>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Strangely enough, I was in a situation yesterday where I was holding travel bags, and due to the distribution of open space in the elevator, standing face away from the door was the most pragmatic option. I did feel weird for a moment, but then I felt like it was an opportunity to detach myself from my ego, like the Buddha (note: I know very little about Buddhism, so this may or may not be accurate). I embraced my break with culture norms, stood calmly and confidently, and it gave my a mild feeling of satisfaction.
I may try it again next time I'm in an elevator. Elevator Zen.


You know whats fun, go stand in the corner of the elevator with your face to the corner, like your in time out or something. People don't know how to react. Or, my dad would try to hold a very awkward conversation with his briefcase. Elevators, the greatest place for forced awkwardness!

Strangely enough, I was in a situation yesterday where I was holding travel bags, and due to the distribution of open space in the elevator, standing face away from the door was the most pragmatic option. I did feel weird for a moment, but then I felt like it was an opportunity to detach myself from my ego, like the Buddha (note: I know very little about Buddhism, so this may or may not be accurate). I embraced my break with culture norms, stood calmly and confidently, and it gave my a mild feeling of satisfaction.

I may try it again next time I'm in an elevator. Elevator Zen.

Nice. Close, but has a high pitch that pisses me off. This feels more Zen. http://www.trekcore.com/audio/background/tng_engine_1.mp3

Playing Glass on the piano is the closest I get to meditation. I haven't mastered this piece yet - I suspect my touch just isn't light enough for the rapid arpeggios of the second second - but playing the first section is beautifully zen.

Daily Zen, watch in 720

>> ^Sagemind:

Crap - all the good stuff is blocked


Yeah, I don't really understand the rational behind it.

Zen and the Art of Chick Sexing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Oryoki Oriyoki Zen Buddha Buddhism Three Bowls Sesshin Retreat' to 'Oryoki, Oriyoki, Zen, Buddha, Buddhism, Three Bowls, Sesshin Retreat' - edited by eric3579

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^artician:
He's dead, Jim.

Hmm, I can still see it. I'm guessing it's blocked in certain regions.


Haha, no, I meant the cat.

>> ^artician:

He's dead, Jim.


Hmm, I can still see it. I'm guessing it's *blocked in certain regions.

Hey I noticed you sifted a few suomi vids a few years back. Thought I'd send you a link to a track I just made that was inspired by Texas Faggot and all their various other projects:
http://soundcloud.com/djsunkid/zen-zero-spugedelic

Tell me what you think.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.

Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.

It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.

Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.

It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

>> ^dannym3141:

I can't tell if the poster's comments are serious, but this is....awful


I, the poster, wasn't serious. But I do think that this thing is supposed to be understood as a mating dance. Then again, maybe it's about zen and motorcycle maintenance?

BTW - no more "P"-membership. Hell yeah!

@bareboards2

Don't even get me started.

If you and SD wanna argue that science is just a tool that's fine.
It only shows your ignorance.

But it's funny cause you still rely on the group consensus of scientists to support your claims about religion. "It's biological human nature."

If you studied biology and neuroscience, you'd have an actual understanding of the shit you're always spoutin' about.

Instead you go off on some zen master "howlin' winds & walls" bullshit without understanding why the wind is so intense in the first place.
~~~

For example, circumcision is wrong. In the same way murder is.

Your rational mind will immediately identify that it's wrong to mutilate babies.

But you'll defend it because it comes packaged with religion.

Your hippie "multiculturalist" mind will identify the act of baby mutilation as part of "biological human nature". [Church sanctioned Genital Mutilation is just part of the inevitable all-natural wind, right? -_-]

"It's really great for all those parents who come out of the 'anti-genital mutilation closet' because after enough time & laws have passed, I'm sure there will be no more infant genital mutilation." [This is your wall. Your weak, takes centuries to build wall.]
~~~
If you really supported stuff like It Gets Better you'd realize that apologist [like you and SD] who place religion on a pedestal..

..contributes to the problems of those closeted gay and lesbian kids face you apparently want someone to help.

Yet you still continue to defend religion because of some "humans err, it's natural" bullshit.

It's a self defeating "solution" whether you're talking about governments or religions.
~~~

Which is brings us to the question of why you continue to use that reason/logic, Gale.

You're either disingenuous or stupid as fuck.

I'm going with the latter. Here is why:

Police brutality and ritualized genital mutilations are constructs of human cultural.

There is no need for either of them.

You Gale, are attempting to argue that both are inherent evils that have to be dealt with because there is no other way around them.

I've been shouting and flinging evidence at you for that last month or two to prove otherwise.

You're too old and set in your ways to think otherwise.

[Don't worry it happens to all of us to some extent.]

But for you to sit here and continue to say that -

"Yes certain things are awful but we need to put up with them cause there's no other way"

[WHEN THERE ARE CLEARLY MUCH BETTER WAYS.]

Is again, a worldview born from stupidity [ignorance about why things are that way] or insincerity
~~~
Kumquat? Yeah, it's okay. You were never listening in the first place.