This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - charming, so
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:49:41 PM »
Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,
As I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it!
Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?
Meria, in all due respect, I'm trying to think what is it that you're really thinking?! You say, "it's 'just' that he does not go with women" - I mean, what's that supposed to mean - for this kind of thing, going with women really matters!
Just take a look at the date the electronic article was posted on BBC - more than 10 years ago - doesn't that make you think they're not making their "best efforts" on that?!
spillover - as the other poster advised you, I think you should be more careful and try to maintain the boundaries a lil' bit better - you can't go ahead and try to put people down just like that!
2 young 2 be in debt - are you kidding me - are you telling me that you're relying on BBC's electronic materials to stay abreast of the (any) issue - and trying to advice "spillover" on this the way you do?!
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:32:21 PM »
Again, inappropriate thread - sorry again
Great post, copain - I will add a couple of other ones
This sounds a lot like Derrida (deconstruction). The face and candle image each are mutually interdependent. Neither can exist without the other. And a Buddhist would say, "Both the faces and the candle are Empty of inherent existence!" Hinduism, also, thousands of years ago proclaimed that "Truth is One - but the sages call it by different names." Thus Hindus tolerate a great variety of forms of worship and ways of attaining enlightenment.
Derrida said, "What I understand under the name deconstruction, there is no end, no beginning, and no after." He also said, "Since it takes the singularity of every context into account, Deconstruction is different from one context to another." Now, if deconstruction is different in different fields, then how is it different in different cultures? If there is neither a beginning nor an end of deconstruction, and if deconstruction is different from one context to the next -- then deconstruction must also have taken place in other cultures -- long before Jacques Derrida was ever born!
To name just three: China, India and Japan. China's great deconstructive mind belonged to an unconventional, anti-traditional Taoist named Chuang Tzu. In a manner similar to that of Jacques Derrida, he played with words, in order to undermine opposites. Both are aware of the problems that language and signification create, and both use a playful, unconventional style of writing to undermine and subvert conventional meanings -- to create works that blur the boundaries between philosophy and literature.
There was a time in Indian history, however, when groups of yogis became skeptical of all this. From among all the phallogocentric seekers of truth and meaning along the great brown river -- the ever-rolling and tranquil Ganges -- from among the waves and waves of turbaned priests and Hari Babas, and Ramjab Babas and Omkara Babas reciting unceasingly the eternal names of God, there emerged sects of naked, long-haired or semi-nude wandering ascetics. And as they walked along the sands of the holy Ganges they carried tridents or spears in their right hands and their limp penises would sway to and fro. They began to question everything Hindu. In fact, sometimes they would eat the flesh of dead men or would meditate atop a corpse. And instead of chanting Om, and instead of seeking for Brahman -- the essence of everything -- they began to question if anything has an essence -- if Brahmin even exists. They questioned everything -- using riddles. And from among this group of skeptics emerged a young prince, Siddartha Gotama, who was to become known as the Buddha. The Hindus had believed that the soul or Atma was identical with Brahman or God, and that is was eternal. But Buddha taught that all things are impermanent and that there is no soul.
The Cup and/or the Faces?
Buddha paved the way for Asia's greatest Indian philosopher, who was to be called "The Second Buddha." His name was Nagarjuna, and many modern scholars have found that his philosophy has much in common with Derrida's "deconstruction." He wrote about Emptiness, saying that anything that is Empty is devoid of self-essence. Or in Sanskrit what is called svabhava. The cup seems to exist all by itself, and not to be dependent on, or related to, anything else. But is this a drawing of a cup or of two faces? Or is it a drawing of both, or of neither? Perhaps it is just a two-dimensional series of lines! The important point is that we cannot see both the cup and faces simultaneously. Each image appears to possess svabhava or self-essence. Each image appears to be a self-sufficient, self-existent, discrete image. But they don't possess self-essence! There is an intimate, subtle relationship between the faces and the cup. One cannot exist without the other. They depend on each other.
I appreciate the contribution made the poster, but now "by train" would really be appreciated if s/he would come back here to tell us what exactly stands this about - because we may speculate a lot of things, but I doubt it we can get to the bottom of this all, without any help... if you know, what I mean
Totally clueless - me too, would need some kind of f.explanation
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:16:50 PM »
So what is the correct action in which there is no will, no choice, no desire - Now is it possible to see, to observe, to be aware of the beautiful and the ugly things of life and not say "I must have" or "I must not have"? Have you ever just observed anything? Is there an action in which there is no motive no cause-the self does not enter into it at all? Of course there is. There is when the self is not which means no identifying process takes place.... Effortless observation....choiceless observation.... There is the perceiving of a beautiful lake with all the color and the glory and the beauty of it, that's enough. Not the cultivating of memory, which is developed through the identification process. Right?
You want more and more and more and more, and "the more" means that the past sensation has not been sufficient ... A mind which is seeking the 'more' is never conscious of 'what is' because it is always living in the 'more'-in what it would like to be, never in 'what is'. ... meditation is actually seeing 'what is'... when no identification .... not identified by thought .... There are only sensation.
So we are asking is there a holistic awareness of all the senses, therefore there is never asking for the 'more'. I wonder if you follow all this? Are we together in this even partially? And where there is this total-fully-aware-of all the senses, awareness of it-not you are aware of it .... the awareness of the senses in themselves -- then there is no centre -- in which there is awareness of the wholeness. If you consider it, you will see that to suppress the senses ... is contradictory, conflicting, sorrowful .... To understand the truth you must have complete sensitivity. Do you understand Sirs? Reality demands your whole being; you must come to it with your body, mind, and heart as a total human being .... Insight is complete total attention ...
I wonder if you know what it means to be aware of something? Most of us are not aware because we have become so accustomed to condemning, judging, evaluating, identifying, choosing. Choice obviously prevents awareness because choice is always made as a result of conflict. To be aware .... just to see it, to be aware of it all without any sense of judgement .... Just be aware, that is all what you have to do, without condemning, without forcing, without trying to change what you are aware of ..... if you are aware choicelessly, the whole field of consciousness beings to unfold ..... So you begin with the outer and more inwardly. Then you will find, when you move inwardly that the inward and the outward are not two different things, that the outward awareness is not different from the inward awareness, and that they are both the same.
Be alert to all your thoughts and feelings, don't let one feeling or thought slip by without being aware of it and absorbing all its content. Absorbing is not the word, but seeing the whole content of the thought-feeling. It is like entering a room and seeing the whole content of the room at once, its atmosphere and its spaces. To see and be aware of one's thoughts makes one intensively sensitive, pliable, and alert. Don't condemn or judge, but be very alert. To see "what is," is really quite arduous.
To observe 'what is', the mind must be free of all comparison of the ideal, of the opposite. Then you will see that what actually 'is', is far more important than what 'should be'....
What we call living is conflict and we see what that conflict is. When we understand that conflict -- 'what is' is the truth and it is the observation of the truth that frees the mind. There is also much sorrow in our life and we do not know how to end it. The ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. Without knowing what sorrow is and understanding its nature and structure, we shall not know what love is, because for us love is sorrow, pain, pleasure, jealousy. When a husband says to his wife that he loves her and at the same time is ambitious, has that love any meaning? Can an ambitious man love? Can a competitive man love? And yet we talk about love, about tenderness, about ending war, when we are competitive, ambitious, seeking our own personal position, advancement and so on. All this brings sorrow. Can sorrow end? It can only come to an end when you understand yourself, which is actually 'what is'. Then you understand why you have sorrow, whether that sorrow is self-pity, or the fear of being alone, or the emptiness of your own life, or the sorrow that comes about when you depend on another. And all this is part of our living. When we understand all this we come to a much greater problem, which is death. Please bear in mind that we are nor talking about reincarnation, about what happens after death. We are not talking about that, or giving hope to those people who are afraid of death.
...'what is' is not static, it is a movement. And to keep with the movement of 'what is' you need to have a very clear mind, you need to have an unprejudiced (not a distorted) mind...
Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed.
As long as there is the thinker and the thought, there must be duality. As long as there is a seeker who is seeking, there must be duality. As long as there is an experiencer and the thing to be experienced, there must be duality. So duality exists when there is the observer and the observed. That is, as long as there is a centre, the censor, the observer, the thinker, the seeker, the experiencer as the centre, there must be the opposite.
"The observer and the observed" is a central tenet of Krishnamurti's philosophy. When we look into ourselves (admittedly an uncommon activity, especially in America), there is a division between 'my thoughts and feelings,' and 'me.' You begin asking, 'what is this observer that stands apart, observing emotions and thoughts in oneself as if they're separate?' Then one day, there comes an explosion of insight. At a non-verbal level you see that the 'observer' is an illusion that the mind continually fabricates. There is no separation — the observer and the observed are one and the same!
At that moment the veil is lifted, and you truly see a bird for the first time, without the screen of words and images, knowledge and association. There is only the actuality of the bird, with its vibrant color, form, and being. There was also an inchoate insight into the very roots of human division and alienation.
It's like holding a mirror up to a mirror. At first it seems like an 'infinite regress,' but then the observer spontaneously dissolves. What remains is simply the brain observing the contents of the mind (which include emotions), without the illusory entity standing apart judging and evaluating.
Keep observing, and the past unfolds like a scroll rolling out before one's eyes. First, bits of the movie seen last night might replay on the screen of the mind. Then some old, unresolved emotion may arise. One does nothing, simply watches, and in the watching without the watcher, the past tells its story, and yields to the present.
Sorry for posting on this thread - but I became extremely curious as to what exactly this post entails - so if anyone can offer some kind of explanation, please do.
« on: April 09, 2012, 05:02:29 PM »
John Edwards, the first-term senator from North Carolina who entered the field of Democratic presidential contenders as the bright young comer in the party, fielding questions on national television about his unofficial nickname on the campaign trail: "the Breck Girl."
This could not be a good omen for a man with national political aspirations. In a clear sign that he recognized this, Edwards confronted his relatively young age and political inexperience head-on.
During a recent campaign swing in New Hampshire, Edwards made a point of telling voters he was 50, even if he doesn't look it, and argued that being unfamiliar with Beltway politics was good, not bad, for a presidential hopeful.
Jennifer Palmieri, the Edwards campaign press secretary, acknowledged the problem, noting Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, had said that when she first met her future husband, "she wasn't particularly interested in him. She thought, 'He's just one of the cute ones.' "
Palmieri said people constantly underestimate the man who graduated in the top 10% of his law school class and went on to earn millions as a trial lawyer.
The phenomenon also dogged Edwards during his successful run for U.S.Senate in 1998. Once people get to know him, said Palmieri, they realize he is "a fighter … He has depth, he is intelligent, extraordinarily smart."
In media interviews, Edwards gracefully fielded some rather brutal inquiries about his good looks.
During a recent profile of Edwards, CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl first asked the senator's wife about the problem of her husband being "too cute."
Replied Elizabeth Edwards: "It used to be a problem for women. This is the 'dumb blonde' syndrome. People assume that he couldn't be smart - and he's unbelievably smart - that he couldn't be serious, because, he, you know, looks like he looks."
Stahl also put the question directly to Edwards, asking: "What do you say when … someone in the White House says 'He's nothing more than the Breck Girl.' " Responded Edwards: "I say they're trying to kill me before I get this nomination. … Yeah, bring it on, that's what I have to say. Bring it on."
Replying to a similar question during a recent stop at The Boston Globe, Edwards said: "People have to get past it. I mean, they come in, they say, 'Oh, well, here's this kind of attractive, slow-talking, smooth-talking Southern boy - yeah, with good hair. And he can't possibly be serious. It is my job to get past that and prove I am very serious."
Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously.
Dan Quayle was derided as a dumb blond from the moment the elder George Bush picked the 41-year-old first-term senator from Indiana as his running mate in 1988. Quayle tried to blunt the criticism about his age and inexperience by reminding voters that youthful good looks were not an impediment to John F. Kennedy.
The strategy backfired famously during a debate between Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, Michael Dukakis' distinguished, silver-haired running mate. (Bentsen to Quayle: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.")
The Bush-Quayle ticket prevailed, but Quayle never entirely overcame his reputation as an intellectual lightweight. A series of verbal gaffes helped bolster the country's initial, unflattering impression of him.
This Lesley Stahl, the CBS correspondent, what the ?!
« on: April 09, 2012, 04:42:24 PM »
Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind — primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.
But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by
1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.
In individual interactions, one who uses the power of words in subtly violent ways may be doing so consciously, in a purposeful effort to manipulate, or unconsciously, out of his or her "unexamined Shadow." Examples of subtle "word violence" can show up as malicious gossip, passive-aggression, purposeful withholding, inconsistency, incivility, and bullying, to name a few.
(A) In the case of passive-aggression, "word violence" can manifest as a result of the passive-aggressive's strategy of saying one thing while intending and doing another. For example, a person with a tendency to act passive-aggressively may give agreement or approval while in conversation with you, but then take a different course of action than the one you agreed upon, fail to participate altogether, or actually sabotage your effort by withholding information or brewing discontent or confusion. When you confront a passive-aggressive about these behaviors, he or she will deny them outright, or even deflect accusations or blame back at you. In these ways, his or her choice of words — or the choice to withhold certain words — can be a form of subtle violence.
(B) Someone who consciously withholds is practicing another form of "word violence." A withholder may elect to withhold praise, feedback, agreement, or information for the purposes of gaining some measure of control or having some specific impact on you. Withholding may be a tool used by a passive-aggressive person, or may simply be the communication-control strategy of choice. Either way, withholding can escalate from lower-impact word-violence to a form of mental abuse. By withholding praise, feedback, support, or information, for example, the withholder increases his or her odds of "throwing you off-balance" and thus making you feel uncertain about what you're doing. When professors withhold praise or other information, his or her students are unclear on their priorities, and would most likely suffer greater feelings of insecurity, lower morale, and general stress.
Withholding draws its power from the imprinting of an authoritarian system, in which people have been trained by more overt communications — including body language — so that ultimately the overt words or facial/body expression are no longer needed in order for the person in the perceived position of authority to manipulate the situation to his or her advantage. In an interaction in which this dynamic is present, a person simply chooses to withhold at certain points in the conversation, thus triggering deeply held patterns. The ideal outcome in the withholder's mind is for the other person to capitulate his or her will and succumb to or "fall into line" with the withholder's desires or interests. Unless the other person consciously disentangles him or herself, the cultural patterns will tend to play out in the withholder's favor, which is why he or she uses this strategy.
(C) Inconsistency can be another form of "word violence," particularly if a person is aware of — or consciously chooses — inconsistency as a means to an end (usually a feeling of control). Someone who is inconsistent may tell you different things at different times, or tell different things to different people, thus creating confusion and uncertainty. For example, the inconsistent person may give an assignment, and then when the other person is well along with the work and checks in regarding progress, may blithely say, "Oh that. We're not doing that anymore. Didn't I tell you?" Another manifestation of inconsistency is when a person "runs hot and cold" — being friendly and supportive one minute, and distant or curt the next, with the effect of keeping others in a state of perpetual imbalance. One common saying for this manifestation is when a person "pulls the rug from beneath your feet." Inconsistency can also escalate from mere unskillfulness to a type of "word violence" if an individual repeatedly and consciously demonstrates inconsistency between what he or she says or demands and what he or she actually does or models.
(D) Incivility can be another form of "word violence" that includes passive-aggressive behavior, withholding, inconsistency, bullying, and other forms of communication and behavior that most people would identify as rude, uncooperative, hostile, or insensitive. Examples of chronic incivility might include not returning phone calls or emails, not complying with requests, lying, blaming, extreme curtness, or withholding information or support. As with other forms of "word violence," incivility can escalate into more overt forms of violence, and, at a minimum, jeopardizes enjoyment, satisfaction, and overall well-being — each of which affects an individual's ability to participate fully and to the highest of his or her capability.
(E) When "word violence" occurs in the form of bullying, it can begin to seem less covert and start to appear on the radar of either other individuals or, depending on the impact or results. Bullying may include overt hostility in the form of yelling, name-calling, baiting, or belittling; or it may include the more subtle but no less insidious forms of "word violence." Derisive comments — including those which are veiled as humor or friendliness — are also a form of bullying and incivility. Typical examples include comments or "jokes" that derisively refer to gender, spiritual practice, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or perceived intelligence. One clue is that such comments or "jokes" aren't funny, and are often intended to diminish or make someone uncomfortable, or sow seeds of dissention and create factions — none of which are productive by any definition in any kind of group or organization. Interestingly, the conscious withholding of a comment or feedback that most average people would consider a norm can also be a form of bullying — in this case, the bully is manipulating another by purposely withholding approval or agreement.
"Word violence" can be so insidious that, over a relatively short time, the standard falls dramatically and yet what is considered "normal" or what is tolerated increases, creating an increasingly vulgar, crude, and cruel culture. So incivility and "word violence" soon become a new "norm." Systemic or organizational violence — a feature of "corporate psychopathy" — ultimately comes down to various individuals choosing to act in a way that is uncivil, violent, manipulative, or otherwise disregarding of the ill-effect on others or the common good.
We actually had a teacher who'd not bother with this petty kind of stuff - she would unilaterally decide to not apply the curve at all and give almost (but two) students Fs. She was captured by a handful of her angry students and beaten up real bad.
There were also rumors her daughter had been kidnapped once for several days, with her (the professor) not actually making a big deal about it (although, truth-be-told, there were no established connections between her daughter's mishap and her notorious grading behavior).
And yet, she continued to do the same thing over and over again for years in a raw, while she's "young and beautiful" - surprisingly cut down on that kind of thing with the passing of time, once she probably did not think it was that "natural" for an "old witch" to be "brash and bitchy".
« on: April 09, 2012, 04:33:15 PM »
I never said all profs use seating charts. FWIW, every one of mine does, and they have our student ID pics on there as well. I've heard of many other schools that have seating charts, and more and more with pics included after a few weeks of classes.
jc, the OP on top says his hypo would work in case the non-responding student would be taking a class not with his section ... which means that the professor would not have his picture in the section catalog
However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.
This would not work thou if you are kinda "conspicuous" or your professor has a crush on you ...
Oh boy, someone has a crush on oneself!