?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

convert_me and the Jedi?

"Next life, I'm going to be a Jedi!"

I wrote this on 01 Mar 2004, but am just now jumping the bandwagon that darana and masteralida started rolling a few days ago.

There is no emotion; there is peace.
there is no ignorance; there is knowledge.
there is no passion;there is serenity.
there is no death;there is the Force.

-The Jedi Creed1

I don't think the Jedi Creed is a total abnegation of emotion, rather an abnegation of self and material attachments as well as personal ones. This evokes the Tibetan Buddhist teaching that the material world is illusory (though obviously the Jedi belief system is not Buddhist, more panentheistic2).

In other news: Ahh, the proposal is out, and I'm as mellow as mellow can be... at least until the next burning crisis.

Edit, 14:00 CST Tue 09 Mar 2004: An actual thread I started in convert_me has started to bear fruit. I never expected "aggressive negotiations over Iraq" to be one of the firstfruits, but oh, well. The best laid plans of Men and Hobbits...

1 You (and Mr. Spock) may be interested to know that there is no emotion; there is space.
2 The distinction between pantheism (Eä == Eru, i.e., the Universe is God) and panentheism (i.e., God is the Cosmic All-in-All that subsumes and pervades the Universe, surrounding and binding all its members) is very important to the Jedi.




Six people added me in LJ in the past week.
Would any of you listed below please post and introduce yourselves?

04 Mar 2004: megpie71, yodge (yay!)
03 Mar 2004: journals_r_gay
25 Feb 2004: haggard37
22 Feb 2004: enochmazdah
21 Feb 2004: mythrocks

--
Banazîr

Comments

( 26 comments — Leave a comment )
yahvah
Mar. 8th, 2004 06:49 pm (UTC)
theological distinctions
You will easily find panentheism in the verses of Acts chapter 17 verses 18-28. It can also be seen in the gospel of John chapter 14 verses 8-13. That John passage is one that Christians see as supporting the Trinitarian doctrine and that I see as the Unitarian doctrine. There's a theological term called Modalism that I subscribe to as opposed to the Trinitarian doctrine. It says that Yeshua came as a mode of God's communications in the world. It's a heresy according to CARM (see also Wikipedia's info). The error that I see with what they say there is that Modalism teaches that the three modes never exist all at one time. But I don't know about that. I'd say that of course they existed all at the same time. They did so in eternity.

That's an important distinction to me, too. :-)
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:34 am (UTC)
Re: theological distinctions - part 1 of 2
You will easily find panentheism in the verses of Acts chapter 17 verses 18-28.
:looks it up:
Ah, yes, the "to an unknown God" passage.

18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."
21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'


This is a lot more theistic than Jediism, though.
Think about Eruism and the term Eruhíni (the Children of the One), and I think you'll agree that the Quendi (elves) would have an easier time agreeing with you than the Jedi.

It can also be seen in the gospel of John chapter 14 verses 8-13.
:looks it up:
The tangible God - OK:

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


Well, as you write below, I would see this as promoting Trinitarianism rather than panentheism. It's a personal assertion on the part of Jesus.
The deal with the faith the size of a mustard seed is better echoed by "that is why you fail". ;-)

(continued)
yahvah
Mar. 9th, 2004 09:30 am (UTC)
the one verse you didn't underline that I see as panentheistic
28'For in him we live and move and have our being

That says to me that the universe really is a part of God and not something wholly separate from God.
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 09:43 am (UTC)
Re: the one verse you didn't underline that I see as panentheistic
28For in him we live and move and have our being.
That says to me that the universe really is a part of God and not something wholly separate from God.

A good point, though it says we (i.e., sentients), not all Creation and nature. But there are more naturalistic (I wouldn't quite say animistic) passages in the Christian Bible, too.

--
Banazir
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:35 am (UTC)
Re: theological distinctions - part 2 of 2
That John passage is one that Christians see as supporting the Trinitarian doctrine and that I see as the Unitarian doctrine. There's a theological term called Modalism that I subscribe to as opposed to the Trinitarian doctrine. It says that Yeshua came as a mode of God's communications in the world.
Reading the Wikipedia article one Sabellanism/Modalism and the Unitarian (Oneness) doctrine, I'm not sure exactly what Modalism says. If by mode you mean:

6a: a manifestation, form, or arrangement of being; specifically: a particular form or manifestation of an underlying substance

I don't see why that precludes Trinitarian thinking.
Actually, though, let me turn that around to the traditional Trinitarian Christians: do we worship a triune God in the sense of three beings in one or three beings as one?

It's a heresy according to CARM (see also Wikipedia's info). The error that I see with what they say there is that Modalism teaches that the three modes never exist all at one time.
Mutual exclusivity would seem to preclude some of the dialogue between Jesus and the Father. This has got to be in an FAQ somewhere, but how does Modalism reconcile the mutex assertion with Gethsemane? (I'm boggling at the "talking to oneself" implications, but maybe it's because it's 03:15 and I tend to be dreaming about Smeagol talking to himself at this hour.)

But I don't know about that. I'd say that of course they existed all at the same time. They did so in eternity.
Hrm, and I gather that the Council of Nicaea called that a cop-out?
(I'm really asking, as I don't see this as a crucial doctrinal issue, but it apparently has implications I haven't sought to understand.)

--
Banazir
yahvah
Mar. 9th, 2004 09:07 am (UTC)
something I got from an adherent of Islam
even if it makes no logical sense like 1+1+1=1.

There are complaints from Muslims in islam that there are Christian missionaries trying to take the gospel to them by means of sophistry. Islam's prime complaint with Christianity can be seen in the quotation taken from soulfulwriter above. Given this, I point Christians to 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. Christians make a habit of taking verse 13 and using it to preach that Jesus and Paul declared pigflesh and shrimp clean (though I argue otherwise). But the full context of Paul's words in verses 4-13 shows that Paul is exhorting the Gentiles to refrain from doing things that will wound the weak conscience of the Jews in the synagogues (particularly eating meat sacrificed to idols which was expressly forbidden in Acts chapter 15). Corinth was a predominately pagan city surrounded by idols and pagan forms of worship. Taking Judaism to the pagans like Paul did had to have been quite an interesting career for a Jewish rabbi!

But in order to understand the full context of my rhetoric against trinitarian doctrines, we have to go to 1 Timothy 4:6, 6:1 (in particular as it relates to Zechariah 14:9 which Paul would've been familiar with in the first century) as well as 2 Timothy 3:16. Now given that Paul said that it is one God we serve (Romans 3:30), which is confirmed by scripture (read: 2 Timothy 3:16) in Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29 (though it's arguable that the gospels weren't considered scripture in the first century), I would say that a three-in-one God is contradictory to what scripture says about God being one (for what it's worth, Jews and others through the centuries have seen the Tree of Life diagram with the Ten Sephiroth as being polytheistic). With this and the stumbling block of which Paul warned against creating in 1 Corinthians in mind, I say that the trinitarian doctrines that Christians try to take to Jews and Muslims do nothing but cause a stumbling block for them to understand the Jewish scriptures from a Jewish perspective.

Hrm, and I gather that the Council of Nicaea called that a cop-out?
(I'm really asking, as I don't see this as a crucial doctrinal issue, but it apparently has implications I haven't sought to understand.)


If by cop-out you mean damnable heresy, perhaps. ;-) Hopefully what's written above will shed some light on the implications of certain doctrines.

but how does Modalism reconcile the mutex assertion with Gethsemane?

In Matthew 26:64, Jesus asserted that He'd be sitting at the right hand of power, which means that He was given authority by the Father. The gospels say that the Father is greater than the Son (John 10:25-30, 14:28). Paul picks up on this when Paul says in Philippians 2:5-11 that God the Father receives all the glory through Jesus the Messiah. We say that the fullness of the Godhead rested in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), but that the Father is greater than Him.

But ultimately I agree with you. I don't see such bickerings over doctrines like this to be crucial to anyone's faith. The big problem that I see is that it causes those with "weak consciences" to stumble and reject the Messiah.
oxbastetxo
Mar. 8th, 2004 07:32 pm (UTC)
Ismism
The Jedi philosophy is very pantheistic, George admits this. He took bits from this and that to create it.

Creeds are just that...creeds. Statements of faith and prayers. Not necessarily what all the "believers" hold to, but something they all agree on.

I have to admit I'm think of things like the Apostolic creed and the Nicene creed. Which is logical because George admits to stealing things from Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and just about any other ism out there with a good dollop of Joseph Campbell added in for flavor. :-)
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:51 am (UTC)
Pantheism and panentheism
The Jedi philosophy is very pantheistic, George admits this.
Yes, but I think that in moving through the original trilogy to "luminous beings are we" to arrive at a Jedi temple, sanctified to the Force as it were, and further still by canonizing the Jedi creed (if that has happened), George Lucas has clearly shifted the implicit Jedi belief system from pantheistic to panentheistic (sorry, please re-click the links, I had them both as "pantheism" before).

He took bits from this and that to create it.
True.
As deire said, even Eastern animistic religions such as Shinto, the old religion of Japan, are probably closer to the all-inclusive aspect of the Force-as-God than the Judeo-Christian monotheism.

(No, no, you Midichlorian Witnesses, please see the convert_me door right over there.) Seriously, I don't mean that the divine animus is thereby divided amongst multiple sentient beings, but I can't speak for Uncle George. More likely we need to go back to the roots of the word "permeates". Yes, I'll be a Creed-thumping fundamentalist for purposes of this exercise.

Creeds are just that...creeds. Statements of faith and prayers.
It's an article of faith, not the whole catechism as it were.
Those sproglets need something to rehearse and meditate upon in between - and possibly during - lightsabre practice.

Not necessarily what all the "believers" hold to, but something they all agree on.
Hrm, now here you are touching on a point not really delved into by Lucas story-internally in the movies. The closest we come is with the book canon and the Living/Unifying aspects of the Light Side of the Force. That's even tied to lightsabre colors, of all things, in canon; but story-externally, as you know, it's all about the desert sand albedo (blue vs. green contrast) and Samuel L. Jackson's personal taste (necessitating the purple lightsabre and other colors besides red, green, and blue).

I have to admit I'm think of things like the Apostolic creed and the Nicene creed. Which is logical because George admits to stealing things from Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and just about any other ism out there with a good dollop of Joseph Campbell added in for flavor. :-)
Now you're cooking with Campbell!
Bam! Kick it up a notch!
I wouldn't say the Monomyth (particularly the Fool's Journey) is flavoring - more a base. ;-)

Thanks for your comments.

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 8th, 2004 08:32 pm (UTC)
" The distinction between pantheism (Eä == Eru, i.e., the Universe is God) and panentheism (i.e., God is the Cosmic All-in-All tha subsumes and pervades the Universe, surrounding and binding all its members) is very important to the Jedi."
Gadd, I wish you'd wax eloquent on /that/ for a bit! Not that it's been recurrent thought recently, but I've pondered it more than once without resolution.
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:09 am (UTC)
Is the Universe all God is or is it just a part?
Gadd, I wish you'd wax eloquent on /that/ for a bit! Not that it's been recurrent thought recently, but I've pondered it more than once without resolution.
cavlec's renowned husband, Tripitaka of teunc, recommended that I look into equating Jedi-ism with Manichaeanism, the gnostic religion that we agreed had panentheistic elements evocative of the Jedi belief system (a light and dark side, which surrounds and binds all within the material universe but is not entirely of it). 3p further asserted that St. Augustine (who turned away from Manichaeanism) was not much of a Manichee. More on this later when I can get to my other computer, which has my notes and chat logs on it.

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 08:26 am (UTC)
Re: Is the Universe all God is or is it just a part?
Correct me if I'm seriously in error here: isn't a major part of Manichaeanism an absolute view of "good" and "evil"?
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
Dualism and The Force - part 1 of 2
Correct me if I'm seriously in error here: isn't a major part of Manichaeanism an absolute view of "good" and "evil"?
Yes, which is why Trippy was push the Light Side/Dark Side analogy.
From the above link:

The most striking principle of Manichee theology is its dualism. The universe is a battlefield for control between an evil material god and a good spiritual god. Christians recognized the evil god in Satan but, of course, could not accept the idea that Satan had as much power as Jehovah, and held that Satan, unlike God, is a created being. The term Manichaeistic is often used to describe any religion with a similar concept of struggle between good and evil.

Mani did base his theology on a synthesis of Gnostic Christianity derived from his original Elkasite (Essene Judaism, yahvah) roots and from Zoroastrianism.

[20:28:28] We are talking about my latest LJ entry in FoE
[20:28:35] Panentheism and the Jedi belief system
[20:28:51] Oh?
[20:29:01] What about dualism?
[20:29:56] Yew guise are just tempting me to start an eljay, nazwaz...
[20:30:07] You managed to draw yodge over to the dark side
[20:30:53] Mazbe Er-Rîzanab has something to say about *his* view of the Force
[20:31:01] Hrm
[20:31:09] Er-Rizanab is busy killing
[20:31:24] Kill the Jedi, kill the Jedi, kill the Jediiii!
[20:31:59] Try: Jedi vs. Vulcan philosophy
[20:32:32] Is the view of the Force in the new movies really consistent with that of the first trilogy?
[20:33:37] Yes and no.
[20:33:51] *** Tripitaka has changed the topic on channel #teunc to elfspeak!
[20:33:52] (No, I'm not joining Ermanna as an Elven Jedi)
[20:34:18] Okay, splain the "yes" first and then splain the "no'.
[20:36:44] My ally is the Force... and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it flow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings we are! Not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you.</font>
[20:37:34] Sounds like Manichaeism to me
[20:37:54] More panentheistic
[20:37:56] Shinto, even
[20:38:11] But a valid point


Later:
[20:42:08] Bana: According to the Manichaeans, the universe is pervaded by a hidden Light which is found inside all living beings, in the stars and the sun, and which also exists outside and beyond the world. How is that different?

(continued)
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 09:24 pm (UTC)
Re: Dualism and The Force - part 1 of 2
"According to the Manichaeans, the universe is pervaded by a hidden Light"
Beyond "rang-tong" (emptiness of self) there is "shen-tong" (emptiness of other). So we're left with a "very full emptiness" ... the nature of ultimate reality is emptiness, and its characteristic is luminosity.

*Next? grin*
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
Dualism and The Force - part 2 of 2

I originally didn't quite buy the dualistic argument because I think Jediism abjures the Dark Side wholly (unlike certain dualistic Eastern religions who see the Light and Dark as necessary components of a balance). OTOH, Jediism does recognize the Dark Side as an aspect of the Force as some other "purely ethical" or "nearly purely ethical" (Probably Approximately Correct? ;-)) religions such as Zoroastrianism do. So the question there is whether there is an external adversary, a Satan or Morgoth, or whether being Eruhini and as such part of the body of the godhead, we carry our own evil as part of it. That's actually rather important. I admit to being poorly educated about this doctrinal distinction and would like to hear persepectives.

To start with, here's a conservative Christian critique of Dualism and The Force. Feel free to take it apart and discuss it, if you all like.

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 12:41 pm (UTC)
Re: Dualism and The Force - part 2 of 2
1) "Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) Learning" is a lovely and timely meme; I was on my way from coffee pondering Wittgenstein et al, and their work on Principia, pondering the consequences of techne that dehumanizes ... dehumanizes how? by imposing simplistic decision procedures. Simplistic how? by the fact of their being ignorantly reduced? Ignorant how? Hubristically [??!!!], that is, with impunity.
A theory of technique and technology that is "fuzzy", I was thinking, might "feel" more human and might produce more humane results by involving the ... the ?what? ... the partial products that are so much a part of person-hood, i.e. we move from tenative plausibility to tentative plausibility (unless we're geniuses. but even then it's likely that we do something like reality testing ala praxis).
Next thing I know, "Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) Learning" ... you're a wizard, bill.

BTW, I really really really dislike citeseer ... it's a lovely service, but it too often swamps google.
see Computational Learning Theory (PDF) for my first usable hit on PAC theory. ("Pattern Classification is the textbook for that course.)

2)"... the question there is whether there is an external adversary[...] or whether being Eruhini and as such part of the body of the godhead ..."
Humbly I contend that neither is the case; there /is/ "try", and (as Martin Luther King Jr. put it) peace is not so much the goal as the means and method of attaining it ...
... to collapse ambiguity is, no doubt, fruitful. But, staying with this theme, I find it to be a Faustian proposition, i.e. the unanticipated consequences of the distributed middle give rise to situations which seem to command further reduction.

So saying: I have established connection, however tenuous, from the campus of Dalhousie University ... but it's unsafe and I am (very technically) in breach of etiquette; I /gotta/ get either a LAN account or a laptop!

nice to exchange notes with you
more to follow
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 12:43 pm (UTC)
errata
... hit on PAC theory. ("Pattern Classification" is the textbook for that course.)
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 01:45 pm (UTC)
Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) formalism
1) "Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) Learning" is a lovely and timely meme
It is, at that.
[Wittgenstein and concept complexity]
Next thing I know, "Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) Learning" ... you're a wizard, bill.

Eh? Wizard? Nah, I'm just a humble Jedi hobbit. :-)
You want wizards, go see istari_ala.

BTW, I really really really dislike citeseer ... it's a lovely service, but it too often swamps google.
Well, that's not always an evil in and of itself.
I mean, the Netscape Open Directory "swamps Google" in that Google's directory is based upon it; and there are a lot of other indices (not just citation indices) that exploit Google's hubs-authorities algorithm (PageRank) or benefit by it.

see Computational Learning Theory (PDF) for my first usable hit on PAC theory. (Pattern Classification is the textbook for that course.)
Ah, good old Duda, Hart and Stork - acksherly I sued Duda and Hard for about 3 years before 2nd ed. (2000) with David Stork as the "new" co-author came out. First edition? 1973.

Humbly I contend that neither is the case; there /is/ "try", and (as Martin Luther King Jr. put it) peace is not so much the goal as the means and method of attaining it ...
Well, yes.
(I mean that I concur, personally.)

So saying: I have established connection, however tenuous, from the campus of Dalhousie University ... but it's unsafe and I am (very technically) in breach of etiquette; I /gotta/ get either a LAN account or a laptop!
Half a grats and half a w00t (w0?) now, the other half later, then.

nice to exchange notes with you
more to follow

Likewise; looking forward to it.

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Dualism and The Force - part 2 of 2
CANA includes this:
"[Anakin]is told to trust his feelings,''you will be invincible''."

How sad ... much finer, methinks, the samurai who achieved the same end IRL knowing himself to be already dead. This talk of invincability is, for me, the stuff of cults, spoken only by cynical manipulators.
What heroism is there in battling with the certain knowledge of invicibality? this is the stuff of madness.


What is evil about Satan except what drives him to choose "ruling in Hell rather than serving in Heaven"? Spitefully immature, I'd call him!
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 12:59 pm (UTC)
Re: Dualism and The Force - part 2 of 2
I should have included links, having mentioned bushido
"Hagakure Bushido is the view which prizes ''heart'' and ''reality.''"

Samurai? "''one who can die for others '', or ''one who can die because of Gi'' (''Gi'' is morality or justice in English.) Samurai can die in order to protect others, or in order to make others alive."
banazir
Mar. 10th, 2004 01:24 pm (UTC)
Emotion, Instinct, the Sith Creed; Paradise Lost; Bushido
CANA includes this:
"[Anakin]is told to trust his feelings,''you will be invincible''."

I was going to look this up, but was a little short on time, so I asked masteralida, who jogged my memory about Palpatine (as Chancellor) saying this to Anakin in EpII.

How sad ... much finer, methinks, the samurai who achieved the same end IRL knowing himself to be already dead. This talk of invincability is, for me, the stuff of cults, spoken only by cynical manipulators.
Can't get much more cynical and manipulative than ol' Palpy.

What heroism is there in battling with the certain knowledge of invicibality?
this is the stuff of madness.

Not only that, but under the delusion that one's instincts (base or otherwise) can make on invincible? That's at least consonant with the Sith creed, and what I was getting at above.

I think I need to start a separate thread on the Dark Jedi and Sith creeds.




What is evil about Satan except what drives him to choose "ruling in Hell rather than serving in Heaven"? Spitefully immature, I'd call him!
Well, ultimate Evil has something of the ultimate in spiteful immaturity about it, IMO.



I should have included links, having mentioned bushido
"Hagakure Bushido is the view which prizes ''heart'' and ''reality.''"

/me nods - thanks.

Samurai? "''one who can die for others '', or ''one who can die because of Gi'' (''Gi'' is morality or justice in English.) Samurai can die in order to protect others, or in order to make others alive."
Oh, trask!
I completely forgot to allude to bushido in my wibblings about the Jedi and Shinto.
Watashi mekusukyusu gozaimasu.

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 10th, 2004 05:58 pm (UTC)
Re: Emotion, Instinct, the Sith Creed; Paradise Lost; Bushido
"That's at least consonant with the Sith creed, and what I was getting at above."
Aha, I see.
I was just thinking ... if one /did/ conceive of oneself as invincible, that would almost invariably corrupt.


"Well, ultimate Evil has something of the ultimate in spiteful immaturity about it, IMO."
Yes ... just so ... something of hurt bewilderment in it, the 3-year old's tantrum on having its will countermanded, as though its world was falling apart.
We shouldn't underestimate the stress placed on the wicked by a requirement to do the good ... like sunshine to a vampire.


"Watashi mekusukyusu gozaimasu."
You honor me.

_{*}_

(Is this a bad moment to ask about RAM? *grin*)
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 08:26 am (UTC)
Re: Is the Universe all God is or is it just a part?
p.s. I found your writing on pan/en/theism in Jedi. thanks.
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 10:18 am (UTC)
Jedi?
p.s. I found your writing on pan/en/theism in Jedi. thanks.
In Jedi?
Sorry, where did you find me writtings?

--
Banazir
hfx_ben
Mar. 9th, 2004 09:24 pm (UTC)
Re: Jedi?
mmmmnmnmnmn ... me forgets
(Deleted comment)
banazir
Mar. 9th, 2004 08:37 am (UTC)
Three schemes for the elven memes
Hey, nice gnu colour scheme!
Hey, thanks!
All praise to dragnflye, narvi and deire, all blame to me. deire helped yours truly the color eejut several times, which was a lucky thing, acos he just revised his notes on color (borrowed with permission from the Brown CS123 instructor) for his computer graphics class and discovered he didn't know jack squat aboat a lont of sutff.

I was a-gonna axe yew, but yew were busy unpaxing and prolly getting caught up on sleep and pohto-psotting.

There are three schemes (clict below to see screen shots):

Ima rotate them when I memember to.

--
Banazir
( 26 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi