Kuwait drops dollar

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Smaragdadler

What was it, that rats had do to with ships? :hmm:

Yeh. Who ever would have thought that Halliburton is moving its HQ to where their main business profits and lower tax rates are?! Nah!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Are you just slamming him for not being an optimist?

Optimism or pessimism have nothing to do with it, at least for me. I only believe that if you do this or that, it will cause these or those consequences. I adress the world that I see, not the world as I want it to be. Realism is the magic word for me.

Concerning economies, they could last much longer if they would be managed with more reason, and not only with both eyes fixiated on the short term advantage. A light that shines twice as bright lasts only half as long. Capitalism in the end rejects all non-material values and thus, responsebilities, and only goes for what is best for it's profiteers. that is it's essence, and that is what makes it behaving like a virus. The sooner the complete organism has been infected and eaten up, the sooner the virus dies. This does not make the virus act any different of course, he is simply lacking the brain. Symbiosis would be the much more clever alternative. But that is an unknown word for most of today's companies.

Maybe it is genetic, from the times when our ancestors found something to eat only every couple of days, where hunted by wild animals themselves, and when they found water or food, they needed to gobble it as fast as they could so that it could not be taken away from them (like dogs do even when they eat alone). If it is like that, then we maybe are a failed design experiment of evolution: we prove to be unable to leave instincts behind that once helped to survive, and by that we prove to be unable to adapt to a changing living environment. For evolution, a design either is so close to perfect that it is able to deal with the changes of the world (sharks on my mind, for example, one of the most successfuol designs ever), or a design reaches a point at which it is unable to change it'S characteristics when being confronted with necessities for which it originally has not been formed. That could be chnaging living conditions, that could also be a dead end in the design self-dynamic developement: it may reach a point when itself is standing in it' way. Then further developement is stopped. such a dead end has been reached by many, many species on this planet over the past aeons. Our intellectualism so far has not shown to be a valuable tool to prevent us from doing our best to kill oursleves, bringing ourselves to the brink to extinction and killing the environmental basis for our suvival, at least he has not managed to make us achieve adaptation as fast as would be needed at this point of our specie's history. that we systemntically try to erode our life'S basis hardly is a sign for intelligence - more for genetic predetermination. That our hands, wonderful biologic tools, are capabale do built so many different tools and technical miracles, does in principle not change that. It does not prevent us from not realizing the sometimes enormous intelligence and self-awareness of other species - instead we look down on them, and in the predator'S way, we exploit them.

Maybe it is fair to say that we may be clever, but are not really intelligent. At least in German language, these two words express a certain qualitative difference (not sure if it is felt the same in English).

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Optimism or pessimism have nothing to do with it, at least for me. I only believe that if you do this or that, it will cause these or those consequences. I adress the world that I see, not the world as I want it to be. Realism is the magic word for me.

Thats how I figured you function. However others it seems would prefer to err on the side of optimism.:p

Concerning economies, they could last much longer if they would be managed with more reason, and not only with both eyes fixiated on the short term advantage. A light that shines twice as bright lasts only half as long. Capitalism in the end rejects all non-material values and thus, responsebilities, and only goes for what is best for it's profiteers. that is it's essence, and that is what makes it behaving like a virus. The sooner the complete organism has been infected and eaten up, the sooner the virus dies. This does not make the virus act any different of course, he is simply lacking the brain. Symbiosis would be the much more clever alternative. But that is an unknown word for most of today's companies.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say in my silly verbose way, I just couldn't articulate it as effectively. It seems though that since Socialism in general (or Communism as the others seem to insist) is such a hurdle for men to achieve that it is somehow then to be seen as pointless or misguided. Since when has the goal of being better than one already is a terrible thing? Even if we can't get to the world that Marx would approve of then at least we can try and see it as far as it will go. To be a christian is to live to a standard higher than most any man can be judged fit yet it is one of the core elements of Western society. But a disdain for socialism is not a rational thing. I don't see many arguments that are fit to contradict how you or I characterize it, though I may often shoot myself in the foot by being so verbose and outspoken. I have however had a few people blatantly justify the unfair and often inhuman scheme of capitalism as some sort of natural order. Thats at least better than "Go back to Russia you commie". It would seem that I'm much too young to sound convincing in my beliefs without also sounding like a sheep of my own kind. Oh lament.

Maybe it is genetic, from the times when our ancestors found something to eat only every couple of days, where hunted by wild animals themselves, and when they found water or food, they needed to gobble it as fast as they could so that it could not be taken away from them (like dogs do even when they eat alone). If it is like that, then we maybe are a failed design experiment of evolution: we prove to be unable to leave instincts behind that once helped to survive, and by that we prove to be unable to adapt to a changing living environment. For evolution, a design either is so close to perfect that it is able to deal with the changes of the world (sharks on my mind, for example, one of the most successfuol designs ever), or a design reaches a point at which it is unable to change it'S characteristics when being confronted with necessities for which it originally has not been formed. That could be chnaging living conditions, that could also be a dead end in the design self-dynamic developement: it may reach a point when itself is standing in it' way. Then further developement is stopped. such a dead end has been reached by many, many species on this planet over the past aeons. Our intellectualism so far has not shown to be a valuable tool to prevent us from doing our best to kill oursleves, bringing ourselves to the brink to extinction and killing the environmental basis for our suvival, at least he has not managed to make us achieve adaptation as fast as would be needed at this point of our specie's history. that we systemntically try to erode our life'S basis hardly is a sign for intelligence - more for genetic predetermination. That our hands, wonderful biologic tools, are capabale do built so many different tools and technical miracles, does in principle not change that. It does not prevent us from not realizing the sometimes enormous intelligence and self-awareness of other species - instead we look down on them, and in the predator'S way, we exploit them.

I've thought of something along those lines before. I often like to consider if maybe certain social dichotomies were the result of leftover insticts from the gender roles in the wild; that it isn't all the evil patriarchy that's to blame. I certainly see how our intellectualism hasn't aided us as much in civilizing our wild ways as it has allowed us to be the most efficient and effective predators on the planet. But at the same time there are many people who have at least in conception overcome the limitations of our primal selves, as it were, and at least laid some kind of groundwork for a more survivable future. Socialism is only my preferred thinking. But Bhuddism is certainly an excellent demonstration of the potential for people to be more than just glorified predators. But though there have always been those with more gentle souls it seems that no matter the economic or social circumstances, despite a few differing examples, people always seem to en masse surrender the good sense that they could possess and instead indulge in the kind of behavior that leads many to say that socialism is a pipe dream or that human nature will never change. Maybe the best way to put it is that a man can change drastically but people hardly change a bit. Something about that group dynamic robs us of all the good sense we have in private.

Maybe it is fair to say that we may be clever, but are not really intelligent. At least in German language, these two words express a certain qualitative difference (not sure if it is felt the same in English).

The two are equally subtle in their meanings for sure in English. I believe they say that German is the most similar language to English.

[Iceman]

Awesome post up there Skybird just awesome really you make your point very well...if we do all we can to make the world right and yet it never seems like it will fall into place don't you think it "possible" there are forces at work that you just don't see yet with they're own agendas?

Anyway good theory there with the symbosis or co-exsisting....awesome thought...reminds me of how the Navajo and I'm sure many tribes of indian believe...that we are but guests on this little planet "Mother" Earth, and should have much more respect for our host.


If you ever do see evil for what it really is fear not...God is there too....had to put God in there one more time.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Iceman

don't you think it "possible" there are forces at work that you just don't see yet with they're own agendas?

I see no reason in just believing something that I have not the smallest hint for - so, believing for no other reason than that I cannot proove in hard fact that it does not exist? It's a gamble only. As long as that lightning does not strikes down from heaven to kill the beast that just jumps to kill me, I prefer to take care of that beast myself, and don't care of the weather.

This does not mean that I consider nature/cosmos/creation to be a random event only. Their obviously is the ability of self-emergence in matter, of forming "holografic hierarchies", and there is meaningfulness, for if I look into a science book and become aware of the myriads of mutually dpeending variables, and then nlook up the stars in the nightly sky, I realize that this fragile balance we live by hardly can be the result of a big bang only. In fact I consider that theory to be a bit infantile.

But all that still does not make it appear a reasonable option to believe in another, separated, divine entity. In the end, all what we perceive is just thoughts in our minds, images endlessly passing, not more and not less real than shadows and winds. Take a Fata Morgana: the phenomenon itself is real, you can see the Fata Morgana, it is there. But what it shows you is not real. What we are and what the world is - we can ironically only realise to the ammount at which we oversee ourselves, forget ourselves. But we focus on ourselves instead, and by that separate us from what we are craving for. this distancing from our true source of existence, our origin, is what for me the real meaning of "sin" is meaning. It is illustrating lacking knowledge, and rejecting our origin.

Just believing in idols I can't see to be the clever choice here. Spirituality is not to be believed in, or talked about, or taught, or read. It is to be lived, not intentionally, but naturally, unintentionally, as the normal, natural state of mind that our life is meant to be since all times. It is nothing special, nothing to make a big deal of, nothing to wrap yourself in, nothing to make you go into a temple or read an old scroll. It's as natural as drinking water when you are thirsty - you don't think about it. It is not our right to be so - it is our essence. And as Origenes (4th century) said in reference to Paul, Gal 2,20: "And when Christ lived in Paul and not in me - of what use could that be for me?" And: "When you try to bring down divine spirit to the level of only superficial word-meaning, he will see no reason to come down and will return to his real home which is the only fitting home for him indeed."

I do not know much about North-American Indian's belief system, but the little I do know I have great sympathy for. They would make for better neighbours, culturally, than many other people this globe is plagued of.

Welcome back amongst the living, I just switched you on again. No problem with disagreeing with me - but I would appreciate it very much if in the future you would avoid to attack or offend me on a personal level or try to score a shot from behind. I don't like that ignore-list too much, but sometimes somebody just crosses that line that one time too often. Please don't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Thats how I figured you function.

Heee...! I am no second Data!

Thats exactly what I was trying to say in my silly verbose way, I just couldn't articulate it as effectively. It seems though that since Socialism in general (or Communism as the others seem to insist) is such a hurdle for men to achieve that it is somehow then to be seen as pointless or misguided. Since when has the goal of being better than one already is a terrible thing? Even if we can't get to the world that Marx would approve of then at least we can try and see it as far as it will go. To be a christian is to live to a standard higher than most any man can be judged fit yet it is one of the core elements of Western society. But a disdain for socialism is not a rational thing. I don't see many arguments that are fit to contradict how you or I characterize it,

But I do not propagate socialism. Social behavior, social acting and social responsebility does not automatically translate into "socialism" - that is something very different. And I do not have too much sympathy for it either. Like communism, and democracy, it makes some very basic false assumptions about man: that man is acting on the basis of reasonable decisions, has a basic altruistic drive and accepts social responsebility as a natural state of mankind. But fact is that most people in their usual ordinary lives decice oin the basis of moods, daily changing feelings, and wishes to possess this or that, wether it be a material or non-material thing or quality. How altruistic we are since birth you can see when observing little kids playing who still have not learned the need of sharing with others, and that can hurt other's feeling by acting rude. Social responsebility also needs to be learned. In fact, all these things need to be learned. Societies only differ in the degree to which they make teaching and learning thiese qualities a natural duty from chilkdhood on. Those rasing their kids accordingly from early on then give the impression that these qualities are a natural attiude of man. But this is not so. Capitalism - the absence of these qualities, and the non-accepting of non-material ethics and ideas, illustrates much better the real nature of man. And since that is self-damaging, we need to overcome it, or evolution will put us up for consideration sooner or later.

I've thought of something along those lines before. I often like to consider if maybe certain social dichotomies were the result of leftover insticts from the gender roles in the wild; that it isn't all the evil patriarchy that's to blame.

The forming of the patriarchat was very much a natural thing when farming and hunting became a new variable in our ancestor's lives. We know for example that pregnant women doing work on the field have a far higher risk of suffering miscarriages than women avoiding too hard physical work. The plow on the field was better operated by the stronger males, than by females. And so on. there are many arguments that even several feministic female writers today accept as an explanation that it was not all about evil males pushing weak innocent females into slavery.

Maybe the best way to put it is that a man can change drastically but people hardly change a bit. Something about that group dynamic robs us of all the good sense we have in private.

Or as I use to say: a group's IQ is inversely proportional to the size of the group. The greater the group, the more power it'S anonymous authority projects onto the individual's reason and mind. That'S why I never joined demonstrations, unions or parties: no thoughts, but slogans only - the cheap replacement for thoughts.

I believe they say that German is the most similar language to English.

Is it? Most Western languages are relatively close to each other, that's why linear translation often works reasonably well. but I also need to translate a lot in this forum, of course, and often realize that an adequate translation, no matter in what direction, simply is not possible, and needs a verbal workaround instead. However, in German you can construct completely new words by simply adding two old ones that in other languages can not be formed that way, but would need to be described in their meaning instead. This is very practical, and many of such words get exported into other languages. the extent to which this is done in German is a unique characteristic of German. If I would be asked, then I would say that French and German have far more in common. However, i like English very much, and always had huge problems with French - grammatically, French is far more difficult than English. At school, it was a nightmare for me. i also never was competent in pronouncing it. My English often is fluid and sounds American, I am often told, some British or American customer appearing in the warehouse where I work sometimes mistake me to be an American (by sound), but my French is - Martian. I'm glad that I am able to avoid this typical hard, lumpy German accent you often hear in German English - it sounds awful and would make me feel very uncertain. Better risk a laugh at times, but let it roll!

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But I do not propagate socialism. Social behavior, social acting and social responsebility does not automatically translate into "socialism" - that is something very different. And I do not have too much sympathy for it either. Like communism, and democracy, it makes some very basic false assumptions about man: that man is acting on the basis of reasonable decisions, has a basic altruistic drive and accepts social responsebility as a natural state of mankind.

Hmm, you know its funny but you really come off as a pinko when you make certain points. I suppose thats because you do accept certain things that the social left is sononymous with. Certain critical points on capitalism and such.

Certainly much of what is said and has been said is flawed in its assumptions. But thats why Marxism at the very least is better than a religion. People can still freely reinterpret some of it or reject entire parts of it. Its when you get religious about your politics that you lose your way. I myself am just a silly little boy finding my own place in the scheme of things. I fancy alot of this idealistic stuff, and like Sea Demon said in another thread, I'll definitely have to evalute my thoughts many times in the future.

Is it? Most Western languages are relatively close to each other, that's why linear translation often works reasonably well. but I also need to translate a lot in this forum, of course, and often realize that an adequate translation, no matter in what direction, simply is not possible, and needs a verbal workaround instead.

I do remember hearing that German is the one that suffers least in comparing general similarities. I often look at German words and see that they are almost identical to English ones. And its obvious also that Old English closely resembles a germanic language so there is an obvious and tight relationship there I'd wager. Its like when I read Chaucer. There is alot of stuff I don't understand but every few pages I'll see one line that is literally no different than English today. Its like a series of odd gutteral sounds and mutilated English and then suddenly my accent disappears and its 2007 again.

However, in German you can construct completely new words by simply adding two old ones that in other languages can not be formed that way, but would need to be described in their meaning instead. This is very practical, and many of such words get exported into other languages. the extent to which this is done in German is a unique characteristic of German.

Now that I think is pretty cool. Creating words as a basic function of language is a very interesting ability. I don't think you could do it with english just because most people don't know 1/20th of the dictionary.

If I would be asked, then I would say that French and German have far more in common. However, i like English very much, and always had huge problems with French - grammatically, French is far more difficult than English. At school, it was a nightmare for me. i also never was competent in pronouncing it. My English often is fluid and sounds American, I am often told, some British or American customer appearing in the warehouse where I work sometimes mistake me to be an American (by sound), but my French is - Martian. I'm glad that I am able to avoid this typical hard, lumpy German accent you often hear in German English - it sounds awful and would make me feel very uncertain. Better risk a laugh at times, but let it roll!

I took French Immersion in elemantary and part of high school. French is conversationally not that difficult language. However conjugating verbs and spelling it all out is about as convoluted as anything to do with the French ought to be. But I do recall that in less than 10 days in Quebec on a trip my speaking skills when from passable to very articulate. People were impressed at this Anglophone's French.:rotfl:

Now you may be right that French is most similar to German, but that doesn't preclude German being most similar to English.

I love languages. Its so fascinating to be sitting in a coffee shop and to overhear a very loud and energetic conversation in some language you don't know, trying to figure out which one it is.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Now you may be right that French is most similar to German, but that doesn't preclude German being most similar to English.

Maybe, I could be wrong. I just remember that the link between German and English is "Plattdeutsch" (Low german?), and Dutch, I think. You can often see how a word from German is tranformed into a Dutch or Low German word, and from there changed into the English term.

Surprisingly, the Dutch seem to find it easier to understand German, than Germans to understand Dutch language. I often deal with Dutch in the warehouse, Münster is a preferred shopping target of them and relatively close to the border. Often they obviously do not speak German, but understand quite well what me or another German is telling them.

I today regret that I am not competent in French, it depends on what kind of voice is speaking it, but it can sound beautiful and melodic, like English (Orson Welles-kind voice preferred), and German (listen to texts of Rilke!). I also have a weak spot for chansons sung by Yves Montand - another one of these voices....

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I today regret that I am not competent in French, it depends on what kind of voice is speaking it, but it can sound beautiful and melodic, like English (Orson Welles-kind voice preferred), and German (listen to texts of Rilke!). I also have a weak spot for chansons sung by Yves Montand - another one of these voices....

I myself have forgotten much of my French. I need to take another visit to Quebec soon. It really is a briliant place to go. The people are interesting and Montreal is a great cultural hotbed in Canada.

I for one love the sound of Old English and Gaelic poetry when read by someone who's properly versed in the language. Its such a full blooded sounding language. Especially gaelic. I have relatives on the Ilse of Skye in Scotland and in WW2 my grandfather visited them. There was naturally an old old man that spoke Gaelic. I just love that sound from the back of your throat. I have a list of languages I want to learn thats far too long.

[Skybird]

Gaelic!? Yes, me too, I am fascinated by the sound of it, but don't understand a word. If reading the text while somebody sings or talks Gaelic, i can't bring the written text into confomrity with what I hear, that differently it often is pronounced. I like The Corrs very much, but Andrea has some of her most beautiful songs sung in Gaelic on their last album. Great voice, great performing on stage (Corrs only and always live), great language, great music.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gaelic!? Yes, me too, I am fascinated by the sound of it, but don't understand a word. If reading the text while somebody sings or talks Gaelic, i can't bring the written text into confomrity with what I hear, that differently it often is pronounced. I like The Corrs very much, but Andrea has some of her most beautiful songs sung in Gaelic on their last album. Great voice, great performing on stage (Corrs only and always live), great language, great music.

Being a Canadian it often feels as if I'm cultureless. Its like my country is an immigrant truck stop where we're all just trying to have a nice piece of pie. So I look back to my heritage and take some weird fetish in imagining Scotland. I want to buy a kilt in McIntosh tartan and move to Scotland, drink powerful blinding scotch and grow a shaggy beard. Maybe even run at a Frenchman naked swinging a broadsword.:p At the very lest I'm going to learn some Gaelic. I guess I'll start with the Corrs.:rotfl:

The west coast of canada is about as culturally alive as a dry graham cracker.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Yeh. Who ever would have thought that Halliburton is moving its HQ to where their main business profits and lower tax rates are?! Nah!

Most companies only feel the need to incorporate in Rhode Island.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I guess I'll start with the Corrs

Forget it, she's mine. All three of them. But you can have Jim.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Forget it, she's mine. All three of them. But you can have Jim.

Jeeze you're worse than Kpt. Lehmann and Katee Sackhoff! :rotfl:

[Heibges]

GW wouldn't be the first idiot son to bankrupt his country in ill-advised wars, and he probably won't be the last.

George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton seemed to have finally gotten the deficit under control, and now we are living fast and loose with our finances. It's also a shame that Bush Sr. doesn't generally get his due in the process, because when he raised taxes Bush Sr. reversed that Reagan nonsense of Trickle Down economics, or as Bush Sr. himself said Voodoo Economics.

Trickle down all the way to Grand Cayman, Nassau Bahamas, and the Isle of Mann.