Thomas_Merton

LONDON (Reuters) - An 8.2 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Sumatra Monday close to where a quake triggered a tsunami that left nearly 300,000 people dead or missing, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

A USGS spokeswoman told Reuters the quake struck 125 miles west northwest of Sibolga, Sumatra or 880 miles northwest of the Indonesian capital of Jakarta at 1609 GMT, close to where the 9.0 magnitude quake struck in December.

A spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey told CNN that the earthquake could cause tsunamis.

"Certainly evacuations should be occurring. I hope they are," spokesman Don Blakeman said, saying of the earthquake that "it could also cause some local tsunami activity."

"Even if we do see tsunami activity it won't be as widespread" as December's quake.

Blakeman said Monday's quake was considered a "great earthquake" because it is larger than a magnitude 8. He said it was an aftershock from December's temblor but is a "very serious earthquake in its own right."

There are no reports of damage yet.

The BBC are running on their website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4387563.stm

an interesting article by Brian Walden.

It raises some additional points to these discussions:

Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, wrote something recently that chilled me to the bone.

Sir Martin is the winner of the Michael Faraday Prize awarded annually by the Royal Society for excellence in communicating scientific ideas in lay terms. In my case he did almost too good a job.

He pointed out that though the idea of evolution is well-known, the vast potential for further evolution isn't yet part of our common culture. He then gave an example. He said: "It will not be humans who witness the demise of the Sun six billion years hence; it will be entities as different from us as we are from bacteria."

It may well be that this vision of the future leaves you unmoved. After all, six billion years is an almost unimaginable length of time. On top of that, the death of the Sun isn't going to be a jolly business and I suppose that if we're able to summon up any feeling on the matter it ought to be gratitude that there aren't going to be any humans around to suffer when it happens.

These seem sensible arguments and ought to console me - but they don't. This is Easter and I can't help contrasting the Christian promise of my youth with what science expects to happen.

Bashfulness

There's a long established British tradition that in general conversation religion isn't discussed. The great Whig essayist, Joseph Addison, writing in the early 18th Century said: "We have in England a particular bashfulness in every thing that regards religion." That was in an age when belief in God was well-nigh universal. If it wasn't thought to be tactful then, it must be far worse now, in a secular age when Christian belief has declined and other religions are widely practiced.

But it's for that very reason that I think we ought to talk to each other more about the central mystery of life. Widespread agnosticism and the place in society of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism ought to mean that the climate of opinion is tolerant. Nor do we need to be expert to discuss science and religion, providing we have the humility to learn.

Like many others, I eventually accepted the scientific explanation of the origin and destiny of mankind. But, also like many others, I have no hostility to religion and, in particular, no contempt for Christian faith; quite the contrary. Indeed, at Easter, I confess plainly that I miss the consolations of Christianity.

I had a Pakistani friend, who died after a long illness. As he weakened physically, the subject he most wanted to discuss was the reconciliation of Islam and science. After a time, worried that he might be distressed, I said, very foolishly, that perhaps he could be at peace because Islam involved faith and he was a believer, whereas science operated in a different dimension collecting data, experimenting and seeking to confirm knowledge.

This distinction made him angry. "Have you the slightest idea how close we are to the end of humanity?" he asked. "I'm a scientist and I'm afraid. Only from the morality inside us can we learn restraint and that morality must come from religion."

Unpleasant surprise

I admit I thought he was exaggerating, but I listened and went away and consulted one of the works he'd suggested. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover exactly what my friend was talking about. It wasn't possible nuclear accident, or climate change, but the hypothetical threat posed by technological advances in genetics, robotics and nanotechnology.

Genetics; in that we might intentionally or accidentally create a plague; robotics, where we shall be able to download human consciousness into machines and nanotechnology where a nano-machine might turn the biosphere into dust in a matter of days.

Having heard a fair amount of doom-mongering in my time I'm resistant to it and disinclined to believe that the worst will happen. Nevertheless, lacking the scientific knowledge to judge whether there was a real threat, I asked some of those who did know.

They were amused by my ignorance, but confirmed that without proper constraints the technology is a distant threat. Then somebody told me that not only was I not up to speed scientifically, but that some philosophers, well aware of the scientific facts, were discussing their moral implications. So nothing that I'm saying has the least originality, but neither is it freakish.

Human life

A growing number of people believe that we need a fresh dialogue between science and religion. I mean religion in its widest sense - a belief in the value of human life. Apparently the direction of scientific progress means that we have to make moral judgements about what's permissible and what isn't. We need a moral consensus.

Most emphatically, I don't mean that we need to create a sort of blancmange morality that wobbles about, containing a bit of God, a bit of physics, a dash of Catholicism plus a smattering of Buddhism and a few sprigs of well-meaning atheism. That kind of ethical coalition wouldn't survive, and we need something that will. What we all need is to acknowledge our interdependency.

The hostility between science and religion stemmed from the 18th Century Enlightenment when science was forced to contradict some of the assertions of the Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church about the history of humanity.

Political liberals had their own quarrel with the Catholic Church, regarding it as a reactionary influence in politics and wanting it separated from a secular state. So the liberals joined the argument on the side of science and we got what became the familiar division of liberal thought and science against religion, though naturally individual liberals and scientists were sometimes believers.

This classic alliance between science and liberal thought in which the opinions of both are mutually reinforced, or the classic opposition between religion and scientific progress no longer operates across the board.

Indeed the present abortion quarrel in Britain is a striking example of a new pattern. Professor Stuart Campbell took photographs of foetuses at between 12 and 24 weeks' gestation and he admits that it never entered his head that the pictures would touch off a national debate. But the photographs were taken by a new technique showing foetuses younger that 24 weeks looking far more developed than had previously been accepted.

The photographs changed some people's minds about late abortion, including Professor Campbell's. He now thinks that "24 weeks if the baby is healthy is too late". The wider significance of this episode is that the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, finds that science has done something which helps the Church and not necessarily liberal opinion.

Tolerance

Of course Professor Campbell doesn't share the Church's view on abortion. He supports abortion, but not as late as 24 weeks, pointing out that "science has moved on". So has the relationship between science and religion in my opinion. It would be sloppy thinking to claim there are no tensions and ridiculous to suppose that a common agreement can be arrived at.

There can be no agreement, but there can be tolerance. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, leading a secular party in an increasingly secular society, on Tuesday asked Britain's churches to play a bigger role in national life.

Not just Tony Blair, but many contemporary politicians, want society to get what help it can from both science and religion.

Now, in a spirit of tolerance can I do justice to the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, who alarmed me by predicting a future species as superior to humans as we are to bacteria? Well Sir Martin has a dedication to humanity and shares Albert Einstein's view that we need a perspective that's global, humanistic and long term. He can't be expected to share the scientifically illiterate prejudices of somebody like me.

Anyway Sir Martin doesn't rule out a place for humanity. He thinks spaceships launched from Earth might spawn new oases of life elsewhere. You see the interdependent, tolerant world doesn't have to be intellectually dull.

This is a truly interesting question. From what I read about some experiments done on babies, I think it was in the 1950's or 60's, when they were only fed and cleaned, but not touched or talked to in any other way. They all died. The experiment was stopped immediately.

Not quite correct.

The study just showed that children in ICUs who are physically held and cuddled gained weight much faster than children that are simply cared for.

Children will not all die if not held.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The book (which is still available) and studies I think you are refering to is this:

Bowlby, J. (1951) Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

This book was effectively an abridged version of a report written for the World Health Organisation (1951). Following on from Konrad Lorenz`s discovery of imprinting in Geese and other precocial animals, John Bowlby, a psychoanalyst, was asked by the World Health Organisation to look into the effects of separation of infants from mothers.

Bowlby studied the cases of 44 juvenile delinquents. He found that 17 had been separated from mother for some time before the age of 5. This was signifant compared to the control group (also of 44). He concluded that maternal deprivation could seriously effect the child`s mental health. He came up with the theory of monotrophy for humans, similar but different to animal imprinting. He proposed that a young infant forms attachment with mother during first 6 months of life. He assumed that the mother-child relationship was qualitatively different to others. Two of his subjects had very little social conscience. He described this as affectionless psychopathy. Argued that attachment failure resulted in failure to develop social conscience.

`What is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother-substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment`.

It is about time this debate got back to the central issue:

Two young English tourists have been allegedly murdered by a member of the Thai police force.

For these young people’s sakes alone it is imperative that justice is done, and seen to be done.

For the sake of the integrity of the Thai Police justice must be done.

We who read this story have a duty to see it remains a central point on this forum, in the British and International press, until this matter is resolved.

Our choice is simple: do we support the Fat Cats and all that this implies throughout the Thai culture, or do we respectfully demand the justice these two young lives deserve?

The Lord Buddha forbad all killing and I am utterly amazed the authorities cannot see that the Karma from an incorrect resolution to this case, will be catastrophic for Thai culture.

We pray that wisdom will prevail and the LOS does not become another Burma.

I only would add that it is useful to remember which way you leapt in the dark, so you can fumble back to the starting point if you seem to be hitting a wall.

A sort of leap in the dark with a megalite, a land-line and two pre-paid return tickets? ...Eh...this is not quite the level of adventure spirit I was looking for.

... Do you have any opinions on whether our preferences come from different experiences, upbringing, or fundamental natures?

Also, intention is important but probably not the only value?  Is a father rushing home to help his child less at fault if he happens to be drunk, and kills someone on the way?

Less at fault than someone who kills as a result of drunken joyriding? I do hope so.

Despite what you are concluding, it is not belief or knowledge that separates us:

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it is the treatment of belief and knowledge that seems to divide us, though I am of course more interested in trying to find clarifying statements in this whole discussion than in learning specifically what your worldview contains... maybe I missed your whole point, because I found the sanzen story to be less than profound, and bordering on non sequitur. The value of those lessons is not in how some student gained insight, but that the student did so. This is what makes them "personal guidance", afterall, and why they require a master teacher's touch...

I think for most people in this discussion, "knowledge" or "knowing" represents a category of thoughts which are axiomatic: we use them in our reasoning without any concern that they are wrong, perhaps because we trust the source of the information (an external authority or our senses) or perhaps because we can derive it from other knowledge using reasoning methods we believe are sound. Conversely, I think "beliefs" or "believing" represents thoughts which are conjectures: we choose to adopt them but recognize that this was a choice of ours rather than an attempt at deduction from our existing knowledge.

I think you are using the terms in a compatible way, in claiming that adopting (by faith) an existing religious practice, you "know" that you become "aware of what is real and is unreal." I believe that this process of converting belief into knowledge, through faith, is very much at the center of the discussion. Those of us who are skeptics of religion do not claim to be right or wrong---we consider the problem to be unresolvable and question the soundness of "your" methods.

I disclaim the ability to have knowledge that is anything other than beliefs... beliefs which I, out of pragmatic necessity, choose not to question for some duration. I do not entirely trust my own senses or observations, and I certainly cannot trust another party as much as I do myself. I have no faith; I cannot trust! And to be clear, this is not because I somehow suspect myself of being sub-par, but rather because of my overall assessment of the human condition. I think knoweldge is a fool's game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not sure I have the intellectual ability to compete with you. But then I am sure you would be the first to admit that intellectual ability is not a prerequisite for truth.

A doctor may possess all the medical knowledge necessary to practise. But does he “know” how to be a doctor?

An anarchistic artist may paint, burble, scribble all he wishes, but does he see or communicate any truths? Are any of his works remembered?

Yet great artists have produced memorable works often because their insights were confined within restrictions of time, space, form, convention and even religion.

My argument is simply this:

1. Metaphysical speculation is a waste of time

2. Take a “leap in the dark”, preferably in something close to your own traditions – but this is not important – if you look hard enough you will find the right one.

3. Within these parameters work hard at learning to live with yourself and relating to others as equals.

4. Through these actions and often because of them we will slowly become aware of essential truths rarely available in the cold, rationality of “atheistic knowledge”.

5. These truths cannot be measured or weighed, but only demonstrated by the quality of our actions as observed by others.

6. In the final analysis though, only our intentions are of any value.

A little observation (because I am beginning to loose track of all the interesting points in this thread):

It always amuses me when people profess the intellectual position of an atheist, citing this book or that book as supporting their position. It reminds me of the Catholics who became Communists, carrying the Communist Manifesto around as though it was a Missal whilst swapping the photos of the Pope for posters of Lenin.

As I have said, atheism is an intellectual position that demands, as do scientific positions, one has evaluated all the evidence.

I do hope the seekers on this thread who profess this point of view have taken the time to read the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavagita , the Dhammapada etc.

Otherwise it would be only natural to conclude that their views are as irrational and illogical as the opinions of those who they accuse of being so, purely because they have a “non scientific” belief.

An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He realizes the person who is seeing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those were all my own thoughts, none of my points were quotes from books. You, however, continue to quote others. Maybe the 12 year old boy needed to meditate to realise the answer his master required, however I assumed that would be the answer after reading the question. I have never "entered true meditation and transcended all sounds". Seems to me Toyo just had a low IQ and needed time to work out the answer his master was after.

As for evaluating all the evidence, I have read the Bible, there is no evidence in this book which has been verified. I assume you have read all of those books, so please be so kind as to tell me which one explains the creation of the Earth, life and man correctly, and which ones are incorrect. Personally I find the Australian Aboriginal belief that the universe was created from a cassowary egg quite appealing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want my advice? Here we go:

1. Accept the cassowary egg

2. Accept the possibility there is a Supreme Being (force – whatever), higher than yourself and that This is the only Thing worthy of your absolute respect. If nothing else this helps keep the ego in check and puts know-it-alls like me in their place.

3. Stop speculating about matters upon which it is impossible to prove or disprove or on which you have no control. This not only refers to the metaphysical but also to banal everyday problems.

4. Live your life with respect for yourself.

5. Show this same respect for everyone.

6. Smile – be happy. Life is too short for anything else.

A little observation (because I am beginning to loose track of all the interesting points in this thread):

It always amuses me when people profess the intellectual position of an atheist, citing this book or that book as supporting their position. It reminds me of the Catholics who became Communists, carrying the Communist Manifesto around as though it was a Missal whilst swapping the photos of the Pope for posters of Lenin.

As I have said, atheism is an intellectual position that demands, as do scientific positions, one has evaluated all the evidence.

I do hope the seekers on this thread who profess this point of view have taken the time to read the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavagita , the Dhammapada etc.

Otherwise it would be only natural to conclude that their views are as irrational and illogical as the opinions of those who they accuse of being so, purely because they have a “non scientific” belief.

An instant realization sees endless time.

Endless time is as one moment.

When one comprehends the endless moment

He realizes the person who is seeing it.

That's correct, I do believe that all religions are invalid.

Credo - a leap in the dark!

I find the thought of going to Heaven or He11 after my death as believable as crocodiles being Gods.

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a h*ll?"

"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.

"I am a samurai", the warrior replied.

"You, a soldier!" sneered Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar".

Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword.

Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably to dull to cut off my head."

Nobushige drew his sword.

Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of h*ll!"

At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, put away his sword and bowed.

"Here open the gates of paradise", said Hakuin.

...

I know (as compared to “I believe”) that having once taken this step, slowly but slowly, one becomes aware of what is real and what is unreal. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you already know this, but the above statement is exactly the dividing point between a "rational" philosophy and a "faith-based" one. I come down on the other side of the fence, believing that I can only believe some things _more_ than other things, but never truly know anything. Science develops a system of theories that are interconnected, but no honest scientist would ever assert that any of them are absolute, hard fact. The most we can say is that they are not demonstrably inconsistent with observations so far. If I ever pretend to know something, it is understood as a practical assumption to simplify life decisions until I assume a new set of "facts".

My next comment treads dangerously close to sounding offensive, but for the sake of discussion let me try: I feel that people who willingly convert belief into knowledge are essentially deluding themselves for comfort's sake. If you were to share this view, you would strive to recognize and _counteract_ leaps of faith in your thinking, rather than embrace them! They distort our view of reality... I distrust all organized religions because I cannot draw the line between them and "cults", where the same sorts of self-reinforcing group-think and brain-washing techniques are applied to suppress individual, critical thought.

I am not suggesting that you are wrong and I am right, but to me this is the interesting kernel of difference. What makes some people go for one mental discipline or the other? Is it specific life experiences? Differences in physiological structure? Some combination of the two? I see the metaphysical question as: we must understand the nature of our mental existence before we can even bother with the existence that might surround it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Despite what you are concluding, it is not belief or knowledge that separates us:

The master of Kennin temple was Mokurai, Silent Thunder. He had a little protege named Toyo who was only twelve years old. Toyo saw the older diciples visit the master's room each morning and evening to receive instruction on sanzen or personal guidance in which they were given koans to stop mind-wandering.

Toyo wished to do sanzen also.

"Wait a while," said Mokurai. "You are too young."

But the child insisted, so the teacher finally consented.

In the evening little Toyo went at the proper time to the threshold of Mokurai's sanzen room. He struck the gong to announce his presence, bowed respectfully three times outside the door, and went to sit before the master in respectful silence.

"You can hear the sound of two hands when they clap together," said Mokurai. "Now show me the sound of one hand."

Toyo bowed and went to his room to consider this problem. From his window he could hear the music of the geishas. "Ah, I have it!" he proclaimed.

The next evening, when his teacher asked him to illustrate the sound of one hand, Toyo began to play the music of the geishas.

"No, no," said Mokurai. "That will never do. That is not the sound of one hand. You've not got it at all."

Thinking that such music might interrupt, Toyo moved his abode to a quiet place. He meditated again. "What can be the sound of one hand be?" He happened to hear some water dripping. "I have it," imagined Toyo.

When he next appeared before his teacher, Toyo imitated the dripping water.

"What is that?" asked Moturai. "That is the sound of dripping water, but not the sound of one hand. Try again."

In vain Toyo meditated to hear the sound of one hand. He heard the sighing of the wind. But the sound was rejected.

He heard the cry of an owl. This was also refused.

The sound of one hand was not the locusts.

For more than ten times Toyo visited Mokurai with different sounds. All were wrong. For almost a year he pondered what the sound of one hand might be.

At last little Toyo entered true meditation and transcended all sounds. "I could collect no more." he explained later, "so I reached the soundless sound."

Toyo had realized the sound of one hand.

If any of you thought it would be a good series......wrong.

It was ######ing &lt;deleted&gt;!

Bring back Tom Baker!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am afraid age may well have affected your sensory perceptions, my dear Professor. Or perhaps you are chemically imbalanced.

All I can say is that the show was thoroughly enjoyed by all in my family (aged 80 through to 6 years).

I see a BAFTA award for Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper.

before, I used Kazaa but later i knew about LimeWare and it is really great in contrast to other programs as the speed is really great. Just try it once....

However, speed is dependent to Dial-up or DSL..., too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do not use either of these programs. That is unless you are happy with your computer full of adware and spyware.

Should you doubt me, try running an anti-adware program after their installation. You will be more than surprised at the results.

Better programs to use can be found here:

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/collectio...lid,1359,00.asp

"No. What we perceive, in the now, is all that we think there is. Life is what you make it." 

Sorry, but tell that to the starving man in Africa, who is burying his child that just died of starvation.

This is a terrible example you have chosen. Not only because of the tragedy you describe, but also because of the awful irony, of which you could not be aware: I worked for over 2 years for the IRC in Sudan and Eritrea. I have stood beside too many fathers weeping for their children.

And yet, not one of these families displayed any doubts in their faiths – Muslim in the Sudan or Christian in Eritrea. In fact their reactions turned me inside out. Not so much emotionally – you develop an emotional barrier in this work – but in a religious sense. These people were suffering the ultimate in pain and misery but they still believed!

Your sermon is ended with quotes from respected men indeed. The first begins with "I believe..." and ends with "So, I think..." He 'believes' we seek happiness. The second is also uncertain, "... sometimes seeming to a divine purpose."  And he believes that the prupose is we are here for the sake of 'others'. Both are idealist.

I am not searching for idealism... but realism... Absolute Truth.

Yes, the “I believes” are a big problem because they demonstrate an irrationality – an illogical “leap in the dark”. As Jews who accept the Old Testament’s laws as imperatives on how to live; as Christians who try to live their lives following Christ’s teachings; as Muslims who adopt the Koran as their life’s template; as Buddhists who accept the Dharma – all have taken this (by modern western standards) irrational, illogical leap in the dark to believe.

I know (as compared to “I believe”) that having once taken this step, slowly but slowly, one becomes aware of what is real and what is unreal. I am also aware, albeit in my stumbling, humanly ineffective way, that I am crawling painfully and at a snail's pace, closer to the Absolute and Ultimate Truth.

For a long time now, I have thought that the state of 'dreaming' is the brains way of 'defragging' itself. Clearing up the clogged mess of information taken in during the waking hours. Much as the computer needs defragging. We dream every 90 minutes during sleep and often wake up immediately after a dream, or during a dream. These are the dreams we remember. Most of the time they are nonsensical, which I think is caused by the brain trying to make sense of all the jumble... of sights, sounds, thoughts, perceptions etc etc.

Defragging and dreaming could be analogous. Whilst defragging may make order in you file system, it does not, as dreaming does not, differentiate between what is garbage and what is not. Defragging will not remove the viruses, worms or adware throughout your machine. In just the same way dreaming makes no quality analysis on opinions formed as a result of e.g. the front page of the Sun or points of view adopted after overhearing some brainless so-called celebrity on TV (or even some fool on the Thai forum). More importantly, dreaming will only wrestle with, and often submits to, the conflicts created by the effects of the pressures of a materialistic society. Dreaming cannot remove these problems.

The problem that you have hit on here, I think, is the problem of the 'ego' . Meditation helps us to get away from the egocentric self. Not sure that Mantras etc need to be the thing to concentrate on, but to concentrate on our perceptions and try evaluating them outside of the ego.

The only truth I could accept is something that I can find no argument about. As there are many ways of viewing a subject, object or thought, I find myself in the same position as Socrates and Voltaire... "The only thing I can be certain of, is that I can be certain of nothing."  And, perhaps, that is the way Life is supposed to be... It simply 'IS'.

No. What we perceive, in the now, is all that we think there is. Life is what you make it.

We tend to always look for a purpose, or a reason for everything... but there may be no reason or purpose for Life. It may just exist for It's own sake, and nothing more.

And to end my Easter sermon, two quotes from men, who like myself disagree with this last statement of yours:

"I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we all are seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very motion of our life is towards happiness…" Dalai Lama

"Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others...for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day, I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of people, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received." Albert Einstein

...We perceive Life through our senses of touch, sound, sight, hearing and smell. We hear sounds and see sights that are not sounds and not sights, they are just the brains interpretion waves of various frequencies from light waves bouncing off substances, or sound waves bouncing on the ear drum... both are then changed into electrical impulses. So, when a tree falls in the forest, whether there is anybody there to hear it or not, the tree falling does not make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air is all.

When hearing or seeing, or touching etc etc we all perceive differently... depending on the quality of the eyes or the shape of the ears. We all perceive the truth/s to be different, depending on our programming/nature/nurture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are touching the world of metaphysics here.

It is quite true, for many reasons, we are rarely aware of the truth. Not the least of these reasons is the variations found within us as human beings. But, I believe the prime factor, is that our receptive mechanisms – our senses and our awareness – are completely messed up. Clogged by our previous experiences and the thoughts, ideas and values of others; often too centred on ourselves.

We need to clean these processes as often as we clean our teeth.

The Far East (Thailand especially) teaches us how to do this. A central point of Buddhism is meditation. This (e.g. half an hour everyday) spent concentrating alone on the light of a candle or saying a mantra (“Om Madi Pa” or “Hail Mary” or “God is Great” – choose your religion, choose your mantra), cleans our perceptions, heightens our awareness and brings us one miserable step closer to experiencing the truth.

Or at the very least you save money by spending half an hour less in the pub.

... The link below states that this is an erumour and that there is no evidence of this event ever taking place! Or perhaps the lack of evidence proves that it exists? Anyhow, i doubt if einstein would have used this argument since both heat and light are measurable quantitities and to make an analogy to unmeasurable quantities of god and evil is non-sensical. Einstein's many references to god were not to promote god's existence but to implicate the things in the universe that can't be explained, beyond the non-randomness that science can explain.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew someone would spot it

But you do open up the debate; we could go three ways:

• the nature of truth?

• the value of apocryphal stories?

• the use of analogies in argument?

However so everyone can have a drink and talk about the football, I will just end with a "true" quote from Albert Einstein:

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

IMHO that is speculation that means something!

IMHO these discussions have little relevance to reality.

What is relevant is this world as we experience it. Debates such as to the nature of suppositions (and opposites to reality) such as the so-called big bang theory, are nothing more than intellectually contrived diversions from the imperative of perceiving the “now” so essential to anyone who wishes to experience true life within the incomprehensibility that is our Universe.

There is only now. What has happened, has already happened and is gone; what might happen, might never happen. There is only now.

A story to illustrate:

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists?

A student bravely replied yes, he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes, sir," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil."

The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat.

The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does".

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colours and study the various wavelengths of each colour. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. "These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young mans name --- Albert Einstein

Therefore, I say theories like the big bang theory only have value in that they seek to confirm our existence.

But as I am, and I am here, and I know I am here: I need no further proof.

Perhaps also when one is immersed in a "faith based religion", conformity to the religions dogma may also be a powerful force.  Imagine, conforming to what people thought or practiced  two thousand years ago when life was so different, yet millions do so today all over the world. Man has often been described as resembling sheep, some truth in that as well. "Live and let live" is an easily espoused motto but rarely practiced by the vast majority of people, in my experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are shooting at the wrong target here. I was brought up fairly religious. One of the views I was taught was, it does not matter what others think (we are all sinners), there is only One opinion that matters and He judges our intentions.

If you are an elderly gentleman who for many reasons is now seeking love, care, attention or just plain sex in LOS, to in some way end your life on a happy note, what in the world is wrong with that intention? The pursuit of happiness is probably the most important motivation for life.

Many Thai girls prefer relationships based on satisfying the longings of the older man, because they often discover there are many more additional benefits than the obvious when they become aware most of these men are, by all definitions of the word, real gentlemen.

Those who criticise others come from dysfunctional backgrounds where they learnt to justify their inadequacies by, amongst other things, constantly criticising others.

You should really look at the motivations and intentions of these, often, young criticisers. What is it that makes a perfectly healthy young man leave his own country and visit Thailand frequenting the bars and go-go clubs looking for girls? Surely an inability to form relationships with their own kind mostly caused by these idiots having marked reductions in the size of their grey matter or other organs.

You can generate a searchable index of a bunch of PDF files using the 'catalog' function in Acrobat. Its just a keyword search, but it works quite well. Better than scraping through them by hand !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even better....get hold of Copernic's Desktop Search Engine. This FREE from www.copernic.com

This is a highly intelligent indexing tool that will index everything on you hard disk (including pdf and mp3 etc.). After indexing it attaches to your toolbar with a small window. Insert a key word, press the green arrow, and documents are found in lightning speed.

I have over 300GB of files, documents and pdf files. Copernic's Desktop Search Engine has increased my "search" and "find" time by over 100%

... as per lonely travel guide to Thailand ca. 1955.

Today few people seems to care, at least in the tourist areas.

News regularly show cops prod corpses with their feet to see if they're really dead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. …as per every member of my Thai family.

Why the police do something and to whom the do it (as shown on that unreliable authority - the glass box) requires more explanation than you give, to be cited as evidence of any changes in cultural attitudes.

Thai girlfriend has blasted me for including my socks and underwear...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A point that has been missed by all is the mention of socks in the original posting.

Socks cover the "lowest" part of the body (not only geographically, but also as a reverse of the holiest place in the body: the head).

This is a very important aspect of Thai culture. If you point or push with your feet, you appear enormously insulting to a Thai. Never step over a Thai person's head or even show the soles of your feet to a Thai.

Sock are possibly made more disgusting by the unbelievable habit of many farang of wearing socks in their sandals.

make allowances for individual personalities and attitudes, it's the same in any marriage, Farang / Farang or Farang / Thai.

Patrick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as you are demonstrating in this thread, eh, Patrick?

Rolo Tomasi was a character in "LA Confidential".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your right, a quick Google and it appears "Rolo Tomasi's" abound,

... I needed this Tomasi diversion from this heavy thread ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is almost correct. Rolo Tomasi was a name given to the unknown bad guys who always got away with murder. Catching the "Rolo Tomasi" was the reason given by the young police lieutenant for joining the force in LA Confidential.

But, for an even further diversion from this thread, what is the connection between Rolo Tomasi and Keyser Soze?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither existed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems like nobody knows (or cares?) including Rolo Tomasi!

So for you, Pie Boy:

Rolo Tomasi were the dying words of the character played by Kevin Stacey in the film LA Cofidential. Another "Rolo Tomasi" type character (bad guy who gets away with murder and worse) was Keyzer Sozo in the film The Usual Suspects. In the brilliant dying seconds of this film, it is revealed who Keyser Soze is: the character played by Kevin Stacy.

Rolo Tomasi was a character in "LA Confidential".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your right, a quick Google and it appears "Rolo Tomasi's" abound,

... I needed this Tomasi diversion from this heavy thread ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is almost correct. Rolo Tomasi was a name given to the unknown bad guys who always got away with murder. Catching the "Rolo Tomasi" was the reason given by the young police lieutenant for joining the force in LA Confidential.

But, for an even further diversion from this thread, what is the connection between Rolo Tomasi and Keyser Soze?

Is your wife still on TV in the UK??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I this a Zen Koan?