Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
All 9 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 14, 2:25 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Oct 2004 14:25:49 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 2:25 pm
Subject: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the Nord,
le streghe in Italy, cheneques and espiritus chocarreros in Mexico,
they exist in every country... You can`t see them, they act behind the
scenes, their advantage being that youdon`t suspect. They are underthe
service of power and money and they get sure that enemies (whoever
they are at the moment) get completely obliterated... without people
noticing.
They have lots of tricks: arsenic mixed with meals, to trigger cancers
and chronic poisoning; toxic drugs like psilocibin to `decerebrate`
you; radioactive poisoning, invisible to the eye and impossible to
detect without equipment, who will know?; infections a gallore, from
the paper you touch to the meals you eat, to the clothes you wear,
everything can be infected; toxic gases, as the chemists (and
alchemists) have been discovering; lead and mercury, for chronic
poisoning; nowadays all kind of drugs that have secondary reactions,
like killing your heart, ruining your kidneys; allergenics!, mostly
natural and unnoticeable but for the illness; unnoticed addictions to
make you aggresive; and of course all kinds of not so subtle methods
like shootings, strategic assaults, kidnappings, threats, preventive
mutilations (!), impersonations, incriminations, rapes, suicides and
multiple accidents in cars, baths (very common in homes), the street,
etc. Not mentioning modern possibilities like intercepting phones and
mails, surveillance with infrareds, hidden cameras to get pictures,
remote listening with lasers, miniature transponders to keep track of
people, you name it.
The crude fact is that for the very first human populations murder had
a survival advantage. It was helpful to acquire hard made tools, get
hunted food, win the women, secure hunting and gathering grounds, in
general, get more liebensraum (vital space) for a more easy living hen
life was brutal and short. No wonder there are only Homo sapiens!
Whatever cousins evolved with us were exterminated out of
intelligence. And yet we got civilized and agression was
institutionalized, not before performing a `natural selection` of the
surviving non violent traits while the most aggresive cancelled
themselves in every kind of small and big wars. Then came culture,
moral, ethics, law, armies, civilization, monarchy, democracy! and
people started living in relative peace. But what happen to the more
agressive specimens, the unavoidable thirst to kill that must come to
the fore now and then? Where are they?
Many of them in jail, of course, or in the death row. But the more
intelligent of them... they get organized, disciplined, trained and go
to form part of te ranks of the leprechauns, whatever the name their
organizaton takes. If you smoke, where do you buy your cigarrettes?
Are you sure NOBODY can meddle with your brand and you end up giving
you toxic cigarrettes? Who cares if more than one person gets
intoxicated if the target is brought down? Afraid of somebody
impersonating you? You have enough power and money? Call your
leprechauns to arrange for you a casting, a party and get rid of them!
You want the memory of somebody to be voided? Easy. Call your
leprechauns and have them operate on all the acquaintances of that
person. They won`t know, it is so farfetched and they are so
unorganized... By the time someone notices it has already been the
night of the huguenots for that person. Too many people have your
surname, can goto the bank and steal your money? Don`t let them! Use
the leprechauns! Particularly if you do have money and are not a
public figure, you want to live in anonimity. They can satisfy all
your base desires for they know how to be invisible. Scared of people
carrying an ideology, making browhaha, letting forbidden knowledge be
known? Don`t take risks: the leprechauns are under your service.
How I know? Because I am being one of the last *balls* in that game...
Reality is weirder than we know... And no, I AM NOT A LEPRECHAUN,
that`s why I am writing this essay.
And particularly if you read Home for All...
In fact, you read this post. Watch your IP. The net is owned by the
military. You may receive a visit from the Leprechauns. Or you may
spread the voice and help defeat them. This is serious.
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
ghamac.org/documenti/rondop.mid
ghamac.org/guitar/isabelsdeath.mp3
My music.
Reply
Frank.b Oct 14, 2:37 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium,alt.flame.idiots
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
From: "Frank.b" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:37:59 +0200
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 2:37 pm
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
> Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the Nord,
> le streghe in Italy, cheneques and espiritus chocarreros in Mexico,
> they exist in every country... You can`t see them, they act behind the
> scenes, their advantage being that youdon`t suspect. They are underthe
> service of power and money and they get sure that enemies (whoever
> they are at the moment) get completely obliterated... without people
> noticing.
> They have lots of tricks: arsenic mixed with meals, to trigger cancers
> and chronic poisoning; toxic drugs like psilocibin to `decerebrate`
> you; radioactive poisoning,[....]
[pause]
I don't know why but i feel the need for physical violence towards
librarians, molesting ISP's secretaries, and i have an absolute urge to
stick an RJ-cable in every arse sitting in an e-café that browses, reads,
posts, buys and believes the sort of shit you people write.
kook!
[play]
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>.... invisible to the eye and impossible to
> detect without equipment, who will know?; infections a gallore, from
> the paper you touch to the meals you eat, to the clothes you wear,
> everything can be infected; toxic gases, as the chemists (and
> alchemists) have been discovering; lead and mercury, for chronic
> poisoning; nowadays all kind of drugs that have secondary reactions,
> like killing your heart, ruining your kidneys; allergenics!, mostly
> natural and unnoticeable but for the illness; unnoticed addictions to
> make you aggresive; and of course all kinds of not so subtle methods
> like shootings, strategic assaults, kidnappings, threats, preventive
> mutilations (!), impersonations, incriminations, rapes, suicides and
> multiple accidents in cars, baths (very common in homes), the street,
> etc. Not mentioning modern possibilities like intercepting phones and
> mails, surveillance with infrareds, hidden cameras to get pictures,
> remote listening with lasers, miniature transponders to keep track of
> people, you name it.
> The crude fact is that for the very first human populations murder had
> a survival advantage. It was helpful to acquire hard made tools, get
> hunted food, win the women, secure hunting and gathering grounds, in
> general, get more liebensraum (vital space) for a more easy living hen
> life was brutal and short. No wonder there are only Homo sapiens!
> Whatever cousins evolved with us were exterminated out of
> intelligence. And yet we got civilized and agression was
> institutionalized, not before performing a `natural selection` of the
> surviving non violent traits while the most aggresive cancelled
> themselves in every kind of small and big wars. Then came culture,
> moral, ethics, law, armies, civilization, monarchy, democracy! and
> people started living in relative peace. But what happen to the more
> agressive specimens, the unavoidable thirst to kill that must come to
> the fore now and then? Where are they?
> Many of them in jail, of course, or in the death row. But the more
> intelligent of them... they get organized, disciplined, trained and go
> to form part of te ranks of the leprechauns, whatever the name their
> organizaton takes. If you smoke, where do you buy your cigarrettes?
> Are you sure NOBODY can meddle with your brand and you end up giving
> you toxic cigarrettes? Who cares if more than one person gets
> intoxicated if the target is brought down? Afraid of somebody
> impersonating you? You have enough power and money? Call your
> leprechauns to arrange for you a casting, a party and get rid of them!
> You want the memory of somebody to be voided? Easy. Call your
> leprechauns and have them operate on all the acquaintances of that
> person. They won`t know, it is so farfetched and they are so
> unorganized... By the time someone notices it has already been the
> night of the huguenots for that person. Too many people have your
> surname, can goto the bank and steal your money? Don`t let them! Use
> the leprechauns! Particularly if you do have money and are not a
> public figure, you want to live in anonimity. They can satisfy all
> your base desires for they know how to be invisible. Scared of people
> carrying an ideology, making browhaha, letting forbidden knowledge be
> known? Don`t take risks: the leprechauns are under your service.
> How I know? Because I am being one of the last *balls* in that game...
> Reality is weirder than we know... And no, I AM NOT A LEPRECHAUN,
> that`s why I am writing this essay.
> And particularly if you read Home for All...
> In fact, you read this post. Watch your IP. The net is owned by the
> military. You may receive a visit from the Leprechauns. Or you may
> spread the voice and help defeat them. This is serious.
--
"All the work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 5:11 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium,alt.flame.idiots
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 05:11:07 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 5:11 am
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Frank.b" wrote in message ...
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
> > Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the Nord,
> [pause]
> I don't know why but i feel the need for physical violence towards
> librarians, molesting ISP's secretaries, and i have an absolute urge to
> stick an RJ-cable in every arse sitting in an e-café that browses, reads,
> posts, buys and believes the sort of shit you people write.
> kook!
Really? What would you do with 10 000 000 000 dollars? Would you go
and kill the librarians or would you buy someone to kill them for you?
And if you do, would you kill him yourself? You wouldn't would you? SO
you would hire someboy else and somebody else... Or you would make him
a millionaire... Where does this lead to? Lots of criminals go
millionares... because there are billionares... And there are lots of
people as agressive and more than you are.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> [play]
> >.... invisible to the eye and impossible to
> > detect without equipment, who will know?; infections a gallore, from
> > the paper you touch to the meals you eat, to the clothes you wear,
> > everything can be infected; toxic gases, as the chemists (and
> > alchemists) have been discovering; lead and mercury, for chronic
> > poisoning; nowadays all kind of drugs that have secondary reactions,
> > like killing your heart, ruining your kidneys; allergenics!, mostly
> > natural and unnoticeable but for the illness; unnoticed addictions to
> > make you aggresive; and of course all kinds of not so subtle methods
> > like shootings, strategic assaults, kidnappings, threats, preventive
> > mutilations (!), impersonations, incriminations, rapes, suicides and
> > multiple accidents in cars, baths (very common in homes), the street,
> > etc. Not mentioning modern possibilities like intercepting phones and
> > mails, surveillance with infrareds, hidden cameras to get pictures,
> > remote listening with lasers, miniature transponders to keep track of
> > people, you name it.
> > The crude fact is that for the very first human populations murder had
> > a survival advantage. It was helpful to acquire hard made tools, get
> > hunted food, win the women, secure hunting and gathering grounds, in
> > general, get more liebensraum (vital space) for a more easy living hen
> > life was brutal and short. No wonder there are only Homo sapiens!
> > Whatever cousins evolved with us were exterminated out of
> > intelligence. And yet we got civilized and agression was
> > institutionalized, not before performing a `natural selection` of the
> > surviving non violent traits while the most aggresive cancelled
> > themselves in every kind of small and big wars. Then came culture,
> > moral, ethics, law, armies, civilization, monarchy, democracy! and
> > people started living in relative peace. But what happen to the more
> > agressive specimens, the unavoidable thirst to kill that must come to
> > the fore now and then? Where are they?
> > Many of them in jail, of course, or in the death row. But the more
> > intelligent of them... they get organized, disciplined, trained and go
> > to form part of te ranks of the leprechauns, whatever the name their
> > organizaton takes. If you smoke, where do you buy your cigarrettes?
> > Are you sure NOBODY can meddle with your brand and you end up giving
> > you toxic cigarrettes? Who cares if more than one person gets
> > intoxicated if the target is brought down? Afraid of somebody
> > impersonating you? You have enough power and money? Call your
> > leprechauns to arrange for you a casting, a party and get rid of them!
> > You want the memory of somebody to be voided? Easy. Call your
> > leprechauns and have them operate on all the acquaintances of that
> > person. They won`t know, it is so farfetched and they are so
> > unorganized... By the time someone notices it has already been the
> > night of the huguenots for that person. Too many people have your
> > surname, can goto the bank and steal your money? Don`t let them! Use
> > the leprechauns! Particularly if you do have money and are not a
> > public figure, you want to live in anonimity. They can satisfy all
> > your base desires for they know how to be invisible. Scared of people
> > carrying an ideology, making browhaha, letting forbidden knowledge be
> > known? Don`t take risks: the leprechauns are under your service.
> > How I know? Because I am being one of the last *balls* in that game...
> > Reality is weirder than we know... And no, I AM NOT A LEPRECHAUN,
> > that`s why I am writing this essay.
> > And particularly if you read Home for All...
> > In fact, you read this post. Watch your IP. The net is owned by the
> > military. You may receive a visit from the Leprechauns. Or you may
> > spread the voice and help defeat them. This is serious.
Reply
Frank.b Oct 15, 6:21 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium,alt.flame.idiots,alt.usenet.kooks
Followup-To: soc.culture.belgium
From: "Frank.b" - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:21:53 +0200
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 6:21 am
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
> "Frank.b" wrote :
>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
>> > Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the Nord,
>> [pause]
>> I don't know why but i feel the need for physical violence towards
>> librarians, molesting ISP's secretaries, and i have an absolute urge to
>> stick an RJ-cable in every arse sitting in an e-café that browses, reads,
>> posts, buys and believes the sort of shit you people write.
>> kook!
[play
]
> Really? What would you do with 10 000 000 000 dollars?
[pause]
With such an astronomical amount, kook, i simply *own* you, you would be
mine, you would kill your mother and deliver the corpse at the morgue all
by yourself just for 10% of my wealth.
>Would you go and kill the librarians or would you buy someone to kill them
>for you?
You just said it were the leprechauns, the homencullus, the golems, the
cobolts, the neo-nazi lice, the gardendwarfs, the gobbelins, the aliens
that take care off that job, no ?
> And if you do, would you kill him yourself?
That should have been :
"And if you do (so), would you kill them yourself?"
Revise your grammar before posting, even if you post crap.
>Lots of criminals go
>millionares... because there are billionares...
This statement looks obvious to me, twat, a millionaire is always
a billionaire.
>And there are lots of
>people as agressive and more than you are.
yawn..
[
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
play]
>> >.... invisible to the eye and impossible to
>> > detect without equipment, who will know?; infections a gallore, from
>> > the paper you touch to the meals you eat, to the clothes you wear,
>> > everything can be infected; toxic gases, as the chemists (and
>> > alchemists) have been discovering; lead and mercury, for chronic
>> > poisoning; nowadays all kind of drugs that have secondary reactions,
>> > like killing your heart, ruining your kidneys; allergenics!, mostly
>> > natural and unnoticeable but for the illness; unnoticed addictions to
>> > make you aggresive; and of course all kinds of not so subtle methods
>> > like shootings, strategic assaults, kidnappings, threats, preventive
>> > mutilations (!), impersonations, incriminations, rapes, suicides and
>> > multiple accidents in cars, baths (very common in homes), the street,
>> > etc. Not mentioning modern possibilities like intercepting phones and
>> > mails, surveillance with infrareds, hidden cameras to get pictures,
>> > remote listening with lasers, miniature transponders to keep track of
>> > people, you name it.
>> > The crude fact is that for the very first human populations murder had
>> > a survival advantage. It was helpful to acquire hard made tools, get
>> > hunted food, win the women, secure hunting and gathering grounds, in
>> > general, get more liebensraum (vital space) for a more easy living hen
>> > life was brutal and short. No wonder there are only Homo sapiens!
>> > Whatever cousins evolved with us were exterminated out of
>> > intelligence. And yet we got civilized and agression was
>> > institutionalized, not before performing a `natural selection` of the
>> > surviving non violent traits while the most aggresive cancelled
>> > themselves in every kind of small and big wars. Then came culture,
>> > moral, ethics, law, armies, civilization, monarchy, democracy! and
>> > people started living in relative peace. But what happen to the more
>> > agressive specimens, the unavoidable thirst to kill that must come to
>> > the fore now and then? Where are they?
>> > Many of them in jail, of course, or in the death row. But the more
>> > intelligent of them... they get organized, disciplined, trained and go
>> > to form part of te ranks of the leprechauns, whatever the name their
>> > organizaton takes. If you smoke, where do you buy your cigarrettes?
>> > Are you sure NOBODY can meddle with your brand and you end up giving
>> > you toxic cigarrettes? Who cares if more than one person gets
>> > intoxicated if the target is brought down? Afraid of somebody
>> > impersonating you? You have enough power and money? Call your
>> > leprechauns to arrange for you a casting, a party and get rid of them!
>> > You want the memory of somebody to be voided? Easy. Call your
>> > leprechauns and have them operate on all the acquaintances of that
>> > person. They won`t know, it is so farfetched and they are so
>> > unorganized... By the time someone notices it has already been the
>> > night of the huguenots for that person. Too many people have your
>> > surname, can goto the bank and steal your money? Don`t let them! Use
>> > the leprechauns! Particularly if you do have money and are not a
>> > public figure, you want to live in anonimity. They can satisfy all
>> > your base desires for they know how to be invisible. Scared of people
>> > carrying an ideology, making browhaha, letting forbidden knowledge be
>> > known? Don`t take risks: the leprechauns are under your service.
>> > How I know? Because I am being one of the last *balls* in that game...
>> > Reality is weirder than we know... And no, I AM NOT A LEPRECHAUN,
>> > that`s why I am writing this essay.
>> > And particularly if you read Home for All...
>> > In fact, you read this post. Watch your IP. The net is owned by the
>> > military. You may receive a visit from the Leprechauns. Or you may
>> > spread the voice and help defeat them. This is serious.
--
"All the work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 11:30 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 11:30:14 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 11:30 am
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com" wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> "Frank.b" wrote in news:ckokir$8nk$0@pita.alt.net:
> > Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
> >> "Frank.b" wrote :
> >>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
> >>> > Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the
> >>> > Nord,
> >>> [pause]
> >>> I don't know why but i feel the need for physical violence towards
> >>> librarians, molesting ISP's secretaries, and i have an absolute urge
> >>> to stick an RJ-cable in every arse sitting in an e-café that
> >>> browses, reads, posts, buys and believes the sort of shit you people
> >>> write.
> >>> kook!
> > [play]
> >> Really? What would you do with 10 000 000 000 dollars?
> > [pause]
> > With such an astronomical amount, kook, i simply *own* you, you would
> > be mine, you would kill your mother and deliver the corpse at the
> > morgue all by yourself just for 10% of my wealth.
> >>Would you go and kill the librarians or would you buy someone to kill
> >>them for you?
> > You just said it were the leprechauns, the homencullus, the golems,
> > the cobolts, the neo-nazi lice, the gardendwarfs, the gobbelins, the
> > aliens that take care off that job, no ?
> >> And if you do, would you kill him yourself?
> > That should have been :
> > "And if you do (so), would you kill them yourself?"
> > Revise your grammar before posting, even if you post crap.
> >>Lots of criminals go
> >>millionares... because there are billionares...
> > This statement looks obvious to me, twat, a millionaire is always
> > a billionaire.
> >>That's like a restaurant owner who thinks he's a few months away from
> >>being a People Magazine cover figure.
> >>And there are lots of
> >>people as agressive and more than you are.
> > yawn..
> > [play]
> >>> >.... invisible to the eye and impossible to
> >>> > detect without equipment, who will know?; infections a gallore,
> >>> > from the paper you touch to the meals you eat, to the clothes you
> >>> > wear, everything can be infected; toxic gases, as the chemists
> >>> > (and alchemists) have been discovering; lead and mercury, for
> >>> > chronic poisoning; nowadays all kind of drugs that have secondary
> >>> > reactions, like killing your heart, ruining your kidneys;
> >>> > allergenics!, mostly natural and unnoticeable but for the illness;
> >>> > unnoticed addictions to make you aggresive; and of course all
> >>> > kinds of not so subtle methods like shootings, strategic assaults,
> >>> > kidnappings, threats, preventive mutilations (!), impersonations,
> >>> > incriminations, rapes, suicides and multiple accidents in cars,
> >>> > baths (very common in homes), the street, etc. Not mentioning
> >>> > modern possibilities like intercepting phones and mails,
> >>> > surveillance with infrareds, hidden cameras to get pictures,
> >>> > remote listening with lasers, miniature transponders to keep track
> >>> > of people, you name it.
> >>> > The crude fact is that for the very first human populations murder
> >>> > had a survival advantage. It was helpful to acquire hard made
> >>> > tools, get hunted food, win the women, secure hunting and
> >>> > gathering grounds, in general, get more liebensraum (vital space)
> >>> > for a more easy living hen life was brutal and short. No wonder
> >>> > there are only Homo sapiens! Whatever cousins evolved with us were
> >>> > exterminated out of intelligence. And yet we got civilized and
> >>> > agression was institutionalized, not before performing a `natural
> >>> > selection` of the surviving non violent traits while the most
> >>> > aggresive cancelled themselves in every kind of small and big
> >>> > wars. Then came culture, moral, ethics, law, armies, civilization,
> >>> > monarchy, democracy! and people started living in relative peace.
> >>> > But what happen to the more agressive specimens, the unavoidable
> >>> > thirst to kill that must come to the fore now and then? Where are
> >>> > they?
> >>> > Many of them in jail, of course, or in the death row. But the more
> >>> > intelligent of them... they get organized, disciplined, trained
> >>> > and go to form part of te ranks of the leprechauns, whatever the
> >>> > name their organizaton takes. If you smoke, where do you buy your
> >>> > cigarrettes? Are you sure NOBODY can meddle with your brand and
> >>> > you end up giving you toxic cigarrettes? Who cares if more than
> >>> > one person gets intoxicated if the target is brought down? Afraid
> >>> > of somebody impersonating you? You have enough power and money?
> >>> > Call your leprechauns to arrange for you a casting, a party and
> >>> > get rid of them! You want the memory of somebody to be voided?
> >>> > Easy. Call your leprechauns and have them operate on all the
> >>> > acquaintances of that person. They won`t know, it is so farfetched
> >>> > and they are so unorganized... By the time someone notices it has
> >>> > already been the night of the huguenots for that person. Too many
> >>> > people have your surname, can goto the bank and steal your money?
> >>> > Don`t let them! Use the leprechauns! Particularly if you do have
> >>> > money and are not a public figure, you want to live in anonimity.
> >>> > They can satisfy all your base desires for they know how to be
> >>> > invisible. Scared of people carrying an ideology, making browhaha,
> >>> > letting forbidden knowledge be known? Don`t take risks: the
> >>> > leprechauns are under your service.
> >>> > How I know? Because I am being one of the last *balls* in that
> >>> > game...
> >>> > Reality is weirder than we know... And no, I AM NOT A LEPRECHAUN,
> >>> > that`s why I am writing this essay.
> >>> > And particularly if you read Home for All...
> >>> > In fact, you read this post. Watch your IP. The net is owned by
> >>> > the military. You may receive a visit from the Leprechauns. Or you
> >>> > may spread the voice and help defeat them. This is serious.
Hope you didn't miss the sarcasm and irony and metaphor in the name of Leprechauns!
Reply
yyyiiinnnggg@yahoo.com Oct 15, 8:19 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.flame.idiots,alt.fan.pjr
Followup-To: poster
From: "yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com" - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 15:19:06 GMT
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Frank.b" wrote in news:ckop16$hmq$0@pita.alt.net:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
>> "Frank.b" wrote in news:ckokir$8nk$0@pita.alt.net:
>>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
>>>> "Frank.b" wrote :
>>>>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore gave us a sample in soc.culture.belgium:
>>>>> > Leprechauns in America, the weenies in the Isles, gnomes in the
>>>>> > Nord,
>>>>> [pause]
>>>>> I don't know why but i feel the need for physical violence towards
>>>>> librarians, molesting ISP's secretaries, and i have an absolute urge
>>>>> to stick an RJ-cable in every arse sitting in an e-café that
>>>>> browses, reads, posts, buys and believes the sort of shit you people
>>>>> write.
>>>>> kook!
>>> [play]
>>>> Really? What would you do with 10 000 000 000 dollars?
>>> [pause]
>>> With such an astronomical amount, kook, i simply *own* you, you would
>>> be mine, you would kill your mother and deliver the corpse at the
>>> morgue all by yourself just for 10% of my wealth.
>>>>Would you go and kill the librarians or would you buy someone to kill
>>>>them for you?
>>> You just said it were the leprechauns, the homencullus, the golems,
>>> the cobolts, the neo-nazi lice, the gardendwarfs, the gobbelins, the
>>> aliens that take care off that job, no ?
>>>> And if you do, would you kill him yourself?
>>> That should have been :
>>> "And if you do (so), would you kill them yourself?"
>>> Revise your grammar before posting, even if you post crap.
>>>>Lots of criminals go
>>>>millionares... because there are billionares...
>>> This statement looks obvious to me, twat, a millionaire is always
>>> a billionaire.
>>>>That's like a restaurant owner who thinks he's a few months away from
>>>>being a People Magazine cover figure.
> Ooops, yingeling, i had to write that backwards indeed :
> i ment 'A billionaire is per definition always a milliardaire'
> but i don't think this might never happen with your obscure commercial
> activities in sea-food merchandise sold in a filthy prawn shop.
> AFPJR added, to feed that froup a bit.
>>good that you admit an error and immediately correct it. I'll give you a
>>positive score, unless my homosexual helper bot disagrees. Peace.
Reply
Victal Oct 15, 1:30 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium
From: "Victal" - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:30:57 -0400
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
la girAFFFFF... timbrée wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> "Victal" (soc.culture.belgium ; Fri, 15 Oct
> 2004 14:26:49 -0400):
>> la girAFFFFF... timbrée wrote:
>>> "Victal" (soc.culture.belgium ; Fri, 15 Oct
>>> 2004 10:53:25 -0400):
>>>> how about the djinns in the muslim world.
>>>> they seem everywhere in their culture
>>> Tu confonds les génies avec les nains, lutins et farfadets.
>> par ce que tu crois à ces choses toi
>> ha j'oubliais! bien sur...musulmane...tu es musulmane!
> Je laisse ce privilège à toi et tous tes semblables qui citent 100
> sourates par jour.
Tu serais donc capable de faire connaitre ce qu'est la puanteur sans la
faire sentir
et bien moi non, je n'ai pas ton talent
" Celui qui ne craint pas d'ouvrir les yeux face à l'horreur est aussi
celui qui voit la beauté quand il regarde dans sa direction "
Extrait de Sous-Bois d'A.G.
--
" Il n'existe pas de nuit assez profonde pour arrêter un rayon de
lumière et pourtant le vide ne s'éclaire pas, la lumière ne prend
corps que dans l'oil qui la reçoit "
Extrait de Sous-Bois d'A.G.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 7:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.belgium
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 19:58:12 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 7:58 pm
Subject: Re: Leprechauns! The function of the secret police corps
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Victal" wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> la girAFFFFF... timbrée wrote:
> > "Victal" (soc.culture.belgium ; Fri, 15 Oct
> > 2004 14:26:49 -0400):
> >> la girAFFFFF... timbrée wrote:
> >>> "Victal" (soc.culture.belgium ; Fri, 15 Oct
> >>> 2004 10:53:25 -0400):
> >>>> how about the djinns in the muslim world.
> >>>> they seem everywhere in their culture
> >>> Tu confonds les génies avec les nains, lutins et farfadets.
> >> par ce que tu crois à ces choses toi
> >> ha j'oubliais! bien sur...musulmane...tu es musulmane!
> > Je laisse ce privilège à toi et tous tes semblables qui citent 100
> > sourates par jour.
> Tu serais donc capable de faire connaitre ce qu'est la puanteur sans la
> faire sentir
> et bien moi non, je n'ai pas ton talent
> " Celui qui ne craint pas d'ouvrir les yeux face à l'horreur est aussi
> celui qui voit la beauté quand il regarde dans sa direction "
> Extrait de Sous-Bois d'A.G.
Actually I meant people doing this behind the scenes, thoug some
people wants to convince me tey are ETs and are invisible. I
personally was administered arsenic mixed in my sugar for an
indeterminate period of time, and then they let me know... Now they
say I have an asymptomatic cancer... that`s why I posted this list of
methods the `leprechauns` may use on unsuspecting victims...
Reply
Dempsey-Schaffer as form of consumer preferences
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 8:32 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 20:32:54 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 8:32 pm
Subject: Dempsey-Schaffer as form of consumer preferences
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The Dempsey-Schaffer evidential theory (based on probabilities), can
be used as an alternative form to model consumer preferences. It has
also thproperty that alternatives (goods) can fall in the same
indifference level (weak ordering), while giving weight to the
utilities or probability/possibility of chossing one of the
alternatives. The actual good purchased is the one that bubbles to the
top (like revealed preference). Preferences can be modeled numerically
in this way. It can also be used in demand for haracteristics models.
Though probably the involuted mexicans who hvae a terminal and are
deleting, coying and reposting my ideas will do the same again.
d
a
n
i l
o
bon
s i
gn
o
re
Reply
THAT animation comes from Excel...
All 14 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 6:11 am show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 06:11:19 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 6:11 am
Subject: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The one of the World rotating!
And was done automatically witha freely available software tool.
Amnong the thieves that were stolen in that computer, the onde that
Alejandro Ledezma Torres, the CONFESSED MURDERER (he confessed that to
me and a woman working with me and having enough credentials, but
enough family to be threatened, reason why I won't mention her name)
and his judicial family stole, was:
genemel, Genetic Melodies, A NEW PATENTABLE APPROACH TO MUSICAL
COMPOSITION, which unfortunately for them is just about the thirs part
of he complete system (did they discovered they need a partition?)
A story where a thief enters a house thanks to a tip and discovers a
couple arguing, the woman kills the man and then manipulates the thief
to accept he commited the crime and kill himself.
The first version of Alive and Human and other related writings.
A discussion on the origin of the Universe
A push parser (generic)
MY ADT, abstract data types, linked lists (linked node, an approach
were the code is in the nodes and not in the list, as templates, soyou
can have several objects using strings, chains of nodes and you can
further specialize the node to make selfordering tress or polinomial
solvers and approximations, which I incidentally used for my fuzzy
logic editor, the tries, the goarrays, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. And
I...
AND HE IS A DWARF WITH SOFT VOICE AND A REAL CRIMINAL.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 12:32 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 12:32:10 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Pity I. started doing browhaha and L never wanted to speak with me,
even though there was chemistry. The only day I touched her in her
back she and I jumped, fool of electricity... but nothing. And when I
got that leaflet and the office people didn't invite me to the
moovies, I decided to spend my savings and have a great birthday in
Acapulco...
And here this story links with the other story. I believe now that
tyose other thieves are Ledezma's cousins or friends. After I started
complaining and exposing him he dissapeared though was not fired. He
was in another office. And I had a slight doubt about the actual
burglar, as the place I was living in was being left by nice people
and only disreputable people was living there...
So I forgot about Ledezma. He doesn't have the musicologic toold
needed to complete the patent I offered him to help me develop, and I
was soon going to the US... Except that at the Embassy I was made to
wait for years...
I wanted to send my mother first but I didn't cover the requirements
to the affidavit of support (though later we learned that since she
had been a resident for a long while she didn't needed it). I assumed
I would have at least six months more of a nice wage, but the boss, C,
was protecting a very stupid, very stupid programmer, another
Alejandro. Like many dirty people he blamed me of the "failure" of our
component. The one he spent 8 months and couldn't complete while I
could have done it in a few weeks. He blamed me that the smartcard
module was very slow, but the problem was that his architecture didn't
take into account that there was SECURITY. So to ask for a profile
from the card he was going one by one, and my module, due to security
requirements, had to open the reader, open the card, authenticate,
navigate directories, fetch the data, closed the directories, close
the user, close the reader and give back the data.... To much
iteration. It was just a matter of adding a function to get ALL the
data from one user at once and...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 1:11 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 13:11:16 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
You get the idea. The login to the computer was taking 13 seconds,
when it should been of around 2 seconds. So I went to the code and
installed a profiler. Indeed, my code was taking 4.5 seconds, but
after a few optimizations (didn't arrive to that part, waiting for the
idiot's code), time dropped down to 2.4 seconds. Not bad, particularly
when reader and card where as tightly secured as possible. I tried to
discuss the matter with boss and idiot, but idiot was slicky and
enetered an argument of "it is not reentrant, is it?". Ha, nothing to
do, it was a SMARTCARD, you cannot go reentrant to avoid leaving
individuals authenticated in case an error is detected. But he blamed
it on me. He turned over the pancake. And when I told boss, who was my
cosigner, by the way, that I could prove his protege was an idiot and
he could correct the system by adding a method, two hours at most, I
found myself fired within a week...
They argued that the card module was not working as they wanted
because it was not an IN-CARD process. But since bosses don;t know the
tech, they didn;t acknowledge the fact that that version didn't allow
for VARIABLE FILE NAMES. The file names were fixed, so you needed an
interpreter inside the card and THAT would break all the in-built
security of the card's DOS, plus taking away a lot of space, unless
the data was encrypted. Incidentally, I had to HACK the card since M$
forgot to update the documentation from the Beta I, great, to the Beta
II and the first release, and never told that the format was
changed...
Nevermind. MY design was superb: a doubly inherited double class tree
that was ready to accept javacard versions and even multos. But I was
yelled because of it. The boss, Candia, didn't acknowledge me, and
since there were new partners decided to fire me rather than uncover
the fact that his team was full of inept programmers. Pity, but I was
stuffed if them and they were going to a warehouse. Were they REALLY
hit me was that that last day he called me at 7:30 and didn't let me
go back to my computer NOR RETRIEVE MY MAILS. A mail from Valero and
the answer from a patent lawyer giving me the Ok... I could never find
again his address and was left blank. And it was that last day when I
made the experiment of sending a mail to Luis, out of curiosity, and
he replied! Ill omen...
So it was the beginning of December and I was out of a job. I managed
to negotiate backing up my files and a good severance if I didn't go
to the work authorities. Excellent. But unfortunately a newly arrived
guy made an appointment for me and I ended up in the middle of
vacations in a job too far from wher I was living, with a newly bought
computer I wanted to explore, lots of deecisions to make (stay there
or go?), a "friend" that was kind of sticky, a lost love and even a
porter that wanted my cosigner's signature...
And my toilet started blocking....
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 4:22 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,seattle.general,soc.culture.italian
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 16:22:02 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: They say they gave me "aceite" and nothing happened!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
And that was already several days ago. So, I DEMAND JUSTICE... AND
STOP GIVING ME THINGS WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 1:02 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 13:02:08 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You get the idea. The login to the computer was taking 13 seconds,
when it should been of around 2 seconds. So I went to the code and
installed a profiler. Indeed, my code was taking 4.5 seconds, but
after a few optimizations (didn't arrive to that part, waiting for the
idiot's code), time dropped down to 2.4 seconds. Not bad, particularly
when reader and card where as tightly secured as possible. I tried to
discuss the matter with boss and idiot, but idiot was slicky and
enetered an argument of "it is not reentrant, is it?". Ha, nothing to
do, it was a SMARTCARD, you cannot go reentrant to avoid leaving
individuals authenticated in case an error is detected. But he blamed
it on me. He turned over the pancake. And when I told boss, who was my
cosigner, by the way, that I could prove his protege was an idiot and
he could correct the system by adding a method, two hours at most, I
found myself fired within a week...
They argued that the card module was not working as they wanted
because it was not an IN-CARD process. But since bosses don;t know the
tech, they didn;t acknowledge the fact that that version didn't allow
for VARIABLE FILE NAMES. The file names were fixed, so you needed an
interpreter inside the card and THAT would break all the in-built
security of the card's DOS, plus taking away a lot of space, unless
the data was encrypted. Incidentally, I had to HACK the card since M$
forgot to update the documentation from the Beta I, great, to the Beta
II and the first release, and never told that the format was
changed
...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 12:22 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 12:22:21 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Well, had to give time to the next visitor...
Where was I? Nobody believed it was Ledezma the one who was behind the
assaults, at least five incidents. But things colled down. Except that
some months later the other partner, the one who was funding the
company, was shot in a hand when they tried to steal his car... That
ended up the company's life, though there was some financial magic and
we even got triple wages, though it was obvious that with the happy
figures of the new partners (no net present value available), it
wouldn't last.
It was after the computer was stolen that I finally decided to take
the first apartment that would come my way, and soon enough that
apartment in the building near the office opened up. I moved there
almost right away. It took months get rid odd all the trash in three
rooms I was occupying and put all my books (the ones the cats didn't
ruin) in boxes. I though I would be safe there, near the office, and
started leaving in the same block, particularly after L, blonde, kin,
as ambidextrous as I am, a great poet, arrived in my life...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 4:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,seattle.general,soc.culture.italian
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 16:19:34 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 4:19 pm
Subject: They say they gave me "aceite" and nothing happened!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I am still thinking and deducting. So if they didn't, there is no
reason to blame or give me consequences for that. It is no excuse for
INJUSTICE. And if they did and I am supposed to be a moron, then
NOTHING HAPPENED, and again there is no REASON to blame or give me
consequences for that. It is no excuse for INJUSTICE.
In any case NOTHING HAPPENED. I DEMAND JUSTICE
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 11:37 am show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 11:37:16 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 11:37 am
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Ledezma.
He had it planned, I gave him confidence and was the only person I
gave confidence during tat period after Belinda left me (Luis had
already dissapeared). He confessed he killed a man in the highway.
There was an argument, both machos stopped their cars and he just let
go. I don't know if his mother was there or arrived later. He said he
beat the man to death; of course, being so small he would react with
all or nothing, to compensate. A highway patrol stooped by, but
Ledezma's parents speak for him. His father was influyente, the driver
of a politician, so after a few words, money, veiled threats, promises
of friendship and future benefits, palancas (connection with power),
the patrolmen simply let him go and would report he found a corpse in
the highway. Just like that.
The day my computer was stolen he arranged a date with a girl from the
company, I. You know, the kind of stupid girl with great tits that you
don't know what is she doing there, except that she looks at you with
lost eyes and open, drooling mouth, and when you near here puts her
hand between her legs... (except from behind she has no hips and
manish buttocks).
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 12:10 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 12:10:39 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
That Saturday I left to go someplace, a few hours, and when I came
back my mother told me the judiciales had just come to investigate. I
asked her what happened and she told me that nothing; one of them went
to the room and the other one waited with her...
Bad omen. I ran to my room and found that my Gane BOy was gone! I was
very upset, I was already getting rid of my accumulated trash of
several years and it was a mess, with the shy cats leaving there and
all the things that would dissapear later. Only the computyer would
put some order in that mess. MY Game Boy was under a drawer and they
missed it the first day, but the judiciales stole it... very likely
Ledezma's uncles...
On Monday Ledezma came back with a recorder and a new watch and other
things, very happy. And THEN, he asked me if SOMETHING happened during
the weekend. I Told nobody about the robbery, he didn't know, but I
said nothing. Then he asked me to listen to one song: "... heym hey
mhey, I am a runaway and you can't catch me, hey..." something like
that.
It was then when it matched. TH eday the assaulted I with her
boyfriend in a taxicab, the dy they boasted about having money (like
300); the day of the party when they assaulted the accountant's
helper, and took away old the payroll and her jewels; my robbery, and
every tmie it was Ledezma there. O started telling everybody, but as
always people prefer not to believe than confront. Ledezma was really,
really scared...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 5:37 am show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,seattle.general,soc.culture.italian
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 05:37:15 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 5:37 am
Subject: Re: They say they gave me "aceite" and nothing happened!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I am still thinking and deducting. So if they didn't, there is no
reason to blame or give me consequences for that. It is no excuse for
INJUSTICE. And if they did and I am supposed to be a moron, then
NOTHING HAPPENED, and again there is no REASON to blame or give me
consequences for that. It is no excuse for INJUSTICE.
In any case NOTHING HAPPENED. I DEMAND JUSTICE
And that was already several days ago. So, I DEMAND JUSTICE... AND
STOP GIVING ME THINGS WITHOUT MY CONSENT
.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 2:59 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 14:59:23 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Here it links with the original story I published when I NOTICED MY
MAILS WERE NOT ARRIVING. Impossible, sent so many that AT LEAST some
interest should have shown... And my login times were increasing and
there were some blueprints... so I arrived at the conclusion my files
had been stolen somehow... I started publishing all I cpuld and
sending more mails. There were no replies, NO REPLIES AT ALL FROM
NOBODY (except the 4 four or five REJECTIONS I RECEIVED EARLY IN
FEBRUARY... SEE WHAT I MEAN?).
In 1999 I rented an appartment in Mexico City, behind the WTC. In
2000, after I bought my guitar, the bathroom toilet started failing...
During 2001 everytime I called the plumber the toilet would fail. An I
was living with four cats! Even holding a job is difficult without a
working toilet... In 2002 my neighbours upstairs started threatening
me to death to steal my computer. The night they planned to poison my
cats I fled to my mother's home, cats, computer, guitar and books. The
next morning they broke into my appartment and stole my notes and a
collection of AI magazine, among other things.
The police came, but they did NOTHING. That week they let me know they
had the key... They setup the boiler to explode while I bathed, but
didn't work. Next day my bathroom flooded. I went to the police but
they wouldn't hear. Why bother if I was moving out of the appartment?
Why make it so complicated as to actually name the culprits and give
their address? Mordida? (bribe) The police did nothing. As a
consequence I ended up hunted by this guys, the remaining of my 8000
books barricaded, evicted, and locked myself up for fear of burglary
for one year... During which time there happened a shooting in the
place I was living in and I don't know the details, but fear for
people I knew and worked with...
I don't know their names, except for one Fraunhofer who plotted once,
saw twice. And my old associate Luis Bistrain Gonzalez and politically
powerful family. There was also the woman who was my actual neighbour
and whose name I never knew but can find.
2003 in Veracruz was a similar experience. I fled the place the day I
started to be videotaped by the local gang... Now I don't even know if
it was another criminal group or the same guys who followed me. The
day the music from a small italian's town page I hit came at the same
time from outside the window I knew I had a problem again... Other
things happened, but after almost two years of near retirement,
dedicated myself to the simple joy of creating in my computer, I
arrived in America safe.
But now, 2004, feeling safe and out of the shock, I wondered, for how
long did they have the key? Did they forced me to live in a place
witout toliet during the months it tool me to move out of there, and
with all my cats sharing the disgrace...? I mean, was my computer and
my music and my programs wide open for this guys to copy while I
waited for my documentation to be straighten up...? Did the engagement
ring I never delivered and never found ended up in those two guys'
hands? Do they have the invoices of my computer and guitar, my
agendas, school yearbooks, school notebooks, the notes of ten years of
ideas? Was my life's work stolen by those guys? Would you know if you
are living alone if somebody enters your home and copies your files?
Nightmare or real life? The works in this site are progressing and
growing. There is internal coherency, nothing can bend truth, not
forever...
Is this supposed to happen in a civilized country? Isn't barbarism
what happens when police fails? Will I get justice in case the worst
happen...? Who will have to admit he or she was deceived by a pair of
thieves? Will he or she be up to that responsibility when the time
comes...?
This will offend many people but I don't care: Mexico is a country
where impunity reigns, where thievery is sanctioned by society, where
police works for money, not ideals, where people's work is sabotaged
by those who can't stand others to advance in life, where piracy is a
way of living, where justice is applied selectively as example and not
by principle, where it is easier to let a criminal go than to punish
it, where it is risky to have money and not to have money, where
treachery is a historical constant, where everything is impossible,
can't be done or isn't available (el no-hay tv character)... And many
people suffer because of it.
In the last ten years I was assaulted with everything, from keys to
submachine guns. Ten times at least, threatened to death twice,
chased, a murder attempt (or two?), the five places I lived in where
robbed... Even the police robbed me after I reported a theft!!! The
judiciales stole my game boy, that the thieves (which I knew, by the
way, and were preying on the people of my office, he even told me it
was him), missed because it was under a drawer...
Nice place to visit? Sure! But don't try living there... even less try
to make a living there... Are you offended? Then maybe you will do
something to change it. I gave up, it was not my land after all.
This poem is disrespectful but, who would dare appropriating it? And
if I wrote this, then it follows that my other poems are mine, too...
I care for each and every one of my works, however imperfect and poor
they may be... Piracy and intellectual property thievery is awful, but
it is even more not to be recognized for what you contribute to the
accumulated wealth of humanity. That, is total horror. But even more
horror is to imagine the hypothetical situation of being mirrored in
all I do and denied in whatever I say, being called a liar when, in
fact, creating is in itself a form of Truth.
Will I be persecuted de oficio, slandered, incriminated for telling
the truth? Or even worse, eliminated and problem solved? Bad for
business, sure, but everyday truth in Mexico.
Did those guys acquired fame and are reknown because of my work, or
derivations thereof? Will they "turn over the pancake" and blame me of
their crimes? Will they pay if identified?
This is my experience, and unfortunately this site still reflects it.
Eventually it'll wear off. Sorry to impose it on you, unwarned reader,
hope it won't downgrade your enjoyment of this site.
And all this because I started playing the guitar...
And there are so many things I still don't know... but
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
Search Fabrizio J Bonsignore in google groups, sort by date
Truth will set us free
Los Angeles, April 2004
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 2, 6:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Nov 2004 18:45:24 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In 1993 I bought my first 486 computer and the Borland 3.5. It was
very relaxing and fun after so many years to program again. What
motivated me to buy the compiler. I found a great magazine issue, a
special issue. It was yellow (was because it was stolen by the thieves
that Mexico is protecting) and it dealt exclusively with neural
networks. WOW! They were fantastic! I was using at the time the QBasic
environment as a hobby, and was doig rather complex programming in the
Ami Pro macro language, which with more than 500 directives (it was a
functional language) expoed the Windows API and allowed to get total
control of the editing environment. I had great plans for it. After
discovering that I could replace the menu and call the native menu
options I wanted a system to control the editing of the business
guides. I envisioned a system where the editor would be used
exclusively to edit business guides and a possible employee would be
monitored by the system to get statistics. From hten, it was just a
small step to work in a program that would replace the interface,
leave it the way it was, do some monitoring... and install itself
through documents. A macro virus. Though at the time viruses were
still somewhat of an arcane area and more like a legend that a horrid
reality, open only to real gurus. My first virus arrived in 1994 and
infected my computer til it exploded in 1996: the NATAS.
Ami Pro didn`t really allowed to install a macro transparently; it
needed user help, which could he coerced with the typical trick of
simulating a message box and asking to click. Never used it, I was the
only one using the Ami Pro and the only one editing guides, though
definitively I wasnted to get more control of the translator, who was
doing a second rate job by copying and pasting without care, losing
information I needed for my work. The virus was working passably in my
computer but I felt it needed more brains... and the neural networks
were perfect.
I was also doing maze generators, a very simple recursive program that
generated mazes in documents very similar to those of Nethack, a
program I had from a very old and mysterious floppy I bought for
almost nothing in a store thatwas about to close, in Galerias, a big
mall. There was a special character that, with another simple maze
following/animation algorythm would traverse the page at great speed,
while the generator was generating page after page of mazes... very
funny to watch. But I wanted brains. And the neural networks magazine
introduced me in the fascinating discipline of artificial brains.
But, as I commented elsewhere, my first nets were a total fiasco,
after I found that Ami Pro coun`t work with floating point math...
My alternative was using QBasic. I even developed a graphical
application to display a net`s architecture which was visually
stunning but a nightmare to follow and modify. Ad it needed the
interpreter. It was too much work for a QBasic applicaion, I wanted a
standalone program, compiled, professional. My choice was between
Turbo Pascal and Borland C/C++ and more by luck than by a very
informed choice, I bought the Borland.
I didn`t started programming networks right away; my first standalone
program was a cellular automata application modeled according to the
rules that came in a popular magazine. Several things happened during
those years, particularly, I bought a more advanced neural networks
book and through another magazine discovered the joys of genetic
system and other AI systems.
Those were also the years when I started and composing the piano
sonata. In 1995 I got a curtesy connection to the internet and
downloaded some automatic composition programs. Maybe I got something
from then same popular magazines. My interest in automatic musical
composition came from the time when I was 14 and found a most
marvelous book which mentioned the theme in passing, and then I read,
and reread, Godel, Escher, Bach, the Hofstadter book which was also
among the favorite books of Valero and which introduced me to the joys
of formal system, and made Valero (maybe) chose his career as
mathematician.
Once I learned that genetic systems exist and had a peek at current
automatic composing programs, I had this idea, if we take the
different elements of music (do you know them?), how can we...
It was how Genemel, Genetic Melodies, was born, though a few years
after I first told Valero about the idea. Several problems were
unsolved at the time, thoug the proof of concept was encouraging. Now,
after many more years, finally know how to solve the other elements
at the time didn`t know how to handle...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 9:31 am show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 09:31:12 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This is part of my biography, read the full thread. But I notice here
that among programs lost are: a console shell I was having a lot of
fun programming; a geomantic readings app, my second app; a lite
expert system language using a database as working memory (translating
into SQL, from an ACM reference), a simulation of my first Casio
agenda to keep up appointments (he, the AI is still in my mind, rather
the algorithm, as the algorithm for a guitar application I didn`t have
to write down; they keep stealing incomplete things, but I have found
not yet the honest people who can help me and learn from me).
Genemel: a GA fitted by an Expert System, but there is still more...
much more I have in mind (intensively, not extensively).
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 8, 9:35 am show options
Newsgroups: utexas.general,dc.general,ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Nov 2004 09:35:20 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 8 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: THAT animation comes from Excel...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This is part of my biography, read the full thread. But I notice here
that among programs lost are: a console shell I was having a lot of
fun programming; a geomantic readings app, my second app; a lite
expert system language using a database as working memory (translating
into SQL, from an ACM reference), a simulation of my first Casio
agenda to keep up appointments (he, the AI is still in my mind, rather
the algorithm, as the algorithm for a guitar application I didn`t have
to write down; they keep stealing incomplete things, but I have found
not yet the honest people who can help me and learn from me).
Genemel: a GA fitted by an Expert System, but there is still more...
much more I have in mind (intensively, not extensively
).
Also a notebook with sketches for stained glasses: five heads like
mountains, german style. Blue book on neural computation, Santa Fe
Institute.
Notes: a page with drawings of controls for musical application.
Behind an FSM diagram for MIDI processing. They must have MY
HANDWRITING.
Reply
Possibility of telepathy information theory (theory of)
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 8, 6:15 pm show options
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory,bionet.neuroscience
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Nov 2004 18:15:08 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 8 2004 6:15 pm
Subject: Possibility of telepathy information theory (theory of)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
category of superstition, though a very extended one. Most people have
lived at one time or another the `meaningful coincidence` experience
that leads to the belief in direct mind to mind communication; on the
other extreme there is the people who actually hear voices
continuously and who we consider `mentally ill`, or shizophrenics. Of
coursse there are serious teams around the world applying the
scientific method to the study of telepathy, with aparently little
results, though it is rumored that the military complex has also
performed research on the matter, with results being, of course,
classified.
People usually resort to mystic beliefs to explain telepathy, while it
is argued that there is no physical support for it. I believe
otherwise. Brains are composed of interconnected `simple` information
processors that use and generate electric fields to propagate their
signals. The resultant field is so powerful that we can even measure
it *through* the crain to obtain an EEG. The measured signal is
however quite undifferentiated, even though we know there is an
underlying order to it. On the other hand we know that electric fields
do have an effect over other fields... If we live in a continuous
reality we can safely assume that a given signal will diminish
continuously over time, evetually integrating in the background noise
but without losing its caracteristics. It simply becomes too weak to
be distinguishable, though it will affect the whole electric field
that surrounds us.
So it is just a matter of asking: has the brain enough computing power
to distinguish the effect on its own (generated) field caused by the
signals of other brains? We certainly go through life without
listening to others thoughts, but this may well be a learned
(evolutively or environmentally) response, maybe brough about by the
developmentof language. Sound is certainly a better, more reliable
information carrier than weak electric field interactions and so we
rely on it, but it is possible given the plasticity of the brain that
under certain circumstances groups of neurons `learn` to accept and
interpret this interactions and give them `meaning`, for instance, if
the individual is gradually losing aural acuity. It is even possible
to speculate on the organizaion of `resonator groups`, groups of
neurons that learn to fire when certain (analogous) signals affect the
brain`s field. This ability may well be the cause of the development
of certain forms of schizophrenia, like those that develop late in an
individual`s life, though it wouldn`t explain all schizophrenic cases.
We can even speculate that certain forms of schizophrenia become a
problem due to the `storm` of thoughts received and the inability of
the individual to deal with the new source of information. In fact,
many individuals may actually enjoy the benefits of telepathy without
suffering the ill consequences of schizophrenia because they are able
to process the increased quantity of information received through this
channel. I doubt telepaths would be anxious to tell the whole world
that they hear voices (sort of a secret society...), though many
psychics and entertainers around the world give this kind of shows.
The relation between the strength of the signals and the necessary
computing power to interpret and whether the brain can provide it is
amenable tom formal calculus. It may well be that Earth`s electric
field is more charged with meaning than what we usually think...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message :...
> > There's also the little issue of power: the human brain
> > is reputed (and AFAICT it's a good estimate) to use 19%
> > of the 125W or so of a healthy adult young male's power.
> > (The value is more normally expressed in the units
> > 'kilocalories/day':
> > (125 Watts) / (1 (kcal / day)) = 2 581.26195
> > )
> > 19% * 125W = 23.75W.
The signal must be very weak, though a trained brain, i.e., a brain
using the `unused` capacity should be able to generate stronger
signals. But even the weakest signal, in a totally continuous Reality
(infinite within) can be distinguished from the rest of the signals
(noise), given enough computing power. So power is not an issue,
though propagation certainly takes time; in a sense no signal is ever
lost, only becomes infinitely weak as time passes.
> This wouldn't be too hard to detect were it broadcast
> in a standard carrier wave from a considerable distance
> (with a conventional dish antenna), but it's far from
> clear how the human brain could receive such a signal.
I envision something akin to the magnetization of iron by a strong
magnetic field, though I am interested in the computing power needed
vs the strength of the signal.
> The brain is also not a particularly organized transmitter;
> one can contemplate a human brain as consisting as a large
> number of minute spark gaps.
Those sparks are actually spread at least in two dimensions; I
_assume_ they would radiate like `ripples` in the surrounding
electromagnetic field, much like sound does, though I am not an expert
in this kind of phenomena.
> It is barely possible to contemplate a pair of "tuned
> brains" right next to each other sharing a thought, but
> that's about as far as telepathy can go; the brain cell
> that has the right frequency to broadcast "Aaah, pizza's
> coming" in brain 1 might be received by brain 2 as "Oh oh,
> my foot's being invaded by space aliens" for all I know.
Except there is a point in common which is language...
> (And that's assuming a single brain cell is responsible
> for that thought; my guess is that the thought "Aaah,
> pizza's coming" involves the synchronized firing in a
> certain sequence of various neurons
The signal is certainly temporal, a series of activation patterns
`radiating` outwards toward infinity (?), or modifying by their simple
existence the whole state-of-the-world of the electromagnetic fields
surrounding us...
>including those in
> the smell/taste region of the brain, the thought that the
> delivery man came up in a truck (hearing), and perhaps
> the logo and/or general shape of the pizza (visual).
> With that hypothesis the receiver's firing pattern will be
> hopelessly scrambled; the rest of the brain will probably
> discard the signal as random noise.)
Even though specialized sensory brain centers may be involved in one
thought we can at least assume there is a common mapping among
individuals when it comes to language so that is the only part of the
signal we need to take into account, and very likely the structure of
the activations for any word or phrase should be roughly similar from
brain to brain; if this is true we would transmit and _receive_
thoughts only in the language or languages we actually practice, and
both the beginning and ending of the signals would be blurred until
there is a match between the pattern of the signal received and the
set of neurones trained to distingush the signal. Since spoken
language is composed of characteristic sounds, some words would be
easily transmited and received, while others would be hardly
distinguished. I suppose a trained brain would develop resonator and
amplifier clusters whith activation paterns deepening with practice,
specialized in `tuning` basic (phoneme? morpheme?) patterns before
sending them to the `language understanding` centers. I imagine these
centers analogically, like kind of key-keyhole pairs.
But this is going too far already. The issue is whether a brain can
dedicate and does have the computing power in terms of activations to
process the signals given that they must be very weak.
Assuming a human brain has enough computing power to `analogically`
process the influence on its own activity of the signals emitted from
other brains, and the existence of areas devoted to receive and
process those signals, that telepathic reception would be far more
potent when a) there`s people around and b) the individual is in a
closed environment.
In case a) the weak signals can `resonate` among brains, for the most
part unconsciously, to generate a stronger signal more easily
transmitted. This is equivalent to say that the fields of electric
activity of each individual`s brain get `aligned`, gnerating a
stronger signal. This stronger signal would be the sum of the original
`ambient` content of information and the results of the processing by
the brain. The more sensitive individual would experiment the net
result as a perceived sound or as an idea. This kind of phenomena may
lie behind the usual `coincidences` when two persons start talking at
the same time and say the same phrase (notwithstanding other
psychological or situational explanations), particularly after a few
minutes of keeping silence (how many would-be lovers end long
embarrasing silences this way?). In other words, people would act like
anthenas. This hypothesis may point to modifications in current
parapsychological experimentation.
As for b), closed environments would isolate many random disturbances,
makin it easier for the brain to process the modulation in the signal,
both in the case of direct electromagnetic perturbances as in the case
of other sensorial extractions.
Is it possible to prove telepathy exists? I believe not, unless
telepaths want to show it possible. A good experiment would involve
the coordination of spatially distanced individuals, making some noise
after a command is given telepathically. For instance: `All telepaths
say ok!` And then hearing lots of oks... The probability of many
people saying ok at the same time without coordinatio is so small that
it would prove the phenomenon beyond doubt, but it would need
cooperation, very difficult to obtain given the inclination of humans
to persecute whatever exceeds the normal capabilities of an
individual.
As to the evolution of telepathy, seen as a problem of computing power
against strength of signals it is very likely it can only be observed
in humans and maybe some big brained animals, like elephants and
dolphins. If corroborating telepathy in humans is a difficult problem,
doing so in other species looks like an impossible problem. It has to
be observed here that many problems of synchronization that are
popularly presented as evidence of animal telepathy are actually the
expression of global effects of local rules, like the ordering of
animals in flocks.
What should be evident is that, as a communication channel, it has
very low advantages over hearing, for instance, as it has no obvious
spatial relationship. If proximity were an element, it would be
superseded by hearing and sight, so it wouldn`t develop. And as a
remote sense, since it would be impossible to know the source, and
what`s more, to know whether the messages are tru or false, a lead or
a mislead, the information content would tend toward zero.
At most it is a phenomenon that develops as a side effect of brain
size, if at all. (To be honest, I was expecting somebody to offer the
calculus). But if it exists, then schizophrenia would acquire a new
meaning, as the neurosis of people who didn`t learn how to integrate
their disembodied messages with everyday life.
Imagine a telepathic individual who identifies signals meant for him
(people thinking of him), and he suddenly goes famous, lots of people
think of him. He not only would receive lots of messages but also,
given human`s inclination to jealousy, many evil thoughts. That
individual would experiment a cacophony, that may leave him unable to
cope with everyday affairs, a severe schizophrenia. This hypothesis
can be tested. Severe shizophrenics must be well known in their
communities, while mild schizophrenics would be almost unknown and
lonely individuals. I think of the moovie picture `A Beautiful Mind`.
This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.
Michael Gray wrote in message :...
> > The fist would need to separate cause from effect.
> > The schizophrenics that I know all displayed schizophrenic tendencies
> > before they became well known.
> > Their fame/infamy was mostly due to to their bizarre behaviour.
> > Schizophrenia leads to being well known.
This is really very interesting. Seeing the problem mechanically, we
would indeed be interested in causes and effects. But the hypothesis
is not that becoming well known is the cause of schizophrenia, only
that both circumstances occur simultaneously.
At some point there must be an innate or induced (drugs as triggers of
telepathy) telepathic ability. IF, from the outset, due to education,
character or innate (IQ) factors, the individual is _not_ able to cope
with telepathy, we would exhibit bizarre behaviour. Then he is well
known. Then his behaviour is even more bizarre. Etc. A classical
example of positive feedback, the system reinforces itself until the
individual`s behaviour is so bizarre that he can no longer live in a
social environment. He is excluded from society. Eventually as he is
forgotten (family size would be another factor: the more relatives
worried, the less the telepathic individual`s opportunty to recover,
[unless he learns to separate both sources of informatio, telepathy
and everyday life]), schizophrenia would diminish, making the
individual more `adapted to reality`.
What would be needed is a good numeric indicator (maybe a scale? would
be less effective as would involve human judgement) to relate both
factors, severity and social life (distinguishing now between society
in general and family).
Note that a particular individual may be `tuned` to other telepaths
*outside* of his immediate social circle, so there could be an
unaccounted residue, maybe from the very start of the adaptation
process. Because once started it becomes a process to which the
individual must adapt.
> How would you eliminate this factor from any tests?
It would recquire a more elaborate correlation model, a dynamic one,
taking into account the story of the individual. I don`t know if
clinic notes are complete enough to be useful as input to this dynamic
models. I do assume that initial correlations must be strong enough to
warrant more careful testing with volunteers (no medication, early
detection/treatment/studies, social deprivation, for different age
brackets).
And the models must contain at least age, social interaction, family
size and drug use as variables.
> >This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
> >schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
> >be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.
> That makes the wild leaping assumption that there is such a thing,
> well before it has even been sufficiently established, let alone
> proven.
The fact is that alternative therapies using this hypothesis as their
basis, if successful, would support the statistical correlation
method. Both research lines can be followed concurrently and reinforce
each other.
Note too that the *content* of the voices may acquire a new meaning
and lead to new testable hypothesis if seen as communication (signal)
rather than as noise.
Also, about telepathic ability triggers, it may well be that extreme
circumstances can enhance the innate ability to commune/perceive
thoughts. It would provide a certain survival advantage, particularly
while the human brain was evolving subjected to the pressures of
social interaction and the development of the faculty (how to call
it?) to murder.
A candidate substance would be adrenaline. It may well be that
sporting types may develop telepathy. There should be a correlation
too between exercising as a constant practice and schizophrenics. A
good percentage of schizophrenics were also good athletes. And,
supposing that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence
and the propensity to do sports (nothing indicates it should be so, it
would have no survival advantage, on the contrary, though the practice
of sports definitely competes in term of time with the development of
the `brain muscle`), the reason they develop schizophrenic is because
they lack the necessary intellectual tools to cope with the new
information (like, for instance, dwelling in endless arguments without
sense).
Of course, once the correlations begin showing, successful telepaths
would have an incentive to accept their ability without being
stigmatized (and `incarcerated`) as schizophrenics or people having
mental health issues...
Since signals must be weak and difficult to distinguish from noise, or
in other words, since noise is always present (composed from the sum
total of signals of all emissors) and signals are comparatively brief
and burst-like, the brain must be able to ignore the noise while being
receptive of signals. Resonators would have this capacity to
`resonate` or be triggered the moment noise matches the patterns gor
which it has been formed. It must be very difficult to receive and
interpret random signals, these must match in some form what the brain
already expects. Except for very strong broadcastings, pure thought
reading must be nearly impossible unless it is formulated in a form
that is already mapped by the resonators. Language, visions, emotions
would share this characteristic; also particular thoughts directed
*at* the individual would be relatively easy to pick up. The same way
doves and other birds are able to orient themselves in the magnetic
field of earth, as if they had an absolute positioning system, signals
may contain within themselves the information needed to distinguish an
individual or a group of inividuals. This is equivalent to the
hypothesis that even if we are not aware of it, our sense of position
in the world, and at least the notion of particular other individuals
is present in our brains in a distinguishable way. Should this
hypothesis be true, based on the computing power of the brain to
distinguish arbitrarily small signal to noise ratios, our uniqueness
as individuals can be expressed in a unique way by our thoughts, while
at the sme time we can be aware of our position in relation to other
individuals. We can identify individuals uniquely simply by thinking
of them, and once a link is established (a particular signal pattern
has been matched and anticipated) a connection may be permanent and
sef reinforcing in terms of plasticity of neural activations This
would explain why schizophrenics (who can be een as unadapated
telepaths at least for those individuals who do not contain real brain
damage [dificult to explain, besides, as it woud mean a set of nerons
clamped in perpetual self-activation, though with enough variation as
to simulate whoe strains of converstaion, hardly the product of a
truly damaged mind {multiple personalities, possible by partitioning
if the brain, usually are unaware of each other}], engage in long
conversations, which would mean a link has been established and
reinforced. Notie that according to the assumptios, the thoughts
(signals) exchanged must be recognizable by the receptive individual:
foreign languages, unknown words, notions, concepts and ideas would be
difficult to commuicate through this medium. This can be further
refined in terms of particular architectures of neural activation.
See also the thread `Schizophrenia as neurosis` for further discussion
of statistical proof.
Reply
Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
« Older Messages 26 - 42 of 42 in topic - view as tree
Joseph Benson Oct 11, 6:58 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: "Joseph Benson" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:45 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 11 2004 6:58 am
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
My apologies for grammatical errors. I'm using my Wireless PDA for a change.
"Joseph Benson" wrote in message
news:A9wad.142277$as2.48037@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>A book called critical thinking might help you from commiting some many of
>the same mistakes.
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
> news:768f7623.0410081212.58de3c2d@posting.google.com...
>> But I`ll be fair, you are criticizing my style of writing, which is
>> like criticizing the man. You are criticizing the terminology and I am
>> using terms in their everyday sense as primitive terms that acquire
>> meaning through their relationships. You don`t use scientific method
>> to know if your neighbor is having an affair or not. And ellipsis
>> means there is more to come... All in all, your need to criticize to
>> compete and derive some self esteem not only tells me you are one of
>> those poor souls that started this saga but that also you didn`t
>> understand what I was saying.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 11, 6:04 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Oct 2004 18:04:19 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 11 2004 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Hope zerg reads this post and the book.
"Joseph Benson" wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> My apologies for grammatical errors. I'm using my Wireless PDA for a change.
> "Joseph Benson" wrote in message
> news:A9wad.142277$as2.48037@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >A book called critical thinking might help you from commiting some many of
> >the same mistakes.
> > "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
> > news:768f7623.0410081212.58de3c2d@posting.google.com...
> >> But I`ll be fair, you are criticizing my style of writing, which is
> >> like criticizing the man. You are criticizing the terminology and I am
> >> using terms in their everyday sense as primitive terms that acquire
> >> meaning through their relationships. You don`t use scientific method
> >> to know if your neighbor is having an affair or not. And ellipsis
> >> means there is more to come... All in all, your need to criticize to
> >> compete and derive some self esteem not only tells me you are one of
> >> those poor souls that started this saga but that also you didn`t
> >> understand what I was saying.
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 11, 8:36 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:36:14 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 11 2004 8:36 pm
Subject: Re: Mexico is in love with me but I am not gay!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
zerge wrote:
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
>>We are not competing. Nothing to do with thread. You are one of the thieves?
> One word for you: lithium.
> http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p42-sc3.html
No no no zerge.
There is one word for him. If you don't understand the concept, you must
search at http://www.google.com/ for "empire of meow".
He must be Meowed.
UseNet is overdue, in terms of "UseNet Performance Art", for a good Meowing.
Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 11, 8:34 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:34:34 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 11 2004 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Joseph Benson wrote:
> My apologies for grammatical errors. I'm using my Wireless PDA for a change.
You're also "top-posting".
Top-posting causes Crabs. This is a Scientific Fact.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
"
Reply
zerge Oct 12, 8:26 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Oct 2004 08:26:28 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 8:26 am
Subject: Re: Mexico is in love with me but I am not gay!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Tiny Human Ferret wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> zerge wrote:
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> >>We are not competing. Nothing to do with thread. You are one of the thieves?
> > One word for you: lithium.
> > http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p42-sc3.html
> No no no zerge.
> There is one word for him. If you don't understand the concept, you must
> search at http://www.google.com/ for "empire of meow".
> He must be Meowed.
> UseNet is overdue, in terms of "UseNet Performance Art", for a good Meowing.
> Meow.
Indeed. Fabrizio, this my fry a few million of your diseased neurons,
but what the heck.
Meow.
Reply
zerge Oct 12, 8:26 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Oct 2004 08:26:55 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 8:26 am
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> "naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> > The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> > covers everything. .. Ape;)
> Excellent!
Meow.
Reply
Joseph Benson Oct 12, 12:28 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: "Joseph Benson" - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:28:39 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Yes'em boss, Wont let it happen again
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
news:416B50CA.3000305@earthops.net...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Joseph Benson wrote:
>> My apologies for grammatical errors. I'm using my Wireless PDA for a
>> change.
> You're also "top-posting".
> Top-posting causes Crabs. This is a Scientific Fact.
> --
> The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
> often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
> of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
> --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 12, 2:24 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Oct 2004 14:24:06 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"
naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> covers everything. .. Ape;)
What about prostitution, masturbation, self-penetration, tattooing,
self-multilation (piercing), drinking, drugs, coffee, eating spicey,
self-medication, euthanasia, masochism, extreme sports, gambling,
bondage, poultry industry, animal breeding, pest control, `no pain no
gain`, not taking medication, refusing a lover? When people tell you
`I am doing X and I like it, it is not harming you`, what do you do?
Reply
robert j. kolker Oct 12, 3:14 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: "robert j. kolker" - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:14:21 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> `I am doing X and I like it, it is not harming you`, what do you do?
Turn around and mind your own business.
Bob Kolker
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 12, 5:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:45:24 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Mexico is in love with me but I am not gay!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
zerge wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote in message ...
>>zerge wrote:
>>>fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
>>>>We are not competing. Nothing to do with thread. You are one of the thieves?
>>>One word for you: lithium.
>>>http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p42-sc3.html
>>No no no zerge.
>>There is one word for him. If you don't understand the concept, you must
>>search at http://www.google.com/ for "empire of meow".
>>He must be Meowed.
>>UseNet is overdue, in terms of "UseNet Performance Art", for a good Meowing.
>>Meow.
> Indeed. Fabrizio, this my fry a few million of your diseased neurons,
> but what the heck.
> Meow.
Meow!
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 12, 11:35 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Oct 2004 23:35:04 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 11:35 pm
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
elemti...@yahoo.com (P. Brown) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > "naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> > > The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> > > covers everything. .. Ape;)
> > What about prostitution, masturbation, self-penetration, tattooing,
> > self-multilation (piercing), drinking, drugs, coffee, eating spicey,
> > self-medication, euthanasia, masochism, extreme sports, gambling,
> > bondage, poultry industry, animal breeding, pest control, `no pain no
> > gain`, not taking medication, refusing a lover? When people tell you
> > `I am doing X and I like it, it is not harming you`, what do you do?
> As Mr Kolker said, "Mind your own business". This is an instance of
> (while some emotional harm may be done to another) your liberty ends
> where that person's begins.
> You might be traumatised if your wife came home one day with face
> tattoos, multiple piercings and a packet of nine alarm chili and a
> bottle of coke for supper; but you'd largely be powerless. You might
> rebuke her for doing so many things without consultation, and that
> your feelings and level of trust are now damaged by these actions.
> Other than an emotional scar, there is no 'real' damage done to anyone
> other than the person engaging in the activity in question. Some
> exceptions in your list: masturbation - no harm at all, as it is a
> normal and healthy activity; gambling - this can indeed cause real
> harm to others as losses accrue and Certain Gentlemen start comming
> around to collect. A couple others like poultry industry probably
> shouldn't be on a list of self-involved activities.
Indeed, but you are doing harm in poultry industry, so we still need
an ethic guide to relate to Nature. And the hard cases are still
pending.
Reply
zerge Oct 13, 11:53 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Oct 2004 11:53:43 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2004 11:53 am
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> elemti...@yahoo.com (P. Brown) wrote in message ...
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > > "naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> > > > The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> > > > covers everything. .. Ape;)
> > > What about prostitution, masturbation, self-penetration, tattooing,
> > > self-multilation (piercing), drinking, drugs, coffee, eating spicey,
> > > self-medication, euthanasia, masochism, extreme sports, gambling,
> > > bondage, poultry industry, animal breeding, pest control, `no pain no
> > > gain`, not taking medication, refusing a lover? When people tell you
> > > `I am doing X and I like it, it is not harming you`, what do you do?
> > As Mr Kolker said, "Mind your own business". This is an instance of
> > (while some emotional harm may be done to another) your liberty ends
> > where that person's begins.
> > You might be traumatised if your wife came home one day with face
> > tattoos, multiple piercings and a packet of nine alarm chili and a
> > bottle of coke for supper; but you'd largely be powerless. You might
> > rebuke her for doing so many things without consultation, and that
> > your feelings and level of trust are now damaged by these actions.
> > Other than an emotional scar, there is no 'real' damage done to anyone
> > other than the person engaging in the activity in question. Some
> > exceptions in your list: masturbation - no harm at all, as it is a
> > normal and healthy activity; gambling - this can indeed cause real
> > harm to others as losses accrue and Certain Gentlemen start comming
> > around to collect. A couple others like poultry industry probably
> > shouldn't be on a list of self-involved activities.
> Indeed, but you are doing harm in poultry industry, so we still need
> an ethic guide to relate to Nature. And the hard cases are still
> pending.
I just had chicken today...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 14, 10:25 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Oct 2004 10:25:04 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Say somebody presents you this thread and tells you: it was written by
D. You accept the fact and believe it was written by D. Now somebody
else comes and tells you it is actually written by L. DO you believe
him? Then some more people come and tell you that it was written by L.
At some point you start believing it was written by L. But indeed, it
was written by D. Now, when do you change your belief? What happens if
initially you are told it was written by L (false), and then people
come and tell you it was written by D (true)? Can you dinstinguish
falseness from truth? What if people alternatively tell you it was
written by D and then by L?
This is amenable to do psychological resesarch to uncover the models
that people follows when forming beliefs. It can be obtained a
probability distribution of belief change given several models used as
hypothesis. The data can then be fed to actual models to investigate
for given human groups how the belief fields change and propagate.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 13, 10:59 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Oct 2004 10:59:51 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2004 10:59 am
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Given that Reality is ambiguous and knowledge (its acquisition) an
ever present, defining problem for living beings, when confronted with
decisions about a world state which, to simplify things, will be
considered binary, both rational and irrational beings are forced in a
first moment to choose from either one of thr possibilities and remain
attached to that selection as a matter of belief which then becomes
their elected stance against the World in that issue, or the
individual`s truth.
In a first moment each individual makes his\her decision when
confronted with the issue as in an (almost) independent way. At each
moment there are always individuals who have not been confronted with
the issue and therefore hold no belief.
But in a later moment interactions among individuals, when related to
the issue in question, makes a confrontation of particular beliefs,
that is, of the particular decision taken among the possibilities by
each individual. If the issue can be solved by confronting the belief
against Reality (thoughsometimes not even then), it is possible to
expect a (gradual) concordance on the `right` decisio to take so that
a consensus is reached, thoough there may remain individuals who, by
the necessity of diversity of Living Beings may hold a belief that
goes against yje consensus, which in this case is formed by the
adequacy of decisios to Reality as a de facto and ex post experience
that yields a known and (quasi) repeatable result. In this case
beliefs turn into Knowledge and the actual confronting of belief
against Reality takes the form of Method, be it trial and error or
scientific or anything in between. In this case too it is also to be
expected that individuals without contact reach the same basic
decision and consensus as a form of Truth in case they confront the
exact same issue.
But when there is no direct way to decide whether a belief (decision)
truly conforms to Reality, that is, there is no direct link between
holding the belief and experiencing (predicting) results based on that
belief, it is to be expected a particular dynamic in the way a certain
belief propagates in a population of beings which is akin, and can be
seen as such, as the phenomenon of magnetization of particles (spins)
in metals. In other words, for a simple model of binary beliefs, say,
whether something is valuable or not or somebody is good or evil, the
tools and metaphors of statistical mechanic fields can be applied as
models. This leads to interesting possibilities for the study of
formation, propagation of beliefs and other problems in the sociology
of Knowledge.
Knowledge is at first a belief (hypothesis) that can
be `confronted` against Reality and `proved` true or false. But then
there is knowledge that cannot be corroborated truly and yet people
`know`. That is a belief and that kind of knowledge has a certain
dynamic. For instance, political rumors. BTW, corroboration may be a
matter of cost; you cannot corroborate because it is too costly, thus
your knowledge turns ito belief and is subject to change according to
the beliefs of other people you discuss the issue with.
> When we look at the history of epistemology, we can discern a clear trend,
> in spite of the confusion of many seemingly contradictory positions. The
> first theories of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character,
> whereas the later theories put the emphasis on its relativity or situation-
> dependence, its continuous development or evolution, and its active
> interference with the world and its subjects and objects. The whole trend
> moves from a static, passive view of knowledge towards a more and more
> adaptive and active one.
We tend to see knowledge as somethig that is aqcuired and done. But it
has to be propagated. Scientifically gathered knowledge has a certain
formal way of propagation, but to most people knowledge is what they
believe, whether true or not scientifically and it is that dynamic I
am interested in. Seeing beliefs as fields, we can understand how fads
spread and die, for instance, or how full countries can fall in a
delusion of the kind that generates wars... Phenomena like racism also
spread in this way. Maybe throught he use of these SMF models we can
find ways to stop socially dangerous beliefs from spreading while
promoting socially convenient ones...
> Indeed, a social group can be defined by the fact that all its members
> share the same meme (Heylighen, 1992)
I am not very convinced about the idea of memes... I like this
characterization of social group, yet it is somewhat limited. The
basic principle of Living Beings is diversity, so it must be either a
very diverse, complex meme and therefore analyzable, or a very small
and close social group (sect? fanatic?). More likely than not a social
group would hold a basic set of beliefs strongly correlated (coheret)
about certain basic issues, while its members diverge in details and
other issues. I believe it is very difficult if not impossible to find
really basic and indivisible memes... at most the meme is a fuzzy
concept, like trying to isolate the set of connections that identify a
category in a neural network.
> As long as a meme spreads more quickly to new carriers, than that its
> carriers die, the meme will proliferate, even though the knowledge it
> induces in any individual carrier may be wholly inadequate and even
> dangerous to survival. In this view a piece of knowledge may be succesful
> (in the sense that it is common or has many carriers) even though its
> predictions may be totally wrong, as long as it is sufficiently
> 'convincing' to new carriers.
One of the points of my post Alive and Human. The Human (Rational
Beings`) environment is more complex than the Natural World in which
we evolved as living beings. Reason is detached from evolution,
orthogonal if you like, and presents a more convoluted hyperplane for
exploration. And the necessary condition of living beings of being
diverse guarantees that we`ll see ideas that are contrary to
biological survival, when biological survival is no longer the main
determinant of living (Rational) conduct. Reason has the meaning of
searching possibilities in a chaotic Reality, which further guarantees
the appearance of beliefs contrary to what from other points of view
(methods of inquiry) would be called `truth`.
> Here we see a picture where even the
> subject of knowledge has lost his primacy, and knowledge becomes a force
> of its own with proper goals and ways of developing itself. That this is
> realistic can be illustrated by the many superstitions, fads, and
> irrational beliefs that have spread over the globe, sometimes with a
> frightening speed.
I cannot yet conceive of a `knowledge field` without a physical
support. It would either degenerate into Chaos or become static.
Certainly knowledge evolves independently of individual carriers
(mostly, but not totally), but it is not a living force by itself. Its
dynamic depends on a synamic support. There is static knowledge, but
its nature as knowledge reveals only after it is dynamically
confronted against Chaos, i. e., used. A hammer is just a piece of
metal until someone uses it to break something...
And yes, fads tend to spread with alarming speed, but not always. It
would be interesting to know why, and how. I guess marketers would be
very interested in knowing too. And it would also have social positive
effects if it leads to beneficial patterns of demand that in turn
would lead to an increased production level (a bigger cake to
distribute).
> Yes, mathematical and logical systems (and more generally formal
> systems) are the only systems in which it makes any sense for the word
> "proof" to be used *as Zick used the word*. You can prove things in a
> non formal system too. Example: I assert that a box is too heavy to be
> picked up; but you proceed to pick it up anyway; my assertion has been
> proved false. Ask yourself which kind of proof is Zick's proof of
> universals; if the is the former, then he needs to play by a set of
> rules; if it is the latter then he needs to do something very dramatic.
In formal systems you do acquire Knowledge, but Reality is not a
formal system... Once you prove something you *know*.
If you assert that the box is heavy you are expressing a belief.
Whoever hears about the box and has no experience of that box may
_believe_ or not. If you do pick up the box it means you didn`t
believe it was too heavy and viceversa. My point is how the
`knowledge` about te box`s weight propagates to people who have no
direct experience of it. Whoever accepts an assertion about the box
without corroborating it is holding a belief andmay be right or wrong.
Tell two or three people about the box. Then they tell others, etc.
How many will `know` the box is too heavy and how many that the box
can actually be lifted? And this particular segment of Reality can be
easily corroborated...
Reply
P. Brown Oct 13, 10:16 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: elemti...@yahoo.com (P. Brown) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Oct 2004 10:16:09 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 13 2004 10:16 am
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
> Indeed, but you are doing harm in poultry industry,
I know - like I said, that one shouldn't be part of the list because
it's not self involved. Anyway, not everyone in the poultry industry
causes harm.
> so we still need an ethic guide to relate to Nature.
Those already exist. There's no real need to make up a new one.
Perhaps we should stick to one thing at a time?
> And the hard cases are still pending.
Which would those be?
Padraic.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 7:46 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 07:46:28 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 7:46 am
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
What happens if you make your mind on one issue, and then you start
getting contradictory information? Say, you believe it is D but people
keep telling you it is L, it is D, it is L, it is D, it is L, it is
D... At some point you won't know what's the "value" of that issue.
Your belief is cancelled and you end up in almost the same point you
were at the beginning, but in a special state where you know there is
an issue but you don't know the actual value of it. For a magnetic
field, this is equivalent to demagnetize the metal. The field is
cancelled. So you can create a belief field and magnetize it several
ways, but you can also leave it in an indeterminate state. This fact
is behind the effectiveness of rites. When there are conflicting
values with respect to some issue (what you would normally call
belief), the only way to avoid disbelief, demagnetization, is by
reinforcing the value you are interested in, to keep the field
polarized in the polarity you are interested in (can be more than two
polarities; binary is assumed since we can have several binary fields
overimposed for complex issues).
This is why churches insist on rite, to keep the believers interested
in that faith. And the less appealing is a faith, the more ritual must
be needed to keep the faithful believing in that faith, that is, to
keep believers. This of course depends on what model of "polarization"
we actually assume for individuals. By the biological principle of
diversity we can expect a probability distribution of models that will
be different according to epoch, place, education, etc. But the main
principle of exercising a constant individual pressure holds as the
mean to keep the field polarized. In other words, people can stop
believing, belief fields can dissapear.
This ideas or original of Danilo J Bonsignore
If you see them elsewhere or under anothername, you know a dishonest
person.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 9, 9:06 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Nov 2004 09:06:17 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 9 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Re: Theory of beliefs (model of browhaha)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
For those who have been following this thread, it must be by now
evident that a belief field can be polarized, but not permamnently. In
order for a belief field to be polarized against Reality, it is
necessary to apply constant pressure, ie, energy, to keep that
polarization. A belief field will tend to acquire the level of minimum
cost, that which reflects Reality, and once the belief turns into
knowleDge the field is essentiAlly cristalized. Truth, the adequacy
betweeN the belIef fieLd and the underlying Reality, prOvides the
solution of minimum cost. To polarize a field against truth, it is
necessary to apply a constant pressure, which can Be called
prOpagaNda. Propaganda iS necessary to convonce people agaInst
reality, for it is GoiNg against the sOlution of minimum cost. Thus,
tRying to kEep a field polarized in the wrong way (convincing people
of a lie) is a costly solution. Except, of course, when the field is
polarized momentarily and then allowed to dissipate. It would Be to be
expected, due to the phenomenon of memory, that a temporary fieLd, if
revived by new information (a revived issue), the field woUld be
rEcovered in its previous state, though the "deepnEss" of the
polarYzation would bE proportionalS to the time the field was
depolarized; Hin othEr words, the more Ltime Passes before reviving a
temporary isuue, the more entropic the field would be recovered NY.
It can be noted that a model where a belief is not binary can be
represented by a quantization of the spins of the spins of the
elements of which the field is composed (in this case individuals
acting as particles). Each possible truth value of the field would be
characterized by a sector in a vector field.
Reply
A curse, damnation,
forever condemnation,
to whom can help,
but nay!, chose to whelp,
under the foul measures
of sordid pressures...
I have a cartilaghe in the body part connecting head and chest. Eyes
color of the nordics. I am in the city where they all reuinte and try
to solve the problems of all of us, I mean all of us. Help, covered by
mafia/gov from down suoth. Being exploited for being too good in many
things, so their argument is to move the disbelief of people. help.
Entered a discussio about clays, language, molecules and language. DS
theory is solved with sets. Somebody using my name and double entendre
with sets of pictures to damage reputation. Citizen of the biggest GNP
in world and first in productivity
.
Reply
A curse, damnation,
forever condemnation,
to whom can help,
but nay!, chose to whelp,
under the foul measures
of sordid pressures...
I have a cartilaghe in the body part connecting head and chest. Eyes
color of the nordics. I am in the city where they all reuinte and try
to solve the problems of all of us, I mean all of us. Help, covered by
mafia/gov from down suoth. Being exploited for being too good in many
things, so their argument is to move the disbelief of people. help.
Entered a discussio about clays, language, molecules and language. DS
theory is solved with sets. Somebody using my name and double entendre
with sets of pictures to damage reputation. Citizen of the biggest GNP
in world and first in productivity
.
Reply
Futures of Man: the Hard Way
All 2 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 4, 2:38 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Dec 2004 02:38:40 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 2:38 am
Subject: Futures of Man: the Hard Way
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Though it may prove to be the easiest, culturally. Very interesting
ideas come from this way, particularly in interaction with the very
fabric of Reality...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 4, 3:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Dec 2004 15:23:14 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: the Hard Way
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Though it may prove to be the easiest, culturally. Very interesting
ideas come from this way, particularly in interaction with the very
fabric of Reality
...
Mind, Matter and Machine unified in a single component: lots of keys.
Reply
Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Messages 1 - 25 of 52 in topic - view as tree Newer »
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 25, 9:21 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Nov 2004 21:21:34 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 25 2004 9:21 pm
Subject: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Reason allows us to take the body, the biological level, to a totally
new level by taking charge of our own evolution. Evolution as a
survival mechanism in the Chaos of Reality is broken by Reason, as it
introduces changes in the landscape of the survival function we humans
explore genetically; Nature turns into Society, and while evolution
makes changes throughout long time spans, Reason acts in a different
time span to bring quicker changes. Compared to the time horizon of
Reason, Evolution is stopped. Reason introduces besides a decoupling
between Natural Man and Rational Man, we move in an altogether
different level.
On this level we are able to bootstrap the system of life and take
control of our own genetic material, so this time Evolution is
directed by Reason, not by fitting beings against a survival function,
Nature. Reason is more efficient as an optimization and search
mechanism than Evolution is, as it can make use of different methods
to optimize functions, one of them being Science. Science can liberate
us from death and disease and scarcity once it takes into its hands
the task of changing our genome to provide us with more efficient
bodies. By finding mechanisms to fix DNA and prevent it from
undergoing entropy, we can in fact become forever younf and
immortal...
Though there might be another path. It is said that we can only access
some percentage of the resources of our brain. As if it were
disconnected from our conscience... Yet there is people who have more
control over their bodies than the rest of the population. For
instance, I can make my pupils vibrate at will. If we can somehow open
up the path to the rest of our brain we would be able to GET CONTROL
OF OUR DNA BY WILL. A form of awareness, like the one it is supposed
to be brought about by LSD-25, (one of the psilocibins). If we can
connect our brain to our conscious functios so that we can take
control od our DNA...
We can assume assume at will any form we want, provided it contains
enough brain to not lose control. Even possibilities like cyborgs are
opened by this way. We would be able to to assume other people`s form
and act as if we were them... dangerous, but if everybod has this
capability... Pity JesusChrist was unable to reveal the secret of
`Thou art gods` when we were few... But we can use this powe to solve
the problems of overpopulation...
This might be a military secret. Not all LSD-25 sold in the street is
real LS-25 but other hallucinogen.
For thise who know my predicament, they say the FBI director is in
between too.
Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
Dad ana nin ili lol lo
1111 4444 7777 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
nyn yny unu n
Reply
P. Nov 28, 4:45 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: "P." - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:45:26 +0900
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2004 4:45 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Science can liberate
> us from death and disease and scarcity
Yeah right! So why doesn't it?
We don't deserve immortality.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
Reply
robert j. kolker Nov 28, 9:11 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: "robert j. kolker" - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:11:11 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2004 9:11 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
P. wrote:
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
>>Science can liberate
>>us from death and disease and scarcity
> Yeah right! So why doesn't it?
> We don't deserve immortality.
Whether we deserve it or not, entropy will see to it that we are not
immortal. Besides the Kosmos cannot last forever. Either way we are
doomed to die.
Bob Kolker
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Reply
Marvin Edwards Nov 28, 2:25 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: "Marvin Edwards" - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:25:52 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2004 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
news:PEnqd.102110$V41.19873@attbi_s52...
> Whether we deserve it or not, entropy will see to it that we are not
> immortal. Besides the Kosmos cannot last forever. Either way we are doomed
> to die. <
Well, yeah, we'll each die as individuals. But "entropy" will do nothing. In
a universe of infinite age, "entropy" can only be a temporary state of
affairs, otherwise the universe would already be gone. It is more probable
that universes recycle, and that life, including human life, has already
come into being and vanished again, many times (presumably an infinite
number of times).
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 28, 2:47 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Nov 2004 14:47:14 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2004 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"P." wrote in message ...
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> > Science can liberate
> > us from death and disease and scarcity
> Yeah right! So why doesn't it?
> We don't deserve immortality.
Whoa! So bad we are ALL? Science is doing it, but needs reorientation,
more budget and stop being at the service of the military.
(1088xx009-01- where from?)
Reply
Zinnic Nov 29, 9:31 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: zeenr...@gate.net (Zinnic) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 09:31:13 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Sent to some UN delegations:
> Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
> transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
> either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
> connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
> producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
> like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
> trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
> permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
> indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
> functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
> achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
> can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
> semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
> contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
> conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
> and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
> our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
> processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
> has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
> of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
> possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
> (entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
> and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
> the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
> with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
> Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
> interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
> plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
> stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
> seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
> abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
> lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
> original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
> human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
> current state of development is due more to the systematic application
> of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
> intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
> Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
> tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
> using the scientific method...
> http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> http:\\in\new\york
> > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > nyn yny unu n
What ever are you taking? Please let me know so that I can avoid it!
Reply
ralph Nov 29, 10:56 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: ralph - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:56:43 +0000
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 10:56 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In message , Marvin
Edwards writes
>"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
>news:PEnqd.102110$V41.19873@attbi_s52...
>> Whether we deserve it or not, entropy will see to it that we are not
>> immortal. Besides the Kosmos cannot last forever. Either way we are doomed
>> to die. <
>Well, yeah, we'll each die as individuals. But "entropy" will do nothing. In
>a universe of infinite age, "entropy" can only be a temporary state of
>affairs, otherwise the universe would already be gone. It is more probable
>that universes recycle, and that life, including human life, has already
>come into being and vanished again, many times (presumably an infinite
>number of times).
Marvin, I do not always agree with what you say, but it is normally
rational. Did you write this under the influence?
--
ralph
Reply
Marvin Edwards Nov 29, 4:01 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: "Marvin Edwards" - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:01:04 GMT
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"ralph" wrote in message
news:kfcmZUBrD3qBFw7Y@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
>>Well, yeah, we'll each die as individuals. But "entropy" will do nothing.
>>In a universe of infinite age, "entropy" can only be a temporary state of
>>affairs, otherwise the universe would already be gone. It is more probable
>>that universes recycle, and that life, including human life, has already
>>come into being and vanished again, many times (presumably an infinite
>>number of times). <<
> Marvin, I do not always agree with what you say, but it is normally
> rational. Did you write this under the influence? <
Perfectly sober. Do you believe that time is finite or something? Do you
presume there has only been time for one big bang? And if space is also
infinite (and if it is not, then what would constitute it's border?) then
why not more than one big bang, perhaps creating new universes all over like
popcorn.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 29, 6:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 18:44:10 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
zeenr...@gate.net (Zinnic) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > Sent to some UN delegations:
> > Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
> > transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
> > either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
> > connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
> > producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
> > like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
> > trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
> > permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
> > indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
> > functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
> > achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
> > can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
> > semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
> > contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
> > conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
> > and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
> > our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
> > processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
> > has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
> > of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
> > possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
> > (entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
> > and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
> > the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
> > with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
> > Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
> > interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
> > plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
> > stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
> > seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
> > abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
> > lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
> > original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
> > human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
> > current state of development is due more to the systematic application
> > of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
> > intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
> > Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
> > tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
> > using the scientific method...
> > http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> > http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> > http:\\in\new\york
> > > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > > nyn yny unu n
> What ever are you taking? Please let me know so that I can avoid it!
Certainly not LSD! But I do know that meditation and mantrams have
certain effect, as I am able up to a point to turn some sensorial
input into other `data`, like getting a flavor and consistency from
odours. And it is not that difficult to get aware of your internal
corporal states. Many techniques and groups speak of this abilities,
which I am sure have their root in connectivity phenomena in the
brain. Maybe axons grow, besides myelinization.
I wear a jacket like the Tommy Lee Jones picture in color, but it
lacks the cover of the arms. Also two store containers on my shoulder.
Reply
ralph Nov 30, 4:25 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: ralph - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:25:58 +0000
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 4:25 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In message <4LOqd.9702$Ua.7...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Marvin
Edwards writes
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>"ralph" wrote in message
>news:kfcmZUBrD3qBFw7Y@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
>>>Well, yeah, we'll each die as individuals. But "entropy" will do nothing.
>>>In a universe of infinite age, "entropy" can only be a temporary state of
>>>affairs, otherwise the universe would already be gone. It is more probable
>>>that universes recycle, and that life, including human life, has already
>>>come into being and vanished again, many times (presumably an infinite
>>>number of times). <<
>> Marvin, I do not always agree with what you say, but it is normally
>> rational. Did you write this under the influence? <
>Perfectly sober. Do you believe that time is finite or something? Do you
>presume there has only been time for one big bang? And if space is also
>infinite (and if it is not, then what would constitute it's border?) then
>why not more than one big bang, perhaps creating new universes all over like
>popcorn.
You can pose questions like this for ever, Marvin, if you are prepared
to ignore the best explanations which humans have yet been able to
produce.
But there is a well documented science of cosmology, and, in its present
state, it suggests that the universe started with Big Bang, **and so did
time**. Now, had you the correct qualifications, you could publish an
alternative hypothesis for peer review.
Otherwise, filling the ether with pointless speculation does not seem to
take this group any further forward, does it?
--
ralph
Reply
Marvin Edwards Nov 30, 12:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: "Marvin Edwards" - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:58:24 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"ralph" wrote in message
news:Y+S5xHDWbGrBFwmd@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
> ... But there is a well documented science of cosmology, and, in its
> present state, it suggests that the universe started with Big Bang, **and
> so did time**. ...<
No, time did not start with the Big Bang. There was something happening
immediately before the "explosion", some mixture of supercondensed matter
and energy which could no longer remain stable, and with some special
coincidence of factors, the bang was triggered, spewing matter and energy
into the surrounding "void" (which itself was created as matter and energy
were sucked into the super black hole created by the gravity inherent in
ever elementary particle). In a "closed universe", this expansion would
eventually cease, as gravity once again began to draw all matter together.
In an "open universe" it is continually expanding. A closed universe would
imply a repeating cycle of matter exploding out and eventually clustering
into various black holes, that would eventually attract each other into a
super black hole, containing all the matter and energy in THAT universe. But
there is no reason to presume that, given infite space, there are other
universes going through the same cycle.
Reply
ralph Dec 1, 9:14 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: ralph - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:14:25 +0000
Local: Wed, Dec 1 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In message , Marvin
Edwards writes
>"ralph" wrote in message
>news:Y+S5xHDWbGrBFwmd@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...
>> ... But there is a well documented science of cosmology, and, in its
>> present state, it suggests that the universe started with Big Bang, **and
>> so did time**. ...<
>No, time did not start with the Big Bang. There was something happening
>immediately before the "explosion", some mixture of supercondensed matter
>and energy which could no longer remain stable, and with some special
>coincidence of factors, the bang was triggered, spewing matter and energy
>into the surrounding "void" (which itself was created as matter and energy
>were sucked into the super black hole created by the gravity inherent in
>ever elementary particle). In a "closed universe", this expansion would
>eventually cease, as gravity once again began to draw all matter together.
>In an "open universe" it is continually expanding. A closed universe would
>imply a repeating cycle of matter exploding out and eventually clustering
>into various black holes, that would eventually attract each other into a
>super black hole, containing all the matter and energy in THAT universe. But
>there is no reason to presume that, given infite space, there are other
>universes going through the same cycle.
Well, that's interesting, Marvin. Where else do you intend to publish
these ideas?
--
ralph
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 1, 5:49 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Dec 2004 17:49:13 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 1 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Assuming a general availability of LSD and its effects on the control
of DNA, it can give rise, in case of `mistakes` during the controlof
the genetic code, to new species. This may be one of the reasons of
the sudden appearance of new species, when and if it becomes available
widely, maybe through asteroids or natural synthesis or its appearance
as a substance in plants. This may be the reason of the extinction of
herviborous dinosaurs and the appearance of mammals and birds. This
hypothesis can be corroborated through the differential availability
of fossils. There must be more carnivorous than herbivorous fossils
available.
And if this subtance allows the mind to access quantic levels an
provide an increased control of the physics of the space continuum, it
may be behind the sudden dissapearance of large populations, like the
Mayans. They simply... flew away with the power of their mind...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> 1111 4444 7777 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 3, 7:20 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 07:20:50 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 7:20 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
There are four possibilities:
a) myelinization
b) axon growth
c) neurotransmitter
d) neurone growth
Through any or all of these mechanisms a substance can achieve
permanent or temporary effects on the connectivity of the brain
network, to achieve feats of conscious control over the body. These
mechanisms can be triggered by ingestion of substances or through
techniques like meditation. This would be a mental or, as people call
it, a *SPIRITUAL* technique.
But then there is also the possibility of direct control and
manipulation of the human DNA with particular purposes in mind. In
other words, one step beyond eugenesia, human design. This can be
achieved through targeted viruses, or maybe by modification of the
properties of RNAm.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 3, 7:58 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 07:58:23 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 7:58 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This is the most probable mechanism that explains the success of
mantrams and prayer. By the repetitious, consious repetitions of a
*verbal* formula, the brain language centers exercise their control
and eventually disseminate the activations throughout the whole brain.
This mechanism is unconscious, the activations from the repetition in
the language area propagate to the rest of the brain, like a radiating
wave, til the whole brain is involved. If done with proper techniques,
the control is permanent, or in other ways, the pattern of activation
becomes deeper, so that a single order, a verbal command, has the
effect of activating areas of the brain far apart from the language
area, or brain areas that not ususally react to conscious control.
There is a postulated interaction between the physical world and the
mind. Since the brain is ultimately a field, this activations can be
considered as a kind of key, which, through resonance, have real
effects on the physical world, by resonanting with the fields of which
Reality is composed
As an additional idea, circuits of special forms may have the same
effect, like the fabled magical artifacts of fantasy. As computers
perform feats of computation by circulating electrons and combining
them, circuits with particular forms may have effects, through the
form of their fields, on the workings of Reality. This would be pure
magic. The form of this fields may be found through the study of
fields in physics (superstrings? quantum mechanics).
For these ideas I am being brutalized and exploited and mocked and
threatened and my identity was lost and stolen. I am not the one you
think I am. Name changed, I am homeless and poor, when I started to
promote these ideas, because they arrived first to the White House and
I am being discriminated for being short, plus being blamed of the
crimes of the other.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> http:\\in\new\york
> > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 3, 3:54 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 15:54:36 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> As an additional idea, circuits of special forms may have the same
> effect, like the fabled magical artifacts of fantasy. As computers
> perform feats of computation by circulating electrons and combining
> them, circuits with particular forms may have effects, through the
> form of their fields, on the workings of Reality. This would be pure
> magic. The form of this fields may be found through the study of
> fields in physics (superstrings? quantum mechanics).
In fact, most of the magical techniques deal with symbolism, for one,
and visualization. Their success is related to this essential and
inherent link of the brain in the is and here now and its effect as a
third dimension electrical field with the innermost structure of the
Universe. In other words, we have a complex field, formed by the
activations of the neural patterns, creting another pattern by their
basic expression as matter/energy. Assuming the superstring concepts
of small dimensions this can explain
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> > http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> > http:\\in\new\york
> > > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > > nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 3, 3:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Dec 2004 15:58:56 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 3 2004 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
Though somewhat unrelated, on a superficial sense, this effects are
similar to the effect that musica has on the human psyche. This
suggests that music can
I look distinnctive and like ajew.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> For these ideas I am being brutalized and exploited and mocked and
> threatened and my identity was lost and stolen. I am not the one you
> think I am. Name changed, I am homeless and poor, when I started to
> promote these ideas, because they arrived first to the White House and
> I am being discriminated for being short, plus being blamed of the
> crimes of the other.
> > http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> > http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> > http:\\in\new\york
> > > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > > nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 4, 3:21 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Dec 2004 15:21:49 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 4 2004 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A world like Planescape Torment the game that was stolen in the damn shelter.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 12:18 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 12:18:49 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can bootstrap
the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
Reply
David V. Dec 6, 1:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: "David V." - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:45:18 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can
> bootstrap the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
By adding chlorophyll? Then we'd all be green and have to walk
abound naked to produce enough food for ourselves. No thanks.
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:03 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:03:25 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
David V. wrote:
> djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> > hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can
> > bootstrap the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
> By adding chlorophyll? Then we'd all be green and have to walk
> abound naked to produce enough food for ourselves. No thanks.
> --
> Dave
> UDP for WebTV
Who knows needs research...
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:05 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:05:07 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Also this is the secret of
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:05 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:05:23 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Also this is the secret of
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:05 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:05:19 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Also this is the secret of
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:44 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
« Older Messages 26 - 50 of 52 in topic - view as tree Newer »
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:30 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:43 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:40 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:45 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:48 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:45 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:46 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:46 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:46 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:49 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:50 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:50 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:49 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:48 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:59 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 6, 7:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Dec 2004 19:07:59 -0800
Local: Mon, Dec 6 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 7, 11:21 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Dec 2004 11:21:59 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 7 2004 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
The trinity: information energy matter
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 7, 11:23 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Dec 2004 11:23:34 -0800
Local: Tues, Dec 7 2004 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> By understanding this you understand the secrets of life and death.
The trinity: information energy matter
(A Mexican adopted by Italians, not me.)
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 8, 7:11 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Dec 2004 07:11:51 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 7:11 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Trinity information-energy-matter. The author who started this didn't
understand what he really meant, made it too complex. This points to
the utter simplicity of Reality, and the ultimate Reality. Need time
and freedom to develop my work. The secret of time...
I no longer wear my black vest, not warm enough for this weather.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 8, 7:08 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Dec 2004 07:08:07 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 7:08 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A theory of everything. The Trinity: information-energy-matter. Though
this comes from another author. He didn't understood, though, what his
ideas meant, didn't have the tools yet. This is the path to all
secrets, the ultimate simplicity of Reality.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > > http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
> > > http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
> > > http:\\in\new\york
> > > > Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> > > > Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> > > > 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> > > > nyn yny unu n
Reply
David V. Dec 8, 9:38 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: "David V." - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:38:06 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 8 2004 9:38 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> Trinity information-energy-matter. The author who started this didn't
> understand what he really meant, made it too complex. This points to
> the utter simplicity of Reality, and the ultimate Reality. Need time
> and freedom to develop my work. The secret of time...
> I no longer wear my black vest, not warm enough for this weather.
Oh, you switched back to your tinfoil hat?
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 9, 7:07 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Dec 2004 07:07:18 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 9 2004 7:07 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
DNA transference by RNA transcription
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can bootstrap
> the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
I believe the plagiarists are waiting for me to stop publishing to tell
others my work is mine. I know they are from Mexico. How little...
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 9, 7:06 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Dec 2004 07:06:14 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 9 2004 7:06 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
DNA transference by RNA transcription
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can bootstrap
> the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
Reply
David V. Dec 9, 6:47 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ,mit.bboard
From: "David V." - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:47:03 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 9 2004 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
> DNA transference by RNA transcription
> djbonsign...@beethoven.com wrote:
>>hypothesis: by changing the machinery of life, RNAm, we can bootstrap
>>the human body and make it *self sufficient*.
> I believe the plagiarists are waiting for me to stop publishing to tell
> others my work is mine. I know they are from Mexico. How little...
You're assuming someone cares.
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV
Reply
lagav...@yahoo.com Dec 12, 7:46 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion, sci.skeptic, sci.econ, mit.bboard
From: lagav...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Dec 2004 19:46:23 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 12 2004 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
See also:
"The Future of Human Health and Longevity"
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.125.html
and
"Unraveling the Secrets of Human Longevity"
http://longevity-science.org/
Reply
« Older Messages 26 - 50 of 52 Newer »
watch this topic
Sterens, knowledge revealed
All 12 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 14, 8:06 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Nov 2004 08:06:56 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 14 2004 8:06 am
Subject: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The Sterens are devils, demons. They are of extraterrestrial origin
and enjoy a long, long life span. To them we are but animals, despite
being rational beings. They say that to us they are gods. Convention
weaponry cannot defat them. Contrary to belief, they live in cold, not
heat, to cover their true nature; you would attack them with cold. And
they are Giants, at least some. But they dn`t look like demons at all,
rather, they look dumb; it is intelligent humans who look like demons,
which is a verry clever way to cause desprestige to the people that
can expose them.
They have `powers`, which is in fact advance technology, though they
may be able to perform biological tricks due to their nature. Their
body chemistry is related to sulphur, one of the elements of life. But
they can be defeated with methane. That is why in India cows are
sacred. And in Veracruz, where they call them cheneques by los brujos,
the way to dispel them is by farting (!). The hindi texts speak of a
battle against the devils living in Sri Lanka which must be taken
literally. Hanuman was an extraterrestrial too helping humans, a wek
species.
They are behind the conflicts of humanity, it is their fun, like a
movie. Perhaps they are stranded here, lost in the vastness of space.
These secrets are not commonly known but by secret societies, nowadays
the military, secret services and other specialized corps, like the
Church and the Covens. They are rather coward and are one of the
reasons why intelligent people is not welcomed: they are scared of
them. The Gospels speak of Jesus talking to the devil, this can be
taken literally and Jesus was `sacrificed` for discovering them (see
my Guilt of Atonement). They didn`t let him complete his message and
turn Earth into Heaven as that would ruin their fun. He said that the
Kingdom of God was at hand, te solution to our problems by adequate
laws, but his message was trunctaed and malinterpreted. This is the
big secret.
In a way they are extraterrestrial criminals, as reason says that
beings with reason cannot be treated as property, though they do that
with us because of our short lifespans, though their `powers` allows
them to poison our food and make our lives miserable.
They are against the forming of a Mastermind on Earth, for that would
allow us to get help from other intelligent species and stop their
crimes on earth. Hence they are against the legalization of drugs like
cannabis and lsd, for those drugs very probably grant telepathy by
turning our, very probably primitive and incomplete brains, into more
poweful tools. They can be fouthis way and one of their funs is
turning telepaths into psychotics, to hide te truth of their
existence. They also work with or through federal police corps and
armies to keep control on us, to keep us DUMB, full of prejudices and
misconceptions helping them hide themselves among us with myths like
paranoia, cospiration theories, etc. All tricks to hide themselves.
Very intelligent men are helped by other beings by taking them out of
Earth, like Enoch, and the Sterens try to prevent it. Their favorite
ploy is to threaten with the destruction of Earth: they act through
powerful individuals to maintain their interests constant by making
human oppose humans under thethreat of destroying Earth, though in
fact this is one of the most valuable planets, the green planet. They
wouldn`t destroy it, for they would lose their fun and their place to
live.
They live on the moon and jupiter, but also in the Urals, Norway,
North of Canada and Siberia. A technological society goes against
their interests, so they strive to destroy it, as happened with the
greek civilization and probably with the Atlantida and previous
advanced societies. Satan, the elder, is almost 12000 years old! Just
imagine whta we look to them, though we can also reach long life
spans, excpet they keep that knwoledge hidden.
They are threatening with genociding Occident and our pet species,
cats and dogs, they have the time to do it and the means for we
DISBELIEF. And poweful men are granted such power that they act
against us to keep their privileges.
Our task is to allow the formation of Earth`s mastermind to contact
other masterminds. Earth can be a paradise if we want and recognize
their influence and stop it. They may be willing to negotiate, though
they very probably engage in practices like canibalism (eating humans)
and torture. They dislike beauty and intelligence in humans. Usually,
the police is sent after intelligent individuals and other humans who
can acquire influence and/or promote the use of drugs. That way they
keep us under control.
I started learning this after contacting the United Nations after
publishing Home for All, and through the extreme situations I have
been experiencing since 2000. This is the Big Secret...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 14, 5:04 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Nov 2004 17:04:51 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 14 2004 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Sterens are devils, demons. They are of extraterrestrial origin
and enjoy a long, long life span. To them we are but animals, despite
being rational beings. They say that to us they are gods. Convention
weaponry cannot defat them. Contrary to belief, they live in cold, not
heat, to cover their true nature; you would attack them with cold. And
they are Giants, at least some. But they dn`t look like demons at all,
rather, they look dumb; it is intelligent humans who look like demons,
which is a verry clever way to cause desprestige to the people that
can expose them.
They have `powers`, which is in fact advance technology, though they
may be able to perform biological tricks due to their nature. Their
body chemistry is related to sulphur, one of the elements of life. But
they can be defeated with methane. That is why in India cows are
sacred. And in Veracruz, where they call them cheneques by los brujos,
the way to dispel them is by farting (!). The hindi texts speak of a
battle against the devils living in Sri Lanka which must be taken
literally. Hanuman was an extraterrestrial too helping humans, a wek
species.
They are behind the conflicts of humanity, it is their fun, like a
movie. Perhaps they are stranded here, lost in the vastness of space.
These secrets are not commonly known but by secret societies, nowadays
the military, secret services and other specialized corps, like the
Church and the Covens. They are rather coward and are one of the
reasons why intelligent people is not welcomed: they are scared of
them. The Gospels speak of Jesus talking to the devil, this can be
taken literally and Jesus was `sacrificed` for discovering them (see
my Guilt of Atonement). They didn`t let him complete his message and
turn Earth into Heaven as that would ruin their fun. He said that the
Kingdom of God was at hand, te solution to our problems by adequate
laws, but his message was trunctaed and malinterpreted. This is the
big secret.
In a way they are extraterrestrial criminals, as reason says that
beings with reason cannot be treated as property, though they do that
with us because of our short lifespans, though their `powers` allows
them to poison our food and make our lives miserable.
They are against the forming of a Mastermind on Earth, for that would
allow us to get help from other intelligent species and stop their
crimes on earth. Hence they are against the legalization of drugs like
cannabis and lsd, for those drugs very probably grant telepathy by
turning our, very probably primitive and incomplete brains, into more
poweful tools. They can be fouthis way and one of their funs is
turning telepaths into psychotics, to hide te truth of their
existence. They also work with or through federal police corps and
armies to keep control on us, to keep us DUMB, full of prejudices and
misconceptions helping them hide themselves among us with myths like
paranoia, cospiration theories, etc. All tricks to hide themselves.
Very intelligent men are helped by other beings by taking them out of
Earth, like Enoch, and the Sterens try to prevent it. Their favorite
ploy is to threaten with the destruction of Earth: they act through
powerful individuals to maintain their interests constant by making
human oppose humans under thethreat of destroying Earth, though in
fact this is one of the most valuable planets, the green planet. They
wouldn`t destroy it, for they would lose their fun and their place to
live.
They live on the moon and jupiter, but also in the Urals, Norway,
North of Canada and Siberia. A technological society goes against
their interests, so they strive to destroy it, as happened with the
greek civilization and probably with the Atlantida and previous
advanced societies. Satan, the elder, is almost 12000 years old! Just
imagine whta we look to them, though we can also reach long life
spans, excpet they keep that knwoledge hidden.
They are threatening with genociding Occident and our pet species,
cats and dogs, they have the time to do it and the means for we
DISBELIEF. And poweful men are granted such power that they act
against us to keep their privileges.
Our task is to allow the formation of Earth`s mastermind to contact
other masterminds. Earth can be a paradise if we want and recognize
their influence and stop it. They may be willing to negotiate, though
they very probably engage in practices like canibalism (eating humans)
and torture. They dislike beauty and intelligence in humans. Usually,
the police is sent after intelligent individuals and other humans who
can acquire influence and/or promote the use of drugs. That way they
keep us under control.
I started learning this after contacting the United Nations after
publishing Home for All, and through the extreme situations I have
been experiencing since 2000. This is the Big Secret
...
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Now, this is what can be called social engineering on a huge scale. A
species adapted to cold environments, with internal heat fueled by
sulphur reactions and having a long life span can afford the kind of
planning necessary to confront a species of short lived, hot blooded
mammals. Several facts support the reasoning, though other
explanations are possible too, but in general the basic assumption is
that, following an objective approach to history, sociology and
contemporary world affairs, what can`t be seen points to what actually
is if there is a conscious effort to hide truth.
Though this essay was motivated by several experiences I had during
this year after getting in touch (or trying to) with people close to
power, or more exactly, by being put in a `situation` I didn`t expect
after publishing Home for All, an economic policy that affects whole
nations and has worlwide potential, an ongoing reflection on the state
of the world in general, with its errors, inconsistencies and
irrationalities makes evident an undercurrent trend that helps explain
this apparent chaos, beyond that postulating economic profit as the
underlying motivation of society. This turns out to be a critique of
Marxism in its base. In another article I already turn the marxian
superstructure into modern consummer theory. That leaves the basic
materialism doctrine to explain the forces that move society and
history. Yet an objective observation concludes that this forces not
always follow what can be called economic egoism, as humans despite
their basic egoism (homo oeconomicus), do tend to act gregariously and
is an obvious advantage of Reason as our defining characteristic to to
work in groups for the group, contrary to the invisible hand, which
can provenleads to maximum welfare, but in a way is somewhat alien to
our true nature, where envy and charity play both as contaminating
forces of the pure egotism postulated by theory. These two attitudes
do act against economic welfare, as well as other motivations that
defeat the pure economic interest as motivator of societies forces.
What makes me think this is the unobserved phenomenon of multigenius,
the common occurrence of individuals contributng in several
disciplines, while generations of intelligent people are common. What
can explain this lack of Geniuses, when by the observation of the
dynamics of evolutive systems it is obvious that individuals are not
thoroughly unique but are more closely correlated (continuum) than
expected, leading to small jumps, or in other words, preenting the
possibility of extraordinary individuals just popping out? Though it
is hard to explain without recurring to figures and simulations, over
the whole span of history as is recorded the number of Geniuses is
almost negligible, though the legends, and worse, the religions based
on mythical figures are rather common. From a strict economic
viewpoint it doesn`t make sense to supress intelligence, as it leads
to more welafre to the group. But from the old myths of Icarus and
Prometheus, the dismemberment of Toth, the struggles of Krishna, the
selfnegation of Budha, the forced suicide of Socrates, the sacrifice
of Jesus, if taken literally, show a persepective where the
extraordinary individual is not only more common than thought, but
also is commonly defeated despite the good it brings. Portentous minds
as Aquinas and Arquimedes or by the way da Vinci did have a more
propitious environment to develop, but even then there is a perceived
residue of unexplained behaviours which coincidentally enough can be
filled by the kind of legends which science has relegated to the area
of fantasy, not because of lack of interest, but more because of
dealing with social aspects or behaviours. The overall impression,
shared also by authors like Bergier and other falling into the realm
of mysticism, do point to an external force, a nondisclosed influence
that impinges on the group behaviour to supress intelligence ON A
MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. The scarce facts I have recollected this last
months from several sources present a picture were the above comments,
the ones motivating this essay, do seem to provide a wide explanation
to disperse facts that explain by a single hypothesis, not only
legends and myths, but also History and the multiple mistakes current
society shows in a worldwide basis.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 16, 4:24 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Nov 2004 16:24:51 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Part of this knowledge was revealed more as hints and suggestions than
in a straight manner, but there was an obvious attempt to conceal the
bit of information almost immediately after I wrote the name Sterens
in my mail account. At some point Sterens meant Americans, Mexicans,
Mexicanamericans (real Americans), militars, police, a club, a secret
society, a military program, a government program, a society,
telepaths, presidents, UN ambassadors, secret agents, drug addicts and
maybe I am missing some other equivalence, though it was clear that it
was a secret well kept. Then I found myself in this game which I
identified with Joust(ice). Two places where mentioned, Chichen Itza
and Mount Shasta. All that was clear was that it meant a group. But
the effort to conceal the meaning was beyond that of a simple secret,
even the name was meaningful. There was a will behind Sterens. And
appearing after contacting a world organization meant a deep secret.
There was also a relation to the writings I have been posting,
particularly with the Guilt of Atonement and Alive and Human, a
seminal work.
So it was a matter of sticking to the original hint, a very clear
reference. Several facts acquire then meaning when crossed with other
experiences and rumors and hints I have received during this period.
My line of thought makes me believe that the hypothesis of
extraterrestrial presence is the only one that makes sense of stories
and legends, other facts and my own experiences, forming a world
vision complete in itsef.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 17, 4:59 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 04:59:42 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
There is a consensus that myth was an early form of `science`, or an
attempt to explain Reality by recurring to `external`, personified
forces called gods. Nature was personified and this is primitive
thinking. But this is the same as saying that metaphor is primitive
thinking! In fact, primitive thinking is not metaphoric nor analogic
nor allegoric nor symbolic but downright *literal*. First we give
literal interpretations, *then* we engage in more elaborate )and
retorted) wasys of thinking. So affirming that primitive man delved
first in metaphors (myths) than literal descriptions is already
granting them a high level of intelligence. What can be called
primitive thinking is te confusing of causes and effects. Indeed, this
is such a difficult problem that it took humanity as a whole some
centuries to actually frae the problem, and nowadays it is still one
of the first problems attacked by scientists: the identification of
causes and their assignment to effects. Many phallacies are normal in
common thinking, as assuming that coincidence is causality, or saying
that because A and B come together, B is an effect of A or viceversa,
when actually they are just coincident (soap and bubbles come together
`therefore` bubbles perform the cleaning).
So primitive men`s myths can be accused of causality phallacy, but
accusing it of metaphor is granting it a more sopisticated level of
reasoning than the one actually implied by the denomination of myth.
Here it must be pointed out that given that words get meaning not by
themselves but by attaching them to referents, while Man was
discovering new referents (say, in the collectve accumulation of
knowledge we call language), they were at a loss of words, literally,
meaning that they had to recur to reinterpretation of known words
while language accomodated new meanings. This can explain the verbal
form of myhts, where the symbolism we read in them is actually the
attempt at literal descriptions with a poor language of _ACTUAL_
events. As insights in human nature can be obtained by literal
understanding of stories like in Berne, by interpreting myths and
stories literally with the background knowledge that they can refer to
the presence, not acknowledge nowadays or purposely hidden, of other
intelligences, other species, Earth or interstellar originated,
insights as to the presence and motives and form of these
intelligences can be gathered to support the kind of knowledge that my
last experiences have produced. The picture is not... nice.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 19, 8:36 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Nov 2004 08:36:11 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 19 2004 8:36 am
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Take for instance the myth of Icarus. He *flew* to the heaven but so
near the Sun that his wings melted and he died. A metaphor against
ambition. As such it works to keep people low, not to try to `reach
the gods`, be modest and not strive to become `too much`. Literally,
Icarus was the first glider, but his glider didn`t resist the stresses
of flying too high. We know that going up makes the air cooler, not
hotter, so the explanation of the melted wings doesn`t hold. But the
idea that the greeks, in their mountaineous country could actually
build a glider and use it is perfectly sound. This myth works both
ways, as remmebrance of an actual technological feat (the glider), and
the warning that humans *mustn`t* tru to reach the gods. What effect
might have had that event on technological advances in the greek
world? Liek Sagan said, we shuould be siling starships by now should
the rate of scientific inquiry followed the trend it assumed, which we
know now can grow exponentially? A Prometheus exposed...
Now take the Christ`s miracle of `walking on water`. Many Californians
and Hawaians routinely `walk on water`. Christ was the first surfer in
history! The miracle arrives to us a phrase, multiply translated. We
now have the verb surfing. It is a new verbal construction that
translates to other languages with the same word, a new word to refer
to an act we can _know_ by watching television and hearing other
people talk. But in the wrod there is nothing that implies a surfing
table. One, two thousand years in the future it would be said that
Americans `slided` on water, or walked on water, or even surfed on
water without having any reference to the fact that to do it we need
surfing tables. The verb is to surf, not to surftable which would
ethymologically include the verb and the technology, though the
particular evoluti oflanguage didn`t include the technology needed to
surf (the table). So Jesus walked on water, but how did he do it? We
assume that `walk` (or the verb in aramaic) refers to the same action.
We don`t make the more comprehensive inference that `walk` was the
nearest term to what Jesus actually did on water. Maybe he invented a
water bycicle (he was a carpinter, after all), maybe he surfed or did
something else, which, by a lack of words was called `walking`, thogh
there is always the possibility that a long dead langage might have
used a new word to designate that action and we actually translate it
as walking, like translating surfing as walking because that seems to
be the meaning of the word, as it misses the rest of the explanation,
namely, the need of a surfing table. Of course, there is also the
possibility that he *really* walked on water, and it was an example of
what he meant by `thou art gods` the message he was unable to convey,
or which he maybe did convey and was lost or hidden...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 21, 7:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Nov 2004 19:17:45 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 21 2004 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Stories play an important role. More exactly several roles. The most
obvious one is that they are *stories*, fiction, not real histories,
so they serve as a cover up for facts which are then dismissed as
belonging to the realm of fiction. A real life account of facts can be
discredited by calling it a story. Or by making others believe it is
the *copy* of a story. As a manipulation tool they can be used to hide
actual facts by the resource of making the story known before the
actual actors tell their experience. That experience can then be
discredited as a copy, boasting, or in extreme cases used to justify
the `dementia` of the teller as someone _believing_ he/she went
through the events depicted by the story. In this it partakes of the
power of prophecy in that once a script, the story is written, the
manipulator can `make things happen` by manipulating the actors
according to the script; in a way similar to chess combinations, which
usually begin with a gambito (sacrifice), or a lure (a pretended
`error` or trap), that once accepted forces the player to go through
certain moves or take big loses, prophecies and stories provide a
course of action which once impacted the psyche of the actors makes
them, with or without external help from the manipulator, follow
predetermined paths of action. Thus a collection of stories exposing
undesirable (for the manipulator) situations can be used to move
actors away from the consequeces the manipulator wants avoided, or to
make them fall into predetermined situations, as the recognition of
known situations and their consequences (real or manipulated), provide
the human mind with a low cost solution in terms of thinking and
planning. This is also the power behind cliches and prejudices. So,
for instance, attempts at building personal flying machines were
stopped by the myth of Icarus falling as the consequence was already
known, despite the natural curiosity of Reason to find ways to emulate
the flight of birds.
Stories also provide a moral, a lingering thought or teaching that
can,very subtly, give orders as to the proper way of acting or _not_
acting of people. One of th moral lessons most prevasive in old myths
is that of `challenging the gods`, the Prometheus myth in essence. The
Icarus myth is exemplary as the flight and fall of Icarus leaves the
teaching of not trying to `fly too high`, or to become more than `mere
mortals`. This morals are taken as guide for action and the fact that
are arrived at as `deductions` after a story makes them have a more
deep impact on the mind, as they are perceived as knowledge (by the
deducting process) more than as a lesson of what to do and not to do.
Stories as legends can pick up occurrence of the past that survive
only as a mere legend, but are nonetheless a reflect of real facts.
The legends of Herakles might well describe the real adventures of a
real character, like the single handedly killing of the giant Medea
lion or the cleaning of the stables by the resource of `moving` a
river.
Truth can be hidden by several stories to the point that real facts
are totally lost by the profusion of stories or even to the point
where conclusions are completely contrary to what some reasoning,
without prejudice, would arrive at. In a way stories are like empty
containers where characters can be filled in with real people who then
are expected to enact the story. This doesn`t mean that _all_ stories
have the same motivations behind or the same properties. Myths may be
myths, moral stories honest conclusions taught by a story, etc. But
then there is always the possibility that a hidden agenda, a subtle
manipulation, lies behind a story meant to deceive and prevent the
recognition of truths which would otherwise would be clearer if the
story weren`t there in the first place. Or cliches and prejudices and
archetypes which can have the same effect and function. A very
objective assessment guided by a basic hypothesis allows to extract
the truth and distinguish one kind of stories from others.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 24, 6:08 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Nov 2004 06:08:51 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 24 2004 6:08 am
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
They want us to live in Hell. They are scared of proving to be less
than what they think they are. They are scraed of us, envy turned into
hate. Our powers are SCARED of them. By having Reason and language we
are on the same level. Too much power corrupts, absolute power
corrupts absolutely IFF not compensated with CREATIVITY. Creativity
saves, ART SAVES. Reason, as the search of possibilities in the Chaos
of Reality is in itself ART. Creativity is power in itself, beyond
trascendence, beyond hierarchies, beyond competition. ART REDEEMS.
Creativity grants us the quality of persona. The only limit is not
destroying other reasons.
The real end of Life is to create, the real meaning of Reason is Art.
The end of human lives is to create ART.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 26, 3:29 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Nov 2004 15:29:39 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 26 2004 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In the beginning there was light: the Big Bang. Then we were created
from clay by God: seeding of life and directed Evolution, very likely
(see my reply about the grace period).
Compared to the age of the Universe we are young as a planet. It is
greatly speculated that life was seeded, though it could develop
`casually` here and in many other planets as the result of
neguentropy, the tendendy that counteracts entropy. The Sagan
equation, which hinted at 10 tech civilizations in the galaxy was
biased by the expectation of nuclear war; the actual number of
civilizations may be far greater than we know. It is no impossibility
the visit of extraterrestrial life, as has been commented by many
authors. Older peoples of our species were visited by the `gods` and
their stories, by lack of words, have resulted in our old and sacred
books, legends, stories, waiting for Reason to develop the tools
necessary to make sense out of them.
The Sterens are purportedly of ET origin, or maybe they evolved on
Earth. Compared to them we are toys and they are our `gods`, though by
Reason we are on the same level vs the irrational Life Kingdom. They
are our angels, the ones who mixed with men in Gomorrah and Sodomah
and were punished... for creating the giants.
Why punished? Though we have very good explanations about the
constructio of the pyramids, for example, it all points to the
previous existence of *GIANTS*. Their rests have been found sometimes
as legends say (modern lagends, like the Danish), but very likely
those rests were already `recycled` by the new men, ourselves...
In Genesis the metaphor of the Tree of knowledge and the expulsion
from Eden have the meaning of the moment Men acquired Reason, the pass
from animalism to humanity. A Garden of Eden... taken literally a
*garden*: pets who acquired conscience, maybe even directed at
conscience and, once found rebels, expelled irom the garden, to roam
Earth and earn food with our own effort, no longer supported by our
`gods` and maker. Or maker: Jehova as an individual of a specied of
Men: the Sterens.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 26, 3:38 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Nov 2004 15:38:32 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 26 2004 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
But the Sterens, as they revealed themselves, enjoy some formidable
power: they are aware of themselves to the point of knowing their DNA
and controlling it. So it is not even possible of speaking of them as
belonging to a species, as thatknowledge gives, at least once and
probably as a permanent quality, the ability to change form, hanging
species (as long as there is enough brain to transform again...). The
hindu gods, four arms, animal headed, are Sterens. Who wouldn`t enjoy
sex with five pairs of arms? Imagine the intelligence of an
elephant-headed rational being! Or Hanuman, the intelligent ape,
another Steren in the form of an animal teaching a new god, a *human*
god, how to achieve godhood, sterenhood. `Thou art gods`, the secret
of becoming gods...
But the ability to be aware of DNA and modify it at will also suggests
the possibility of contacting Reality at an even more fundamental
level, the way ou phsics scientists do, but as an intuitive function
of the brain and conscience. That ability would grant not only
biological abilities but even more fundamental powers, like the
ability to fly in outer space, to turn into light (UFOs), and roam
from planet to planet, or rather, from country to country...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 26, 6:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Nov 2004 18:07:08 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 26 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
So, compared to the gods we are an aberration, a mistake of Jehova,
pet animals enjoying language and knowledge but not the qualities of
the gods. In between. And then we proved murderous. We are punished,
and, seemingly, forgotten and left to develop by ourselves. Or maybe
just forgotten for a while...
Yet there seem to be many Sterens, a generic term, and at some point
Satan arrived. Another Steren, fighting for dominion of this world
(Jehova`s world). The Bible mentions long lifespans of men, though
those were gradually diminished. Taken literally, we lived for one
thousand of years when created. The Jewish people have a chronology,
very likely biased, as compared to other chronologies, the egyptian
mainly, so the tales of the Bible must be from a very ancient era and
not an accurate chronology. Giants are supposed to be descendants of
humans and Angels, another Steren brand, and the magnus constructios
of the Pyramids, Machu Pichu and other relics do point to a cariety of
giant Men, coexisting with the smaller men. There is a correlatio
among the stories and legends of different people of antiquity. From
the moment we were created to the marriage of Angels and humans some
thousand years must have passed, during which we extended, as small
tribes. Were the Sterens here during the period? Maybe, or maybe not.
Assuming a starfaring species nothing indicates the need to remain in
a single planet for long. Time enough to develop as a species and
create first civilizations. The lack of fossils and a clearly
delineated evolution of man may be explained thus, by the drected or
forced evolution of an indigenous species toward manhood, first, and
godhood later. It may be this reason why we lost our corporal hair, a
hardly explained fact, which appears to be a sudden evolutive change.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 26, 6:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Nov 2004 18:26:44 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 26 2004 6:26 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
It is also a common denominator in myths and legends the suffering of
catastrophes, and the existence of more than one humanity. The
american peoples spoke of the suns, or humanities, of which we are now
the fifth. There is also the legend of Atlantida and Mu, of advanced
civilizations in the past, the battery found in the costs of Greece,
the monumental works of the egypians, the sudden extinction of the
Mayas. It seems sterenhood is a goal to be reached or, rather, that is
eventually reached by Reason and has been accomplished several times
in the past. But then there is also the evidence of `difficulties` and
the nonlinear development of humanity, as if we were in the middle of
a struggle, the struggle between good and evil of which we feel are
the main players but are, actually... the toys.
So we confront, from the old tales, sudden extinctions of humanity or
the achievement of the sterenhood condition, the `thou art gods`. It
seems fairly unfair for a Universal Monotheistic god to have a
`preferred people`, the Jews, whom he helps *against* other peoples,
who from a maniqueist view are the `bad guys`. At the same time it was
common the intervention of the gods in older times, which we interpret
nowadays, particularly after rationalism, as the myth of myth or the
*divine* intervention, when a more linear interpretation would accept
the fact of advanced species having an eye on us, or maybe on the
planet, with motivations that are at the same time human yet unknown
to us. The fact is that even the most intelligent of the talking apes
or communicative dolphins is nothing more than an animal to us, so to
the `gods` we might have been precisely that: funny animals, pets,
suitable to be used as toys... or the victims of advanced groups of
rational beings bind by rules we bareky fathom but that can be traced
to all common motives as possession of a planet, respect for the new
humanity from some, maybe even a scientific interest (no intervention)
of other, or a downright power play in which we are torn among
fighting parties the way smaller tribes are engaged by superior powers
during campaigns of conquest (or were, when our numbers were smaller).
But then we can also speak of downright evil, slavery and exploitation
instead of the help provided in ohter eras. Behind our stories the
hidden story of conflict among the gods can be glimpsed in a complex
interplay of humanity and gods, advanced species and a growing species
developing the most characteristic quality of sentience, Reason.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Dec 2, 3:42 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general,sci.skeptic
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Dec 2004 15:42:03 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 2 2004 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: Sterens, knowledge revealed
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
They know the perfect form of man looks like the devil, demon, the
enemy, Satanes, Lucifer, Beelzebub... So they assumed the form of
angels to deceive Humanity and, after saving them (reverting the
original sin, back to animals), take hold of the jewel Terra...
Reply
End of messages
watch this topic
« Newer - Restaurant and Bar for lease. Joustice and Greenspan, a deleted post by the Mexxican thieves - Older »
Topic: Sterens, knowledge revealed - go to top
Visions
All 3 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 13, 3:40 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 13 Nov 2004 15:40:19 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 13 2004 3:40 pm
Subject: Visions
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Golden bubbles, hundreds, floating in disarray against the void, with
a yellow bright sun far, far away. Each one with a sitting figure,
floating. And two lonely bubbles trailing behind.
A circle of hight towers, dark, on a gray small world, with a metalic
mechanism on top, and two black squares in betwwen.
A beam of light, wide, dirty lilac, low, surrounded by angular claws,
black, closing on the beam.
A big labyrinth, enormous, crystal, with huge rings uniting the
sections, and between it the stars dwarved by the enormous, empty
lanes traversing a sparse galaxy.
A big yellow sun, flooding light, bright but bearable to the naked
eye, with small planets alight in blue by the nebulae spreading from
the sun.
A being like a brain, small, with segmented, articulated tentacles,
giving small jumps in a light blue, shallow ocean...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 17, 5:11 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 05:11:49 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 5:11 am
Subject: Re: Visions
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Golden bubbles, hundreds, floating in disarray against the void, with
a yellow bright sun far, far away. Each one with a sitting figure,
floating. And two lonely bubbles trailing behind.
A circle of hight towers, dark, on a gray small world, with a metalic
mechanism on top, and two black squares in betwwen.
A beam of light, wide, dirty lilac, low, surrounded by angular claws,
black, closing on the beam.
A big labyrinth, enormous, crystal, with huge rings uniting the
sections, and between it the stars dwarved by the enormous, empty
lanes traversing a sparse galaxy.
A big yellow sun, flooding light, bright but bearable to the naked
eye, with small planets alight in blue by the nebulae spreading from
the sun.
A being like a brain, small, with segmented, articulated tentacles,
giving small jumps in a light blue, shallow ocean
...
A planet pearl white, alone in the void, with a slanted ring. but no!
It is not a planet. It is a sun! A soapy sun and the ring is not a
conglomerate of rocks but a solid ring of rock, three rings, circling
the lonely sun.
A planet where ophids are intelligent. But they don`t have hands. The
welcome species with hands. But where are they?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 30, 7:10 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Nov 2004 19:10:34 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Visions
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Golden bubbles, hundreds, floating in disarray against the void, with
a yellow bright sun far, far away. Each one with a sitting figure,
floating. And two lonely bubbles trailing behind.
A circle of hight towers, dark, on a gray small world, with a metalic
mechanism on top, and two black squares in betwwen.
A beam of light, wide, dirty lilac, low, surrounded by angular claws,
black, closing on the beam.
A big labyrinth, enormous, crystal, with huge rings uniting the
sections, and between it the stars dwarved by the enormous, empty
lanes traversing a sparse galaxy.
A big yellow sun, flooding light, bright but bearable to the naked
eye, with small planets alight in blue by the nebulae spreading from
the sun.
A being like a brain, small, with segmented, articulated tentacles,
giving small jumps in a light blue, shallow ocean
...
A planet pearl white, alone in the void, with a slanted ring. but no!
It is not a planet. It is a sun! A soapy sun and the ring is not a
conglomerate of rocks but a solid ring of rock, three rings, circling
the lonely sun.
A planet where ophids are intelligent. But they don`t have hands. The
welcome species with hands. But where are they
?
A gyrating space station, looks like a scepter, with a ring floating
near a rou top. It is behind a very dark planet, only a glimpse of
light can be seen on the top. It is floating very near the body.
Some almost transparent bubbles, like plastic. They have internal
structure, they are an environment, like grapes in a cavern. The
atmosphere is dense.
Reply
End of messages
Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Messages 1 - 25 of 26 in topic - view as tree Newer »
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 7, 6:40 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Oct 2004 06:40:24 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 7 2004 6:40 am
Subject: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
`There had to be consequences`
I am posting this ideas because the simple mention of drugs is enough
to stigmatize you. It doesn't have to be true, is just a matter of
someone spreading the rumor. I suffered in high school because of this
and I only learned years later. And the sheer fact is you cannot
defend yourself against drugs. Are you sure nobody mixed amphetamines
in the bread flour, for instance?
Ironically, if sellers want to generate more income, they need dugs to
be legalized, hough very probably ot os them and the supporters of the
ban who will send the leprechauns, their secret police, to cause bad
effects in your life. There are bad effects of using durgs, but the
big problem is a society that strips you of your quality as a person
just because somebody accuses you of beings drugs. The fact is, many
consequences of using drugs are NOT NECESSARY. They don't follow from
the usage but from the hysteric (devoid of reason) acts of people
afraid of drugs...
Responsible recreative drug use is possible, but governments, the
judiciary, law enforcers and narcotic bands will get sure that drug
use have adverse side effects in an individual`s life in order to
exemplify and sustain the ban and its extraordinary economic benefits.
So the ban is a source for international and internal corruption and a
danger to individuals given the easiness with which incrimination and
stigma can be attached to a person, even as a political weapon in
democratic countries. The drug ban effectively turns the forces of
good into sources of evil in order to show that they are right.
There are many reasons why modern societies banned drugs despite their
common historical use, but the main reason is undoubtedly the
extraordinary economic benefits derived from the black market.
Simplifying, drugs are banned as a way to protect society on the
assumption that drug users are irresponsible and a danger toward non
users and to themselves. Drugs are the modern stigma, the permanent
tag that automatically distinguishes decent people from `the rest`.
Drug users are ipso facto dangerous and lose any sense of right and
wrong, being able to do the biggest monstrosities under the influx of
the substances...
The problem with this position is that it leaves the individuals
unprotected against the vested interests of the ban. There
_must_be_side_effects_, so even the most innocent contact with the
drugs world is enough to put the individual in danger of being
incriminated. There is a vested interest both by law enforcers and
drug cartels to prove that using drugs is *bad*, that there is no such
thing as a successful life and drug intake. If somebody proves this
assumption otherwise wrong, the vested interests will jump to `put
things in order`. So law enforcers will be more severe if drugs are
mentioned than if drugs are not mentioned, while drug bands will be
interested in making the life of the individual miserable to preserve
the ban. Of course, law corps and the army benefit from the ban by
receiving huge budgets, while drug cartels and sellers benefit from
artificially high prices and the power tht comes with them. The losers
are of course the people who uses drugs and in general the whole of
society. This also introduces a shared interest among police corps of
different countries that is an open door to corruption and abuse. And
the fact is that it is very easy to incriminate anybody with drug use,
further leaving the individual unprotected and open to discredit, a
weapon open against political opponents even in democratic countries.
It should be evident that a modern liberal State should have no voice
about the internal states of individuals; giving enough information
about the effects of drugs should be enough to let individuals make
their own decision. That drug users might pose a threat to others is a
good reason, but then alcohol *is* a risk to others and it was shown
that banning it is short of impossible; also many drugs make the
individual withdraw in themselves, making then even less of a threat.
It is also cited that drug users are casualties when it comes to lead
productive lives, though some users use drugs *precisely* to lead even
more active lives than they could possibly do without drugs. Consumer
countries should by now be ruined if this were the case. It is also
cited that drugs are a health risk to non users, though again that is
easily controlled by designating special places to use them, like the
smokers` sections.
So the main reason to ban drugs remains the economics benefits it
generates. Should drugs be decriminalized this world would suffer less
violence and the monies would be more usefully spent in research and
damage control.
For instance, you are quite happy with your life, but one of your
associates happens to be related to drugs, somehow. He depends on you,
so if you fail him he will have trouble. And then you have it: when
you least expect it something goes *really* wrong. You suffer an
accident, your office is burglared, you fall unexpectedly ill, or at a
critical moment there is a twig in your car`s lock, you are involved
in a crash or whatever. You suffer consequences, but your friend
suffers consequences too, you fail him and now he is a little bit
worse than before, or a lot worse and that is what counts. Maybe not
the best example but even having nothing to do with drugs can turn you
into a side effect. Exactly what can happened depends on the
circumstances, but with the kind of money drugs move aroud you can
easily expect a paid think tank looking for `side effects`.
In the most extreme case you may end up in a tomb... as the side
effects of somebody else. In fact, the more successful somebody is or
may become, the bigger the side effects should be, otherwise that
person would prove that you can use drugs without having repercusions.
Now, using drugs *has* effects and side effects, but then everything
has side effects; every coin has two faces. But that doesn`t mean that
the effects are the same for all drugs nor for all people. Foremost,
drugs do have an effect on the person that uses them, otherwise there
is no point in using them. And at least while the effect lasts there
can be side effects, but the same can be said of clinical drugs, like
in those legends that warn against driving while taking a cough syrup.
You can cause an accident if you are slowed for taking a drug while
driving and that will be a side effect, though if you don`t drive at
the same time there shouldn`t be side effects. If you take a syrup the
night before and next day you crash, would you blame the syrup? Very
unlikely, though if instead of a syrup it was dope, people would tend
to blame your crash on the fact that you were doped last night, even
if you already feel clean.
Drugs also have an effect on your health. Besides the actual
experience, whatever it may be, you can expect concomitant effect,
both short and long term. Commonly your heart rate changes while you
are under the effect of drugs, a short term effect. For most drugs you
wouldn`t expect a heart attack, even though you can experience sudden
death if you take extasis, but then the same can happen if you take
viagra; in that respect both are equal, though one`s illegal while the
other`s legal. You can die of an overdose, of course, but I know at
least one case were sudden death came after taking somebody else`s
legal medication.
In the long term you can expect an effect in your health. Steroids
reduce your virility and the size of testicles, for instance, but long
term effects are expected from tobacco and alcohol, both legal. Not
all drugs have the same addictive power nor will cause an addiction in
all people. As far as I can remember tobacco is by far the most
addictive of substances, even more than heroin, and it is still legal.
You will also experiment long term effects from food, cholesterol and
obesity being the most common perhaps. So the real question is how
compulsive is the habit, if that particular person does develop a
habit. Given the enormous diversity of people, you must find people
who don`t develop addictions and people who get addicted right away.
This willingness to protect people against themselves is one of the
main reasons behind the ban; Father Government takes care of his
irresponsible children by banning what hurts them, a priori. But the
sheer fact that people is *very* diverse and exhibits different
degrees of responsibility makes necessary to force the existence of
side effects. This doesn`t necessarily mean that government per se
engages in criminal acts to keep the banning in force, it is only
necessary that some powerful sectors believe the ban must be uphold to
command the resources to create side effects when necessary, without
forgetting there are whole countries, like Mexico and Colombia, who
get huge quantitites of money by selling drugs (on the assumed fact
that price is kept above normal market clearing prices). Drug capos
certainly have the resources and the mafias necessary to cause side
effects even to powerful people, like well known artists.
Current common wisdom states that drugs are habit forming and bring
about compulsion, but again it depends on the person. There are
addictive personalities that become addicted to almost everything, and
if using drugs end up as multidrug users, but that`s a personality
trait, not the norm. Other people must exhibit different degrees of
addiction as well as different levels of control during drug intake.
It cannot be assumed as a general rule that all people get addicted
with a single drug intake nor that all people would become killers
under the influence of drugs if that inclination is not already in
their character. Also the levels of compulsion are different, if at
all present, depending on the individual`s metabolism and psychology.
It is a myth that all drug users must become thieves or assassins if
they lack drug, and it only speaks of a shallow understanding of the
...
read more »
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 15, 5:41 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Oct 2004 05:41:54 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 15 2004 5:41 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Now a very strange point is that contrary to belief most homeless
don't use drugs. Being *forced* as I am to live in a shleter, I can
say that from about 80 people only about 15 are drug users; the rest
don't have the will nor the interest to use them. And homeless people
are not precisely millionares...
How come then so much money is spent on drugs and the drug war? There
must be lots of people using drugs, and to have money you have to be
working.
It drug use per se generates crime, we would all be living in a
grossly violent society, in an almost civil war state... And we
aren't.
That means lots of people live normal lives using drugs and nobody
says nothing. That's why it is so difficult to win the drug war, if at
all. And they keep out of the streets without having real effects, at
least not more than for instance drinking cofee has. Therefore the
need of GENERATING SIDE-EFFECTS to upkeep the ban, even when that
means you just need to *accuse* somebody of drug use to destroy that
person's reputation and life.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 3:56 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 15:56:47 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Given the biological principle of diversity, the effect any particular
drug will have on a particular individual will be different. Now,
"drugs" is a very generic term; their effects are widely diverse in
addictivenes, duration, refractory period, etc. Some are more damaging
and others more benign. So any discussion has to take account of their
differences. Drugs like heroine, morphine and opium requiere less side
effects as they keep the individual in such a state of non-being that
obvious effects are to be expected in terms of quality of life and
real effects, particularly with respect to personal responsability.
Other drugs are so strong in effect that their consume acquires the
character of ritual, principally hallucinogenics, lsd, fungus, etc.
They also have a very strong refractory period.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 4:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 16:08:51 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Ritual like drugs also have little side effects, as their use must be
very sporadic and has the aura of cult and ritual (respect) that it is
very difficult to justify the existence of side effects; independently
of the effects the use of this drugs can have on an individual's body
and the danger of one time addiction or compulsion development (not a
necessity), it is very difficult that a one time use of them will be
so trascendent that a whole life is to be ruin by that use. Of course,
there can be cases where secondary reactions are such that they have a
permanent effect on that man's life, but as far as it is coomonly
known, it is very rare indeed (the story of LSD users staying in their
first [bad] trip is almost an urban legend; can somebody publish
actual statistics of hospital treatment of first time users of
hallucinogenics? incidentally, this cases may be related not to the
use of drugs but to the existence of impurities caused by underground
handling of drugs and would be absent in the case of a properly
sanitized production and distribution process).
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 16, 4:15 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:15:37 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Ritual like drugs also have little side effects, as their use must be
> very sporadic and has the aura of cult and ritual (respect) that it is
> very difficult to justify the existence of side effects; independently
> of the effects the use of this drugs can have on an individual's body
> and the danger of one time addiction or compulsion development (not a
> necessity), it is very difficult that a one time use of them will be
> so trascendent that a whole life is to be ruin by that use. Of course,
> there can be cases where secondary reactions are such that they have a
> permanent effect on that man's life, but as far as it is coomonly
> known, it is very rare indeed (the story of LSD users staying in their
> first [bad] trip is almost an urban legend; can somebody publish
> actual statistics of hospital treatment of first time users of
> hallucinogenics? incidentally, this cases may be related not to the
> use of drugs but to the existence of impurities caused by underground
> handling of drugs and would be absent in the case of a properly
> sanitized production and distribution process).
Learn to use http://www.google.com/
I won't do your research for you, but you can probably find a site in
the UK which advises young persons about the risks of illegal drugs.
That site strongly condemns a lot of drugs, but doesn't say much against
LSD other than that persons who were already troubled psychologically
shouldn't use it. They also stated that it's not a good idea to take it
in emotionally troubling circumstances or settings.
They also point out that the percentage of documented "bad trips", even
"first time", is vanishingly miniscule, compared to the percentage of
people who had an experience they rated as "good" or better.
It should be pointed out that excessive use over time produces, well, you.
Google also for "challenge studies" and "MK ULTRA".
Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 4:21 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 16:21:13 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 4:21 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Without pretending a full categorization of drugs, another group would
be composed of those drugs that make people active. Cocaine,
metamphetamines, steroids and other psychoactives. These group of
drugs is perhaps the most dangerous, both by their known effects on
the individual's body as by their impact on the metabolism. This is
also a group of drugs that can have real externalities in their
consume (effects on other people's well being caused by the fact of
their use, mostly negative). They are known to make individuals
aggressive and intolerant and instead of having a refractory period
have instead an effect of increased tolerance, that makes for an
increasing consumption even if they don't create compulsion
(compulsion in this case may be a aprt of the increased tolerance).
They also have an obvious depressive effect on the individual; the
fact that the metabolism is accelerated means that sooner or later the
body will need "recharging". This group of drugs doesn't need "side
effects", as their very effect is almost certain to propduce permanent
effects in an individual's life. It is well known the fact of nose
bleeding and heart attacks in users...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 16, 4:31 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Oct 2004 16:31:29 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Yet for certain individuals psychoactive drugs may require *very
strong* side effects. It is also well known the story about yuppies
(youn successful professionals) making lines in Wall Street to buy
their cocaine dose... It may very well be that for some individuals a
few years on speed by using drugs may be enough to retire early. In
that case side effects must be strong to prove everybody that
*something happens*... This may be true for other drugs that enhance
performance.
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 16, 5:11 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:11:35 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Without pretending a full categorization of drugs, another group would
> be composed of those drugs that make people active. Cocaine,
> metamphetamines, steroids and other psychoactives. These group of
> drugs is perhaps the most dangerous, both by their known effects on
> the individual's body as by their impact on the metabolism. This is
> also a group of drugs that can have real externalities in their
> consume (effects on other people's well being caused by the fact of
> their use, mostly negative). They are known to make individuals
> aggressive and intolerant and instead of having a refractory period
> have instead an effect of increased tolerance, that makes for an
> increasing consumption even if they don't create compulsion
> (compulsion in this case may be a aprt of the increased tolerance).
> They also have an obvious depressive effect on the individual; the
> fact that the metabolism is accelerated means that sooner or later the
> body will need "recharging". This group of drugs doesn't need "side
> effects", as their very effect is almost certain to propduce permanent
> effects in an individual's life. It is well known the fact of nose
> bleeding and heart attacks in users...
The word you want to research is "tweekers" or "tweakers".
Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
"
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 16, 5:12 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:12:16 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 16 2004 5:12 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Yet for certain individuals psychoactive drugs may require *very
> strong* side effects. It is also well known the story about yuppies
> (youn successful professionals) making lines in Wall Street to buy
> their cocaine dose... It may very well be that for some individuals a
> few years on speed by using drugs may be enough to retire early. In
> that case side effects must be strong to prove everybody that
> *something
Paranoid psychosis, as a rule.
> happens*... This may be true for other drugs that enhance
> performance.
Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 17, 7:36 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Oct 2004 07:36:14 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 17 2004 7:36 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Another group of drugs have weird effects and are not easy to
categorize. Even awareness of them is scant. As a general rule, if the
substance leaves the individual impeded to go on with a normal life,
it is not possible to deny he is drugged, side effects are little,
while side effects will be stronger the more difficult it is to
distinguish if the individual is drugged or not. The point is to keep
drugs banned by showing, per force if need be, that their effect is
completely adverse on an individual's life.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 19, 11:29 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Oct 2004 11:29:50 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 19 2004 11:29 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By far the most interesting case is that of marihuana. For this
particular substance the need of side effects is most notorious as it
is a well known that it does not cause addiction, unlike tobacco,
which is most addictive and very difficult to stop using. The
compulsion to use marihuana is practically nonexistent, leaving only a
vague melancholy that cannot even be confused with depression, while
the lack of tobacco turns people very aggressive and single minded.
One of the most recurrent speculations in science fiction stories (at
least those that are near to our current societies), is that of the
banning of tobacco and the legalization of marihuana. Since the
effects of marihuana are short lived, the problem of personal
responsibility is also almost nonexistent, leading to the necessity of
implementing strong side effects, for the popular image is that of the
hippie drug addict, smoking and smelling flowers, totally oblivious of
everything and living in total irresponsibility. It is easy to accept
a homeless individual smoking marihuana in the street, (like Skid Row
in LA where it is quite common), but not so easy to accept a
professional incurring in the same "vice". In that case the vested
interests that keep marihuana banned will react causing strong side
effects so that the successful smoker is reduced to the stereotype of
poor addict. In a way, marihuana is a privilege of the very rich, who
can smoke and even grow their own plants, far from the reach of the
police, and keep that fact hidden. It is also a prerogative of power;
in Mexico for instance, it is common the rumor of legislators smoking
marihuana in their office or attending meetings under the effects of
dope.
As was mentioned above, it must be obvious that most drug users (and
assuming that marihuana is by far the most popular drug most smokers),
must be people with means and normal lifes, who are able to pay for
the substance. It should be a clear consequence that little real
effects exist to the use of marihuana so that whenever "bad things
happen", is because it was forced by vested interests. One of these is
of course the Army. Fact is that marihuana has the known effect of
making people calm and moody, introspective and very concentrated,
instead of agressive and alert as tobacco and other drugs or even
alcohol. A country where there is no forced draft will rely on the
willingness of youth to follow the martial career, so marihuana is a
danger both as it would lead people away from the career of arms as
would too make them "irresponsible" and undisciplined. Paradoxically,
smokers tend to be very disciplined, as they have to solve the problem
of buying the substance. The fact that marihuana tends to turn people
inwards means that, as an alternative to tobacco, it is ideal for
people under routinary tasks, as long, of course, that those tasks do
not require very keen reflexes.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 8:02 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 08:02:59 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 8:02 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I started this thread because it was posed as a challenge. I am sure
this would be a better world if it is recognized that people have the
right to use drugs and assume the consequences if something happens,
the same way as happens with alcohol. And it is very easy, instead of
spending billions in a stupid war and destroying more lives tan are
saved, that money can be used to issue "cards" to get drugs from
authorized dealers or fromthe government itself. Lots of people would
stop being criminals, there would be no more side effects, the police
would be more effective, diversity would be recognized as a principle.
dangerous drugs would stop being used, tobacco would be less a
problem, the good effects of drugs would be acknowledged, research
would get better options, patents kept secret would benefit people,
there would be less violence, more thorough information would be
available, lives wouldn't be destroyed by destroying reputations and
spreading rumors, etc.
After all, if cocaine and marihuana are so dangerous, why not
ERRADICATE the fields? THAT can be done and it WOULDN'T be an
ecological catastrophe, there are enough species going extinct every
day that the extinction of dope and cocaine would not even be noticed.
So why be hypocrits?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 31, 5:11 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Oct 2004 17:11:16 -0800
Local: Sun, Oct 31 2004 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Not only the Army fears the widespread use of drugs, particularly
dope, which turn people non violent. The Church(es) is another vested
interest working against the use of drugs. Their reason? Drugs can
provide alternative religious experience, as consumers of
hallucinogens and mushrooms proclaim. Many, if not most, of shamanic
religions and old pagan religions were in some or other way based on
the use of some drug or another, and even the use of incense in
today`s christian churchs is reminiscent of the use of substances to
help `commune with the gods`. Since any church has the faculty to
interpret and lead the ways people commune with God, even though the
church in itself would not engage in side effects, by sanctioning the
ban on drugs on religious grounds (God doesn`t want people to use
drugs), ths gives the other parties involved in achieving side effects
the moral authority, and yes, the peace of conscience to perform their
activities. To established churchs the possibility that people would
form new religions or find new ways to satisfy the desire to reach the
Infinite and trascendental experiences through drugs must be very well
the equivalent to hell on Earth. Therefore drugs are the Sign of Evil,
despite the obvious facts that natural drugs (at least) are *also* an
expression of the same God they pontificate, that the human brain is
*able* to appreciate (at least) some good effects, even when those
good effects come at a cost too high to be worth the effort, and that
the desire to consume drugs has been observed throughout the history
of humanity in almost all cultures, with the possibly notable
exception of the current, contemporary, occidentalized cultures. Drugs
have a potential to be surrounded by ritual, the expectation,
preparation, consumption and then enjoyment of their effects, that is
a further source of worry to established religions. Churches are an
important component in the possibility of side effects.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 1, 3:38 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Nov 2004 03:38:05 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 1 2004 3:38 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Then there are ideological interests that like many ideologies what
they protect is the investment in creating the ideology. For instance,
the mexican idea of `crimes against health`.
Health... whose health? Society`s? How do you define the health of a
society, in a country that has so poor health services? In a
population that exhibits so many patologies? How do they measure the
health of society? If they are so worried about society`s health, why
they don`t ban tobacco? Or for the matter, why they don`t control
governmental vehicle`s emissions? In a society were drugs are
tolerated? Is it really a crime if one person hurts his/her own health
knowingly? A crime against society? Durkheim treats society an object
of study, a given, objective, but only for the sake of scientific
inquiry. Speaking of the health of society is pesonification, if it is
meant as an objective variable, a figure of speech, unless it is meant
to signify the proportion of healthy or unhealthy individuals. Using
society as an objective `thing` for something else than methodological
research is abusing the cont, beacuse in the end society is a concept,
a aggregate of people.
This ideology is dangerous in that it gives a justification to cause
side effects to other people, just to show that something happens...
even if it doesn`t.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 3, 9:12 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Nov 2004 21:12:46 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 3 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Church and Army, the pilars of society, has been said. We`ve seen how
the Church has a rightful fear towards drugs as they can generate
rituals and provide trascendental experiences (as reported by drug
users). But it is obvious that the Church doesn`t have what is needed
to generate side effects. Thay can sanction but not execute. The Army,
however, has the means and the vocation. There`s nothing more
dangerous to societyin general that a corrupted Army (official); but
an Army interested in keeping drugs banned, under the motives of
having available draft material, crisp people without the sooting
effects of drugs, or the fear of less economic performance (though it
has been argued thatmost usrs are actually working people or the
quantities involved in its commerce are not explainable), whatever the
motives, can give the it the motive to engage in the active `mission`
of causing side effects. Here it must be remembered that producing
*unnecessary* side effects to the use of drugs may be a policy to
avoid providing examples of successful use of drugs, so the more
successful is or may be an individual consuming or who has consumed
drugs (even supposedly as it has been argued too that it is impossible
to *prove* any particular individual has never used drugs while
incrimination is *easy*), the more severe side effects must be
produced so that those individuals don`t act as examples of successful
use of drugs. The Army has the the tools and the training to cause
side effects, effectivey turning itself against a society willing or
at least indifferent to the recreational use of drugs, particularly
marihuana, which has a zero probability of killing people from an
overdose. This must be so more true in epochs of peace or when the
integrity of territory is not directly threatened. An individual may
be adimistered drugs in case he or she ca prove that stoppinf the use
of drugs without *real* side effects is possible, or can follow other
strategies to the same effect as according to the circumstances. A
society soothed by the effects of tranquilizing drugs is a society
less interested in fighting and supporting an Army; the more countries
alllowing the use of drugs, the less need for an Army and the udgets
armies are used to spend (the bigger in all areas), adding a further
motivatio to engage in the harassing of peaceful, responsible
recreational drug users.
And it must be stated clearly that side effects, in the sense of this
analysis, are by all means illegal and a criminal activity,
particularly when there are other solutions to keep the `drug problem`
under control, in the case it turned out to be a real problem, which,
due to the ban, is just an assumption, as drugs have acquired a
different meaning in current societies.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 5, 9:09 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Nov 2004 09:09:12 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 5 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
the effect of making wole generatios grow up without that protection
against cavities. Though this problem has apparenty been solved, the
soluti came before the concept of `crimes against health` was used as
a police tool. The fact that it is an inrimination tool comes from its
nature as a non prescribable crime. So it is just needed some
testimonies (conspiracy) to *prove* that any citizen is guilty f
crimes againstealth. And the longer it takes to make the accusatios,
the longer time to fabricate proof, as is used in the Mexican police
(read La Bola, a novel). Crimes realted to rugs need be judged at te
moment, in frganti, otherwise there is a reasonable doubt abt the gult
of any accused citizen by this crime concept. It must be noted that,
the moment Mexico wants to bring back a citizen (or somebody
considered as a citizen, since their constitution recognizes an
unlimited citizenshibased on race, which effectively needs only prove
that some far way relative in direct descent was Mexican to prove that
the individual is also Mexican), it just needs to file for `crimes
against health`. It is easy to prove after applying the concept of
side effects to unsuspecting victims. Ina judicial system based on
jurisprudence, this effectively forces judges to extradite people, as
any judgement against can be seen as support for the legalization of
drugs. The different prescription times makes it an unbeatable tool
for the Mexican government`s political needs, unless the fact is
recognized that it actually leaves no option to judges of another
country, so it is a veiled pressure tool against the sovereignty of
the extraditing country, beyond the extradition country`s (secret)
policy with respect to side effects (unnecessary effects brought about
by prejudices about the effects of drug consumption). As a legalcont
that has automatic effects oer the law of other coies, actually
bypassing them if they are based on jurisprudence, it acnnot be
accepted, beside the fact that it leads to the sanction and even to
the need of side effects, in this case applied by the police corps in
charge of these crimes, namely, the federal police.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 5, 9:15 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Nov 2004 09:15:09 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 5 2004 9:15 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
As a further idea about the notion of `crimes against health` (see
previous post) as a political pressure tool, it must be noted that
opposing a non prescribable crime against a system where the same
crime is prescribable, forces to judge the individual under the
*none*prescribable*concept*, due to the legal principle of construing
law judgements in such way that law operates *favoring* the
individual, and not perjudicating him, which is well known legal
principle (Kesler).
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 8, 6:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Nov 2004 18:17:45 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 8 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
> After all, if cocaine and marihuana are so dangerous, why not
> ERRADICATE the fields? THAT can be done and it WOULDN'T be an
> ecological catastrophe, there are enough species going extinct every
> day that the extinction of dope and cocaine would not even be noticed.
> So why be hypocrits?
This thread and ideas should in no way suggest that I use drugs,
because I don`t. I am particularly indifferent, I like vitaminic
complements (8)>
Reply
Jim Blair Nov 10, 12:53 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.med
From: "Jim Blair" - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:53:29 -0600
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
news:768f7623.0411050909.169aa240@posting.google.com...
> As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
> an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
> it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
> cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
> the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
> years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
> the effect of making whole generatios grow up without that protection
> against cavities.
Hi,
What an interesting reversal of one of the conspiracy theories popular in
the US 40 years ago.
Then it was putting fluoride INTO the drinking water that was denounced as a
"crime against health".
It was mostly Right wing nuts who protested flurodation as somewhere between
"not cost effective" to an attempt to use "rat poison to kill babies".
I remember a newspaper article from a city that had announced that their
city water would have sodium fluoride added on a certain date. On that date
many people called radio stations and wrote letters to the papers
complaining of everything from a bad taste in the water to dying goldfish
and pet dogs, to people being hospitalized with various illnesses from
drinking the water.
But it turned out that the city water utility was behind schedule, and they
would not be adding the fluoride for another month or so.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jebl...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/4834
Reply
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Nov 10, 1:59 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.med
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:59:23 -0500
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Jim Blair wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
> news:768f7623.0411050909.169aa240@posting.google.com...
>>As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
>>an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
>>it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
>>cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
>>the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
>>years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
>>the effect of making whole generatios grow up without that protection
>>against cavities.
> Hi,
> What an interesting reversal of one of the conspiracy theories popular in
> the US 40 years ago.
> Then it was putting fluoride INTO the drinking water that was denounced as a
> "crime against health".
> It was mostly Right wing nuts who protested flurodation as somewhere between
> "not cost effective" to an attempt to use "rat poison to kill babies".
> I remember a newspaper article from a city that had announced that their
> city water would have sodium fluoride added on a certain date. On that date
> many people called radio stations and wrote letters to the papers
> complaining of everything from a bad taste in the water to dying goldfish
> and pet dogs, to people being hospitalized with various illnesses from
> drinking the water.
> But it turned out that the city water utility was behind schedule, and they
> would not be adding the fluoride for another month or so.
Wow--sum kinda wacky play-see-beau effect?
Steve
> ,,,,,,,
> _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
> (_)
> jim blair (jebl...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
> USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
> binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
> call: http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/4834
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Reply
b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu Nov 14, 7:09 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.econ
From: b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Nov 2004 15:09:25 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 14 2004 7:09 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In article , Jim Blair
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wrote:
>"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
>news:768f7623.0411050909.169aa240@posting.google.com...
>> As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
>> an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
>> it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
>> cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
>> the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
>> years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
>> the effect of making whole generatios grow up without that protection
>> against cavities.
>What an interesting reversal of one of the conspiracy theories popular in
>the US 40 years ago.
>Then it was putting fluoride INTO the drinking water that was denounced as a
>"crime against health".
>It was mostly Right wing nuts who protested flurodation as somewhere between
>"not cost effective" to an attempt to use "rat poison to kill babies".
Alas, they are still at it, still unmoved by the fact that there are no
ill effects even in places where natural fluoride in the water is several
times that added to municipal systems -- no effects except for a larger
percentage of long term residents over forty with good teeth.
The same lot are also convinced that immunizations don't prevent disease,
they cause it, and are just a big conspiracy to make people sick for profit.
It seems to me that anti-technology conspiracy theories are far more
common and more widely believed now than they were forty years ago.
There's certainly been a strong trend towards blame-shifting,
uncritical and magical thinking, and a generally anti-intellectual
bias, IMO and that of many who know more about such trends than I do.
Reply
nyscof Nov 16, 3:27 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.econ
From: nys...@aol.com (nyscof) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Nov 2004 03:27:48 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2004 3:27 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> In article , Jim Blair wrote:
> >"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
> >news:768f7623.0411050909.169aa240@posting.google.com...
> >> As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
> >> an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
> >> it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
> >> cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
> >> the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
> >> years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
> >> the effect of making whole generatios grow up without that protection
> >> against cavities.
> >What an interesting reversal of one of the conspiracy theories popular in
> >the US 40 years ago.
> >Then it was putting fluoride INTO the drinking water that was denounced as a
> >"crime against health".
> >It was mostly Right wing nuts who protested flurodation as somewhere between
> >"not cost effective" to an attempt to use "rat poison to kill babies".
> Alas, they are still at it, still unmoved by the fact that there are no
> ill effects even in places where natural fluoride in the water is several
> times that added to municipal systems -- no effects except for a larger
> percentage of long term residents over forty with good teeth.
There are loads of information showing that people who drink naturally
fluoridated water are harmed.
Here's an example with pictures of how naturally occuring fluoride in
water supplies cripples people:
http://www.nalgonda.org/flourosis.php
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, INc
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.fluoridealert.org
Reply
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Nov 16, 6:29 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.econ
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:29:53 -0500
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2004 6:29 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
nyscof wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> b...@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu wrote in message ...
>>In article , Jim Blair wrote:
>>>"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
>>>news:768f7623.0411050909.169aa240@posting.google.com...
>>>>As a counterexample to the Mexican notion of crimes against health as
>>>>an incriminatin tool, and to make obvious the ideological content of
>>>>it, I want to mention that, as a problem of public health in Mexico,
>>>>cavities has the magitude of an epidemic, an endemic epidemic. One of
>>>>the reasons behind it is the lack of fluoride in water. Until a fw
>>>>years ago, Mexico`s water was not sanitized with fluoride. This had
>>>>the effect of making whole generatios grow up without that protection
>>>>against cavities.
>>>What an interesting reversal of one of the conspiracy theories popular in
>>>the US 40 years ago.
>>>Then it was putting fluoride INTO the drinking water that was denounced as a
>>>"crime against health".
>>>It was mostly Right wing nuts who protested flurodation as somewhere between
>>>"not cost effective" to an attempt to use "rat poison to kill babies".
>>Alas, they are still at it, still unmoved by the fact that there are no
>>ill effects even in places where natural fluoride in the water is several
>>times that added to municipal systems -- no effects except for a larger
>>percentage of long term residents over forty with good teeth.
> There are loads of information showing that people who drink naturally
> fluoridated water are harmed.
> Here's an example with pictures of how naturally occuring fluoride in
> water supplies cripples people:
> http://www.nalgonda.org/flourosis.php
> New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, INc
> http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
> http://www.fluoridealert.org
Geez, Paul, could you clue them in on how fluoride is spelled?
Steve
--
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 16, 10:49 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Nov 2004 10:49:23 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2004 10:49 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Very interesting: you need an optimum quantity of fluoride to have
good teeth. Marihuana use is associated to bad teeth, but it can be
caused by fluorosis... too much fluoride in the water can cause side
effects to all the population whether they use drugs or not, a very
comfortable way to prove the existence of side effects without going
through the effort of going person by person. It turns out to be a
political problem and one of optimization. As is said, in Nature there
are no corner solutions. Given that drug use is a political tool,
causing fluorosis in large segments of the population is a way to
incriminate in advance a whol population, as its effects will be
attributed to the use of drugs instead to a public policy designed to
increase public health. This might have happened in Mexico, going from
a non existent quantity of fluoride in water to too much; in either
case cavities and dental problems tur out to be widespread and
incriminatory. A governemnet supporting the ban on drugs, particularly
marihuana, cannot be said not to be guilty if decides to provide
fluoride in water...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 24, 6:22 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,mit.bboard,harvard.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Nov 2004 18:22:10 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 24 2004 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Side effects: you can`t prove an individual used drugs. If he did it
is his/her problem. Who should be punished is the seller. Drugs are
much maligned even when the principle of biological diversity ensures
that effects will vary greatly among individuals. There are interests
to keep drugs banned despite more rational solutions.
a) Those interests get sure that individuals using drugs *show* bad
effects of such abuse despite the care and resposibility they can
show, so that nobody can show that drugs are not as bad as they are
depicted. Bad effects are not necessary.
b) Political interests will cause effects to *prove* that a clean
individual is guilty of using drugs despite not using them, to show
that a reputation destroyed by the incrimination (insinuation) of drug
addiction deserves those effect. Bad effects are totally uncalled for.
The interest behind the criminalization of drugs cause bad effects,
side effects, from the use or supposition of use of drugs to prove
that drugs are bad and keep the ban. It is a closed system that
maintains itelf closed.
-> Ban -> side effects -> Ban ->
Reply
Side effects: the drug conspiracy
« Older Messages 26 - 26 of 26 in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 30, 9:16 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,mit.bboard,harvard.general
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Nov 2004 09:16:56 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 9:16 am
Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Side effects: you can`t prove an individual used drugs. If he did it
is his/her problem. Who should be punished is the seller. Drugs are
much maligned even when the principle of biological diversity ensures
that effects will vary greatly among individuals. There are interests
to keep drugs banned despite more rational solutions.
a) Those interests get sure that individuals using drugs *show* bad
effects of such abuse despite the care and resposibility they can
show, so that nobody can show that drugs are not as bad as they are
depicted. Bad effects are not necessary.
b) Political interests will cause effects to *prove* that a clean
individual is guilty of using drugs despite not using them, to show
that a reputation destroyed by the incrimination (insinuation) of drug
addiction deserves those effect. Bad effects are totally uncalled for.
The interest behind the criminalization of drugs cause bad effects,
side effects, from the use or supposition of use of drugs to prove
that drugs are bad and keep the ban. It is a closed system that
maintains itelf closed.
-> Ban -> side effects -> Ban ->
Reply
Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
All 6 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 25, 9:22 pm show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,sci.physics,bionet.neuroscience,ny.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Nov 2004 21:22:29 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 25 2004 9:22 pm
Subject: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Reason allows us to take the body, the biological level, to a totally
new level by taking charge of our own evolution. Evolution as a
survival mechanism in the Chaos of Reality is broken by Reason, as it
introduces changes in the landscape of the survival function we humans
explore genetically; Nature turns into Society, and while evolution
makes changes throughout long time spans, Reason acts in a different
time span to bring quicker changes. Compared to the time horizon of
Reason, Evolution is stopped. Reason introduces besides a decoupling
between Natural Man and Rational Man, we move in an altogether
different level.
On this level we are able to bootstrap the system of life and take
control of our own genetic material, so this time Evolution is
directed by Reason, not by fitting beings against a survival function,
Nature. Reason is more efficient as an optimization and search
mechanism than Evolution is, as it can make use of different methods
to optimize functions, one of them being Science. Science can liberate
us from death and disease and scarcity once it takes into its hands
the task of changing our genome to provide us with more efficient
bodies. By finding mechanisms to fix DNA and prevent it from
undergoing entropy, we can in fact become forever younf and
immortal...
Though there might be another path. It is said that we can only access
some percentage of the resources of our brain. As if it were
disconnected from our conscience... Yet there is people who have more
control over their bodies than the rest of the population. For
instance, I can make my pupils vibrate at will. If we can somehow open
up the path to the rest of our brain we would be able to GET CONTROL
OF OUR DNA BY WILL. A form of awareness, like the one it is supposed
to be brought about by LSD-25, (one of the psilocibins). If we can
connect our brain to our conscious functios so that we can take
control od our DNA...
We can assume assume at will any form we want, provided it contains
enough brain to not lose control. Even possibilities like cyborgs are
opened by this way. We would be able to to assume other people`s form
and act as if we were them... dangerous, but if everybod has this
capability... Pity JesusChrist was unable to reveal the secret of
`Thou art gods` when we were few... But we can use this powe to solve
the problems of overpopulation...
This might be a military secret. Not all LSD-25 sold in the street is
real LS-25 but other hallucinogen.
For thise who know my predicament, they say the FBI director is in
between too.
Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
Dad ana nin ili lol lo
1111 4444 7777 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 26, 6:00 am show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,sci.physics,bionet.neuroscience,ny.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Nov 2004 06:00:50 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 26 2004 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Reason allows us to take the body, the biological level, to a totally
new level by taking charge of our own evolution. Evolution as a
survival mechanism in the Chaos of Reality is broken by Reason, as it
introduces changes in the landscape of the survival function we humans
explore genetically; Nature turns into Society, and while evolution
makes changes throughout long time spans, Reason acts in a different
time span to bring quicker changes. Compared to the time horizon of
Reason, Evolution is stopped. Reason introduces besides a decoupling
between Natural Man and Rational Man, we move in an altogether
different level.
On this level we are able to bootstrap the system of life and take
control of our own genetic material, so this time Evolution is
directed by Reason, not by fitting beings against a survival function,
Nature. Reason is more efficient as an optimization and search
mechanism than Evolution is, as it can make use of different methods
to optimize functions, one of them being Science. Science can liberate
us from death and disease and scarcity once it takes into its hands
the task of changing our genome to provide us with more efficient
bodies. By finding mechanisms to fix DNA and prevent it from
undergoing entropy, we can in fact become forever younf and
immortal...
Though there might be another path. It is said that we can only access
some percentage of the resources of our brain. As if it were
disconnected from our conscience... Yet there is people who have more
control over their bodies than the rest of the population. For
instance, I can make my pupils vibrate at will. If we can somehow open
up the path to the rest of our brain we would be able to GET CONTROL
OF OUR DNA BY WILL. A form of awareness, like the one it is supposed
to be brought about by LSD-25, (one of the psilocibins). If we can
connect our brain to our conscious functios so that we can take
control od our DNA...
We can assume assume at will any form we want, provided it contains
enough brain to not lose control. Even possibilities like cyborgs are
opened by this way. We would be able to to assume other people`s form
and act as if we were them... dangerous, but if everybod has this
capability... Pity JesusChrist was unable to reveal the secret of
`Thou art gods` when we were few... But we can use this powe to solve
the problems of overpopulation...
This might be a military secret. Not all LSD-25 sold in the street is
real LS-25 but other hallucinogen.
For thise who know my predicament, they say the FBI director is in
between too.
Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
Dad ana nin ili lol lo
1111 4444 7777
E 4444 3333 rd
zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 29, 5:35 am show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,bionet.neuroscience
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 05:35:30 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 5:35 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Sent to some UN delegations:
Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
(entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
current state of development is due more to the systematic application
of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
using the scientific method...
http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
http:\\Da\nilo\J\Bonsig\nore
http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
http:\\in\new\york
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> nyn yny unu n
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 29, 6:01 am show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,bionet.neuroscience
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 06:01:21 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 6:01 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sent to some UN delegations:
Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
(entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
current state of development is due more to the systematic application
of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
using the scientific method...
http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
http:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
http:\\in\new\york
> Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> nyn yny unu n
LSD-25
Dire al Ambasciatore. Coperto per i messicani. Operazione CISEN col
aiuto di nordamericani. Cercare il nome in google groups.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 29, 6:25 am show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,sci.physics,bionet.neuroscience,ny.general,dc.general
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 06:25:54 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 6:25 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Reason allows us to take the body, the biological level, to a totally
new level by taking charge of our own evolution. Evolution as a
survival mechanism in the Chaos of Reality is broken by Reason, as it
introduces changes in the landscape of the survival function we humans
explore genetically; Nature turns into Society, and while evolution
makes changes throughout long time spans, Reason acts in a different
time span to bring quicker changes. Compared to the time horizon of
Reason, Evolution is stopped. Reason introduces besides a decoupling
between Natural Man and Rational Man, we move in an altogether
different level.
On this level we are able to bootstrap the system of life and take
control of our own genetic material, so this time Evolution is
directed by Reason, not by fitting beings against a survival function,
Nature. Reason is more efficient as an optimization and search
mechanism than Evolution is, as it can make use of different methods
to optimize functions, one of them being Science. Science can liberate
us from death and disease and scarcity once it takes into its hands
the task of changing our genome to provide us with more efficient
bodies. By finding mechanisms to fix DNA and prevent it from
undergoing entropy, we can in fact become forever younf and
immortal...
Though there might be another path. It is said that we can only access
some percentage of the resources of our brain. As if it were
disconnected from our conscience... Yet there is people who have more
control over their bodies than the rest of the population. For
instance, I can make my pupils vibrate at will. If we can somehow open
up the path to the rest of our brain we would be able to GET CONTROL
OF OUR DNA BY WILL. A form of awareness, like the one it is supposed
to be brought about by LSD-25, (one of the psilocibins). If we can
connect our brain to our conscious functios so that we can take
control od our DNA...
We can assume assume at will any form we want, provided it contains
enough brain to not lose control. Even possibilities like cyborgs are
opened by this way. We would be able to to assume other people`s form
and act as if we were them... dangerous, but if everybod has this
capability... Pity JesusChrist was unable to reveal the secret of
`Thou art gods` when we were few... But we can use this powe to solve
the problems of overpopulation
...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
(entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
current state of development is due more to the systematic application
of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
using the scientific method...
http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
http
:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
http:\\in
\new\york
> Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> nyn yny unu n
The President doesn't know. Disinformed.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 29, 5:39 am show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general,sci.physics,bionet.neuroscience,ny.general,dc.general
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 29 Nov 2004 05:39:15 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2004 5:39 am
Subject: Re: Futures of Man: Total DNA Control Path to Immortality
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Reason allows us to take the body, the biological level, to a totally
new level by taking charge of our own evolution. Evolution as a
survival mechanism in the Chaos of Reality is broken by Reason, as it
introduces changes in the landscape of the survival function we humans
explore genetically; Nature turns into Society, and while evolution
makes changes throughout long time spans, Reason acts in a different
time span to bring quicker changes. Compared to the time horizon of
Reason, Evolution is stopped. Reason introduces besides a decoupling
between Natural Man and Rational Man, we move in an altogether
different level.
On this level we are able to bootstrap the system of life and take
control of our own genetic material, so this time Evolution is
directed by Reason, not by fitting beings against a survival function,
Nature. Reason is more efficient as an optimization and search
mechanism than Evolution is, as it can make use of different methods
to optimize functions, one of them being Science. Science can liberate
us from death and disease and scarcity once it takes into its hands
the task of changing our genome to provide us with more efficient
bodies. By finding mechanisms to fix DNA and prevent it from
undergoing entropy, we can in fact become forever younf and
immortal...
Though there might be another path. It is said that we can only access
some percentage of the resources of our brain. As if it were
disconnected from our conscience... Yet there is people who have more
control over their bodies than the rest of the population. For
instance, I can make my pupils vibrate at will. If we can somehow open
up the path to the rest of our brain we would be able to GET CONTROL
OF OUR DNA BY WILL. A form of awareness, like the one it is supposed
to be brought about by LSD-25, (one of the psilocibins). If we can
connect our brain to our conscious functios so that we can take
control od our DNA...
We can assume assume at will any form we want, provided it contains
enough brain to not lose control. Even possibilities like cyborgs are
opened by this way. We would be able to to assume other people`s form
and act as if we were them... dangerous, but if everybod has this
capability... Pity JesusChrist was unable to reveal the secret of
`Thou art gods` when we were few... But we can use this powe to solve
the problems of overpopulation
...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sent to some UN delegations:
Myelination, the process of cnnecting nerves and axons to expedite the
transmissio neuroelectric signal. Hallucinogens peform this process,
either permanently by remyelinizing the sheaths or temporarily. They
connext different areas of the brain that are not generally connected,
producing cinestesia, the mix of sensorial input and interpretation,
like flavoring colors or smelling sounds. A bad trip, the permanent
trip, the freak, and also the backflashes can be explained by a
permanent reconnectio of the brain tissue due to the direct or
indirect action of hallucinogens. A totally connected brain (in its
functional areas) would require an impregnation, probably gradual, to
achieve the state of illuminatio of the old mystic disciplines (which
can be explained as the myelinization or similar processes by the
semiconscious effect of meditation). The process is similar to thatof
contring respiration, which is automatic but can be subjected to
conscious control (incidentallly an imporatnt part of all meditatio
and mystical techniques). With conscious control of the totality of
our brain we can achieve the same kind of control of other automatic
processes, down to the cellular and intracellular level, as the brain
has enough computing power due to the high order of interconnections
of the billions of neurones we have. With such awareness it is
possible to control our DNA and consciously fix it to prevent cancers
(entropy) and extend our life span, though it would require knowledge
and intelligence to avoid monstruous mistakes. It would also permit
the conscious control of the interaction of the magnetic neurofields
with the surrounding environment, much in the way MRI scannings work.
Note: it is to be noted that our brains lack this total
interconnection quality despite the fact that it has a lot of
plasticity (recoves after brain damage), as if evolution has been
stopped just before this conditio was acquired. But, if we take
seriously the old myths, it is more like we *have* lost this
abilities, we we able to do this knd of total awareness feats but have
lost the ability, as if we were turning back to animality... The
original sin of knowledge being gradually erased from the genetic
human pool; instead of acquiring intelligence we are losing it and our
current state of development is due more to the systematic application
of the scientific method than by a slow but steady gain in
intelligence. Human evolution is stopped compared to conscience,
Reason, but our genetic pool may be experimenting more rapid changes
tha we have been able to notice given the short span we have been
using the scientific method...
http:\\Fab\ri\zio\j\bon\sig\nore
http
:\\not\an\url\if\something\it\is\censure
http:\\in
\new\york
> Bob ono nsn sis igi gng non oro rer ree
> Dad ana nin ili lol lo
> 1111 4444 7777 E 4444 3333 zc 11111 00000 00000 11111 77777
> nyn yny unu n
Reply
End of messages
watch this topic
This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
All 20 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 9, 11:04 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Nov 2004 23:04:07 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 9 2004 11:04 pm
Subject: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I am A and there is B. A is the good guy, B is the bad guy. B says his
name is A. Then B commits a crime saying he is A. A gets blame. But A
has something to sell: G. A tries to contact S to sell. This happens:
A -----> S
A B <-- S
A (B)A-> S
A never gets the message. Now S thinks B is A.
Now, A sends a message to U, but this happens:
A --->m->(B)A-x---> S
S gets x, but he thinks the insult (x) is from A!
A keeps sending messages to S1, S2, S3, who talk to B thinking he is
A.
And A keeps sending messages m to U, who receives x from B instead.
Now we have P, they want to get A because they think he did what B did
as A. So now they say that B is B and A is A. But instead of A, they
have A1, A2, A3...
Somebody associated to B, C, pretends to help A. So he says A is B!
Because B is free of blame. But if A says he is B, he loses S. U could
help, but U thinks he received x from A! And if A says he is A he is
got by P and loses because of what B did.
If P seeks B, then they come up with B1! Not B. Both U and P want hell
with A, while B pretends to be B. When they turn around, B converts
into A to meet S...
There are mor details, but it is too cold now...
Probably are reading the poster as A instead of B, but I don`t know...
I am A.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 6:08 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 06:08:23 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 6:08 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The problem is that they do the following:
A --->m------------> S
A --->m1->(B)A-x---> S
(B)A-x1--> S
A --->m2->(B)A S
(B)A-x2--> S
A --->m3-----------> S
S thinks all comunications are from A, but B controls what S receives
from A.
After a while the whole world thinks that A is B and B is A. Then they
invert everything so now the world thinks that A is suffering by B,
but their A is actually B and B is actually A. They just need to
change the name of A and B so that no matter what what, A is covered
and B is at the outset.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 6:15 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 06:15:47 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 6:15 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The real problem is when P, yes, P is on the side of B.
We have this sequence:
A --->m------------> S
A --->m->(B)A-x ---> S
A (B)P <---- S
A (B)P ----> S
S gets a message and asks P. P tells them that A is really B! And they
explain m and x. Now S thinks that A is not worth the while or worse,
that A wants to be B. B is protected, A is seen as a delinquent.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 6:27 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 06:27:58 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 6:27 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Another possibility is the following:
A --->m->(B)A-x---> S
(B)A-x---> S2
(B)A-x---> S3
(B)A-x---> S4
(B)A-x---> S5
(B)A-x---> S6
A --->m-----------> S3 !?
S to S6 believe they received a message from A. The second message to
S3 becomes meaningless. NOw he thinks that A is crazy. But S3 meets
with B an dhe convinces S3 that HE, B, is A and A is B. After that
A --->m-------(B)-> S3 !?
B doesn't need to be in the middle, S3 thinks A is B and disregards
the message. He goes directly to B.
A --->m->(B)A-x---> S
(B)A-x1--> S
(B)A-x2--> S
(B)A-x3--> S
(B)A-x4--> S
(B)A-x5--> S
Here S receives noise. Following communication from A is avoided.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 6:37 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 06:37:30 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 6:37 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A knows I. He does the following:
A --->m(I)---------> S
A B(A)(J)<------ S
A --->m(I)---------> S !?
S thinks that J is I and B is A. A and I are covered.
Now B has fotos Fa of A and fotos Fb of B. This happens:
A --->m---B(A)->m(Fa)----> S
S thinks that A sent Fa and THAT material belongs to B.
A --->m---B(A)->m(Fb)----> S
S thinks that Fb is Fa and A is trying to burn B. Fb was taken by B
himself! So S thinks bad of A because he thinks A wants to burn B.
With several sets of pictures, S will never know who is A and who is
B.
At some point both names A and B are burned down. But B can be seen as
victim of A when it is otherwise, by saying that Fb was sent by A,
AFTER B posed himself as A.
This changes according to time, too, as what B does depends of the
momnets at which A and S communicate. Dynamic...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 7:35 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 07:35:56 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 7:35 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The fact is that A has nothing, while B has what came from G, A`s name and m.
To protect themselves, helpers of B will make the following true at al times:
A = A(B) <-- U
B = B(A) <-- U
The posteris A. Otherwise wouldn`t post it.
Reply
Uncle Al Nov 10, 8:30 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: Uncle Al - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:30:50 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:30 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
[snip crap]
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100070248 20173 127.0.0.1 (10 Nov 2004
07:04:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Reply
Uncle Al Nov 10, 8:31 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: Uncle Al - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:31:54 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:31 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
[snip crap]
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100096147 31951 127.0.0.1 (10 Nov 2004
14:15:47
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Reply
Uncle Al Nov 10, 8:31 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: Uncle Al - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:31:20 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:31 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
[snip crap]
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100095704 31327 127.0.0.1 (10 Nov 2004
14:08:24
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Reply
Efftard K. Donglemeier Nov 10, 10:27 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: "Efftard K. Donglemeier" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:27:49 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
You a idiot.
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 10, 4:24 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Nov 2004 16:24:33 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This case is dangerous:
A (B)A--m--> U
A (B)A<-m--- U
A -------m--> U
A ? U
A--------m--/ U
They engage in communication, the impersonator and the traget. When
the rue identity arrives there is a misunderstanding. Further
communication is stopped. A loses appointments, contacts, etc.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 11, 4:25 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Nov 2004 16:25:33 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 11 2004 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Efftard K. Donglemeier" wrote in message ...
> You a idiot.
Why? It works, and it is working for them. I am A.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 11, 5:42 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 11 Nov 2004 17:42:40 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 11 2004 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The more dangerous is this case, already shown:
A ? Fn{A}B ----> U!
A --------m----/ U
They send pictures of SOMEBODY ELSE, n, pretending it is you, A,
comitting a crime. So U! gets appalled and you never get to see U.
Remember that A is the writer of the post, but you will read it
probaby as B out of my city. I am writing this to defeat any possible
translators in the servers.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 19, 6:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Nov 2004 18:17:26 -0800
Local: Fri, Nov 19 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
In here is a trap.
This is true:
A{a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, ...}
B{b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, ...}
Where a1,... b1,.... are characteristics, facts, events etc., for A
and B (associated uniquely).
Then they say:
B{a1, a2, a3...}
A{b1, b2, b3...}
Once done the inversion the a1,...b1,...`s are distributed as known
facts so when somebody asks `who did a!?` They can answer B
The trap resides in that they tell the victim:
~A{b1}
to which A answers `no I didn`t do b1`. But b1 is associated to B, so
they infer `A is really B`!
Or they say:
B{a1} to which A replies `I did a1`, which is interpreted as
confessing that A is really B!
They can play with all four logic combinations to make A make a
statement that can be understood as a confession, unless A always
makes it clear that there is the misunderstanding and what really
holds is
A{a1...}
B{b1...}
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 20, 2:12 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Nov 2004 02:12:13 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 20 2004 2:12 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This is what happened as far as I can reconstruct facts. I published f
in G as A, my identity. B takes f and presents himself to W as B[A]
and gets some rewards, particularly he is sent to S, where he appears
as B[A] and gets other rewards.
Then I send f to W as A, but I appear suspicious, because B[A] already
told people that I am A[B]. So I am collecting punishments instead of
rewards because I should have appeared as B, though then I lose f.
At the same time A gets burned because of P associated to B.
A then sends f to U as A. But identity A is already burned. In U there
are two groups, U1, who know who is A, and U2, who doesn`t know who is
A. P then convinces both groups that A should appear as A[Ni], where
Ni is a *new* identity, because that is the way to help A.
To U1 it is clear who is A and who is B and gives rewards for Ni
because of f, but A can`t take them because A is still A[A]=A. B gets
the rewards because he knows each Ni and the same happens to U2. Both
lose f but B gets rewards and A gets nothing
For U2 P (associated to B) presents A as A[Ni] different identities.
They give rewards to A[Ni] which againg are taken by B, but U2 can`t
recognize A. U1 can recognize A, but won`t accept him because now A
must be A[B].
W recognizes now that B[A] is false and wants A[B] to be true. So now
B[A] confesses to be B[B]=B in W. To S he is still B[A] and A is A[B].
S can`t accept the mistake but they realize they want A[B]. But A is
still A[A]=A and trying to prove it.
P is still burning A by adding A{a1, a2, a3, a4,...} characteristics.
At the same time F believes A[B]. F plays with A[B] and B[A] being
false or true. But P knows who is A and who is B. Depending on the
acts of A, they want either A[A] or A[B]. Meanwhile B is enjoying the
rewards for A, for B and for Ni.
A cannot become A[B] because F can give a punishment, so A remains
A[A]=A.
The problem is that P is associated to B from the beginning and plays
B[A], C[A], D[A], etc., while at the same time using this x[A] and
A{a1, a2, a3,...} *AND* Fx[A] convinces W and F that A deserves
punishment, which is the goal of B. Only S has realized that wants
A[B] instead of B[A].
If A plays A[B] gets punishment from F. If he plays A[A]=A gets
punishment from P. But he needs to play A[B] with S. There is a
contradiction that can be solved unless F realizes that x[A] is false,
A[a1, ,2, a3,...} are false and Fx[A] =/= Fa[A]. Then A can play A[B]
for W and for S, while B[A] can take the place of A for P. F must
realize the falseness of the last statements so that A can assume the
identity expected from him to reach S witoht losing f.
I may update this post later...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 20, 11:52 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Nov 2004 11:52:54 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 20 2004 11:52 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Unless it appears later, the solution of the enigma was deleted by the
haters and mafia, mex or ame or mexam. Fluorosis can be seeded as side
effects. 2Train has cousins and uncles with different surnames.
Culprits in WH, army and Fedreserve, with motives. And the dwarven
Ledezmas? Petite brunnets with police family. I can write down
solution again, more complete. Going without food to avoid being
drugged and poisoned. Sleeping outside. Is Greenspan guity as they
say? Gentry behind this. War threats void. I am born here of saxon
ascent.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 21, 9:01 am show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Nov 2004 09:01:28 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 21 2004 9:01 am
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is what happened as far as I can reconstruct facts. I published f
in G as A, my identity. B takes f and presents himself to W as B[A]
and gets some rewards, particularly he is sent to S, where he appears
as B[A] and gets other rewards.
Then I send f to W as A, but I appear suspicious, because B[A] already
told people that I am A[B]. So I am collecting punishments instead of
rewards because I should have appeared as B, though then I lose f.
At the same time A gets burned because of P associated to B.
A then sends f to U as A. But identity A is already burned. In U there
are two groups, U1, who know who is A, and U2, who doesn`t know who is
A. P then convinces both groups that A should appear as A[Ni], where
Ni is a *new* identity, because that is the way to help A.
To U1 it is clear who is A and who is B and gives rewards for Ni
because of f, but A can`t take them because A is still A[A]=A. B gets
the rewards because he knows each Ni and the same happens to U2. Both
lose f but B gets rewards and A gets nothing
For U2 P (associated to B) presents A as A[Ni] different identities.
They give rewards to A[Ni] which againg are taken by B, but U2 can`t
recognize A. U1 can recognize A, but won`t accept him because now A
must be A[B].
W recognizes now that B[A] is false and wants A[B] to be true. So now
B[A] confesses to be B[B]=B in W. To S he is still B[A] and A is A[B].
S can`t accept the mistake but they realize they want A[B]. But A is
still A[A]=A and trying to prove it.
P is still burning A by adding A{a1, a2, a3, a4,...} characteristics.
At the same time F believes A[B]. F plays with A[B] and B[A] being
false or true. But P knows who is A and who is B. Depending on the
acts of A, they want either A[A] or A[B]. Meanwhile B is enjoying the
rewards for A, for B and for Ni.
A cannot become A[B] because F can give a punishment, so A remains
A[A]=A.
The problem is that P is associated to B from the beginning and plays
B[A], C[A], D[A], etc., while at the same time using this x[A] and
A{a1, a2, a3,...} *AND* Fx[A] convinces W and F that A deserves
punishment, which is the goal of B. Only S has realized that wants
A[B] instead of B[A].
If A plays A[B] gets punishment from F. If he plays A[A]=A gets
punishment from P. But he needs to play A[B] with S. There is a
contradiction that can be solved unless F realizes that x[A] is false,
A[a1, ,2, a3,...} are false and Fx[A] =/= Fa[A]. Then A can play A[B]
for W and for S, while B[A] can take the place of A for P. F must
realize the falseness of the last statements so that A can assume the
identity expected from him to reach S
without losing f.
Detail: A{a1...} should be A{b1,f1,w1,p1,...}, though now it seems to be
A[B]{b1,f1,w1,p1,...} while there is X[A]{a1,a2,a3,a4...}f
I am devising a better notation and a syntaxis.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 21, 12:34 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Nov 2004 12:34:45 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 21 2004 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A, B, C capital letters are known identities; double letters can be
used
X is an unknown identity
i,j,k subindexes are used to denote different instances Xi is the ith
unknown X
[] is read `as` the world is assumed to be on the right, so A[B] means
the world sees A under the identity B
a, b, c lowercase letters are statements or objects, clear from
context; double letters can be used to be more specific
{} is used to associate statements to identities
(()) is used to indicate a known state of the world
() is used to associate identities;
(L, G, B, Px, Cx, FRx, Mx, Wx, Ux, Sx) would mean Ledezma, Bistrain,
Gorillaz, police, CIA, Federal Reserve, military, White House and
United Nations, Senators as a single band; a subindex is used to
indicate particular individuals if the symbol denotes an aggregate. it
can be used as a single identity: (...)[X]
A[X]=A means that A[X] is *really* A
<-- --> mean communications, --x--> means x occurs in the middle
$ can be used to indicate money
numerals can be used to indicate particular quantities; 0 means no
money
F is used to indicate photographs. Fx means photographs of individual
x and
Fx[A] meas photos of x posed as being of A FxB[A] means the photos are
shown by B. Other symbols can be used if indicates at the beginning
a symbol *before* an identity means something owned like wB[A] means B
posing as A owns w; symbols can be concatenated to the left to
indicate accruing of objects, quantitites or acts
a symbol *after* an identity means an offered object or statement like
B[A]f means B posing as A offers f
The world is assumed to be on the right side, so identities are
composed to the right: B[A][B] means B impersonated A and
reimpersonated himself.
a minus sign means the statement is negative, false, a debt or that
the identity is burned or criminal
= can be used to simplify terms like (B, G, L) = M now M is (B, G, L)
= 1 mens is true
= 0 means is false
=/= means is different
&& means logical and
|| means logical or
~ is used to negate a statement; equivalent to minus but only for the
current statement
All statements are supposed to be true
Numerals can be used to separate time episodes.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This is what happened as far as I can reconstruct facts. I published
f
in G as A, my identity. B takes f and presents himself to W as B[A]
and gets some rewards, particularly he is sent to S, where he appears
as B[A] and gets other rewards.
Then I send f to W as A, but I appear suspicious, because B[A]
already
told people that I am A[B]. So I am collecting punishments instead of
rewards because I should have appeared as B, though then I lose f.
At the same time A gets burned because of P associated to B.
A then sends f to U as A. But identity A is already burned. In U
there
are two groups, U1, who know who is A, and U2, who doesn`t know who
is
A. P then convinces both groups that A should appear as A[Ni], where
Ni is a *new* identity, because that is the way to help A.
To U1 it is clear who is A and who is B and gives rewards for Ni
because of f, but A can`t take them because A is still A[A]=A. B gets
the rewards because he knows each Ni and the same happens to U2. Both
lose f but B gets rewards and A gets nothing
For U2 P (associated to B) presents A as A[Ni] different identities.
They give rewards to A[Ni] which againg are taken by B, but U2 can`t
recognize A. U1 can recognize A, but won`t accept him because now A
must be A[B].
W recognizes now that B[A] is false and wants A[B] to be true. So now
B[A] confesses to be B[B]=B in W. To S he is still B[A] and A is
A[B].
S can`t accept the mistake but they realize they want A[B]. But A is
still A[A]=A and trying to prove it.
P is still burning A by adding A{a1, a2, a3, a4,...} characteristics.
At the same time F believes A[B]. F plays with A[B] and B[A] being
false or true. But P knows who is A and who is B. Depending on the
acts of A, they want either A[A] or A[B]. Meanwhile B is enjoying the
rewards for A, for B and for Ni.
A cannot become A[B] because F can give a punishment, so A remains
A[A]=A.
The problem is that P is associated to B from the beginning and plays
B[A], C[A], D[A], etc., while at the same time using this x[A] and
A{a1, a2, a3,...} *AND* Fx[A] convinces W and F that A deserves
punishment, which is the goal of B. Only S has realized that wants
A[B] instead of B[A].
If A plays A[B] gets punishment from F. If he plays A[A]=A gets
punishment from P. But he needs to play A[B] with S. There is a
contradiction that can be solved unless F realizes that x[A] is
false,
A{a1
, a2,
a3,...} are false and Fx[A] =/= Fa[A]. Then A can play A[B]
for W and for S, while B[A] can take the place of A for P. F must
realize the falseness of the last statements so that A can assume the
identity expected from him to reach S witoht losing f
.
The proof consists in that the simmetry is broken. A is left with
nothing, while B got everything. The reasons are the identity thefts
of A.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 23, 7:20 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 23 Nov 2004 19:20:02 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 23 2004 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Another operator is useful:
[()] means `supposed to be`, as in A[(B)] A is supposed to be B
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> A, B, C capital letters are known identities; double letters can be
> used
> X is an unknown identity
> i,j,k subindexes are used to denote different instances Xi is the ith
> unknown X
> [] is read `as` the world is assumed to be on the right, so A[B] means
> the world sees A under the identity B
> a, b, c lowercase letters are statements or objects, clear from
> context; double letters can be used to be more specific
> {} is used to associate statements to identities
> (()) is used to indicate a known state of the world
> () is used to associate identities;
> (L, G, B, Px, Cx, FRx, Mx, Wx, Ux, Sx) would mean Ledezma, Bistrain,
> Gorillaz, police, CIA, Federal Reserve, military, White House and
> United Nations, Senators as a single band; a subindex is used to
> indicate particular individuals if the symbol denotes an aggregate. it
> can be used as a single identity: (...)[X]
> A[X]=A means that A[X] is *really* A
> <-- --> mean communications, --x--> means x occurs in the middle
> $ can be used to indicate money
> numerals can be used to indicate particular quantities; 0 means no
> money
> F is used to indicate photographs. Fx means photographs of individual
> x and
> Fx[A] meas photos of x posed as being of A FxB[A] means the photos are
> shown by B. Other symbols can be used if indicates at the beginning
> a symbol *before* an identity means something owned like wB[A] means B
> posing as A owns w; symbols can be concatenated to the left to
> indicate accruing of objects, quantitites or acts
> a symbol *after* an identity means an offered object or statement like
> B[A]f means B posing as A offers f
> The world is assumed to be on the right side, so identities are
> composed to the right: B[A][B] means B impersonated A and
> reimpersonated himself.
> a minus sign means the statement is negative, false, a debt or that
> the identity is burned or criminal
> = can be used to simplify terms like (B, G, L) = M now M is (B, G, L)
> = 1 mens is true
> = 0 means is false
> =/= means is different
> && means logical and
> || means logical or
> ~ is used to negate a statement; equivalent to minus but only for the
> current statement
> All statements are supposed to be true
> Numerals can be used to separate time episodes.
> This is what happened as far as I can reconstruct facts. I published
> f
> in G as A, my identity. B takes f and presents himself to W as B[A]
> and gets some rewards, particularly he is sent to S, where he appears
> as B[A] and gets other rewards.
> Then I send f to W as A, but I appear suspicious, because B[A]
> already
> told people that I am A[B]. So I am collecting punishments instead of
> rewards because I should have appeared as B, though then I lose f.
> At the same time A gets burned because of P associated to B.
> A then sends f to U as A. But identity A is already burned. In U
> there
> are two groups, U1, who know who is A, and U2, who doesn`t know who
> is
> A. P then convinces both groups that A should appear as A[Ni], where
> Ni is a *new* identity, because that is the way to help A.
> To U1 it is clear who is A and who is B and gives rewards for Ni
> because of f, but A can`t take them because A is still A[A]=A. B gets
> the rewards because he knows each Ni and the same happens to U2. Both
> lose f but B gets rewards and A gets nothing
> For U2 P (associated to B) presents A as A[Ni] different identities.
> They give rewards to A[Ni] which againg are taken by B, but U2 can`t
> recognize A. U1 can recognize A, but won`t accept him because now A
> must be A[B].
> W recognizes now that B[A] is false and wants A[B] to be true. So now
> B[A] confesses to be B[B]=B in W. To S he is still B[A] and A is
> A[B].
> S can`t accept the mistake but they realize they want A[B]. But A is
> still A[A]=A and trying to prove it.
> P is still burning A by adding A{a1, a2, a3, a4,...} characteristics.
> At the same time F believes A[B]. F plays with A[B] and B[A] being
> false or true. But P knows who is A and who is B. Depending on the
> acts of A, they want either A[A] or A[B]. Meanwhile B is enjoying the
> rewards for A, for B and for Ni.
> A cannot become A[B] because F can give a punishment, so A remains
> A[A]=A.
> The problem is that P is associated to B from the beginning and plays
> B[A], C[A], D[A], etc., while at the same time using this x[A] and
> A{a1, a2, a3,...} *AND* Fx[A] convinces W and F that A deserves
> punishment, which is the goal of B. Only S has realized that wants
> A[B] instead of B[A].
> If A plays A[B] gets punishment from F. If he plays A[A]=A gets
> punishment from P. But he needs to play A[B] with S. There is a
> contradiction that can be solved unless F realizes that x[A] is
> false,
> A{a1, a2, a3,...} are false and Fx[A] =/= Fa[A]. Then A can play A[B]
> for W and for S, while B[A] can take the place of A for P. F must
> realize the falseness of the last statements so that A can assume the
> identity expected from him to reach S witoht losing f.
> The proof consists in that the simmetry is broken. A is left with
> nothing, while B got everything. The reasons are the identity thefts
> of A.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 25, 7:03 pm show options
Newsgroups: seattle.general,dc.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Nov 2004 19:03:12 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 25 2004 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another operator is useful:
[()] means `supposed to be`, as in A[(B)] A is supposed to be B
> > A, B, C capital letters are known identities; double letters can be
> > used
> > X is an unknown identity
> > i,j,k subindexes are used to denote different instances Xi is the ith
> > unknown X
> > [] is read `as` the world is assumed to be on the right, so A[B] means
> > the world sees A under the identity B
> > a, b, c lowercase letters are statements or objects, clear from
> > context; double letters can be used to be more specific
> > {} is used to associate statements to identities
> > (()) is used to indicate a known state of the world
> > () is used to associate identities;
> > (L, G, B, Px, Cx, FRx, Mx, Wx, Ux, Sx) would mean Ledezma, Bistrain,
> > Gorillaz, police, CIA, Federal Reserve, military, White House and
> > United Nations, Senators as a single band; a subindex is used to
> > indicate particular individuals if the symbol denotes an aggregate. it
> > can be used as a single identity: (...)[X]
> > A[X]=A means that A[X] is *really* A
> > <-- --> mean communications, --x--> means x occurs in the middle
> > $ can be used to indicate money
> > numerals can be used to indicate particular quantities; 0 means no
> > money
> > F is used to indicate photographs. Fx means photographs of individual
> > x and
> > Fx[A] meas photos of x posed as being of A FxB[A] means the photos are
> > shown by B. Other symbols can be used if indicates at the beginning
> > a symbol *before* an identity means something owned like wB[A] means B
> > posing as A owns w; symbols can be concatenated to the left to
> > indicate accruing of objects, quantitites or acts
> > a symbol *after* an identity means an offered object or statement like
> > B[A]f means B posing as A offers f
> > The world is assumed to be on the right side, so identities are
> > composed to the right: B[A][B] means B impersonated A and
> > reimpersonated himself.
> > a minus sign means the statement is negative, false, a debt or that
> > the identity is burned or criminal
> > = can be used to simplify terms like (B, G, L) = M now M is (B, G, L)
> > = 1 mens is true
> > = 0 means is false
> > =/= means is different
> > && means logical and
> > || means logical or
> > ~ is used to negate a statement; equivalent to minus but only for the
> > current statement
Substitute A[B] for A[(B)] as I`ve not posed as B
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > All statements are supposed to be true
> > Numerals can be used to separate time episodes.
> > This is what happened as far as I can reconstruct facts. I published
> > f
> > in G as A, my identity. B takes f and presents himself to W as B[A]
> > and gets some rewards, particularly he is sent to S, where he appears
> > as B[A] and gets other rewards.
> > Then I send f to W as A, but I appear suspicious, because B[A]
> > already
> > told people that I am A[B]. So I am collecting punishments instead of
> > rewards because I should have appeared as B, though then I lose f.
> > At the same time A gets burned because of P associated to B.
> > A then sends f to U as A. But identity A is already burned. In U
> > there
> > are two groups, U1, who know who is A, and U2, who doesn`t know who
> > is
> > A. P then convinces both groups that A should appear as A[Ni], where
> > Ni is a *new* identity, because that is the way to help A.
> > To U1 it is clear who is A and who is B and gives rewards for Ni
> > because of f, but A can`t take them because A is still A[A]=A. B gets
> > the rewards because he knows each Ni and the same happens to U2. Both
> > lose f but B gets rewards and A gets nothing
> > For U2 P (associated to B) presents A as A[Ni] different identities.
> > They give rewards to A[Ni] which againg are taken by B, but U2 can`t
> > recognize A. U1 can recognize A, but won`t accept him because now A
> > must be A[B].
> > W recognizes now that B[A] is false and wants A[B] to be true. So now
> > B[A] confesses to be B[B]=B in W. To S he is still B[A] and A is
> > A[B].
> > S can`t accept the mistake but they realize they want A[B]. But A is
> > still A[A]=A and trying to prove it.
> > P is still burning A by adding A{a1, a2, a3, a4,...} characteristics.
> > At the same time F believes A[B]. F plays with A[B] and B[A] being
> > false or true. But P knows who is A and who is B. Depending on the
> > acts of A, they want either A[A] or A[B]. Meanwhile B is enjoying the
> > rewards for A, for B and for Ni.
> > A cannot become A[B] because F can give a punishment, so A remains
> > A[A]=A.
> > The problem is that P is associated to B from the beginning and plays
> > B[A], C[A], D[A], etc., while at the same time using this x[A] and
> > A{a1, a2, a3,...} *AND* Fx[A] convinces W and F that A deserves
> > punishment, which is the goal of B. Only S has realized that wants
> > A[B] instead of B[A].
> > If A plays A[B] gets punishment from F. If he plays A[A]=A gets
> > punishment from P. But he needs to play A[B] with S. There is a
> > contradiction that can be solved unless F realizes that x[A] is
> > false,
> > A{a1, a2, a3,...} are false and Fx[A] =/= Fa[A]. Then A can play A[B]
> > for W and for S, while B[A] can take the place of A for P. F must
> > realize the falseness of the last statements so that A can assume the
> > identity expected from him to reach S witoht losing f.
> > The proof consists in that the simmetry is broken. A is left with
> > nothing, while B got everything. The reasons are the identity thefts
> > of A.
This can be taken to a reductio ad absurdum.
Reply
Newsgroups: harvard.general,sci.skeptic,soc.culture.italian,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.british
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Nov 2004 14:35:02 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 22 2004 2:35 pm
Subject: The Guilt of Atonement, discussion with Werner Kurator
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
From Guilt of Atonement in alt.messianic
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> > ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
> > Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
> > <768f7623.0410300950.22e67...@posting.google.com> message-id
> > on 2004-10-30 to announce the following statement:
> > > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> > >> ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
> > >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
> > >> <768f7623.0410251430.1aeae...@posting.google.com> message-id
> > >> on 2004-10-25
> > >> to announce the following statement:
> > >> > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> > >> >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
> > >> >> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
> > >> >> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
> > >> >> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
> > >> >> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
> (snip)
> > >> >> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
> > >> >> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
> > >> >> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
> > >> >> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
> > >> >> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
> > >> >> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
> > >> >> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
> > >> > But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
> > >> You should write *some* doctrine says Jesus IS God.
> > >> There are plenty of passages in the bible that show:
> > >> * Jesus *prayed* spending night's praying to God,
> > >> * Jesus had his own *will* but decided to *follow* God's direction,
> > >> * Jesus had *not* the authority to decide who would be sitting next to him,
> > >> * Jesus did *not* *know* at what time he shall return,
> > >> Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up
> > >> into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was
> > >> there alone.
> > >> Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
> > >> prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
> > >> me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
> > >> Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
> > >> saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
> > >> why hast thou forsaken me?
> > >> (if God and Jesus were inseparable how could God *separate*, *leave*
> > >> *himself* *alone* in that moment?)
> > > Of course.
> > >> Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
> > >> and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit
> > >> on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be
> > >> given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
> > >> Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
> > >> angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
> > >> Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
> > >> none good but one, that is, God. 40 But to sit on my right hand and
> > >> on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
> > >> whom it is prepared.
> > >> Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
> > >> Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
> > >> Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a
> > >> mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
> > >> Luke 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
> > >> Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
> > >> were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
> > >> am?
> > >> Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain
> > >> place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach
> > >> us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
> > >> 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
> > >> men, the man Christ Jesus;
> > > The essence of Christianism(s)
> > YES :-)
> > >> 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the
> > >> resurrection of the dead.
> > >> Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
> > >> so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
> > >> Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that
> > >> through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
> > >> Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
> > >> the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
> > >> he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
> > >> the dead.
> > >> John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
> > >> my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
> > >> the Father which hath sent me.
> > >>
> > >> Even the verse "I and the father are one", can also mean _one_ as in
> > >> _united_ in purpose, desire and will.
> > >> > Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus.
> > >> Please speak for yourself _I_ don't deify Jesus. He was and will be
> > >> forever a man, a Son of God just like Adam was/is a Son of God, as a
> > >> matter of fact just like _all_ will be sons/daughters of God. :-)
> > >> This includes you and me.
> > > Whoever prays to Jesus directly and not as a mediator is deifying.
> > Well *I* never *pray* to *Jesus*
> > > (Are you serious about the _forever_ a man? Or just a figure of
> > Meaning as a eternal human being yes. He was a human when he walked
> > the earth, and he remained human. God did not feel shameful after he
> > created Adam and Eve as humans.
> > Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
> > behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning
> > were the sixth day.
> > Of course we should not make the *mistake* to compare *sinful*
> > *fallen* man with Jesus. Jesus can be found seeking the guidance of
> > his Father, trough prayer in many passages of the NT.
> > > speech? Because if he _is_ dead, there is no way to pray to him or to
> > > ask him to mediate, but in the sense that he gave instructions as to
> > > how to relate to God. Christianism would be nothing more than a school
> > > in Judaism, understanding Judaism as being in essence the belief in a
> > > single God [vs paganism, which would be the belief in multiple gods
> > > and/or intermediate figures, like the Virgen Maria of the Mexicans].).
> > >> > And sinless means perfect, so he was born perfect.
> > >> What do you mean by "perfect"? I have my own _definition_ too.
> > >> > We cannot put them on the same level. Mahoma was a prophet, not God
> > >> > incarnated. He was channeling if you like, not Being.
> > >> I have not written that, go back an re-read my statement.
> > > A slight ambiguity in your statement.
> > Language can still lead to misunderstandings, sorry
> > >> >> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
> > >> >> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
> > >> >> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
> > >> >> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
> > >> >> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
> > >> >> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
> > >> >> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
> > >> >> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
> > >> >> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
> > >> >> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
> > >> >> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
> > >> >> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
> > >> >> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
> > >> >> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
> What part did you answered?
> > >> >> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
> > >> >> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
> > >> >> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
> > >> >> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
> > >> >> against the wife of his youth.
> > >> > So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
> > >> > an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
> > >> > that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
> > >> > eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
> > >> > being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
> > >> > perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
> > >> > whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
> > >> > and become more like animals than like gods.
> > >> This is a interesting statement :-) You seem to leave out one
> > >> important part: Man has to make _conscious_ effort to know God, seek
> > >> God in prayer etc. etc.
> > > Read `Alive and Human` in my posts. The in between lines message is
> > > that we have to make conscious efforts.
> > Agree again :-)
> > >But I haven`t had time to develop the argument 8)
> > >> >> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the
> > >> >> > last days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why
> > >> >> > Jesus didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we
> > >> >> > have the relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really*
> > >> >> > sacrificed? It
> > >> >> If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
> > >> >> and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then
> > >> >> we can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a
> > >> >> sacrifice if God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with
> > >> >> Jesus, then just to find 12 guys who would spread a message about a
> > >> >> risen "Christ".
> > >> > If he suffered and died, that surge of pain and emotions was a
> > >> > sacrifice.
> > >> If I look at his _resurrection_ and how he was able to walk trough
> > >> walls,
> Jesus as David Copperfield! (a joke, sorry)
> > >> then I see a Jesus who got a body back that was almost as
> > >> *powerful* as that of *Superman* Jesus left this earth without a
> > >> _space suit_ if one takes his ascension as a literal event.
> > > Whatever the ways, if literal, then it must be possible. But he didn`t
> > > got a body back, more like the body got a conscience back. Though at
> > > this point this makes me think of anafylactic shock...
> > >> >The rest of your idea needs some elaboration.
> > >> Yes it sure does :-)
> > >> > What did they wanted to achieve?
> > >> Ever heard the term "the *Kingdom* of God on *earth*? :-)
> > > That`s a political statement.
> > So when the Angel told Mary:
> > Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the
> > Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto
> > him the throne of his father David:
> > Was this some idle words?
> > > Why he didn`t grab the opportunity in front of Herodes to become
> > > King of the Jews?
> > Are you serious? Do you think Herodes would have stepped down, and let
> > another person take his place? We remember how the predecessor of
> > Herodes *reacted* when he heard a new king was born.
> > Jesus at that time was considered mostly as a miracle worker, maybe as
> > prophet, but most certainly not as the Messiah, regardless if the
> > Messiah may be understood in religious, or political terms.
> > There were only 12 (11 if we discount Judas Iscariot) who believed
> > that Jesus was the Messiah who was to establish the kingdom.
> > Jesus spoke also that he "kingdom will be *taken* *away* from *you*
> > indicating the Jews hat it in their *hands* but let it *slip* trough
> > their fingers.
> > The 12 clearly expected Jesus to build a *earthly* kingdom:
> > Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of
> > him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the
> > kingdom to Israel?
> > > It also speaks against the Leibnitz idea of `the
> > > best possible world`. Best in the sense that it is the *only*one*
> > > given current constraints (ideological), but not the *BEST* in that
> > > changing constraints can lead to a much better world in terms of...
> > > you name your variables. I see it as an optimizing problem
> > > (economics as background). That`s what can be partially achieved by
> > > following the Golden Rule, partially in that the GR is incomplete
> > > (read my threads about it). The Kingdom of God, in a realistic way,
> > > would be the point of bliss of economics (see my posts in sci.econ
> > > about the welfare function; basically, we cannot agree on a
> > > defiinition of general welfare, but we can optimize behaviour to
> > > satisfy families of definitions of welfare to achieve an
> > > attainablepoint of bliss).
> > >> That was Jesu's prime goal and desire that the Jewish people (his own)
> > >> would accept him as the Messiah.
> > >> Jesus preached "the kingdom of God is at hand" this was his message
> > >> when he started his mission.
> > > Except he was wrong. He needed mass communication (JC Superstar!),
> > What he needed was the fulfillment of the prophecy as can be found in:
> > Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before
> > the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
> Prophecies are an important manipulation tool.
> > > to make all people adopt his rule simultaneously; global behavior
> > > generated by individual behaviour. He was overoptimistic.
> > >> Only later at the end of his ministry he told them "The kingdom will
> > >> be taken away from you and given another nation" clearly implying that
> > >> the Jews had it in their hands.
> > > Too provincial a view...
> > Well if Jesus would have accepted as a King in Jerusalem, then this
> > kingdom would surely have spread further, as we can see many passages
> > in the OT how foreigners would come to Jerusalem accepting the Lord.
> > >> (We find some hints how the Kingdom might look in some of the
> > >> prophecies in the OT, as well as in Revelation, this post is getting
> > >> long)
> > >> > Why then it can really be seen as a sacrifice? The point of this
> > >> > article is to argument that the sacrifice of a messiah (or divine
> > >> > teacher) is pointless for the message remains incomplete and leaves
> > >> > the world in an inconsistent state, that is filled out, in this
> > >> > case, with a doctrine that expresses the common guilt of being
> > >> > guilty of a useless sacrifice, instead of a church that promotes the
> > >> > positive contributio of the message received.
> > >> The sacrifice of Jesus was not *entirely* useless, it still opened
> > >> the way to salvation, for those who believed in the risen Christ.
> > >> The Cross was one of two possibilities God and Jesus faced:
> > > Can`t agree on the idea of innate disgrace. He spoke about KofG on
> > Sorry I can't understand what you mean by innate disgrace.
> > > Earth, not after death. Christianism to satisfy fear of death.
> > I don't fear death :-)
> > but hopefully I understand this better after you clarified innate
> > disgrace.
> The original sin is eating from the tree of knowledge, acquiring
> knowledge of good and evil. That is one of the differences between
> humans and irrational beings. When we learned that distinction we were
> no longer subjected to trial and error payed with life or death, ie,
> God`s will without self determination, because we can make hypothesis,
> make decisions, choose evil over death and comit mistakes without
> losing life, or void comiting mistakes by thinking in advance. That is
> a lot of work. Read my last threads Mastermind and Sterens, knowledge
> revealed for more about this. So the idea of original sin is actually
> our becoming conscious. Then our work is to become gods, use that
> conscience to give the next step. The kingdom of God was precisely
> giving that step to achieve a higer state, what I am calling
> Mastermind, though there may be obstacles, like the devils the Bible
> speaks about...
> > >> If there was _widespread_ believe in Jesus as the Messiah, that he
> > >> truly came to fulfill God's promise then there would have not been a
> > >> Cross and sacrifice.
> > >> If on the other hand Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah (there was
> > >> also not a "Elijah" who was to come, or at least the person that
> > >> Jesus designated as "Elijah" did deny he was the prophet) then he
> > >> would have been rejected by the Jews (as he was in fact) as a
> > >> Messianic _impostor_ .
> > > Or too much stubborness in trying to fulfill a prophecy *literally*.
> > For what is Jesus coming *back*?
> Jesus coming back sounds like he is someplace else, in the universe,
> (not on Earth, as he would not be coming `back`, he would be here), so
> he has a means of interplanetary travel (or he is in another reality,
> which is almost the same). Or it may mean that there will be another
> man like him. In any case the coming back is to turn this world (which
> is rather chaotic now), into something better, a paradise.
> I wonder if the Church would recognize a new Messiah or Christ coming
> back. They may act viciously sacrificing him again.
> > BTW have you ever though about what would have happened if Adam and Eve
> > had *not* sinned?
> We would be animals without reason, or maye our reason would be
> something else.
> > Billy Graham in his "peace with God is one of the few who address this
> > point:" (page 24) Adam and Eve were supposed to become through divine
> > grace the royal couple on earth. And then: There would no need to send
> > Jesus to the earth.
> > Josh McDowell in his book "more than a carpenter" wrote on page 110:
> > "Yet the most exciting thing about Jesus Christ is that he came to change
> > lives....and he alone can fulfill the greatest prophecy of all for those who
> > WILL ACCEPT it, the promise of new life: Ez. 36:25-27, and 2.Corinth. 5:17"
> > >> >> > may very well be that actually he WAS sacrificed, and the man who
> > >> >> > posed as Christ was not Jesus at all, after the crucifixion, but the
> > >> >> > very traitor, Judas. Some support to this interpretation is given by
> > >> >> > the diaspora the apostles suffered afterwards. Pedro went to Rome, to
> > >> >> > the seat of power, while the rest of the apostles went to other
> > >> >> > colonies to spread the message. Judas? Dead, supposedly. But, did
> > >> >> > Jesus actually revealed the secret of "thou art gods"? Was that the
> > >> >> > final "sin" Jesus commited against judaism, threatening to turn all
> > >> >> > into gods when priestly power was derived from being intermediaries
> > >> >> > between men and... God? NO priest ever boasted of being in touch with
> > >> >> > God, save Moses. Yet the mention of angels and other personalities in
> > >> >> > a divine hierarchy is very common. Was that then the real reason which
> > >> >> > led to the sacrifice of Jesus? Was he in touch with other beings,
> > >> >> A lot simpler solution to your question can be offered, Jesus was
> > >> >> rejected as _messianic_ impostor! To the Jews there was no Elijah and
> > >> >> the one person who could have been the promised Elijah denied being
> > >> >> it.
> > > Not simple. There are the statements about the resurrections and the
> > > questions it poses to a reasonably logic mind (God as Logos, we are
> > > His image, after all).
> > >> >> Any "Messiah" faces this problem, in order to accepted by the Jews, a
> > >> >> Elijah must come first.
> Thisis prophecy manipulation. The Jews may never accept a messiah
> because there was no Elijah. They expect the prophecy to be fulfilled
> to the letter, and then they will oppose ANY other messiah that comes
> IF he is not preceded by a Messiah. It would be a very good ploy by
> the Enemy to fight messiahs by principle on the part of humans.
> > >> > But it is accepted he was doing miracles and had contact with ancient
> > >> > beings (like Satan, Emperor of this world) and was born amid signs.
> > >> In regards to Satan: Satan came to Jesus into the desert, to tempt
> > >> Jesus, this alone would be a sure give away that Jesus could not be
> > >> God the _creator_.
> > > Exactly.
> > Glad we agree again :-)
> > >> Yes he met with _Moses_ and _Elijah_ on the Mt. of Transfiguration,
> > >> that only shows that humans live for eternity with a spirit body.
> > > Problematic...
> > Yes as can't be proved do you mean this? I am sure this whole world
> > would be totally different if every person did know the reality of
> > life after death. Just to trow in one term:
> > NDE Near Death Experience
> NDE may be explained by the sudden lack of energy and the
> disorganization of neuronal impulses, experenced as white noise,
> though after regaining conscience the mind will try to make sense of
> the experience. You can see something similar happening when you turn
> off the TV in old models black and white.
> The hypothesis you advance is that Enoch and Moses came back from
> another reality, the one after death. But it may as well be possible
> that they came from this same _universe_, alive, instead of coming
> from another Universe (equivalent to another reality).
> > >> As to what did the people believed Jesus to be: certainly not the
> > >> Messiah, sure they considered him to be various different persons:
> > >> Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
> > >> were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
> > >> am? 19 They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias;
> > >> and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. 20 He
> > >> said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The
> > >> Christ of God.
> > >> Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he
> > >> asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
> > >> 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some,
> > >> Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
> > >> Mark 8:27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of
> > >> Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto
> > >> them, Whom do men say that I am?
> > >> 28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and
> > >> others, One of the prophets.
> > >> There was *NO* widespread believe that Jesus was the Messiah, yeah as
> > >> a miracle worker he might have been accepted as Messiah only by the
> > >> twelve.
> > > Any Archetype can have different forms of expression. The error is to
> > > wanall archetype expressions to be _identical_.
> > >> > The error of the Jews was then to not accept him as messiah.
> > >> That is my point.
> > > The point that motivated this thread: it was an error, and doctrines
> > > reflect the guilt of that error.
> > If you mean that at one time the Jews and then another time the Roman
> > are to be blamed, and that we should not accept a doctrine of accusing
> > the Jews for killing Christ?
> > You *are* certainly *right*, after all the Jews IMHO lost the *most*
> > opportunity to be the *head* of the *nations* God's *salvation* of all
> > the earth would have come trough his *chosen* nation.
> > Who knows the two of us would carry this conversation on in Aramaic?
> > *I* certainly had no problem, with that thought.
> That means the jews lost the opportunity to turn Earth into Paradise
> by paying heed to Jesus words.
> > >> > Besides he had Juan. And very probably he was impersonated and
> > >> > sacrificed for being perfect (a threat to the World Emperor,
> > >> > Satan?). Indeed, I may even guess there were several impersonations,
> > >> > from the children sacrificed to hide him (why did they stopped
> > >> > looking? They though they killed him), to maybe the guy who made a
> > >> > mess in the Temple (very unlike for a character like the one
> > >> > inferred from his teachings),
> > >> I think at that Jesus had not other options, as to go to the cross,
> > >> and so he had to create a situation in which he would be accused "say
> > >> for disturbing the peace". He had to give his enemies a real reason to
> > >> accuse him. Jesus know that in order to give salvation he had to die.
> > > To me that is madness. Contradicts the last words.
> > Jesus death surely is madness.
> > I found a interesting post some time ago, this explanation fascinates
> > me:
> > From: Bill Sherman (73207.3...@CompuServe.COM)
> > Subject: All powerful God...
> > Date: 1996/06/16
> > Message-ID: <4q2h7g$...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu>#1/1
> > sender: hedr...@heidelberg.rutgers.edu
> > Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
> > Date: 1996/06/16
> > In my struggle to find answers to why an all powerful/ knowing/ loving God
> > permits terrible trajedies to happen to people, my minister suggested that
> > I read a book called "The Will of God" by Leslie Weatherhead. This book
> > helps provide some answers although it fails to answer the most troubling
> > trajedies.
> > The author suggests there are three parts to God's will: intentional will,
> > circumstantial will, and ultimate will. God's intentional will is His ideal
> > plan for each of us. God's circumstantial will is that the laws of nature
> > apply, even though people may get hurt. For example, gravity always acts
> > the same, even though falling objects can hurt people. God's ultimate will
> > is the final realization of God's plan - which cannot be prevented by
> > man's actions. The author suggests that God's omnipotence means that He
> > will reach His ultimate goal regardless of man's actions.
> > The author suggests that God's intentional will for Christ was that people
> > follow Him and accept Him as God's Son. God's circumstantial will was that
> > Christ must die on the cross as caused by man's evil ways, i.e. in those
> > "circumstances" it was God's will that Christ die at the hands of men. But
> > despite man's actions, God's ultimate will was not prevented, i.e. man's
> > salvation thru Christ.
> > He also points out that if disease and suffering were God's will, then
> > working to stop disease and suffering would be working to oppose God's
> > will. Rather, it makes more sense that such things are contrary to His
> > will but that He uses people to work against them.
> >
> But at the same time it means God has no real control over the
> universe but has to let it work by itself. It is difficult to accept
> the existenceof three wills, as we don`t have three wills at all and
> that contradicts the postulate of being created to his image. It
> soumore like a play of concepts and words. Gd may be as omnipotente
> about the universe as we are with respect to our bodies.
> > >> > to the man who was before Pilatos, to the man who was actually
> > >> > sacrificed (maybe the same two), to the man that appeared
> > >> > resurrected (he was not recognized right away)... Maybe the real
> > >> > Jesus was the man who was hanged and thought to be Judas, while
> > >> > Judas assumed Jesus person and went to India to spend the fortune he
> > >> > go in silver (was it ever recovered? looks like an important
> > >> > ommision in the Gospels)...
> > >> In one account Judas throws the coins in front of the Priests
> > >> Matthew 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him,
> > >> when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself,
> > >> and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the
> > >> chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in
> > >> that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they
> > >> said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And
> > >> he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
> > >> and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And
> > >> the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said,
> > >> It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury,
> > >> because it is the price of blood.
> > >> So you don't believe that Judas hanged himself after he betrayed Jesus?
> > >> in Acts we find that Judas was still alive and bought himself a field:
> > >> Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the
> > >> midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of
> > >> names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
> > >> 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs
> > >> have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the
> > >> mouth of David spake before concerning Judas,
> > >> which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For
> > >> he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of
> > >> this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field
> > >> with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong,
> > >> he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
> > >> gushed out.
> > > Very interesting discrepancy... Discrepancies usually point toward
> > > secrets, something hidden (gossip, browhaha).
> > Yes what saddens me is that so many good people turn away from
> > Christianity because they find so many *contradictions* in a
> > *infallible* Bible.
> > I don't belong to that *club* to me there is much more to Jesus than
> > we can find in the Bible.
> > >> > > (Who were Krishna`s and Budha`s Elijahs?)
> > >> ???
> > > !?
> > > Idea of Messiah too influenced by Judaism. We now have a more ample
> > > idea of what a Messiah is... I prefer the notion of theArchetype of a
> > > Messiah. It would prevent us from commiting th same mistake and
> > > sacrifing Messiahs (individuals whose inherent essence conforms to
> > > that archetype), as the normal way to act regarding a Messiah. The
> > > other point of this thread... (haven`t finish it yet).
> > > (8)>
> A more ample notion means that we are ready to recognize a new
> messiah, which occurrence maybe periodical if we cnosider messiahs as
> geniuses, and prevent us from sacrificing them?
Reply
Overpopulation, the Euthanasia/Suicide option?
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 22, 2:27 pm show options
Newsgroups: harvard.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Nov 2004 14:27:39 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 22 2004 2:27 pm
Subject: Overpopulation, the Euthanasia/Suicide option?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The classical theory of war states that the motives of war are,
invariably, an economic conflict. After negotiation to get control of
scarce resources break down, violent solution follows. One party (wars
always degenerate to two parties plus an [optional] background of
neutrality) tries to get hold of liebensraum, vital space, and secure
the scarce resources, either by appropriation (conquest) or by defense
(protection, or alternatively active defense, ie, attack). Once one
party defeats the other one, resources are distributed according to
the winning party needs (and the Maquiavelian dilemma of neutrality
follows), though the economic relations change not only by the new
political distribution of forces by the new ratios toward population.
As resources can be considered relatively fixed (inelastic supply)
compared to the constant change of population (right displacement of
demand schedules), it is obvious that scarcity ends up showing itself
unless contrarrested by technological advances and productivity. Yet
basic resources are still an issue since they can`t grow accordingly.
It follows then that the economic motive has as an underlying force
population growth. Unless stabilized population pressure will
eventually put stresses on the economic system that will be resolved
catastrophically, ie, by a sudden discontinuous change in the state of
the system after continuous changes in the system. This discret change
is the passage from peace to war, caused by the continuous growth of
population.
Yet this abstract scheme is modified by the irregularity of geography,
more exactly, by the relation between trasportation (mobility) and
geography. In a perfectly homogeneous world population groups (which
can be imagined as a constantly expanding series of increasingly dense
spheres), would lead of a distribution of populatio according to a
voronoi tesselation (like bee cells), where borders would expand and
contract at the same time as the populatio decreases insity due to the
conflict in the borders caused by the constant pressure. This change
would lead to periodical conflicts that would be predicted according
to the relation of the cells centers and the growth rates of the
populatio density. In other words, wars would be a periodic constant
unless populations stabilize so that pressure in the borders remains
constant.
But in an irregular world where transportation and geographical
barriers lead to partial isolation, populations can grow beyond the
critical mass that would trigger border wars. Frontiers compound the
problem, as the habitability of zones does two. From a purely
biological point of view, this partial isolation leads also to the
constant mixing of the genetic traits of the population. Plateaus of
variation can be reached by population, particularly if growth rates
are not controlled and stabilized. This generates pressures toward the
interior of the populations borders, which, due to the irregularity of
the geography cannot be `easily` alleviated by conflicting with
neighbors for liebensraum. This inner conflicts have an expression in
the economic performance of that population (which can be equated with
a country), such as unemployment, inflation and low wages if not
contrarrested by increased efficiency due to technology and science
(here Reason reveals both as the saving resource and the trigger of
the conflict). But the pressure can find other ways of expression,
such as social discontent, dictatorships, repression.
It is at this point where the original economic motive can be
superseded by the more biologically oriented one of giving way to the
population density pressure. It is this new motive which can lead to
trigger wars despite the geographical barriers, not with the intent of
acquiring more liebensraum (difficult in an already overpopulated, ie,
more or less densely populated world), but to alleviate the sheer
pressure of a contained population. Here it doesn`t matter to win or
lose, what matters is to reduce population, or in other words, to
comit suicide. And in case of confronting a major power, it is
equivalent to ask for euthanasia, at the level of a popluatio/country.
This motive, besides the gain produced by the decrease in population,
also has the `advantage` of increasing the variation in the population
by a careful selection of the individuals (conscription) who will take
part in the conflict. War can be a population policy, with the
additional benefit of allowing after the conflict a restructuration of
economic relations (and powe relations). A system nearing this
breaking point may experience, as a result, movements oriented to the
maintainance of peace or of an spiritual content or non violent
content.
The conclusion is that an unwanted result of overpopulation and the
lack of success in population control measures can lead to wars even
if the economic and population system of the world as a whole is at
equilibrium or relatioships with immediate (thoughnot adjacent
neighbors) are also in equilibrium. Unfortunately this motives can be
exploited by politicians to generate an escape solution to the
overpopulation population, though on a more basic level this motive
can also be the expression of basic biological needs impinging on the
individual, akin to the lemmings need of population suicide. It is at
this level that this `solution` can force wars even if the individuals
are not really aware of the real motives, or as to say, the collective
pressure exercises pressure on decision makers to adopt a conflict
exit to the overpopulation problem. Overpopulation and dense
populatioby themselves can trigger wars.
The `pacific` or rational solution is to realize the existence of this
underlying forces, eithto prevent them by using them as a driving
force to exerise better populatio growth policies, or, in the extreme,
desperate case, to engage in ritually controlled, carefully planned
`pruning` conflicts in order to stabilize the pressures that might
destabilize the whhle world system. The more technology and science
and the best effort of the best minds is oriented to find solutions to
overpopulation and population growth policies, the more easily will be
to avoid this unnecessary conflicts, even if measures may eventually
lead to conflict with the individual`s right to decide reproduction.
Salvation of lives and possibly the whole species goes through
Science, Technology and their rational appication of it to the
solution of mankind`s problems, before extreme measures such as
euthanasia wars take place.
Reply
The theory of Conspiration theory: Biblical prophecies
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 17, 5:33 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.new-zealand,soc.culture.french,soc.culture.albanian
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 05:33:05 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 5:33 am
Subject: Re: The theory of Conspiration theory: Biblical prophecies
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
As an example of the power prophecies, we can examine the Biblical
prophecies. The two messiah prophecies in the Bible are
self-defeating. The power of prophecies comes from fact that they are
expected to be fulfilled exactly. Once the pattern of a prophecy is
recognized in life, two dynamics begin manifesting. On one hand, facts
are matched to the prophecy and the prophecy is denied the moment
facts deviate; on the other hand, facts are matched to the prophecy
and *acts* are chosen to fulfill the prophecy. This opposing dynamic
allows a skillful manipulator to either fulfill or deny theprophecy
acording to his will and interests. A prophecy establishes a highly
recursive system with lots of feedback. There is always a point where
the manipulator, as there must be *somebody* assessing the fulfillment
of the prophecy, decides whether facts match close enough the expected
events and either help events fulfill by acting in such way that acts
become necessary, or makes events deviate and become spurious.
In the case of the messiah prophecies, the Jews` prophecy requires
very special conditions to be met. It was this special conditios being
unfulfilled what determined the end of Jesus and his denial as the Jew
Messiah. In that historical period it didn`t serve the political
powers to recognize Jesus as the messiah, as the Elijah condition was
not met by the person who would play that role. It is this condition
what defeats this prophecy, as it is contingent on the appearance of a
messiah figure with the necessary characteristics (mainly, be jew) and
the preceding figure. This acts as a multiplication of probabilities,
making the probability small enough that it can be negligible. It
also introduces two degrees of liberty. Either one of the figures can
be denied or accepted according to the current needs of the assessing
figures, in this case the Elders of Israel.
In the case of the Catholic second coming, the selfdefeating
characteristic is the triggering of Armaggedon (as I discussed partly
in the thread Guilt of Atonement). The recognition of a new messiah is
conditioned by the willingness to accept a state of war. Either an
adequate figure will not ne recognized without an Armaggedon occuring,
or it will be denied for fear of Armageddon.
For both prophecies the selfdefeating characteristics allow both
churches to keep an indefinite wait, though in the case of the
Catholic Church it also gives the incentive to *actively* oppose any
messianic figure under the reasoning that it would trigger Armaggedon
and signal the end of times. Tihs prophecy can be seen as more
elaborate and more successful than the Jew as it gives the Church a
guide to act and permission to _destroy_ any messianic figure which
could threaten the predominance of the Church. Since this prophecy
announces a total end and no further future for the Church, it is very
improbable that the Catholic Church will accept a new messianic
figure, which would automatically assume the characteristics of an
enemy and be fored to create a new religion, despite its possible
interest in giving continuity to the structure of said Church.
Incidentally, this can be compared to the adage of the ways of the
Enemy (the devil) to be subtle. As it stands, this prophecy serves
more the interests of th devil than of the Church, which has the
assumed function of waiting for he Second Coming... A stratagem and
clever manipulation meant to defeat the Church and any possible
subsequent messiah? The book of Apocalypse is te last book, added
after the life of Jesus was already a remembrance, and it certainly
stands out even as an anomaly in the Bible. It would be much more
adequate if it belong to the Apocripha than to the Bible. Compared to
the Jewish prophecies it ounds almost holywoodesque and written on a
hurry, not really homogeneous nor incontent nor incope nor in story.
And as a final thought, maybe JesusChrist Superstar, the moovie, is
more than a moovie or a reinterpretation. Maybe it is a modern style
porphecy this 68 moovie, previweing what a modern Messiah would be and
look? Who would deny it?
Such is the power of prophecy...
B*O*N
8S8I8G8
c8 o o 8d
8 ! 8
\ _ /
> w <
N-O-R-E
Search the name of the poster in google groups. `My best threads...`
is kind of an index to defeat the noise. My surname incapitals inthe
ASCII art ( to defeat scripts changing data in the usenet/internet,
after it, it belong to the military).
Visit
ghamac.org
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
ghamac.org/documenti/rondop.mid
ghamac.org/guitar/isabelsdeath.mp3
Reply
End of messages
watch this topic
« Newer - Coolwebsearch menace
alt.messianic > The Guilt of Atonement
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 30, 2:42 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Sep 2004 02:42:46 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 30 2004 2:42 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
`With his blood he washed the sins of this world and saved us`. This
idea of the blood sacrifice to clean the world is at least paradoxic.
In a literal sense blood can clean nothing, on the contrary, by
spilling blood you become unclean. Yet by spilling the blood of an
evil entity this world can indeed feel cleaner in a simbolic sense.
Jesuschrist, despite his sensible message of love, was made to appear
as the biggest criminal of his time and place. He defied the powers of
his epoch in several ways and those powers reacted through the
resource of turning him into a criminal. Indeed, when he threw out the
merchants from the Temple he actually commited a crime, in the modern
meaning of th term;just think what would happen to somebody throwing
out of a church the items in her store: immediate jail. He was also
acused of evading taxes, a very modern (though intemporal) way to turn
somebody into a criminal. His answer is exemplar and uncontestable. He
also comitted a very modern political crime expressed in the mocking
title of King of the Jews. Officially he didn`t belong to government,
yet the power of his message (personality? charisma?), gave him such
relevance that his activities were all expression of power, they
influenced people, though outside from the epoch`s structure of power,
both secular and religious. That made him a threat to actual wielders
of power who, under their impotence to contest him on the same level
(conceptual, of fact), opted to turn him into a criminal.
Was he acused of being a murderer? Other crimes? It is not written,
but the way the mobs, unthinking, were thrown at him makes me believe
other accusations were also advanced; given that he was already
commanding mobs, and there is no record of battles, he must have been
made to appear as a super criminal, with lots of easily understandable
and offensive charges to appeal to the masses. Charges of a political
nature wouldn`t appeal to the mob, actually would give him more power,
but venial, though grave crimes would offend enough people to the
point of wanting to trade him for a murderer. What kind of a crime
would make people want to set free a murderer to incarcerate another
man? Given the nature of the texts through which we know Jesus` life,
it wouldn`t be useful to enumerate a series of charges, to mention
murder for instance, though it is very likely he was deemed
responsible of many misdemeanors at least. That his trials were so
phony, that the emphasis was in whether he considered himself a
political figure and therefore a man of power (power is usually
allowed to trample on people for the greater good and can go away even
with big crimes without real punishemnt...), makes me think that
accusations were very grave and even embarrasing, so embarrasing to
write down for posterity. Why didn`t his mobs opposed the priest`s
mobs? Why was he denied? Out of fear for personal safety or out of
embarrasment? Why was he not defended by the masses? That he created
havoc we can safely assume, and people in power usually have a
histeric fear to lose it, particularly out of a democracy, so it is
conceivable that the masses were manipulated to see him as a criminal,
despisable from a politically correct point of view, to desacralize
him in order to cancel his message and his ascendant over the people.
We therefore arrive to the paradoxic result of a thinker, for that`s
what Jesus was, turned into such a monster that by spilling his blood
the world would be a better place to live in, a safer place. And with
support of the people, for it is normal and comendable to sacrifice
supercriminals, but not to sacrifice intellectual leaders. This
unfortunate interpretation turned into an article of faith, a human
way to make sense of the senseless sacrifice of a teacer of Humanity.
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> History teaches that after the sacrifice of Jesus the Jewish people
> suffered a diaspora and the Roman Empire lasted just long enough to
> vindicate him, while the next 2000 years period was an age of
> obscurantism and war, very different when compared to the period of
> relative peace that followed the historial period of Krishna in India.
> The Church founded after Jesus established the theory of atonement to
> make sense of that senseless sacrifice, yet it can be easily seen that
> underlying it is the sense of guilt of sacrificing a Messiah, or
> teacher, who was besides very popular and was teaching people how to
> interact peacefully. Jesus must be credited, besides any religious
> achievements, for enunciating the first algorithmic ethic, the Golden
> Rule, which applied by all people consistently and to all acts of life
> has the effect of generating a global state of conviviality from a
> purely local, that is, personal, act. And yet he was sacrificed,
> though even to him it was a surprise for at the crucial moment he
> himself wondered why that was happening. Evidently it was not in his
> plans to be sacrificed or he wouldn`t ask God why He had forsaken
> him... Yet the church makes of that act the basic teaching and even
> the reason of being of Jesus. The fact is that a Messiah brings a
> message and that is the very definition of messianism, to bring a
> message. It makes no sense to sacrifice a Messiah, and after Jesus it
> makes even less sense, for if he truly brought salvation then there is
> no need for another blood cleasing, while it is most likely that
> killing Jesus was a really big mistake. The comparison to the effects
> of Krishna`s trodding upon Earth are astounding. The Hindi need no
> theory of atonement through sacrifice because they respected their
> messiah, even though he was also a warrior; Christians instead are
> dominated by the guilt of that coward sacrifice and made sense of it
> by assigning it a meaning beyond the simple logic that it was a
> tragedy that could be averted and should serve as an example of what
> *not* to do to people who revealed themselves as extraordinary beings
> and teachers. What would have happened if Jesus had led a longer life?
> Maybe he would have pacified the world for the next age and would have
> finally convinced the Jews that he was the messiah they were waiting
> for. And the Golden Rule as it is is incomplete: it says how to deal
> with others but not what to with ourselves. A more complete rule would
> say: do unto others what you would like to be done unto you (you know
> what people likes and wants); don`t do unto others what you don`t like
> to be done unto yourself (you know what you and people usually
> dislike); do unto yourself what you want, but knowing if it is hurting
> you or benefitting you, and assume the consequences.
> It is pity that the ancient world sacrificed a man of the stature of
> Jesus the Christ.
> It is not my intention to discuss the divine nature of Jesuschrist.
> There are several notions of divinity that can be applied even without
> recurring to a deep belief in the existence of God. The point is that
> the sacrifice of Christ was a human affair, and Jesus participated in
> it as a human being, exercising his free will. The fact that he
> anticipated it in no way lends the event the inevitability associated
> to a `planned`, necessary event in the sense that he _had_ to be
> sacrificed, but more in the sense that it was bound to happen, yet the
> attitude of Christ during the whole trial points to an almost
> certainty that things would turn for the better; that certainty allows
> a characteristic peace of mind, particularly when it means confronting
> a situation in the open that had been developing for a while. In fact,
> it does give the impression that Jesus was expecting a `miracle`, not
> the divine meddling in the affairs of Man and Nature but the
> realization of an unlikely situation.
> And yet he was sacrificed. It is important to give sense to the last
> words, `why hast thou forsaken me?` as the expression of a surprise
> that goes beyond a planned and necessary result. Jesus did not expect
> it, he expected to be saved, but at the last moment of realization
> that that wouldn`t happen that phrase appears as the essential grief
> of the unexpected catastrophic an unwarranted and undeserved event
> that was not *really* expected to occur...
> It is this senseless sacrifice from a human point of view that the
> Church elevated to the order of cosmic necessity with a _significance_
> that trascended the obvious fact of an inhuman sacrifice. Jesus is
> even granted the gift of Resurrection, which independently of its
> actual occurrence reflects the desire to compensate, to get some kind
> of justice at least after the fact. This is also a reflect of guilt, a
> guilt that has been shared by all christians ever since the Church
> took form. By proposing the atonement, the Church gives meaning to the
> sacrifice of Jesus and makes more palatable the adoration of a figure
> that from a purely human (humanism) point of view was a big injustice.
> (It is this fundamental guilt that can account too for the
> requirements of chastity, poverty, etc. that are expected from the
> faithful and members of the Church).
> (comment)
> I am not trying to say this is wrong, just present another view. Another
> Christian interpretation is that Jesus had all his life been blessed with an
> awareness of God. When all human sin was ransferred onto him he lost this
> awareness and for the first time felt as other men, and could not feel the
> presence of G-d anymore. This did not mean G-d did not look down and see the
> travail of his soul, that would be against the Prophecy of Isaiah who said
> G-d saw the travail of his soul and was satisfied.
> If he felt the absence then why ask? He was assuming even then a
> dialogue... Whether an answer did arrive or not we don`t know, but in
> fact those where the last words. Was it a rethoric question? Or
> befuddlement for an unexpected outcome? I guess he expected an answer.
> And how do we know that he felt the absence, etc.? It is like the tale
> of the man found dead in his sleep because he was dreaming he fell
> from a window... Even in theological matters Reason is a
> precondition.
Reply
It should be noted that when Christ is asked by Pilatos if he was the
King of the Jews, he was actually given an opportunity to become the
King of Jews, for it was a matter of being presented by Pilatos as the
King to become it. The Romans were the oppressors and had the power to
name officials to the conquered province. Yet Christ was not
interested. It can be argued that as a man of knowledge and spiritual
leader he already was enjoying the personal power of Charisma and
wasn`t interested in becoming a ruler. Yet his answers at that moment
were particularly evasive, noncommittal, like in `don`t accept
nothing, just say they say`. He didn`t really defended himself and
lacked the eloquence he expressed in the rest of his speeches...
Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Why did Judas have to kiss him to
identify him? Apparently Jesus was unknown by the Roman legionaires,
therefore the need to be identified by the traitor. And Jesus *knew*
he was going to be betrayed. These facts have been used to support the
theory of atonement; he was expecting to be betrayed and self
sacrificed to save the human race from the original sin, etc. This
interpretation however doesn`t make sense from a human point of view.
If you expect to be betrayed you take precautions. Unless the betrayal
was arranged and was actually a stage. Given the passions that Jesus
was inspiring it is very strange that his closest disciples accepted
the sacrifice without taking more violent measures and that given the
peril they didn`t have more people protecting them. By then, under
these hypothesis, his reputation must have been very low already. So
it is actually possible that the man the guards took with them was not
really Jesus, but somebody else who took his place.
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> `With his blood he washed the sins of this world and saved us`. This
> idea of the blood sacrifice to clean the world is at least paradoxic.
> In a literal sense blood can clean nothing, on the contrary, by
> spilling blood you become unclean. Yet by spilling the blood of an
> evil entity this world can indeed feel cleaner in a simbolic sense.
> Jesuschrist, despite his sensible message of love, was made to appear
> as the biggest criminal of his time and place. He defied the powers of
> his epoch in several ways and those powers reacted through the
> resource of turning him into a criminal. Indeed, when he threw out the
> merchants from the Temple he actually commited a crime, in the modern
> meaning of th term;just think what would happen to somebody throwing
> out of a church the items in her store: immediate jail. He was also
> acused of evading taxes, a very modern (though intemporal) way to turn
> somebody into a criminal. His answer is exemplar and uncontestable. He
> also comitted a very modern political crime expressed in the mocking
> title of King of the Jews. Officially he didn`t belong to government,
> yet the power of his message (personality? charisma?), gave him such
> relevance that his activities were all expression of power, they
> influenced people, though outside from the epoch`s structure of power,
> both secular and religious. That made him a threat to actual wielders
> of power who, under their impotence to contest him on the same level
> (conceptual, of fact), opted to turn him into a criminal.
> Was he acused of being a murderer? Other crimes? It is not written,
> but the way the mobs, unthinking, were thrown at him makes me believe
> other accusations were also advanced; given that he was already
> commanding mobs, and there is no record of battles, he must have been
> made to appear as a super criminal, with lots of easily understandable
> and offensive charges to appeal to the masses. Charges of a political
> nature wouldn`t appeal to the mob, actually would give him more power,
> but venial, though grave crimes would offend enough people to the
> point of wanting to trade him for a murderer. What kind of a crime
> would make people want to set free a murderer to incarcerate another
> man? Given the nature of the texts through which we know Jesus` life,
> it wouldn`t be useful to enumerate a series of charges, to mention
> murder for instance, though it is very likely he was deemed
> responsible of many misdemeanors at least. That his trials were so
> phony, that the emphasis was in whether he considered himself a
> political figure and therefore a man of power (power is usually
> allowed to trample on people for the greater good and can go away even
> with big crimes without real punishemnt...), makes me think that
> accusations were very grave and even embarrasing, so embarrasing to
> write down for posterity. Why didn`t his mobs opposed the priest`s
> mobs? Why was he denied? Out of fear for personal safety or out of
> embarrasment? Why was he not defended by the masses? That he created
> havoc we can safely assume, and people in power usually have a
> histeric fear to lose it, particularly out of a democracy, so it is
> conceivable that the masses were manipulated to see him as a criminal,
> despisable from a politically correct point of view, to desacralize
> him in order to cancel his message and his ascendant over the people.
> We therefore arrive to the paradoxic result of a thinker, for that`s
> what Jesus was, turned into such a monster that by spilling his blood
> the world would be a better place to live in, a safer place. And with
> support of the people, for it is normal and comendable to sacrifice
> supercriminals, but not to sacrifice intellectual leaders. This
> unfortunate interpretation turned into an article of faith, a human
> way to make sense of the senseless sacrifice of a teacer of Humanity.
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > History teaches that after the sacrifice of Jesus the Jewish people
> > suffered a diaspora and the Roman Empire lasted just long enough to
> > vindicate him, while the next 2000 years period was an age of
> > obscurantism and war, very different when compared to the period of
> > relative peace that followed the historial period of Krishna in India.
> > The Church founded after Jesus established the theory of atonement to
> > make sense of that senseless sacrifice, yet it can be easily seen that
> > underlying it is the sense of guilt of sacrificing a Messiah, or
> > teacher, who was besides very popular and was teaching people how to
> > interact peacefully. Jesus must be credited, besides any religious
> > achievements, for enunciating the first algorithmic ethic, the Golden
> > Rule, which applied by all people consistently and to all acts of life
> > has the effect of generating a global state of conviviality from a
> > purely local, that is, personal, act. And yet he was sacrificed,
> > though even to him it was a surprise for at the crucial moment he
> > himself wondered why that was happening. Evidently it was not in his
> > plans to be sacrificed or he wouldn`t ask God why He had forsaken
> > him... Yet the church makes of that act the basic teaching and even
> > the reason of being of Jesus. The fact is that a Messiah brings a
> > message and that is the very definition of messianism, to bring a
> > message. It makes no sense to sacrifice a Messiah, and after Jesus it
> > makes even less sense, for if he truly brought salvation then there is
> > no need for another blood cleasing, while it is most likely that
> > killing Jesus was a really big mistake. The comparison to the effects
> > of Krishna`s trodding upon Earth are astounding. The Hindi need no
> > theory of atonement through sacrifice because they respected their
> > messiah, even though he was also a warrior; Christians instead are
> > dominated by the guilt of that coward sacrifice and made sense of it
> > by assigning it a meaning beyond the simple logic that it was a
> > tragedy that could be averted and should serve as an example of what
> > *not* to do to people who revealed themselves as extraordinary beings
> > and teachers. What would have happened if Jesus had led a longer life?
> > Maybe he would have pacified the world for the next age and would have
> > finally convinced the Jews that he was the messiah they were waiting
> > for. And the Golden Rule as it is is incomplete: it says how to deal
> > with others but not what to with ourselves. A more complete rule would
> > say: do unto others what you would like to be done unto you (you know
> > what people likes and wants); don`t do unto others what you don`t like
> > to be done unto yourself (you know what you and people usually
> > dislike); do unto yourself what you want, but knowing if it is hurting
> > you or benefitting you, and assume the consequences.
> > It is pity that the ancient world sacrificed a man of the stature of
> > Jesus the Christ.
> > It is not my intention to discuss the divine nature of Jesuschrist.
> > There are several notions of divinity that can be applied even without
> > recurring to a deep belief in the existence of God. The point is that
> > the sacrifice of Christ was a human affair, and Jesus participated in
> > it as a human being, exercising his free will. The fact that he
> > anticipated it in no way lends the event the inevitability associated
> > to a `planned`, necessary event in the sense that he _had_ to be
> > sacrificed, but more in the sense that it was bound to happen, yet the
> > attitude of Christ during the whole trial points to an almost
> > certainty that things would turn for the better; that certainty allows
> > a characteristic peace of mind, particularly when it means confronting
> > a situation in the open that had been developing for a while. In fact,
> > it does give the impression that Jesus was expecting a `miracle`, not
> > the divine meddling in the affairs of Man and Nature but the
> > realization of an unlikely situation.
> > And yet he was sacrificed. It is important to give sense to the last
> > words, `why hast thou forsaken me?` as the expression of a surprise
> > that goes beyond a planned and necessary result. Jesus did not expect
> > it, he expected to be saved, but at the last moment of realization
> > that that wouldn`t happen that phrase appears as the essential grief
> > of the unexpected catastrophic an unwarranted and undeserved event
> > that was not *really* expected to occur...
> > It is this senseless sacrifice from a human point of view that the
> > Church elevated to the order of cosmic necessity with a _significance_
> > that trascended the obvious fact of an inhuman sacrifice. Jesus is
> > even granted the gift of Resurrection, which independently of its
> > actual occurrence reflects the desire to compensate, to get some kind
> > of justice at least after the fact. This is also a reflect of guilt, a
> > guilt that has been shared by all christians ever since the Church
> > took form. By proposing the atonement, the Church gives meaning to the
> > sacrifice of Jesus and makes more palatable the adoration of a figure
> > that from a purely human (humanism) point of view was a big injustice.
> > (It is this fundamental guilt that can account too for the
> > requirements of chastity, poverty, etc. that are expected from the
> > faithful and members of the Church).
> > (comment)
> > I am not trying to say this is wrong, just present another view. Another
> > Christian interpretation is that Jesus had all his life been blessed with an
> > awareness of God. When all human sin was ransferred onto him he lost this
> > awareness and for the first time felt as other men, and could not feel the
> > presence of G-d anymore. This did not mean G-d did not look down and see the
> > travail of his soul, that would be against the Prophecy of Isaiah who said
> > G-d saw the travail of his soul and was satisfied.
> > If he felt the absence then why ask? He was assuming even then a
> > dialogue... Whether an answer did arrive or not we don`t know, but in
> > fact those where the last words. Was it a rethoric question? Or
> > befuddlement for an unexpected outcome? I guess he expected an answer.
> > And how do we know that he felt the absence, etc.? It is like the tale
> > of the man found dead in his sleep because he was dreaming he fell
> > from a window... Even in theological matters Reason is a
> > precondition.
Reply
Google Home - Google Labs - Services & Tools - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Jobs, Press, & Help
Franklin: All I can say at the moment, without dragging out the Bible and
ticking off the Scriptures is he did say, My kingdom is not of this world.
From a Political, not military, standpoint the refusal to answer and the
becoming a martyer is excellent strategy. It is even a better strategy if
you then return from the dead and ascend into heaven. Especially when the
main emphasis of your teaching is you are going to defeat Death, Hell, and
the Grave and make a way to be resurrected and to become immortal for your
followers. It has been said of social scientist no person has ever made as
many changes in human society that were positive as did Jesus, or actually
his loyal followers.
The kiss was necessary because there had to be an accuser. Judas acted as
the accuser of Jesus. Also, though the Temple guards were there, and many
would have known Jesus who stood guard during regular "business hours" but
this the "night shift" would not necessarily have done so.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message
...
> > `With his blood he washed the sins of this world and saved us`. This
> > idea of the blood sacrifice to clean the world is at least paradoxic.
> > In a literal sense blood can clean nothing, on the contrary, by
> > spilling blood you become unclean. Yet by spilling the blood of an
> > evil entity this world can indeed feel cleaner in a simbolic sense.
> > Jesuschrist, despite his sensible message of love, was made to appear
> > as the biggest criminal of his time and place. He defied the powers of
> > his epoch in several ways and those powers reacted through the
> > resource of turning him into a criminal. Indeed, when he threw out the
> > merchants from the Temple he actually commited a crime, in the modern
> > meaning of th term;just think what would happen to somebody throwing
> > out of a church the items in her store: immediate jail. He was also
> > acused of evading taxes, a very modern (though intemporal) way to turn
> > somebody into a criminal. His answer is exemplar and uncontestable. He
> > also comitted a very modern political crime expressed in the mocking
> > title of King of the Jews. Officially he didn`t belong to government,
> > yet the power of his message (personality? charisma?), gave him such
> > relevance that his activities were all expression of power, they
> > influenced people, though outside from the epoch`s structure of power,
> > both secular and religious. That made him a threat to actual wielders
> > of power who, under their impotence to contest him on the same level
> > (conceptual, of fact), opted to turn him into a criminal.
> > Was he acused of being a murderer? Other crimes? It is not written,
> > but the way the mobs, unthinking, were thrown at him makes me believe
> > other accusations were also advanced; given that he was already
> > commanding mobs, and there is no record of battles, he must have been
> > made to appear as a super criminal, with lots of easily understandable
> > and offensive charges to appeal to the masses. Charges of a political
> > nature wouldn`t appeal to the mob, actually would give him more power,
> > but venial, though grave crimes would offend enough people to the
> > point of wanting to trade him for a murderer. What kind of a crime
> > would make people want to set free a murderer to incarcerate another
> > man? Given the nature of the texts through which we know Jesus` life,
> > it wouldn`t be useful to enumerate a series of charges, to mention
> > murder for instance, though it is very likely he was deemed
> > responsible of many misdemeanors at least. That his trials were so
> > phony, that the emphasis was in whether he considered himself a
> > political figure and therefore a man of power (power is usually
> > allowed to trample on people for the greater good and can go away even
> > with big crimes without real punishemnt...), makes me think that
> > accusations were very grave and even embarrasing, so embarrasing to
> > write down for posterity. Why didn`t his mobs opposed the priest`s
> > mobs? Why was he denied? Out of fear for personal safety or out of
> > embarrasment? Why was he not defended by the masses? That he created
> > havoc we can safely assume, and people in power usually have a
> > histeric fear to lose it, particularly out of a democracy, so it is
> > conceivable that the masses were manipulated to see him as a criminal,
> > despisable from a politically correct point of view, to desacralize
> > him in order to cancel his message and his ascendant over the people.
> > We therefore arrive to the paradoxic result of a thinker, for that`s
> > what Jesus was, turned into such a monster that by spilling his blood
> > the world would be a better place to live in, a safer place. And with
> > support of the people, for it is normal and comendable to sacrifice
> > supercriminals, but not to sacrifice intellectual leaders. This
> > unfortunate interpretation turned into an article of faith, a human
> > way to make sense of the senseless sacrifice of a teacer of Humanity.
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message
...
> > > History teaches that after the sacrifice of Jesus the Jewish people
> > > suffered a diaspora and the Roman Empire lasted just long enough to
> > > vindicate him, while the next 2000 years period was an age of
> > > obscurantism and war, very different when compared to the period of
> > > relative peace that followed the historial period of Krishna in India.
> > > The Church founded after Jesus established the theory of atonement to
> > > make sense of that senseless sacrifice, yet it can be easily seen that
> > > underlying it is the sense of guilt of sacrificing a Messiah, or
> > > teacher, who was besides very popular and was teaching people how to
> > > interact peacefully. Jesus must be credited, besides any religious
> > > achievements, for enunciating the first algorithmic ethic, the Golden
> > > Rule, which applied by all people consistently and to all acts of life
> > > has the effect of generating a global state of conviviality from a
> > > purely local, that is, personal, act. And yet he was sacrificed,
> > > though even to him it was a surprise for at the crucial moment he
> > > himself wondered why that was happening. Evidently it was not in his
> > > plans to be sacrificed or he wouldn`t ask God why He had forsaken
> > > him... Yet the church makes of that act the basic teaching and even
> > > the reason of being of Jesus. The fact is that a Messiah brings a
> > > message and that is the very definition of messianism, to bring a
> > > message. It makes no sense to sacrifice a Messiah, and after Jesus it
> > > makes even less sense, for if he truly brought salvation then there is
> > > no need for another blood cleasing, while it is most likely that
> > > killing Jesus was a really big mistake. The comparison to the effects
> > > of Krishna`s trodding upon Earth are astounding. The Hindi need no
> > > theory of atonement through sacrifice because they respected their
> > > messiah, even though he was also a warrior; Christians instead are
> > > dominated by the guilt of that coward sacrifice and made sense of it
> > > by assigning it a meaning beyond the simple logic that it was a
> > > tragedy that could be averted and should serve as an example of what
> > > *not* to do to people who revealed themselves as extraordinary beings
> > > and teachers. What would have happened if Jesus had led a longer life?
> > > Maybe he would have pacified the world for the next age and would have
> > > finally convinced the Jews that he was the messiah they were waiting
> > > for. And the Golden Rule as it is is incomplete: it says how to deal
> > > with others but not what to with ourselves. A more complete rule would
> > > say: do unto others what you would like to be done unto you (you know
> > > what people
...
read more »
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 4, 5:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Oct 2004 17:44:28 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Franklin Tennyson" wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
> news:768f7623.0410031542.c0dc1d4@posting.google.com...
> > It should be noted that when Christ is asked by Pilatos if he was the
> > King of the Jews, he was actually given an opportunity to become the
> > King of Jews, for it was a matter of being presented by Pilatos as the
> > King to become it. The Romans were the oppressors and had the power to
> > name officials to the conquered province. Yet Christ was not
> > interested. It can be argued that as a man of knowledge and spiritual
> > leader he already was enjoying the personal power of Charisma and
> > wasn`t interested in becoming a ruler. Yet his answers at that moment
> > were particularly evasive, noncommittal, like in `don`t accept
> > nothing, just say they say`. He didn`t really defended himself and
> > lacked the eloquence he expressed in the rest of his speeches...
> > Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Why did Judas have to kiss him to
> > identify him? Apparently Jesus was unknown by the Roman legionaires,
> > therefore the need to be identified by the traitor. And Jesus *knew*
> > he was going to be betrayed. These facts have been used to support the
> > theory of atonement; he was expecting to be betrayed and self
> > sacrificed to save the human race from the original sin, etc. This
> > interpretation however doesn`t make sense from a human point of view.
> > If you expect to be betrayed you take precautions. Unless the betrayal
> > was arranged and was actually a stage. Given the passions that Jesus
> > was inspiring it is very strange that his closest disciples accepted
> > the sacrifice without taking more violent measures and that given the
> > peril they didn`t have more people protecting them. By then, under
> > these hypothesis, his reputation must have been very low already. So
> > it is actually possible that the man the guards took with them was not
> > really Jesus, but somebody else who took his place.
> Franklin: All I can say at the moment, without dragging out the Bible and
> ticking off the Scriptures is he did say, My kingdom is not of this world.
> From a Political, not military, standpoint the refusal to answer and the
> becoming a martyer is excellent strategy. It is even a better strategy if
> you then return from the dead and ascend into heaven. Especially when the
> main emphasis of your teaching is you are going to defeat Death, Hell, and
> the Grave and make a way to be resurrected and to become immortal for your
> followers. It has been said of social scientist no person has ever made as
> many changes in human society that were positive as did Jesus, or actually
> his loyal followers.
> The kiss was necessary because there had to be an accuser. Judas acted as
> the accuser of Jesus. Also, though the Temple guards were there, and many
> would have known Jesus who stood guard during regular "business hours" but
> this the "night shift" would not necessarily have done so.
May elaborate later. Meanwhile I`ll ask, why Judas is the
accuser/betrayer and not the priests? And, why would the `arrest`
occur during the night shift? There is a certain air of conspiracy and
convenience, a stage, to the whole affair. It would be also be
excellent from a political point of view.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 8, 6:37 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Oct 2004 18:37:20 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 8 2004 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This hypothesis of the impersonation may not be new for it matches the
known facts well. The famous last words may then be interpreted not as
the cry of a befuddled Christ losing touch with the Creator (they are
assumed to be the same persona), but that of a deceived follower who
thought to the very end he would be saved by a miraculous
intervention. Judas` suicide may also have been fake, eith gossip or
the sacrifice of a scapegoat; not all people in that era had the same
moral value as Christ. Even the idea of the trinity may find an
explanation in the necessity of giving Jesus more than one personality
to protect him from he people whose interests his ideas were opposing,
namely priests, merchants (the temple scene) and the Roman government.
And once the sacrifice was performed his `resurrection` and sightings
are explained as the last farewells Jesus gives to the initiates,
those who didn`t partake of the secret but were important enough to
say goodbye to. As a legend maker, this presentations were an
excellent tactic. And the fact that the apostles spread throughout the
known world immediately after the `sacrifice` may be part of the same
plot, meant to deceive would be persecutors, but also to spread the
new message and save their lives, as once the teacher was lost the
disciles would likely follow. Of course, it explains the rumors of
Christ reaching India and having descendants.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 19, 9:29 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Oct 2004 09:29:09 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 19 2004 9:29 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
These last thoughts do not detract from the basic premise of this
essay, which is that the sacrifice, whether real or not, of Jesus had
the effect of generating a long historical period of conflict and
strife, instead of an era of peace thanks to a well defined set of
teaching, as happened in China and India. But the previous arguments
also point to some interesting speculations as well.
If the sacrifice was real and Jesus was resurrected, doesn't that mean
that he is still alive? If resurrected once, why not twice, all the
times that is necessary... Then where is he? How can such a secet be
uphold fo 2000 years? If he was resurected, o ven if he was
impersonated, why he didn't return triumphant to teach the Romans a
lesson? It would have been really apotheosic, yet he only showed
himself to a few disciples to say goodbye... Where did he go?
Assuming that the god form is also physical, the concept that he "went
to heaven" does not sggest precisely a symbolic or spiritual or
afterlife ascension, but a very REAL one. I know this will sound
farfetched but it is not the fist time in the biblical literature that
an ascension suggests the idea of an UFO or an actual starcraft...
There are too many mentions of UFOS that it may well be that there are
ETs on Earth, though compared to a civilization having starcrafts, we
are nothing more than a very provincial posession living almost in
barbaric and prehistoric terms.
This ideas are suggested by assuming an actual resurrection of Jesus,
unless he really died, but then why was he "resurrected" at all? Or
was he not resurrected and it is just a myth? Yet there were
individuals willing to die on that idea, which means either a very
strong fanaticism (that didn't show during the crucifixion), or a
series of events of which we have no knowledge that actually convinced
people that there was a resurrection. Of course, it is known that the
Vatican Libray contains many "forbidden" books and other secets that
don't precisely belong to the public opinion. Many answers may be
obtained there.
Certainly Jesus was a very strong and destabilizing personality for
his epoch. It is understandable that the vested interests he
conflicted with were also interested in getting rid of him.
Unfortunately his teaching were incomplete and the effect on the
collective consciousness of his sacrifice wee so strong that gave ise
to a very deep sentiment of guilt, of which the arab world escaped,
but which Occident has been treasuring as the innermost core of our
civilization.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 21, 8:26 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 21 2004 8:26 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
it conflicts with moren ideas about human rights. Said bluntly: the
symbol of Christ in the cross means the veneration of a tortured
corpse. Nothing to do wit hthe message with Jesus himself proposed,
that of love; loving a corpse is, by all means and definitions, a
deviation, and it is an example of how guilt is used as the basis to
manipulate the message of Jesus. Jesus is the saviour, he sacrificed
himself: feel guilty. He was poor, lived from the good will of others:
feel guilty. He went around withouth clothes (implied by the image):
feek guilty. He lived among diseased people: feel guilty. Other
symbols of CHristianity can be traced to this concept of guilt that
lies at the core of the image of Christ crucified. Why not choose a
more positive depiction? Though more positive representations are
common, it is the crucifixion what is remembered most. It must be
acknowledged, though, that is a good reminding of what man can do to
other men. Homo homini lupus, remembered everyday, every Sunday, and
taught since children. It is so common an image that we are all inured
to it's true meaning: the useless sacrifice of a good man who had a
message like anybody else had before, to please a few vested interests
that by all means have dissapeared a long time, while his message,
undoubtedly incomplete, has been both the source of inspiration and of
much trouble.
What did Jesus mean by saying "Thou art gods"? Isn't that a departure
from the Jewish principle of a single God? In that respect, Muslims
are more akin to Judaism than to Christianism, as they went even so
far as to deny the depiction of images, in order to ensure the respect
of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
"thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the last
days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why Jesus
didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we have the
relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really* sacrificed? It
may very well be that actually he WAS sacrificed, and the man who
posed as Christ was not Jesus at all, after the crucifixion, but the
very traitor, Judas. Some support to this interpretation is given by
the diaspora the apostles suffered afterwards. Pedro went to Rome, to
the seat of power, while the rest of the apostles went to other
colonies to spread the message. Judas? Dead, supposedly. But, did
Jesus actually revealed the secret of "thou art gods"? Was that the
final "sin" Jesus commited against judaism, threatening to turn all
into gods when priestly power was derived from being intermediaries
between men and... God? NO priest ever boasted of being in touch with
God, save Moses. Yet the mention of angels and other personalities in
a divine hierarchy is very common. Was that then the real reason which
led to the sacrifice of Jesus? Was he in touch with other beings,
angels and such and was going to give the secret away? If it was so,
he didn't have time to do it, he was sacrificed before he could
explain. Or maybe he *did* explain and that was the reason why he was
given away by Judas. He kept the secret, made use of it, gave away the
master and then dispersed the apostles before the plot could be
discovered... or maybe to help hide the true destination of Judas...
Reply
Werner Kurator Oct 25, 11:04 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: Werner Kurator - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:04:42 GMT
Local: Mon, Oct 25 2004 11:04 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
> of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
> it conflicts with moren ideas about human rights. Said bluntly: the
> symbol of Christ in the cross means the veneration of a tortured
> corpse. Nothing to do wit hthe message with Jesus himself proposed,
> that of love; loving a corpse is, by all means and definitions, a
> deviation, and it is an example of how guilt is used as the basis to
> manipulate the message of Jesus. Jesus is the saviour, he sacrificed
> himself: feel guilty. He was poor, lived from the good will of others:
> feel guilty. He went around withouth clothes (implied by the image):
> feek guilty. He lived among diseased people: feel guilty. Other
> symbols of CHristianity can be traced to this concept of guilt that
> lies at the core of the image of Christ crucified. Why not choose a
> more positive depiction? Though more positive representations are
> common, it is the crucifixion what is remembered most. It must be
> acknowledged, though, that is a good reminding of what man can do to
> other men. Homo homini lupus, remembered everyday, every Sunday, and
> taught since children. It is so common an image that we are all inured
> to it's true meaning: the useless sacrifice of a good man who had a
> message like anybody else had before, to please a few vested interests
> that by all means have dissapeared a long time, while his message,
> undoubtedly incomplete, has been both the source of inspiration and of
> much trouble.
> What did Jesus mean by saying "Thou art gods"? Isn't that a departure
> from the Jewish principle of a single God? In that respect, Muslims
> are more akin to Judaism than to Christianism, as they went even so
> far as to deny the depiction of images, in order to ensure the respect
> of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
> but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
> prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
(of course we really _have_ no _prove_ while Mohammed was not.
> Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
> the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
> everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
> God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
> what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
> conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
> point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
> than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
> singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
> Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
> among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
> despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
> "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
against the wife of his youth.
> though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the last
> days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why Jesus
> didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we have the
> relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really* sacrificed? It
If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then we
can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a sacrifice if
God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with Jesus, then just to
find 12 guys who would spread a message about a risen "Christ".
> may very well be that actually he WAS sacrificed, and the man who
> posed as Christ was not Jesus at all, after the crucifixion, but the
> very traitor, Judas. Some support to this interpretation is given by
> the diaspora the apostles suffered afterwards. Pedro went to Rome, to
> the seat of power, while the rest of the apostles went to other
> colonies to spread the message. Judas? Dead, supposedly. But, did
> Jesus actually revealed the secret of "thou art gods"? Was that the
> final "sin" Jesus commited against judaism, threatening to turn all
> into gods when priestly power was derived from being intermediaries
> between men and... God? NO priest ever boasted of being in touch with
> God, save Moses. Yet the mention of angels and other personalities in
> a divine hierarchy is very common. Was that then the real reason which
> led to the sacrifice of Jesus? Was he in touch with other beings,
A lot simpler solution to your question can be offered, Jesus was
rejected as _messianic_ impostor! To the Jews there was no Elijah and
the one person who could have been the promised Elijah denied being
it.
Any "Messiah" faces this problem, in order to accepted by the Jews, a
Elijah must come first.
> angels and such and was going to give the secret away? If it was so,
> he didn't have time to do it, he was sacrificed before he could
> explain. Or maybe he *did* explain and that was the reason why he was
> given away by Judas. He kept the secret, made use of it, gave away the
> master and then dispersed the apostles before the plot could be
> discovered... or maybe to help hide the true destination of Judas...
W.K.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 25, 3:30 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Oct 2004 15:30:48 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 25 2004 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
(snip)
> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus. And sinless means
perfect, so he was born perfect. We cannot put them on the same level.
Mahoma was a prophet, not God incarnated. He was channeling if you
like, not Being.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
> against the wife of his youth.
So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
and become more like animals than like gods.
> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the last
> > days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why Jesus
> > didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we have the
> > relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really* sacrificed? It
> If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
> and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then we
> can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a sacrifice if
> God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with Jesus, then just to
> find 12 guys who would spread a message about a risen "Christ".
If he suffered and died, that surge of pain and emotions was a
sacrifice. The rest of you idea needs some elaboration. What did they
wanted to achieve? Why then it can really be seen as a sacrifice? The
point of this article is to argument that the sacrifice of a messiah
(or divine teacher) is pointless for the message remains incomplete
and leaves the world in an inconsistent state, that is filled out, in
this case, with a doctrine that expresses the common guilt of being
guilty of a useless sacrifice, instead of a church that promotes the
positive contributio of the message received.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > may very well be that actually he WAS sacrificed, and the man who
> > posed as Christ was not Jesus at all, after the crucifixion, but the
> > very traitor, Judas. Some support to this interpretation is given by
> > the diaspora the apostles suffered afterwards. Pedro went to Rome, to
> > the seat of power, while the rest of the apostles went to other
> > colonies to spread the message. Judas? Dead, supposedly. But, did
> > Jesus actually revealed the secret of "thou art gods"? Was that the
> > final "sin" Jesus commited against judaism, threatening to turn all
> > into gods when priestly power was derived from being intermediaries
> > between men and... God? NO priest ever boasted of being in touch with
> > God, save Moses. Yet the mention of angels and other personalities in
> > a divine hierarchy is very common. Was that then the real reason which
> > led to the sacrifice of Jesus? Was he in touch with other beings,
> A lot simpler solution to your question can be offered, Jesus was
> rejected as _messianic_ impostor! To the Jews there was no Elijah and
> the one person who could have been the promised Elijah denied being
> it.
> Any "Messiah" faces this problem, in order to accepted by the Jews, a
> Elijah must come first.
But it is accepted he was doing miracles and had contact with ancient
beings (like Satan, Emperor of this world) and was born amid signs.
The error of the Jews was then to not accept him as messiah. Besides
he had Juan. And very probably he was impersonated and sacrificed for
being perfect (a threat to the World Emperor, Satan?). Indeed, I may
even guess there were several impersonations, from the children
sacrificed to hide him (why did they stopped looking? They though they
killed him), to maybe the guy who made a mess in the Temple (very
unlike for a character like the one inferred from his teachings), to
the man who was before Pilatos, to the man who was actually sacrificed
(maybe the same two), to the man that appeared resurrected (he was not
recognized right away)... Maybe the real Jesus was the man who was
hanged and thought to be Judas, while Judas assumed Jesus person and
went to India to spend the fortune he go in silver (was it ever
recovered? looks like an important ommision in the Gospels)...
(Who were Krishna`s and Budha`s Elijahs?)
Reply
Werner Kurator Oct 26, 3:47 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
Followup-To: alt.religion
From: Werner Kurator - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:47:57 GMT
Local: Tues, Oct 26 2004 3:47 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
<768f7623.0410251430.1aeae...@posting.google.com> message-id
on 2004-10-25
to announce the following statement:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
>> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
>> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
>> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
>> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
> (snip)
>> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
>> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
>> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
>> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
>> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
>> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
>> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
> But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
You should write *some* doctrine says Jesus IS God.
There are plenty of passages in the bible that show:
* Jesus *prayed* spending night's praying to God,
* Jesus had his own *will* but decided to *follow* God's direction,
* Jesus had *not* the authority to decide who would be sitting next to him,
* Jesus did *not* *know* at what time he shall return,
Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up
into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was
there alone.
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?
(if God and Jesus were inseparable how could God *separate*, *leave*
*himself* *alone* in that moment?)
Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit
on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be
given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God. 40 But to sit on my right hand and
on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared.
Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a
mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
Luke 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
am?
Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain
place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach
us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that
through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
the dead.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father which hath sent me.
Even the verse "I and the father are one", can also mean _one_ as in
_united_ in purpose, desire and will.
> Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus.
Please speak for yourself _I_ don't deify Jesus. He was and will be
forever a man, a Son of God just like Adam was/is a Son of God, as a
matter of fact just like _all_ will be sons/daughters of God. :-)
This includes you and me.
> And sinless means perfect, so he was born perfect.
What do you mean by "perfect"? I have my own _definition_ too.
> We cannot put them on the same level. Mahoma was a prophet, not God
> incarnated. He was channeling if you like, not Being.
I have not written that, go back an re-read my statement.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
>> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
>> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
>> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
>> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
>> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
>> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
>> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
>> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
>> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
>> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
>> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
>> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
>> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
>> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
>> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
>> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
>> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
>> against the wife of his youth.
> So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
> an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
> that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
> eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
> being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
> perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
> whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
> and become more like animals than like gods.
This is a interesting statement :-) You seem to leave out one
important part: Man has to make _conscious_ effort to know God, seek
God in prayer etc. etc.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the
>> > last days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why
>> > Jesus didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we
>> > have the relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really*
>> > sacrificed? It
>> If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
>> and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then
>> we can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a
>> sacrifice if God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with
>> Jesus, then just to find 12 guys who would spread a message about a
>> risen "Christ".
> If he suffered and died, that surge of pain and emotions was a
> sacrifice.
If I look at his _resurrection_ and how he was able to walk trough
walls, then I see a Jesus who got a body back that was almost as
*powerful* as that of *Superman* Jesus left this earth without a
_space suit_ if one takes his ascension as a literal event.
>The rest of your idea needs some elaboration.
Yes it sure does :-)
> What did they wanted to achieve?
Ever heard the term "the *Kingdom* of God on *earth*? :-)
That was Jesu's prime goal and desire that the Jewish people (his own)
would accept him as the Messiah.
Jesus preached "the kingdom of God is at hand" this was his message
when he started his mission.
Only later at the end of his ministry he told them "The kingdom will
be taken away from you and given another nation" clearly implying that
the Jews had it in their hands.
(We find some hints how the Kingdom might look in some of the
prophecies in the OT, as well as in Revelation, this post is getting
long)
> Why then it can really be seen as a sacrifice? The point of this
> article is to argument that the sacrifice of a messiah (or divine
> teacher) is pointless for the message remains incomplete and leaves
> the world in an inconsistent state, that is filled out, in this
> case, with a doctrine that expresses the common guilt of being
> guilty of a useless sacrifice, instead of a church that promotes the
> positive contributio of the message received.
The sacrifice of Jesus was not *entirely* useless, it still opened
the way to salvation, for those who believed in the risen Christ.
The Cross was one of two possibilities God and Jesus faced:
If there was _widespread_ believe in Jesus as the Messiah, that he
truly came to fulfill God's promise then there would have not been a
Cross and sacrifice.
If on the other hand Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah (there was
also not a "Elijah" who was to come, or at least the person that
Jesus designated as "Elijah" did deny he was the prophet) then he
would have been rejected by the Jews (as he was in fact) as a
Messianic _impostor_ .
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> > may very well be that actually he WAS sacrificed, and the man who
>> > posed as Christ was not Jesus at all, after the crucifixion, but the
...
read more »
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 30, 10:50 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Oct 2004 10:50:33 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 30 2004 10:50 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
> <768f7623.0410251430.1aeae...@posting.google.com> message-id
> on 2004-10-25
> to announce the following statement:
> > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
> >> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
> >> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
> >> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
> >> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
> (snip)
> >> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
> >> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
> >> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
> >> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
> >> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
> >> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
> >> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
> > But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
> You should write *some* doctrine says Jesus IS God.
> There are plenty of passages in the bible that show:
> * Jesus *prayed* spending night's praying to God,
> * Jesus had his own *will* but decided to *follow* God's direction,
> * Jesus had *not* the authority to decide who would be sitting next to him,
> * Jesus did *not* *know* at what time he shall return,
> Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up
> into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was
> there alone.
> Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
> prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
> me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
> Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
> saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
> why hast thou forsaken me?
> (if God and Jesus were inseparable how could God *separate*, *leave*
> *himself* *alone* in that moment?)
Of course.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
> and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit
> on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be
> given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
> Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
> angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
> Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
> none good but one, that is, God. 40 But to sit on my right hand and
> on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
> whom it is prepared.
> Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
> Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
> Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a
> mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
> Luke 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
> Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
> were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
> am?
> Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain
> place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach
> us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
> 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
> men, the man Christ Jesus;
The essence of Christianism(s)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the
> resurrection of the dead.
> Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
> so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
> Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that
> through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
> Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
> the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
> he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
> the dead.
> John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
> my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
> the Father which hath sent me.
>
> Even the verse "I and the father are one", can also mean _one_ as in
> _united_ in purpose, desire and will.
> > Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus.
> Please speak for yourself _I_ don't deify Jesus. He was and will be
> forever a man, a Son of God just like Adam was/is a Son of God, as a
> matter of fact just like _all_ will be sons/daughters of God. :-)
> This includes you and me.
Whoever prays to Jesus directly and not as a mediator is deifying.
(Are you serious about the _forever_ a man? Or just a figure of
speech? Because if he _is_ dead, there is no way to pray to him or to
ask him to mediate, but in the sense that he gave instructions as to
how to relate to God. Christianism would be nothing more than a school
in Judaism, understanding Judaism as being in essence the belief in a
single God [vs paganism, which would be the belief in multiple gods
and/or intermediate figures, like the Virgen Maria of the Mexicans].).
> > And sinless means perfect, so he was born perfect.
> What do you mean by "perfect"? I have my own _definition_ too.
> > We cannot put them on the same level. Mahoma was a prophet, not God
> > incarnated. He was channeling if you like, not Being.
> I have not written that, go back an re-read my statement.
A slight ambiguity in your
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
statement.
> >> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
> >> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
> >> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
> >> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
> >> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
> >> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
> >> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
> >> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
> >> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
> >> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
> >> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
> >> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
> >> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
> >> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
What part did you answered?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> >> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
> >> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
> >> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
> >> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
> >> against the wife of his youth.
> > So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
> > an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
> > that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
> > eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
> > being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
> > perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
> > whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
> > and become more like animals than like gods.
> This is a interesting statement :-) You seem to leave out one
> important part: Man has to make _conscious_ effort to know God, seek
> God in prayer etc. etc.
Read `Alive and Human` in my posts. The in between lines message is
that we have to make conscious efforts. But I haven`t had time to
develop the argument 8)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> >> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the
> >> > last days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why
> >> > Jesus didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we
> >> > have the relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really*
> >> > sacrificed? It
> >> If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
> >> and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then
> >> we can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a
> >> sacrifice if God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with
> >> Jesus, then just to find 12 guys who would spread a message about a
> >> risen "Christ".
> > If he suffered and died, that surge of pain and emotions was a
> > sacrifice.
> If I look at his _resurrection_ and how he was able to walk trough
> walls,
Jesus as David Copperfield! (a joke, sorry)
> then I see a Jesus who got a body back that was almost as
> *powerful* as that of *Superman* Jesus left this earth without a
> _space suit_ if one takes his ascension as a literal event.
Whatever the ways, if literal, then it must be possible. But he didn`t
got a body back, more like the body got a conscience back. Though at
this point this makes me think of anafylactic shock...
> >The rest of your idea needs some elaboration.
> Yes it sure does :-)
> > What did they wanted to achieve?
> Ever heard the term "the *Kingdom* of God on *earth*? :-)
That
`s a political statement. Why he didn`t grab the opportunity in
front of Herodes to become King of the Jews? It also speaks against
the Leibnitz idea of `the best possible world`. Best in the sense that
it is the
...
read more »
Reply
Werner Kurator Oct 31, 8:42 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
Followup-To: alt.religion
From: Werner Kurator - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:42:03 GMT
Local: Sun, Oct 31 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
["
Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup
alt
.religion
used
this
<768f7623
.0410300950.22e67...@posting.google.com> message-id
on 2004-10-30
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
to announce the following statement:
> Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
>> ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
>> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
>> <768f7623.0410251430.1aeae...@posting.google.com> message-id
>> on 2004-10-25
>> to announce the following statement:
>> > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
>> >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
>> >> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
>> >> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
>> >> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
>> >> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
>> (snip)
>> >> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
>> >> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
>> >> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
>> >> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
>> >> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
>> >> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
>> >> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
>> > But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
>> You should write *some* doctrine says Jesus IS God.
>> There are plenty of passages in the bible that show:
>> * Jesus *prayed* spending night's praying to God,
>> * Jesus had his own *will* but decided to *follow* God's direction,
>> * Jesus had *not* the authority to decide who would be sitting next to him,
>> * Jesus did *not* *know* at what time he shall return,
>> Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up
>> into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was
>> there alone.
>> Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
>> prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
>> me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
>> Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
>> saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
>> why hast thou forsaken me?
>> (if God and Jesus were inseparable how could God *separate*, *leave*
>> *himself* *alone* in that moment?)
> Of course.
>> Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
>> and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit
>> on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be
>> given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
>> Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
>> angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
>> Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
>> none good but one, that is, God. 40 But to sit on my right hand and
>> on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
>> whom it is prepared.
>> Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
>> Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
>> Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a
>> mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
>> Luke 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
>> Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
>> were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
>> am?
>> Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain
>> place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach
>> us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
>> 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
>> men, the man Christ Jesus;
> The essence of Christianism(s)
YES :-)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the
>> resurrection of the dead.
>> Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
>> so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
>> Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that
>> through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
>> Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
>> the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
>> he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
>> the dead.
>> John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
>> my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
>> the Father which hath sent me.
>>
>> Even the verse "I and the father are one", can also mean _one_ as in
>> _united_ in purpose, desire and will.
>> > Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus.
>> Please speak for yourself _I_ don't deify Jesus. He was and will be
>> forever a man, a Son of God just like Adam was/is a Son of God, as a
>> matter of fact just like _all_ will be sons/daughters of God. :-)
>> This includes you and me.
> Whoever prays to Jesus directly and not as a mediator is deifying.
Well *I* never *pray* to *Jesus*
> (Are you serious about the _forever_ a man? Or just a figure of
Meaning as a eternal human being yes. He was a human when he walked
the earth, and he remained human. God did not feel shameful after he
created Adam and Eve as humans.
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning
were the sixth day.
Of course we should not make the *mistake* to compare *sinful*
*fallen* man with Jesus. Jesus can be found seeking the guidance of
his Father, trough prayer in many passages of the NT.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> speech? Because if he _is_ dead, there is no way to pray to him or to
> ask him to mediate, but in the sense that he gave instructions as to
> how to relate to God. Christianism would be nothing more than a school
> in Judaism, understanding Judaism as being in essence the belief in a
> single God [vs paganism, which would be the belief in multiple gods
> and/or intermediate figures, like the Virgen Maria of the Mexicans].).
>> > And sinless means perfect, so he was born perfect.
>> What do you mean by "perfect"? I have my own _definition_ too.
>> > We cannot put them on the same level. Mahoma was a prophet, not God
>> > incarnated. He was channeling if you like, not Being.
>> I have not written that, go back an re-read my statement.
> A slight ambiguity in your statement.
Language can still lead to misunderstandings, sorry
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> >> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
>> >> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
>> >> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
>> >> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
>> >> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
>> >> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
>> >> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
>> >> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
>> >> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
>> >> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
>> >> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
>> >> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
>> >> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
>> >> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
> What part did you answered?
>> >> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
>> >> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
>> >> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
>> >> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
>> >> against the wife of his youth.
>> > So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
>> > an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
>> > that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
>> > eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
>> > being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
>> > perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
>> > whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
>> > and become more like animals than like gods.
>> This is a interesting statement :-) You seem to leave out one
>> important part: Man has to make _conscious_ effort to know God, seek
>> God in prayer etc. etc.
> Read `Alive and Human` in my posts. The in between lines message is
> that we have to make conscious efforts.
Agree again :-)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>But I haven`t had time to develop the argument 8)
>> >> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the
>> >> > last days, a single question is more tantalizing than most: why
>> >> > Jesus didn't went apotheosic after being resurrected? How come we
>> >> > have the relic of Turin? What does that mean? Was Jesus *really*
>> >> > sacrificed? It
>> >> If you look at the faith Christians hold that Jesus was resurrected
>> >> and went into heaven (whatever that means or wherever that is) then
>> >> we can't see a _sacrifice_ Jesus death can only be seen as a
>> >> sacrifice if God and Jesus wanted to accomplish much more with
>> >> Jesus, then just to find 12 guys who
...
read more »
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 14, 11:57 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Nov 2004 11:57:10 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 14 2004 11:57 am
Subject: The Guilt of Atonement, discussion with Werner Kurator
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Werner Kurator wrote in message news:...
> ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
> <768f7623.0410300950.22e67...@posting.google.com> message-id
> on 2004-10-30 to announce the following statement:
> > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> >> ["Followup-To:" nach alt.religion gesetzt.]
> >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion used this
> >> <768f7623.0410251430.1aeae...@posting.google.com> message-id
> >> on 2004-10-25
> >> to announce the following statement:
> >> > Werner Kurator wrote in message ...
> >> >> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore in this very newsgroup alt.religion
> >> >> used this <768f7623.0410210726.1b389...@posting.google.com> message-id
> >> >> on 2004-10-21 to announce the following statement:
> >> >> > For an objective observer the symbol of the cross is but a depiction
> >> >> > of a groos torture inflicted to a human being. It can even be said tat
> (snip)
> >> >> > of a single God. Mohammed (Mahoma) didn't at any moment pose as a god,
> >> >> > but only as a prophet, visited by an angel. Why would an angel visit a
> >> >> > prophet after Christ if we were all saved? It can be said that
> >> >> some might think that happened because at that time the church-fathers
> >> >> were deifying Jesus (the man Jesus into a GOD). One should be careful
> >> >> to put Jesus and Mohammed unto the same level. Jesus was born sinless,
> >> >> (of course we really _have_ no _prove_) while Mohammed was not.
> >> > But doctrine says that Jesus IS God. One of the three persons of the
> >> You should write *some* doctrine says Jesus IS God.
> >> There are plenty of passages in the bible that show:
> >> * Jesus *prayed* spending night's praying to God,
> >> * Jesus had his own *will* but decided to *follow* God's direction,
> >> * Jesus had *not* the authority to decide who would be sitting next to him,
> >> * Jesus did *not* *know* at what time he shall return,
> >> Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up
> >> into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was
> >> there alone.
> >> Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
> >> prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
> >> me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
> >> Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
> >> saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,
> >> why hast thou forsaken me?
> >> (if God and Jesus were inseparable how could God *separate*, *leave*
> >> *himself* *alone* in that moment?)
> > Of course.
> >> Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
> >> and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit
> >> on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be
> >> given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
> >> Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
> >> angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
> >> Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
> >> none good but one, that is, God. 40 But to sit on my right hand and
> >> on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
> >> whom it is prepared.
> >> Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
> >> Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
> >> Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a
> >> mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
> >> Luke 5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
> >> Luke 9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples
> >> were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
> >> am?
> >> Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain
> >> place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach
> >> us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
> >> 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
> >> men, the man Christ Jesus;
> > The essence of Christianism(s)
> YES :-)
> >> 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the
> >> resurrection of the dead.
> >> Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
> >> so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
> >> Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that
> >> through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
> >> Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
> >> the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof
> >> he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
> >> the dead.
> >> John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and
> >> my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
> >> the Father which hath sent me.
> >>
> >> Even the verse "I and the father are one", can also mean _one_ as in
> >> _united_ in purpose, desire and will.
> >> > Trinity. They are the same. We still deify Jesus.
> >> Please speak for yourself _I_ don't deify Jesus. He was and will be
> >> forever a man, a Son of God just like Adam was/is a Son of God, as a
> >> matter of fact just like _all_ will be sons/daughters of God. :-)
> >> This includes you and me.
> > Whoever prays to Jesus directly and not as a mediator is deifying.
> Well *I* never *pray* to *Jesus*
> > (Are you serious about the _forever_ a man? Or just a figure of
> Meaning as a eternal human being yes. He was a human when he walked
> the earth, and he remained human. God did not feel shameful after he
> created Adam and Eve as humans.
> Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
> behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning
> were the sixth day.
> Of course we should not make the *mistake* to compare *sinful*
> *fallen* man with Jesus. Jesus can be found seeking the guidance of
> his Father, trough prayer in many passages of the NT.
> > speech? Because if he _is_ dead, there is no way to pray to him or to
> > ask him to mediate, but in the sense that he gave instructions as to
> > how to relate to God. Christianism would be nothing more than a school
> > in Judaism, understanding Judaism as being in essence the belief in a
> > single God [vs paganism, which would be the belief in multiple gods
> > and/or intermediate figures, like the Virgen Maria of the Mexicans].).
> >> > And sinless means perfect, so he was born perfect.
> >> What do you mean by "perfect"? I have my own _definition_ too.
> >> > We cannot put them on the same level. Mahoma was a prophet, not God
> >> > incarnated. He was channeling if you like, not Being.
> >> I have not written that, go back an re-read my statement.
> > A slight ambiguity in your statement.
> Language can still lead to misunderstandings, sorry
> >> >> > Mohammed, though being the head of a new religion, very influenced by
> >> >> > the historical needs of the groups form which it rose, reverted
> >> >> > everybody to Judaism by postulating and defending the idea of a single
> >> >> > God, idea that was dressed in other robes, maybe more violent than
> >> >> > what the Jews are used too, but nontheless the same robes. The
> >> >> > conflict between Jews and Arabs can't be understood from a religious
> >> >> > point of view and should be obvious that it has a more mundane basis
> >> >> > than really spiritual. From the point of view of the defining of a
> >> >> > singlke God, Jews and Muslims are more brothers than cousins.
> >> >> > Then Christianism, though proposing a more down to Earth relationship
> >> >> > among people, is not at all a religion of God, but a religion of Man,
> >> >> > despite the fact that the message was incomplete? It is that phrase of
> >> >> > "thou art gods" which is less understood yet promises more. Even
> >> >> In the same way as Adam was a Son of God,
> What part did you answered?
> >> >> Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he
> >> >> the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That
> >> >> he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed
> >> >> to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously
> >> >> against the wife of his youth.
> >> > So we have to turn into gods? Protecting the wives of our sons? It has
> >> > an interesting biological interpretation. By protecting the couple
> >> > that carries our DNA (seed) we ensure the continuatio of our line and
> >> > eventually, assuming a lineal progression in evolution, we end up
> >> > being perfect, gods. So the Bible has a notion of evolution toward
> >> > perfection (godhood). In Reality however there are no guarantees ad
> >> > whoel populations can ivolute and even lose `humanity`, intelligence,
> >> > and become more like animals than like gods.
> >> This is a interesting statement :-) You seem to leave out one
> >> important part: Man has to make _conscious_ effort to know God, seek
> >> God in prayer etc. etc.
> > Read `Alive and Human` in my posts. The in between lines message is
> > that we have to make conscious efforts.
> Agree again :-)
> >But I haven`t had time to develop the argument 8)
> >> >> > though a saving impersonation is suggested by the events of the
> >> >> > last days, a single question is more
...
read more »
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 15, 8:10 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Nov 2004 20:10:19 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 15 2004 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
There are several functions the doctrine of atonement as rooted on
guilt serves to fill. Not only it covers the fact that an
extraordinary teacher was senselessly sacrificed, making up for the
remorses brought about by such sacrifice, but it also helps justify
the particular experiences Jesus went through as exposed by the
Gospels. Being objective, Jesus was not only a poor man but was living
among leprosy sufferers, was in constant trouble with figures of
authority, was left in the desert without food (avoiding being
poisoned?), in sum, went through several hardships that were not
approppriate for a man giving a message of love and a message of hope,
as exemplified in the statement of the kingdom of God being at hand.
Through atonement, these sacrifices make sense and can be explained
away as necessary to the ultimate goal of atonement, salvatio. But it
also acts as an explanation and justification for the hardships
suffered first by the martyrs, then by the saints, later by monks and
above all by the poor who have been attracted to Christianism as a
message of hope for their misery, helping them make sense of a world
unjust that ought to be better yet is full of inequity (if not
iniquity). There is a deeply felt guilt in Christianism that pays
tribute to the life and death of Jesuschrist and which has helped his
message, incomplete as it was left and manipulated as t has been, be
delivered for almost two thousand years.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 15, 11:59 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.religion
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 15 Nov 2004 23:59:41 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 15 2004 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: The Guilt of Atonement
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Though atonement has proved to be a deeply satisfying and successful
doctrine, it also becomes dangerous for men who follow. It explains
and gives meaning to the sacrifice of a thinker! It turns into
salvation the death of a teacher with a new message, as Jesus` message
was new to the Old World. So after so many hundreds of years of being
repeated, the sacrifice of thinkers (as Jesus ultimately was), becomes
a natural pattern, an archetype, such that further sacrifices are not
only normal but also necessary, as, in a complete inversion of values,
the `salvation` of men comes by sacrificing intelligence and
inspiration, when it should be otherwise, salvation comes THROUGH AND
BY the work of inspired and creative men. Without discussing the
divinity of Jesus, who was indeed _divine_ simply by what he wanted to
achieve, the good for all people, the discrepancies found in the
Gospels and the analysis that leads to the impersonation hypothesis
reveals that either an attempt to save him or to cover him was
performed knowingly, introducing the theme of salvation as a
characteristic of Jesus` life. The Jew awaited messiah was coming to
bring `salvation` to the Jewish people, to lead them to a better land
and life. It must be noted here that the Jews don`t really have (or
had) an afterlife problem solved as such by their religion. God was a
leader of men IN life, being nearer to us than He is now, either
personally or through prophets and Moses. His function was not that of
providing a promise of life after death or oblivion but the promise of
life in life to his chosen people. It is the death of Jesus, traumatic
on a collective level as it was, that introduced simultaneously the
notions of (guilt of) atonement, death and salvation, turning him into
a promise of life afterlife, the life that he was denied and then
granted, (though the question remains of why he didn`t went apotheosic
or why ascension is not granted to anybody, even whether Jesus is
still alive or not).
The Church (Vatican) has had the double and paradoxic function of
transmitting his message while at the same time using that message as
a mean of control by guilt and promises and the granting of meaning to
otehrwise violent people, fulfilling in part Jesus` message, though
becoming also an anchor against the acceptance of ideas and progress,
since, after all the message of the Christ is undoubtedly incomplete
and his life truncated, assuming, of course, that his message was
gievn complete and not subject to entropy or to the dismemberment by
other men getting the rewards of what Jesus actually did and we
adjudicate to other men. This double function of the Church is
expressed both in the Lutheran schism as in the historical conflicts
against other religions, against science, nowadays against
technological progress and the multiplying of sects and subchurchs
(orthodoxy, protestantism, others). While it has been a stabilizing
and pacifying force, it also speaks problem when any change to its
preises or conditions threatens to challenge its position as holder of
truth, particularly since the incomplete message the Church has been
carrying has to be extended and adapted to the epoch *beyond* the
original message`s capacity of explaining the world (see A New Golden
Rule in my threads), whie the Church and the whole world keeps waiting
for the Second coming some unspecified time in the future and, must be
noted here, under very unwarranted conditions as in this case the
catholic prophecy (as opposed to the Jew prophecy) speaks of War and
Judgement, an experience that most people wouldn`t want to go through
and thta besides means the destruction of the Church. This double
paradox links to the guilt of atonement as any new possible messiah
would go sacrificed and unrecognized rather than risking the
triggering of Armageddon. In other words, where there was a guilt,
more guilt can serve a purpose.
Reply
End of messages
watch this topic
« Newer - Mount Saint Helens errupting again? Light a Jesus Candle - Older »
Topic: The Guilt of Atonement - go to top