Dear friends,
This Sunday we are discussing: Inspiration.
Inspiration is that particular skill that we all experience from time to
time. No doubt, inspiration is all about creativity, but is it also
about being clever or smart? And how much do we need to know to bring
about inspiration that matters?
Hopefully, we will be able to understand this concept on Sunday.
In the meantime Peter is still looking for a flat mate:
-------from Peter-----
Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking for
someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public transport;
very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water. English
spoken at home if you wish. Single room still available. : tel 609257259
-------------------------
Best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.30pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Inspiration
PhiloMadrid - Pub Philosophy Meetings in Madrid
21 January 2011
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: The cost of moving on + Maths Tertulia +News
Short essay, The cost of moving on + Maths Tertulia +Message from Peter
and from Edwin.
Dear friends,
First of all, I have opened a Twitter account @philomadrid and I expect
to start Tweeting before Sunday's meeting.
Talking about changes, this Sunday's meeting is The cost of moving on.
Of course, we all wish Edwin well in his move back home.
In the meantime Miguel has sent me news about a top level Maths tertulia
next Tuesday, and Peter is now looking for a flat mate to occupy the
single room. Finally, Edwin sent me a link to some very new vocabulary
in English from Mensa, via the Washington Post. Enjoy.
----from Miguel-----
Estimado tertuliano,
Te envío el anuncio de la próxima Tertulia de Matemáticas:
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliadematematicas/25-1-2011, que se
convoca esta vez en el Ateneo de Madrid gracias a los buenos oficios de
Juan Valentín.
Aprovecho para anunciarte el próximo Carnaval de Matemáticas por si
quieres participar: http://carnavaldematematicas.drupalgardens.com/
(cortesía del Profesor Antonio Alfonso Faus).
Saludos cordiales y feliz 2011,
J.Miguel
P.S.: Si quieres impartir una conferencia de contenido matemático
envíame un correo para acordar los detalles.
Para darte de baja en la lista de correo de la Tertulia envía otro con
"Baja" en el campo "Asunto" del mensaje.
-------from Peter-----
Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking for
someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public transport;
very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water. English
spoken at home if you wish. Single room still available. : tel 609257259
------from Edwin-----
Hi
I don't forward a lot of funnies 'cos most aren't but I enjoyed these
and think you might as well
Edwin
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to
take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or
changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the
subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Cont:- here ->
http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/2011/01/washington-posts-mensa-invitational.html
------------------------------end------------------
Best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.30pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
The cost of moving on
We human beings are full of paradoxes. Consider this paradox. Each and
everyone one of us, is an ancestor of someone who migrated from Africa.
This means that we are the product of those who successfully adopted
migration to survive the environmental changes that were taking place
many years ago; we need not go into how many years ago here. As it were,
migration, or in our case, moving on, is part of our genetic make up.
And by implication this means that we are, at least in principle, not
adverse to change.
However, we also happen to thrive most when we live under stable and
predictable conditions. Consider this thought experiment to check this
out for yourself. Given a choice which of these two options would you
choose. A house that is built of a seismic fault with unpredictable
recurrence on earthquakes that can easily flatten your property. Or, a
similar house that is built on a plot of land where no earthquakes have
ever been recorded, ever? I think that most people would prefer the
second option, and not because of the reduced risk of losing one's
property or one's life, but also because of the unplanned inconvenience
the first option would create should the house be hit by an earthquake.
The paradox, of course, is that although we are well equipped with what
it takes to up sticks and move on, we really hate doing it unless we
have to or forced to do so. We even reflect this paradox in our language.
Norman Tebbit, who today is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
but in 1981 was a newly appointed Employment Secretary, was misquoted as
saying (check Wikipedia) that he told rioters, who objected to his
changes to the employment laws, to get on their bike. Since then Tebbit
has been associated with the slogan "On yer bike!" What Tebbit did say
was that when his father was unemployed he did not riot but got on his
bike until he found a job. In normal English, we can safely say that to
get on your bike means, more or less, go and find a job (if you are
unemployed or in need of a job).
In 1960, two school friends who were separated when their families moved
apart, happened to meet at a railway station in Kent when both were on
their way to lectures at respectable colleges in London. These two lads,
according to Wikipedia, went on to make the expression, a rolling stone
gathers no moss, universally world famous. That's right I am referring
to The Rollin' stones and the two lads were Keith Richards and Mick
Jagger. What is more important for us is that the music group they, with
others, formed did live as if they were the paradigm of people without
care, responsibility and certainly nothing as stable lives. You know the
history of The Rollin' Stones better than me.
The irony, as human paradoxes have a habit of exposing, is that those
who maybe in the eighties did get on their bike, are probably still
going round on their bike. And those who superglued, by example, the
expression "a rolling stone gathers no moss" into our lives have not only
become as stable as a newly built pyramid, but have certainly gathered a
lot of money.
By now it should be evident that what we are discussing is none other
than what economists and Spinoza, might call equilibrium. Moving on, or
change, challenges that ideal state in our life where the risks are
balanced by the rewards. When we move on, we are changing a state of
affairs for another state of affairs. Of course, we might move on not
because we find ourselves in a bad situation, such as the unemployed in
the Midlands, or the Tribes of Africa, but because we can move to a
really better situation for example parking our newly found fortune in
an off shore tax haven island.
But for whatever reason we have to move on, their is always a cost, as
the title of the discussion rightly claims.
Of course, there is always the financial cost when we do physically move
on to another location. But moving on is also an expression to refer to
our life in general. Maybe after an emotional event or events that make
us change our way of life.
Maybe, moving on, does inevitably mean or in reality imply physical
movement, changing city, country, house, office, bus stop, cinema,
shops, or whatever. But most of all moving on means changing our mental
and emotion makeup. In other words when we move on we are first of all
changing our way of life. We won't be near our friends, relatives,
family, colleagues, acquaintances and of course the friendly waiter at
our favourite restaurant.
Indeed, whilst, people and buildings might come and go, our life stays
with us, our memories stay with us and most of all our emotional price
of moving on stays with us. In a way, moving on, first and foremost,
involves a progression of moving on from the four dimensional world we
live in (the fourth being time) to the fifth dimensional world of the
conscious self.
In reality, therefore, our cost when we move on is cost to our self, our
person, our personality. Which brings me back to my original paradox. We
can understand the idea of getting on our bike when we find ourselves in a
difficult situation; it is in our genes after all. But where do we get the
idea that by staying put, we stand to progress?
Let's look at this issue from a different point of view. In the physical
world, if things are changing around us, especially dangerous or risky
things, we stand to be obliterated if we don't change our position. If a
pack of wolves are chasing us it might not be a very good idea to stay
put and see what happens.
However, if we change smart as opposed to changing hard, we might end up
protecting ourselves, to a certain degree, from the risks whilst
enjoying the tranquillity of staying put. So we can run fast, or we can
build an enclosure with walls high enough that the wolves cannot jump
over them.
But from a position of starting to run when we see wolves to the
position of "lets build a high wall to keep the wolves away", we are
moving from the realm of the physical to the realm of the rational.
Thus if by moving on we are moving on physically we incur physical
costs. But if by moving on we mean moving on as a rational being we are
incurring rational costs.
What do I mean by this? If we are constantly changing our location and
moving about, we end up with both a negative and a positive effect. The
negative effect is that we don't have time to discover what really works
in the situation we are in because we are constantly changing our
situation. But by having to changing our situation in an unpredictable
and maybe random way we will have to learn fast how to deal with these
new risks. So the positive effect is that we have to learn how to learn.
And once we learn how to learn, we can build a wall high enough. QED
And once we stay put and build our wall we are basically using new
rational tools such as induction and probability to learn what works
well. In terms of cost to our life, therefore, when we move on we are
simply throwing away investments, time and bodies of knowledge that we
just cannot replace.
I mean, we can relatively easy replace the cost of energy we use to run
away from the wolves; catch a wolf and cook it for supper. But how do we
replace five weeks, five months, five years, building the fail safe wall
if we have to move on?
How can we replace the emotions and feeling we share with those close to
us when we have to move on? How, can we balance the books for past pain
and tribulation when we move on to a better life?
In other words, what is the cost of a rational life and how can we
recover lost investments in becoming rational?
Best
Lawrence
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: The cost of moving
on + Maths Tertulia +News
and from Edwin.
Dear friends,
First of all, I have opened a Twitter account @philomadrid and I expect
to start Tweeting before Sunday's meeting.
Talking about changes, this Sunday's meeting is The cost of moving on.
Of course, we all wish Edwin well in his move back home.
In the meantime Miguel has sent me news about a top level Maths tertulia
next Tuesday, and Peter is now looking for a flat mate to occupy the
single room. Finally, Edwin sent me a link to some very new vocabulary
in English from Mensa, via the Washington Post. Enjoy.
----from Miguel-----
Estimado tertuliano,
Te envío el anuncio de la próxima Tertulia de Matemáticas:
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliadematematicas/25-1-2011, que se
convoca esta vez en el Ateneo de Madrid gracias a los buenos oficios de
Juan Valentín.
Aprovecho para anunciarte el próximo Carnaval de Matemáticas por si
quieres participar: http://carnavaldematematicas.drupalgardens.com/
(cortesía del Profesor Antonio Alfonso Faus).
Saludos cordiales y feliz 2011,
J.Miguel
P.S.: Si quieres impartir una conferencia de contenido matemático
envíame un correo para acordar los detalles.
Para darte de baja en la lista de correo de la Tertulia envía otro con
"Baja" en el campo "Asunto" del mensaje.
-------from Peter-----
Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking for
someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public transport;
very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water. English
spoken at home if you wish. Single room still available. : tel 609257259
------from Edwin-----
Hi
I don't forward a lot of funnies 'cos most aren't but I enjoyed these
and think you might as well
Edwin
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to
take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or
changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the
subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Cont:- here ->
http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/2011/01/washington-posts-mensa-invitational.html
------------------------------end------------------
Best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.30pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
The cost of moving on
We human beings are full of paradoxes. Consider this paradox. Each and
everyone one of us, is an ancestor of someone who migrated from Africa.
This means that we are the product of those who successfully adopted
migration to survive the environmental changes that were taking place
many years ago; we need not go into how many years ago here. As it were,
migration, or in our case, moving on, is part of our genetic make up.
And by implication this means that we are, at least in principle, not
adverse to change.
However, we also happen to thrive most when we live under stable and
predictable conditions. Consider this thought experiment to check this
out for yourself. Given a choice which of these two options would you
choose. A house that is built of a seismic fault with unpredictable
recurrence on earthquakes that can easily flatten your property. Or, a
similar house that is built on a plot of land where no earthquakes have
ever been recorded, ever? I think that most people would prefer the
second option, and not because of the reduced risk of losing one's
property or one's life, but also because of the unplanned inconvenience
the first option would create should the house be hit by an earthquake.
The paradox, of course, is that although we are well equipped with what
it takes to up sticks and move on, we really hate doing it unless we
have to or forced to do so. We even reflect this paradox in our language.
Norman Tebbit, who today is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
but in 1981 was a newly appointed Employment Secretary, was misquoted as
saying (check Wikipedia) that he told rioters, who objected to his
changes to the employment laws, to get on their bike. Since then Tebbit
has been associated with the slogan "On yer bike!" What Tebbit did say
was that when his father was unemployed he did not riot but got on his
bike until he found a job. In normal English, we can safely say that to
get on your bike means, more or less, go and find a job (if you are
unemployed or in need of a job).
In 1960, two school friends who were separated when their families moved
apart, happened to meet at a railway station in Kent when both were on
their way to lectures at respectable colleges in London. These two lads,
according to Wikipedia, went on to make the expression, a rolling stone
gathers no moss, universally world famous. That's right I am referring
to The Rollin' stones and the two lads were Keith Richards and Mick
Jagger. What is more important for us is that the music group they, with
others, formed did live as if they were the paradigm of people without
care, responsibility and certainly nothing as stable lives. You know the
history of The Rollin' Stones better than me.
The irony, as human paradoxes have a habit of exposing, is that those
who maybe in the eighties did get on their bike, are probably still
going round on their bike. And those who superglued, by example, the
expression "a rolling stone gathers no moss" into our lives have not only
become as stable as a newly built pyramid, but have certainly gathered a
lot of money.
By now it should be evident that what we are discussing is none other
than what economists and Spinoza, might call equilibrium. Moving on, or
change, challenges that ideal state in our life where the risks are
balanced by the rewards. When we move on, we are changing a state of
affairs for another state of affairs. Of course, we might move on not
because we find ourselves in a bad situation, such as the unemployed in
the Midlands, or the Tribes of Africa, but because we can move to a
really better situation for example parking our newly found fortune in
an off shore tax haven island.
But for whatever reason we have to move on, their is always a cost, as
the title of the discussion rightly claims.
Of course, there is always the financial cost when we do physically move
on to another location. But moving on is also an expression to refer to
our life in general. Maybe after an emotional event or events that make
us change our way of life.
Maybe, moving on, does inevitably mean or in reality imply physical
movement, changing city, country, house, office, bus stop, cinema,
shops, or whatever. But most of all moving on means changing our mental
and emotion makeup. In other words when we move on we are first of all
changing our way of life. We won't be near our friends, relatives,
family, colleagues, acquaintances and of course the friendly waiter at
our favourite restaurant.
Indeed, whilst, people and buildings might come and go, our life stays
with us, our memories stay with us and most of all our emotional price
of moving on stays with us. In a way, moving on, first and foremost,
involves a progression of moving on from the four dimensional world we
live in (the fourth being time) to the fifth dimensional world of the
conscious self.
In reality, therefore, our cost when we move on is cost to our self, our
person, our personality. Which brings me back to my original paradox. We
can understand the idea of getting on our bike when we find ourselves in a
difficult situation; it is in our genes after all. But where do we get the
idea that by staying put, we stand to progress?
Let's look at this issue from a different point of view. In the physical
world, if things are changing around us, especially dangerous or risky
things, we stand to be obliterated if we don't change our position. If a
pack of wolves are chasing us it might not be a very good idea to stay
put and see what happens.
However, if we change smart as opposed to changing hard, we might end up
protecting ourselves, to a certain degree, from the risks whilst
enjoying the tranquillity of staying put. So we can run fast, or we can
build an enclosure with walls high enough that the wolves cannot jump
over them.
But from a position of starting to run when we see wolves to the
position of "lets build a high wall to keep the wolves away", we are
moving from the realm of the physical to the realm of the rational.
Thus if by moving on we are moving on physically we incur physical
costs. But if by moving on we mean moving on as a rational being we are
incurring rational costs.
What do I mean by this? If we are constantly changing our location and
moving about, we end up with both a negative and a positive effect. The
negative effect is that we don't have time to discover what really works
in the situation we are in because we are constantly changing our
situation. But by having to changing our situation in an unpredictable
and maybe random way we will have to learn fast how to deal with these
new risks. So the positive effect is that we have to learn how to learn.
And once we learn how to learn, we can build a wall high enough. QED
And once we stay put and build our wall we are basically using new
rational tools such as induction and probability to learn what works
well. In terms of cost to our life, therefore, when we move on we are
simply throwing away investments, time and bodies of knowledge that we
just cannot replace.
I mean, we can relatively easy replace the cost of energy we use to run
away from the wolves; catch a wolf and cook it for supper. But how do we
replace five weeks, five months, five years, building the fail safe wall
if we have to move on?
How can we replace the emotions and feeling we share with those close to
us when we have to move on? How, can we balance the books for past pain
and tribulation when we move on to a better life?
In other words, what is the cost of a rational life and how can we
recover lost investments in becoming rational?
Best
Lawrence
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: The cost of moving
on + Maths Tertulia +News
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational
Hi
I don't forward a lot of funnies 'cos most aren't but I enjoyed these and think you might as well
Edwin
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future
6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid..
7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido : All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.
And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
I don't forward a lot of funnies 'cos most aren't but I enjoyed these and think you might as well
Edwin
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future
6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid..
7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido : All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.
And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
13 January 2011
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Intuition or Reasoning + meeting Edwin Saturday + News
Essay, meeting Edwin Saturday, Miguel's mathematical puzzle and Peter's
flat mate to be.
Dear Friends,
First of all, Pilar has orgnised for this Saturday a farewell meeting
with Edwin because as many of you know he is returning back to the UK
for good. Details are:
Saturday afternoon at 21.00 h at Plaza del Callao (out of the underground).
However, Edwin told me last Sunday that he should be able to come for
this Sunday's meeting so you might catch up with him on Sunday as well,
and the topic is: Inutiton or reasoning. Thank you Matilda for the topic.
Which brings me to Miguel's mathematical puzzle:
Estimado amigo,
Mis mejores deseos para 2011: que tengas salud y que tus proyectos se
cumplan.
Desde hoy 1 de Enero de 2011 se puede jugar al konseku online, te invito
a conocerlo: http://www.konseku.com
Saludos cordiales,
Miguel
You are going to need all the intuition and resoning for this one!!!
In the meantime Peter is still looking for a flat mate:
------- Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking
for someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public
transport; very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water.
There two rooms to rent out: a single and a double: tel 609257259 (LJCB
Note: one of the rooms might be taken, not sure which one).
All the best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.30pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
Intuition or reasoning
This interesting topic hinges on three issues: the conscious self,
methodology, and the state of our knowledge. However, a lot depends on
the language behind these two terms.
Is intuition a form of reasoning or are reasoning and intuition two
separate activities? Briefly, intuition is usually regarded to be a type
of knowledge, or even maybe belief, that is not derived from a rational
process. In other words, intuition is something we have, a sort of
something out of the blue. Reasoning on the other hand, is a rational
process based on information and or data including perception, i.e.
personal experience, and certainly well thought out.
Looking at this is a different way, we cannot account for intution, but
we can for reasoning, hence, my claim that a lot hinges on the conscious
self. But before we can consider this issue, there is an even more
important matter to consider. Is there such a thing as knowledge or
belief that sort of comes to us out of the blue? And to use
philosophical language is there such a thing as a priori knowledge? I
mean a priori knowledge that can be generated in our brain?
The problem with thinking that intuition is the product of some non
causal event in our mind, that is something out of the blue, is that
there is a difference between a non causal event and an event (in our
mind/brain) that we are not conscious of. If, we therefore, cannot
account for why we have knowledge of something but cannot account for
it, it does not follow that that knowledge was not a result of some
methodological causal event. Just because we cannot explain something,
it does not necessarily follow that that something is not explicable.
As I said at the beginning, language has a lot of relevance here, thus
could it be that intuition is just a word we use when we cannot account
for a belief or some knowledge for?
But of course, there is a difference between intuition and instinct.
Instinct is something we know happens from a physical reaction to a
given situation; i.e. the proverbial knee jerk reaction. We can assume
that intuition is not instinct, partly because we can account for
instinct and intuition we accept is something we associate with the self
and not the physical body; we might not know what is going on, but we
know it is not something to do with the body. Or so we think at least.
Whatever we can say about reasoning we can say two things for sure. The
first is that we always reason consciously and secondly we can always
account the casual chain of our reasoning. Reasoning is consciously done
because we say so; in writing these few lines on the topic I'm sort of
racking my brain to consider the issues at hand. I can assure you that
my fingers are not typing away at the keyboard writing these words out
of the blue as it were. And we can also naccount the causal chain in our
reasoning maybe because we read something, experience, we were told
about it and so on.
Of course, in real life it does not make much differnce is we claim
something to be the product of reason or intuition, as long as we get
the credit, and is more or less true. True, that is, as far as it meets
our needs.
Having said that, we are more likely to feel better knowing that we are
right if it was the product of reasoning rather than intuition.
Intuition is Okay, in the same sense that mother (or matron) knows best,
but we generally expect people to apply reasoning for their beliefs or
claims to knowledge. Intuition is okay if it can be backed up with
authority, mother, matron, nanny, the chief executive officer, the
president, the dictator and so.
So what are we to do with intuition? I am inclined to think that
intuition is one of those words in the language that serves to describe
a function when we have no idea what is going on in reality: intuition,
love, miracle, justice, capitalism, communisim and so on.
Moreover, the problem with intuition is the assumption that reasoning
has nothing to do with how the body functions and all to do with how the
mind functions. In a way we cannot be blamed for this belief because we
already have instinct to cover activities based on body function. The
second mistake is to assume that as far as we are concerned there is
something else beyond body function.
The manner we can answer the question, whether there is something beyond
the body, and hence the nature of our beliefs and knowledge, is not to
investigate whether there is knowledge that is not based on our
perception, but rather to investigate the state of our knowledge. In
other words, the investigation ought not be about the nature of
knowledge but how we access that knowledge.
At the centre of the debate is the issue in physics of whether
information is all in physical form or whether there could be
information that is not in a physical form. Thus, these words you are
reading now are physical because they exist as light electrons on your
screen, stimulation on the retina of your eyes, particle arrangements on
a magnetic medium (hard disk), electron arrangements on a chip, but the
most important thing of all they are synaptic links and neuron firing in
your brain.
If it is the case that all information is in a physical form, at least
as far as we are concerned, and we have no reason to assume otherwise,
then it follows that intuition is firmly rooted in what goes on in our
brain as much as reasoning does. Thus as far as we are concerend
information (knoweldge, beliefs, opinions, ect) must be able to exist in
a physical form if we are to access it.
The problem is that there is a whole tradition in philosophy dating back
many centuries about the uncertainty inherent in a posteriori type of
knowledge, that is knowledge derived from experience and about the
world. Certain knowledge, or a priori knowledge, cannot be based on
experience or induction because there is always an element of doubt. To
put it in another way, knowledge about the physical world is
probabilistic knowledge.
Somehow, certain knowledge cannot, therefore, reside in the same place
as probabilistic knowledge, so the brain (Descartes' brain mainly) came
up with the erroneous idea of the mind. Reasoning and maybe even
intuition live in the mind and instinct lives in the brain.
But this is like me looking at myself in the mirror in the morning and
saying look, there are two people in bathroom today, Lawrence and the
guy who organises the Sunday Tertulia; actually I can have as many
people with me in the bathroom as I want: the teacher, the photographer,
the boyfriend, the son, the brother and so. But that, however, wouldn't
leave any space for Ginger Rogers.
Thus certain knowledge is certain not because it has some magical
properties that we call a priori, but because it has a probability of 1.
The statement that all swans are white does not have a probability value
of 1, but 2+2 = 4 does have a probability value of 1. The former does
not happen every time we check the colour of a swan, but the latter
always happens when we add 2+2. Just because we only have access to
knowledge by applying porbabilitic methods (induction, statistics,
evidenced based analysis etc) it does not follow that some of that
knowledge is not always true.
Intuition, therefore, is no less a function of the brain any more than
reasoning is a function of the brain. Thus, it is not a question of
intuition or reasoning but rather what we fill our brains with. And of
course whether we remember when we are wrong as much as when we are right.
Take care
Lawrence
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Intuition or
Reasoning + meeting Edwin Saturday + News
flat mate to be.
Dear Friends,
First of all, Pilar has orgnised for this Saturday a farewell meeting
with Edwin because as many of you know he is returning back to the UK
for good. Details are:
Saturday afternoon at 21.00 h at Plaza del Callao (out of the underground).
However, Edwin told me last Sunday that he should be able to come for
this Sunday's meeting so you might catch up with him on Sunday as well,
and the topic is: Inutiton or reasoning. Thank you Matilda for the topic.
Which brings me to Miguel's mathematical puzzle:
Estimado amigo,
Mis mejores deseos para 2011: que tengas salud y que tus proyectos se
cumplan.
Desde hoy 1 de Enero de 2011 se puede jugar al konseku online, te invito
a conocerlo: http://www.konseku.com
Saludos cordiales,
Miguel
You are going to need all the intuition and resoning for this one!!!
In the meantime Peter is still looking for a flat mate:
------- Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking
for someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public
transport; very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water.
There two rooms to rent out: a single and a double: tel 609257259 (LJCB
Note: one of the rooms might be taken, not sure which one).
All the best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.30pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
Intuition or reasoning
This interesting topic hinges on three issues: the conscious self,
methodology, and the state of our knowledge. However, a lot depends on
the language behind these two terms.
Is intuition a form of reasoning or are reasoning and intuition two
separate activities? Briefly, intuition is usually regarded to be a type
of knowledge, or even maybe belief, that is not derived from a rational
process. In other words, intuition is something we have, a sort of
something out of the blue. Reasoning on the other hand, is a rational
process based on information and or data including perception, i.e.
personal experience, and certainly well thought out.
Looking at this is a different way, we cannot account for intution, but
we can for reasoning, hence, my claim that a lot hinges on the conscious
self. But before we can consider this issue, there is an even more
important matter to consider. Is there such a thing as knowledge or
belief that sort of comes to us out of the blue? And to use
philosophical language is there such a thing as a priori knowledge? I
mean a priori knowledge that can be generated in our brain?
The problem with thinking that intuition is the product of some non
causal event in our mind, that is something out of the blue, is that
there is a difference between a non causal event and an event (in our
mind/brain) that we are not conscious of. If, we therefore, cannot
account for why we have knowledge of something but cannot account for
it, it does not follow that that knowledge was not a result of some
methodological causal event. Just because we cannot explain something,
it does not necessarily follow that that something is not explicable.
As I said at the beginning, language has a lot of relevance here, thus
could it be that intuition is just a word we use when we cannot account
for a belief or some knowledge for?
But of course, there is a difference between intuition and instinct.
Instinct is something we know happens from a physical reaction to a
given situation; i.e. the proverbial knee jerk reaction. We can assume
that intuition is not instinct, partly because we can account for
instinct and intuition we accept is something we associate with the self
and not the physical body; we might not know what is going on, but we
know it is not something to do with the body. Or so we think at least.
Whatever we can say about reasoning we can say two things for sure. The
first is that we always reason consciously and secondly we can always
account the casual chain of our reasoning. Reasoning is consciously done
because we say so; in writing these few lines on the topic I'm sort of
racking my brain to consider the issues at hand. I can assure you that
my fingers are not typing away at the keyboard writing these words out
of the blue as it were. And we can also naccount the causal chain in our
reasoning maybe because we read something, experience, we were told
about it and so on.
Of course, in real life it does not make much differnce is we claim
something to be the product of reason or intuition, as long as we get
the credit, and is more or less true. True, that is, as far as it meets
our needs.
Having said that, we are more likely to feel better knowing that we are
right if it was the product of reasoning rather than intuition.
Intuition is Okay, in the same sense that mother (or matron) knows best,
but we generally expect people to apply reasoning for their beliefs or
claims to knowledge. Intuition is okay if it can be backed up with
authority, mother, matron, nanny, the chief executive officer, the
president, the dictator and so.
So what are we to do with intuition? I am inclined to think that
intuition is one of those words in the language that serves to describe
a function when we have no idea what is going on in reality: intuition,
love, miracle, justice, capitalism, communisim and so on.
Moreover, the problem with intuition is the assumption that reasoning
has nothing to do with how the body functions and all to do with how the
mind functions. In a way we cannot be blamed for this belief because we
already have instinct to cover activities based on body function. The
second mistake is to assume that as far as we are concerned there is
something else beyond body function.
The manner we can answer the question, whether there is something beyond
the body, and hence the nature of our beliefs and knowledge, is not to
investigate whether there is knowledge that is not based on our
perception, but rather to investigate the state of our knowledge. In
other words, the investigation ought not be about the nature of
knowledge but how we access that knowledge.
At the centre of the debate is the issue in physics of whether
information is all in physical form or whether there could be
information that is not in a physical form. Thus, these words you are
reading now are physical because they exist as light electrons on your
screen, stimulation on the retina of your eyes, particle arrangements on
a magnetic medium (hard disk), electron arrangements on a chip, but the
most important thing of all they are synaptic links and neuron firing in
your brain.
If it is the case that all information is in a physical form, at least
as far as we are concerned, and we have no reason to assume otherwise,
then it follows that intuition is firmly rooted in what goes on in our
brain as much as reasoning does. Thus as far as we are concerend
information (knoweldge, beliefs, opinions, ect) must be able to exist in
a physical form if we are to access it.
The problem is that there is a whole tradition in philosophy dating back
many centuries about the uncertainty inherent in a posteriori type of
knowledge, that is knowledge derived from experience and about the
world. Certain knowledge, or a priori knowledge, cannot be based on
experience or induction because there is always an element of doubt. To
put it in another way, knowledge about the physical world is
probabilistic knowledge.
Somehow, certain knowledge cannot, therefore, reside in the same place
as probabilistic knowledge, so the brain (Descartes' brain mainly) came
up with the erroneous idea of the mind. Reasoning and maybe even
intuition live in the mind and instinct lives in the brain.
But this is like me looking at myself in the mirror in the morning and
saying look, there are two people in bathroom today, Lawrence and the
guy who organises the Sunday Tertulia; actually I can have as many
people with me in the bathroom as I want: the teacher, the photographer,
the boyfriend, the son, the brother and so. But that, however, wouldn't
leave any space for Ginger Rogers.
Thus certain knowledge is certain not because it has some magical
properties that we call a priori, but because it has a probability of 1.
The statement that all swans are white does not have a probability value
of 1, but 2+2 = 4 does have a probability value of 1. The former does
not happen every time we check the colour of a swan, but the latter
always happens when we add 2+2. Just because we only have access to
knowledge by applying porbabilitic methods (induction, statistics,
evidenced based analysis etc) it does not follow that some of that
knowledge is not always true.
Intuition, therefore, is no less a function of the brain any more than
reasoning is a function of the brain. Thus, it is not a question of
intuition or reasoning but rather what we fill our brains with. And of
course whether we remember when we are wrong as much as when we are right.
Take care
Lawrence
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Intuition or
Reasoning + meeting Edwin Saturday + News
06 January 2011
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Is life a joke?
Is life a joke? Short essay by Miguel and message from Peter.
Dear friends,
This Sunday we are discussing: Is life a joke?
We are also lucky that Miguel wrote a short essay for his topic.
When we say that Life is a joke we usually are expressing incredulity.
Maybe after an instance of unfairness or worse, fortuitous misfortune by
nature or human design. We might also use the expression to convey a
meaning of futility of life. An idea, maybe , that life if not worth living.
Life may or may not be worth living, but some might say this is what we
have. But as Miguel points out in his short essay, there is more to life
than just the down side.
Is life a joke? By Miguel
Here's life amazingly producing beings like you and me. I don't know if
this happens to you, but in my case it has added too the drive for
happiness. I've found many persons with this same drive. I think we are
on the safe side if we assume that most of us have it: we may get
happiness in many different ways, but the drive is common to us all.
Now see what else life provides us with: moments of plenitude and joy.
Ok: this goes along the happiness line, perfect. Then there are those
moments of unhappiness linked to illness, old age, boredom, unfulfilled
wishes... you name it. To cap it all, life gives us death, the ultimate
joy killer (no pun intended). There doesn't seem to be a matching drive
for those things, only one that tries to avoid them! So, no match: one
can legitimate think that life is a joke.
Enter religion. You may be content living a joke, but this doesn't seem
to be as catchy as the drive aforementioned. Many persons feel really
uneasy being part of a joke, so some embark onto an interpretation of
life that suits their needs. Do you want to be happy? Believe this, do
this, make a donation. Do you want to live after death and be happy even
then? Believe this... Do you want to suffer less while receiving
punches?... Not all is trade here: there are men of religion that strive
for others' happiness in an unconditional, loving manner at hospitals,
hospices, charities and schools.
Enter philosophy. You are the kind of person that likes challenges. You
feel a bit suspicious of beliefs that, at the end of the day, seem shaky
and arbitrary. The quick fix provided by religion is not for you: you do
cherish the ol' common sense that has served you well so far, so you
start your own search. Good. But the search is tough you know: so many
things said, so many theories proposed by philosophers now and then...
how to test them all? And what about my own judgement? Is it to be
trusted? Why should I be better at this discover-how-to-be-happy craze
than others?
Of course, life being a joke is just another interpretation, like the
ones of religion or philosophy, but not as popular nowadays. It seems
relevant to explore the question: is there an interpretation of life
that is more legitimate than others?
In science a theory is considered better than competing ones if it
explains and predicts more without being contradictory. This may serve
as a guide here, but let's not get carried away: the foundation of
science is agreed measure -i.e.: agreed comparison-, and to my knowledge
there is no way to agree on, or even measure, happiness in religion or
philosophy.
But wait! I could well not agree with you on the intensity of my
happiness now, but "I" can feel it, and "I" can compare it with the one
"I" had yesterday... This is a subjective measure, but serves the
purpose: "I" have my own way to tell what is best for me, and this could
be enough for now... or not?
The long term. Things get complicated in the long run. It's easy to see
that certain flavors of happiness are inextricably linked to extreme
misery. Think of drugs. But what about habits that provide happiness and
comfort in the short term, but don't show an ugly face till it's too
late? Think of consumerism and the environment. Could religion be one of
these instant-happiness providers with long term effects? Moreover,
could those effects, in fact, being felt now: division among men,
terrorism in the name of god, frontal attacks to common sense, political
use of the very religion...?
Is there something essentially different to religion, science or
philosophy that renders dualities like happiness/misery, life/death,
wisdom/ignorance blithely accepted? Let's get a tad radical: could that
something be brought about by the cessation of all searching and all
theory elaboration, i.e. by the cessation of thought? By the pure, non
intellectual, contemplation of things around? Is it feasible? Could
peace, sheer bliss and beauty be part of that something?
Very nice and very fancy, worth exploring, thank you... In the meantime
let me give a try at The Joke Theory of Life, at least with it I am not
only allowed, but invited to laugh at the punch line.
Miguel
In the meantime Peter is still looking for a flat mate:
------- Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking
for someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public
transport; very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water.
There two rooms to rent out: a single and a double: tel 609257259 (LJCB
Note: one of the rooms might be taken, not sure which one).
All the best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Is life a joke?
Dear friends,
This Sunday we are discussing: Is life a joke?
We are also lucky that Miguel wrote a short essay for his topic.
When we say that Life is a joke we usually are expressing incredulity.
Maybe after an instance of unfairness or worse, fortuitous misfortune by
nature or human design. We might also use the expression to convey a
meaning of futility of life. An idea, maybe , that life if not worth living.
Life may or may not be worth living, but some might say this is what we
have. But as Miguel points out in his short essay, there is more to life
than just the down side.
Is life a joke? By Miguel
Here's life amazingly producing beings like you and me. I don't know if
this happens to you, but in my case it has added too the drive for
happiness. I've found many persons with this same drive. I think we are
on the safe side if we assume that most of us have it: we may get
happiness in many different ways, but the drive is common to us all.
Now see what else life provides us with: moments of plenitude and joy.
Ok: this goes along the happiness line, perfect. Then there are those
moments of unhappiness linked to illness, old age, boredom, unfulfilled
wishes... you name it. To cap it all, life gives us death, the ultimate
joy killer (no pun intended). There doesn't seem to be a matching drive
for those things, only one that tries to avoid them! So, no match: one
can legitimate think that life is a joke.
Enter religion. You may be content living a joke, but this doesn't seem
to be as catchy as the drive aforementioned. Many persons feel really
uneasy being part of a joke, so some embark onto an interpretation of
life that suits their needs. Do you want to be happy? Believe this, do
this, make a donation. Do you want to live after death and be happy even
then? Believe this... Do you want to suffer less while receiving
punches?... Not all is trade here: there are men of religion that strive
for others' happiness in an unconditional, loving manner at hospitals,
hospices, charities and schools.
Enter philosophy. You are the kind of person that likes challenges. You
feel a bit suspicious of beliefs that, at the end of the day, seem shaky
and arbitrary. The quick fix provided by religion is not for you: you do
cherish the ol' common sense that has served you well so far, so you
start your own search. Good. But the search is tough you know: so many
things said, so many theories proposed by philosophers now and then...
how to test them all? And what about my own judgement? Is it to be
trusted? Why should I be better at this discover-how-to-be-happy craze
than others?
Of course, life being a joke is just another interpretation, like the
ones of religion or philosophy, but not as popular nowadays. It seems
relevant to explore the question: is there an interpretation of life
that is more legitimate than others?
In science a theory is considered better than competing ones if it
explains and predicts more without being contradictory. This may serve
as a guide here, but let's not get carried away: the foundation of
science is agreed measure -i.e.: agreed comparison-, and to my knowledge
there is no way to agree on, or even measure, happiness in religion or
philosophy.
But wait! I could well not agree with you on the intensity of my
happiness now, but "I" can feel it, and "I" can compare it with the one
"I" had yesterday... This is a subjective measure, but serves the
purpose: "I" have my own way to tell what is best for me, and this could
be enough for now... or not?
The long term. Things get complicated in the long run. It's easy to see
that certain flavors of happiness are inextricably linked to extreme
misery. Think of drugs. But what about habits that provide happiness and
comfort in the short term, but don't show an ugly face till it's too
late? Think of consumerism and the environment. Could religion be one of
these instant-happiness providers with long term effects? Moreover,
could those effects, in fact, being felt now: division among men,
terrorism in the name of god, frontal attacks to common sense, political
use of the very religion...?
Is there something essentially different to religion, science or
philosophy that renders dualities like happiness/misery, life/death,
wisdom/ignorance blithely accepted? Let's get a tad radical: could that
something be brought about by the cessation of all searching and all
theory elaboration, i.e. by the cessation of thought? By the pure, non
intellectual, contemplation of things around? Is it feasible? Could
peace, sheer bliss and beauty be part of that something?
Very nice and very fancy, worth exploring, thank you... In the meantime
let me give a try at The Joke Theory of Life, at least with it I am not
only allowed, but invited to laugh at the punch line.
Miguel
In the meantime Peter is still looking for a flat mate:
------- Peter has asked me once again to remind you that he is looking
for someone to share his flat with in Mostoles close to public
transport; very good conditions. Central heating and central hot water.
There two rooms to rent out: a single and a double: tel 609257259 (LJCB
Note: one of the rooms might be taken, not sure which one).
All the best
Lawrence
+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tertulia in English with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30
to 21h, at Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
*************************************
from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Is life a joke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)