Neil S. Boore's Comments

Losing Your Religion: What is the Soul? by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Sep 14, 2009 | comments: 387

in reply to a comment by Bent Lorentzen

Neil S. Boore Sep 17, 2009, 6:01pm EDT

Heya Bent, thanks for the chart. This is very neural and all, and I wonder if there is a sociopolitical mapping for this analysis, and whether it differs or even contradicts (gasp) what you have here.

For example, you list only one factor that vaguely relates to socioeconomic factors: "aggrieved." Yet it is fairly well established that social injustice/oppression is a factor toward radicalizing political positions as well as increased activism. We might presume that that effect is felt across the spectrum of beliefs in the population, with some "red zone" percentage being "at risk" for being "captured" in the scheme that you are marketing here.

For example, stories out of Baghdad over the past half decade tell of shopkeepers that began keeping a Kalishnikov under the counter when the US footprint came down in country. The terroist "meme" then becomes episodic, with a psychosocial neuron "rearrangement" based on incidents, the reporting of incidents, and media packaging.

That does segue to your "media portrayal" box. Media portrayal is as much a measure of media propaganda (based on corporate ownership and the profit motive, and generally pro-war) than a defining characteristic of an inherent "terror meme." I don't disagree that these images (media images and "terrorist mimicry") interact and influence each other. But without context or anything close to before-after "CMOS neuron settings" you have something here that is neither "repeatable" nor actionable.

A Difference by Mark M.

Sep 13, 2009 | comments: 8

Neil S. Boore Sep 13, 2009, 11:13pm EDT

Mark, not to argue with you but if we fear God how can we love him? I.e, what is your understanding of the word "fear" here?

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 13, 2009, 10:23pm EDT

Sorry about "dispositive" Jerry, didn't mean to use a big word.

The above (Sep 13, 2009, 7:42pm EDT) comment is interesting given your Sep 13, 2009, 1:13am EDT comment. Ha ha! Jerry! Don't bother trying to explain. Its ok, really, Jerry, I'm enjoying it all.

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 12, 2009, 11:20pm EDT

benny, you should address your comments to Ann, whose post you are commenting on, and who asked the question, "I'm wondering if others think it necessary to emphasize the distinction between right and wrong for young children." I guess you forgot, huh?

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 12, 2009, 11:14pm EDT

Oh, sorry guyz. I didn't realize that this was so controversal: I don't accept that the majority opinion is dispositive of what is right and wrong at any level.

Or this--how can you possibly say that there is nothing that anyone can do about a holocaust? People were hanged because they could have done something about a holocaust and chose not to. Would you have defended them?

So "cultural relativeity" means that right and wrong are detemined by a majority vote within any of various cultures, and we should sit back and accept that prevailing opinion. That would apply to women's rights in countries in the Muslim countries today, for example. It's "right" to apply lashes if a woman wears pants in public. Just so I;m clear.

Christian Thought: Christian Science Monitor Says Forcing Insurance Companies To Cover Pre-Existing Conditions Is Immoral by Today's Illusion

Sep 12, 2009 | comments: 28

Neil S. Boore Sep 12, 2009, 10:55pm EDT

TI, the piece you have cited is an opinion piece and is not an editorial, and therefore does not necessarily represent the position of the CS Monitor, or Christian Scientists, or Christians.

Presumably it represents the position of the Future of Freedom Foundation at which Sheldon Richman is senior fellow.

According to SourceWatch, "The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF)... states its libertarian mission is 'to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.'" (Not exactly a Christian missionary organization)

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 12, 2009, 9:03pm EDT

Ben, ben, be...

"Good and bad are culturally determined." That is in certain cases (the most important ones) total BS. Don't tell me you are on the "relativeity" bandwagon. Ben! You have the nerve to go on in the same comment to talk about the holocaust. "Culturally determined," "right" or "wrong" I wonder, ben???!!

It's a bitch to have a body, I agree. But it's not that easy to ditch your body and becoma a groupy for the "spirit" ben. Unless you are Tom Cruise or somebody lol! Guess what- your body is still here and making all the mistakes it did before you went off on your little spiritual "experience."

Your whole comment lives in this moment here, ben, and you are taking advantage of a time line to fast forward to forgiveness while dismissing situational ethisc or morals. Everything is fine after all the dead are buried and we can all hold hands and sing kum ba yah, right ben? Have you been on this planet for a very long time?

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 12, 2009, 7:00pm EDT

Dudes, and dudesses, I have been "on assignment" (i.e., the ones I haven't turned in yet, lol) but I will direct thy attention to my amazing comment of the last thread where I kindo implied that following traffic laws was "good."

These laws, and ones attention to them, are abstract constructions, if you will, and not even within sight of "do no harm." they are inculcated and form part of an "ethic" that one follows, mostly without thinking. They need to be examined once in a while to find out if they are to "exoteric" lol.

The human beast keeps a collection of these rules around, and its psychotic to not recognize them--in practice I mean, not necessarily in LYR ha ha. at the margin we can meditate about the lay of the land, and our place upon it, and that's good... it's creative.

In the context of self-help I can understand the preference for "skill" over "right". For example, in training, one would say, "try another way" over "no, you're wrong!" IN questions of personal ethics I think one can also attempt to improve--to "try another way." Where do "right" and "wrong" fit in? THey are a goal, or a "value" toward which our intentions are directed. To deny the existence of that goal is to be lost which is where I think this thread is right now.

Losing Your Religion, Some Thoughts on Being, Meaning and Ambition, September 8, 2009 by WM H.

Sep 8, 2009 | comments: 294

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 8, 2009, 9:29pm EDT

lol, someone didn't read the thread.

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 7, 2009, 11:06pm EDT

Nopers, I dint intend to say the thread should be closed (I was just getting at the thread-length-reference-probability aspect), and I did think your reference was valid and appropriate, Aniko.

My answer to your "why not ignore it" question is that the adherence to such laws is an overarching value, passed up from the underlying value regarding safety. (If it weren't, there would be no special reason to look at the signal at any time--one could just treat the intersection as "unmarked" and go when ready.)

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 7, 2009, 11:24am EDT

You did invoke Godwin's Law, Aniko, because it doesn't matter how valid the reference is--but I loved it anyway lol. I disagree with most of youse because evrery time you make a decision you have come down on the side of "right" in that situtation, no matter how gray the choices were to begin with. When you're sitting at a stop light, you don't close your eyes and count to 50 and then hit the gas--you look about and make a choice based on the best evidence you can find. That choice is also informed by your internal value system. You don't just run a red light when noone is coming. (Unless you're on the way to the hospital and someone in the car is crowning.)

When we grow up we start to learn how complicated the world is. Its not anymore just whether you should steal your sibling's toy. The fact of difficult choices doesn't attenuate the need for a moral compass--it intensifies it. And highlights the value of having the maturity to accept the possibilitiy of making a mistake.

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a comment by Liz [site-Raven] Please critique my poetry.

Neil S. Boore Sep 6, 2009, 2:34am EDT

That is really cool, Liz R-S. You are the [site-raven] so you should know!

Bush reading to school children while America under attack - "It's all good." Obama talking to children, all hell break loose by Alan D.

Sep 4, 2009 | comments: 8

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 4:42pm EDT

The right wing is using fear tactics and racist sentiments for political gain. They have no decency left.

Are They Afraid To Let Their Children See That WE Have An African-American President? DEMOCRATS WE MUST PUSH BACK! by Today's Illusion

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 30

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 4:39pm EDT

It is playing on racist sentiments for political gain.

the contrarian - OBAMA CONFRONTS FEAR by Dave McGill

Sep 5, 2009 | comments: 238

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 4:35pm EDT

Only in America could people on Medicare be duped by the insurance industry into showin up at puvlic meetings to fight for denial of affordable heath care for other Americans.

The prez's poll numbers will turn around if he stands up and says the following: "Send me a bill that lacks a strong public option and I'll veto it." The Repubs have drawn thier line in the sand. It's time for the Prez to draw his.

Say "NO" to the "Trigger"-- A Trap to Kill Health Care Refrom by Carla G.

Sep 5, 2009 | comments: 44

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 4:28pm EDT

No trigger, no coops, no mandate without a strong public option!

Friends on Gather has 1206 members. by FRED R.

Sep 5, 2009 | comments: 13

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 4:26pm EDT

Awesome.

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a removed or deleted comment

Neil S. Boore Sep 5, 2009, 1:30pm EDT

What a muddle, Alex. lol -- The original proposition by Mark (back before he was kicked out--why?) was that religous values inform every action. You made the point that some people are not religous. Let's accept that, and ask whether or not just plain values inform every action. I think they do, babe. I don't think we blunder along thoughtlessly waiting for a result that will be judged. We desire, then we act, and then we are judged. Sure there is a feedback loop and if our action did not serve our values (i.e., it was a mistake) then the "values statement" will have to be revised or discarded--e.g., this would have to change if the patient died: "I want to promote better health (value); therefore I will administer this pill (rational action persuant to the value)."

Where Mark introduced the modifier "religous" to form "religous values," I think he meant to imply a "perfection" of values formation. Ill leave that to the Chirstians to argue about if there are any left (lol).

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a comment by Ann M. (Site Scryer)

Neil S. Boore Sep 4, 2009, 9:36am EDT

"Many students of crows and crow behavior believe crows have had a reciprocal relationship with humans since pre-historic time—not only responding to human actions and behavior, but themselves affecting human culture and behavior in a variety of ways...

"A corvid’s brain size... is more in line with that of mammals than birds—and more in line with primates, at that—when graphed against its body mass. It’s a relationship that undoubtedly figures into what many researchers consider the bird’s intelligence in getting along in the world.

"Placed in a situation where a crow can reach but not obtain a morsel of food using a straight piece of wire it will actually bend one end of the wire into a hook. It then uses this hooked end to reach and obtain the previously unattainable food.

"Like some other birds, crows will drop food items, such as shells and nuts, from the air onto hard surfaces in order to crack them open and get access to whatever is inside. But crows have taken it to another level, placing hard-to-crack nuts on roads in front of passing vehicles, then retrieving the crushed-open nut." Link

Losing Your Religion: All Animals are Equal (September 3, 2009) by WM H.

Sep 3, 2009 | comments: 373

in reply to a comment by Larry M.

Neil S. Boore Sep 3, 2009, 10:56pm EDT

"The Macdonald triad links animal cruelty, obsession with fire setting, and persistent bedwetting past the age of five to violent behaviors; particularly homicidal behavior." - Wikipedia