April 28, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
From A.C in the book Moonchild (out of the mouth of Simon Iff).
source: ...
" The soul !" exclaimed Lisa, joyfully.  "Oh, I believe in the soul!" "Very improper!" rejoined the mystic ; "Belief is the enemy of knowledge.  Skeat tells us that Soul probably comes from su, to beget."
by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2007-03-09 12:23:19, changed 2016-04-28 00:08:29 thought 6324
7 comment threads
2007-03-10 07:59:37 [item 6324#14579]
Then again you might wonder what is faith - something different than belief. Still deeper, what's to be done with your belief in the "scientific method" ?
Seth 2007-03-10 08:56:22 [item 6324#14580]
Mo Grist 2007-03-10 07:59:37 item 6324
Then again you might wonder what is faith - something different than belief. Still deeper, what's to be done with your belief in the "scientific method" ?
Traditionally: knowledge = justified true belief.  Perhaps faith is simply belief that is neither necessarily true nor justified.
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2007-03-22 13:28:34 [item 6324#14728]
M 2007-03-09 12:52:20 item 6324
seth 2007-03-09 12:48:57 item 6324
Moon Child is availabe from Amazon ... the reviews there are interesting.   I certainly buy that ""Belief is the enemy of knowledge. " 

Yep, I knew you would like that.  Zen folks say the minute you think you have an answer your mind usually snaps shut! The inquiry usually stops there.

Moonchild is also available online here.
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-28 00:08:07 [item 6324#51620]
Mo Grist 2007-03-10 10:02:24 [item 6324#14585]
Faith seems to be in the same domain as belief without the evidence. The NLP definition of belief as a "feeling of certainty" about something or someone serves me best & leaves out the tortuous epistemology - faith & belief are both feelings although their targets may or not be real.
P.S. I like the Wikipedia's quality control statement about weasel words in it's article on faith

More precise a belief is a feeling of certainty (qualia about) the meaning of something or something about someone. 

IMHO all else is a story made out of bullshit. 
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-28 08:34:41 [item 6324#51633]
nathan 2016-04-28 03:56:20 [item 6324#51625]
BTW. The scientific method helps you stabilize your reality by organizing and ordering your beliefs. That is it's power. It does not uncover truths or create truths, it simply helps you organize the truths you have chosen, or by default come to believe, and helps you find and fill in the gaps so that your experience is consistent and orderly. It works in this same way for an individual or a society.
Seth 2016-04-28 07:45:53 [item 6324#51628]
the scientific method can be used to discover or establish things that will ring true to others and not just yourself. 
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-28 08:37:40 [item 6324#51635]
nathan 2016-04-28 03:15:31 [item 6324#51623]
A belief is a thought you keep thinking until it’s consistent manifestation in your experience convinces you it is true. Belief is simply thought momentum. Nothing more. Nothing less. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 08:23:21 [item 6324#51630]
Bullshit – nothing more, nothing less! 
Seth 2016-04-28 08:34:14 [item 6324#51632]
i find no evidence that thinking a thought over and over will manifest objective results.  But i remember plenty of examples of thinking thoughts over and over manifesting subjective changes in my mind. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 08:35:22 [item 6324#51634]
There is this caveat that the M$M & new age media does manifest some social change – maybe in the near future girls will be able to go in boys bathrooms & visa-veras & in a further one people will become multi-sexual. laughing
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-28 09:50:07 [item 6324#51642]
Seth 2016-04-28 08:00:16 [item 6324#51629]
thinking out loud here …. mening that i do not know where this thought will take me as i start writing ...

i surprised myself yesterday,  i used the word “faith” in a true sentence about me.  i had not done that for a long time or even ever.   here it is exclusively from memory …

i get a cut,  i watch- it heal,  … it is AMAZING !!! surprise … those experiences are among the foundations of my  faith. 

so that tells you, if you can hear it,  what this word “faith” means to me.   So to me “faith” is much deeper than a belief which just continues to ring true.   It is great stuff … gets me up in the morning … keeps me going … and motivates my actions … it is not just a ring in my head that says, “yes that is true, yes that is consistent”.   It is truth backed up with examples and evidence on which i can rely … and … is is not subjective.  I know without a doubt that others have gotten cut and have noticed it automatically heals. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 08:42:05 [item 6324#51636]
cuts usually heal with or without belief or faith.  Faith is a qualia like belief surrounding the topic of certainty without evidence. 
Seth 2016-04-28 08:57:57 [item 6324#51638]
exactly!   it heals regardless of my internal attitude towards it … i called it “automatic”.   to me it is objective evidence of nature working quite apart from my subjective machinations.   my faith did not do the healing … the nature of what is happening did the healing. 

that is quite the opposite of Bentinho’s thoughts and Nathan’s.   there the thinking must be something like this:    if the healing happens regardless of one’s internal control, then one is not 100% in control of one’s experiences.  but the assumption is that one is 100% in control of one’s experiences.  therefore that healing happens must be denied … or in this case contrived away.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 09:35:43 [item 6324#51640]
Then too, there is the field of psychosomatic medicine & studies on the mind-body connection. pondering
Seth 2016-04-28 09:47:04 [item 6324#51641]
yes of course.   i have no doubt that our subjective beliefs affects our body and its healing.  That has been demonstrated scientifically.   The pesky thing here is the assumption of 100% internal control. 
I think the pesky thing is your assumption about assumptions of others as 100% control .
April 27, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
Smoothie of greens & fruits. Main dish is yesterday’s biscuits with melted cheese on the bottom. On top yesterday’s hamburger & bean chili & topped with poached eggs.  Yummm! thumbs up I will probably tweak the seasoning a bit in later editions.
by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-27 10:19:45 thought 20860
1 comment thread
Seth 2016-04-27 10:31:56 [item 20860#51560]
Yum indeed!   especially the egg on the chili on the buicuits … omg, i might have to try that myself.
April 20, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
Context without content is click-worthless! Is the attention economy imploding? 

In coming years, the revolution will likely demolish much of what we read and watch now. State and local newspapers and TV? Gone. Their models are fatally flawed. General interest magazines such as Time and Newsweek? Gone or unrecognizable shells of their former selves. Traditional TV and cable? Shrinking and scrambling. Clickbait machines such as Gawker, or Ozy, or Mashable? Gone or gobbled up by bigger players.

At the same time, the need for content, especially (but not only) video content, will explode. It will be a mad rush that makes the 1980s’ race to create new cable channels seems like a leisurely stroll.

So instead of scale for scale's sake, the next phase of the media revolution will be creating content of consequence and value. It will continue to be messy but the trajectory for the coming decade is promising. Listen carefully to what Mark Zuckerberg says of late and you can tell he wants quality content, not just quantity, and one day soon will probably want to produce some of it directly at Facebook. Same goes for Snapchat as it expands its content ambitions.
I like the graphic from the article above:
    by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-20 08:57:03 thought 20829
    2 comment threads
    Seth 2016-04-20 09:27:41 [item 20829#51347]
    good article thumbs up
    Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-20 12:38:23 [item 20829#51351]
    This is mostly from the point of view of attention & advertizing & not actual products & services. To charge the customer of the product or service for advertizement is foolish.  Luckily my DVR takes care of most TV blipverts.
    April 15, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
    Otherness notwithstanding: 

    context (n.) Look up context at Dictionary.com
    early 15c., from Latin contextus "a joining together," originally past participle of contexere "to weave together," from com- "together" (see com-) + texere"to weave, to make" (see texture (n.)).

        – http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=context 

    PR’s ontology class simplification is
    Context is just another distinction .  There is nothing outside the way you hold your distinctions. (It is all just the cosmic ooze & chaos) ← 
    OR in the above etymology a joining together other distinctions.
    Objective World is a context a lot of us have which says that our perceptions are not all just us. Nowadays there are some who are trying to destroy that context for fun & profit. Politics is full of contexts : Socialism, Patriotism ….America etc – essentially politics is all about creating & destroying contexts. More about that later under a post on Principles.  Maybe otherness is just in another’s mind never need the objective world.
    by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-15 07:53:09 thought 20806
    April 12, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
    First found in fb 
    The original has lots of examples for which the picture below is an image map for comments. Croneyism is the essence which drives politics.  Such is why the economic sphere needs separation from the political sphere. Current buying of the presidency & delegates illustrates it best.  See also item 20783 

      by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-12 08:00:32 thought 20787
      no comments
      April 11, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
      FYI – I have a tape somewhere in much-much fewer words. Will read this again sometime tuit

      And what I’d like to do is to get to a little bit of what love is, and then take a little bit closer look at what blocks us from experiencing what love is, and essentially love is …. And that’s it. See, it isn’t any more complicated than that. And it’s very difficult to get that. You see, what’s very difficult to get is that’s all there is. All the rest of it is an illusion. You see “I love you” is an illusion. It really is. And I really hate to break people’s illusions up. I shouldn’t say that because I really enjoy doing it; it’s my business. (laughter) And I would really like to communicate that “I love you” is an illusion. And if you take a look at “I love you” you’ll see that “I love you” has to come from … (interruption) … So, this idea of “I love you” is really an illusion and I think if you’ll look at it with me for just a moment, you’ll see that it’s an illusion. If I walked up and say “I love you” that’s got to come out of the notion that I might not. You see, it’s got to come from a sense that there’s something other than “I love you”. It’s got to mean “not other things” and “not before I found out that I did, but now I love you”; and “I don’t love other things, I love you – and not other things”. You see, this whole struggle that you and I go through to achieve love, to get love, to have love, to be loved, to love each other; this whole thing that everybody keeps preaching about is all nonsense.

      The fastest way to destroy love is to make a goal out of it, because people who are trying to be loved come from a place that they’re not loved. And people who are trying to love come from a place that they don’t love. And people who admonish other people about loving each other, never got it, they just never got it. That’s all nonsense; that admonishment to love one another.

      pondering Hmmmm…….
        by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-11 08:15:18 thought 20785
        no comments
        by Mark de Los Angeles in group mark — 2016-04-09 11:10:43 thought 20778
        12 comment threads
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-09 11:11:45 [item 20778#51022]
        “Let the network do it’s thing!laughing” – find out more on Burnie.
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-09 16:03:19 [item 20778#51031]
        An interesting comparison Ron Paul vs Bernie Sanders: 
        RP v BS

        nathan 2016-04-10 15:55:02 [item 20778#51047]
        MR 2016-04-10 10:25:18 [item 20778#51045]
        Simply not possible. That’s the good thing about Bernie … all these supposed things people are afraid he would do cannot be done.  
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 08:10:05 [item 20778#51063]
        That’s what a socialist-communist does – wake up! thumbs down – note N has finally found something impossible!laughing
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 08:44:20 [item 20778#51069]
        Seth 2016-04-11 08:29:42 [item 20778#51068]
        i think we need to look to the balance of forces here …. and not get obsessed with one or the other.  America grows through these cycles … we can watch- them come and go as weather even with the cycles of our own lives.   The grand “NO!” restraint of the Republican Party … the expansive egotism of the industrial Trump … the collective of what we are together ← all swirl into the happening and drama as our History unravels behind us.  Me, I … er, who cares about me … that is my own affair … only I know how it is truly represented in the ocean that all of us are cast upon ← sorry, you guys are not invited laugh
        Sorry this comment belongs in group pellick – did you say something? 
        ← laughing
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 09:01:45 [item 20778#51071]
        Seth 2016-04-11 08:48:51 [item 20778#51070]
        well obviously i think i said a lot … lots of edges there … the nexus of lots of contexts.   that you do not see the edges of which i spoke … er, well …. that sounds like a personal situation not related to roses or strawberries laugh
        A pile (munge) of words thrown into a post does not “something” make. Why not say something directly. Study Hemingway or Heinlein instead of Joyce, Burroughs & Watts.
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 09:24:35 [item 20778#51073]
        Seth 2016-04-11 09:07:16 [item 20778#51072]
        Try the first sentence … “i think we need to look to the balance of forces here …. and not get obsessed with one or the other” … the rest of the paragraph is just example and elaboration of that.   Mark, are you not just getting “obsessed” with fighting for one side in this ocean? 
        wtf does that mean? What forces? What balance? I have no side. I really like nobody.  Totally abstract. I don’t watch the debates. I switch channels. I can research BS & find out his history.  He would be the coup de grace on the US & it’s economy.  N is deluded. The heat of his meat melted his mind. ← metaphor. laughing
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 09:31:15 [item 20778#51074]
        The trance is complete – the best NLP hypnosis in song:

        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 09:41:59 [item 20778#51076]
        Seth 2016-04-11 09:34:27 [item 20778#51075]
        well i don’t follow your back and forth with nathan … that is not my business.  

        i am just relating to your ever and always repeating of memes against democrats and socialists with basically your Heinline obsession … and not seeing that there is a balance of these political forces in this country …. and probably all over the world.  what are you doing yourself in that ocean ?  You always talk as if i am struggling against your side in that ocean … but that presumption is false.  Sometimes i do … in this cycle i do not.  
        You have the obsession that any polarity is equal on both sides. That is false. Brush it under the carpet? Your choice. I take the stand & feel more the “I am America” identity more than “I am Mother Russia” or my Ego is big enough to say what is right for the entire Earth or the entire Universe or …. beyond. smug
        BTW, I had no beef until B.S.’s face began appearing on this blog with gushing advocacy. 
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 10:45:50 [item 20778#51080]
        Seth 2016-04-11 10:00:03 [item 20778#51077]
        well a polarity, equal on both sides, does not move.  ← obviously not the case in this context, the country will swing one way or the other, just like it did in 2008.  So we agree thumbs up, that is false smuglaughing

        Me, i am not a nationalist … I don’t really stand there … my ego there does try to expand to the all of humanity … but i am a voyer on these large scale movements … i do not stroke for one or the other. 

        It is interesting to note, however,  that the two popular movements … Sander’s and Trump’s … will make for an interesting election … lots of drama.  Let’s face it, Hillary is hum drum, sorry girl but you are.
        MR 2016-04-11 10:13:16 [item 20778#51078]
        Polarity no matter what the subject is extremely unlikely to be balanced & has nothing to do with voting except when the context is elections. ← my point.  Move the context to religion, science, psychology (bi-polarity, multiple-polarity) , etc & the statement still stands. I must have missed the gene of indifference to/or connection to the national archangel of our nation. My bad.  I think the Ego polarity in that case should be examined. It is vogue. I think Obama helped destroy US nationalism. 
        Seth 2016-04-11 10:36:04 [item 20778#51079]
        yeah Obama probably did … good for him.  this anti nationalism jean on my part … or the jingoism one on yours … is just our personal choices … me thinks, neither good or bad … me i don’t stroke for the red white and blue, notwistanding it is the greatest country of my time … you jack for whatever you will. 

        To think that large forces do not swing side to side, me thinks is to be oblivious to what is happening.  You seem to hold polarities as some abstraction … academic, almost just mathematical …  with no import for what actually happens ← not the case with the polarities that i experience. 
        Polarity is polarity – maybe get a grip on the meaning of the word polarity would help you out.  What happens from the polarity is whatever.  The pendulum can swing in many ways even having multiple pendulums. Stroking one’s weenie for whatever only gets the floor wet. ← not my thingy.

        Seth 2016-04-11 10:47:39 [item 20778#51081]
        laughing … Kudos … good play ! … especially this.
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-11 14:26:12 [item 20778#51082]
        pondering I wonder if Seth has ever been outside the Continental United States to see what it is like elsewhere?