Comments for Internet Noise Floor http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com Signal and Noise at the end of the Long Tail Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:36:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Nobody Plays “Connect The Dots” Anymore by Another Dot, For Good Measure « Internet Noise Floor http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/nobody-plays-connect-the-dots-anymore/#comment-750 Another Dot, For Good Measure « Internet Noise Floor Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:36:47 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=137#comment-750 [...] Culture, Everything Else — adamdbradley @ 1:36 pm Tags: economics, education Lest you think my previous post was just an attempt to make hay out of a crisis currently under the popular spotlig..., let me toss out another example where efforts to artificially decrease the scarcity of a [...] [...] Culture, Everything Else — adamdbradley @ 1:36 pm Tags: economics, education Lest you think my previous post was just an attempt to make hay out of a crisis currently under the popular spotlig…, let me toss out another example where efforts to artificially decrease the scarcity of a [...]

]]> Comment on Nobody Plays “Connect The Dots” Anymore by foundation repair dallas http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/nobody-plays-connect-the-dots-anymore/#comment-747 foundation repair dallas Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:55:57 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=137#comment-747 It’s definitely difficult to forecast the end of the bubble. I’ve a friend who says that it’s probably not a bubble since he thinks demand would pick up when young adults really begin to move out to look for homes of their own. I wasn’t aware there was a state financial agency which routinely bails out its banks regularly It’s definitely difficult to forecast the end of the bubble. I’ve a friend who says that it’s probably not a bubble since he thinks demand would pick up when young adults really begin to move out to look for homes of their own. I wasn’t aware there was a state financial agency which routinely bails out its banks regularly

]]> Comment on Nobody Plays “Connect The Dots” Anymore by reformislam http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/nobody-plays-connect-the-dots-anymore/#comment-745 reformislam Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:41:10 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=137#comment-745 The point was to show what "flag@whitehouse.gov" can and will be used for. The point was to show what “flag@whitehouse.gov” can and will be used for.

]]> Comment on Nobody Plays “Connect The Dots” Anymore by adamdbradley http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/nobody-plays-connect-the-dots-anymore/#comment-744 adamdbradley Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:34:41 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=137#comment-744 The fact that this post references "flag@whitehouse.gov" is not an invitation to bot-post political and personal googlebait which is not pertinent to the post. Thank you. The fact that this post references “flag@whitehouse.gov” is not an invitation to bot-post political and personal googlebait which is not pertinent to the post. Thank you.

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by Verena http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-741 Verena Fri, 22 May 2009 02:54:34 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-741 AS m3talsmith says, there is nothing new here. Look at the Orthodox Christian hesychastic tradition. Unfortunately, many Western Christian traditions have become so literal-minded that they have stopped the habit of recognizing that God cannot be encapsulated in our concepts or words. AS m3talsmith says, there is nothing new here. Look at the Orthodox Christian hesychastic tradition. Unfortunately, many Western Christian traditions have become so literal-minded that they have stopped the habit of recognizing that God cannot be encapsulated in our concepts or words.

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by m3talsmith http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-739 m3talsmith Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:21:54 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-739 I think that there is a certain amount of mystery to God, and that the application of the word inefable is simply a stumbling way of trying to describe the abstract. I also believe that God will always remain abstract until he chooses to reveal His whole self to us. Even Paul (in the example shown above) points to the fact that we know only a portion. "For what can be known about God" is stating the fact that what we can know about God; or even the little we know about God. Which is not the same as knowing all about God. It's a limiting statement. The Jews refused to name him or assume to know all of him. They knew there is a wall of separation - a lack of knowledge that they could not obtain by study, but that could only be revealed by Him. There is nothing new here. I think that there is a certain amount of mystery to God, and that the application of the word inefable is simply a stumbling way of trying to describe the abstract. I also believe that God will always remain abstract until he chooses to reveal His whole self to us. Even Paul (in the example shown above) points to the fact that we know only a portion.

“For what can be known about God” is stating the fact that what we can know about God; or even the little we know about God. Which is not the same as knowing all about God. It’s a limiting statement.

The Jews refused to name him or assume to know all of him. They knew there is a wall of separation – a lack of knowledge that they could not obtain by study, but that could only be revealed by Him. There is nothing new here.

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by Intelitary Milligence http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-738 Intelitary Milligence Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:15:31 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-738 Ineffable is not used in any objective sense (naturally). It's spoken in Oprahese. As in sublime, or mind blowing. I agree with Chopra on that point. But beyond that (oh noes!)... both are wrong. Adam I think gets it. But I'll explain why I think both are wrong. There is the tendency to give unto the vacuum that which is uncomfortable and to produce golden calves of our binkies. We like to make abstract things which we want to waffle on. We like to make concrete things we want to judge others by. Both are guilty of one or both of these deceptions. Ineffable is not used in any objective sense (naturally). It’s spoken in Oprahese. As in sublime, or mind blowing. I agree with Chopra on that point.

But beyond that (oh noes!)… both are wrong. Adam I think gets it. But I’ll explain why I think both are wrong. There is the tendency to give unto the vacuum that which is uncomfortable and to produce golden calves of our binkies.

We like to make abstract things which we want to waffle on. We like to make concrete things we want to judge others by. Both are guilty of one or both of these deceptions.

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by Carlos http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-737 Carlos Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:50:49 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-737 Excellent thoughts, my man! Points out the veracity of Paul's related, Inspired words in His epistle to the Roman church (1:18-23): "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For <b>what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.</b> For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, <b>they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God</b> for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." Excellent thoughts, my man! Points out the veracity of Paul’s related, Inspired words in His epistle to the Roman church (1:18-23):

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by Rich Bordner http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-736 Rich Bordner Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:47:16 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-736 Great comment, Adam...FWIW, here's my analysis: <a href="http://pugnaciousirishman.com/2009/03/28/the-devil-is-in-the-details-nightline-faceoff-on-satan/" rel="nofollow">debate</a> Great comment, Adam…FWIW, here’s my analysis:

debate

]]> Comment on Effing the Ineffable by adamdbradley http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/effing-the-ineffable/#comment-735 adamdbradley Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:07:49 +0000 http://adamdbradley.wordpress.com/?p=133#comment-735 You can access the edited version (in which the "ineffable" comments do not appear, but Chopra does say that you can't define God without putting Him in a box which is more or less the same thing) here: http://abcnews.go.com/NIGHTLINE More complete debate footage here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/ It also occurred to me that at one point early in the debate Chopra quipped that "my god is not a sexist", which is a very strange thing to say when your god is ineffable ("not a sexist" is, after all, a concept expressible in words). You can access the edited version (in which the “ineffable” comments do not appear, but Chopra does say that you can’t define God without putting Him in a box which is more or less the same thing) here:
http://abcnews.go.com/NIGHTLINE

More complete debate footage here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

It also occurred to me that at one point early in the debate Chopra quipped that “my god is not a sexist”, which is a very strange thing to say when your god is ineffable (“not a sexist” is, after all, a concept expressible in words).

]]>