acresofgreen wrote:

Just curious:  I assume you are talking about IE9.  What don't you like about being able to enter your search criteria in the same field as a URL?

I like being able to follow links down rabbit holes, then do a slightly modified search by changing things or adding a word or whatever and submitting a new search.  In IE9, with just the one box, the terms originally entered are long gone as they have been replaced by a URL.  And in my mind a URL and a search string are two fundamentally different things.

But I've found a pretty good workaround.  I'm not normally one to like Toolbars, but there's one called the Quero Toolbar that you can mostly deconfigure.  It offers not one but TWO things I like:

1.  The abilty to keep a separate search box open, with the last used search terms in it (not to mention a history control allowing me to see prior searches).

2.  An actual title in the IE9 Title bar.  Without this the page title doesn't show up anywhere if you don't like tabbed browsing (I have turned tabs off).  Microsoft clearly never thought their "clean title bar" design change all the way through.

Firefox has a separate search box, Safari has a separate search box.  These are the "other major browsers".

I don't know about Google Chrome as I don't have any love for Google software.

-Noel

"Bumping this thread up, just in case they reinstitute the one week cut-off and delete a bunch of stuff." -- Me

evomusics wrote:

 

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. - Lao Tzu

If Lao Tzu really knew that, he wouldn't have said it. Think about it…

Richard Dawkins? Really?

Michael, you are right. Lao Tzu violates the law of non-contradiction in his statement. Opposites cannot both be true, and so his statement invalidates his statement. However, there is another conclusion to be drawn here. Since he spoke it, he testifies that he does not know.

Regarding Dawkins, he is the unlucky one. He posits an utterly dismal and hopeless existence, one without any prospect for life after death, and advocates that we should rejoice in it. Now exactly how does that work? He who dies without faith never rejoices on his death bed.

Paul R Stark wrote:

 

He who dies without faith never rejoices on his death bed.

Your agreement with Dawkins' thought is nicely summed up in that one last sentence...  We cannot even begin to imagine what lies beyond our own lives, and so we try to put things in the perspective of the life we do know of.

I may not believe what you do, yet I can easily envision rejoicing on my death bed if for no other reason than for the anticipation of relief of the toil of this miserable biological existence.

So if you are without pain or trouble (or even if not), carpe diem!  Seize the day!

-Noel

Seeing how's there's no fool like and old fool, let me jump right in!

I cannot agree with either point of view, Paul's or Noel's. That's perfectly fine that you both possess your perspective on the subject, but let me add mine.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", considered on of the best statements in the English language by some. The part about happiness is wrong. There is nothing to pursue, because you already have it. It's already part of who you are. What that statement really should be saying is the avoidance of interference with my happiness. But that, along with the original form, the pursuit of happiness, is still incorrect. Because it gives over the power you have to another, entity, another event. "I won't be happy unless I get....."

Now think about that carefully. Does that really make sense?

The fact of the matter is that it is entirely within the human being to be happy no matter the circumstances. It's up yo you, not the outside world. Not anyone else. The trick is to recognize one is intrinsically happy, but one allows circumstances to hold sway with respect to attitude about circumstances.

The largest part of that is the misconceptions about true happiness. It isn't thrill, it isn't excitement, it isn't comfort. It takes time to find the seed inside oneself but here is a clue.

Have you ever observed a situation where several people are experiencing the same negative event, and that the responses vary widely? (Go to any political event to see that in action!) Same event, some are angry, some are blue, some are unaffected. So where's the trigger? It obviously isn't the event. It's the response. You can let it overpower your happiness or not. You can take steps to right the wrong, even express anger over the event, and still connect to your happiness.If you do both, stay connected and take action, the action then becomes impersonal, as it has nothing to do with your own state of being.

But then, all this is easier said than done!

Let me end this with a slight shift in perspective from Lao Tzu, attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

"It's better to remain silent and appear the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"....which I just did!

Lawrence

Hmmmm... this talk of violating laws of non-contradiction makes me think of

a <sigh, this forum software..... words fail me....> quote of Anne Landers:

"No generalization is worth a damn - including this one."

I quite like a quote someone attributed to Bhudda:

"Everything in moderation - including abstinence and excess."

Paul R Stark wrote:

 

I do not agree with any of Dawkins' thoughts.

I gathered that, yet your comment put things in perspective of a living being.  It just illustrates the difficulty.

And I'm not unhappy.  I may be miserable, as most creatures are, but that doesn't stop happiness.  My wife, on the other hand, has some pretty good tricks up her sleeves... 

Anyone who does not cringe at the pain and suffering of life may be ignoring reality and avoiding empathy.  To put it in the real terms of an example, a mother duck around our back yard lake had over a dozen ducklings.  By the second or third day of their little lives only a few were left.  Then a few days later none were left.  Anyone could see she was devastated; I swear she was crying.  It's hard to be happy in a world where young, innocent beings suffer and die horribly all around us.  Yet it it is the way of things, and - as it turns out - it is necessary for long-term survival.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

-Noel

That's different from what Dawkins said, dave.

"Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,    
  Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow    
  Find us farther than to-day.    
 
Art is long, and Time is fleeting,    
  And our hearts, though stout and brave,    
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
  Funeral marches to the grave."

from 'A Psalm of Life' by Lognfellow

And, incidentally;

"That which does not kill us, will probably try harder next time." -- Somebody

but one allows circumstances to hold sway with respect to attitude about circumstances.

This is a true statement. But let's recognize that in discussing happiness or optimism or being miserable, we are discussing emotions (feelings). Many do not realize that emotions are uncontrollable. They are determined by one's thoughts and beliefs. And as it turns out, you can control your thoughts and beliefs.

It's the Think-->Feel-->Act Progression. What you think (or believe) determines how you feel. How you feel determines what you do. That's how two people can react differently to the same experience. As Lawrence correctly observes, it's a matter of attitude or perspective.

That said, the notion that all experiences can be met with happiness is utopian, for it denies the existence of sadness, frustration, hopelessness, anxiety, depression, etc. and concludes they are unnecessary emotions. Death of a loved one is not a happy experience. Those who endured the Holocaust did not and could not experience happiness, nor should they have. Sadness is appropriate for certain situations (even for dead ducks, apparently) as much as gladness is for others. If my wife were to be murdered before my eyes, the statment "it is entirely within the human being to be happy no matter the circumstances" is clearly wrong.  What would be entirely within me would be unspeakable horror and grief, and that would be appropriate.

Were there no negative expereiences in life, there would also be no experiences of relief, salvation, rescue, safety, acceptance, security, significance, etc. Many of the blessings in life are contingent upon relief from pain and suffering, both of which are real and appropriate.

It is now clear to me why this forum has no "Correct Answer" option.

Were there no negative experiences in life, there would also be no experiences of relief, salvation, rescue, safety, acceptance, security, significance, etc. Many of the blessings in life are contingent upon relief from pain and suffering, both of which are real and appropriate.

Or, as Beavis & Butthead apparently put it "If things didn't suck, then things couldn't be cool!"

(I've never watched, but a friend quoted.)

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.

- Lao Tzu

You don't say!

- Anon

Lao Tzu's statement has a zen-like quality. You can only speak in the present, but knowledge has it's roots in the past and projects into the future. As you speak, the spoken words fade into the past,and the unspoken ones are in the future.

Words name things. The mind is capable of experiencing fully without naming anything. But then we cannot communicate those experiences verbally without words. Since words lead to definitions, and we define by both inclusion and exclusion, (this and not that) can speaking ever communicate the entirety of an experience?

We are back to Lao Tzu.

dave milbut wrote:

 

i was so much older then. i'm younger than that now.

 

Nobody's gonna get that reference…except maybe the Jack of Hearts…