plasmid

No, the title of the riddle is "I'm not the war of the worlds". My riddles are typically written in such a way that they seem to be describing one thing (which the title says it's really not), but in reality they are sort of metaphorically describing something else.

Flying saucers came to Earth Alighting on top of the spires Two appear in mating mirth One crashes but isn't on fire Someone flashed a playful grin A beating was certain to follow Blows rained down upon thier skin The heads of the victims left hollow Snare a member from their crew Another should quiver unsettled Bound to suffer black and blue If pedal is put to the metal

We have a testable hypothesis! This calls for a double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial. After all, we don't want the dogs to have a placebo effect changing the color of their poo. And we certainly don't want scientists who aren't blind gauging the color of the poo. One wonders, though, is this specific to dogs? Cats bury their poo so we don't really have the data for them. On the random Nature TV programs I've seen which on occasion have had scientists hunting for stool samples of exotic animals, they always want to collect fresh stool for analysis, so I've never seen any old poo from other animals. Perhaps someone keeps a pet rabbit or something that doesn't eat bones and could give us some insight on the complexion of the pellets over time.

And it would give a very funny meaning to the title of the riddle

Chicory got this one, although the commentary on plainglazed's first answer makes me suspect that he might have known it all along. Chicory's is the one I had in mind; it fits a little better with the "reel", "snow", and "ghosts".

Once I saw your answer to the army commander riddle, I realized how full of clues a fishing pole could be. Not a carrabeaner though. Fits pretty well, except for the last stanza.

A metal tube quite long and thin My function seems surreal Along my body coming in I'm bringing quite a reel Just cast me out into the waves And leave me standing tall I'll bring in catches that you crave Unless I'm foiled by squalls To find the perfect spot, explore Shun ghosts, avoid the snow It's best if you can monitor What's going on below I'll try to grab you with a hook And lines that hold you tight Designed to draw a longing look Be careful should you bite

Woulda liked it better if I'd gotten the answer The many hands clue seems perfectly fine to me. I was just thrown for a loop by the sun - son clue, thinking the last two lines referred to a different star, but that's definitely a legal move in riddle writing. Next step is to incorporate poetic meter in the riddles

Now Buddha gets his turn. The Kalama Sutta is a text entirely about how people should judge for themselves which religious teachings to accept as true, rejecting scriptures, traditions, and blindly following a teacher (although they should pay attention to the teachings of the wise), and instead doing what they know to be good, blameless, praiseworthy, and leading to happiness. So I'll let him introduce the denominational system, giving him a parable that will come right before Confucius expands on how to select a denomination. As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers: "You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it. "Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind." Regarding the parable of the monk, if we were to do as seeksit suggested and move it back in time to before the writing of Principia, would that really undermine the whole determinism-vs-free will point? If so, maybe we could keep it at its original time but adjust it to reflect the much more limited scope of practice that Phronism would have had then (no real formal monks or ruins to walk on). Or was the real point of the parable more about letting people make their own choices on how to harmonize with the Essence? If so, we could do as seeksit suggests. And dawh makes a good point about ancient linguistics. Among the people we have at Samarkand there would be a lot of different styles people might go with; from the copious texts of Hinduism that were heavy on storytelling to the much shorter Confucian Analects that were collections of unconnected teachings with no plot to speak of (virtually just a bunch of phrases). It seems like the story we're going with now will be that many different people from around the world preserved various pieces of the ancient meeting which we have now cobbled together into a coherent story, thus freeing ourselves from having to follow any one ancient style. And also since you weren't around for the formative parts of Phronism feel free to deposit your two cents on the underlying architecture of the religion or any specific changes to the parables as well; seeksit and unreality are practicing Phronism quite well by welcoming your new perspective .

Remarkable. Someone could actually read this entire thread to get caught up and jump in, and without having their brain coagulate! I'm not too worried about the language barrier; Samarkand was a major city along a trade route, so there ought to be people who could translate between the native Persian and the various other languages. But as I was out apartment hunting I was considering the fact that, unlike in ancient times when most religions got started, nowadays we have scientists and scholars who delve into the historical accuracy or plausibility of religious stuff. Such people who know way more than all of us put together could probably make claims of implausibility based on the absence of Phronism even being mentioned in passing by any outside texts. It could cause problems for Phronism if the history is discredited right off the bat before it gets established with enough clout to blow off such historical disputes. Unless we create a foundation to hire "history-ologists" to find and publish only those things that lend credence to the historical accuracy of Phronism. Something for the "to-do" list? Is the history of Phronism going to include active participation as far into the future (er, the "future" from the point of view of 500 BC) as in the monk parable? The drawback would be that if we say that it was actually practiced in any big way, then the lack of artifacts or other records would seem even more implausible. Especially considering that the parable has the monk walking around Phronist ruins. But a benefit of having stories about practicing denominations that late would be that we describe how denominations of the past adjusted to advances in scientific understanding, or to emerging social issues, to give a guide for how such adaptation ought to be done in the future. Is it mere coincidence that ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology involved deities that represented various forces of nature? Or that the Egyptians eventually succeeding in Grand Unification by combining all of these deities into one? (Einstein would have been so jealous) An Egyptian connection might explain why all the Phronist texts were housed in Alexandria.

Right up my alley...

James was right and CaptainEd got the proof: a 2x2x2 cube, and for that matter a 1x2x2 square, can't be built with these rules. You could build at most the part of a 2x2x2 cube remaining if you take away two opposite diagonal dice. Which was a little surprising, seeing as how it is possible to build a seemingly more complex 3x3x3 cube with the four corners and one central dice removed: Top Layer Middle Layer Bottom Layer [] [][][] [] [][][] [] [] [][][] [] [][][] [] Likewise, although it's possible to build a 3x3 open ring (like the middle layer of the figure above), it is NOT possible to build a 4x4 open ring. Good job on visualizing what was (at least to me) a pretty complex 3-D puzzle.

The Seventh Shepherd got the first crack at a parable, but I'm giving the second to Laozi (or Lao Tzu or whatever the currently PC translation is) since he opened the Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing) with: "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way; The names that can be named are not unvarying names. It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang" That seems to be generally considered to mean that the Tao is nameless (and even transcends language), so an adaptation of this could provide a cool way to start questioning the followers' preconceived notions about God. A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd explain about God the other day, or do you know him through some other means, tell me." A follower answered, "He told us the word of God." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true." Laozi then said, "Is this all you know about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might tell you about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not deal with. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?" A follower answered, "God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did you come to know that one being did all these things? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is the one that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You had ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were able to describe nothing about. Things should be called by their proper names to avoid confusion. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name and call it the Essence. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, the Essence to you? Indeed, the Essence ought to be explained. It obeys its own rules. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in set patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors. Know how the Essence will act, and you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?" A follower said, "That is not what I expected, but tell us more about the Essence." Laozi said, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call things by their proper names." That would give us a way of introducing the Essence and putting aside God as the main focus without completely ruling out the possibility that a god exists.

If I'm reading that correctly, in the bottom four, the top-left die would have a face touching the top-right die, and they would both have their 1s facing up. That would break the rule by having two dice whose faces are touching and have a number pointing in the same direction.

The 2. Generally, dice are made such that the 1 and the 6 are on opposite sides (if the 1 is facing towards you, the 6 is facing away from you). 2 and 5 are on opposite sides, and 3 and 4 are on opposite sides.

Suppose you have eight dice (the regular six-sided kind for you D&D players). As many people know, if you look at any one face of a die, you know that the number on the opposite face will be 7 minus the number you're looking at. For these eight dice, you also confirm that they have the same chirality: that is, if you have face 1 pointing up and face 2 pointing to your right, face 3 will be pointing toward you. Is it possible to take those eight dice and put them together in a 2x2x2 cube such that all faces that are touching have the same number, and no two dice whose faces are directly touching will have numbers pointing in the same direction? Just contacting along an edge or a vertex doesn't count, an entire face needs to be touching for those rules to apply. For a bit of clarification, suppose one of the dice has its face with a 1 pointing up. Then you know that the die on top of it must have its face with the 1 pointing down. Although the two faces numbered 1 are touching, they are not pointing in the same direction since one is pointing up and the other is pointing down. However, if both dice had their face with 2 pointing toward you, that would break the rules.

Wowie made quite an entrance to BrainDen by delivering on this riddle. Welcome, and well done.

Interesting. A bit of Googling confirmed that some of the biggest players in that business are indeed Italian. I think most of them use gunpowder and other solid state explosives, though, and rarely if ever fluid.

That works pretty well with almost the entire riddle. I think the one thing that would rule it out is being perfectly round. They usually come in a boxier shape. Except for the kinds that are built into cars (if you're going by the last stanza), but then they don't need fluid. At any rate, not the thing I'm getting at.

I've taken a shape that's so perfectly round The greatest invention throughout all mankind What really defines me is how I get crowned The parts that cooperate once they're combined To fashion my rim, you will need to grind fine Then coating some fluid right over my chest Will ready me up for a cap well designed Italians are pros, engineering the best I'm off to the streets on a voyage a lot And sometimes I've even been spotted in flight Whenever I'm used, I'm just bound to be hot Don't find yourself burned after taking delight

After a buttering up like that, how could I refuse? Are you using a bit of subtlety in that parable? I fear that many people might miss the trick there unless we make it more obvious what's going on. I would propose the following: we can (perhaps) safely address concepts of God without endorsing the existence of God in Phronism by making this one of the very first parables that takes place at the beginning of the scriptures, when the followers still have their preconceived notions about God, and before the Essence or any other Phronist concepts have been introduced. And to make it a little more obvious... After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance." The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand. Hope I didn't warp it too much; if you were trying to get a point across that I obfuscated then go ahead and change it back. Are ya talking about the ones on (Karma and Goodness), and on (the Essence and non-believers)? I think they could be used with a little modification. The one on Free Will would be a weird fit in ancient times since they didn't know physics and wouldn't have had such a grasp on the concept. I've just been reading about Confucius for the latest parable, and one of his more famous quotes from the Analects makes him seem like a good one to be in the story about the thief: "With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my crooked arm for a pillow - is not joy to be found therein? Riches and honors acquired through unrighteousness are to me as the floating clouds." But I'm sure other members of the council could also easily do it too if you want. Should I do a revision of it, or did you want to write it? Diotima of Mantinea was the one we're using as Socrates' closest thing to a mentor. I've got one parable with her, but haven't seen much material to work with so that might be the only one. Seeing as how Confucius was a government minister, and a lot of the Analects were about how to identify good versus bad rulers, he seems like a good one to explain how to select a denomination. A bunch of stuff can just be taken straight out with minimal rewording, and those weird conversations he had about not finding perfect virtuousness would even be able to play a useful role in Phronism. As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher." "Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets." I'm also keeping in mind that not everything needs to go into these ancient parables. I'm interested in seeing what octopuppy comes up with as far as incorporating modern ideas like the Prisoner's Dilemma into Phronism.

I'll refer you to the answers and my explanation in this thread.