Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 12/28/2015 01:00 PM, Martin Bähr wrote: Excerpts from Ben Coman's message of 2015-12-28 12:52:02 +0100: I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in the right context. Its just a *distraction* from the technical content. Your posts have interesting technical questions but the spiritual padd

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Excerpts from Ben Coman's message of 2015-12-28 12:52:02 +0100: > I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in the right context. Its > just a *distraction* from the technical content. Your posts have > interesting technical questions but the spiritual padding obfuscates > them such that I can't un

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

To conclude this thread, Robert I suggest that you stay on a technical discussion. Do not force us to ban you (we will do it if you continue) because people are distracted. Most of us do not understand all these spiritual points and do not want to read about them in such mailing-lists. Stef

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 12/28/2015 08:01 AM, Johan Fabry wrote: Robert, Consider it from my point of view: I am not forcing you to think about design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific language for robotics that am I building. Good Lord in Heaven, please tell me more! I always love to learn more and

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Robert, by talking about ‘a knee-jerk reaction’ and ‘a lack of knowledge’ you are being rude to us. Please don’t do that. In our mails we have been courteous and avoided using such hurtful expressions. Also, there is a difference between lack of knowledge and lack of time. I am only human with

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Ben, I appreciate your reply. We were both involved in establishing boundaries: yours in the negative (don't post such here) and mine in the positive (I'll feel free to post on such matters). I'll follow your lead and not respond anymore to this thread. Best, Robert On 12/28/2015 06:52 AM, Be

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you > but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction, > having just been exposed to what that is. I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 12/28/2015 04:58 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote: 2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers >: Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really nee

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers : > Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was > enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he > really needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his > change in a positive manne

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical. I wa

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Thank you Offray, for a way out of this dreadful conversation of opposition to free-thinking. Ahh, irony. You make an exceelent observation of some limitations you say you have also run into and your thoughtful solution to this. best, -- Robert . .. ...^,^ On 12/27/2015 01:54 PM, Of

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 27/12/15 13:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote: but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), Je je I meant "I regret not being able to answer back as quick as I get some feedback" Cheers,

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers wrote: > > Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need > to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you > censor me. You did not completely take into account my sentence. The second part says:

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the conversations he

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list. I strenuously object to these objections to the science

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction, having just been exposed to what that is. In addition I am connecting this to an educational process and picture of some unique areas of Pharo.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

You know Ben, another option is to shun and ostracize me. Those be well oiled options. Truth. On 12/27/2015 12:01 PM, Robert Withers wrote: Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction, ha

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Hi Robert, I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level, but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail often hide) ch

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Hi, I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have always thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The VM is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image together, through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead.

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that

[Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška wrote: > > On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: > > Hello Robert, Good day Saša, > >> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge >> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and >> a