The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Hatshepsut
Crusader
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I knew with all the brain power on this thread, someone would translate.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
...
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
No. The Romans knew about bananas and had a word for them, 'ariena'. For that translation to ring true the statement would have to say:
Te audire non possum. Ariena fixa est in aure.
The first part is correct, i.e. te audire non possum. That can reasonably be translated as 'I can not hear you'.
The second statement as it is given is problematic. The apparent subject & adjective 'musa sapientum', are not grammatically correct together.
In particular 'musa' as a (nominative singular) feminine refers to one of the goddesses known as the Muses. However, as a (nominative singular) masculine it refers to the Roman family name of Musa.
The verb is formed from a participle and is clearly singular which rules out the possibility of a plural subject.
The form of 'sapientum' is a masculine & feminine PLURAL GENITIVE form, which matches NEITHER possible interpretation of 'musa'. The transmutation of the 'u' to an 'e' (a common error of transcription) leaves 'sapientem' which is a singular masculine & feminine ACCUSATIVE form; i.e. again no match. There are only two forms of the adjective which would make any sense in context. The first is 'sapiens', the masculine & feminine singular nominative. The second would be 'sapientis', the masculine & feminine singular genitive. Both these correct forms were omitted in the original in favor of an incorrect form of the adjective.
Thus, the only way to make sense of the statement, is to alter it to read as:
Te audire non possum. Musa sapiens fixa est in aure.
or as ...
Te audire non possum. Musa sapientis fixa est in aure.
These can be translated as: I can not hear you. A wise muse (or alternately a muse of wisdom) is seated in (my) ear.
Which if you think about it makes a great deal of sense as an idiomatic rejoinder, as it effectively says: I prefer to listen to the wisdom of the muses than to you.
Alternately, a person could in the context of a member of the Musa family substitute a 'Wise Musa' for a 'wise muse'. It would make a good jocular reference to a person of that family. Especially given the scurrilous possibilities of 'stuck in the ear'. But that would be an highly specialized context, not appropriate for a general remark.
I suspect that someone once confused the genitive plural form for the genitive singular when shooting for the latter version and the error has continued to be propagated. It's not a wholly unlikely error as 'musa' looks a bit like a neuter plural although it is neither.
[We all have our idiosyncratic interests.
]Mark A. Baker
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
No. The Romans knew about bananas and had a word for them, 'ariena'. For that translation to 'ring true' the statement would have to say:
Te audire non possum. Ariena fixa est in aure.
The first part is correct, i.e. te audire non possum. That can reasonably be translated as 'I can not hear you'.
The second statement as it is given is problematic. The apparent subject & adjective 'musa sapientum', are not grammatically correct together.
In particular 'musa' as a (nominative singular) feminine refers to one of the goddesses known as the Muses. However, as a (nominative singular) it refers to the Roman family name of Musa.
The verb is formed from a participle and is clearly singular which rules out the possibility of a plural subject.
The form of 'sapientum' is a masculine & feminine PLURAL GENITIVE form, which matches NEITHER possible interpretation of 'musa'. The transmutation of the 'u' to an 'e' (a common error of transcription) leaves 'sapientem' which is a singular masculine & feminine ACCUSATIVE form; i.e. again no match. There are only two forms of the adjective which would make any sense in context. The first is 'sapiens', the masculine & feminine singular. The second would be 'sapientis', the masculine & feminine singular genitive. Both these correct forms were omitted in the original in favor of an incorrect form of the adjective.
Thus, the only way to make sense of the statement, is to alter it to read as:
Te audire non possum. Musa sapiens fixa est in aure.
or as ...
Te audire non possum. Musa sapientis fixa est in aure.
These can be translated as: I can not hear you. A wise muse (or alternately a muse of wisdom) is seated in (my) ear.
Which if you think about it makes a great deal of sense as an idiomatic rejoinder, as it effectively says: I prefer to listen to the wisdom of the muses than to you.
Alternately, a person could in the context of a member of the Musa family substitute a 'Wise Musa' for a 'wise muse'. It would make a good jocular reference to a person of that family. Especially given the scurrilous possibilities of 'stuck in the ear'. But that would be a highly specialized context, not appropriate for a general remark.
I suspect that someone once confused the genitive plural form for the genitive singular when shooting for the latter version and the error has continued to be propagated. It's not a wholly unlikely error as 'musa' looks a bit like a neuter plural although it is neither.
[We all have our idiosyncratic interests.
Mark A. Baker
H F'n S, MAB! I'm most impressed!
Face
me myself & i
Patron Meritorious
H F'n S, MAB! I'm most impressed!
Face
Penned by Face in response to Marks Post:
Yes indeed, Mark A. Baker is very well-equipped in the nuances of intellectual graces. lol. He may well have already forgotten a good part of genius, that I will never (in this lifetime) even begin to understand. Which while being, for the most part unconcerned with my ego gone wild, has me appreciate his superiority in that regard.
On another thread earlier today I posed a valid question to Mark, to which I am almost anxiously awaiting his reply. Which response I trust will be read-worthy, to say the least.
mm&I
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
H F'n S, MAB! I'm most impressed!
Face
ME TOO!
What a great group.
Aurei sumus!
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Penned by Face in response to Marks Post:
Yes indeed, Mark A. Baker is very well-equipped in the nuances of intellectual graces. lol. He may well have already forgotten a good part of genius, that I will never (in this lifetime) even begin to understand. Which while being, for the most part unconcerned with my ego gone wild, has me appreciate his superiority in that regard.
On another thread earlier today I posed a valid question to Mark, to which I am almost anxiously awaiting his reply. Which response I trust will be read-worthy, to say the least.
mm&I
First you have to separate scientology into many many compartments. and before first, you have to have an overview (such as the briefing course), preferably a timeline, to see how things developed.
By the time I had finished the briefing course in the mid 1970s, had worked in some centers as an auditor and course supervisor, run a little hole in the wall center, gone Clear, and started my own little center (which is now an org today), I had a pretty good idea of who the players were, what orgs were like, what missions were like, what processing could do for a wide spectrum of people, and how the whole thing grew. Today, with the knowledge from ESMB, so many pieces of the puzzle have gotten put into place.
If you say the word, "Scientology" to me, I need to know "your" context.
If you were "in" in the last thirty years, your "take" is 180 degrees different from the Scientology that I received and delivered in the early 1970s. ie., "If it's not fun, it's not Scientology."
If I talk about Scientology to a friend (of which I have more than a few) who was "in" in the 1950s, we can share a very different context.
The Scientology, that I still use and approve of is mainly (though not limited to) tech developed by many hands during the 50s and 60s.
The Scientology that appalls me is pretty much everything going on today in the orgs. The tech has been altered. The whole force of the group is no longer help. Help has become the "cheese" by which suckers are lured in to spend money and their life for slave maker(s).
Talking about scientology, you have to install limiters on your definition, the time, the location, tech, admin, etc. Then and only then can an intelligent conversation ensue.
Last night I was talking to a local television reporter about Scientology. I told her that it didn't appear to be a cult, when I was involved. There were lots of inquiring independent thinkers using Scientology to further their abilities. There wasn't a penalty for leaving. It is now, a dangerous cult.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Bald eagle pair and hatchlings become an Internet sensation
By: Pete Thomas, GrindTV.com
The popularity of two American bald eagles in Decorah, Iowa, is soaring, thanks to a web-cam that over the weekend streamed live footage of two of their three eggs being hatched. The third egg is expected to hatch any time. A YouTube video (below) of the first slow hatch, which occurred Friday and Saturday, has garnered nearly 300,000 views. The baby eagle first appears, through a tiny hole in the shell, at the 4:40 mark. It's is seen out of the shell at 8:03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_pme0dPhs&feature=related
The second hatch (see video below) occurred Sunday. Pay close attention at the 7:30 mark and again, when the furry little eagle comes clearly into view, at 8:08.
Bob Anderson, director of the Raptor Rescue Project, which installed the baseball-sized camera near the nest, told CBS News that since the first egg was laid in February, the Ustream live footage has been viewed by 11 million people from 130 countries. On Friday, as the first egg began to hatch, more than 111,000 computers were watching the live camera at the same time.
Viewers are able to monitor the everyday movements of the eagles, which don't seem to mind being the invasion of privacy. (This is, after all, the reality TV era).
"These eagle cams touch many people in many different ways... it's amazing," Anderson said.
The popularity of the streaming video is so amazing that, at times, it has overwhelmed the system. Be sure to keep an eye on the Ustream link if you'd like to witness the third egg hatching. Here's the second hatch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtMjcFyxHPc&feature=player_embedded
for the live stream, go here:
http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles...n_cams/decorah_eagle_xcel.html&medium=3064708
By: Pete Thomas, GrindTV.com
The popularity of two American bald eagles in Decorah, Iowa, is soaring, thanks to a web-cam that over the weekend streamed live footage of two of their three eggs being hatched. The third egg is expected to hatch any time. A YouTube video (below) of the first slow hatch, which occurred Friday and Saturday, has garnered nearly 300,000 views. The baby eagle first appears, through a tiny hole in the shell, at the 4:40 mark. It's is seen out of the shell at 8:03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_pme0dPhs&feature=related
The second hatch (see video below) occurred Sunday. Pay close attention at the 7:30 mark and again, when the furry little eagle comes clearly into view, at 8:08.
Bob Anderson, director of the Raptor Rescue Project, which installed the baseball-sized camera near the nest, told CBS News that since the first egg was laid in February, the Ustream live footage has been viewed by 11 million people from 130 countries. On Friday, as the first egg began to hatch, more than 111,000 computers were watching the live camera at the same time.
Viewers are able to monitor the everyday movements of the eagles, which don't seem to mind being the invasion of privacy. (This is, after all, the reality TV era).
"These eagle cams touch many people in many different ways... it's amazing," Anderson said.
The popularity of the streaming video is so amazing that, at times, it has overwhelmed the system. Be sure to keep an eye on the Ustream link if you'd like to witness the third egg hatching. Here's the second hatch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtMjcFyxHPc&feature=player_embedded
for the live stream, go here:
http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles...n_cams/decorah_eagle_xcel.html&medium=3064708
Hatshepsut
Crusader
That's amazing. I watched a YouTube demo of how people are using USTREAM to put up private talk show channels. Can you imagine. Create you own talk show network. FREE. Broadcast when you want or continually. It just don't get any better than this!
Incredibly lucky to get the eagle just in the right postions so we could enjoy the hatchling.
Thanks
Incredibly lucky to get the eagle just in the right postions so we could enjoy the hatchling.
Thanks
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
lkwdblds
Crusader
Kudos to Carmelo for the great post answering MM&I
Carmelo's post in answer to mm&i is one of the finer summaries of how to talk about Scientology that I have ever seen. Joining in 1970, I started out using a lot of the arguments that Carmelo uses to defend the good parts of Scn tech against naysayers.
I believe that the quoted post is better than anything I've written on this topic and is certainly more direct and to the point. Kudos to Carmelo!
CAUTION - This post, as good as it is, is NOT going to win over the naysayers who detest all thing Hubbard. I know because I have just completed a month on the thread started by Sharone which features Candy Swanson's videos and her comments about Hubbard, Celebrity Centre and other topics.
Here is a link to that thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=22285
There are some fine people over there, Gottabrain, Sharone and Markus stand out and there are many others. I have been also been able to find some common ground and meeeting of the minds with "I told you I was trouble", DB, Paragon, Infinite and still others as well. Auditor's Toad is a kindly old cuss, a fun loving and nice guy but his posts are a bit too flippant for my tastes.
My experience has shown me that this group (two of their best known posters are Veda and Helluvahoax) will use several tools to counter Carmelo's post. They bring up LRH's "admissions" from 1947. they bring up things he wrote as far back as 1938, the year Excalibur was written and they bring up another famous Hubbard line from the late 40's, "If you want to be a millionaire, the best way to do it is to start your own religion."
Here is a link to the "admissions" also referred to as the "affirmations".
http://www.ronthenut.org/admissio.pdf
In this way, they seek to paint the picture that LRH was evil from the outset and consequently Scn was always bad and never had any sort of Golden Age. That group states with certainty that Hubbard's original goals were to amass wealth and power and stamp his name into history. They assert that helping people was never a major goal of his; rather, they surmise that he was forced to help people a little but only to lure them into his "church" so as to trap them. They tend to belittle anything worthwhile in his tech by stating that any part of it can be found in some other religion or self help group without the high cost, the make wrong, and the pressure of always being under demand to produce stats by Thursday at 2:00 pm.
I agree that much of what they point out is true, but I don't go along with their concept that Hubbard's tech is mostly worthless and all of the good parts of it can be found elsewhere.
Also, being very active myself in the early 1970's I saw immediately that giving help, giving people exchange in abundance, not being serious, and keeping a playful spirit were key words of THAT day and they have completely vanished from today's church.
There is a difference in Scientology, era by era, decade by decade or however one wants to break it up. If the tone level of the movement were graphed year by year, it would be high and level for about the first 12 years and then would decline in the early 60's and keep declining continuously until it would be out the bottom today. I do not believe that C of S ever had an uptick where things got better than before, it was always moving down hill. On second thought, there may be one period in which things did get better and higher toned, perhaps from 1952 to 1956. Maybe some of the real old timers could give their opinions on this.
What I get from the naysayers is that they would not agree with my graph, and certainly not agree with Me, Myself and I's post. They just feel that Hubbard and his movement were evil from the start and never changed. Though a lot of what they say is true, I do not feel that they have a conceptual understanding of how things were and how the church evolved the way it did.
Lakey
Carmelo's post in answer to mm&i is one of the finer summaries of how to talk about Scientology that I have ever seen. Joining in 1970, I started out using a lot of the arguments that Carmelo uses to defend the good parts of Scn tech against naysayers.
I believe that the quoted post is better than anything I've written on this topic and is certainly more direct and to the point. Kudos to Carmelo!
CAUTION - This post, as good as it is, is NOT going to win over the naysayers who detest all thing Hubbard. I know because I have just completed a month on the thread started by Sharone which features Candy Swanson's videos and her comments about Hubbard, Celebrity Centre and other topics.
Here is a link to that thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=22285
There are some fine people over there, Gottabrain, Sharone and Markus stand out and there are many others. I have been also been able to find some common ground and meeeting of the minds with "I told you I was trouble", DB, Paragon, Infinite and still others as well. Auditor's Toad is a kindly old cuss, a fun loving and nice guy but his posts are a bit too flippant for my tastes.
My experience has shown me that this group (two of their best known posters are Veda and Helluvahoax) will use several tools to counter Carmelo's post. They bring up LRH's "admissions" from 1947. they bring up things he wrote as far back as 1938, the year Excalibur was written and they bring up another famous Hubbard line from the late 40's, "If you want to be a millionaire, the best way to do it is to start your own religion."
Here is a link to the "admissions" also referred to as the "affirmations".
http://www.ronthenut.org/admissio.pdf
In this way, they seek to paint the picture that LRH was evil from the outset and consequently Scn was always bad and never had any sort of Golden Age. That group states with certainty that Hubbard's original goals were to amass wealth and power and stamp his name into history. They assert that helping people was never a major goal of his; rather, they surmise that he was forced to help people a little but only to lure them into his "church" so as to trap them. They tend to belittle anything worthwhile in his tech by stating that any part of it can be found in some other religion or self help group without the high cost, the make wrong, and the pressure of always being under demand to produce stats by Thursday at 2:00 pm.
I agree that much of what they point out is true, but I don't go along with their concept that Hubbard's tech is mostly worthless and all of the good parts of it can be found elsewhere.
Also, being very active myself in the early 1970's I saw immediately that giving help, giving people exchange in abundance, not being serious, and keeping a playful spirit were key words of THAT day and they have completely vanished from today's church.
There is a difference in Scientology, era by era, decade by decade or however one wants to break it up. If the tone level of the movement were graphed year by year, it would be high and level for about the first 12 years and then would decline in the early 60's and keep declining continuously until it would be out the bottom today. I do not believe that C of S ever had an uptick where things got better than before, it was always moving down hill. On second thought, there may be one period in which things did get better and higher toned, perhaps from 1952 to 1956. Maybe some of the real old timers could give their opinions on this.
What I get from the naysayers is that they would not agree with my graph, and certainly not agree with Me, Myself and I's post. They just feel that Hubbard and his movement were evil from the start and never changed. Though a lot of what they say is true, I do not feel that they have a conceptual understanding of how things were and how the church evolved the way it did.
Lakey
Last edited:
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
That's OK, I wasn't really addressing anyone in particular and certainly not the freezoners and Indies here, and I'll try not to mess up your thread too much.
It would be sad to see ESMB becoming too safe for wannabe Messiah marketing, I believe they should have the manners to look for their potential market elsewhere and at least give the newly out and the lurkers a chance to find their feet and rid themselves of the cultic nonsense. Replacing one guru with another must only add to the confusion.
Unless ESMB is given a name change to Ex cofs Message Board or similar, I'll continue to consider that ESMB remains primarily for Ex scientologists and behave accordingly.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
... Unless ESMB is given a name change to Ex cofs Message Board or similar, I'll continue to consider that ESMB remains primarily for Ex scientologists and behave accordingly.
You are certainly free to choose your own considerations, however ...
Mark A. Baker
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Thanks Mark, I was aware of that but I doubt Emma expected the Messiah-like marketing would become quite so prominent here, I expect she thought good manners would apply and that the serious scientologists would keep all that for elsewhere ... but I am happy to be corrected or silenced on this (by Emma only though).
FoTi
Crusader
Thanks Mark, I was aware of that but I doubt Emma expected the Messiah-like marketing would become quite so prominent here, I expect she thought good manners would apply and that the serious scientologists would keep all that for elsewhere ... but I am happy to be corrected or silenced on this (by Emma only though).
What Messiah-like marketing are you talking about? :confused2:
- Status