OT Funeral readings

Discussion in 'UK Motorcycles' started by Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    If it makes just once person actually bloody think and question
    reality then it's a good day's fishing.
    Pre or post marriage and baby?

    <grabs beer, pipe and cat and starts making lewd remarks>

    This any better?

    <stands still doing not a lot but leaving all around in no doubt that
    something terrible could happen>

    Or this?

    Personally I prefer to be able to encompass all archetypes.

    <wanders off whistling>
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    Exactly. I don't think you need the theological background for it to
    be interesting but if you do have it then you'll certainly get more
    out of it.
    It's certainly not my (always under construction) belief system but he
    makes valid points about historical changes in world view and has a
    pop at the post modernists which is always good for a giggle.
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lady Nina

    prawn Guest

    Why is making people think about a particular thing a good thing? I've
    never understood this.
    Pre. She got married? I haven't read Mr P for some time.
    That's Granny.
    Not really.
     
    prawn, Feb 27, 2008
    #43
  4. Lady Nina

    Ace Guest

    I only got as far as "...read it all as poetic clever thematic
    metaphor; adopt a reading attitude of rigorous theme-oriented
    nonliteralism and put your main focus on theme-detection" before I
    gave up.

    "It's English, Jim, but not as we know it."


    --
    _______
    ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
    \`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
    `\\ | //'
    `\|/`
    `
     
    Ace, Feb 27, 2008
    #44
  5. Lady Nina

    darsy Guest

    you're not helping yourself. Whoever wrote that clearly doesn't
    understand what "science" means. That doesn't mean that the second
    sentence you've quoted is necessarily untrue, of course - many /
    scientists/ can be self-deluded, but saying that "science" and
    "religion" are part of the "same thing" is just bollocks.
     
    darsy, Feb 27, 2008
    #45
  6. Lady Nina

    Iridium Guest

    <G>

    But you just said in another post at 10:28 "Why would I care - I won't be
    there."

    ;-)

    For what it's worth, these days I'm pretty much of your pure science views -
    there is no controlling power, there is so 'spirit' - we're just animals,
    and when we die, that's it. I used to have more belief, then, things
    happened to change that :)
     
    Iridium, Feb 27, 2008
    #46
  7. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    Because it's fun? And you get new insights? And those insights kick
    off further research? And further research leads to more new stuff?

    A random thought could start someone down a path that could find a
    cure for cancer or find a way of exploding the planet. I feel a sense
    of mystery and wonder at this :)
    Oh dear. I better go and wash my hair and wait for someone in a jingly
    hat.
    In Lords and Ladies, the midsummer night's dream (loosely) based one.
    It is what it is.
    Nah, that's Nanny.
    Oh well.
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #47
  8. Lady Nina

    Ace Guest

    Nanny Ogg, YTC.

    --
    _______
    ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
    \`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
    `\\ | //'
    `\|/`
    `
     
    Ace, Feb 27, 2008
    #48
  9. Lady Nina

    prawn Guest

    I sit corrected.
     
    prawn, Feb 27, 2008
    #49
  10. Lady Nina

    Cane Guest

    My Firefox Rabbling Tosh Blocker won't let me open that.
     
    Cane, Feb 27, 2008
    #50
  11. Lady Nina

    darsy Guest

    by definition you can't mount a /rational/ rebuttal if you're going to
    resort to irrationality and "belief" as part of your "argument".

    You can assert that rationality is not the only valid mode of thought,
    but unfortunately, from a rationalist point of view, this is
    meaningless.

    That might lead you to assert that rationality is therefore a closed
    subset of all modes of thought. But if you do that you need to throw
    out logic, reasoning and epistemology.

    But you know, it really wouldn't be rational of me to waste any more
    time arguing with someone who would assert that the irrational is
    valid.


    you might like this, though:

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
     
    darsy, Feb 27, 2008
    #51
  12. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    Wasn't trying to.
    Indeed. But in tabloid reading public understanding hasn't it ceased
    to be a process and become an amorphous blob in a lab coat anyway?
    Well if that thing is the universe as a whole it isn't...
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #52
  13. Lady Nina

    Cane Guest

    Pratchett doesn't count.
     
    Cane, Feb 27, 2008
    #53
  14. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    Heh. I'm going to use that one.
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #54
  15. Lady Nina

    ginge Guest

    Saying the above is pure science is a nonsense - pure science is really
    just a completely different group of concepts used to explain things we
    don't fully understand. A different type of fiction to religion.
     
    ginge, Feb 27, 2008
    #55
  16. Lady Nina

    Eddie Guest

    How about, "Faster and faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the
    fear of death"?
     
    Eddie, Feb 27, 2008
    #56
  17. <Snip> some pretentious stuff..

    Sounds like a song I wrote when I was about 18 with the main lines
    being:

    #I have dreamed dreams too bright by far
    #For their shuttered earthbound minds
    #So they tear me down, chain me with bars of chemical
    #Until I have seen the pheonix fly,
    #Despairing on the wind.

    And no - I couldn't tell you what it's about either (except it was a
    whole series of songs about madness and that one was about (I think)
    mytics who go too far and lose all connection[1] with reality.

    As I said - I was 18 at the time and thought it was great. I still like
    the chord-sequence I put with it that starts on f#m7 and progresses
    from there. I can't play it properly now though..

    Phil.

    [1] And before anyone says - it wasn't an autobiography.
     
    Phil Launchbury, Feb 27, 2008
    #57
  18. Lady Nina

    Iridium Guest

    Well, you knew what I meant heh. 'Pure Science' was just meant as looking
    on it without like, spritual and religous twists. I wasn't meaning 'Pure
    Science' as a concept or whatever.
     
    Iridium, Feb 27, 2008
    #58
  19. *Ding*

    "Funerals are for the living, not the dead[1]". As I've told Cheryl as
    far as I'm concerned she can cut me up and use me as cat & dog food.

    Somehow I doubt that she will though!

    Phil.

    [1] "for the dead know nothing"
     
    Phil Launchbury, Feb 27, 2008
    #59
  20. Lady Nina

    Lady Nina Guest

    Well yes. I wasn't seeking to rebutt because it wasn't an argument I
    was making. I was getting the books to see how many other threads I
    could weave in.

    Now we really need Porl at this point for the full on metaphysics
    experience
    Which is where we came in.
    Hmmmm, not sure I agree.
    I try not to assign validity for others, merely to point out
    possibilities. I frequently fail of course.
    Yes I do, thank you.
     
    Lady Nina, Feb 27, 2008
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.