Re: Kefilli mystery

[Guest guest]

Heh heh. " It is a mystery " ! I'll have to add that to the PDF, I guess.

Answer is:

1. You can mix viili and kefir, if you have both.

2. You can ask me and I'll send you some ($10 for postage and handling).

My kefiili came about by accident, when I was raising both kefir

and viili. I didn't exactly mix them on purpose, but others have

and it usually does seem to create a stable kefiili culture (tho

when Dom did it, I seem to recall out of 5 " mixes " only one was

stable and didn't turn back into kefir, so there might be other

issues). They do tend to revert if they get too warm or you

leave them in the milk too long (several days).

There is some danger if you have kefir, of keeping kefiili around ...

it can " infect " your kefir if you aren't careful.

Glad you liked the jerky!

BTW someone else was asking for kefiili, and I lost their

name and don't have their address. So, whoever you were,

rewrite me privately and put ATTN: HEIDI on the Subject so

my anti-spammer doesn't eat it ...

-- Heidi

>Okay Heidi, my friend and I have been over your kefilli pdf several

>times and we still can't figure out how to get kefilli in the first

>place. We have two theories, 1) you put kefir grains in villi and

>the grains become kefilli from then on and 2) kefilli was a freak-of-

>nature incident and you're the only one who has kefilli and you're

>just taunting the rest of us with your pdf. Could you elaborate a

>little on how you get the initial batch of kefilli? We tried your

>jerky recipe with kefir and it was a big hit at our last WAPF

>meeting, and now we gotta have kefilli.

>

>Betsy (on behalf of several members of the central Arkansas WAPF

>chapter)

>

[Guest guest]

>2) kefilli was a freak-of-

>nature incident and you're the only one who has kefilli and you're

>just taunting the rest of us with your pdf. Could you elaborate a

>little on how you get the initial batch of kefilli?

Actually, you should ignore my previous post. Kefiili is

a freak of nature. Only MY grains will work for it because

they are nourished with special radiation that comes from

our soil. Since I have the monopoly they are going

for $20,000 per sample.

Heh heh. I'll be a capitalist yet.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/04 3:39:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Actually, you should ignore my previous post. Kefiili is

> a freak of nature. Only MY grains will work for it because

> they are nourished with special radiation that comes from

> our soil. Since I have the monopoly they are going

> for $20,000 per sample.

>

> Heh heh. I'll be a capitalist yet.

Since no one would pay that much unless it would be worth it to them, it's a

fair price, if that's what it's worth to you-- which is essentially saying

that you have the right to keep your invention to yourself.

You give them away, which is also fair-- you created them. But say you just

didn't feel like sharing them, just as a hypothetical. What would you think

if someone sued you claiming that they had a " right " to the kefilli?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

I don't believe in the concept of " rights " in any universal

> sense ... the world doesn't really give me a " right " to

> exist, even, and without the community of people

> around me I couldn't live from day to day. Drop me

> in the woods and maybe I'd live a week, maybe a year.

So do you agree with Fascism then? We are all an organic whole, and we have

no right but to fit into our proper place? I agree that humans are social

creatures and need groups to survive, but the idea that there is no fundamental,

inalienable rights of the individual is the kind of view that winds humans up

in gas chambers and slave camps.

>

> Sooooo .... I can do what is legal in this particular

> community (and work to change the laws if I don't

> like what is legal). Butttt ... if I start being greedy then

> the community of folks around me just won't like

> me much and THAT will hurt me on multiple levels.

> The health of the community is worth more to me

> than economic gain or loss, in general, though the

> two are connected.

It's perfectly healthful for a community for one person to engage in creative

work and exchange it for value at a price both parties agree to.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking in the HYPOTHETICAL scenario,

that you just don't feel like giving your kefir grains away, do you think that

people should be able to sue you?

My question is NOT whether you think it's good for the community to give your

kefilli away or whether you do. It is simply that if you did not voluntarily

do so, does a legal right exist for whoever wants them to have them?

Another question: if you didn't have the money for shipping and asked people

to give you money for shipping, but your brother or sister or cousin wanted

some and you mailed it to them and payed for their shipping, could someone else

sue you for unfair advantage?

>People withholding drugs that heal, or suing to

>get them etc. are all symptoms of the breakdown

>of the community.

People believing that drugs grow on trees or are natural resources is a

symptom of the fundamental breakdown of reason and rationality. The amount of

time

and money that goes into making drugs is enormous, and were there not giant

profits to reap, no one would make them.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>You give them away, which is also fair-- you created them. But say you just

>didn't feel like sharing them, just as a hypothetical. What would you think

>if someone sued you claiming that they had a " right " to the kefilli?

>

>Chris

There are two ways of looking at life, for me:

1. What is legal

2. What makes for the best community

I don't believe in the concept of " rights " in any universal

sense ... the world doesn't really give me a " right " to

exist, even, and without the community of people

around me I couldn't live from day to day. Drop me

in the woods and maybe I'd live a week, maybe a year.

Sooooo .... I can do what is legal in this particular

community (and work to change the laws if I don't

like what is legal). Butttt ... if I start being greedy then

the community of folks around me just won't like

me much and THAT will hurt me on multiple levels.

The health of the community is worth more to me

than economic gain or loss, in general, though the

two are connected.

People withholding drugs that heal, or suing to

get them etc. are all symptoms of the breakdown

of the community.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi wrote:

>I don't believe in the concept of " rights " in any universal

>> sense ... the world doesn't really give me a " right " to

>> exist, even, and without the community of people

>> around me I couldn't live from day to day. Drop me

>> in the woods and maybe I'd live a week, maybe a year.

>

>So do you agree with Fascism then? We are all an organic whole, and we have

>no right but to fit into our proper place? I agree that humans are social

>creatures and need groups to survive, but the idea that there is no

fundamental,

>inalienable rights of the individual is the kind of view that winds humans up

>in gas chambers and slave camps.

Here goes that Boolean thing again. The " human organism " is a

complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or

philosophy. Most of the economic philosophies -- Fascism, Communism,

Libertarianism -- are so shallow! It is like trying to understand " organisms "

by learning their Latin names.

Again, I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

be happy or to be free from interference.

What exists are " agreements " . In CompSci they would be called " protocols " .

Or " rules " . Some are written, some are unwritten. But an organism FUNCTIONS

because each entity obeys the rules, more or less. If one part disobeys

badly, as in a Schizophrenic who is thowing feces and undressing in public

and maybe brandishing a knife ... well, that part has to be excluded somehow

or the organism can't function. Ditto with a cancer cell in a human body, or

a computer virus in a computer. All these organisms function under the

same algorithm.

Who enforces the rules? Sometimes the individuals (shunning)

sometimes the city/state, sometimes the national gov't.

>It's perfectly healthful for a community for one person to engage in creative

>work and exchange it for value at a price both parties agree to.

>

>That's not what I was asking. I was asking in the HYPOTHETICAL scenario,

>that you just don't feel like giving your kefir grains away, do you think that

>people should be able to sue you?

>

>My question is NOT whether you think it's good for the community to give your

>kefilli away or whether you do. It is simply that if you did not voluntarily

>do so, does a legal right exist for whoever wants them to have them?

It is as I say above. The community functions under a set of rules,

written and unwritten. One unwritten rule of THIS community

is, I think, that we are all helping each other for minimum profit.

If I broke that rule, others would be upset, and might retaliate

by being nasty themselves, to show their displeasure. If the

situation deteriorated to the point that LEGAL recourse was

necessary, then I would consider myself an abject failure,

because I think the *law* is needed only for entities that

have no social sense whatsoever.

The " community " predates law and economics. We had

" tribes " a long time before we had " ownership " in any

real sense .. shoot, the average chicken or chimpanzee

has a good sense of " the group " .

>Another question: if you didn't have the money for shipping and asked people

>to give you money for shipping, but your brother or sister or cousin wanted

>some and you mailed it to them and payed for their shipping, could someone else

>sue you for unfair advantage?

Depends. If kefiili were something that was REQUIRED for life,

I'd expect that they would expect me to be fair and equal. If it is

a luxury, then it is different. For instance, deBeers owns a monopoly

on diamonds. No one much cares, least of all the diamond owners,

who like the price stability. However, if deBeers owned the water

rights to LA county and priced according to " business plan " (like

forcing folks to move because they could not get water), then yeah,

they would be in major trouble.

In general, it is a bad idea for the basics of life (food, water,

transporation infrastructure) to be controlled based on wealth, at least

at a subsitance level. This is not something hunter-gatherers

had to deal with. Drugs are kind of an " in between " thing, no one

knows how to classify them. It is worth noting though that the

" non-privatized " places like Canada pay a LOT less for drugs

than our " free enterprise " country does.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> Here goes that Boolean thing again. The " human organism " is a

> complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or

> philosophy.

What does it mean to defy any one philosophy? And what consequences

follow from this? Honestly, this is so vague that I can't pull anything

meaningful out of it.

> Most of the economic philosophies -- Fascism, Communism,

> Libertarianism -- are so shallow! It is like trying to understand

> " organisms " by learning their Latin names.

1. Cheap.

2. Have you considered that it is perhaps not the field of economics

itself, but rather your understanding of it, which is shallow? After

all, you still seem to have trouble distinguishing between

libertarianism and anarchism.

3. These are more political philosophies than economic ones. There are

many libertarians of varying degrees among the neoclassical, monetarist,

and Austrian schools of economics, and I've heard that Keynes was an

admirer of Hayek, although I wouldn't expect to find many libertarians

among his followers nowadays.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 2:05:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Here goes that Boolean thing again. The " human organism " is a

> complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or

> philosophy. Most of the economic philosophies -- Fascism, Communism,

> Libertarianism -- are so shallow! It is like trying to understand

> " organisms "

> by learning their Latin names.

Heidi, I'm not stereotyping it, nor denying the existence of the organic

whole. What I'm suggesting is that there is a fundamental truth and necessity

in

the Western individualistic philosophy that is dangerous to deny.

I'm not suggesting that belief in an organic whole is comparable to Fascism

or Naziism. What I'm suggesting is that belief in this organic whole WITHOUT

ALSO RECOGNIZING the existence of the individual and her rights, is flat-out

dangerous. THAT was the mistake of Fascism and similar philosophies that led to

world dictatorships and sacrificing of the conquered on the altar of the

collective.

> Again, I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

> I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

> be happy or to be free from interference.

And *that* is a dangerous philosophy. What is to protect, then, the

historical tendency to sacrifice the able, the competent, the heroes, on the

altar of

the collective? The scientists who were sacrificed to Church? The Jews,

Gypsies, and Slavs sacrificed to the need for living space? The heretics put to

the sword?

>

> What exists are " agreements " . In CompSci they would be called " protocols " .

> Or " rules " . Some are written, some are unwritten. But an organism FUNCTIONS

> because each entity obeys the rules, more or less. If one part disobeys

> badly, as in a Schizophrenic who is thowing feces and undressing in public

> and maybe brandishing a knife ... well, that part has to be excluded somehow

> or the organism can't function. Ditto with a cancer cell in a human body, or

> a computer virus in a computer. All these organisms function under the

> same algorithm.

Sure, only individual cells in a body come together to produce a

concsciousness, whereas individual humans have independent consciousnesses.

> Who enforces the rules? Sometimes the individuals (shunning)

> sometimes the city/state, sometimes the national gov't.

And what of when the rules require killing 11 million of them?

> It is as I say above. The community functions under a set of rules,

> written and unwritten. One unwritten rule of THIS community

> is, I think, that we are all helping each other for minimum profit.

> If I broke that rule, others would be upset, and might retaliate

> by being nasty themselves, to show their displeasure. If the

> situation deteriorated to the point that LEGAL recourse was

> necessary, then I would consider myself an abject failure,

> because I think the *law* is needed only for entities that

> have no social sense whatsoever.

>

> The " community " predates law and economics. We had

> " tribes " a long time before we had " ownership " in any

> real sense .. shoot, the average chicken or chimpanzee

> has a good sense of " the group " .

That's an interesting philosophy. Personally, I don't give a crap what the

group thinks, and I'm generous to everyone anyway.

But that's not the point. I was asking you about what you believe the

purpose and function of government is, which has to have some definition, or

else

there is nothing to stop it from doing anything, and there is no right or wrong.

If there is no objective right and wrong, how can you claim it's wrong for

the government to dole out corporate welfare or corporations to dump toxins in

streams? There must be an objective, rational basis for morality, for right

and wrong, for what an entity can or cannot morally do, in order to make any

such argument.

So, while I appreciate your philosophy on groups, partially understand it,

and find it interesting, I'd like to get a straight answer out of you about your

LEGAL views.

> >Another question: if you didn't have the money for shipping and asked

> people

> >to give you money for shipping, but your brother or sister or cousin wanted

>

> >some and you mailed it to them and payed for their shipping, could someone

> else

> >sue you for unfair advantage?

>

> Depends. If kefiili were something that was REQUIRED for life,

> I'd expect that they would expect me to be fair and equal. If it is

> a luxury, then it is different. For instance, deBeers owns a monopoly

> on diamonds. No one much cares, least of all the diamond owners,

> who like the price stability. However, if deBeers owned the water

> rights to LA county and priced according to " business plan " (like

> forcing folks to move because they could not get water), then yeah,

> they would be in major trouble.

Is electricity required for life? Weren't folks just talking about how the

electric light bulb is the source of many of our ills?

> In general, it is a bad idea for the basics of life (food, water,

> transporation infrastructure) to be controlled based on wealth, at least

> at a subsitance level.

I understand food and water, but what is the rational basis to call

" transportation infrastructure a basic necessity for life? Isn't that something

that

most humans on the face of the earth for all of human history lived without?

Also, you *do* advocate food being privately owned by profit-seeking

entities. That's what family farms are. Soviet Russia had an interesting

theory

about that that starved millions of people to death.

This is not something hunter-gatherers

> had to deal with. Drugs are kind of an " in between " thing, no one

> knows how to classify them. It is worth noting though that the

> " non-privatized " places like Canada pay a LOT less for drugs

> than our " free enterprise " country does.

It's a good thing they have us to mooch off of.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 5:41:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> 3. These are more political philosophies than economic ones. There are

> many libertarians of varying degrees among the neoclassical, monetarist,

> and Austrian schools of economics, and I've heard that Keynes was an

> admirer of Hayek, although I wouldn't expect to find many libertarians

> among his followers nowadays.

I don't get it. How can you justify Keynesian economics to Libertarianism?

Doesn't Keynesian economics require government spending to maintain demand, or

is that simply a later political application of the idea of a demand-driven

economy?

Chris