Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

why Pillar

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

61 messages Options

1234

Gour

why Pillar

Hiya,

I see that Pharo project has embraced Pillar system for documentation
purposes and my first question was "Why Pillar?" since, iirc, comparison
was made with e.g Markdown which is, obviously, not sufficient for eg.
authoring books, but there are more capable markups with 'standard'
implementations like rst/Sphinx and Asciidoc(tor).

Then I thought it must be some deeper reason, iow. something suitable to
work more closely with Pharo itself.

Now I have two questions:

1) Can someone answer in more detail "Why Pillar?" and

2) For some time I was considering whether to settle on using rst or
AsciiDoc for *all* my writings, which means blog posts, my study notes,
preparing books, writing articles etc.

Since I've settled to use Python-powered static-site-generator (Nikola)
along with reStructuredText markup which can call external 'compilers'
to process blog posts written in specific markup, I wonder if it would
be possible to use Pillar markup with it since it seems there is cli for
it?

Sincerely,
Gour

--
When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest
of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has
been heard and all that is to be heard.

stepharo

Re: why Pillar

Le 25/12/15 17:02, Saša Janiška a écrit :

> Hiya,
>
> I see that Pharo project has embraced Pillar system for documentation
> purposes and my first question was "Why Pillar?" since, iirc, comparison
> was made with e.g Markdown which is, obviously, not sufficient for eg.
> authoring books, but there are more capable markups with 'standard'
> implementations like rst/Sphinx and Asciidoc(tor).
>
> Then I thought it must be some deeper reason, iow. something suitable to
> work more closely with Pharo itself.
>
> Now I have two questions:
>
> 1) Can someone answer in more detail "Why Pillar?" and

Pillar exists before Markdown.
We did pillar syntax back in 2002.
>
> 2) For some time I was considering whether to settle on using rst or
> AsciiDoc for *all* my writings, which means blog posts, my study notes,
> preparing books, writing articles etc.

We do that with Pillar because we have the control over it and because
we have it since long time. The seaside book was fully written in pillar.
>
> Since I've settled to use Python-powered static-site-generator (Nikola)
> along with reStructuredText markup which can call external 'compilers'
> to process blog posts written in specific markup, I wonder if it would
> be possible to use Pillar markup with it since it seems there is cli for
> it?
Check Ecstatic (we should do another pass on it). The idea is to use
pillar + mustache
to generate static web pages.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Gour
>
>

Gour

Re: why Pillar

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 17:36 +0100, stepharo wrote:

> Pillar exists before Markdown.
> We did pillar syntax back in 2002.

Heh, it's interesting that both rst & AsciiDoc are also, according to
Wikipedia from 2002. :-)

What about Pillar and Pharo? Any additional advantage to use it?

> We do that with Pillar because we have the control over it and because
> we have it since long time. The seaside book was fully written in
> pillar.

Can Pillar handle footnotes? (I can't see on the cheetsheet.)

Seeing that quotes are used for *both* italic and bold, I wonder if
Pillar can do nested inline markup, like e.g. bold-italic?

It's one of the design limit of rst, but AsciiDoc can handle it.

Sincerely,
Gour

--
A person is said to be elevated in yoga when, having renounced
all material desires, he neither acts for sense gratification
nor engages in fruitive activities.

Damien Cassou-2

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Gour

On December 25, 2015 5:02:13 PM GMT+01:00, "Saša Janiška" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hiya,
>
>I see that Pharo project has embraced Pillar system for documentation
>purposes and my first question was "Why Pillar?" since, iirc,
>comparison
>was made with e.g Markdown which is, obviously, not sufficient for eg.
>authoring books, but there are more capable markups with 'standard'
>implementations like rst/Sphinx and Asciidoc(tor).
>
>Then I thought it must be some deeper reason, iow. something suitable
>to
>work more closely with Pharo itself.
>
>Now I have two questions:
>
>1) Can someone answer in more detail "Why Pillar?" and
>
>2) For some time I was considering whether to settle on using rst or
>AsciiDoc for *all* my writings, which means blog posts, my study notes,
>preparing books, writing articles etc.
>
>Since I've settled to use Python-powered static-site-generator (Nikola)
>along with reStructuredText markup which can call external 'compilers'
>to process blog posts written in specific markup, I wonder if it would
>be possible to use Pillar markup with it since it seems there is cli
>for
>it?
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Gour
>

We wanted to generate slides, Cyril changed Pillar to generate slides. We want to generate exercises and questions, we will change Pillar to generate questions in a dedicated format for a specific MOOC platform. Because Pillar is in Pharo, is well designed and is fully tested, we can easily extend it the way we want.
--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without
losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill

Damien Cassou-2

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Gour

On December 25, 2015 6:02:05 PM GMT+01:00, "Saša Janiška" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Can Pillar handle footnotes? (I can't see on the cheetsheet.)

I don't like footnotes so I never added them. If you like them, I guess it's less than a hundred lines of code using annotations.

>Seeing that quotes are used for *both* italic and bold, I wonder if
>Pillar can do nested inline markup, like e.g. bold-italic?

Bold uses double quotes whereas italic uses single quotes. I guess mixing them is no problem but I don't have my computer to check.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without
losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill

Gour

Re: why Pillar

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 18:10 +0100, Damien Cassou wrote:

> I don't like footnotes so I never added them.

Heh, that's *you*, but I still wonder about all other Pillar users.

> If you like them,

Let me say that I *need* them - that's the nature of the content I
write...

> I guess it's less than a hundred lines of code using annotations.

I'll take a look, but first things first.

> Bold uses double quotes whereas italic uses single quotes. I guess
> mixing them is no problem but I don't have my computer to check.

I'm interested to find out - if someone has Pillar installed, before I
venture into it.

Sincerely,
Gour

--
As fire is covered by smoke, as a mirror is covered by dust,
or as the embryo is covered by the womb, the living entity is
similarly covered by different degrees of this lust.

Gour

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-2

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 18:07 +0100, Damien Cassou wrote:

> We wanted to generate slides, Cyril changed Pillar to generate slides.
> We want to generate exercises and questions, we will change Pillar to
> generate questions in a dedicated format for a specific MOOC platform.
> Because Pillar is in Pharo, is well designed and is fully tested, we
> can easily extend it the way we want.

Thank you. That explains it nicely. ;)

Sincerely,
Gour

--
As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the
fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.

Robert Withers

Re: why Pillar

On Dec 25, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the
fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.

---

The knowledge sacrifice is superior
To any material sacrifice, O Arjuna.
Because, all actions in their entirety
Culminate in knowledge.

---

Dear 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 good thing too.

As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Robert

Robert Withers

Re: why Pillar

Sorry, that was meant to be private.

---

robert

On Dec 25, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Dec 25, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> wrote:
--
As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the
fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.

---
The knowledge sacrifice is superior
To any material sacrifice, O Arjuna.
Because, all actions in their entirety
Culminate in knowledge.
---

Dear 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 good thing too.

As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
Robert

Gour

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Robert Withers

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:

Hello Robert,

> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
> a good thing too.

Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

:-)

> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Haribol and Happy New Year!

--
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
transcendent self.

Robert Withers

Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> 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 good thing too.
>
> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge supplants older limited knowledge.

>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>
> :-)

Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this speculation when you find #new! :-)

>
>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>
> Haribol and Happy New Year!

Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have.

>
> --
> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
> transcendent self.
>
>
>
>
>

Robert Withers

Re: 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 have no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).

cheers,
robert

---

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
very source of creation.

On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:

On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška [hidden email] 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 good thing too.

Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge supplants older limited knowledge.

As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

:-)

Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this speculation when you find #new! :-)

Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Haribol and Happy New Year!

Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have.

-- 
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, 
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the 
transcendent self.

Robert Withers

Re: 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.

I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.

Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for #random. :)

nameste,
robert

--
There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as being death.
(avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)

On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:

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 have no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).

cheers,
robert

---

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
very source of creation.

On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška [hidden email] 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 good thing too.
Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge supplants older limited knowledge.
As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
:-)
Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this speculation when you find #new! :-)
Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
Haribol and Happy New Year!
Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have.
-- 
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, 
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the 
transcendent self.

Ben Coman

Re: 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)

cheers -ben

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the
> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.
>
> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for
> #random. :)
>
> nameste,
> robert
>
>
> --
> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
> being death.
> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)
>
>
> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
>
> 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 have
> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).
>
> cheers,
> robert
>
> ---
>
> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
> very source of creation.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> 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 good thing too.
>
> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
>
> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and
> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
> supplants older limited knowledge.
>
>
> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>
> :-)
>
> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
> speculation when you find #new! :-)

>
>
> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>
> Haribol and Happy New Year!
>
> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!
>
> ---
> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they
> have.
>
>
> --
> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
> transcendent self.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Robert Withers

Re: 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. I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any
"rules" I am aware of unless you have dominion, agency and possession to
be establishing such a rule at this time. If so, I will desist;
otherwise I will continue to mine the ancient sources of psychology and
sociology for application to the best damn little programming
environment every other language fails to emulate.

Once again, my apologies this upsets you.

Sincerely,
Robert

On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

> 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)
>
> cheers -ben
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the
>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.
>>
>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for
>> #random. :)
>>
>> nameste,
>> robert
>>
>>
>> --
>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
>> being death.
>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)
>>
>>
>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>
>> 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 have
>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).
>>
>> cheers,
>> robert
>>
>> ---
>>
>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
>> very source of creation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> 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 good thing too.
>>
>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
>>
>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and
>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
>> supplants older limited knowledge.
>>
>>
>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
>> speculation when you find #new! :-)
>>
>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>>
>> Haribol and Happy New Year!
>>
>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!
>>
>> ---
>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
>> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they
>> have.
>>
>>
>> --
>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
>> transcendent self.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Robert Withers

Re: 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, 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. I don't seem to have a problem nor am I
> breaking any "rules" I am aware of unless you have dominion, agency
> and possession to be establishing such a rule at this time. If so, I
> will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the ancient sources of
> psychology and sociology for application to the best damn little
> programming environment every other language fails to emulate.
>
> Once again, my apologies this upsets you.
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert
>
> On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>> 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)
>>
>> cheers -ben
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it
>>> was the
>>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for
>>> #random. :)
>>>
>>> nameste,
>>> robert
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
>>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
>>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
>>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
>>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
>>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
>>> being death.
>>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 have
>>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> robert
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
>>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
>>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
>>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
>>> very source of creation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> 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 good thing too.
>>>
>>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
>>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
>>>
>>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources,
>>> concentration and
>>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
>>> supplants older limited knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
>>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and
>>> that is
>>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
>>> speculation when you find #new! :-)
>>>
>>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>>>
>>> Haribol and Happy New Year!
>>>
>>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!
>>>
>>> ---
>>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating
>>> on My
>>> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve
>>> what they
>>> have.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
>>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on
>>> the
>>> transcendent self.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Ben Coman

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 sciences of consciousness.

respectfully,
robert

On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

jfabry

Re: 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 here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Ben’s message (+ Marcus’ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so.

So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all.

Greetings,

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 sciences of consciousness.
>
> respectfully,
> robert
>

---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

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.

Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models.

Is the cellular meta-meme acceptable or is also the Mythic meta-meme? Or are both having no place here?

This is Smalltalk to me and my practical use of it. It is directly related to interactive fiction, which was just posted about. I am not trying to be belligerent, nay defend myself from hypocrisy and secure my rights, here.

So which is the acceptable meta-model?

Regards,
Robert

Mythic Meta-Meme

On 12/27/2015 12:49 PM, Johan Fabry wrote:

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 here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Ben’s message (+ Marcus’ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so.

So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all.

Greetings,

On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers [hidden email] wrote:

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 sciences of consciousness.

respectfully,
robert



---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile

jfabry

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> 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: "for your spiritual and/or religious point of view”.

Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models.

I have no opinion on this, this is a design question for your work, and not straightforwardly related to Pharo itself. In my opinion and apparently in the opinion of others as well, this is not a topic for this mailing list. Sending multiple mails to the list about it can be considered bad netiquette.

---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

1234