, thereby expanding the space in which to develop their own thought – although there is also some resistance to this action.

We can see the same scenario unfolding in the recent mainstream debate, with millions taking to the streets to claim and thereby already start enforcing their right to free speech: let’s see where it all leads. At the moment, the divide is between those who see the world of difference between the symbolism of language and pictures undermining the symbolism of religious leaders, and the total incomprehension of the very idea of symbolism that ends in bloodbaths of every kind, not just terrorism and jihad beheadings, but also wars and drones and all the other more insidious ways of killing people. Islamists are only the frontline troops in this war again reason. Anyone still not sure about where they stand on this might like to read my post here. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post895864

When this gets translated into words, what we see is more like this repetitive forum scenario. Say two members we might call ISlamIslam and MeccaNo get into an argument with the members TheProphetMotive and AnInchIsAsGoodAsaMile. The latter pair would likely get unsubscribed for their vicious ad hominem attacks, one of the former might get deactivated for getting into an argument, and the other might retire in disgust, to great consternation among their friends. This is the sort of thing that happens at the edge of any group or community, and at the borders of a country, at the point where there is a divide between belonging and not belonging. The point of this little illustration is to show how terrorism with a Kalashnikov is itself at the edge of a broader phenomenon: everyday terrorism, notably with words. How the pen is literally mightier than the sword, i.e. fighting the same battles, when it should be doing something different altogether. This is terrorism with words as practised sometimes by influential writers with a gift beyond your anonymous poster on the Internet, which is what I want to look at now.

I have never had the basic training in philosophy, which is a pity because whenever a philosopher is mentioned or quoted, it feels like one is expected to have a grasp of his entire work at one’s fingertips, if not everyone else’s as well. This is tough going for someone used to the literary type of quotation where any context not given is largely irrelevant to the point being made.
So when, years ago, I tried to catch up on background by reading Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, I was bemused at the way in which he slugs off the philosophers one by one, and takes very few prisoners. My thought was, how could an entire discipline attract such a bunch of losers when other wisdom writings like the Tao to King just keep on giving? The trouble, I think, is with Russell himself, who brought his background as a logician and mathematician to bear in his battle against idealism. When I deconstructed just one unimportant sentence, there wasn’t much left at the end, so maybe Russell’s modus operandi for his overall negative outlook was his own vacuous prose, and I had seen through him just as he thought he saw through everyone else. Or maybe, to put it another way, maybe his logic lacks logic, or his revolt against idealism lacks… substance. (I once had a similar experience with the prose of Richard Dawkins, but that is another story.)

Take Henri Bergson, whom I am interested in at the moment: being wary of Russell, this voice of reason, I found some rather disturbing stuff in his chapter on the French philosopher. First this, from his introduction:

The main effect of Bergson’s philosophy was conservative, and it harmonized easily with the movement which culminated in Vichy. But Bergson’s irrationalism made a wide appeal quite unconnected with politics, for instance to Bernard Shaw, whose Back to Methuselah is pure Bergsonism. Forgetting politics, it is in its purely philosophical aspect that we must consider it.

If the last sentence is to make any sense, that political swipe was totally uncalled-for. Actually it is a smear since as a Jew (Bergson’s name was originally Bereksohn), he was more of a victim than a collaborationist, “renouncing all of the posts and honours previously awarded him, rather than accept exemption from the antisemitic laws imposed by the Vichy government” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson But the man who claims to be interested in the ‘purely philosophical aspect’ has to build up his case somehow when he admits to not having a complete grasp of it: ‘I do not fully understand it myself, and therefore I cannot hope to explain it with all the lucidity which it doubtless deserves.’ Then ‘irrationalism’, as a term used to describe ‘a theory that nonrational forces govern the universe’ (Webster's College Dictionary), is too close to the primary meaning of the word, ‘irrationality in thought or action’. It doesn’t take much of a glance at Bergson’s work to see that his is rather a theory that an element of nonrationality plays a role in the human experience – and hence that it also does so in Russell’s prose. This is not written with the mathematical precision of a logician: it is a hit piece.

Would this then be an egregious example of what is known as ‘literary terrorism’? Actually no (at least not at first glance): worse still, the terrorist here is… Henri Bergson.

The notion of Terrorism dates from Revolutionary France. The Terror was defined by Robespierre as implacable justice enforcing Virtue. Hence state terror predates the insurrectionary variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror It was self-contradictory from the start, being the recourse to violence to enforce equality and ultimately peace and, to paraphrase Jesus, Robespierre, who lived by the guillotine, died by the guillotine. The concept of Terror in Literature was first explored by Jean Paulhan in Les Fleurs de Tarbes ou la Terreur dans les lettres. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2444171.The_Flowers_of_Tarbes
Here is an excerpt from Michael Syrotinski’s introduction to his English translation: http://www.readysteadybook.com/Article.aspx?page=floweroftarbesintro

“We call periods of Terror those moments in the history of nations (which often follow some famine), when it suddenly seems that the State requires not ingeniousness and systematic methods, nor even science and technology—no one cares about any of that—but rather an extreme purity of the soul, and the freshness of a communal innocence. Consequently citizens themselves are taken into consideration, rather than the things they do or make: The chair is forgotten in favor of the carpenter, the remedy in favor of the doctor. Skill, knowledge, and technique, however, become suspect, as if they were covering up some lack of conviction.” (Flowers, 24)

Terror, then, stands not so much for the historical events themselves, but rather for a decisive turning point in French history, and more specifically in French literary history. This is described by Paulhan as a shift from the rule-bound imperatives of rhetoric and genre to the gradual abandonment of these rules in Romanticism and its successors, with the consequent search for greater originality of expression. This opposing imperative is what Paulhan terms Terror. Terrorist writers are those who demand continual invention and renewal, and denounce rhetoric’s codification of language, its tendency to stultify the spirit and impoverish human experience. Paulhan finds examples of the Terrorist dismissal of rhetoric in, for example, Rémy de Gourmont’s condemnation of “moral clichés,” or Antoine Albalat’s scorn for “picturesque clichés,” or Flaubert’s ironic dictionary of received ideas. In fact, everywhere he looks, Paulhan sees evidence of Terror in action: For Hyppolite Taine, Racine was “the epitome of verbalism” (Flowers, 28); for Renan the entire classical literary tradition was “an abuse of rhetoric” (Flowers, 28); and Brunetière discredited Malherbe’s poetry for similar reasons. When Paulhan turns his attention to more contemporary examples, he comes across the (dangerously seductive) “power of words,” and broadens his discussion beyond the realm of literature by including personal anecdotes, amusing little stories, and popular journalism (the clichés of the time being, for example, “ideological warfare,” “the youth of today,” “freedom,” “popular opinion,” and so on). Henri Bergson is seen by Paulhan as the supreme “anti-verbalist” critic of the first half of the twentieth century, and is described as Terror’s own philosopher. Bergson’s challenge to literature is “without doubt the most serious reproach made in our time: that the author of commonplace expressions gives in to the power of words, to verbalism, to the influence of language, and so on” (Flowers, 20).

The opposition between Terror and Rhetoric appears, then, to polarize two conflicting ideologies of expression, which seem to be mutually exclusive and irreconcilable: on the one hand the aspiration toward originality, and on the other the attraction to the stability of the commonplace, and this is seen by Paulhan as something that is a universal characteristic of literature and language, and not limited to any particular historical or cultural context. After he amply demonstrates the persuasive power of Terror’s arguments, Paulhan proceeds to cast doubt on the validity of its philosophy: “Not that I find the mystical possession or the self-effacement of critics or scholars—nor, earlier in the text, the revolution—in the least bit contemptible. Far from it. I’m simply suspicious of a revolt, or a dispossession, which comes along so opportunely to get us out of trouble” (Flowers, 15). He then dismantles Terrorist claims by showing that they are the victims of an optical illusion: “These days when we come into contact with literature and with language, we are only able to know them, to appreciate them, and therefore also to continue them ourselves, thanks to a series of errors and illusions as crude as an optical illusion” (Flowers, 65). Terrorist writers are, as he shows, paradoxically enslaved to language, since they spend all their time trying to bypass it, or rid it of its clichés:

“For Terror is above all dependent upon language in a general sense, in that it condemns a writer to say only what a certain state of language leaves him free to express: He is restricted to those areas of feeling and thought where language has not yet been overused. That is not all: No writer is more preoccupied with words than the one who at every point sets out to get rid of them, to get away from them, or to reinvent them.” (Flowers, 76)

Terror’s “optical illusion,” then, takes the form of a kind of blindness to its own rhetorical status. According to Paulhan, both Terrorists and Rhetoricians are justified in their conceptions of literature, and therefore are both equally unjustified. The problem is compounded in that the two “sides” in this exchange are in fact opposing perspectives on the same literary or linguistic object. What appears to some as verbalism (“just words”) appears to others as authentic expressiveness (ideas or thoughts), and this becomes the central enigma of The Flowers of Tarbes: How is it possible to tell whether an author intended his or her words to be read as literary clichés or as original expressions? Commonplace expressions thus reveal a deep-seated tension within language and literature. They are “janus-faced” forms of language, as Blanchot puts it, which “subject the reader to equivocation.”5

How does Paulhan attempt to resolve this tension? Paulhan’s solution to the paradox is a revalorization (or a “reinvention”) of rhetoric, a redoubled Rhetoric he will distinguish from the accepted understanding of the term by capitalizing it (and which he will also refer to as Maintenance). He suggests that writers should recognize clichés as clichés, and thereby establish a communally agreed-upon Rhetoric in order to remove the perplexing ambiguity that characterizes commonplace expressions:

“Clichés may once again take up residence in literature the day they are at last deprived of their ambiguity and their confusion. Now all it should require, since the confusion stems from a doubt as to their nature, is simply for us to agree, once and for all, to accept them as clichés. In short, we simply need to make commonplace expressions common” ... (Flowers, 79)

Paulhan’s stance he calls Maintenance midway between Terror and Rhetoric is a blatant failure to meet Einstein’s requirement of finding a solution on a different level from that of the problem. There seems to be no place to go to settle the argument between Bergson, seen as a terrorist, and the aggressive rhetoric of Russell, an author who saw nothing strange about accepting a Nobel Prize, or all things for Literature, for this best-seller about philosophers. Well, there is a place to go, but first of all, before we come to alleged Bergsonian terrorism, we can take another look at Russell’s empty rhetoric, in the following quote:

His doctrine of space is required for his condemnation of the intellect, and if he fails in his condemnation of the intellect, the intellect will succeed in its condemnation of him, for between the two it is war to the knife [my emphasis]... This not only disproves Bergson’s theory as to number, but also his more general theory that all abstract ideas and all logic are derived from space.

First off, to expect “condemnation of the intellect” to pass as a valid assessment of the work of a man who devoted his life to writing philosophy was asking for trouble, and Russell received plenty of backstabbing from his peers. So much for his killer intellect. See www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/.../10/890-904.pdf

Abstract

This paper is devoted to Bertrand Russell’s criticism of Henri Bergson’s philosophy. It traces out the origins of that criticism and analyses its essence, reasons and development in Russell’s works. Because of the importance of the concepts of space and time for Bergson’s philosophy and, in turn, the importance of continuity and discreteness for the understanding of space and time, the central part of the analysis concerns the views of the both philosophers on continuity and discreteness, including Zeno’s paradoxes. The main thesis of the paper is that Russell’s criticism of Bergson’s philosophy comes, to a great extent, from Russell’s misunderstanding of Bergson.

If it is “war to the knife”, then on his own terms, Russell’s argument is very dead, for a number of reasons, one being his buying into an old “conventional fiction” of mathematics, another being his lack of training in “introspective analysis”. On the other hand, one would expect Bergson’s training in introspective analysis to lead to the discovery that Paulhan’s criticism of Bergson’s philosophy likewise comes, to a great extent, from Paulhan’s misunderstanding of Bergson.

One aspect of Russell’s empty rhetoric is the straw man argument of Bergson’s allegedly “dualistic” philosophy. However, as we see with the “condemnation of the intellect” remark, it is his own thinking that is dualistic, and it is left to Bergson himself to demolish the straw man in the very first paragraph of Matter and Memory, a paragraph that Russell seems to have only read halfway through:

THIS book affirms the reality of spirit and the reality of matter, and tries to determine the relation of the one to the other by the study of a definite example, that of memory. It is, then, frankly dualistic. But, on the other hand, it deals with body and mind in such a way as, we hope, to lessen greatly, if not to overcome, the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism, and which cause it, though suggested by the immediate verdict of consciousness and adopted by common sense, to be held, in small honour among philosophers.

www.reasoned.org/dir/lit/matter_and_memory.pdf

So when dualistic thinking is applied to the refutation of its alleged working in others, that will doubtless be because the writer is incapable of recognizably nondualistic thinking even when the label on the can tells him that is what it is. He can then apply all the logic he likes, but as his premises are plain wrong, he cannot go anywhere with them. So what is the way out of this duality?

A modern literary theorist not so recently examined this apparent opposition between rhetoric on the one hand and terrorism on the other (Jean Ricardou, Problèmes du nouveau roman, Seuil, 1967, p.125-144). In this reading, both are seen as bowing to the ‘dogma of expression’. Rhetoric is the happy use of language in order to express something. Sophisticated language allows more effective expression; it inevitably has an inflationary poetical or literary content that becomes codified (classicism). Romanticism introduced the notion of sincerity, rejecting the rhetorical device as cliché. Hence, when rhetoric prescribes how to say things, this uncomfortable form of rhetoric in search of originality that Paulhan calls terrorism proscribes those devices, almost to the point where literature devours language as it consumes it, and words can only be used once.

The duality here lies, according to Ricardou, in the absence of context. In the case of rhetoric, you are bringing an extraneous rule-book to bear; in the case of terrorism, you have no model at all and are constantly starting from scratch. It is shown how Paulhan’s suggested middle course, which he calls Maintenance, in fact works no differently, for it too focusses on short segments which he refuses to place within a broader context. The lesson is that there is no innocent relationship between expression and the thing expressed, since there is always a bigger picture (context) to disturb it. Hence, for example, Russell’s pointed attack on Bergsonian number, which he claims stands or falls as a critique of the bigger picture, is bound to fall, being deliberately cut off from the broader context (replaced with his own context), and so cannot claim to invalidate the general theory as advertised.

The solution of creative writing is to replace the idea of expression with the notion of functioning (fonctionnement). This involves actually embracing and developing the broader context, and thereby deferring expression. The ‘dogma of expression’ refers to the supposed existence of a pre-established something, whether it be God, the world, me or whatever… Creativity on the contrary does not work from an end product as much as it works in an endless process of producing something. This is the method that Bergson, the author of L’évolution créatrice (Creative evolution), apparently brings to bear in creating philosophical concepts.

How he does this bears a striking similarity to the skull brain/gut brain duality analyzed by the Jungian depth psychologist Remo Roth as I described on this forum at the end of last year. Thus Bergson distinguishes between a surface self (moi de surface) and a deep self (moi profond) coexisting and unaware of each other (surface in the sense of partial, deep in the sense of total). These he relates to notions of time (duration), emotion (as motion), memory and freedom. And when he speaks in restrictive terms of the intellect, I expect he is referring to the activity of this surface self within an overall process that also involves the deep self. I still have to do this research, but clearly if it turns out that the philosopher and the psychologist, each coming from their own angle, are actually talking about the same thing, then that would tend to validate both, leading potentially to some valuable cross-fertilization.

[eaglespirit]

Posted by araucaria (here)
...but clearly if it turns out that the philosopher and the psychologist, each coming from their own angle, are actually talking about the same thing, then that would tend to validate both, leading potentially to some valuable cross-fertilization.[/I]

Spirit and Science ...dancing to the higher rhythm as one symphony

We Are There and It IS We...now dancing to the higher rhythm as one symphony

...stay tuned : ) : ) : )

[Violet]

Evening coffee tastes weird. It's as if my senses demand much more quality. In the morning even the cheapest roasts taste delicious.

Have some deadlines to meet.

Speaking of time, there's a thing about time that circles around me. I'm a timely person. I get where I want, preferably a few minutes earlier. When I put my alarm clock on, it regularly happens I wake up one or two minutes before it goes off. But all my watches die on me. And I am not a big spender in terms of watches. I will get one and only replace it if it has become entirely useless. And so, I'm left with a large collection of watches, each of them with a problem. Not all insolvable but there are only some worth the investment of repair. My latest sample just perished. If I can't find the pin that keeps the bands together, I will give up on watches and "just" use my biorithm.

Our doctor caused me to worry. I don't know how to handle the situation. He said he wanted to talk about my mother and I thought it was forbidden to talk about other people's medical records, so I thought it must be very serious then. He said he was worried about some things my mother said. He's very into current affairs and uses every opportunity to delve into the subject, I have the impression he does it out of sincere curiosity. He thinks she's become more radical in her religious endeavours and he hasn't got a good feeling about it. I first asked him if he had told her this. And he said she wouldn't understand (which is true, the philosophical rhetoric that is custom to him tends to make his messages very wrapped).
And so I told him that this is how the elderly become after pilgrimage, because of the pilgrimage itself and because of the realisation that they are getting older. Everything gets a more religious touch in their lives and they overall are supposed to be more pious as a sign that their pilgrimage was taken seriously. Yet he didn't accept that explanation and set an ultimatum for her. Either she becomes "normal" again or he won't have her at his cabinet anymore. We've known the doctor for decades. It's a confusing and debilitating situation. I must yet talk to my siblings about it. My mother knows it already and shrugged it off saying he's always been a hard-headed man (which is also true). However, now, a decades long relation (that I very much enjoyed because he is an interesting man who enfolded himself to us as more than a doctor, a thinker, a philosopher, a sociologist, an artist) is at stake because of this perception.

During that same visit I talked to him about being (remember my be-message). How we can all be. I hope he heard something in that.

[Carmody]

She just has to fake it for him, to think ahead a bit. And thus retain the doctor, if he is a good one.

Some people are too reactionary, too much the animal. We can't relate openly to them all, so try not to antagonize the ones who help but simply cannot see around the given corner. A 'let it go', kind of scenario. Like training an untrainable wild animal. Like my tendency to end up with wolf hybrids. Untrainable, so I just let them be.... and change my behavior to accommodate them. It was more my growing up than that of the dog.

[ulli]

Posted by Violet (here)
Evening coffee tastes weird. It's as if my senses demand much more quality. In the morning even the cheapest roasts taste delicious.

Have some deadlines to meet.

Speaking of time, there's a thing about time that circles around me. I'm a timely person. I get where I want, preferably a few minutes earlier. When I put my alarm clock on, it regularly happens I wake up one or two minutes before it goes off. But all my watches die on me. And I am not a big spender in terms of watches. I will get one and only replace it if it has become entirely useless. And so, I'm left with a large collection of watches, each of them with a problem. Not all insolvable but there are only some worth the investment of repair. My latest sample just perished. If I can't find the pin that keeps the bands together, I will give up on watches and "just" use my biorithm.

Our doctor caused me to worry. I don't know how to handle the situation. He said he wanted to talk about my mother and I thought it was forbidden to talk about other people's medical records, so I thought it must be very serious then. He said he was worried about some things my mother said. He's very into current affairs and uses every opportunity to delve into the subject, I have the impression he does it out of sincere curiosity. He thinks she's become more radical in her religious endeavours and he hasn't got a good feeling about it. I first asked him if he had told her this. And he said she wouldn't understand (which is true, the philosophical rhetoric that is custom to him tends to make his messages very wrapped).
And so I told him that this is how the elderly become after pilgrimage, because of the pilgrimage itself and because of the realisation that they are getting older. Everything gets a more religious touch in their lives and they overall are supposed to be more pious as a sign that their pilgrimage was taken seriously. Yet he didn't accept that explanation and set an ultimatum for her. Either she becomes "normal" again or he won't have her at his cabinet anymore. We've known the doctor for decades. It's a confusing and debilitating situation. I must yet talk to my siblings about it. My mother knows it already and shrugged it off saying he's always been a hard-headed man (which is also true). However, now, a decades long relation (that I very much enjoyed because he is an interesting man who enfolded himself to us as more than a doctor, a thinker, a philosopher, a sociologist, an artist) is at stake because of this perception.

During that same visit I talked to him about being (remember my be-message). How we can all be. I hope he heard something in that.

I hope too, that your doc gets the BE-ing thing.
When giving advice to others, or showing concern for them there is nothing more important than checking the self, that it is not engaged in mere projection.
Ultimately all church sermons are monologues, and that includes every post we make here on Avalon.
And Carmody's advice is good, to "retain the doctor, if he is a good one".
He may just be going through crisis phase with his own unfoldment.

Another thought, which popped up after reading araucaria's post... about duality thinking.
Even if one has evolved enough to see the two sides of a coin, it is still not good enough.
The answer lies in "spectrum" thought. Seeing the gradualness of stuff, from the minus infinite to the plus infinite, as a blending spectrum.
Black and white thought, without the infinite shades of grey in between, just doesn't cut it for me anymore.

The flow of time (TIME), from infinite past, to NOW, to infinite future, all seen as flow, rather than bites or bytes.
Sorry if this all sounds obscure...I understand it requires a leap to get there.
But it's worth it if you try.

[Ol' Roy]

Are you kidding me? You have not heard from Paula(Running Dear)? Did you see her drivewaqy? Now the next blast is coming in this weekend! If someone does not check on her, I'm driving 550 from Kentucky, to check it up! Be viligent! We are the village, but we are not! Help your neighbors!

I am from the mountains of Eastern Kentucky,USA! OLd code was, we helped our neighbor's!

I am from the mouta

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Not unless, Paula, says, she is alright!

[Ol' Roy]

nd touch someone" Could be a hearing experience! Words of wisdom, from my beautiful mentor in Costa Rica! Still Jealous! Kisses!

[Ol' Roy]

Suppid ass! Hit the wrong button! Just concerned about Paula! PM me, you don't hear anything today! Blizzard tomorrow! I wish she was with you in CR! Make my days easier!Why? Because, I love you! As well, as I love her!!



! Old sport. Do you believe that? Yes, from the bottom of my heart!

[Violet]

Ah, unfold, yes, thanks, Ulli.

I have a lot of reading up to do. After doing some juice fasting I was compelled to perception mode. It's as if time stood still. I have a fasting thread somewhere, maybe I should go and elaborate there, someday.

I think I'll start with the duality post up here by Araucaria, because, as you say, Ulli, seeing both sides of a coin is not enough, and sometimes it outright sucks. This is why I'm going to dwell on this with my siblings to see how they experience the matter, and maybe new elements will pop up. The doctor himself is great, both at his job and as a person, in as far as we got to know him from our consultations, which over that long a stretch of time can be taken as a reference.

2 album updates in the album: What does it mean?. Don't be scared of the animals, at least one of them was nice to me. And now that we're in this album. I watched a Credo interview after reading the newsletter. I had watched it a long time ago, at the start of the quest, but this second viewing seemed more informative now. I was making links to Shehrazade (when Credo talked about a king who killed every wife who was no longer able to fulfill his desires) and to a religious verse that speaks of how men and women are created as enemies to one another (when he talked about the red and the green cave producing resp. men and women who hated each other because of their differences) and then he talked about what happened when he disappeared near the mountains, which brought back to my mind pictures eleven and fifteen in this album. I wrote a small thing about South Africa in the past. If I could write it again, I would insert a chapter on the Zulu belief.

And lastly, I've seen a circle close over a cycle of approximately 17 years. At the beginning of this circle, I asked myself an important question, then spent 17 years answering it. Now at the end of that circle, I observe that I'm back where I asked myself an important question*, the same one.
What planet comes close to causing that kind of event over that duration?

Post update:

*It inspired: Where is this train going?

Happy weekend to the village (be careful on slippery grounds, here the cold has come back too)

[Flash]

Do not worry too much Ol'Roy. Us nordics know what to do in heavy dangerous weather. And paula is in good physical shape. But one thing we know: we absolutely do no drive in such weather. The riskiest being on the road. Believe me, i am holding seeing my old friend in NH until the roads are fine - she forbid me to drive - even if she is not doing well.

Paula will be fine, my pinky finger is telling it.

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Flash (here)
Do not worry too much Ol'Roy. Us nordics know what to do in heavy dangerous weather. And paula is in good physical shape. But one thing we know: we absolutely do no drive in such weather. The riskiest being on the road. Believe me, i am holding seeing my old friend in NH until the roads are fine - she forbid me to drive - even if she is not doing well.

Paula will be fine, my pinky finger is telling it.

Your pinky is accurate, Flash. I plan my outings around the weather. It's snowing again. Grrrr!!!! Third time in less than a week. I went out yesterday, but felt like I expended more energy avoiding the slippery spots which there were many. I still say I'd rather this weather than the hot, sticky humidity. I get really cranky.

<3

[Ol' Roy]

I appoligse Paula! What seemed illogical yesterday seems perfectly logical today! Yes, I was worried about you! No, I should not have gone to extremes! Yes, if you REALLY were in trouble! Yes, I would drive to NY to help! Anyway, I could! You know that!

Anyway be safe! (Yes, I was a safety engineer)! Sorry, I embarrassed you! Just concerned!

Thank God, Jesus, Buddha, And Alla! (No disrrecpt for the spelling)

Just your friend!
Roy

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Ol' Roy (here)
I appoligse Paula! What seemed illogical yesterday seems perfectly logical today! Yes, I was worried about you! No, I should not have gone to extremes! Yes, if you REALLY were in trouble! Yes, I would drive to NY to help! Anyway, I could! You know that!

Anyway be safe! (Yes, I was a safety engineer)! Sorry, I embarrassed you! Just concerned!

Just your friend!
Roy

No apology needed, Roy and I wasn’t embarrassed. Thanks for your concern. It was an extreme storm. According to totals, we had the greatest amount of snow dumped in the state. Without including the snow drifts it was 27”.

I’m fortunate to have designed a life where I don’t need to drive in bad weather. Last spring when I hurt my back lifting the air conditioner, it was a wake up call that I’m getting older. I don’t like the thought of being hyper vigilant about a broken leg or worst.

Your friend, too…

Paula <3

[Wind]

January has been a month of little snow and lots of clouds, thankfully not too cold as it could be. I guess that's better than bag dark and rainy December (well, we did have white Christmas) and November. Today I actually saw the sun shining for some hours, it was nice since it's been weeks when it's been sunny at all. There have been only occasional glimpses of sun before this, I almost forgot that it even existed. Can't wait for spring! Just a couple of months now...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bj1AesMfIf8

[eaglespirit]

Help Village, My Front Joint 'came apart' in the high heavy snow...
not on me, on maaa truck : )

Gotta get errr together with some fannaaaggglin' and some new bolts!

Hey...are we travelin' around on light beams yet????? : )

[Dennis Leahy]

OK, finishing up a very emotional week, having been with a good friend right after his arrival (med-evac helicopter ride) at a local hospital for emergency heart surgery. His recovery from the brink of death has been so heartwarming (I know, I know, but it really fits.) Successful quadruple bypass surgery (he's a non-smoker, thin wiry build, grows and eats organic food, ...) He's getting discharged from the hospital tomorrow (only 1 week in the hospital), and I'll drive him home.

So, the mood is lighter - much lighter - today, and I found this silly Jim Gaffigan stand-up comedy routine made me laugh out loud, and laugh hard (so I wanted to share it with all of you.) It is very irreverent, so if you can't take irreverent humor, please don't watch it.

Thanks for all the good vibes sent my way, and my friend's way this past week!

-Dennis

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Tv6FlS0xxDA

[eaglespirit]

Great News, Dennis...
May the New Health BE Heartfelt BEyond Knowing...Healing Love to Your Friend : )
......

I'm lovin' it...some windy snow this morn'...
just a couple inches but my feeders are full of Birds in the high winds...
multi-colored multi-tribes, beautiful sharing : )

[Carmody]

So when dualistic thinking is applied to the refutation of its alleged working in others, that will doubtless be because the writer is incapable of recognizably nondualistic thinking even when the label on the can tells him that is what it is. He can then apply all the logic he likes, but as his premises are plain wrong, he cannot go anywhere with them. So what is the way out of this duality?

Well, part of the problem, it might be stated... is that observation can 'go there' but the reflected recognition of it, for the larger part, cannot. The vehicle fails and we end in the circular argument as a reductionist and steadily reducing tailing. It winds down, as the vehicle (reality in 3d timespace) exists so. Philosophy, by the nature of the attempt at reach (attempts at encompassing greater complexities), enters a form of degenerative entropy --things that exist in 'time', reality, and the greater systems the encompass the attempt itself. Ie, the reach (attempt) and the reality are in convergence.

[Carmody]

Just like my reply..it begins at the end of yesterday and ends at the nothingness, the zero point of tomorrow, but expressed today, as a 'point'. The now.

Since we have but the now, and all points of yesterday, today, and tomorrow are connected to such, then presence is the final result, and all else begins and ends.

[Violet]

Muffin time!

Secretly baking in the kitchen (shhh), don't tell anyone. Keeping a few aside for Dennis and his friend (super good news).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fVtTGg9nsn0