That would be the answer according to a dualistic, naive conception of reality and causality (which most of us have, most of the time) but it's not the correct answer in the Buddhist version of the story.
In the traditional story, the 'third monk' is actually the teacher of the other two monks. Following their two inadequate answers, he rebukes them and says:
"It is the mind that moves."
The monks' answers are deemed inadequate because they are dualistic: they make a distinction, in a fundamental way, between the wind and the flag (and, in fact, movement as such), and then try to think whether movement begins with the one or with the other, or whether movement can be considered apart from that which moves.
But to distinguish 'movement', 'flag', or 'wind' as particularities of what is, beforehand, an unparticularised situation, is a movement of the mind. It is the monks' dualistically inclined minds which move towards a view, and any particular view is partial and therefore inadequate. So the master's answer is the 'correct' one, as it's the most accurate and apposite statement of what's happening.
On the face of things, I think you shouldn't accept the offer. You clearly value your independence and self-determination, and if you're confident of your statement that your project will be worth more money in future, stick with it!
But whatever you decide to do, come back in a year or so's time and tell us whether you think it was the right decision. That would be interesting.
I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. It could have learned to bury food by watching its mother do the same. The First Food-Burying Fox might originally have learned to do so after surviving a winter without a food cache, or it might have happened upon some food during a hungry winter and thought "Awesome!", or some occurrence like that. (Who knows where thoughts come from?/EmpireRecords) Anyway, then it's memetic transference of an idea, not a genetic reproduction of an instict. To dismiss this possibility out of hand would reflect (arguably) unwarranted assumptions about intelligence in foxes.
Oh, don't be so precious. The boy is hardly in anguish -- he's just really, really spaced out. It's not as though the father is laughing -at- the boy's pain. He's laughing because it's really funny. And it really is. Tomorrow the kid will wake up perfectly fine and the entire car trip will be the vaguest memory, if that.
It's great that Obama is president, but I'm skeptical of the true interests behind the progressive, benign image. To achieve a meaningful, positive change in the USA and the world he has to face down a corporate/military system of great wealth and power. If he doesn't, it'll be more of the same: a devious and rapacious foreign policy, strategic falsehoods, strife and inequity with the aim of US hegemony. There's never been a better character for the job, but it's a hell of a tough job.
Sufficient living: shelter, food, water.
Everything else is a bonus, including comfort. Pensions are necessary for people who want to live in comfort. Otherwise, you just have to face the basic facts of being a human: you'll get old, you'll get ill, you'll die.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
---
Anyone smell a double standard? (Smells like cheese.)
I agree with 2, but 3 is going too far. Completeness doesn't preclude updates, but it does strictly make them unnecessary... demanding updates is too much.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be the answer according to a dualistic, naive conception of reality and causality (which most of us have, most of the time) but it's not the correct answer in the Buddhist version of the story.
In the traditional story, the 'third monk' is actually the teacher of the other two monks. Following their two inadequate answers, he rebukes them and says:
"It is the mind that moves."
The monks' answers are deemed inadequate because they are dualistic: they make a distinction, in a fundamental way, between the wind and the flag (and, in fact, movement as such), and then try to think whether movement begins with the one or with the other, or whether movement can be considered apart from that which moves.
But to distinguish 'movement', 'flag', or 'wind' as particularities of what is, beforehand, an unparticularised situation, is a movement of the mind. It is the monks' dualistically inclined minds which move towards a view, and any particular view is partial and therefore inadequate. So the master's answer is the 'correct' one, as it's the most accurate and apposite statement of what's happening.
On the face of things, I think you shouldn't accept the offer. You clearly value your independence and self-determination, and if you're confident of your statement that your project will be worth more money in future, stick with it! But whatever you decide to do, come back in a year or so's time and tell us whether you think it was the right decision. That would be interesting.
I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. It could have learned to bury food by watching its mother do the same. The First Food-Burying Fox might originally have learned to do so after surviving a winter without a food cache, or it might have happened upon some food during a hungry winter and thought "Awesome!", or some occurrence like that. (Who knows where thoughts come from? /EmpireRecords) Anyway, then it's memetic transference of an idea, not a genetic reproduction of an instict. To dismiss this possibility out of hand would reflect (arguably) unwarranted assumptions about intelligence in foxes.
Oh, don't be so precious. The boy is hardly in anguish -- he's just really, really spaced out. It's not as though the father is laughing -at- the boy's pain. He's laughing because it's really funny. And it really is. Tomorrow the kid will wake up perfectly fine and the entire car trip will be the vaguest memory, if that.
It's great that Obama is president, but I'm skeptical of the true interests behind the progressive, benign image. To achieve a meaningful, positive change in the USA and the world he has to face down a corporate/military system of great wealth and power. If he doesn't, it'll be more of the same: a devious and rapacious foreign policy, strategic falsehoods, strife and inequity with the aim of US hegemony. There's never been a better character for the job, but it's a hell of a tough job.
Sufficient living: shelter, food, water. Everything else is a bonus, including comfort. Pensions are necessary for people who want to live in comfort. Otherwise, you just have to face the basic facts of being a human: you'll get old, you'll get ill, you'll die.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
---
Anyone smell a double standard? (Smells like cheese.)
I agree with 2, but 3 is going too far. Completeness doesn't preclude updates, but it does strictly make them unnecessary... demanding updates is too much.