Today at 12:34pm by Seth
between the spiritual and the material …

with a distinction between the subjective and the objective?

will all instances fall on the corresponding same side of the distinction? 

Said differently the Venn diagrams of both will be identical, the only difference being the name of the circles.

About the method of thought in this item …
 

Let me review extensional logic, which is what is being used here.   Picture a  discrimator machine .. in its hopper we drop examples, there are 4 lights on the machine named :  “spiritual”, “subjective”, “material”, “objective”.  If we drop the example called “logical” in the hopper,  then both the “material” and “objective” lights will go on … the other two will not ← we agree on that.   So that one example supports my thesis … but it certainly does not prove it. 

So try dropping something else in the hopper and see which lights go on?

by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 06:05:42, changed 2016-04-29 12:34:29 thought 20867
2 comment threads
Seth 2016-04-29 08:46:22 [item 20867#51681]
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 08:15:38 [item 20867#51679]
If you can’t make the distinction that is fine for you. Others have bridged the gap. The spiritual is not a logical realm, but it is a consciousness one. Not all consciousness is subjective. For subjective there needs to be an Ego. 
You have introduced another distinction here when you say,  “the spiritual is not a logical domain” ← with which i agree.   Notice that the subjective is not a logical domain either.   So there is no difference there, we could use either the spiritual/material or the subjective/objective to say the same thing. 

Then you introduce yet another,  consciousness … well obviously consciousness is subjective ← there can be no doubt about that.  So there as well we can use either distinction to separate that which is conscious from that which is not … the conscious ones are subjective. 

… er, except you go on to say, that not all consciousness is subjective.   Can you point out an instance of consciousness that is not subjective? 

What do you really mean by “there needs to be an ego” ?  Asking “what is and is not my ego” seams to me to be the same question as aking “what is and what is not subjective to me” ← is that different with you?
Seth 2016-04-29 10:32:31 [item 20867#51685]
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 09:03:14 [item 20867#51682]
Your first sentence is false.  Two things which are not something else are not necessarily equal.  A turd and a giraffe are not rocks – that does not make them equal.  It gets worse from there.  I go with GW who has lots to say on the subject of consciousness as a fundamental catergory of every ultimate particle (of the cosmos).
Tai Shu commentary P.2625 & P.2693 . Perhaps an Ego (in the RS sense) belongs to the higher animals as a group soul, but is individual in man.  No need to replace words which already have meaning to munge them together so that your other ideas work. 
well it is hard for me to follow that train, for i never used any absurd idea like “things which are not something are necessarily equal” ← where did you get the strange idea that i did?

then too, “that every particle of the cosmos has a subjective side” does not contradict anything that i said.  I know i have a subjective side,  were i a rock i can imagine that i would have one too. 

Replacing distinctions with new ones which are more consistent from a larger kontext is part of real thinking … it is part of changing mind … it is part of consciousness .   i say, “do it if you dare … or don’t do it, to  keep your mind”. 
Today at 10:46am by Seth


 ← it’s purpose seems to be to find friends.



Very kewl way i got my URL coolhttp://www.tagged.com/sethrussell  … no stingy resource on this domain.   It is so very strange that Nathan’s subjective judgments zigg away from what is so very natural on the web and that he tried to impose those on thinking domains.

Incidentally, talk about games … this site is gamed al a queee !   It is mostly targeted towards dating games … but who knows … maybe it can be used for other groupings too.  and yes, it does have groups.
by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 10:46:30 thought 20868
no comments
Today at 5:42am by Seth
… or said differently, if it does not change in relationship to you, then you are not aware of it. 

I cannot think of a contra example.  Can you?
by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 05:42:23 thought 20866
1 comment thread
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-29 09:23:48 [item 20866#51684]
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 08:24:16 [item 20866#51680]
Awareness is awareness; change is change.  I am aware of my morning cup of coffee. The experience changes little if any from day to day. I may change. Munging rarely yields much. To detect change one has to be aware, but change can take place without our awareness of it.  The shape of a turd crawling out of our respective asses undoubtedly changes before being unked off & deposited in the bowl. Are we aware of the change? Some do not bother to look. Some take selfies. laughing
Seth 2016-04-29 09:19:03 [item 20866#51683]
well i did not mean they were the same thing … only that they can not be separated.   my topic is spoken in the style of “the medium is the message” which also  does not mean that we cannot distinguish the medium from the message.   Consider lightning and thunder … not the same thing … right?   But we never see the one without hearing the other … so they are a thing together … they cannot be separated. 

then later you say,  “to detect change one has to be aware” … i would point to the same thing only i would say,  “detecting change is being aware”.   If you coffee was always and forever there unchanged, you would not even call it your “morning” coffee.  

Now it is certainly true that the converse of “if it does not change in relationship to you, then you are not aware of it” is false.   Just because you are not aware of something, does not mean that it does not change.   But change is necessary for awareness. 

I am still looking for my counter example. 
Keep looking. Munge away. Not interested in confusion.  Good for you if you like it. It is no help for me. Clarifies nothing.rose Pronounce & pontificate – take selfie when finished.  THe following makes as much sense:
April 28, 2016 by Seth
There are several things that make thinking domains a poor choice for people to actually commit to use …
  1.  the cursor in the RTE sometimes jumps around unpredictably … i am studying this with the presumption that it has something to do with the spell checker which has a popup that is also irrelivant to a user.  This kind of computer mischief is acceptable to early alpha users like myself,  but others expect and deserve more reliable tools.  
  2. the chat windows pop up distracting from focus on every new browser instance even though there was no chat dialogue instigated by the user. 
  3. there is no practical control provided to the owner of a thinking domain – currently it is up to the whims of an absent developer.
  4. there is no cooperation in setting up a structure where other developers can continue to improve  the tool.
  5. the sharing to and from a thinking domain is retarded relative to other tools already available.
  6. ...
    by Seth in group fbi — 2016-04-28 10:31:55 thought 20865
    no comments
    April 28, 2016 by Seth

    Nature breathes … in and out … and so too our psyches … delve deep into your subjective being … then move out into the objective world shared by others … in and out.   Or  keep only breathing in, if you dare … or keep only breathing out,  if you can.   But maybe  try breathing in and out, me thinks it works better.

    seth

    by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-28 09:29:24 thought 20864
    April 28, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
    The older I get the more beautiful the female species looks to me .  Is this a trend.  Is something happening?
    laughing
    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 .

    Here's the thing. You cannot take something that hurts and remove it from existence. That's what many people think healing is. You cannot take something that exists and make it non-existent. It's impossible. So healing does not exist. You can't heal something that is. Something that is, is what it is and it will always be present in the parallel frequency reality. Why? Because it offers many different consciousnesses, many different experiences, that they use to experience by there vibrational match. You cannot take your trauma and heal it. It's meant to be a traumatic experience. That's what it's there for, to offer people traumatic experiences. If you wish to heal yourself, you need to understand that you are a different vibrational reality now. And when you know that, that just seems like a distant reality that you can't really connect to anymore. It just feels like an image on a screen, but you can't feel it and be it, because your vibration is so far moved on into a different higher vibrational reality that you now feel completely healed without ever staying with that trauma. You spiritually bypassed your way into healing. YAY! Finally!

    -Bentinho

      by nathan in group nathan — 2016-04-27 16:28:30 thought 20862
      2 comment threads
      Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-28 08:32:19 [item 20862#51631]
      Seth 2016-04-27 21:08:37 [item 20862#51619]
      nathan 2016-04-26 16:24:46 [item 20848#51537]
      There is nothing scientific about beliefs. They are highly personal, like fingerprints. Thus why things like the LOA have not been able to be studied scientifically even though they have been around for ages, all the ages. If you want to be able to do these things, then do them. Start and then achieve. Thinking about these ideas or trying to prove them with an external methods such as science will give different results for every different person who does such … exactly as the science so far has proceeded. However, each person who actually does these things will achieve the same result … i.e. their reality will become tuneable by their thoughts. Each person will recognize this in their own individual way and be sure about the happening, even though comparison of results with others will seem to be just another story. That is how it would work if each person was creating their own reality … which of course, they are … hence the consistent results.

      is this what you refer to as your “explanation of objective reality” ?
      Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 00:30:14 [item 20862#51621]
      At least GW & RS have given examples – do this & such & such will happen. N has given no audit trail of one thing leading to a result; step by step. Anecdotal evidence is mostly superstition. Even AC, however imperfect or not sought the method of science & the aim of religion
      nathan 2016-04-28 03:11:04 [item 20862#51622]
      Mark, I have been giving you exact things to do for over 5 years now. So many I am blue in the face (or fingers). You don’t do any of them, or if so, you do them half hearted without full commitment so they don’t work well. There is also over 10,000 youtubes on exactly what to do by Abrham, Bentinho, Bashar and others. There is more material on what to do right now on this one subject than all of Steiner and GW’s works combined. And it is all the same thing, over and over again. There is only one simple formula, given from thousands of different points of view to match any point anyone could be starting from. If you don’t know what to do, then you are not wanting to and I have no desire to keep repeating it for you.

      No Seth. The one where I talked about objective reality was full of the word objective, that one does not contain the word.
      Seth 2016-04-28 07:23:52 [item 20862#51626]
      well i searched for it and did not find it.   if i was supersticious i would imagine that my vibrations did not attract it … but is that really what happened to the clarity of the words you said about objective reality?
      Nope! N. You just keep running your belief-set (B.S.) . Start out by saying something like :
      • this is my objective ….. specifically… what I wanted (To win the lottery in order to ….) 
      • I ran these thoughts through mmy mind every day until such & such happened
      • I ran these feelings through my mind …. etc
      • I adjusted this or that one until I got on my high flying disk which lasted …. long
      • Maybe reveal your collection of LOA tools – focus wheel details etc
      Basically people have extraordinary & happy lives without any of this stuff
      Seth 2016-04-28 09:19:53 [item 20862#51639]
      Seth 2016-04-27 19:26:39 [item 20862#51616]
      well i get a cut and i watch- it heal … it’s amazing surprise !!!  … a foundation of my Faith.  the cut is not always there unless change does not happen … but change does happen … I experience it in almost every moment.  

      Now i certainly realize that the model of what is happening that Bentinho, you, and others are promoting sacrifices real change for some other value.  Certainly that gestalt can be subjectively obtained.  You claim you have it, and i believe you.   The way Benitinho talks is very  convincing … yet it is all just his description of subjective experience.  First one must assume that objective reality does not exist,  then the Gestalt follows from there.  It is a relatively easy piece done, me thinks, ages ago with quite a number of variations. 

      Sorry, not buying it for myself which i have expressed all over this domain.   I heart healing … i heart change … i heart the otherness of an objective reality not already happened … and i heart that what i do spirals out to affect that … and i heart what we can make of humanity … not what it already and for ever was with only the glory of a timeless spirit to on it crawl.
      nathan 2016-04-27 19:38:24 [item 20862#51617]
      Everything you put hearts by exists, is real, is a full experience. Objective reality exists. I explained objective reality yesterday. I really don’t understand why you twist things up like this. You create your reality. It is exactly what you are experiencing, in full, no changes, it’s all yours to do with as you will. Why do you try and water it down by saying you don’t get healing, change, otherness, objectivity? It’s all there, for real, you are experiencing it … you can’t make it go away.

      Bentinho is saying that healing is a process of shifting your vibration away from the manifestation of trauma. Not taking away the trauma, not healing the trauma, but simply moving your conscious attention and the mirror of manifestation represents that to you. It’s a real experience. That IS what you experience when you experience healing. It is not some subjective thing. It’s real. You experience it. And you enjoy all these experiences. So what is the problem?
      Seth 2016-04-27 20:50:22 [item 20862#51618]
      well then i cannot follow you philosophy … the menacing of  you words are not consistent to me … they seem to change to conform to some desired transaction with me.   with one saying you eliminate time and change … then in another you deny that … you claim to be 100% in control of your experience yet rationalize that does not deny others effect upon your experience … or make it so remote as to be be irrelevant.  sorry i cannot follow what you really mean … what i am getting from your words does not nit itself together in my mind, rather it seems to keeps changing foucs for its own sake. 
      nathan 2016-04-28 03:32:14 [item 20862#51624]
      Okay, whatever. It is very simple if you let it be. But your not going to be able to fit a square peg in a round hole and your not willing to set down the square peg you have been holding onto so long, for most of your life.

      I worked out some of my own issues in understanding by talking with you and explaining things to you. I better understand how things work because of that. Right now I am really enjoying what I can do with my reality knowing what I know. It is a much more interesting and fun way to live. I don’t think you can or want to make these shifts in this lifetime. You are comfortable with the ideas you have, and can get them to work for you after a fashion, and have a collection of people around you who think similar. You have built your reality and want to live it as you built it. I like knowing I build my reality and I like playing with it and changing it and getting my hands into the clay and paints that make it. You don’t want to do that. You would rather that be done outside your consciousness so that you can appear to experience things as if someone else or something else is creating everything. Really, that is the only issue on the table and that’s fine. It is always your choice.
      Seth 2016-04-28 07:28:49 [item 20862#51627]
      The things you say about me are only your subjective judgements.   The sentences you write with yourself as the subject are far more useful to me. 
      Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-28 08:49:40 [item 20862#51637]
      Basically what I hear is the passion of a true believer who thinks or holds that he has found the “secret of the universe” & spreads it as often as he can; perhaps not realizing that there may be more than just his one version. cool
      i think what nathan and his group believes is just fine and i trust is working well for them.   However, the presumption that everybody should function on those same beliefs is false.  The utility of those beliefs are subjective to them … others may not be able to share them. 
      April 27, 2016 by Seth

      ← activated and tested 8:50 4/27

      sending test newsletter as we speak – looks good to me, waiting management approval ← 9:00 am

      approval obtained,  mailer going out the door @ 9:27

      Shared on facebook here
       

      Boosted for $20



      ← probably private to me


       
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-26 10:53:02, changed 2016-04-27 15:14:58 thought 20856
      no comments
      April 27, 2016 by Seth

      one thing that is clear to me is that the texture of the transactions between two people fighting each other from their subjective truths is disgusting seen from the outside.   it does not have the  beauty of a natural tapestry.  

      it is disgusting cheeky

      What do people feel when you do it?

      this was in response to a train of thought in tag thought 20855
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-27 07:02:42, changed 2016-04-27 14:23:01 thought 20858
      no comments
      April 27, 2016 by Seth

      … and toothless foodie style bite size avacado sandwitch.

      the salad, maybe some day a recipe … but it was made with a passion … am not sure that can be reproduced … it got rage reviews.  it was made with “Toothless Foodie brand Tangy Salad Dressing”.
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-27 12:32:11 thought 20861
      no comments
      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 26, 2016 by Mark de Los Angeles
      Too much sex must be effective
      heartthumbs up
      by Mark de Los Angeles in group thefamily — 2016-04-26 11:37:25 thought 20857
      no comments
      April 25, 2016 by Seth

      This is the worst complaint about a politician that i have ever heard …

       


      I wonder what Hillary is practicing sucking on below:
      It gives new slant to the meaning of “member of Congress:  .laughing
      by Seth in group politics — 2016-04-25 18:24:48 thought 20855
      April 25, 2016 by Seth
      … others are swinging to the subjective. 

      Perhaps some memes are in order ...

       

      It is a personal choice where we place our value … inside ourselves, or outside ourselves.   The thrust of new age spiritual advise,  suggests we should place it inside.  Yet each of us are quite free to choose one or the other.    A long time ago, i made my choice,  quite consciously and quite intentionally – every time i revisit that choice i still feel it is true. 

      Seth

      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-25 15:06:30 thought 20853
      5 comment threads
      Katya 2016-04-26 01:32:25 [item 20853#51492]
      hi Seth. i think we can consciously set our intentions, but also things pressure me to change. i might be mostly learning more about my self and whether i exist or not as a self, like i could be in school. and then the environment may wake me up to an alertness whereby i switch my focus to whats outside of my self. it seems like its changing all the time, i don't know. just thinking about it. thanks
      Seth 2016-04-26 07:43:02 [item 20853#51495]
      hi katya,  i don’t get many comments here, so i cherish them, because they are from outside me.   Welcome to my story.    Me, i cannot doubt what i experience, so i would say i cannot doubt myself, i exist.  You, however are other to me … i don’t know what you experience … i cannot know, unless you honestly tell me.  Inside here i am King … i can make it up … believe i am in control … but then the world wakes me up … suddenly it changes … i can make it sweet … i can make it sour.  I love other ingredients … i hope you stick around. 
      nathan 2016-04-26 15:00:57 [item 20853#51532]
      I swing to the objective. My experience of what happens is completely what is outside myself. I know that all of it, every atom, is created within the energy field of my being … but at the same time, it is the outside. This is not a paradox, it is simple experience. The same as anyone has. I know that what is out there objectively will become what I first think about inside. But that does not change it’s objective nature, only describes the process by which it happens. 
      Seth 2016-04-27 13:13:27 [item 20853#51567]

      yep for me be ing is do ing smug .  i go with what happens. 

      I do grock the distinction you are drawing for yourself … conceptually as least … i have even looked for it in my experience.  But for me it remains your story, subjective as it is to you and those who claim to experience it too.  To me it is like watching a good movie on the SciFi channel … i love it heart,  i do … but i am but a voyeur in that land of otherness to me.

      seth in repsonse to mark in this thread

      Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-27 14:14:49 [item 20853#51576]
      Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-27 13:32:04 [item 20853#51569]
      So how what do you make of the distinction fuck ing as distinct from fucking. laughing or shit ing from shitting? 
      Seth 2016-04-27 14:01:32 [item 20853#51571]
      i don’t make any distinction there.   i just like the syntactic look of writing them as two words rather than one.  it emphasizes a peculiar quality of what the words refer to.  and when i separate them, it is that peculiar quality of those actions to which i refer. 
      i.e. bullshit.
      April 25, 2016 by Seth
      The intention here is to arrive at a cherried reproducible recipe …

      1 c biscuit
      1 c grated smoky cheddar cheese
      1 T garlic powder
      ¼ c coconut oil
      ½ c milk

      this batch had a bit too much milk … it was too wet and spread out.   try between ¼ c and ½ cup.

      denise claimes that the cheese flavor still did not come through enough.
       

      this vaiation

      1 cup bisquit
      2 cups grated smokey cheese
      2 T garlic pwder
      ¼ c coconut oil
      ¼ c + 2T buttermilk
      ¼ t salt

      way too cheeset – even to salty – and even too moist when cooked
      and again ...

      1 cup bisquick
      1 ½ cup grated smokey cheese
      ¼ cup coconut oil
      2 T garlic powder
      1 small pinch salt
      5 T milk

      baked for 16 minutes at 400 degrees on a preheated stone



      denise said they were quite cheezy enough … she still wants them to stick together better


      i am concerned they seem a bit too mushey inside, especially on the bottom of the biscuite.
      and even again ...

      1 cup bisquick
      1 cup grated smokey cheese ← back to 1 cup
      ¼ cup coconut oil
      2 T garlic powder
      1 small pinch salt ← dont need it
      5 ½ T milk ← just a tad moister

      baked for 18 minutes at 350 degrees on a preheated stone ← decreaseing temp, and increase time

      well denise says these stuck together better and were cheesy enough.  I also notice that they stick together better if left to cool just a bit after taking them out of the oven. 



       
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-14 14:43:56, changed 2016-04-25 12:45:49 thought 20803
      April 25, 2016 by Seth

      Bought a Sunday New York Times yesterday for the first time in a long while. It kind of reads like, well, The Journal of the Concerned Respectable People on the Eve of Revolution.

      It's a bizarre mix of articles fretting that maybe all this inequality is producing strange results, ads cheering on all the expensive things the rich and respectable should by, and efforts to keep a straight face.

      It's a very different experience from reading individual articles online.

      Simon St.Larent


      My comment …
       

      hmmm ... i wonder ... what spin does the NYT put on Koch's surprising turn (see below) … I wonder ... is the media's narrative changing ... and we are just noticing it now ... or is something actually happening beyond just the narrative?

      seth



      Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who have spent decades acquiring a world-class collection of Republicans, revealed over the weekend that they are considering purchasing their first Democrat

      New Yorker


       
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-25 10:07:49 thought 20851
      no comments
      April 25, 2016 by Seth


      from facebook group Street_Magicia_Society

       
      by Seth in group funnypages — 2016-04-25 09:32:34 thought 20850
      1 comment thread
      Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-04-25 09:38:52 [item 20850#51483]
      See also item 14676 laughing
      April 25, 2016 by Seth

      ← new speaktomecatalog.com product comming soon. 
      by Seth in group denise — 2016-04-25 08:33:07 thought 20849
      no comments