Stonehead

Massive phlegm? Or Top Ramen?

Oh. Hadn't seen it yet. I guess it's not a good picture for the caption contest.

Off topic but... Disturbing?? You wanna see disturbing? Is this shite real?

Ringmaster: "I told the bearded lady, you gotta do it like this. It has to be a spectacle for the crowd." Stuntman: "Well, I don't give a damn, I'm not cleanin' up after the elephant." Fatman in the Bathtub: "Hmmmph" Midget: ???

Ya, it's a bunch of thug mobster types intent on obtaining mathematical information from Hawking's mind so they can control space-time. Roughing him up. Ain't much a person in his situation could do. Just give'em what they want, Stephen.

Uh, yeah. we're just creatures of habit, living in our comfort zones. Gotta say though that experiencing some adventure outdoors is more than what the majority of lazy fucks do who stay at home and watch the boob tube. Nothing revolutionary but damn it's beyond the ordinary life.

Just goes to show that climbers are an eclectic bunch, not a gang of ape-hangers, but a thinking bunch. If ya push your limits on rock, why shouldn't ya do the same with thinking, you know, go beyond the normal confines of ordinary thinking or ways of living?

So, you have a problem with origins? Life, the universe. My understanding of the origin of life on earth is outdated, circa 1992. At that time, there was a scientist (Cairns-Smith) who proposed a mineralogical template for the origin of organic molecules. Sort of a novel idea, that organic based life began with inorganic structures as templates (he used the analogy of a Roman arch) and that the origin was a one time deal. He speculated further that the stage was set to spread life elsewhere by inorganic means, i.e., genomes stored in silicon chips. Other people have suggested that life arose by seeding from comets (Panspermia). These scientists tend to be heretics, one that comes to mind is the astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle. He points to the adaptative radiation of the mammals and the rise of man as indicative of something operating that may not be explained by evolution. Evolution proposes that the biological niches emptied by species extinction allowed the mammals to fill them, e.g., a dolphin's fin is a modified limb, you can see the digits in the bones, the dolphin was once a land mammal. Another example of the innovation of unconscious process of evolution is the development of the ear from jaw bones. Other examples, look at the development of the nervous system and brain. Natural selection is a filter. It tends to reduce variety unless you look at the special case of artificial selection. Breeding can produce specialized modifications of body physiology and cognitive characteristics. However, as an unconscious and natural process, selection tends to favor those individuals those that are most fit to survive in their environment so that these individuals can pass on their genes. But what makes a particular organism fit for a set of conditions may not always confer fitness to survive such things as catastrophe. Macro level I am assuming is when you refer to the different phyla or major body plans of organisms. These major biological differentiations arose early during the Precambrian-Cambrian time and we have not seen any major innovations since then. Everything else has been variations on a theme since that time. The ancestors of modern reptiles filled the niches prior to the today's mammals. There were large swimming 'reptiles' and flying 'reptiles'. These went extinct and mammals of all varieties filled the niches, e.g., whales, bats, etc. I suppose the only gripe I have is that given genetic mutation you have to see this on a population level because a favorable mutation has to have another to mate with. And, that is where speciation occurs, on the population level, not on the individual level. For an example of the freaky effects of evolution, have you seen any of the experiments conducted on the Drosphilia flies? You can change their internal biological clocks, their ontogeny, so that you can produce significant changes in body characteristics by altering developmental timing. For example, legs can appear where antennae should be (maybe a tie-in to stem cells here?). So changes can be produced directly by chemical means, hormones and such, or indirectly by the effects of light (length of day, e.g.) and temperature on the developmental physiology of organisms. Look all that's happening is that you take a basic body plan like the vertebrates and then lengthen or shorten particular body parts or modify these parts in other ways. I rather think that you have to be indoctrinated in these beliefs (several years studying evolutionary biology in college maybe) but the sense that evolution makes when viewed in that light is so enlightening. As far as the Big Bang (creation ex nihilo), that goes beyond my comprehension, though, some suggest that the universe pulsates through creation and destruction so that there are multiple origins rather than a singular event. If there is sufficient mass in the universe then a point is reached where the gravitational forces overtake the heat expansion of the big bang and cause the universe to rush back into itself. Otherwise, we have the heat death of the universe as it burns itself out. Long winded, huh?

OMG. Is that -? Preparing to insert head up ass?

There is the idea that we are empty vessels. We fill ourselves with the thoughts of others, an endless progression of thought. Sometimes it gets muddled. Other times you can feel the clarity of thought, like a diamond. The dead do speak. In books. It is like eating. The process of assimilation. I read someone thoughts like maybe something from Cicero or Virgil and even though my context is different, something of that time and era is propagated to me. There is a perennial philosophy. Aldous Huxley talked about it. Others too.

doesn't this sound an afwul lot like the catholic church before they instituted the vernacular? Give the church your money and we will progress the faith. You know nothing, but trust us... we'll save you. Weird correlation. If science is taken to a 'religion' level. It does cease to be science no? As I understand it, yeah, the impetus for the Reformation. Translate the bible into German, a movement divesting the clergy (who practiced in the language of Latin) of their concentrated power. So, is this a bellwether of what might occur with science? A backlash? Or reformation? To some extent, the conservatives of the world whether Al Qaida fundamentalists or our own brand of fundamentalism a la Ashcroft are leading the charge against the social disruption of technological advance.

the idea of a kingdom in heaven was corrupted by the pursuit of power producing 'hell on earth' for the nonbelievers, the unconverted, the heretics, etc. A man of God, Pope Alexander VI father of Cesare Borgia, bloodied hands, what a perversion, meddling in politics, in the destinies of countries and regions (read history of Florence, Italy circa late 1400's, Machiavelli's time, see also the schemes of Pope Boniface VIII in the power stuggle between the Whites and Blacks in Florence) Was it any wonder that a group of people discounted the idea of a reward in an imaginery afterlife for present servitude to authority and in its place proposed the establishment of improved conditions in the here and now?

Ya, the cauldron of creation, the crucible, the pleroma, cosmos. Gnosticism (Gk. gnosis: to know), through and through

Released 1973. A different universe. Disillusionment with government from scandal of Watergate and the winding down of Vietnam War (a war that was never formally declared, the closest declaration of war would be the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), sky high gasoline prices with the Arab oil embargo, high inflation (but candy bars were 10 cents), not encumbered by personal electronics, a smaller economy (how high was the DOW in 1973?), less credit card debt, all following in the wake of the 60's which was punctuated with assassinations, SEXUAL REVOLUTION!, a youth movement open to new ideas to replace the stale 'ol man' politics, cracking the old shell of the world... What happened to the sense of wonder and freedom and new beginnings that time offered? The hippie ethic was replaced by yuppie consumerism. Don't get me wrong, there was a dark side to the hippie way as it putrified--the drug casualties, all the people who become lost after leaving home in search of something, AIDs... Money talks, bullshit walks. Self-interest is ultimately more powerful than communitarian ideals. Sitting around sharing a doob, feeling the sense of communion and affinity , that ritual of youth was replaced by greed and distrust. Maybe it's all just an illusion of youth, when things were more carefree, not bearing the weight of responsibilities, having a strong vigorous body, no wrinkles, a libido that could rocket ya to the moon, acceptance, etc. Oh shit, I guess there's still the tunes.

I think you hit on some good points in expressing your disillusionment with science. The reason I categorized science as also religion (in its meaning as belief system) is that science has become an institution that has an engrained culture. To advance one's ideas one must convince his scientific peers. If you propose something that goes against the prevailing 'dogma' then you could have your research papers rejected and lose your funding. To be a scientist nowdays one must also be a consummate politician with a nose for showmanship and public relations. In an university research setting one must publish or perish. Publish, publish, publish and bring in grant monies. Bring in graduate students. Often controversial ideas are not accepted until the old guard dies off. A paradigm shift has to occur for revolutionary changes in thought, such as happened with the acceptance of plate tectonics, the idea of a dynamic earth with an understandable history. Today, also, as you mentioned science has been hijacked for advancing particular viewpoints. Oftentimes, you read or hear a news story that supports a particular viewpoint supported by scientific study but is biased in coverage. These 'news stories' are sold or given to the networks as filler and are financed by industry groups, thus the stories of wine as good medicine, etc. The practice of science has become so specialized today also, that one cannot grasp its entirely as was possible during earlier times, in people commonly known as Renaissance men. I believe the public is far removed from the working of science, no more Benjamin Franklin's experimenting with electricity, it's all research institutions. It is as if science is a religion with scientists as its priests. I do not have to know the workings of nature only accept the gifts bestown by scientific endeavor. The progress of science has proceeded so rapidly in the last 20-50 years that's it's beyond my comprehension. The application of science is not necessarily egalitarian. It's like health and medicine, if you have the money then you'll most likely benefit. The rest of us poor shlums will get by the best we can. Science as religion reveals the secret workings of the universe and imparts a sense of awe, just look at the pictures obtained by the Hubble telescope. Science allows us to discover the world beyond our five senses and makes us more than human. We sense the world on the micro- and macroscopic level, through time back millions of years and forward, to environments inhospitable to life, ... in other words, like God.

Evolution is complex and can be difficult to explain but it is the true underpinning of all biological science. It has enormous explanatory power. It is misunderstood since it is popularized in the media to the point of being dumbed down for the uneducated masses. This results in the gross distortion of its mechanisms of operation. Naturally, it was given a bad rap from being associated with one particular mechanism, natural selection, which acts as a filter rather than an engine of evolutionary creativity as does genetic mutation or the alteration of developmental timing. Minor criticisms do not invalidate evolution, these are ongoing attempts to fine tune our understanding. Evolution is a steam roller compared to creation science. Creation science has absolutely no credibility unless one has no understanding of science and its practice. Creation science is only propagated by political zealots and is given creedence by weakening the science education of this country. Creationists attacked the late paleontogist, Stephen Jay Gould because he proposed that the fossil record shows that evolution proceeded by quick bursts followed by long periods of stasis. Gould's modification is not an indictment of the error of evolution rather it is the vindification of its veracity. Teach creation science in the churches or at the carnival. Science education in the US is going down the tubes as it is. I'm exaggerating but we'll probably eventually outsource all scientific research to other countries where the wages are lower. We're producing fewer engineers and scientists. Our collective science literacy is decreasing. More and more people in this country believe in pseudoscience or have lost faith in the belief that "the rationality of science, expanded properly, is the sole and all-embracing source of cognition for mankind, the only religion of an enlightened future." There I said it. Science is a belief system but a damned good one for explanatory power. I'd put it up against any other religion any time in its power to explain the workings of the world.

Yeah I got one of their CDs, the one with 'if you wanna get to heaven' and with the quilt like album cover. Really mellow tunes. I guess i'd call it country rock or a genre some call southern rock. Lots of bands were producing that kind of music at that time, Grateful Dead (Uncle John's Band), Pure Prairie League, The Band, Marshall Tucker, Eagles, Allman Brothers, CCR, etc, even Zep did their Zep III, which was a mellow sounding album, kind of countryish in some songs. I think it reflected part of the marijuana ethic, add some back-to-the-country movement, some populist sentiment, the whole 'blue jean, salt of the earth gestalt... The funny thing though, I thought, about some of those bands was the number of people in the band. Like OMD had about, what, eleven people? Either that or they also included roadies and hanger-ons with the photo shoots.

Door's open. Think he's afraid someone might lock him in?

talkin about shit. is it true about German toilets? German toilets

url--see 'toon

Jon's bike

I take it, you don't fish.

Post deleted by Stonehead

Funny you mention Bush. I came across a psychological profile of him based on characteristics of non-verbal body language, facial expression and body structure ( link ). George is often a perfectionist and this, rather than a "lack of intelligence," inhibits him from seeing the bigger picture. George frequently sets unrealistic standards for those close to him and, from time to time, people might see him as domineering. George's restraint is apparent in his bold and stiff walking style. He is anxious concerning approval from those he regards as authorities. George was easily shamed as a youth and this explains what newscasters call his hesitant and sometimes confusing use of language as well as his sometimes embarrassing facial expressions. George doesn't like holding back how he really feels, but he has been well trained as a politician. Because of this conflict, he appears to some less intelligent than he really is. Unlike Clinton, it would be more obvious if George boldly lied about his personal life on National television. He has a more difficult time controlling his involuntary facial expressions than most public figures. In our society, verbal skills are regarded as a sign of intelligence when, in fact, many people can be very expressive and glib without having insight, structure or factually-based arguments. In fact, George was at a handicap relative to presidential candidate Al Gore, but George is more credible than Al, regardless of Gore's superior ability with language and rhetoric. He can be very aloof at times, but this doesn't mean he hasn't heard what you said; it simply means he is thinking about it. He cares for people more than he would like to admit and, when he appears teary, he really is. It is hard for him to be an actor when it comes to his true feelings. He is dependent on the emotional support of his wife and regards her highly. To get along well with George it is important to let him know that you have no desire to embarrass him. He responds well to direct and honest communication; however, as a politician, he has become used to deception. George's early drinking and use of alcohol was an attempt to reduce his fear of embarrassment and anxiety over his personal self-worth. George's seeking of perfection has often made him highly critical of himself and, at times, he has felt almost "paralyzed" by this character trait. Hmmm...kind of puts a human face on the man instead of the caricature we're exposed to, also addresses the issue of his intelligence. You could even share some traits with him.

Shit and Civilivation, a course offered in London. "Our societies are, quite literally, founded on shit. Civilization means living in cities and cities are confronted, in a way more dispersed settlements are not, with heaps of garbage and ordure." --snip-- "Slums - favelas, barrios, shanties - have no sewers. Ordure is carried away in carts or by open drains. Yet we exhibit a fundamental ambivalence to shit, and see it as the opposite of civilization, rather than its inevitable accompaniment. It is repressed, literally driven underground by sewers, and driven into the unconscious by taboos and toilet training. Yet we cannot leave shit alone. We tire of aseptic modernist urban utopias, and seek the bustle and confusion, and the dirt of a 'real' city. The scatological urge - to joke and 'talk dirty', to break taboos, to return to the childhood freedom to play with faeces - constantly interrupts the attempt to ban shit from culture." -- Source Uh..."the scatological urge...the childhood freedom to play with faeces..."??