Welcome to the:
and part time band counseling and orientation room
Home of the unique, incredible, undefeated, yet to be challenged:
elevating blogging to a contact sport
WARNING - WARNING - WARNING
Musicians and Band members here for counseling, please: do not encourage, feed, or otherwise enrage the bloggers or their fans. Until your performances generate enough income, we must share our facilities with winners. If you are cornered by a blog demanding to know your position, tossed about by zealous fans looking for the blogpit, or simply caught up in a shakedown for your lunch money - avert your eyes, try not to cry irrelevantly, and when free use any handy nearby courtesy ATM to replenish your wallet with the necessary counseling and arena exit fees you owe.
BLOGGERS and BLOGFANS:
(what it is only fair to tell you)
MIGUELITO
a REAL musician and part time state bar-fly Miguelito's clever wit and eloquence all too often leaves his opponent far behind, mouth agape
lawyer
SEAN
best know as lead guitarist extraordinaire of streetdog fame SEAN will pummel non-believers until they beg for mercy
catholic
KEISLAR
if streetdogs are lost souls, Bob is their Shepard. His reconciliatory magic can end brutal meat scrap squabbles and his analytical powers can slice and dice any average blogger's offering
atmospheric physicist
BUHROW
He has a wisdom that turns jibber into jabber. Does he have the Yak to topple Sean?
deadhead
RICHIE
product of the streets of New York he's seen it all - but, did he take pictures?
ZIPHLER
tall, gritty, mysterious, a powerful presence, usually given a wide berth by those all too familiar with his erratic and often dangerous behaviors, nonetheless he is loved by all
incredibly handsome
CURRENT TOPIC
IS SCIENCE A RELIGION OR RELIGION A SCIENCE?
We ask that you remain quiet after entering the match.
Loud expressions of approval for ZIPHLER of course excepted
From Miguelito
Unfortunately, I remain for the indefinite present stuck in the stoneage of internet phone modems that doesn't let me download stuff quicker than a week, which means I don't download stuff at the moment, which means I haven't opened up Z's attachments. Does anyone have a recommendation for a DSL or high speed internet service that doesn't suck? Which is the best/cheapest etc.?
Cluelessly,--Miguelito
From Ziphler
There was no attachment. If you have Comcast cable in your area there is no comparison, both in speed and price. They will give you cable TV, phone, and internet for $33 each. Extras however will run you into the thousands. Probably who ever your cable guys are would be your best bet. After that would be direcway (now hughes) satellite. DSL is relatively slow by comparison.
From Sean
Cable is a good all in one solution, but DSL is not necessarily slower. Cable purports to be faster but you share "network ring resources" with the other users. With DSL, you don't have that problem but do have the problem with how far away your connection is from the transmitter. DSL connection is also subject/prone (or complicated I should say) by transmission parameters, i.e., signal has to be optimized to the receiver, and the phone company is a pain in the ass to deal with, technically and administratively. However, so is the monopoly cable provider. All in all, I would agree and say go with cable. I pay 30 bucks for 2500 bps for download and 428 bps fop upload speed, tested. I also have a static IP address. It’s quite fast for all applications.
Dan, what are your upload and download speeds?
From Miguelito
Pee Wee and his humble servant Miguelito stand by to make the pilgrimage to SF at a moment's notice. The Pope has his Pope mobile; Pee Wee and I have the tandem bike with cards in the spokes. Just tell us where and when and wee will set off for our Big Adventure.
--Miguelito
Thanks Dan.
Hmm, no attachments . . . . . very Zen. I had Comcast and just cancelled it because it didn't work after over an hour and a half working with Comcast’s telephone techie, who finally gave up. When it worked, it worked OK, but was expensive. A friend recommended DSL possibly because even though it's a little slower, it has fewer problems than cable??? As for TV, although I would probably enjoy a lot of stuff available on cable like Comedy Central (and hate the rest), I have so far refused to get hooked up. My TV menu is extremely simple and FREE: through the air, received by rabbit ears, at least until they outlaw that, which I'm sure is soon. Cable TV would distract me from music, channeling Pee Wee and contemplating my next email response to the Dogs.
--Miguelito
From Miguelito
Thanks Sean, but I'm confused. Do you have DSL or cable? BTW I was paying what I thought was a ridiculous $60/month for Comcast (internet only).
--M
From Sean
Dan, what are your upload and download speeds?
From Ziphler
I think about a gazillion and a gazillion and a half
DSL SUCKS!
Listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Your experience surprised me until I remembered the first day I got Comcast. You definitely don’t want to use their software. I never could get anything to work using their software. Make sure you uninstall it too. Just plug the cable modem into your computer and let windows do the rest. Our connection is lightning fast and never gives us a problem - we have four computers and God knows how many hitchhiking neighbors on our wireless network. We also have on demand so we can pull up any movie, any TV show, and any time. You are definitely right to avoid that and it costs hundreds. Their internet here is $49.
DSL SUCKS!
Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Gravity Sucks!
Mike-
DON"T LISTEN TO EXPERTS! They lie, cheat, and steal and have their own agenda! They can't help it, its what HUMAN BEINGS DO! They have faith, bad or good! There is not one that is better. To break it down for you Mike, its like a Karma thing, if you have good Karma, anyone will do.
Cable is supposed to be faster, has more bandwidth, 30 Mbps vs 10 Mbps, but it isn't necessarily faster, because those resources are shared. The administrators don't care how much bandwidth they give you, so they cram more users on the ring and guess what, you get a small slice of what you should be getting. Dan, that's why I say do a test and tell me what you are getting. Its simple and facts are then facts. In reality both DSL and Cable arbitrarily cap speed limits, so, it depends on what speed you are buying from them.
See this site: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/dslvscablemodem/a/dslcablecompare.htm
Your story about the techie not being able to get the modem up is amusing. I always thought there were less problems with cable from that end, but I guess I was wrong! Just another advantage to DSL. DSL is supposedly more secure also, but nowadays, if you have an adequate fire wall and good modem, and a router in front, probably no big deal. Listen to me. Although Dan may be technically more adept, my judgment is better by about a gazillion times. If you want an all in one solution, go with cable. If not, go with DSL. It really doesn't matter. Choose your poison.
Come on Dan, what are your download and upload speeds! Chicken? Another good site for the advantages of DSL vs. Cable with speed testing: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/129
Don't listen to an expert just read em and weep
From Ziphler
Using
java: 14,617
Kb/s / 362 (Kbps)
Using flash: 22,288 Kb/s / 354 (Kbps)
I am da man.
Mike, don’t listen to him. That story about sharing bandwidth with everyone on the block is a bunch of malarkey - yesterday’s news This is the age of optical cable dude!
Re:
Don't listen to an expert just read em and weep
From Sean
That is a fast download time-I'll bet you're in an area that just got built out. Its actually probably overkill-for most applications probably talking milli-seconds in terms of relative speed compared to mine. You can download an MP3 6 times faster than me. Takes me about 3-5 seconds. If we could actually discriminate a milli-second that would be great. But I beat you on upload speed! DSL is supposed to give marginally better upload speed. I still don't trust the cable guys-how long will you maintain that speed when everybody goes to cable? They will maximize their profit at your expense. Something to think about.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
Thanx you guys, but sheesh! You guys can't agree on anything. I fear like I've started yet another religious war between Ziphler and Sean-dog!
--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
No Mike, its like this. Dan makes me sharper. He's like my own personal mind sharpening tool. I'm wearing him down as I get sharper! Mike-I actually agree with Dan-I think you should go with cable. That's because I have a feeling the setup might be a little easier than DSL. If your computer's not working on the cable, there must be a problem with the setup. Sometimes moisture around lines also can cause problems. It could also be your house wiring is not properly shielded or sometimes RF
(radio-frequency) can interfere with signals where your computer is located. Do you have light dimmers in your house or motors like garage openers or other transmitters in your area that might interfere with internet signal (fire station transmitters, etc.)? I've talked to techies and they say sometimes these interfere. In the meantime, got any more songs you're working on?
Lay em on me. You obviously have some internet capability by email. Test your speed using this internet site:
look for speed test and other diagnostic tests
Sean
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
As usual Sean, you've got deep reserves of hidden wisdom. I should have known. You and Dan are like an old married couple. What looks like bickering to the outside world is really just pure love and affection.
Yes, off course I have light dimmers, radios, garage openers, transmitters etc. in my home. And I plan to keep them. They were here first. Plus I don't want to have to become Amish. Comcast can go screw itself!
Comcast worked for a couple years, it only recently developed the insurmountable problem. The account is cancelled and I returned the equipment. But only after a heroic effort to save it by their best techie. I don't plant on going back to Comcast.
I'm sending you this on my ancient first generation Pentium with antique telephone modem drip connection. It's abysmally slow, slower than I have the patience to wait for it to download a picture or a song, if that is even possible.
Basically, it's only good for simple email with small attachments. Don't ask me the "speed", I'd be too embarrassed to look it up and tell you.
Actually, I feel only slightly inconvenienced by the lack of cable. My main complaint is not being able to download any of Dan's and your fine music!
It would be ever so much appreciated if someone would do the heavy thinking and just tell me what specific company to sign up with (other than Comcast) for simple internet connection with no frills, just maximum speed, reliability and cheapness. Oh, and maximum Dog-friendly transmission capabilities.
--with love from Miguelito!
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Mike, I also agree with Dan - you should go with cable. Don't listen to Sean though. He's been sharpening his head so much that it’s pointed. The Comcast cable is a high performance version of the traditional TV cable that even the old splitters can't be used on because of the interactive TV features and the combination services (phone internet and TV with phone and internet being the same thing since it's just an internet phone). The internet part of the whole thing actually will carry on the traditional cable lines but since interactive TV won't they have definitely upgraded the line considerably making Sean’s theory that there is a hardware problem very unlikely. The problem is in the Comcast software! Just bring the cable back and a cable modem, don't let anybody install anything on your computer itself, plug the modem into your computer using Ethernet cable (the fat phone connector) and turn it on. Windows will find the internet immediately or I'll make the journey to Sacto pronto and make it work.
ziphler
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
All this hostility toward one of America's finest corporations! Heavens. Yes, Comcast is a particularly insidious monopolizing infiltration of complete wide pipe, data flow into and out of our homes. Do they care however if Miguelito is displeased or for that matter, loves them to death? If you must tilt against windmills I would be happy to come assist you in a guerilla tap on your neighbor's cable, however, I hope you noticed the key piece of data in the pissing match that transpired yesterday - that being that my Comcast connection is FIVE TO TEN TIMES FASTER than Sean's DSL and for that matter faster than even I thought it was. My satellite service was usually about what Sean's is. "For simple internet connection with no frills, just maximum speed, reliability and cheapness" they are the only player.
Regarding cheapness - because they couldn't fix you before you ought to be able to bring them back without the install charge. I will say that a Comcast guy we had out here to fix one of our cable boxes was INCREDIBLY stupid. I kept telling him it was the box but he re-wired my house and came back the next day to install a signal booster only to discover that the problem was in my cable box. Something else to consider is that the cable companies have always had a requirement that they provide basic cable to your house for a fixed (by the feds) fee. They never want you to know that and the people who sell the TV packages often don't know about it but if you insist they'll do it. As recently as 1998 it was still only $9 (or maybe $12) so it's probably still less than $20. The thing of it is that even though they are not required to give you internet by that law all you have to do is hook a cable modem to their cable and you got internet - the same one they7 charge you 49.50/month for.
You can also usually hop on a neighbor's wireless system pretty easily and a neighborhood like yours probably has several you could access.
P.S. to sean what's with the bridge in ghostown? Could you play it for me?
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Miguelito
Fuck Comcast.
--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Miguelito, you seem troubled my son. Take a few breaths or go shoot something. You'll probably feel much better, or worse. Truly the way to put it to the cast at comcast would be to force them to provide basic cable at the federally mandated el cheapo price. Then they'll at least know you exist while you fuck them
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Succinct, expressive, forceful, not particularly eloquent, but a well written essay!
>Fuck Comcast.
>--Miguelito
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
Dan-Are you absolutely sure that even if you have the basic cable the internet signal is present? What about extended basic? If so, what type of modem do you need-is it a special cable modem? Any other equipment?
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
All
I know is that when we moved in the basic cable was on and Comcast just brought
out a bunch of TV boxes and one dinky cable modem and started charging us
150/month. The internet was definitely working. I don't think they can block it
but they can control your TV box from afar. It seems pretty obvious that they
don't care that much about the internet anyway. Especially since SF is going
free access wireless citywide. I'm told any cable modem will do but have only
used theirs which is real simple. They do make a point of only giving you one
and telling you if you have multiple computers that you must set up a home
network. I'm thinking of getting another modem cause it sounds like that’s where
they bottleneck the bandwidth.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Sean
If that's true I can get internet up at the cabin cause I have the basic cable, and then I can test it here to see if I can get those blazing fast cable speeds. With DSL its easier to set up a peer to peer network.
Re: Don't listen to an expert
From Ziphler
Look out. If it’s the old fashioned cable they may not even have internet and nevertheless may do things different than Comcast who is real big on interactive TV making the internet child's play for them.
RE: Brevity
From Bob
Dear Sean,
Sorry I missed you and Mike. It was short notice for Dan as well, but it was fun seeing Dan Wed night and interesting to see his beautiful living conditions Thurs morning. Sean, I don't think I'm a chameleon. Rather, I think I'm a weak agnostic . . . the most intellectually honest position I can attain in my search for truth. The Catholic darling, G.K. Chesterton, called agnostic people like me cowards. As a strong Catholic, you probably feel the same way about me, hence your "chameleon" comment. But I actually think I'm being more honest, more humble with what I do and don't know . . . But please, don't confuse humbleness with a lack of conviction. George Bush ordered the cluster bombing of targets that he knew would take out approximately 5000 completely innocent Iraqis. Even a weak agnostic like me knows that that's just plain old MORALLY wrong. Period. It was wrong BECAUSE it wasn't the last resort for our self-defense, a basic tenet in the Catholic (and Islamic, and Rosicrucian, and Buddhist - keep thinking independently, Danny!) Just War doctrine! Now I wonder, was the pattern bombing of Cambodia, ordered by Richard Nixon in 1972, MORE morally wrong than the cluster bombing of Iraq ordered by Dubya in 2003? Hmm . . . A vigorous debate ensued amongst the famous quartet of the cyber-religious club!
I know that you may think that cripples me, that I miss out on 'real' enlightenment, or, as Mike has suggested, that I am limited by the thoughts of my own 'inner voice' instead of experiencing my own more pure 'un-thinking' soul. I take Mike's point under advisement, but so far in life, I let my soul express itself in other ways; music is one of them. I admit that music, and even the consciousness that writes, creates and enjoys it, could all just be waltzing chemicals. I can still hear my Methodist minister Dad retort, "But who wrote the waltz, Son"? Maybe nobody, Dad. I don't know.
I appreciate people who also ADMIT that they don't know, or, who, at the very least, admit that they can't PROVE whatever it is that they think they absolutely know. I appreciate people who display that kind of humbleness in the face of all that accumulated wisdom, be it scientific or Mike's good point about 2000 more years of collective spiritual wisdom melded together into a "new all-inclusive modern spirituality.." The Upanishads have some amazing stuff that makes more sense to me than the Bible! That's the best I can assert. In fact, on vacation I've been reading "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam" by Imam Yahiya Emerick. The Qur'an has another 600 years of wisdom than the Bible and it shows in some ways.
All four of us, Sean, Dan, Mike, and Bob are to some extent those humble people, people who admit that they don't know or that, at the very least, they can't PROVE their religious convictions taken on faith. But I think Mike makes a good point that some people limit themselves. Maybe I limit myself with my over-thought 'intellectual honesty.' Maybe you limit yourself, Sean, when you wave around a picked-through and groomed collection of sometimes peaceful and sometimes genocidal myths and stories, written by agrarian eastern Mediterraneans some 2000 years ago, even with mutually supporting 'gospels' (because the other ones were thrown away?). Maybe the people who act like they know the ultimate truth, BECAUSE it's in the Bible, well, maybe they'll be the ones who will miss out on the real truth when it slaps them upside their consciousness, as I believe it one day will when the universal consciousness of the Ionian Enchantment arrives!
But Mike gets some real credit here:
Bob
From Miguelito
Hey Bob,
Welcome back to the fray! Insightful as always. I agree with you that ultimately, we're all agnostics. It's the human condition. Now if I could just get you to appreciate, I mean really appreciate, that there are other valid and effective ways of "knowing" reality in addition to logic and the scientific method, then we'd really be getting somewhere.
On a more profound subject than reality, thanks for your "one word" recommendation on cable. That recommendation easily wins the week's Miguelito award for brevity. Impressive! However, no one to my knowledge has answered my essential question, which is the only question I need help with, to wit: what is the next best alternative to Comcast, with speed and price being the main criteria? If anyone knows the answer or thinks they have the answer, or has an opinion about the answer, please follow Bob's laudable example of brevity and fill in the blank below with the specific name of the specific company that you recommend. Thank you!
"Until Humanity learns to see God here on Earth, to see God in each others' eyes, there will be no end to war." Forgive me for pointing out that I believe Jesus said this. "The kingdom of God is at hand!", meaning, it is here and now. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". (Hopefully I got that quote right. I'm not a good fundamentalist-I know the bible inside and out but I can't quote verbatim-I just know what it says.)
I think you have many good points and insights. It’s funny how we often agree with the 85% of what each other says and then just focus on and dispute the 15%. The difference sometimes is qualitative or lies in subtlety of the issues, and not in the main concept. But here I go again, just discussing the finer, subtler differences.
Chesterton (GK): you may interpret him too harshly when he calls agnostics cowards. He means that only in an "intellectual sense", which is odd because you call it "intellectual honesty", i.e., the agnostic position that is.
Or perhaps GK is saying that you can't really live an intellectual concept. You can hold that concept, but at some point the rubber has to meet the road. I think he is saying that there is a contradiction with the concept of agnosticism and how we try to live our lives, the implementation. At a certain level I agree with him, but it’s one man's opinion. He might be saying that we have to choose, whichever way is chosen is ok because as more data is developed, even that decision can be changed. But, if we suspend that decision (by choosing the agnostic position), then we are postponing making a decision which maybe should be made. We then have "stunted" moving on and are suspended between the two ideas, never to really resolve the issue.
Regardless of what GK says, I say, if you can, make that decision. Become an atheist, the best one you can become. Or, become the best theist you can be. I sincerely believe God would want that. God wants us to use the free will he gave-that is how absolutely marvelous his love is. He loves unconditionally and gives us total freedom. Then, see how it works, feels, fits in with your life. Is it true? Does it have the ring of truth? If it does, viola or eureka! If it doesn't, choose the other and try it. By far the most important thing I agree on with Dan and you and Mike is that that we follow the truth, anything less is unworthy, and if there is a God (and here I speak from the point of view of an agnostic or atheist), it would be against his will.
Its true though there is a component to your position that resembles humbleness, and that is good. We never really know when our decisions are sound and that's the uncertainty of existence; of having been, being, and becoming. That usually takes the test of time. But humbleness encompasses much more and is not necessarily just not being dogmatic or not sure of your position. Humbleness also encompasses allowing people to express themselves and be who they are or want to be, supporting them in their humanity, including but not limited to, even if they are wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with everything they say or even coming to the conclusion, "yes, their/that way is valid too". Their humanity is valid and their right to choose is valid, and we are united with them in their angst-ridden search for the truth, but their "way" may or may not be valid. It can also be an invalid position, and for logic to stand, the possibility of the invalid position, that has to be a real/true, otherwise any behavior will do and all behaviors are equally valid and should be pursued. Presumably, we all know this can't be correct and that every way can't be valid.
Anyway, Bob, as far as being a "chameleon", that can be a good thing. You're just harder to peg because you think in more shades than me and maybe Dan and Mike. I have to disagree with you that I am humble. I am working on being humble, and it’s the hardest damn thing I have ever attempted in my life. Maybe that's the beginning of my humbleness? One step at a time.
The answer to life: DSL
Sean
More Lack of Brevity
From Bob
Dear Mike,
A quote from your last correspondence:
“Now if I could just get you (Bob) to appreciate, I mean really appreciate, that there are other valid and effective ways of “ knowing" reality in addition to logic and the scientific method, then we'd really be getting somewhere.”
It is interesting to me that you put "knowing" in quotes, Mike. Can you show what you "know" to another human, of any other culture, despite his or her race, religion, and/or sexual orientation? Can you really show that these "other ways" to knowledge are "valid and effective," for EVERYBODY? Are they universal, a quality I believe that true knowledge has?
If you and I apparently have such trouble communicating with each other, that there are these other valid and effective ways of "knowing," how can all humans sit down at an international banquet of knowledge? You and I are both relatively open-minded, same culture, same country, same college friends, and here I stand, unable to appreciate what is so easy for you!
I'm trying to get all humans to ask themselves: "What do I know . . . and what do I take on faith? What are my beliefs that I hold without evidence? Even though my faith works for me, what other faiths are held equally valid by others with a similar lack of evidence? Is my faith really better, truer, more grounded in reality? Why or why not? How can I prove my hypothesis (es) about my faith? Am I willing to admit that I can't prove my hypothesis (es) about my faith? What is reality? How can we humans, we conscious beings, agree on a reality that works, a reality that gets us to peace and prosperity on this earth, here, now?"
To appreciate knowledge, I mean to really APPRECIATE knowledge; I admit that I need it to be repeatable, verifiable, and independently testable by anyone of any gender, sexual orientation, culture, faith, or religion. In short, I appreciate knowledge that can be appreciated by any conscious person or being! I want knowledge that is UNIVERSAL. That's my form of fundamentalism if you will. To me, FUNDAMENTALLY inter-cultural and inter-faith knowledge is the best knowledge, highest quality knowledge, truest knowledge, universal knowledge, knowledge that works.
Your "knowing," Mike, that "knowing" in the quote above of which I believe you speak, well, I freely admit that I don't appreciate it as much as you want me to because I consider that "knowing" to be faith, not knowledge. It's your faith, which I bet I share with you more than you may realize . . . but one difference may be, that I admit to myself that it's ONLY faith, not necessarily the universal knowledge that is so vitally needed right here, right now. I'm sure that you feel that your "knowing" is universal and more vitally needed right now. That's where we disagree . . . and it's okay to disagree. I respect you immensely, Mike. And Sean. Both of you are deists. I just don't know about the God hypothesis. I'm not sure it's universal knowledge . . . And I know that will sound preposterous to you and Sean, whereas Dan is probably going "Yeah, go Bob!" But I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that I don't know the "validity and effectiveness" of these "other ways" that include god. You probably think that displays a lack of spiritual honesty, or spiritual ignorance for which I've already stood accused, or some combination of the two. Okay, I'll take that.
But for me, where the cultures and religions and interpretations meet, that's the WATERING HOLE of knowledge. That's the place to get knowledge that everybody, every culture, every nation; every religion has to drink, regardless of faith and belief in "other ways", other ways to which they often don't agree, other ways for which they will even kill each other! Sean finds my advocated level of knowledge to be mundane; he finds knowledge about the physical universe to be spiritually unsatisfying, etc. But what if that's all there really is? And I can make a good case that it is this verifiable knowledge that is needed MORE than any other. It might just be the only knowledge that is real . . . You may not be able to prove or disprove the god hypothesis, now or for the foreseeable future. I believe that you may just be taking these "other ways" on faith, Mike . . . which is okay . . . I don't know if you're more KNOWLEDGEABLE than me or not . . .
I'm not trying to talk past you, Mike. I'm trying to take the discussion into a verbal, hands-on level, where I think knowledge needs to be, to get this damn world on track to peace and prosperity.
That's my soul in a nutshell, as sad and unenlightened and cacophonous as you may consider it. Sorry for being so literal, so limited, so human, so secular humanist, as I guess I can hear Sean saying right now.
Humbly, Bob K.
Teach
yourselves to War
From Ziphler
Gentlemen, a fascinating flurry today. I like that we are talking about knowing, faith, and rational skepticism but I must get to the beach so I'll only say at this juncture that Miguelito needs broadband musical nourishment, his thinking is getting muddled like SEAN’s: If Comcast is the only cable and you refuse to use them (remember at the federally mandated minimum you can fuck them back, still the best idea and just have them bring the cable to the mountain and I’ll do the rest) then I got to disagree with Sean again and say, go with satellite or have a serious discussion with any one of your adjacent neighbors to split their internet costs and buy a wireless router/hub (one time cost of 60 bucks) definitely the next best idea.
Satellite will probably cost more than DSL but of that I am not sure.
BE IT EHHHHHE-VER SO HUMBLE THERE’S NO-OO PLACE LIKE HOME‼!
Go Teach Yourselves
From Sean
"Mired in confusion
you just have to choose
between a life to live
and cable, DSL, or satellite"
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
You just have to choose....You just have to choose....
Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon. - Alexander Pope
That means you shouldn't peak too soon.
It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Bob
Dear Sean,
I like Mike's statement better. It is more succinct and conveys a specific meaning (that I love) much more clearly than the Biblical passages you are stretching to try to match (unsuccessfully, in my opinion). I know that you have stated in the past that very few new ideas are around that are not in the Bible, but I just don't agree with that. I think Mike's point about 2000 years of progress in spiritual thought is a good one. In my opinion, the Bible falls short in so many ways, I can't even begin to enumerate them. Huston Smith said it better:
"When I read the Upanishads, which are part of Vedanta, I found a profundity of worldview that made my Christianity seem like third grade."
Of course, as Smith goes on to say, these same truths can be found in Christian thought but they are about eight centuries later, yet less clearly stated than the Upanishads. Progress should be forward, not back.
Good point about the 85% agreement and 15% argument. But there is a fundamental difference between deists, agnostics, and atheists. And we got one or more from each category in our Spiritual Chat Quartet (SCQ). That's what keeps it interesting!
I know you want to smooth over the fact that Chesterton considers agnostics cowards, but there's no smoothing it over, Sean. I can't recall his exact words and I don't feel like looking them up, but when I read his assessment of agnostics, it was very clear what he meant. Chesterton is very articulate and we don't need to stretch his meaning to try and be conciliatory. I'm sure my Catholic sister considers me to be a misled coward as well, unable to face the "abundantly clear ultimate truth" that she believes Christianity presents.
But my rejection of many spiritual tenets of Christianity is not based on a lack of knowledge of them, so you needn't waste time trying to explain them. I know Christianity fairly well.
I could never be an atheist. An atheist denies others their spiritual dimension. It may be that man invented god. It may be well be that the homogeneity of religious thought within one social group is favored by natural selection, and thus our brains ironically became wired for religious fervor as a result of evolution. It may be that the universe (waltzing
chemicals) has no inherent purpose or meaning, so that we are all free to choose our own meaning, free to paint the blank canvas any colors or shapes we choose, and that is why so many different forms of spirituality exist today. These hypotheses are consistent with the data . . .
But I don't KNOW these things. I honestly do not know. And I don't think you do either. I think you have faith instead. I would say that you are much more humble a Catholic than someone like my sister, Sean. You have that kernel of doubt that is the essence of faith. I know you have that, because you show it to us in intelligent, searching ways. Don't worry so much. And you have what it takes to be humble.
I keep waltzing chemicals as one possibility among the many I consider. I few the whole thing as a giant probability function. I consider that the odds are best for science leading to the Ionian enchantment, but Christianity could. Mike's could. Hell, devil worshippers could lead to complete enlightenment for all I know, but that is probably the least likely! It might be that all these philosophies, pulling together, could lead us their faster. Ultimately, universal truths prevail.
Bob K.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Yes, after reading Mike's statement I agree with you Bob that I glossed over it without showing it its due.
Its wisdom is undeniable.
I will disagree with Smith on Hinduism vs Christianity. In fact, C. S. Lewis make the converse argument, that the pantheistic view appeals more to the modern day thinker precisely because its simplistic worldview was one of the first in the evolution of spiritual thought and resonates with the more primitive times and aspects of our consciousnesses.
Don't get me wrong; I think many elements of Hinduism and Buddhism it are incredibly attractive and I myself was infatuated with them for a period and to this day I think they contain great truths and wisdom.
Everything else you said I agree and understand where you are coming from.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Miguelito
Bob,
I, for one, don't think that being an agnostic is cowardly. In fact, I think it takes quite a bit of courage to admit one's doubt and to admit the possibility that when you're dead, you're dead. In fact, the more cowardly position is arguably the religious/spiritual viewpoint, since it offers easy comfort that there is life after death. We all naturally want to believe that, so it takes courage to admit that it might not be true.
We all know people who have turned off their independent, critical thinking for the comfort of the fundamentalist viewpoint that promises pie in the sky. That is probably the single biggest reason I resisted the spiritual viewpoint most of my life. If felt like an easy cop out, and a betrayal of my intellectual capability and independent thinking, just to join a bunch of group thinkers. I have never been a joiner or a group thinker, but have prided myself on my independent thought.
But then, I realized it's also an easy copy out to just automatically take the opposite of a popular viewpoint just to be stubbornly different. It took me most of life, balancing these two different outlooks, to arrive at my own independent conclusions.
I get your frustration with my comments and the sincerity of your search for knowledge. However, I cannot impart my "knowledge" to you. The essential nature of the search for truth of which I speak is profoundly personal and unique to each individual. You have to find your own personal truth in this world.
"It interesting to me that you put "knowing" in quotes, Mike. Can you show what you s "know" to another human, of any other culture, despite his or her race, religion, and/or sexual orientation? Can you really show that these "other ways" to knowledge are "valid and effective," for EVERYBODY? Are they universal, a quality I believe that true knowledge has?"
The quotes I placed around the word "knowing" were not accidental, they were directed at you. That is because there are truly many different ways of "knowing" the world, and your way just happens to be the one that requires evidence and objective proof.
So I ask you: what if there are truths that can only be known subjectively, i.e., not proven to others, in the scientific sense of the term "proof"? Truths that are not "repeatable, verifiable, and independently testable by anyone"?
If you are a true agnostic, you will have to admit that there might be such things that cannot be "known" solely through the scientific process, that can't be proven to others by objective scientific evidence. To insist otherwise is merely to profess your faith or belief, since I do not believe you can prove to me that all knowledge is subject to scientific proof and objective consensus.
You keep reiterating your viewpoint as if I or we don't understand it. There is nothing about your viewpoint I feel I don’t understand. Your viewpoint is the one 99% of our generation was raised with. It is the viewpoint I was raised with and had most of my life. I therefore feel I am intimately familiar with it. Despite its undeniable validity, it left me incomplete, empty. Your repeated explanations of the scientific search for knowledge and truth add nothing to this discussion, from my viewpoint. I already know and accept the scientific method as a valid way of gathering objective knowledge about the outside world. But it is the internal world of which I speak. As a psych major, I studied the work of the famous behaviorist B.F. Skinner. His purely scientific approach to human psychology was to completely ignore the subjective inner human world of feelings, emotions, inner truths, etc., since they are difficult or impossible to scientifically quantify, and to focus solely on human behavior as the only relevant variable. Thus, humans are analyzed like rats in a Skinner box, and are defined solely by their behavior. This
was a valiant attempt to apply pure scientific principles to a naggingly nonscientific topic, the human. Ultimately, I concluded that behaviorism is of some limited value in predicting human behavior in extremely limited circumstances, and no value whatsoever in understanding the human "soul," whatever that is. It was an almost laughably insufficient attempt to turn human psychology into a more respected science that be respected by real scientists such as chemists and physicists.
Our Siritual Chat Quartet (SCQ) is not alone in discussing the intersection of science and religion/spirituality. Rather, this seems to me to be the topic of our times, and is on the cutting edge of humanity's current philosophical/psychological/spiritual evolution. There are lots of books on it. The other night, there was a PBS program dedicated to it. They interviewed a number of scientists who later became priests, rabbis, and whatever you call a Hindu shaman. They were quite eloquent at describing how they are able to accept science and religion at the same time, seeing no inconsistency whatsoever. I agree. They describe science as approaching knowledge from the viewpoint of the external (objective) world, and religion/spirituality as approaching knowledge from the viewpoint of the internal (subjective) world. Both worlds undeniably exist, and different tools are needed to understand each. So there is no real conflict between science and religion; they both seek knowledge and truth. The trouble is that the type of "logic", "knowing" and "evidence" you insist on using exclusively are only applicable to the external world, where they are admittedly brilliantly successful, and undoubtedly are the best tools for understanding that world.
Those tools have much less utility in the internal (subjective) world, which is not amenable to such measurement. However, just because the internal world is not amenable to scientific measurement and objective verification, is not an intellectually honest reason to ignore it, or to insist that it doesn't exist, or that it is irrelevant. In my view, the subjective, internal world is
exactly as important as the external objective world. Clearly, our society does not agree, since it elevates the objective world to
a level of far greater importance and relevance than the subjective internal world. In America, people who focus on the subjective, un-provable internal world are typically viewed as kooks. There is this desperate need for objective consensus. It is not that way in India. I have concluded that this is a cultural bias that I do not have to accept.
So, no, I cannot show that the other ways of "knowing" are valid and effective for everybody; I only know that they are valid and effective for me. That is the nature of subjective truth; it cannot be given or "proven" to another. That is why, ultimately, I can not argue with Sean, because he has arrived at his own subjective truth about the internal world. It is not quite my truth,
but no amount of arguing on my part is going to change his mind.
It might surprise you to know that I consider myself an agnostic. Because, like you, there are things I cannot be sure of in the external objective world. However, the things I feel I have come to "know" in my own subjective internal world, I feel as secure in believing as you can be sure of anything in this world. Therefore, I have arrived at a form of peace, imperfect as it is. It
is perfect in its imperfection; I don't think it gets any clearer than that.
Finally, let me suggest we not get into a humbleness match. "My humbleness is smaller than yours!" "No it's not, MY humbleness is smaller!!!" There's something just a little unseemly about that.
Thank you Bob for your courage, your intellectual honesty and, yes, your humility.
--Miguelito the agnostic
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Ziphler
KEISLAR - - >"Hell, devil worshippers could lead to complete enlightenment for all I know, but that is probably the least likely!"
Hey hey, the devil, amongst all the permutations of the occult, of which religion is only a subset, is the ONLY being who never judges anyone and does not have anger or hostility issues
Bob I could understand why someone would interpret agnostic as cowards, I might have used the words chicken shit but honestly, if anything I'd have to identify them not as cowards but lazy thinkers, the very quality that religions and fervent atheists all thrive on. I hope you understand how ethereal the meanings of these words are. They are downright fast moving targets. For instance:
Jethro - a hypothetical evangelistic streetdog who believes that God literally lives on a fluffy cloud with saint peter at his pearly gate
Miguelito - an educated progressive free thinking former catholic streetdog who still claims to believe in God but views God as equivalent to life force, or molecular motion, rather than a male Caucasian with a beard.
Sean - a devout catholic streetdog who nevertheless tries to exercise free thought so must rationalize much of his belief system by viewing the mystical and unrealistic descriptions and parables in the bible as metaphors.
Ziphler – a self-centered overeducated hedonistic streetdog, hooked on the idea that love is everything in a discussion like this one because he entered puberty during the summer of love, a great liberal social experiment, foisted upon ziph’s “born in 54” generation by his older siblings and their peers.
Keislar – a doubt driven self-described agnostic streetdog braniac who has nothing but enthusiasm for knowledge
Jethro would say that the whole lot of you were atheists because he can only conceive of God as a discreet physical being. Keislar says Sean and Mike are deists. Sean, on the other hand would call Miguelito, Jethro, and himself theists. I would have to tell Jethro that I am an atheist and perhaps begin to explain the concept of an agnostic to him, but I would say to you guys that all of these ists depend first on how YOU (my current captive audience) define GOD and thus discard these labels as too inexact to be useful.
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
PROBABLY TRUE
RE:
It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Remind me again, who is Jethro?
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Ziphler
Man, What a bunch of windbags! You are all so accommodating and Miguelito, the true chameleon here, is as balanced as one of the shuttle's gyroscopes as he agnoatheistically defines his belief in GOD! The good lawyer has also been off the streets for too long with statements like this one:
“Clearly, our society does not agree, since it elevates the objective world to a level of far greater importance and relevance than the subjective internal world.”
OMG Miguelito, have you not seen Jay Leno interview average 20 somethings on the street with questions like “Does the sun rotate around the earth or the other way around?” , or “Who is vice president? Americans are getting dumber by the second and as such are far more prone to interpreting everything from a subjective viewpoint. And what about this horrendous political movement fed by the increasing percentage of evangelical Christians?
Am I the only one of us who will not accept as valid, the squishy state of denial that passes itself off as a viewpoint that I should respect and its owner is entitled to?
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
LET HIM WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE
(ahh, that would not be you Dan!)
RE: It’s the Sean and Bob Show
From Sean
Ok, I really am the more humble. I was just trying to show how humble I am! Very eloquently said and the logic is impeccable.
Nice Mike.
And let me be more clear that although I understand Chesterton's position, I don't hold that view that agnostics ar