tar

Overtone, So you think we are better off, as a populace, retaining as much personal power as we can? And you think that trusting the military/industrial complex and the local land/resource baron or baroness is not politically reasonable? You may be correct, or maybe not. It is quite obvious to me, that in general we are, as citizens, each others pawns and patsies. It is difficult, philosophically to distinquish between when one is being used, or sacrificing for the team. Unrequited love in some cases. Valued friendship and mutually understood efforts toward a common goal in others. But there are "bosses" in all our lives. We have to follow somebody's rules and plan. It is somehow easier to consider myself an "insider", part of a team, that has my best interests in mind, and a member of a team that knows I have its best interests in mind. When we boss each other around with the laws we pass, who is doing the bossing? Is it us? Is it the land barons? Is it the secret societies manuvering for dominance? How would one know for sure, and be able to say whether ones trust in others, and the "system" is well placed trust, or politically foolish, and harmful to ones personal freedom? I will return to my statement that power is a good thing, when in your hands and a bad thing when in the hands of somebody else. So the "attitudes toward gun control" seem to involve one's personality and attitude toward society. Which parts and peices of society do you trust? Which parts are you in control off, by membership and mutual consent and understanding? And which parts are you wary of, that are operating without your consent and counsel, and seem to be taking things in an ill advised direction. Personnally I dislike being marginalized. I dislike being fooled. I find any number of things, ill advised. But I am not in charge, and I am not making the decisions. All I can do is voice my opinion, give my suggestions, and hope that what is sensible gets worked into the plan, and what is unworkable gets filtered out. I have to extend a good deal of blind trust in other people's judgement and rely on good capable people to do the right thing. Occasionally I am disappointed. Mostly, I am impressed. Saw the other day, that Jersey City has rearranged their police schedule to allow for a police officer in every school and at every school event. I do not know how this is being received by the students or the teachers, but seeing a trained, good, responsible, accountable person there to take charge if danger showed its face, made me feel it was a good thing, and not any challenge to civil liberties from an authoritarian state. Regards, TAR2

Overtone, Not at all tangent to this thread. Relevant to the characteristics of the red rural, and blue urban states. Cities mean unions and universities, industry and innovation which seem to go blue. Rural means family farm, and the conservative values of personal responsibility, and the maintenance of personal freedom, self sufficiency and the like, which seems to turn the states red. But in either case, nobody wins with 100% of the vote. Certain conservative values might lean a Cuban, city population toward the republican candidate, while Jewish constituentcies might lean toward the democrat. And private business owners in the cities might vote for less regulation of their enterprises, and be in favor of keeping more of their hard earned profits, which would lean them red. And an individual dependent on the state for their food, housing and health care might lean blue. And as in any election, the choices are not so clear cut, as to present any voter with his or her ideal candidate, and people tend to go with the party they are registered to, as a default position. Which leaves most elections up to the registered democrats and replubicans, and the judgement of the independants. Except in those cases where ones own party's platform has strayed too far to an extreme position, or one's party's candidate has demonstrated faults too significant to ignore. Such as Romney's 47% comment, which disqualified him in the minds of many, who might have voted for him simply as the republican challenger to the democratic president. Which, to this thread, and attitudes toward gun control, disqualifies you as a good judge of reality and the people of this county, whether city or rural, intellectual or average, in that you have already labeled half the country as dupes and fools. Regards, TAR2 P.S. Unless, you, like Romney see it better to retract your ill advised position, and attempt to understand 100% of the country. As to "fooling" and intelligence, I have a theory that one can fool one of lower intellegence most of the time, about 50 percent of the time with people of approxiamately equivilant intelligence and rarely, with people of significantly higher intellegence. Using this theory alone, I would vote for Bush Jr. over Clinton (the male), since Clinton is considerably more intelligent than I am, and Bush Jr. is on my level. Rationale being, I have a 50/50 chance of NOT being fooled by Bush. And a 95% chance of being fooled by Clinton. (Depending of course on what one's definition of is is.)

Overtone, Yeah, I would probably have labeled you as a self hating American. Authoritarian? Interesting how power is a good thing, when in your hands, and a bad thing when in somebody elses hands. This probably has a lot to do with the gun control question, on several levels. Do you watch CNN or FOX? Who do you feel comfortable associating with? Gore just sold his Current TV to Al Jazeera. Whose propaganda do you rather? I would imagine, by your lumping me in with your "outsider" group, that you imagine me a FOX viewer. I don't watch either CNN or FOX, much, they are both tainted and disturb me...if either would hold sway, and power over me. For different reasons. Fox is too religious and right wing for me, CNN too socialist and "nanny state" for my taste. But that is just me, I don't require that either hold sway, I rather hope that some average of the two rules my life. And I would hope you would allow me to cherry pick the reason and sense that comes from either camp, and wish that that reason and sense would be what holds sway, and not figure me an enemy of either, or a staunch supporter of either. The pendulum swings left and right in this country, and there are "authoritarian" dangers to be had, at both extremes. I am a fan of the gravity of reason, and human judgement, that attempts to keep us centered. And our reverence to "rule of law" and personal freedom, both, factor in my judgements. I yield to the president we choose to lead us, whether I voted for him/her or not. But I always know that no matter who is in power, there is a large segment of the electorate that would rather it had been someone else. For one reason or another. Regards, TAR2

Overtone, OK, fight is over. Mostly. Factions walking around are one thing. I like to retain the possibility of holding a dissenting opinion without being lumped into a made up, grossly overgeneralized bunch of evil idiots. It is possible to come to an insight, or to hold a position that has merit and validity that would satisfy most thoughtful judges, without having to, by default, have all the charactistics of an "outsider" group. (that is, to be an American one needs to alternately side with and against certain ideas, as they enter the public focus, and take ownership of and bear responsibility for, the outcomes.) To illustrate, after 9-11 I was routinely on a now defunct talkboard Guardian Talk. There were a substantial amount of America haters, and Jew haters on the board. Any fault of the Jews was transferred to their staunch ally America, and thusly transferred to me. I defended myself, and America, and the Jews. An enemy of the Jews and of America was an enemy of mine. This does not mean that I was 100% happy with everything that every Jew or every American ever did or was doing then, but to be an American and reap the benefits of such association, one should take responsibility and bear the shame and take the hits as a solid member of the class. One cannot honestly cherry pick ones associations and disassociate from the class at will. Well one can, and many do perform this disassociation, but I don't think it is honest. You cannot eat what you eat, without the farmers, you cannot drive what you drive without the factory workers and the oil. You cannot have your way of life, as an American, without associating with everybody that makes America, America. That includes the Army, and the CIA, and the oil magnates, the rednecks and the intellectual elite. They are not "they", they are us. By my reckoning, anyway. Regards, TAR

Overtone, Perhaps I read between the lines. I tend to listen to what people mean, not what they say. You assume everyone that voted for George W. is an ignoramus. I took offense. You assume that it is agreed that we should not have chased Saddam's guard as we did. It is not agreed. We were expecting chemical weapons because he had used them, and had them at some point. When and where he hid or destroyed them is not something I am privy to. And somehow you were equating voting for W. as proof of ignoramushood. I did not reread and learn. Not interested. I already got your drift. Just did not find it a useful approach, and called you on it. Regards, TAR2

Rigney, I do not usually pick fights, as I have with Overtone. I do not know him or her, or what agenda he/she may be serving. In fact, I rarely have visited the Politics section, as I usually do not have an agenda of my own. In this case, although our discussion has been split from Guns in the Classroom, I do have an agenda. I do not want to see Biden come up with a plan that marginalizes and or demotes any large portion of our population. Overtone's characterization of gun owners as stupid rednecks, is exactly the kind of thinking that is completely unuseful in this regard. This is not a we vs them topic. It is an us vs Adam Lanza's actions debate. The key is come up with a plan that we all pursue together. The mere suggestion of Obama's that some sort of stricker gun control was in the offing sent hundreds of thousands if not a million or more of our fellow citizens out to the gun store, to get weapons while the getting was good. Demoting "rednecks" to a hated unclass, as Overtone was doing, is not the way to come up with a consensus as to how we should together, as a nation, proceed. We have to bring everybody with us, wherever we go. The majority of my extended family consists of educators, and public servants. Teachers, superindendants, fire chiefs, hospital workers and administrators. Some of us have found a niche in a business enterprise or provide a service of some sort or another doing some thing well, where others can use our services. Other families might have a different trend...shop owners, farmers, factory workers, truck drivers, business leaders, international business, law, art, sports, government, tradesmen, metalworkers, or whatever. Agendas might differ. Who we wish would do things differently and who we wish would continue to do it the same way, would probably coincide with what role we play in the various stories that thread their way through the fabric of our society, and which we consider our stories. It is better, in this climate of polarization in Washington to remember that the worker can not be without the boss, and the boss cannot be, without the worker, and the worker should always consider the boss and the boss always the worker, so that they might be pursuing mutual goals. So, to my agenda. I think weapons of war should be held publically and only publically. Any weapon, that a soldier would carry into battle, might be reasonable for certain law enforcement officials to have access to, but the same weapon, in the hands of private citizens might not make any sense or serve any "public good" purposes. But its more of a suggestion than a demand. And more of an idea than a proposal. And I trust the rest of society to work the idea into their overall thinking on the matter of gun control, and I leave the decision to have or not have such a weapon in their gun case, up to the individual citizen. It is much better to police ourselves concerning such matters, than to "take away" these things from "others". Regards, TAR2 P.S. I cross posted with Overtone. Had not read 17 while typing 18. Overtone, It remains a fact that "good" people can do things other "good" people disapprove of. Just cause bosses might be looking at what I consider the "wrong" things, does not make them evil. Regards, TAR2

Overtone, While it is true, that educated people move this society and innovate and improve our quality of life, I hang back a little from falling securely in your camp. I am usually wrong, when I think I know better than somebody else, about how to be. I have over the past few months developed a view that "the bosses" are primarily correct and know what they are doing, but are too full of themselves to pay attention to the consequences of their actions and words. Though I do not have the credentials or talents to "play with the big boys" in business, or to successfully challange the findings and directions of the intelligent "elite" such as yourself, there is an important consideration that I believe should always be paid attention to. Consider the judgement of others as a real, valuable thing. That they indeed might know, better than you, what they are doing. It is, after all, their bed that they have to lay in. Not yours. You are responsible for your own area. And if you are doing it exactly right, yourself, others might take your lead, if it suits them. Otherwise, you come across to me, as an elite intellectual snob, that finds fault with what us stupid people do. I, on the other hand, am so superior, in my own mind, I can point out YOUR flaws. Regards, TAR2

Rigney, It is probably an excellent place to start looking. When we are in cities we rely on others for many things. We trust others to do their part and learn that on the whole they do the right thing, and it is to our benefit that they do, and we, as city dwellers, return the favor. Rural people do more for themselves, and rely on "the city" only for technology and access to materials, that they do not find around the place. On the whole though do not need the city people to be walking around, causing any mischief or telling them how to be, or how to raise their children. On the whole, I would say that someone living in a rural area is more self sufficient than your highly socialized city dweller. And what would be abhorent to one is common place and accepted by the other. Take skinning a deer, for instance, or breaking a chicken's neck. For a city person. I would guess that country folk find it disturbing that others might come in to their lives and take away any of their rights and powers as individuals, or tell them "the proper way" to be, with total disregard of what they and their parents have strived to build and maintain. Then there are folks like me, caught betwixt and between, surrounded by woods with bear, deer and possum, and an hours drive from NYC, one of the citiest cities there is. My answers don't pass muster in either camp. My opinion of when and where people are "crazy" or are stepping on the rights of others, or are behaving inappropriately is alternately correct or incorrect, depending on who I am considering "they" and who I am considering "us", during any one consideration. Would be nice if I could come up with absolute answers of exactly how everybody should be, but alas, the facts seem to point to the fact that it is only me that I have control of, in this regard. Ivory tower thinkers have it wrong. Anarchists have it wrong. And neither camp can really make it, without the other. But the idea of control, and the idea of who is we and who is they are probably two ideas that one should consider when studying the psychopath and the criminal. And figuring out the dynamics involved that differenciate the rural soul from the city soul...is probably an excellent place to start. Regards, TAR2

Rigney, Just came back from W.Va. where I turned the New Year with my sister and her family. My sister is a transplant from NJ and my brother-in-law a transplant from PA. There was some celebratory gunfire from the neighbors across the creek, while we made our New Years noise with children's percussion instruments. Liquor was involved in both gatherings, but neither celebration resulted in any anger or injuries. My brother-in-law has a couple rifles. You need a little something when you are miles away "civilization" out in a "holler" with only you and some widely spaced neighbors to maintain civilized behavior. And to scare the crows from eating your sweet corn. I am of the opinion, in reference to this thread that each community in this great nation of ours, is smart enough, and good enough to decide for themselves, what is appropriate in terms of guns in the classroom. One size, does not fit all. And weapons have their place, as long as we trust each other to use such power sensibily. As hard as it is to stomach such power in the hands of someone insane or drunk or high that might be dangerous to our collective peace and order, it is hard for me to consider us having peace and order, if we don't trust one another to have individual power and capability. Somebody needs to be able to control the scene when required. And there is nobody but us, to do the job. Afer 9/11 Homeland Security was concerned that some enemy cells might be hiding in the West Virgina hills and hollows. This was somewhat of a joke to the people that actually lived in the hills and hollows. The hills and hollows are their property and home, and they would know very well exactly what was going on in their backyard and would simply not allow such to occur. It would be like suggesting that YOU were hosting Bin Laden in your guest room. Regards, TAR2

Arete, Well, point taken. Traditionally trained people would shoot at center of mass. But if you and I know that body armour is more prevelant than it used to be, would you not also suppose that the training will be likely to point out that fact to the trainees? And that more skill and practice at hitting a head sized moving target would be included in the training? And once that was accomplished the attackers would wear armoured helmets...and so on. As in game theory, one can count on your opponent to counter with his/her best move. To win, you have to give your opponent no move that you cannot successfully counter. Since, in this particular game, we can count on an intelligent human to find a good way to hurt us, if hurting us, is his/her goal, the most successful strategy would probably be in looking for the ways to make him/her not have the goal of hurting us. Since we routinely seem to be able to piss off somebody or another for some reason or another a dual strategy is probably in order. 1. Make attempts to hurt us, mostly unsuccessful, so others will not be encouraged to try. 2. Try not to give anybody any reason to hurt us. A "walk softly, and carry a big stick" approach. Regards, TAR2 Overtone, "Living with it" is something few of us can bear. We have to start trying to fix it now, as we always have. Reactionary at first, and then fix the unintended consequences next. As we have done in the past. I don't think generational changes happen with no cause, and no intent. And being that we abolished slavery many generations ago, and the stink has yet to leave our souls, I am not quite sure that one generation will accomplish any fix. Consider the backlash to affirmative action. Now policies that were intended to make us color blind are used specifically to promote a black person, over a more qualified white one. This makes us very aware of skin color, and defeats the original purpose of the legislation, and wrongly descriminates against a white person, who never owned a slave. Although we will never "get there", its mandatory that we continue to walk. Philosophically I liken it to a human life. As individuals we will not see the final act, we will not even see the next act, but this act is not the only important one. We buy life insurance so we can play a role in the next. We conserve natural resources, so we can play a role in the next. We maintain what is good, and struggle against what is evil, so that we have played a role, in this act, and the next. It is our responsibility to protect our children and teach them what is good and should be maintained, and what is evil and should be struggled against, so that they may survive us and carry on with a workable, constantly improving plan. Regards, TAR2

Never have figured out though, why someone would want to hurt others, if he wasn't planning on being around anyway, for any possible payoff. And even more ununderstandable is why someone would consider it a good plan, to spend their 15 minutes of fame, proving that they were a horrible, evil bastard. Just plain evil. I can really think of no other explanation.

Arete, To your one, the answer would be shoot him in the head. To your two, the answer would be that if persons with malicious intent knew they could not act with impunity, they might not perform the malicious act. Not quite sure however, what the thinkiing is, of people that kill and then kill themselves. It seems they are finished living anyway, and would perhaps even welcome being put out of their misery, before the dasterdly deed was done. Don't remember the Empire State building situation well, but looking at some video on the news, it looked like a rather confused scene, with people pointing at the gunman and being shot at because some responders thought the pointers might be pointing weapons. In the chaos of such situations, the good guys and bad guys are not dressed in the appropiate designated colors or uniforms as they might be in the movies or in war. At least if an adult shoots his way into an elemetary school with a semi-automatic weapon, the responders would have a pretty good idea of who to shoot in the head. Regards, TAR2 Second thought on the thinking of someone who kills and then kills themself. I think I might be wrong. If it is a final act of taking control, they would probably prefer to put the bullet in their own head, themselves.

Immortal, I am the last to propose that we are not subject to the universe. And I would be the first to propose that we have very meager control over the rest of the universe, and being mortal, have only a very brief time in which to exercise the meager control we have. But in studying it, or attempting to understand it, or associating with it, or attempting to manipulate it, to our will, or to have it do our bidding, its best to stick to the facts. Mystical is a directional word to me, now, after thinking about this stuff alot, and looking for the meaning of things we say and do, and how they "fit" with reality. Mystical directs me to the human mind, the human imagination. It directs me to consideration of supernatural things. Supernatural things are almost by definition of the imaginary type. They are not natural, not of this world. They are exactly "unreal". If your 31 gods exist only in this realm, then they exist only in your imagination. They are not "out" where the rest of us can witness them. They are secret creations of a secret sect of self hypnotised elites. But, as you say, it is worthwhile to study and understand the real things to which the myths and ledgends are referring to. But here, where the study is to be worthwhile, is in neurology, and evolution, and chemistry and physics. In psychology and sociology, and history and indeed in religion and the arts. If some aspect of your beliefs matches a conception a scientist studying quantum physics forms, you are not allowed to suggest that that proves your 31 gods. All it suggests is that scientists are studying the same reality you are and there may be analogs. But these analogs are held in human brains, in human minds, and the "reasons" we hold them are the substantial things to study. It is different in my mind to call the universe God, or call God the universe. Take a specific image you have, of god wearing a certain jewel. Let us assume that the universe exists, and we in it. That the universe/god exists objectively. Our particular take on it is similar to other people's take on it in many ways, so we can assume as well, that there is something about objective reality that can be witnessed by anyone that focuses on it. If person A sees this entity from the left, and person B sees this thing from the right, it is still an objectively real thing that is being seen. If you see a certain god with a certain jewel, but I don't see it at all, then we are talking about a different kind of object. An object that exists in your mind, but not in nature. A rough analog of it, may exist in nature, but if it does, others can see that thing, without having to squint or take a certain drug, or repeat a certain phrase. If god and nature are one in the same, and we are 100% natural, then studying nature would include studying ourselves and all that is to be known can be found out by studying natural, real things. We need no magic, impossible things to help us in the quest. Regards, TAR2

Rigney, I suppose that is why I never built it. I would have been imposing an unrealistic "prison" on my children, not reflective of the actual world, which is repleat with hard surfaces and sharp corners. They turned out fine, without the room. Sort of my point. We should not try to control our children too closely, or they will not learn how to control themselves. To the Newtown horror, I heard someone that knew the family mention that the mother thought the son was brilliant and that she was very demanding of him. He was home schooled, as that he had some "difficulties" in the social setting of a school. Perhaps, in retrospect, she actually constructed my dream room, for her child, and he violently broke out, killing the prison guard, and the people he blamed for putting him in the rubber room. Just a thought. And I suppose a slight indictment of people that would sit in an ivory tower, wishing to control the world, and bend it to their will...without giving proper allowance for other people to excercise their own will. And without trusting others to use good judgment, on their own. Not that we don't need to guide each other toward a workable, concensus opinion on many matters, and make consessions and do stuff we would rather not have to, or as the saying goes, "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way", but I see a need to remember not to try to control the world, all on your own. There are 7billion other wills to consider. Not that I am saying it was the Mom's fault, or the fault of the children that teased and ostricized him at school, or the fault of video games that give one control of life and death over all the characters in the game, or with chemicals that may have been applied to, or missing from Adam Lanza's brain...but these things might have something to do with the horror, and underlying all these things is the idea of "control". And we should probably not strive to build a rubber room of our own design for everybody else to live in. There seems to me to be a very large amount of stuff that we just need to trust others to take care of on their own, for their own happiness, and their own self-esteem. Regards, TAR2

So WE need to have accountability for allowing guns in school and WE need to take responsibility for the safety of OUR children. The discussion gets complicated if it is not US making the decision. If the NRA and Blackrock are to be considered OTHER than us, which I think a lot of us might do, than WE lose control, accountabilty, and responsibility, and WE don't like that. If the NRA and civilian security companies like Blackrock are to be considered US which I think a lot of us might do, then we would retain control, accountability and responsibility for any security expertise that might be solicited by school officials. Any of us, would rather have full control, responsibility and accountability for the safety of our children, so I am personally not quite sure which SIDE of this debate I am on. Just as an aside, consider the outsourcing that occurs in many of the business enterprises in this country. My guess would be, that everybody reading this, that works for a company, can think of some aspect of their company, some part of payroll, or IT, or legal, or HR or facilities, that is outsourced, and people outside the company have control, accountability and responsibility for vital functions. Best practices, and expertise in areas we personally are not expert in, is something we all look to others to provide for us, every time we hire a plummer, or a painter, or a candlestick maker. It is OK, as long as the "service provider" remains accountable to us. None of us would want somebody doing something at our bequest that was not accountable to us, and did not have our best interests in mind. Seems in this discussion there needs to be a certain amount of blind trust put in others, to behave in the manner that we each would behave. We have a federal government of the people, by the people and for the people...we each remain accountable for its actions, and we give it the power that it has over us. There is not a public official, that is not somebody's son or daughter, friend or neighbor. I do believe we in the U.S. are in this together and a hired school guard, would be on our side. Perhaps I am naive, perhaps I am insightful, but in any case, this society thing, is not something we do alone. It is not going to go exactly our way, all the time, but its always going to go the way we all together make it go. Regards, TAR2 But I do agree that weapons of war be something we should be publically accountable for, and they should not be privately held or in the hands of anybody that is not accountable to the rest of us.

Immortal, Secret societies are not my cup of tea. I do not like the believer/unbeliever nature of the Koran, or the saved/unsaved nature of the New Testament. I am equally repulsed by the secret mantra thing. This is a science forum. Most here are interested in what can be independently reproduced. If the secret mantras engage some harmonic energy source that connects one to some objectively real being, then it can be reproduced in a properly set up experiment, and we can forward the study. If not...its a bunch of hooey. Regards, TAR2

Separate thought: The thread title speaks of a "secret". Tie that back in: If the process of individualization is required for single people, would it not necessarily be required again for couples, and then again for groups, tribes, and nations? The implications of this question would be at least twofold. First, a religion, or societal group, in forming its personal identity, might envision a "greater good" or god that it associates itself with. It might develop a concept of its relationship with the greater universe, that it holds, that other couples, groups, tribes and nations, do not hold. They might develop "secrets". Second, if an individual can have a personal relationship with God, then probably a group can have one, as well. This begs many questions as to the validity of any personal god, in comparison with the validity of a collective god, but any answers to the question of "objective" truth that would go for an individual, would probably go for the group, and vice-a-versa. If humanity as a collective, can know the truth, then an individual within that collective, can know the same. But can I suggest it would have to work the other way, as well? Must my promise to God, or "the secret of the Vedas", apply to objective reality? Maybe, maybe not. Quite frankly, I think this consideration would suggest that scientific method, and the study of empirical evidence, that ALL can witness, is the very best way to get to know God better...what ever that may turn out to mean. And this consideration, should as well put focus on the fact, that in the greater scheme of things, we are as limited, and empowered, as individuals as we are in groups. And that groups and individuals could well have the same constraints, and the same potentials. So, Immortal, I would join your plea to "investigate" further the truths of the mystics, but I would keep the investigations grounded in empirical evidence that we can all investigate together, and I would suggest you more or less drop the secret stuff. (Like Jesus holding the Key, or the 31 gods, or special mental gymnastics that one must perform, inorder to witness God). It would appear to me, that the simplist explanation is, that we all already know God, and that is what we are talking about. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Well this is all fine and good, but I am somewhat of a pragmatist. That is, in the process of individualization, the self is very important. No, more than that, it is crucial. Why would you figure you should lose this thing inorder to find it, when you already have it? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Ok, I see your point. There is a consistency and logic between these beliefs, that has to be true, and cannot be denied. But if true, what difference would there be between someone who starts with the notion, or someone that learns about the notion from others, or somebody that figures it out? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I did not click on all your links. Sorry, its Christmas morning. I have visions of suger plums dancing in my head. Regards, TAR2 Merry Christmas, and happy holidays to everyone. And wishing for maybe someday, somehow...Peace on Earth and Good Will toward men.

Immortal, If human consciousness is important for a human to have, which I have no doubt is the case, there can be no surprise that we do very little as humans, without human consciousness being involved. One of my personal observations, that has become one of my standards in logic, and understanding of the world, is that my "take" on reality, can not be accomplished without me. Correlarily, your "take" on reality, can not be accomplished without you involved. The thing that can be taken from these two facts is that there is a you and there is a me. This firmly establishes an objective reality for me, in the person of you, and an objective reality for you, in the person of me. Furthering this logic, is not difficult, and the greater world, which is object to you and me both, becomes apparent and real for the both of us. Interesting to me, and very important in this discussion is the way visual images enter our body, through the "objective" lens of the eye. Upside down and backward the forms and shapes and frequencies of the outside world, create an analog image of the world at the back of our eye. Not unlike the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, that you led off with in this thread. Or if you will, consider the Sun shining brightly on a sidewalk, aglow with its light, but not its image. Prick a pin hole in a black piece of paper and hold it between the sidewalk and the Sun, and an image of the Sun, backward, and upside down, will appear on the sidewalk in the middle of the shadow that the paper casts. We are much like the apparatus described above. Our existence, in the here and now, creates a focal point, where an image of the world, appears. And our brains have evolved to store and remember these analog images, and divine our present location within objective reality. So that we can move about and secure food for metabolism, so we can move about and otherwise position ourselves within objective reality in advantageous positions, and with our limbs and tools, otherwise manipulate objective reality to our liking. We only can have this relationship with objective reality, if objective reality exist for us to have this relationship with. Call it physicalism or dualism, or virtual reality, or anything you want to call it, we remain real entities, focusing on real aspects of reality. And TAR2 remains TAR2 and Immortal remains Immortal. True subjectively and true objectively. So we have a little difficulty nailing down the thing as it is, since we only have the image to work with in our heads, and the image of the thing, is not the thing. Does not mean the thing itself does not exist, in and of itself. In fact, in my book, it ensures the thing has a form and presence which is something like the shadow which it casts on the wall of our cave. On the other hand, we cannot even catch the shadows of your 31 gods. They do not register on the wall. The implication is, they are not objectively real. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Perhaps I have already considered those things, Immortal. I can't yet draw you the diagram, but my take is consistent with reality. But I have had my share of experiences, insights, epiphanies and such. There is a philosophy, a world view that I hold, that is dependent on their being other people like me, experiencing a consistent objective reality. No "virtual" stuff required, no mind body dualism. I am not alone, in my views, though I am not a proponent of any "school" of thought. I see a little of my take in PeterJ, peices of my take in you, and oddly perhaps, a similar framework as Inow, in terms of what must be the case. In fact I generally feel that everybody that is participating in Inow's "broken" thread, is "a near friend" and we are actually, together, "understanding" something. The "secret" of the Vedas would be useful to us, if there was some emperical evidence attached, rather than vague imagery, arbitrary claims, and reference to "persons" that do not exist. Light rays that can not be captured or measured and a slew of other intangible assertions. You can not quite call it science, until the scientific method is applicable to it. Don't tell me, its time for me to come to your insights. I am 59 and I may have already had the insights you are referring to...and I am on to learn other stuff, put other stuff together and come up with "meaning" that is accessible to all. We will see. Regards, TAR2

I do not think that small brass containers filled with gunpowder, plugged on one end with a potential projectile, are very safe to carry in high heat situations.

Immortal, I talked to Brahma/God/Allah when I was 13, I know him still. He has no near enemies nor far ones. If there is anything, it is Brahma, according to your own knowledge and your own words. There is no possibility that your everything is anything other than my everything. Under the circumstances you cannot call me, or any other person an enemy of Brahma. Neither are you in a position to say that you know what cannot be known, and I do not know what cannot be known. If you make a distinction between yourself and TAR2, you are in error, by your own logic. How could either of us be anything but Brahma? So give up the pretense. You and your ledgends have arbitrarily divided Brahma up into 31 distinct, persons, evil and fair, and you endeavor to invite some of these persons in, and fight off some of the others. You endeavor to relieve yourself of you, so you can claim you know Brahma, and claim that therefor I do not. Bull doodoo. If I am your enemy near or far, you are you, and not selfless. What if I already know my job, and my employer...without your help...without your secrets...what if I happen to know that no special key is required to reach nirvana, and we are all already there? How could you possibly deny that every piece and part of creation is not Brahma...already. I do not fear the wrath of any god, named by others. It makes no sense to call all of the universe other than me, unless there is a me, to make the call. And since there is a me, it must be my call to make. I am already in, you are already in. Neither of us are separate from Brahma, except in that we are currently alive and able to make the call, that we are other than each other, and other than Brahma at the moment. Why, under the circumstances, would you label me a liar, and you, a teller of truth? And why could I not know the eternal, and be TAR2, knowing it? You claim you know it, and you are Immortal? Right? Regards, TAR2

Rigney,<br /><br />Hadn't thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, crime, as in break-ins and robberies are VERY often commited by people looking for goods to pawn, or money, so they can support their drug habits. And one of the reasons people might feel the need to own a firearm is so they can stop such a thief, from violating their home, or stop an intruder such as this from causing harm to a family member.<br /><br />We may not know yet, what the motivations were to Adam Lanza's beyond horrible, attack, and though drugs may not be involved, the desire to have a means to stop an intruder, with malicious intent, should not be considered evil in its self. Even if all the guns in the country were to vaporize tonight, we would still be left with malicious intent, and we would have that many fewer ways to combat it. Then we would have to ban knives, then rocks and clubs, then heavy boots and so on, until we had nothing available for a criminal to gain an advantage with. If nobody had anything they could hurt anybody with, there would be no hurting? I don't think so. Bare hands can hurt, we would have to outlaw people getting too strong or too big to fight off.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Never did build it, but my dream room, as my kids were growing up, was a playroom with a cushioned floor and cushioned walls, and cushioned steps/bleachers, with hinged tops where you could store the toys and such. The girls would be able to jump around and fall and throw things about, and there would be no sharp edges or hard surfaces to hurt them.<br /><br />Would be nice if we could design our schools so no accidents could happen. No guard with a gun. No gun locked in a drawer, would ensure no accidental bullets would fly. But such rules would also leave the school personnel with only bare hands and baseball bats to fend off any external threats that might befall the school. Whether wild animal, madman or person with malicious intent, external threats are a possibility. Not unreasonable to plan a little something, that would counter such threats. And a responsible adult, certified and trained to handle firearms and to take control of dangerous situations, being on hand, does not sound like a bad idea to me.<br /><br />I don't think there is a reasonable way to write this into law, to protect every day care center and after school program and every school and function where our children gather. But it would be a shame to write such possibilities out.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2