Studying Oneself?



[ You mention enough times about studying oneself and mentioning about
people being at where they are at. But how would you suggest going about
analysing oneself? ]



One could write a chapter on this, if not a book. So it cannot be done
in an email. I have never done a book on it.  ALSO, don't confuse
this with the assertion KNOWING one's SELF, for it is not the same
thing, albeit that if you DO know your SELF it will play a big part in
your assessment of personality traits. But you can still do it without
that. So, there are many things which you can look at and then finally
judge them all and see if you are happy with it or not. Does it measure
up to your Q ?  Also, is your Q static or is it up for further
development and moving on?



Let us just do one simple test – the betrayal of trust and your own
reaction to it. Somebody, or an animal, has come to know you well and
they trust you. That is something which cannot be pretended; you cannot
ask them for it; and you cannot buy it. You have to earn it. So, let us
say that you have come to earn it and that this person or animal DOES
trust you.  Could you then do something which would betray and shatter
that trust?  It will hurt them like hell. The chances are that you will
never get that trust back again.  Does that matter to you? Could you
betray a trust? How do you feel about both those effects on them and on
you? Does it matter at all, does it matter a little bit or does it
matter a lot? Search yourself for the answers.  Nobody else can know;
only you.  You can do the same on all the characteristics which you can
find within yourself. Does it matter if you lie or don't lie? How do
you feel about it?  Go through the whole gamut of things. Do you like
what you see?  If not then do something about it. If you cannot find
anything untoward anywhere then you must see yourself as perfect. I
wonder if anybody really does see themselves as perfect :- )) But
don't expect others to be like you or where you are AT. For they
will not all be where you are AT.



Evidence from experience also suggest that your subconscious is doing
this assessment anyway. But don't just let your subconscious do it;
do it consciously with intent. If you cannot live with YOU then you
cannot live with anybody. If you cannot feel any worthwhile quality
about you then you will not about anybody. Judge yourself before you
judge others. A life not studied is a life wasted. Only ONE person is
ever going to live your life.  YOU.  Make it count for something. You
will never live this life again; so you have one go at it. And the time
is NOW. Nobody can do this for you.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I suppose another perhaps better way to say this is that standardization of
knowledge allows for the non-standard to influence and change it. The
normalization of experience isn't possible and attempts to control it fail
because experiences aren't simultaneous or equal. Consider moral imperatives for
instance which are an attempt at external control of the individual.
Standardized knowledge imposes this same control on experience when interpreting
individual experience. Rare are the individuals able to experience and interpret
independent of their cultures. The domains of knowledge and experience may
overlap but it's their split which drives further knowledge.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you
can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an
unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be
tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel
affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a
normalization which contradicts individuality.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It
appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the
phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a
relatively short time   to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation
issued in existentialism.
> > I think most here agree that each individual  is a unique and uncopied
entity.
> > This process  took billions of years and for the short span of a  human life
is lived out.
> > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase  and begins  a process of
reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental  can be of
varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the  reduction is practically
instantaneous. In the  case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is
incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun
will complete  the transition for  all of us.
> > So it is Elemental to Existential  to Elemental for all of us.
> > Once, back at the elemental,.  evolution could begin again and a new
sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process
appears rare but we do not know  how long this cosmos will last  and therefore 
we have little idea how many times elements  might cycle  through life and back
to the elemental. Yet  we can identify  this cycle. We can see the sentient
being is individual and finite. Through this  identification of cycle  we can
join  our emerging science to our  evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge
of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
> >
>

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you
can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an
unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be
tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel
affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a
normalization which contradicts individuality.
>
> Mary
>Mary, I do not know what normalising knowledge means. Now if you say validate
knowledge  I might agree. I know science can change  but the big theories seem
to survive and thrive. The emergent concept of global warming was a attempt to
normalise knowledge. The theory was political in its construction and the
opposite political group used  psychological, and selling techniques  to not
normalise but neutralise the scientific  data. Now very few talk about it as any
truth about the matter are buried under hugh amounts of competing data.
  The obfuscation  attempts  used to discredit global warming  took the form of
polling. Poll the scientists and  they will tell us. Most were not
climatoligists or even cosmologists. Just have a count of the heads  and  then
we will have a winner. That is not science. Longitudinal studies  can be scewed
by when you begin and end a cycle. The coal and gas proponents  have  piled
study on study  that present data in opposition to Al Gore`s group. Al Gore  is
a politician who started this debate with a political agenda. Not withstanding
he says he invented the internet, Gore is not a scientist and obviously not the
best politician as he lost the White House.
If you want unproven thought, altered consciousness states, hallucinations,
poems and song lyrics to be included in proven theory then you have a garbage
pile of conjecture. I will remain with the great proven theories of science and
rudly exclude the rest . I know the elements are sound in theory. I know
evolution is  sound , I know relative cosmology is solid and those sort of
theories my post  relies upon.The only existential theory I used was Decartes 
opening gambit. It seems sound to me but is not  a counting or expermentally
proven theory. It is philosophy spoken by a mathamatician. That seems a good
place to jump from science to philosophy. Thats what I think and I am. Bill
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> >
> > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It
appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the
phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a
relatively short time   to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation
issued in existentialism.
> > I think most here agree that each individual  is a unique and uncopied
entity.
> > This process  took billions of years and for the short span of a  human life
is lived out.
> > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase  and begins  a process of
reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental  can be of
varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the  reduction is practically
instantaneous. In the  case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is
incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun
will complete  the transition for  all of us.
> > So it is Elemental to Existential  to Elemental for all of us.
> > Once, back at the elemental,.  evolution could begin again and a new
sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process
appears rare but we do not know  how long this cosmos will last  and therefore 
we have little idea how many times elements  might cycle  through life and back
to the elemental. Yet  we can identify  this cycle. We can see the sentient
being is individual and finite. Through this  identification of cycle  we can
join  our emerging science to our  evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge
of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
> >
>

Bill,

I agree there's a problem with politicizing science, but it's no worse than
power using science and/or religion to control society panoptically. Science is
internal as well as external to living.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but
you can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an
unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be
tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel
affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a
normalization which contradicts individuality.
> >
> > Mary
> >Mary, I do not know what normalising knowledge means. Now if you say validate
knowledge  I might agree. I know science can change  but the big theories seem
to survive and thrive. The emergent concept of global warming was a attempt to
normalise knowledge. The theory was political in its construction and the
opposite political group used  psychological, and selling techniques  to not
normalise but neutralise the scientific  data. Now very few talk about it as any
truth about the matter are buried under hugh amounts of competing data.
>  The obfuscation  attempts  used to discredit global warming  took the form of
polling. Poll the scientists and  they will tell us. Most were not
climatoligists or even cosmologists. Just have a count of the heads  and  then
we will have a winner. That is not science. Longitudinal studies  can be scewed
by when you begin and end a cycle. The coal and gas proponents  have  piled
study on study  that present data in opposition to Al Gore`s group. Al Gore  is
a politician who started this debate with a political agenda. Not withstanding
he says he invented the internet, Gore is not a scientist and obviously not the
best politician as he lost the White House.
> If you want unproven thought, altered consciousness states, hallucinations,
poems and song lyrics to be included in proven theory then you have a garbage
pile of conjecture. I will remain with the great proven theories of science and
rudly exclude the rest . I know the elements are sound in theory. I know
evolution is  sound , I know relative cosmology is solid and those sort of
theories my post  relies upon.The only existential theory I used was Decartes 
opening gambit. It seems sound to me but is not  a counting or expermentally
proven theory. It is philosophy spoken by a mathamatician. That seems a good
place to jump from science to philosophy. Thats what I think and I am. Bill
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
> > >
> > > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It
appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the
phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a
relatively short time   to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation
issued in existentialism.
> > > I think most here agree that each individual  is a unique and uncopied
entity.
> > > This process  took billions of years and for the short span of a  human
life is lived out.
> > > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase  and begins  a process
of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental  can be
of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the  reduction is practically
instantaneous. In the  case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is
incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun
will complete  the transition for  all of us.
> > > So it is Elemental to Existential  to Elemental for all of us.
> > > Once, back at the elemental,.  evolution could begin again and a new
sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process
appears rare but we do not know  how long this cosmos will last  and therefore 
we have little idea how many times elements  might cycle  through life and back
to the elemental. Yet  we can identify  this cycle. We can see the sentient
being is individual and finite. Through this  identification of cycle  we can
join  our emerging science to our  evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge
of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
> > >
> >
>

Running Wild?



[ You mentioned in your book about the latch door kids and a kind of
running wild or feral when young, and also about having initial mystical
experiences at that time. Do you think the two were connected in any
way, a kind of raw naturalism perhaps? ]



Feral?  I thought feral meant something going from being domesticated to
living alone in the wild and being abandoned :- )  I never did that.
Wild?  Only at times :- ) A kind of naturalism? Well, maybe in some ways
perhaps.  I always had a good caring home.  Not only that but I enjoyed
my home, humble though it was. But it was always cosy and I loved
spending time alone at home doing things which interested me. Drawing,
building things, learning about things, experimenting with things; etc.
And yes, we were out nearly all day for much of the time, and doing all
kinds of things.  It was a freedom which kids don't seem to have any
more. But it was due to the times and the place; and of course the side
of the social tracks which one was born into.



There was also the thing about being a bit feral in the abandonment of
any real state education, but we did not abandon it, it abandoned us, it
wasn't there. But we did not miss it because we had never had it.
Much like the national health service, you cannot miss what you have
never had. But learning is a natural thing and kids do it whether they
are asked to, told to, or forced to or not. So I did it my way. But I
don't see how any of this has anything to do with the beginning of a
mystical life. Mystical experience is plainly down to a sensitivity for
it. I found childhood to be a wonderful and exciting time. It would have
been impossible for my own children to have had a childhood like my own,
because of the times and the circumstances. NOT that I am advocating
those circumstances, far from it.



But the kernel of this question is one which I have been asked so many
times since I wrote the books – how to become a mystic. I don't
know. How does one become sensitive to it??? It was just there all the
time. And as I have said, I did not run away from it. And like most
other things it just grew. I did not have to practice anything.



I have often made analogies with Radio.  How does a receiver pick up
this or that broadcast frequency from around the world?  You know about
the E layers presumably.   Signals bounce back from these various layers
and you can pick them up by tuning in to them with the right equipment
when the conditions are right. Look it up if you don't know it. So,
what exists for us to pick up with the mind and consciousness? In
picking up mystical experiences you are only picking up stuff within us
which we are made of, that is all. But one does not have to tune in with
any knobs and there are no dials telling you what frequency you are on.
But where the signals are coming from is obvious. But I know well enough
that beauty as seen out there is catalytic in helping to tune in the
receiver to the right reflective inner layers of our being and acting
like the stuff which opens the valves to deeper levels of our being. And
one is just sensitive to all this.



The tragedy is that religions stole mystical experiences and put
themselves in charge of it, and people fell for it. That is why I had to
write about it, because it is a fraudulent LIE and a prostitution of
what we are and the way we are constructed. To what degree no education
might have protected me from having to dump that kind of shit is hard to
say, for you cannot talk about what you never had.  But running wild had
nothing to do with this. When folks ask me WHY one has all this I have
to ask them why they don't, for it IS so natural. Like seeing and
breathing is. But some of them get cross when you cannot tell them how
to see or breath.  Mystical experience just comes, so be there and
don't run away from it when it does come. But you can put yourself
in the path of it by being natural and observing and feeling all the
beauty which you can see and feel in something or other. Beauty IS one
of the tuning knobs. And it is all around you. And that is a fact.



Have a strange day :- )



   Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When the World Ended?



[ The part of your exegesis in which the world ended seems to me to be
perhaps the major key or switch to the transcendent ground of being
experience and the I AM. Don't you think?]



It was a great turning point when the world ended for me. But I would
not say that it was the major key or catalyst. The major Key is that I
am that. The world ending was instantaneous; but it was but a door into
the middle section and the beginning of that journey `across the
Styx' or passing through `the gap in the universe'. But
during all that I could still remember the world; and I was still me the
personality; even though the world was not there.  But a strange kind of
time still existed. It was not Eternity.  The `major key' was
when I forgot about the world.  The world was not only gone but it was
also forgotten about. The great forgetfulness.  That happens in
Annihilation, as I explained in the book. Also, as I said, there is no
personality in the I AM in transcendence.



But when it is done, achieved, known, then the world and personality are
instantaneously back again. But the world is not seen quite the same way
as it was seen before all this took place. Also the personality sensory
equipment has some enhancements made to its sensitivity range. It
becomes more than what it was. A wider radar screen. But that also comes
a bit at a time and one has to learn to use it. You tell folks all this
a million times yet it remains in the halls of silence. There is no
profit or power in any of this. It is not worth any money.



But it has long been known that in order to know yourself then you must
leave it behind and that to know the world it first has to go and you
must leave it behind. The planet does not go anywhere. One leaves the
consciousness of the world and time events and change, behind.  You GO
and you come back.  And you bring it back with you. It was once called
redemption of what we ARE. Getting it back again. That is all it is.
Knowing one's SELF and coming back here again (the second coming)
with that gnosis or understood knowledge of firsthand experience of what
we ARE and where we come from.  Do you see?  That is simple enough to
follow and understand isn't it? But once again I have to mention
that all that is only half of the story and that bit is quite common. It
is the next bit which is really the catalyst for the establishment of
Homo Ensophicus.  It isn't just about knowing what you are and where
you come from, it is also knowing about that which you are NOT, and why
you are that which you are.  I don't know how many times one has to
say this for it to get through. Maybe it needs about ten million people
to say it. But that would truly put the spanner in the works for the
existing world order. It would also be effective if they all spoke the
same language and terms when they are talking about the same thing.
That'll be the day. I hope the planet lasts long enough. Or we get
off it before we cannot survive on it.



Dick Richardson





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What constitutes the good life?

[ There has always been so much talk about the good life, but to me it
seems that this must be relative to the individual without there being
such a thing as the good life in general terms for everybody. What do
you feel about this? ]

How could it be anything but relative to the individual?  What do
different people need and want?  What constitutes the good life for
them? If somebody is living the good life then would they know it at the
time or would they be seeking for something more? If they feel that they
are not living the good life then what would make it so? Can you know in
advance of living the good life as to what would make it so?  How would
they know in advance? But there are no doubt some things which might
apply over the board. When young and setting out in life a person cannot
say to themselves that was a good life or it wasn't a good life as
one can judge that at the end of life when it is about done :- )

I would imagine that every parent wants their children to have a good
life while having their own ideas as to what they would like for them.
But for the large part this seems to be done by simply subtracting what
they see as things preventing a good life from happening and not so much
set ideas as to what would constitute a good life for them.

Personally I cannot recall ever setting out to look for a good life but
simply to try and make some aspects better than they were if I felt that
they were not as good as they could be in some aspects of life. But I
had no set ideas as to what was needed for a good life. I never actually
sat thinking about `a good life', I just got on with living it.
But I did know at the time as to what could be subtracted from what was
going on at the time which would make it better. If, for example
somebody was in ill health then presumably they would seek or want for
that which eliminated those things which were causing that. If possible.
But I could never seek for good health for I already had it. I have
certainly known times when young that a little more food would have been
in order, albeit that I was plainly getting just about enough to
maintain good health. But getting it was a lot of work and hassle. But
things got easier as time rolled by. I also could not go looking for
happiness for I was already happy and enjoying life. I had no sense of
anything missing or any dire needs which had to be satiated by acquiring
something which I did not already have. So where do you go from there?

So, by and large I always had enough food and drink, some place to call
home, and shelter from the elements.  Enough of what it took to earn
enough to pay the bills and for a few wants, and things always seemed
reasonable enough. Nobody ever prevented me from doing things which I
wanted to have a go at or to do.  I always found opportunities to try
different things. So what more could one want or need? Is that not
living the good life?  If somebody was without food and drink and some
place to live then that could hardly constitute the good life could it.
So, many things can be taken into account for a satisfactory or
reasonable life.  But beyond that I have no idea what `the good
life' is or what it is supposed to mean. But one could certainly see
things which would prevent a reasonable life from being lived.

Looking back in hindsight I find it to have been just fine. Maybe some
people expect too much and are disappointed or dejected because they did
not achieve what they wanted to have. I was never the type to chase
after `willow-the-wisps'. For me, then so long as life was not
bad then it was good :- ) As I have said many times before, I  always
found life to be exciting and a good adventure. I enjoyed it. A few
cloudy moments at times but they pass. So, I certainly cannot prescribe
as to what would constitute the good life for anyone beyond that of
eliminating things witch prevent people from having what they need in
order to get on with living it. If somebody always wants more then
presumably they are never going to be satisfied with life.

All the thing I have done of my own volition worked fine. Nearly all the
things which happened not of my volition were also fine, just a few
could have been better. So on the scales of balance it comes down on the
side of fine. So what more luck could one want than that.

Hey, I always fancied having an antique shop, but I never got one :- ))
Bit late now.  But never mind. I have just been invited away for
Yuletide. I never go away for Yuletide for I like it at home. But they
have made it sound so attractive that I cannot refuse. So that will be
something different. Yuletide in somebody else's house, and all the
whisky and cigars than one could want.  Can you imagine that?  It will
save my wife from cooking for seven or eight people :- ) So, if I live
that long I will be off to London for Yuletide :- ))) Providing I
survive Halloween :-  )) I remember my first ones up there during the
war.  They were grim times. But we had a lot of fun nevertheless.

   Grab the day, and do something with it.

Merlin







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Integration of the Trinity?

[ I read something once along the lines of the integration of the
trinity; but I cannot remember where it was. Something was also
mentioned about the spring sending forth its progeny.  You write of the
trinity of our parts. Does this make any sense to you? Can you not get
all these articles and the best emails on your website? ]

Yes it does. I wonder where you found that. We come from the Ground of
Being; and then the return journey to it, and then coming back here
again after which, it integrates the trinity of our being. But it was
never divided or separated, it was only forgotten about. So, separated
from awareness and knowing by way of daily consciousness.  So going back
for a visit and then coming back here again restores this trinity in our
daily awareness and understanding; and then from there it becomes a
living part of us HERE and we can use it HERE.  You cannot use something
which you don't know exists, but when you do know then you can use it,
and it works. I don't see why it has not been mentioned many times
before for it has long been known. But no, I have not read it anywhere.
But as you know all these things were symbolised to hell in order to
invent a hell and evil and punishment etc.  But with all this you can
also see through the symbolism and distortions.  It has all been ballsed
up something rotten. Such are some people and organisations eh. Nothing
quite like telling it AS IT IS. That will get them in a flurry :- ))))

No, I cannot get any more on the website for I don't have access to it.
Anyway, perhaps it is best to keep the emails and questions separate in
the archive group for there are so many of them. That is also why I
stopped having it as a chat group. Fun though chat groups can be at
times they do drift far too much off topic. I wanted an archive to keep
it on topic. That worked too. But I don't want to advertise the archive
on the website. You can perhaps work out why.

Dick Richardson





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Mid Winter Festival?

[ What is the mid winter festival for you? I realise that you call it
the yule tide. ]

It is the celebration of a bank holiday and two days off work for
everybody at mid winter, except it is not mid winter, and except for
those who work on it.  I gather that in the old days it was the
celebration of the return of the light after the longest hours of
darkness. But for me, and for us, it is not really a celebration at all.
It is couple of days off work where the family and maybe a few friends
gather for some good food, some laughs and some games, and for Santa to
come down the chimney with some goodies of course :- )))  And a time for
an expensive bottle of the best spirit.  I have always looked forward to
Yuletide and always enjoyed it. Some wonderful memories of some
wonderful times had by all. After which we can all get back to normal
life and say never again. But we always do it again :- ))) The worst
part about Yuletide is clearing up the bloody mess after it.  But you
have a year to do it. Some say that every day should be like that, but
if it was I would get the first rocket ship to Mars and not come back.
Once a year is enough. The Yule by the way is the big log which you put
on the fire while you stuff the food after stuffing the Turkey.
Obviously you cannot light the fire until after Santa has been or he
would burn his arse. So it is a good job that he comes in the middle of
the night while we are all snoring, innit. In all these years the git
has never failed to turn up.  MAGIC.  I often wonder how Santa keeps
clean after coming down a few billion chimneys in one night. So, a magic
costume too I guess. Don't forget to keep a  glass of whisky on the
mantelpiece for him and a mince pie for each of the buggers that pull
his cart all night. Or he might not come back next year. I wonder if he
does China too.   Hey, I wonder how long he will be allowed to drink and
drive and park on the roof? Good job we have not got double yellow lines
on our roof or a thirty mile an hour speed limit around here. But with a
whisky and mince pies he can go at the speed of light. Guess he needs
to, to get the job done. And with a few billion glasses of whisky I
could go at the speed of light too. And make sure that your chimney does
not smoke for they have banned smoking too. What a sad miserable lot
they are these days. Guess they will ban breathing and laughing soon.
Thou shall not have fun. You can have that when you are dead, but not in
life. OK?

Do you remember that big building on the corner which morons set fire to
in the Tottenham riot a while back – that is where I used to go to
see Santa when I was a twig. It was a huge Cooperative Department Store
in those days, the finest you ever did see. We had to dress up posh to
go there; and we went by submarine into Santa's magic den in the
basement. It was a sight for sore eyes to be sure.  I hear tell along
the grape vine that Yule is the time for children. Well, ain't we
all?  If you ever lose that bit you will be an empty sack. So don't
let them rob you of that. Hallelujah. And one for the road. I also hear
some say that the world is ending about that time; so that will save
clearing up if it does. I think I will open a book on it and give you a
million to one against. So send your Pounds Dollars and Yen to Merlin at
the cave. Before Yuletide.  If I lose and the world ends I will pay you
out your million whatever in the new year.

Merlin






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Were all religions invented nonsense?



[ Do you think that all religions were and are invented nonsense? ]



I doubt if ALL religions were politically motivated inventions as are
the modern ones for the last three or four thousand years. I would
imagine that the very early ones were just invented to fill gaps in
knowledge, and what most people thought might be true become the local
acceptable belief system. What causes thunder?  It must be magic.  But
when we are born knowing that there are things which we do not know the
answer to, and knowing that there must be answers to them, then you have
a mystery. Probably the biggest motivation for it originally was the
fear of death. Maybe the belief of extinction did not appeal to them so
they modified it to suit their needs and wants. Then of course some of
them must have originated from `odd' experiences. But there is
no way that we are going to learn about ALL the religions that have ever
been around in humanity.  I bet the animals don't worry about it :-
) My only interest in them is getting rid of them because they mess
people up. But where one has been hard wired into somebody then you
ain't going to shift it; so don't waste your time trying to,
like Dawkins does. They sure don't want gaps do they :- ) I
don't mind gaps, I find them exciting and you might be able to crawl
through them. There is sometimes a surprise on the other side of the
gaps; and you might be amazed.



rwr







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Angels in the Eternal Paradesium?



[Are there any angels in the timeless eternal paradesium Merlin? ]



Yes, of course there are. I was one until I got the boot and landed
here. And they can fly. But they have no wings :- ) Nor can they look
after people here. They don't even know about people, or here. There
is no way they could even fry an egg mate. But never mind, for your SELF
is always with you.  You are it, and a few other bits while here. I can
fry an egg :- )  So, as I have said so many times.  I AM always with
you; unto the end of time and beyond.  Wait and see.  DONT watch
American movies my dear :- )))



The question which people really want to know is as to IF their SELF
will ALWAYS still exist when we go from here.  But what they seem to
miss or do not get their head around is that there is no ALWAYS there.
There is ONLY  NOW eternally. IPSO. But you know how it is here
don't you; they love to worry :- )))



Merlin







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The love in eternity?



[ Try and find anybody talking about the love in eternity on the
internet. I looked and found nothing. Gurus and mystics don't seem
to talk about love in eternity. Yet you talk about it. Is the love in
eternity anything like the love we know here? ]



This is something that I have been very surprised about over the last
forty years. The fact that folks ask so many questions but they
don't ask that one. I wonder why that is. And as you point out why
don't all the gurus and mystics say anything about it?  You can work
that one out for yourself. They waffle on about consciousness and
quantum physics and gawd only knows what crap, but they never say
anything, and they sure never talk about this. The most important thing
of the lot about it. They are like barrow boys who have got nothing on
their barrow to sell. They ain't mystics mate they are shmystics and
shite hawks.



However, to your question. Is love there like it is here. Yes and no.
When here we have to have something to love; no matter what it is it has
to be a something or a somebody. But in eternity it is not like that at
all. It is not a love for some thing. It is just love. It seems
impossible to make an analogy. A good one might be this. When it comes
to consciousness it is ONLY ever the content of consciousness which we
know, we cannot know and experience consciousness devoid of some
content.  But imagine that consciousness was love then it would be just
consciousness but with no content.  The best that I can describe it is
in saying it is the  love of BEING. Existing, TO BE.



So, there is nothing there to be in love WITH. The perceived environment
there is very nice but one is not in love with that. So, it is simply
where love IS and where it

comes from. The I AM there (which is you) IS IT. It is not only the
first mode of conscious existence but it is the place of love and it is
the place of KNOWING and understanding. And it is also the place of
vision. But it is the quantity of it there, the volume, and it never
runs dry or changes. The love there is eternal and unending and
unchanging. If the love we known here were like a candle flame then the
love there would be like trillion watts of power. You could not live
here and operate with all that love inside of you. It would be like
trying to operate after eating a million meals in one go. But love is
love no matter the amount or how diluted. The love we know here simmers
down after a while, it does not stay on the boil all the time. But there
it stays on the boil all the time you are there, for time does not move
and nothing changes. Strange eh. All the Essences are Eternal. That is
where they come from, like a well that never runs dry.



Yup, you don't find these gnostics and shmostics and shmystics
talking about it. That is because they don't know it. They don't
have this eternal gnosis of what we are in the Ground of Being. And they
can't hear when you do talk to them. And they call themselves the
wise knower's of the known. HUH !  Bring one of them to me.
Religions HAVE fucked them up. And they have about as much passion in
them as a damp squid. People who don't know that part of themselves
but say nothing are fine, but those who don't know and make out they
do know are a pox on society and a blemish on life itself. And those who
DO know it and say nothing are a pain in the arse. Oopps, you got me
going there lad :- )))



rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Consciousness is a property not a "thing" or an object. NDE are not subject to
the material sciences though they are of interest to the psychologist. NDE are
psychological phenomena not "psychic" phenomena.My only point was not to imply a
wholesale condemnation of the possibility of consciousness manifesting without
the necessity of a living person (though it is difficult for me to see that as a
very coherent idea) but rather I was making a specific comment about the content
of that particular claim in that particular link.
--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Dick." <somerset_2@...> wrote:
>
>
> So what point are you, and or he, making with this communication? Have
> you made a study of the types of human experience and the degrees of
> each types?  Dear death experiences are one of the most common types of
> psychic experience and they have been recorded ever since recording
> began in writing; albeit not by that name. They are ALL different, but
> they slot within one category of one type of human conscious experience.
> All you can prove from NDE's is that people can have them when close
> to death.  Also, many people have no experience at all when near to
> death. They are not important and are no longer worth recording and
> disseminating. The study of the self is well worth studying however.
> Neither can you study consciousness devoid of content. There is no such
> thing as consciousness devoid of content. If you are conscious then you
> have to be conscious of something, even if it is of yourself in a void
> of nothing else. This is all old hat.
>
> Also, what difference does it make if a scientist is talking about an
> NDE or Fishmonger or a Bishop?  None at all. But you are welcome to try
> and chew the bones out of this.
>
> rwr
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@" <gil_serrano@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Junius" bryan.junius@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/heaven-real-says-neurosurgeon-claim\
> s-visited-afterlife-213527063.html
> > >
> > BS
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Many of these sorts of questions are more easily addressed by examining exactly
what is our criterion for truth or for what is "real". Maybe a better approach
is to ask what is reasonable to believe rather than what is real?

Reasonability is a social or legal criterion, whereas truth and reality fit
psychological and phenomenological criteria, in other words, philosophical. Some
facts are scientifically consensual but others are not. Common sense is more
relative than first appears.

No one has definitively defined consciousness because it isn't an entity or
simply a mechanistic object; it's a relationship within an environment.
Consciousness is subject and object for itself and other consciousness.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@..." <gil_serrano@...> wrote:
>
>
> Many of these sorts of questions are more easily addressed by examining
exactly what is our criterion for truth or for what is "real". Maybe a better
approach is to ask what is reasonable to believe rather than what is real?
>

Psychic Phenomena?

[ Consciousness is a property not a "thing" or an object. NDE are not
subject to
the material sciences though they are of interest to the psychologist.
NDE are
psychological phenomena not "psychic" phenomena. My only point was not
to imply a wholesale condemnation of the possibility of consciousness
manifesting without
the necessity of a living person (though it is difficult for me to see
that as a
very coherent idea) but rather I was making a specific comment about the
content
of that particular claim in that particular link. ]

I would like to hear about your study of phenomenology and what exactly
have you made a study of?  Everything which exists is a phenomenon and
no matter what form it takes. You say that NDE's are not Psychic
Phenomena but a Psychological phenomena. So what does that mean? Psyche
means self, psychology means the study of ourselves. We all have things
in common and we all have things which make us individual and unique. Is
not the self worth studying? NDE's are of interest to the person
that has that experience, they are also interesting to anyone who
chooses to study that phenomenon whether they have had one or not. And
what motivates a person to study this or that phenomenon? I have no idea
how many people are interested in mystical experience, millions of them,
and throughout all human existence, but they don't have to have had
a mystical experience to be interested in it. To study something is to
be devoted to learning about that phenomena. Some people spend their
lives devoted to one phenomena, and really get deep into that interest,
others (like myself) can be devoted to many many things to this or that
degree of interest in it and wanting to study it. Is there anybody who
is not interested in something? Even if it were only as to where is the
next meal coming from. We have a whole cosmological variety of things to
study and have an interest in. I have known people who spent most of
their life studying the Arthurian Legends would you believe. Have you
ever studied the Penny Black postage stamp? Many people have. How about
the white light of annihilation?  Have you studied that?  That will take
your breath away :- )))) Have you experienced it? If you have then you
will be in a small minority.

Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A Devotion To?



[ These are interesting points. Why is somebody devoted to the study of
what it is they study. A temporary or lifelong fixation for analysis on
this or that. ]



The WHY is a good question isn't it :- )  However, it is a good
thing that different people want to study different things, and then
they can all write their findings out for others to chew over. It can
also motivate others to study that thing.



There seems to  be two aspects to the WHY. One being because they have
had some personal experience with that thing.  The other is far more
nebulous. That is to say that somebody studies this or that but they
have not had personal experience in that thing. So why do they want to
study it?  But they do.



The next question is how deep and for how long do they study it?  A few
days? A few years? A few decades?  Or all their life? And how deeply do
they get into it?  How much can be learned and known about any one
thing? What is there to be known?



I don't ever recall meeting anybody who was only interested in just
one thing. Have you? But you do find people who seem to be interested in
just a few thing and many spend much time studying just one or two
things in some depth. Personally I have always been one of those with an
interest in so many things and have devoted time to so many things, but
not just one thing in particular. But there are a few things which have
taken up far more time and effort than others.  So, personally I have
been a one to be happy with just a little study devoted to this or that
and much more study devoted in  depth to a small number of things. Now,
it would be fascinating to have much more time to study ALL things in
great depth would it not.  But I have not got enough time for that so
one has to choose which :- ))) What turns you on most?  A great
attraction. Why? There HAS to be an answer to the WHY. It isn't just
for survival :- ))) The only thing that a big study of the game of
football will save you from is – boredom :- ))))  Oh, we are mighty
strange and mysterious things are we not. What shall I study today???
What exists to be studied? But you have to know that it exists before
you can study it. Hey, how about sun spots?



Dick Richardson








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an epistemology.
There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute disbelief and
on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or fact. On most
matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does not equate to
truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a relationship
between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is difficult for me at
least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to a state or case of
the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it even make sense
outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical argument could be
devised to ground this proposition?

This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises
identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition.
Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on
the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness,
it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties
rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.

Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an "object"
but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of subject/object
duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person perspective
and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are intrinsic to the
experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about the problem.

Big loves and devotions?



[ And what have been your big loves and devotions Richard? ]



Oh bloody hell mate !  My wife and kids. Life. Psychology. Physics.
Cosmology. Philosophy. Politics. Exploration. Geography and map making.
A girl I knew when I was sixteen. Mathematics (but I am bad at it).
Astronomy. Engineering. Music. Mail and the means of delivering it.
Radio communication and methods. Archery. Cycling and bicycles. Chess
and its history. Drawing and technical drawing. Antiques, mainly
furniture, clocks and porcelain. Well documented historical events.
Architecture.  Old buildings. Bridges. Studying Exmoor and London. Cats.
Tropical fish. Birds. The seasons. Beers and brewing. All methods of
communication. The arts. Trying to suss out women. They have been the
major ones. But there are also many which I would have liked to have
done but have not done and not had the time to do. The things I am least
interested in are Gardening; Cooking; Golf.  Enough for one lifetime me
thinks. Too bloody much :- ))) I have often wished that I been
interested in less things. But one cannot help being interested in this
or that. It isn't a choice, it is a driving factor. In life I have
always been highly motivated. And resolute in its endeavour. Existing
sure was worthwhile and exciting. And I can never know NOT existing.



Richard







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Content of Broadcasting?



[ Consciousness and its content must be much the same as broadcasting
and its content. Or a good analogy at any rate. You cannot broadcast
nothing and you cannot receive a broadcast which contains nothing. ]



Yup,  true enough. Tune in to a station on any radio frequency band and
what is the program  about? Does it interest you?  If it does not then
you do not linger on that frequency. But there is such a thing as RADIO
and its potential, whether used or not. The potential did not pop up
when it was discovered, it was always there since the world was there as
we know it. But what can you know about it if you don't study it and
use it? Nothing.



There is the phenomenon of Consciousness but we receive the content
which it carries if we have what it takes to pick it up and receive it
and then come to understand it.  But I ask again – has anybody ever
received consciousness devoid of content? Experience is the content of
it; not the carrier wave devoid of information being carried. What use
is consciousness to anybody if there is no content being carried? We
know how a radio wave can be modulated to carry information but how does
consciousness get modulated for that which it carries? A mystery eh.
When in the state of primordial consciousness then how do we know what
we know there?  I don't know. Who does know? My only answer to that
so far is that it is obvious that there is more than we yet know. But
how much of that CAN be known? There are some aspects which I feel sure
that we can never know. But plainly there is much more yet to learn than
we do know as yet. I look forward to learning some of it, if and when.
But to cope with all that which is already known is more than a
lifetimes job for any one person. This does not mean that we are limited
in what we can know but we are limited at each moment to the sum of what
we do know at each moment.  But we move on. It isn't over yet. And
tomorrow is another day. From my viewpoint the whole of existence is
about information and communication. The word `creation' is not
even needed and it is meaningless. Nothing which exists comes from
NOTHING. Life, consciousness and stuff is complicated and mysterious
– NOT IMPOSSIBLE.



rwr








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Absolute Disbelief?



[ There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute
disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a
proposition or fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it
gets. ]



And what effect exactly does Believing or Disbelieving something have on
a person?



And what of people like myself who have never used Believing or
Disbelieving? We seem to get by OK.



Where does `truth' come to matter when it comes to conscious
experience of something?  If I experience the cat sitting on the mat
around the fire then where does belief and truth come into this? The cat
is experienced to be sitting on that mat and that is that. How can an
experience be NOT true experience?  Which bits of life are not true
experience? If you see the cat sitting on the mat then what is there to
believe or disbelieve? If I switch the light switch on the light either
comes on or it does not. What is there to believe or not believe? Prior
to switching the light switch on do I have to believe that it will or
will not come on?



Why would one need proof or even a belief that we have lived our life
and done what we did?  Do people get beguiled and confused because of
words? Watching a cat on the mat needs no words. Nor does it need any
help from somebody else. Can I accept that the cat sat on the mat if a
scientist or a priest tells me that it is OK to experience that?  Did
you know that you can round up cats?  I do it every day.  It is easy.
All I have to do is yell FOODIES in a high pitched voice and they come
running from all over the joint and then follow me. So do the dogs. But
not gold fish. Is absolute belief better and more effective than
KNOWING? Why not DUMP the word belief?  A firm belief in something might
stop a person looking. Where has all this believing in gods and demons
got people and society? What good does it do them? How many gods have
you met?  Describe them to me if you will.



Roll on evolution.



Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jealousy?

[ It is said that jealousy is one of the major human problems. How do
you find this? ]

I am no expert or authority on it :- )  Never really had it. But one
would be looking at two things here again. One being a feeling of
jealousy and the other being what you do about it. If one feels jealousy
they don't HAVE to do anything because of it. So once again it is
the effects and the things done which can be the problem.

It seems to effect two different things also. A jealousy for wanting
something which somebody else has etc, and the other being the feeling
of jealousy about a lover. In the case of the latter it is more about
possibly losing something which you have. Personally I have never envied
things which people had so I do not know that feeling.

So, the little I do know about that kind of feeling has been in the
early days of courting somebody you seriously like or love and the
feeling that you might be losing them when they seem to be seriously
flirting with somebody :- ) But are they serious about it or are they
just teasing you and testing you out to see your reaction?

The problem here is that you want them to enjoy themselves and have fun,
and also when you are not with them.  So what do you do?  My reaction
was to do nothing at all, and say nothing at all. Grin and bear it :- )
The thing is that if they preferred the other person then you don't
want them hanging around you; so let them go. If they don't want to
go then they will not go :- ) If they are just teasing you then ignore
it and they will stop.  So there isn't really a problem is there. A
far bigger problem is in getting rid of somebody when you don't want
them around, and without hurting them. But yes, it does seem that there
are a lot of problems and crimes involved with jealousy. Or rather the
things people do because of it. But you might do better to ask somebody
with a lot of experience of this.

rwr





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people
who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious context is
often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the initially
unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and control.
An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in either to
validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the other.
Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a norm.
Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical
grounding either.

If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared clinically
dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of consciousness
must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared clinically dead
for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is happening is a
state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness, however it might
be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what consciousness
experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this state, because
they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing to say such
experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable because neither
extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the other's
interpretation.

I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other
people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an
opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've
experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will
happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I
don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.

My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being and
nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and death
for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance as one
phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is entangled
and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.

Mary



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@..." <gil_serrano@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an
epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute
disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or
fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does
not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a
relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is
difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to
a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it
even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical
argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
>
> This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition raises
identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the proposition.
Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds no light on
the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of consciousness,
it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in additional difficulties
rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one closer in that direction.
>
> Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an
"object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of
subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person
perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are
intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about
the problem.
>

When I wrote, "Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no
philosophical grounding either," I meant that attempt to normalize experiences
through control such as ostracism (religious, atheist, or scientific) merely
"seems" reasonable to those who do it BUT that these don't have philosophical
grounding either.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
>
> The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of people
who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious context is
often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the initially
unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and control.
An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in either to
validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the other.
Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a norm.
Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical
grounding either.
>
> If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared
clinically dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of
consciousness must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared
clinically dead for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is
happening is a state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness,
however it might be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what
consciousness experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this
state, because they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing
to say such experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable
because neither extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the
other's interpretation.
>
> I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other
people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an
opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've
experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will
happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I
don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.
>
> My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being
and nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and
death for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance
as one phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is
entangled and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.
>
> Mary
> mary, I only go so far in discussions of thinking about thinking. In this case
I see similarities between  Dicks altered state of consciousness  and  these
after life  situations. Now if you come back you were not dead and whatever you
experienced was a life experience.
Now as to the reality of these altered states if you require three demensional
happenings in temporal sequence for a situation to be real then most of these
states are not real. You might be able to bring back memeries of these states
and those memories could contain ideas that might be of use in the conscious
life. I think that would be rare and studying the  far envolopes of science
would be more productive. If ,however you are seeking entertainment  such
altered states might be enjoyable if they can be controlled.
For years I have used controlled dream states for relaxation  and as a sleep
aid. I am at the end of an opening  sequence and need a new point of entry. I
have worn out my rabbit hole . My crushing  nightmare has been dormant for many
years  and I would fear having it return. A recent show on groom lake  revived
my controlled dream with the introduction of  a totally stealthy craft that can
fly at mach 8  inside or outside the atmosphere. Add beam weapons to that
package and you have a sifi extravaganza of a toy.
I have never seen any of what I drempt have any affect in the real world. It was
a fun state  and had  no carry over in real time living. I think the red line is
knowing what is a fun exercise and what has repurcussions  in real life. If I
sleep well and awake rested that is enough for me. Buildind a real life
philosophy  from fragments  brought back from altered states is more than I will
allow and that remains my choice. Bill
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@" <gil_serrano@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an
epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute
disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or
fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does
not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a
relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is
difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to
a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it
even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical
argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
> >
> > This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition
raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the
proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds
no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of
consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in
additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one
closer in that direction.
> >
> > Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an
"object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of
subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person
perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are
intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about
the problem.
> >
>

Thanks for your input, Bill. I think your last statement is most relevant. Is it
really possible to build an entire philosophy from such disparate pieces. I
don't think so, for the simple fact is that we can't know what the source or
cause of them is. I think anything else is obsession. Glad to see you concur
that one is not completely dead if they experience these states. Whether one is
completely dead or completely alive, as a fetus, are not matters for the state
to define.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
> >
> > The reasonable proposition, state or case in the world is the number of
people who say they've experienced an "afterlife." It seems that a religious
context is often imposed on such an experience in order to culturally frame the
initially unexplainable. The ground for the proposition is that of exception and
control. An experience, hallucinatory or not, occurs and then everyone jumps in
either to validate or invalidate something which can't be proven one way or the
other. Labeling and control are at play to make the experience conform to a
norm. Normalizing peoples' experiences seems reasonable and has no philosophical
grounding either.
> >
> > If someone actually experiences something after they've been declared
clinically dead, the definition of what constitutes death and a definition of
consciousness must be expanded. To my knowledge no one who has been declared
clinically dead for over 24 hrs. was scientifically observed. What I think is
happening is a state of consciousness, not total cessation of consciousness,
however it might be defined. An "afterlife" is merely a description of what
consciousness experiences now. Truth or reality probably don't apply to this
state, because they are too personal. On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing
to say such experiences are unreasonable. The proposition is unreasonable
because neither extreme wants to employ reason, but only to disparage the
other's interpretation.
> >
> > I only spout off on this topic because I'm so weary of people telling other
people that what they experienced doesn't mean what they say it means! I have an
opinion but it only has meaning for me. If somebody thinks that what they've
experienced before they've actually died is an "afterlife" and that it will
happen to everyone else after they actually die, who really cares? Personally, I
don't think it possible to experience death while still alive.
> >
> > My own interest in phenomenology concerns unity of oppositions such as being
and nothing, subject and substance, in itself and for another, etc. Life and
death for me seem merely different relationships between subject and substance
as one phenomena. I think all "individuals" are entangled as all substance is
entangled and that this accounts for both our needs for solitude and solidarity.
> >
> > Mary
> > mary, I only go so far in discussions of thinking about thinking. In this
case  I see similarities between  Dicks altered state of consciousness  and 
these after life  situations. Now if you come back you were not dead and
whatever you experienced was a life experience.
> Now as to the reality of these altered states if you require three demensional
happenings in temporal sequence for a situation to be real then most of these
states are not real. You might be able to bring back memeries of these states
and those memories could contain ideas that might be of use in the conscious
life. I think that would be rare and studying the  far envolopes of science
would be more productive. If ,however you are seeking entertainment  such
altered states might be enjoyable if they can be controlled.
> For years I have used controlled dream states for relaxation  and as a sleep
aid. I am at the end of an opening  sequence and need a new point of entry. I
have worn out my rabbit hole . My crushing  nightmare has been dormant for many
years  and I would fear having it return. A recent show on groom lake  revived
my controlled dream with the introduction of  a totally stealthy craft that can
fly at mach 8  inside or outside the atmosphere. Add beam weapons to that
package and you have a sifi extravaganza of a toy.
> I have never seen any of what I drempt have any affect in the real world. It
was  a fun state  and had  no carry over in real time living. I think the red
line is knowing what is a fun exercise and what has repurcussions  in real life.
If I sleep well and awake rested that is enough for me. Buildind a real life
philosophy  from fragments  brought back from altered states is more than I will
allow and that remains my choice. Bill
> >
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "gil_serrano@" <gil_serrano@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would say that reasonableness is all that can be justified in an
epistemology. There is a sort of continuum in which on one end we have absolute
disbelief and on the other complete commitment to the truth of a proposition or
fact. On most matters reasonable belief is as good as it gets. But belief does
not equate to truth, for a proposition to be true it must reflect or embody a
relationship between what is said and a state or case in the world. It is
difficult for me at least to see how the proposition "heaven is real" relates to
a state or case of the world. How is the proposition reasonable? Indeed, does it
even make sense outside of an overtly religious context? What philosophical
argument could be devised to ground this proposition?
> > >
> > > This can be shown by the fact to either affirm or deny the proposition
raises identical difficulties. There simply is no truth criterion for the
proposition. Also recall the topic, raising the problem of consciousness sheds
no light on the issue of "heaven", whatever the properties and the nature of
consciousness, it is not reasonable to postulate entities that bring in
additional difficulties rather than conceptual clarity or at least move one
closer in that direction.
> > >
> > > Consciousness is it seems to me a property or attribute rather than an
"object" but it is a fascinating and complex issue. The phenomena of
subject/object duality may relate to the simultaneous experience of first person
perspective and intentionality – the "aboutness" of consciousness; both are
intrinsic to the experience and maybe provide a place to begin thinking about
the problem.
> > >
> >
>

The preexistentialists were serious fellows. They came from mathematical 
backgrounds and demanded a rigor to their philosophical renderings. The later
existentialists ,especially Camus, were influenced by psychological material and
were less strict in their acepptance of included material.
It may be we have examined  most of the relevant things of worth  so now we
cleve to the imaginary, the improbable even the rediculous. I find those  things
that are at best coincidental to be outside the  perview of existentialism. If
you have been drunk and saw  a purple cow  it is not proper to include the study
of purple cows in modernism. If you drop LSD and  hallicunate  a technicolor
world of plastic people  it does not belong in existentialism. If you fall into
an altered state of consciousness of unknown  origin  your findings do not
belong in existentialism. Pulling several of these events into a group of ideas
that have no known origin do not belong in existentialism. They may be a fine
serendipidous  fun house for you but  that fantasy land  is not a part of
existentialism. Existentialism began in the rational and even though that may 
be less colorful than imagined states it is more reliable as the philosophy
rests on the real,not the believed or imagined. If you let your dreams rule your
life you are an ungoverned person. Bill

Thank you for the birthday wishes ma'am, that is very kind of you.
Sorry to hear about all that, and the pain. I too was awake early due to
pain in one of my legs. Had quite a lot of it lately and it is too sever
to sleep through, and no pills will take it away.  Only getting up makes
it easier. Albeit that I would rather not get up at two in the morning.
But there you go. No choice really. But fortunately I have only known
such pains since the age of seventy. So I have been lucky. Many people
are not so lucky. But you cannot take pains with you when you go.

You mention having a fear of going. Nobody is going to be able to talk
you out of that. So perhaps the best thing that you can do is simply try
not think about it. Or try to stop thinking about it at least. Or think
about the day at hand.  But that may be more about the pains involved in
going rather than going itself. It does seem that some have a few years
of pains and some don't, they just pop off quick. But one of the
things about pain is that it cannot take ones dignity away from one, no
matter how much pain there is. Pain is something which we have, but it
is not something which we are. So that is worth keeping in mind.

Yes, the big advantage of being born on the night of Halloween is that
it is an easy date to remember.  I can never remember birthdays, I have
to be told by my wife that it is so and so's birthday :- ) So it is
a bit like being born on all fools day or Yuletide; easy to remember;
but it is handy to be able to remember one's own birthday, for you
can remind people in advance that way :- )))  With a bit of luck it
might even give them a guilt complex if they then forget it ;- ) Yes I
did come here some years ago, as you so kindly remind me, so I ought to
be getting better at things by now ought I not. Trouble is that I forget
the things that I am bad at.  But never mind, for everybody keeps
reminding me :- ))) They are damned good at that ain't they mate.
Maybe they get a lot of practice at it ;-  ) Don't worry about not
understanding my English at times, for I don't either. It is also a
crazy illogical language; for we pinch bits from all over the place. But
it all adds to the fun.

So, you have not developed your skills to become a Homo Ensophicus yet
eh, well tut tut ma'am; subtract five house points and say ten hail
mary's three times a day for six weeks :- )))  So do what I do and
keep banging on the door; the bloody thing will push open one day :- )

So, you might have to have an operation, and that scares you. I have
never had one but I hear tell that many of them are very successful,
they are getting quite good at that sort of thing these days. Well I did
have a nose job done one day and they put you fast asleep before it. But
the thing is you see is that if you wake up again then you know you have
had it, but if you don't then you won't.  So, no problem really
eh. The great advantage of kicking the bucket is that there will be no
more aches and pains. But the great advantage of not kicking the bucket
is that you might get more chocolates next birthday.  So, we are on a
winner to nothing are we not. Keep smiling. You have to take life
seriously but while doing that don't take seriously the taking of it
seriously :- )))) Life here comes and goes, tis the way of things. I
must say it is very weird indeed however, but there you go.

Richard.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Blue Hills Arrived

Dear SuZ. Your book, The Blue Hills Diary, arrived safely yesterday
(31stOctober) at mid day.  Many thanks. Owing to being busy for  a
couple of days I did not intend to read it until the weekend. But I
thought I would just flick through the pages after opening it up while
having a coffee. Before I knew where I was I found that I had  read
seventy of the 288 pages, and my coffee had got cold :- )))

Still a long way to go yet. But what I found was quite amazing. For an
academic you put many poets to shame. Your lyrical prose makes people
like Coleridge, Wordsworth and Blake, look like bumbling amateurs. I
could sure never write like that all the time that I had fingers to hold
a pen. They cannot teach you that at university chum.

At first I thought I was getting a really good insight into womanhood
– something a man can never really know.  But I soon found out that
it was far more than that, and that not all women are like that (I wish
they were :- ) but it was an exquisite epitome of combining the inner
life with that of the outer work-a-day life, and the things which we
have to do, to make it all hang together well with no drastic separation
of the parts. Have any of the others told you that?  Hence why even the
first few pages were so addicting. And you plainly see and feel so much
and so deeply which many people do not seem to do; or certainly never
mention if they do.

The whole of page 60 was quite incredible, albeit a little sad, and such
things do happen all too often. All too often I hear people using the
term `what it is to be human'.  But they don't tell me what
it is to be human. So, what IS IT to be human and what is that like I
wonder?  It seems to make us all sound to be the same thing. With such a
vast range of variety of types of human beings and their capabilities,
likes and dislikes, wants and needs, and the various depths to which
they can live their life and also get things done, it is plainly obvious
that there is no such thing as to `what it is to be to be
human'. This is why I get cross when so many of them all keep saying
`WE', as if everything about them applied to everything about
everyone else. I wonder how many of them could decide to live your life
:- )  Only one person can ever do that. You.

Having read only seventy pages as yet it reminds me why I tell mystics
to write books.  And if they happen to be academics with a good
education then all the better. So, you see, I was right :- ) I hope it
gets a good circulation and takes some of the inhibitions away from
others to get out there and live it; and write of it for the record.
Instead of society living in a big lonely silent hush.  We could change
the world if they all decided to you know. And yes you are dread right;
when writing it all out one lives it and feels it all over again, and as
though time has stopped moving. Quite amazing isn't it, and I know a
bit about that myself :- ) And yes indeed, that there is some place here
which attracts us like a magnet, like the Blue Hills did for you even
though you have lived all over the USA is exactly what I felt, and still
feel, about this small plot called Exmoor.  Such places just bring one
fully alive and buzzing. As though we were made for each other. I sure
know that to be absolutely true. It is one of those things which cannot
be denied; fight it rationally though one may :- ) Feelings and passions
run all the way to Eternity. Reason does not.  But they make good
travelling companions while here. So, use both of them eh, and let them
unite into one package. So I tell them to use their head and use their
heart. But they can stuff their religions and their inflicted beliefs
and silly rituals.

Many thanks.

Dick Richardson







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Have to disagree somewhat with you on this, Bill. While science definitely
influenced the this philosophy, literature was probably of at least equal
importance. And let's not forget that science was co-opted by the state to
create "individuals" to be measured, compared, shaped, and conformed through its
institutions in order to meet its needs. We are not atomistic biological units
placed in the social field for corporate benefit either. We aren't free and
responsible because a god or a state says so. Thought, wherever it leads, does.
Thought is not the enemy, and freedom lurks equally in the exception. A
particular person is entangled with the universal developing whole. The
particular person is divisible by other, and both science and literature bear
witness to this phenomenon.

Mary

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
>
> The preexistentialists were serious fellows. They came from mathematical 
backgrounds and demanded a rigor to their philosophical renderings. The later
existentialists ,especially Camus, were influenced by psychological material and
were less strict in their acepptance of included material.
> It may be we have examined  most of the relevant things of worth  so now we
cleve to the imaginary, the improbable even the rediculous. I find those  things
that are at best coincidental to be outside the  perview of existentialism. If
you have been drunk and saw  a purple cow  it is not proper to include the study
of purple cows in modernism. If you drop LSD and  hallicunate  a technicolor
world of plastic people  it does not belong in existentialism. If you fall into
an altered state of consciousness of unknown  origin  your findings do not
belong in existentialism. Pulling several of these events into a group of ideas
that have no known origin do not belong in existentialism. They may be a fine
serendipidous  fun house for you but  that fantasy land  is not a part of
existentialism. Existentialism began in the rational and even though that may 
be less colorful than imagined states it is more reliable as the philosophy
rests on the real,not the believed or imagined. If you let your dreams rule your
life you are an ungoverned person. Bill
>