Try the following to see how ZhurnalyWiki looks in different styles. Click on a sample style link to set a cookie to use that style. Click RESET STYLE to remove that cookie variable and revert to the default ZhurnalyWiki style. The cookie changing will cause an extra line to display; click RELOAD PAGE to get this page again without that distraction.
Samples from http://communitywiki.org/zen :
can I put "</a" in a URL?
<a href="http://test.com/">test</a>, etc. ?
test some HTML:
does <b>bold</b> work?
how about <html><b>bold</b></html>?!
test Local Anchor --- as per http://www.oddmuse.org/cgi-bin/oddmuse/Local_Anchor_Extension
here's a link to anchor "foo" down near the bottom of this page: foo (in the editor it looks like
here's a link to anchor "bar" but with text "baz": baz (in the editor it looks like
here's a link to another page's internal anchor: JFK 50 Miler 2009#Ken (looks like
[[JFK 50 Miler 2009#Ken]])
here's a link to another's page's internal anchor with different link text: 2008 Swab Report ((looks like
[[JFK 50 Miler 2008#Ken|2008 Swab Report]])
test of small Caps and
link with hyphen test: "use-mention distinction"
Tests of new link rendering:
It lowers my chess rating a few hundred points, based on a test game with [[RadRob|Robin]]. It also = It lowers my chess rating a few hundred points, based on a test game with Robin. It also
[[RadRob]] = RadRob
[[RadRob|Robin]] = Robin
WikiLinks turned off now? Colin McGinn ... AbCd ... etc.?
Power test: how does ^z50 look? how about ^z50 and ^z50 and ^z50 ?
Tilde problem: with the Creole extension and the "tilde escape" feature, it seems that a number prefixed by a tilde, like ~3.14159, doesn't show the tilde... hmmm! Putting a space after the tilde, as in ~ 2.718181828, makes it visible ... ^z
more tilde tests:
Here's a tilde at the end of a line ~
Here are two at the end of a line ~
Here's a tilde in front of a digit ~17
Here's a pair ~17
Here's a tilde before a ~WikiWord
Here's a pair ~WikiWord
~ tilde at beginning of line with space after it
~ pair of them
Three tildes ~ and four ~ and five ~~ ... enough!
Here's a table with tildes in front of the digits:
:small type in blockquote
is this a subscript or not???
is this a superscript or not???
[[Wiki_Word_Link_Test?|Wiki Word Link Test]]
[[1_2_3?|1 2 3]]
Here is where all contemplative practices have a common root, a vital heart that can be developed in an almost infinite variety of skillful directions, depending on purpose and perspective. Different techniques of meditation can be classified according to their focus. Some focus on the field of perception itself, and we call those methods mindfulness; others focus on a specific object, and we call those concentrative practices. There are also techniques that shift back and forth between the field and the object.
Meditation, simply defined, is a way of being aware.
-- Anonymous 2014-02-21 09:39 UTC
Charles J. Fillmore was the man who first figured out how framing works. He is world-renowned in linguistics, but deserves a much wider appreciation as a major intellectual. I have cited his work over and over, in my writing and in my talks. But over more than 50 years, he worked modestly as an OWL, an ordinary working linguist. He was brought up in St. Paul, Minnesota, and was known for his Minnesotan modesty, gentlemanliness, and a sly wit befitting Lake Woebegone. When he first came to Berkeley in 1971, he encountered a culture defined by the then-commonplace expression, “Let it all hang out.” His response was to wear a button saying, “Tuck it all back in.”
-- Anonymous 2014-02-21 16:59 UTC
Although some of Lakoff's research involves questions traditionally pursued by linguists, such as the conditions under which a certain linguistic construction is grammatically viable, he is most famous for his reappraisal of the role that metaphors play in socio-political lives of humans.
Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as purely a linguistic construction. The essential thrust of Lakoff's work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought.
He suggested that:
"Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."
Non-metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical reality. For Lakoff the greater the level of abstraction the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons. One reason is that some metaphors become 'dead' and we no longer recognize their origin. Another reason is that we just don't "see" what is "going on".
For instance, in intellectual debate the underlying metaphor is usually that argument is war (later revised as "argument is struggle"):
He won the argument.
Your claims are indefensible.
He shot down all my arguments.
His criticisms were right on target.
If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.
For Lakoff, the development of thought has been the process of developing better metaphors. The application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings.
-- Anonymous 2014-02-21 17:03 UTC
We can all stipulate: the expert isn’t always right.
But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, it shouldn’t engender insecurity or anxiety to think that an expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. (Because, likely, it is.)
Experts come in many flavors. Education enables it, but practitioners in a field acquire expertise through experience; usually the combination of the two is the mark of a true expert in a field. But if you have neither education nor experience, you might want to consider exactly what it is you’re bringing to the argument.
In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible. The University of Google doesn’t count. Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.
And yes, your political opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you want is as important as what any other voter wants. As a layman, however, your political analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.
-- Anonymous 2014-02-26 14:44 UTC
Great literature confounds expectations. Great sentences, paragraphs, stories, and characters create surprises that are as unexpected as they are revelatory. Even the books assigned to us in high school English class—novels like Heart of Darkness, The Scarlet Letter, Moby-Dick (especially Moby-Dick)—were greeted with confusion and apprehension upon their original publication. They were unlike anything that came before. They were unconventional. They were weird.
When I dislike a novel, it’s usually because I recognize something familiar in it: a character, a premise, most often a writing style. Familiar is boring. When I enjoy a novel, it’s usually because it surprises me, tells me things I didn’t know, or reveals things that I do know, but from a different perspective. All high art is destined to be weird. Weird: from wyrd, Old English for “destiny.”
When I write fiction, I tell myself to make it weird. Then I force myself to make it weirder. Life is extraordinarily weird. Art must be weirder.
-- Anonymous 2014-02-26 19:16 UTC
Susskind boldly proposed that the universe itself behaves as a hologram, i.e., that all the information that constitutes our three-dimensional world is actually encoded on the universe’s equivalent of a black hole’s event horizon (the so-called cosmic horizon).
If true, this would mean that “reality” as we understand it is an illusion, with the action actually going on at the cosmic horizon. Baggott ingeniously compares this to a sort of reverse Plato’s cave: it isn’t the three-dimensional world that is reflected in a pale way on the walls of a cave were people are chained and can only see shadows of the real thing; it is the three-dimensional world that is a (holographic) projection of the information stored at the cosmic horizon.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-03 17:15 UTC
In differential geometry, Stokes' theorem (also called the generalized Stokes' theorem) is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds, which both simplifies and generalizes several theorems from vector calculus. Stokes' theorem says that the integral of a differential form ω over the boundary of some orientable manifold Ω is equal to the integral of its exterior derivative dω over the whole of Ω
-- Anonymous 2014-03-03 17:19 UTC
You have good in your life, find it, and share it.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-09 15:08 UTC
Movement Name (click to see figures) Direction Chinese Name
Form 1 Commencing form South
Form 2 Part the wild horse's mane (3) East
Form 3 The white crane spreads its wings East
Form 4 Brush knee and twist step on both sides (3) East
Form 5 Hand strums the lute East
Form 6 Step back and whirl arms on both sides (4) East
Form 7 Grasp the bird's tail-left style East
Form 8 Grasp the bird's tail-right style West
Form 9 Single whip East
Form 10 Wave hands like clouds-left style South
Form 11 Single whip East
Form 12 High pat on the horse East
Form 13 Kick with right heel (east by south 30) East
Form 14 Strike opponent's ears with both fists East
Form 15 Turn and kick with left heel (w by n 30) West
Form 16 Push down and stand on one leg-left style West *
Form 17 Push down and stand on one leg-right style West
Form 18 Work at shuttles on both sides 45 Degrees
Form 19 Needle at sea bottom West
Form 20 Flash the arm West
Form 21 Turn, deflect downward, parry and punch East
Form 22 Apparent close up East
Form 23 Cross hands South
Form 24 Closing form South
-- Anonymous 2014-03-11 17:39 UTC
These thinkers embodied a notion that emerged in Renaissance Italy, expressed by one of its most accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472), that "a man can do all things if he will." Embodying a basic tenet of Renaissance humanism that humans are empowered and limitless in their capacity for development, the concept led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible.
The term applies to the gifted people of the Renaissance who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of knowledge as well as in physical development, social accomplishments, and the arts, in contrast to the vast majority of people of that age who were not well educated. This term entered the lexicon during the twentieth century and has now been applied to great thinkers living before and after the Renaissance.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-12 12:24 UTC
The bakeneko (化け猫, "changed cat") is a type of Japanese yōkai, or supernatural creature. According to its name, it is a cat that has changed into a yōkai. It is often confused with the nekomata, another cat-like yōkai, and the distinction between the two can often be quite ambiguous.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-12 13:27 UTC
The Kolmogorov–Arnold–Moser theorem (KAM theorem) is a result in dynamical systems about the persistence of quasi-periodic motions under small perturbations. The theorem partly resolves the small-divisor problem that arises in the perturbation theory of classical mechanics.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-14 11:58 UTC
There’s a name for this. It is called “time confetti.” It’s miserable. And it’s part of why we are all Overwhelmed.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-14 13:10 UTC
A spherical cow is a metaphor for highly simplified scientific models of complex real life phenomena.
The phrase comes from a joke about theoretical physicists:
Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer "I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum." 
It is told in many variants, including a spherical horse in a vacuum, from a joke about a physicist who said he could predict the winner of any horse race to multiple decimal points - provided it was a perfectly elastic spherical horse moving through a vacuum.
The point of the joke is that physicists will often reduce a problem to the simplest form they can imagine in order to make calculations more feasible, even though such simplification may hinder the model's application to reality. The concept is well enough known that it can be referred to in scientific discourse without explanation.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-19 12:40 UTC
Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם or תקון עולם) is a Hebrew phrase that means "repairing the world" (or "healing the world") which suggests humanity's shared responsibility to heal, repair and transform the world. In Judaism, the concept of tikkun olam originated in the early rabbinic period. The concept was given new meanings in the kabbalah of the medieval period and has come to possess further connotations in modern Judaism.[
-- Anonymous 2014-03-20 13:55 UTC
A 'collective monologue' does borrow the idea of one person talking and not paying attention to others. The idea is that children at a certain age get together in the same area to play and talk, but don't really pay much attention to each other. Instead, they all give monologues (i.e. talk aloud to themselves) at more or less the same time. From a casual listen it might sound as though they were having a conversation, but they are all talking about their own thing and what each child is talking about does not relate to what the other kids are talking about. At some later age the children learn how to share in conversations and stop the collective monologuing.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-20 14:11 UTC
As a statistician, I use a simple computation based on Bayes’ rule to combine my gut feeling about a piece of health news with information about the study it comes from. The result gives me a better idea of how much to believe a given headline.
This is not a definitive way to tell whether a headline is right — you’d have to perform serious scientific inquiry to know for sure — but I find it a pretty useful exercise.
Bayes’ rule boils down to a simple formula1:
Final opinion on headline = (initial gut feeling) * (study support for headline)
In the equation, the final opinion about the headline and initial gut feeling are expressed as odds. If you think the odds the study is true based on your gut are 4 to 1, then your initial gut feeling will be 4. If you think the odds are 1 to 10 against the study being true, then your initial gut feeling will be 1/10. Each of the numbers is bigger than zero and a value of one is neutral. Numbers assigned to initial gut feeling between zero and one mean you tend not to believe the headline; the smaller the number, the less you believe it. Numbers bigger than one mean you tend to believe the headline; the bigger the number, the more you believe it.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-26 08:15 UTC
The Hermetic Tarot by Godfrey Dowson is a masterpiece. The tone of the deck and Dowson’s artwork invokes the full spectrum of powers within the tarot practitioner for spiritual divinatory work. As a Golden Dawn study deck, the card images are fundamentally focused on alchemical and astrological references, with the deck outfitted for theurgy. It can be integrated into personal rituals, meditations, and ceremonies and in fact is probably far better suited for such work than, say, the Marseille, Rider-Waite-Smith, or even the Thoth decks.
-- Anonymous 2014-03-27 12:14 UTC
The Major Arcana represent universal archetypal forces that govern life. When Major Arcana cards dominate a reading, it suggests that great natural forces are at play. The Minor Arcana represent the many facets of the human condition. Within the Minor Arcana, the four suits generally correspond to the following:
-- Anonymous 2014-03-27 12:16 UTC
I think this goes to show the difficulty of using linear regression, which sounds simple but has hidden problems. My view is that for this kind of data, fits are of limited use. I never do anything more complicated than single-variable regression if I can help it. Even then, I only do a linear fit if I have a clear and fairly simple idea of the reason for the relationship. And, of course, error bars are a must.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-04 12:37 UTC
Pornography depicts one shadowy and loveless corner of the vast landscape of human sexuality. Your teenager might profess a sophisticated understanding of the many varieties of sexual activity, but there’s still no harm in saying: “I know that a lot of kids are looking at porn online, but I’m hoping you won’t. Sex can be mutual, loving and fulfilling and it can be dark, offensive and destructive. What you see in pornography is almost always the wrong kind of sex, and I don’t want you getting the impression that that’s what sex is all about.”
Our bodies can be aroused by things our minds don’t find appealing. Next, you may want to take up the unfortunate reality that many portrayals of sex — however distasteful or disturbing — can still be titillating. You might say: “There’s another reason I don’t want you looking at pornography. People often find that they’re turned on by stuff that they don’t feel good about watching. I wouldn’t want for you to be in the position of having your body react to something your head knows is wrong.”
Many people consider pornography to be fundamentally exploitive. If you go this route, try: “In pornography, someone’s always making money off someone else’s degradation. When you watch pornography, you are participating in exploitation. We don’t do that in our family.” Credit for this last point goes to the author Marybeth Hicks from a conversation we had long ago. Our politics couldn’t be more different (I’m about as liberal as she is conservative), but I fully agree with her on this one.
Everything you do online could potentially be seen by everyone you know. If you haven’t yet had a conversation about sexting, you might introduce that related issue here: “Needless to say, we also expect that you would never share or request content you wouldn’t want grandma to see.”
-- Anonymous 2014-04-05 09:27 UTC
A little conjunction transduction made all the difference.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-05 09:29 UTC
But while we collectively work toward change, most of us individually can make at least a few changes — starting with admitting that we choose how we spend at least some of our time, and we choose whether to feel “busy” or not.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-05 09:40 UTC
[[Life_Partner_Tarot?|Life Partner Tarot]]
project idea: tarot deck with cards associated with "life partner" criteria ... from various places:
In Greek mythology, a Charis (Ancient Greek: Χάρις, pronounced [kʰáris]) or Grace is one of three or more minor goddesses of charm, beauty, nature, human creativity, and fertility, together known as the Charites /ˈkærɨtiːz/ (Χάριτες, [kʰáritɛːs]) or Graces. The usual list, from youngest to oldest is Aglaea ("Splendor"), Euphrosyne ("Mirth"), and Thalia ("Good Cheer").
-- Anonymous 2014-04-18 12:13 UTC
Muse Domain Emblem
Calliope Epic poetry Writing tablet
Clio History Scrolls
Erato Lyric Poetry Cithara (an ancient Greek musical instrument in the lyre family)
Euterpe Song and Elegiac poetry Aulos (an ancient Greek musical instrument like a flute)
Melpomene Tragedy Tragic mask
Polyhymnia Hymns Veil
Terpsichore Dance Lyre
Thalia Comedy Comic mask
Urania Astronomy Globe and compass
-- Anonymous 2014-04-18 12:15 UTC
In Bruges is a 2008 British black comedy film written and directed by Martin McDonagh. The film stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson as two Irish hitmen in hiding, with Ralph Fiennes as their gangster boss. The film takes place—and was filmed—in the Belgian city of Bruges.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-23 14:33 UTC
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
-- Anonymous 2014-04-24 13:59 UTC
Big Ideas, Small Spaces: Tiny House Design Workshop in Washington, DC
-- Anonymous 2014-04-24 14:49 UTC
Rick vs. Hershel.
Hershel sings the Doodlebug song to Beth, who's learning how to smile again. Rick teaches wild-at-heart Carl a lesson by telling him "Don't talk, think. That's a good rule of thumb for life."
-- Anonymous 2014-04-28 12:54 UTC
Solve a problem or puzzle using ingenuity.
They're in a bit of a predicament, but I'm sure they'll suss it out.
She had the Rubiks Cube completely sussed within a couple of days.
Debbie just sussed out how to sell shares online.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-28 14:13 UTC
The word rōnin literally means "wave man". That, however, is an idiomatic expression that means "vagrant" or "wandering man", someone who is without a home. The term originated in the Nara and Heian periods, when it referred to a serf who had fled or deserted his master's land. It then came to be used for a samurai who had no master. (Hence, the term "wave man" illustrating one who is socially adrift.)
-- Anonymous 2014-04-28 14:30 UTC
Given the widespread belief that meditation practice is scientifically certified to be good for just about everything, the results of a recent major analysis of the research might come as some surprise. Conducted by the Association for Health and Research Quality (AHRQ)—a government organization that oversees standards of research—the meta-study found only moderate evidence for the alleviation of anxiety, depression, and pain, and low to insufficient evidence to suggest that meditation relieved stress, improved mood, attention, or mental-health-related quality of life, or had a substantial impact on substance use, eating habits, sleep, or weight. It looks like the scientific evidence for the benefits of meditation aren’t as solid as many might claim.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-30 11:54 UTC
Not all effects are so adverse. The fact that somebody’s sense of self disappears for a second is not necessarily a problem for that person. They might think, “Oh, that was weird.” Effects can be transient and mild. But a lot of people have charged emotional material or memories coming up. No MBSR teacher is going to be surprised by that. If you sit down on a cushion and count your breath for two months, all sorts of things— wounds, memories, traumas—are going to come up.
-- Anonymous 2014-04-30 12:00 UTC
Findings After reviewing 18 753 citations, we included 47 trials with 3515 participants. Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03- 0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies).
-- Anonymous 2014-04-30 12:14 UTC
Reification is the process by which an abstract idea about a computer program is turned into an explicit data model or other object created in a programming language. A computable/addressable object — a resource — is created in a system as a proxy for a non computable/addressable object. By means of reification, something that was previously implicit, unexpressed, and possibly inexpressible is explicitly formulated and made available to conceptual (logical or computational) manipulation. Informally, reification is often referred to as "making something a first-class citizen" within the scope of a particular system. Some aspect of a system can be reified at language design time, which is related to reflection in programming languages. It can be applied as a stepwise refinement at system design time. Reification is one of the most frequently used techniques of conceptual analysis and knowledge representation.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-01 15:30 UTC
Meta-circular evaluation is discussed at length in section 4.1, titled The Metacircular Evaluator, of the MIT university textbook Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP). The core idea they present is two functions:
Eval which takes as arguments an expression and an environment (bindings for variables) and produces either a primitive or a procedure and a list of arguments
Apply which takes as arguments a procedure and a list of arguments to which the procedure should be applied and produces an expression and an environment
The two functions then call each other in circular fashion to fully evaluate a program.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-01 15:38 UTC
There’s a sad tendency in most manuals and programming guides to congratulate people simply for thinking. Not here; you’re expected to think. That can be very exciting when you’re used to being patronized, and it’s one of the best things about Unix.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-04 15:30 UTC
Discover a new correlation
RSS Feed - an interesting spurious correlation each day!
-- Anonymous 2014-05-14 12:50 UTC
THE ANATOMY OF HEARING
I always hear the shimmering of blood
somewhere under the notch of the temple
and a tingle from the middle of the skull
unlike the voices of the living
a knot deep in the throat
a tangle of primeval fear
and intimation of another life
a trembling in the belly since
sexual maturity as if I were a beast
bringing life and shame at the same time
cramps behind the knees while standing
in the altai mountains of siberia as if at the right
hand of god a light numbness of being
when I find in a poem
a line that wasn't written
-- Anonymous 2014-05-14 13:27 UTC
So maybe the solution involves trying to change Americans’ perceptions of bluster rather than their skillfulness at wielding it. Rather than advocating that an entire class of people start faking it ’til they make it, maybe we should be coaching voters, students, bosses and viewers at home how to be a bit more skeptical of the loudest guy (or gal) in the room.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-20 12:17 UTC
Bob was also a collector of limericks in every form—from the most scientific to the most inappropriate—and published a book and several articles on them. He was a legend among the students at RPI. One group of students, who considered themselves experts in limericks, invited Bob to a limerick duel. The students were long exhausted when Bob was just hitting his stride. He also once gave an exam in which the students were asked to complete limericks about physics. His ability to come up with a limerick on the spot for virtually any person’s name often left his listeners astounded—and occasionally shocked!
In 1975 AAPT honored Bob with its highest honor, the Oersted Medal. He served as an officer in the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and AAPT, including as its president in 1987–88. His time as an honorary visiting professor to the People’s Republic of China in 1981 and again in 1985 helped to reinforce the growing physics cooperation between the US and China.
Bob and Mildred regularly attended concerts at the Tanglewood music venue in Massachusetts and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center in New York. His love for classical music was only exceeded by family, physics, and limericks—in that order. He still found time to be a passionate fan of the Baltimore Orioles and an ardent supporter of his alma mater, Johns Hopkins. Whatever he accomplished was always aimed at helping someone else to succeed. At that he was an enormous success.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-20 19:11 UTC
Among adherents of Zen, the origin of Zen Buddhism is ascribed to a story, known in English as the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) transmits direct prajñā (wisdom) to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. In the original Sino-Japanese, the story is called nengemishō (拈花微笑, literally "pick up flower, subtle smile"). In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to his disciples (sangha) by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands the Flower Sermon except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and Mahākāśyapa's smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-21 12:06 UTC
So, the Buddha concludes by saying, “So, I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.” I think there’s a strong message here, a strong signal against the tendency towards any kinds of sectarianism, any kind of privileging any aspect of the Dhamma over all others. It’s also suggesting how we need to learn to live with the practice and the philosophy of Buddhism much more lightly. That doesn’t mean in a casual, trivial way, but carrying our understandings, our experience, without great fanfare, without great display, but simply being able to drop what has helped us in a particular day in our life and encountering the challenges of the next day with a freshness, with an openness, with an un-encumbered-ness, so that we can greet that new situation from an openness of mind, hopefully, a sensitivity, a kindness, a compassion. And when we are called upon to act, we’re able as intuitively, as spontaneously as we can, to respond in the appropriate way.
-- Anonymous 2014-05-29 17:14 UTC
The highest truth is daiji, translated as dai jiki in Chinese scriptures. This is the subject of the question the emperor asked Bodhidharma: "What is the First Principle?" Bodhidharma said, "I don't know." "I don't know" is the First Principle.
Lotus Sutra No. 6 lecture at the Zen Mountain Center (February 1968)
-- Anonymous 2014-06-01 17:58 UTC
The purpose of studying Buddhism is not to study Buddhism but to study ourselves. You are not your body. You are the Big Activity. You are just expressing the smallest particle of the Big Activity. That is all. But when you become attached to a temporal expression of the Big Activity, it is time to talk about Buddhism.
Part 3, No. 3 "Study Yourself"
"The basic teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of transiency or change. That everything changes is the basic truth for each existence. No one can deny this truth and all teaching of Buddhism is condensed within it. This is the teaching for all of us. Wherever we go this teaching is true. This teaching is also understood as the teaching of selflessness. Because each existence is in constant change, there is no abiding self.
Part 4, No. 1. "Transiency"
-- Anonymous 2014-06-01 17:59 UTC
One night in February of 1968, I sat among fifty black-robed fellow students, mostly young Americans, at Zen Mountain Center, Tassajara Springs, ten miles inland from Big Sur, California, deep in the mountain wilderness. The kerosene lamplight illuminated our breath in the winter air of the unheated room.
Before us the founder of the first Zen Buddhist monastery in the Western Hemisphere, Shunryu Suzuki-roshi, had concluded a lecture from his seat on the altar platform. "Thank you very much," he said softly, with a genuine feeling of gratitude. He took a sip of water, cleared his throat, and looked around at his students. "Is there some question?" he asked, just loud enough to be heard above the sound of the creek gushing by in the darkness outside.
I bowed, hands together, and caught his eye.
"Hai?" he said, meaning yes.
"Suzuki-roshi, I've been listening to your lectures for years," I said, "and I really love them, and they're very inspiring, and I know that what you're talking about is actually very clear and simple. But I must admit I just don't understand. I love it, but I feel like I could listen to you for a thousand years and still not get it. Could you just please put it in a nutshell? Can you reduce Buddhism to one phrase?"
Everyone laughed. He laughed. What a ludicrous question. I don't think any of us expected him to answer it. He was not a man you could pin down, and he didn't like to give his students something definite to cling to. He had often said not to have "some idea" of what Buddhism was.
But Suzuki did answer. He looked at me and said, "Everything changes." Then he asked for another question.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-01 18:03 UTC
'Scientists tend to overcompress, to make their arguments difficult to follow by leaving out too many steps. They do this because they have a hard time writing and they would like to get it over with as soon as possible.... Six weeks of work are subsumed into the word “obviously.” '—Sidney Coleman
There is a related joke about a mathematics professor. The professor is giving a lecture and has made an assertion as part of his presentation. A student, not understanding the basis for the assertion asks why it is true. The professor responds that "It is obvious." Then the professor steps back, stares at the board and ponders for several minutes. Then he turns and walks out of the lecture hall. He is absent for a fairly long time and finally one of the students goes to look for him. He sees the professor in his office working on the blackboard which he has covered with mathematics. The student returns and reports to the class. Finally, just before the class is scheduled to end the professor reappears, and announces "Yes, it is obvious." (You're supposed to laugh here, since this is usually the end of the joke.)
But it gets better. I once told this joke to a man I know who was at one time the head of the Aeronatucial Engineering Department at MIT. His response was, "That is not a joke. The professor was Norbert Weiner. I was in the class."
-- Anonymous 2014-06-02 15:39 UTC
In Tai Chi Chuan the same form of choreography or series of battle movements is done each day for years upon years, slowly, gently. The goal is in the quality of what one does, the process is of discovery and heightening sensitivity; one is never bored or finished but always enriched. ‘Sensitivity’ takes on an eminently practical meaning, as it is through one’s ability to hone one’s kinesthetic sensing ability that improved use of one’s skeletal structure occurs. The T’ai Chi master can throw an opponent across the room while barely appearing to move his little finger, because his cultivation of sensitivity has allowed him to purge himself of the tensions which prevent the average man from achieving exceptionally refined levels of power.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-05 17:35 UTC
In the complex mythology of William Blake, Urizen is the embodiment of conventional reason and law. He is usually depicted as a bearded old man; he sometimes bears architect's tools, to create and constrain the universe; or nets, with which he ensnares people in webs of law and conventional society. Originally, Urizen represented one half of a two-part system, with him representing reason and Los, his opposition, representing imagination. In Blake's reworking of his mythical system, Urizen is one of the four Zoas that result from the division of the primordial man, Albion, and he continues to represent reason. He has an Emanation, or paired female equivalent, Ahania, who stands for Pleasure. In Blake's myth, Urizen is joined by many daughters with three representing aspects of the body. He is also joined by many sons, with four representing the four elements. These sons join in rebellion against their father but are later united in the Last Judgment. In many of Blake's books, Urizen is seen with four books that represent the various laws that he places upon humanity.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-15 20:39 UTC
Reverse ferret is a phrase used predominantly within the British media to describe a sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position.
The term originates from Kelvin MacKenzie's time at The Sun. His preferred description of the role of journalists when it came to public figures was to "stick a ferret up their trousers". This meant making their lives uncomfortable, and was based on the supposed northern stunt of ferret legging (where contestants compete to show who can endure a live ferret within their sealed trousers the longest). However, when it became clear that the tide of public opinion had turned against the paper's line, MacKenzie would burst from his office shouting "Reverse Ferret!"
-- Anonymous 2014-06-20 12:32 UTC
0 Fool – The Fool
1 The Magician – Existence
2 The High Priestess – Inner Voice
3 The Empress – Creativity
4 The Emperor – The Rebel
5 The Heirophant – No-Thingness
6 The Lovers – The Lovers
7 The Chariot – Awareness
8 Strength – Courage
9 The Hermit – Aloneness
10 The Wheel of Fortune – Change
11 Justice – Breakthrough
12 The Hanged Man – New Vision
13 Death – Transformation
14 Temperance – Integration
15 The Devil – Conditioning
16 The Tower – Thunderbolt
17 The Star – Silence
18 The Moon – Past Lives
19 The Sun – Innocence
20 Judgement – Beyond Illusion
21 The World – Completion
The Master (This is just an extra Osho Zen Tarot card that is unique to this deck – there is no Rider-Waite equivalent)
Each Minor Arcana suit in the Osho Zen Tarot is represented by a different element
Pentacles - Rainbows
Swords – Air
Cups - Water
Wands – Fire
The different court cards in the Osho Zen Tarot are identified by a triangle on the bottom of the card.
King – Upright triangle
Queen – Inverted triangle
Knight - Left pointing triangle
Page – Right pointing triangle
-- Anonymous 2014-06-21 20:14 UTC
The Master in Zen is not a master over others, but a master of himself. His every gesture and his every word reflect his enlightened state. He has no private goals, no desire that anything should be other than the way it is. His disciples gather around him not to follow him, but to soak up his presence and be inspired by his example. In his eyes they find their own truth reflected, and in his silence they fall more easily into the silence of their own beings.
The master welcomes the disciples not because he wants to lead them, but because he has so much to share. Together, they create an energy field that supports each unique individual in finding his or her own light. If you can find such a master you are blessed. If you cannot, keep on searching. Learn from the teachers, and the would-be masters, and move on. Charaiveti, charaiveti, said Gautam Buddha. Keep on moving.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-21 20:16 UTC
Ace of Clouds: Consciousness
Most of the cards in this suit of the mind are either cartoon-like or troubled, because the influence of the mind in our lives is generally either ridiculous or oppressive. But this card of Consciousness shows a vast Buddha figure. He is so expansive he has gone even beyond the stars, and above his head is pure emptiness. He represents the consciousness that is available to all who become a master of the mind and can use it as the servant it is meant to be.
When you choose this card, it means that there is a crystal clarity available right now, detached, rooted in the deep stillness that lies at the core of your being. There is no desire to understand from the perspective of the mind--the understanding you have now is existential, whole, in harmony with the pulse of life itself. Accept this great gift, and share it.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-21 20:16 UTC
It's widely accepted, these days, that there's plenty of wisdom to be found in Buddhism, even if you're a hardcore atheist with a Richard Dawkins ankle tattoo who'd never be caught taking life advice from any other religion. (Can you imagine the damage to mindfulness meditation's reputation if word got out that it's been part of Christian, Muslim and Jewish traditions for centuries?) Yet one of the most insightful bits of Buddhist psychology has yet to reach a widespread modern audience: the notion of the "near enemy". According to this way of thinking, for every desirable habit or state of mind, there's a "far enemy", which is its obvious antithesis. Thus hatred, it won't surprise you to learn, is the far enemy of love. Near enemies, on the other hand, are much sneakier and harder to spot, because they so closely resemble the thing they're the enemy of. Needy, possessive co-dependency can look and feel a lot like love, when really it corrodes it.
-- Anonymous 2014-06-30 14:14 UTC
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense.
From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks
-- Anonymous 2014-06-30 18:34 UTC
Doctors are just people. Usually very busy people. They are not supermen, or superwomen. If your particular medical problem fits inside your medic's universe of knowledge, then your medics are fabulous. If it doesn't, they're worse than useless. Only occasionally did I find a doctor who was willing to look at the big picture and help me devise strategies for coping. These doctors have my profound gratitude.
Never underestimate the power of family support. Neither Becky nor Bert ever told me what I needed to do. They just helped me to see what was possible, and then supported my choices.
But the main lesson is much simpler:
Every day is a gift.
All of them. Cold ones, hot ones, hard ones, easy ones, tough ones, joyful ones, arrhythmic ones, normal ones. Every single one.
I don't know what condition I'll be in tomorrow. All I know is what I can do with today. So, each day, I try to make the most of it.
-- Anonymous 2014-07-10 13:46 UTC
The Garbageman, often referred to as the World's Smartest Garbageman is a mysterious and philosophical figure and arguably the smartest character in the Dilbert universe. The calm garbageman is a skilled inventor, having created all sorts of advanced technologies including a weather control device, a phaser and an anti-stupidity gun. He is acknowledged as the only garbageman in the city and is known to use wormholes through the space fabric (or shortcuts as he calls them) to be able to collect all the houses in no hurry.
The Garbageman rarely appears in the strip, but has got more prominent roles in the TV series. He frequently helps Dilbert to solve extremely complex problems, both technical and philosophical, with seemingly no difficulty. He is also good friends with Dogbert, with whom he created the first Internet browser pretty much as a joke; and Ratbert, to which he has explained quantum physics and other complicated matters. He has also expressed admiration for Ratbert's tremendously simple lifestyle and stated that the best things in the world are silly. The Garbageman often appears "out of nowhere" in the most convenient times, sometimes with the most convenient objects, such as the body of Benjamin Franklin and a special chemical that could revive the inventor (you wouldn't believe what people throw away). He has also appeared inside Dilbert's kitchen in "The Merger" to help Dilbert solve his "familial" dilemma; and pretended to be a doctor to explain to Dilmom about young Dilbert's engineering knack in a flashback scene in "The Knack".
In his first appearance, he points out some corrections he made to a sketch Dilbert has thrown away. When questioned by Dilbert about why he became a garbageman, he points out that the real question is why Dilbert became an engineer. Scott Adams himself was once questioned about why such a genius character chooses to works as a garbageman, and stated that the joke is that we cannot really question the garbageman's career choice, since HE is smarter than we. It is also of philosophical interest that the smartest character in the strip is neither a manager nor an employee but one completely separated from the company business world.
-- Anonymous 2014-07-14 12:43 UTC
a key difference between average and elite marathon runners is that whereas average runners describe zoning out to make it through the last few miles of the race, the elite runner zones in more keenly.
This habit of better runners will be familiar to anyone who has practiced the "purposeful mindfulness" Total Immersion advocates for stroke improvement. While dissociation is intended to take an athlete's mind off the distance to be covered, or the effort required while running or cycling near one's limits, a contrasting mental technique—let's call it association—is far more interesting and functional than those cited in the article.
-- Anonymous 2014-07-16 12:59 UTC
In mathematics, abstract nonsense, general abstract nonsense, and general nonsense are terms used facetiously by some mathematicians to describe certain kinds of arguments and methods related to category theory. (Very) roughly speaking, category theory is the study of the general form of mathematical theories, without regard to their content. As a result, a proof that relies on category theoretic ideas often seems slightly out of context to those who are not used to such abstraction, sometimes to the extent that it resembles a comical non sequitur. Such proofs are sometimes dubbed “abstract nonsense” as a light-hearted way of alerting people to their abstract nature.
More generally, “abstract nonsense” may refer to any proof (humorous or not) that uses primarily category theoretic methods, or even to the study of category theory itself. Note that referring to an argument as "abstract nonsense" is not supposed to be a derogatory expression, and is actually often a compliment regarding the generality and sophistication of the argument.
-- Anonymous 2014-08-21 17:18 UTC
“Life is an echo, what you send out comes back” Chinese Proverb.
The 100/0 Principle allows you to take responsibility for your relationships without
being weighed down by unrealistic expectations.
Having realistic expectations of others involves realizing that we’re all less than perfect.
Each of us must determine the relationships to which this principle should apply.
For most of us,it applies to work associates, customers, suppliers, family and friends.
“Some of the biggest challenges in relationships come from the fact that most people enter
a relationship in order to get something.
They’re trying to find someone who’s going to
make them feel good.”
The 100/0 Principle reminds us of how immersed we are in all the relationships that surround us,
confound us,and sometimes lead to our defeat.
I ask, would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy and effective?
Know that you always have a choice of how you will respond in a conversation,read the following guidelines for
living and breathing the 100/0 PRINCIPLE in your relationships.
The following are four guidelines to great relationships from the 100/0 Principle by Al Ritter.
1. Demonstrate respect and kindness to the other person, whether he or she deserve it or not.
2. Do not expect anything in return. Zero, zip, nada.
3. Do not let anything the other person says or does (no matter how annoying) to affect you.
(In other words do not take the bait.)
4. Be persistent with your graciousness and kindness. Often we give up too soon especially
when others don’t respond in kind. Remem
-- Anonymous 2014-08-25 13:11 UTC
“When you argue with reality, you lose – but only 100% of the time.” – Byron Katie
I said I’d revisit the book The 100/0 Principle, and so I shall. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit lately. One of the questions in the book is “Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy?” Honestly, I’d rather be both. But let’s suppose it’s one or the other. Happy, sure. Obviously I’m tipped that way…
One of the points made in the book is that sometimes we get so busy defending our beliefs/opinions and what we “know” is right, that we lose the relationship for the sake of confirming our expectations. The ACT literature takes this on too, and asks us to hold our beliefs a little more loosely, so that we are open to other perspectives and interpretations. A lot of the time, we hold beliefs about ourselves and other people: I’m not a morning person, he’s shy, I’m a procrastinator, etc. that paint with a broad brush and create expectations that we often fail to question. We fall into ruts and describe ourselves and others in predictable ways, and stay within the limits of what we say we (or they) are all about. If I’m “not a morning person”, but I want a job that will require that I get up early, I have to decide how important my identity as a night owl really is. If I begin waking up full of energy, then I’m “wrong” about who I am. It’s outside my comfort zone. Yes, we can all change, but as I said before, often we don’t care for changing, even if it’s in the service of something good.
The quote for today is true – when you argue with what is, you’re always wrong. However, I also want us to challenge our assumptions about what is. Sometimes our belief about reality is not actually reality. Sometimes we think we can’ t possibly do a thing to change something because it’s just a fact, and we resign ourselves to it, or actively work to accept it. This might be helpful, or it might not.
So how does this relate to 100/0? Well, the basic idea of the book, as I read it, is that success in life is largely dependent upon your relationships with other people. And that if you want good relationships, it’s up to you to make them that way. So, if you and your boss don’t see eye to eye, or your marriage is on the rocks, or you constantly squabble with family members, you have to decide if you want the relationship to succeed. And if you do, it’s up to you to put 100% effort into it, and expect 0% from the other person.
That’s right. Nothing! Nada. Zip, zilch, big fat goose egg. The other person can make absolutely no effort to change or improve or treat you nicely, and guess what? You give them 100% anyway. You treat them with respect and kindness and you hold up your end of the relationship with steadfast determination.
When I first read this, I thought this man was a bit touched. I’m typically of the mindset that relationships are two-way streets, with both partners giving some. It’s going to vary, sure. Sometimes it’s 50%/50%, sometimes it’s 80%/20%, you get the idea. But the idea of a consistent “I give all, and expect nothing” mentality sort of grated on me. Shouldn’t I demand respect? Shouldn’t the other person meet me at least partway? Isn’t it “enabling” bad behavior to expect nothing of someone close to you? I am not interested in being a doormat!
To tie in my little picture for today, this 100/0 notion was way outside my comfort zone. I’ve read the book a few times now (it’s a very quick read). It is about more than just “giving all” – it describes learning to listen and seeing the perspective of another person, and gives helpful notions for building better relationships. I came to understand that, even though in the short-term, you are giving 100% and expecting nothing, in the long term, what typically happens is that the relationship improves because your perspective has improved. You’re happier because your happiness is no longer tied to the other person meeting your expectations. This leads to the other person’s attitude and behavior changing, and they start to give more to make the relationship function better.
What if they don’t change? According to the book, even then, interesting things happen. You take control of your happiness about the relationship out of the hands of the other person, and into your own. You take full responsibility for doing all you can to make the relationship work, and you don’t allow their behavior (or lack thereof) to affect you negatively. They don’t make you happy or unhappy; you are in control. So paradoxically, by expecting nothing, you lose the pain of unmet expectations. All the other person can do is meet your expectation (by giving 0%) or exceed it (by giving anything more than 0%). I know this sounds a little bit like a pessimistic viewpoint – I’m not expecting anything good to come of this – but really that’s not the tone of the book at all. It’s more of an optimistic, take-charge by taking responsibility feel.
I’ll admit, I’m still grappling with this one. But I’m intrigued, and I’ve tried it out here and there. There are, of course, caveats in the book about types of behavior that are not acceptable and should not be tolerated (criminal behavior, abuse, etc.). Short of those types of problems, though, the premise is that even a pretty crappy relationship has a good chance of being turned around. It’s sort of like the way you unconditionally love your kids; no matter what they do, you’ll always love them, and do all you can to have a good relationship with them.
What do you think? Ready to give 100% to fix a bad relationship, or improve an okay one? Let me know if some magic happens…
-- Anonymous 2014-08-25 13:14 UTC
In February 1986, while in a halfway house for women with eating disorders, Byron Katie experienced a life-changing realization: "I discovered that when I believed my thoughts, I suffered, but that when I didn’t believe them, I didn’t suffer, and that this is true for every human being. Freedom is as simple as that. I found that suffering is optional. I found a joy within me that has never disappeared, not for a single moment." Byron Katie calls her method of self-inquiry "The Work." She has taught it to people all over the world, at free public events, in prisons, hospitals, churches, corporations, shelters for survivors of domestic violence, universities and schools, at weekend intensives, and at her nine-day School for The Work.
-- Anonymous 2014-08-25 14:11 UTC
Nature of intelligence: operative and figurative
Piaget noted reality is a dynamic system of continuous change and, as such, is defined in reference to the two conditions that define dynamic systems. Specifically, he argued that reality involves transformations and states. Transformations refer to all manners of changes that a thing or person can undergo. States refer to the conditions or the appearances in which things or persons can be found between transformations. For example, there might be changes in shape or form (for instance, liquids are reshaped as they are transferred from one vessel to another, humans change in their characteristics as they grow older), in size (for example, a series of coins on a table might be placed close to each other or far apart), or in placement or location in space and time (e.g., various objects or persons might be found at one place at one time and at a different place at another time). Thus, Piaget argued, if human intelligence is to be adaptive, it must have functions to represent both the transformational and the static aspects of reality. He proposed that operative intelligence is responsible for the representation and manipulation of the dynamic or transformational aspects of reality, and that figurative intelligence is responsible for the representation of the static aspects of reality.
Operative intelligence is the active aspect of intelligence. It involves all actions, overt or covert, undertaken in order to follow, recover, or anticipate the transformations of the objects or persons of interest. Figurative intelligence is the more or less static aspect of intelligence, involving all means of representation used to retain in mind the states (i.e., successive forms, shapes, or locations) that intervene between transformations. That is, it involves perception, imitation, mental imagery, drawing, and language. Therefore, the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their meaning from the operative aspects of intelligence, because states cannot exist independently of the transformations that interconnect them. Piaget stated that the figurative or the representational aspects of intelligence are subservient to its operative and dynamic aspects, and therefore, that understanding essentially derives from the operative aspect of intelligence.
At any time, operative intelligence frames how the world is understood and it changes if understanding is not successful. Piaget stated that this process of understanding and change involves two basic functions: assimilation and accommodation.
-- Anonymous 2014-08-28 08:28 UTC
-- Anonymous 2014-09-01 13:28 UTC
We can get closer to an accurate understanding of experiencing
by the word listen. Not “I’m going to do this experiencing,” but “I’m
simply going to listen to my bodily sensations.” If I truly listen to
that ache in my left side, there’s an element of curiosity, of what is
this? (If I’m not curious, I am always caught up in my thoughts.)
Like a good scientist who is simply observant, without preconceived
notions, we just watch or observe. We listen.
-- Anonymous 2014-09-16 11:16 UTC
From this Baseball Prospectus article you can find the 2003 expecrted number of runs given a particular situation on the basepaths:
Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded
0 0.531 0.919 1.177 1.380 1.551 1.869 2.023 2.474
1 0.282 0.535 0.706 1.032 0.909 1.211 1.428 1.544
2 0.109 0.237 0.341 0.384 0.454 0.518 0.541 0.797
From these data, I worked out a one-significant-figure solution that might be actually usable by a human being during a game. It works as follows.
When there are no outs and no runners, you start with .5.
When you have at least one runner, start with the lead runner. For the no-outs situation, add .4, .3, and .2 in turn to advance the runner to first, then second, then third. (Incidentally, I note with amusement that the next term, .1, makes the net contribution from a solo homer exactly 1 run. If this has significance, I would be heartily surprised.)
Second, correct for the number of outs. To go from no outs to one out, halve unless the lead runner is on second or third - a lead runner on second is worth 0.7 runs, on third is worth 1.0 runs. To go from no outs to two outs, divide by 4.
To add a runner on first behind the leader, add .4, .2, or .1 runs with 0, 1, or 2 outs, respectively.
To add a runner on second behind the leader, add .6, .4, or .2 runs with 0, 1, or 2 outs, respectively.
-- Anonymous 2014-09-24 14:36 UTC
There is a light-year’s difference between being “sort of” organized and having everything downloaded, clarified, updated, and reviewed from at least an elevated horizon. The brain does not get to graduate to its more exalted and more effective command post of making intuitive choices from its options, without this. It must remain the lowly galley slave trying to remember what it ought to be thinking about, at what level, when. And it doesn’t do that very well, so it gets punitive lashes from our own inner judge.
-- Anonymous 2014-10-02 12:15 UTC