Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Discussing METHOD

Expand Messages
  • Diana
    Message 1 of 20 , May 31 5:59 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      << ... regarding the first reason, it is not impossible ... there are
      techniques to at least statistically get close ... if it were
      impossible, none of the tests done by science would be valid ... in
      the case of medical testing there is the "double-blind" and "placebo"
      techniques ...>>

      How do you find out what is objectively true?

      << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff which does not
      relate to the issue ... the objective view has nothing to do with the
      state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated under universal
      laws" and "having no independent life of its own" ... so what? ... if
      one is subjugated that does not have any impact on the ability to see
      something with an objective view ... objective viewing simply means
      observing and recording the attributes of an object without adding
      subjective judgements ...>>

      If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then what you say
      sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a good recording
      ability and I regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt
      to gain an understanding on my own/others world-view(s).
    • Eduard Alf
      Diana et folks, i think if you are looking for the absolute truth ...i mean to know something complete in all respects, then it is unlikely that you will be
      Message 2 of 20 , May 31 7:44 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Diana et folks,

        i think if you are looking for the absolute truth ...i mean to know
        something complete in all respects, then it is unlikely that you will be
        able to do so ... simply because we ourselves are limited ... but "truth"
        may also be seen as a truth which allows us to survive ... for example we
        dont need to know the 10 dimensional particles that may make up the atomic
        structure of a table, if the only thing we wish to do is to avoid stubbing
        our toe ... i would take it that this is level of "objectively true" that we
        need ...

        so how do we find out if something is objectively true ... well, in my
        business i want to know at what distance can an airport sign be seen and
        read ... so i get a group of people who represent the average in the way of
        visual capability ... now what is "average" is another question and can
        determined statistically ... i take each person in a car and when they say
        they can read the sign, they are to drop a bean bag out the window ... the
        speed is sufficiently low to avoid too great an error in the drop time ... i
        then measure the distance, and repeat for the rest of the crowd ... the
        result is that i can get a fairly good conclusion of the readability
        distance ... at least sufficient to serve the conditions under which the
        sign would actually be used ... similar techniques can be used for other
        studies and products ...

        im not saying that subjective viewing is not important ... or that it should
        not be used ... it is just that one should be aware (as much as is possible)
        when seeking to see something objectively versus subjectively ... if you mix
        the two, you run into a problem ... in fact i run into that problem a lot
        myself ... if my computer is not working, i subjectively start pulling cards
        out and end up with a pile of bits and pieces ... however if i had tried to
        look at it objectively, i might have found that the plug had pulled out of
        the wall ...

        have fun ..

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Diana [mailto:da-sein@...]
        Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:59 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Discussing METHOD

        << ... regarding the first reason, it is not impossible ... there are
        techniques to at least statistically get close ... if it were
        impossible, none of the tests done by science would be valid ... in
        the case of medical testing there is the "double-blind" and "placebo"
        techniques ...>>

        How do you find out what is objectively true?

        << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff which does not
        relate to the issue ... the objective view has nothing to do with the
        state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated under universal
        laws" and "having no independent life of its own" ... so what? ... if
        one is subjugated that does not have any impact on the ability to see
        something with an objective view ... objective viewing simply means
        observing and recording the attributes of an object without adding
        subjective judgements ...>>

        If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then what you say
        sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a good recording
        ability and I regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt
        to gain an understanding on my own/others world-view(s).
      • thebookdoc@aol.com
        Message 3 of 20 , May 31 7:46 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          <<I myself haven't developed such a good recording ability and I
          regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt to gain an
          understanding on my own/others world-view(s).>>

          It seems that someone will not accept the fact that meter readings
          and everything have to be digested and then understood before they
          are 'used.'

          Dear 'duard,

          Please tell the group the mechanism by which undertanding of anything
          is either inate or directly derived from objective viewing (that is
          without the subject understanding at all what they are looking at or
          experiencing).

          Objective.impossible

          ---------------------------------------------
        • William Harris
          Diana, I agree with you to the level of observation that I would call counting studies. Certainly simple observation can be prejudiced by ones subjective mind
          Message 4 of 20 , May 31 8:01 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Diana, I agree with you to the level of observation that I would call
            counting studies. Certainly simple observation can be prejudiced by ones
            subjective mind set. Counting can come clowser to an objective view, yet the
            problem remains , what do you count, IE, the hanging chad? I personally trust
            very few statistical studies, especially those that imply cause and effect
            relationship where none is proven. Bill

            Diana wrote:

            > << ... regarding the first reason, it is not impossible ... there are
            > techniques to at least statistically get close ... if it were
            > impossible, none of the tests done by science would be valid ... in
            > the case of medical testing there is the "double-blind" and "placebo"
            > techniques ...>>
            >
            > How do you find out what is objectively true?
            >
            > << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff which does not
            > relate to the issue ... the objective view has nothing to do with the
            > state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated under universal
            > laws" and "having no independent life of its own" ... so what? ... if
            > one is subjugated that does not have any impact on the ability to see
            > something with an objective view ... objective viewing simply means
            > observing and recording the attributes of an object without adding
            > subjective judgements ...>>
            >
            > If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then what you say
            > sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a good recording
            > ability and I regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt
            > to gain an understanding on my own/others world-view(s).
            >
            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
            >
            > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Eduard Alf
            dear bookduck, i did not say that the subject would not have an understanding of what they see ... you measure a color as being y = 0.29 and x = 0.70 which is
            Message 5 of 20 , May 31 8:06 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              dear bookduck,

              i did not say that the subject would not have an understanding of what they
              see ... you measure a color as being y = 0.29 and x = 0.70 which is a red
              color ... this kind of measurement is done everyday in a number of
              industries, as for example someone making red coke cans ... that is
              objective viewing ... whether or not you like that color is subjective and
              an entirely different matter ... Diana may really like the color because it
              is exactly that of her first doll's hair ... but you may dislike it because
              of some traumatic experience on a red clam beach ... one cant measure a
              subjective view ...

              have fun (and stay out of the water) ...

              eduard

              -----Original Message-----
              From: thebookdoc@... [mailto:thebookdoc@...]
              Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:46 AM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Re: Discussing METHOD and malice and microscopic
              pillars of ...of ... nothing


              <<I myself haven't developed such a good recording ability and I
              regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt to gain an
              understanding on my own/others world-view(s).>>

              It seems that someone will not accept the fact that meter readings
              and everything have to be digested and then understood before they
              are 'used.'

              Dear 'duard,

              Please tell the group the mechanism by which undertanding of anything
              is either inate or directly derived from objective viewing (that is
              without the subject understanding at all what they are looking at or
              experiencing).

              Objective.impossible
            • Diana
              You saw
              Message 6 of 20 , May 31 8:23 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                << It seems that someone will not accept the fact that meter readings
                and everything have to be digested and then understood before they
                are 'used.' >>

                You saw a contradiction as I wrote that I would use the `subjective
                factor' to understand other people's world-views?

                1) I don't reject the existence of human nature;
                2) I believe that inquiry into the way I form my own subjective world-
                view will help me gain insight into other people's world-views.
                3) It does hurt to read such a remark;

                Diana

                PS. Perhaps what has to be cleared out is what exactly is meant
                by `subjective'.
              • João Silva
                ... Like Diana, I don t have such a good recording ability.. Our concept of an object (ex: light) is a definition, whose selection is based on its ability to
                Message 7 of 20 , May 31 9:59 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > observing and recording the attributes of an object
                  > without adding
                  > subjective judgements ...>>

                  Like Diana, I don't have such a good recording
                  ability..

                  Our concept of an object (ex: light) is a definition,
                  whose selection is based on its ability to handle the
                  facts. To say that light is made of waves is not more
                  true than to say that its made of particles.
                  Nevertheless, one definition can be more advantageous
                  than the other. In fact, the wave-particle definition
                  is a very good one for modern physics. But what's its
                  value for an artist taking photos?

                  For different definitions, there are different
                  attributes.


                  oversimplifying.. a bit confused here:

                  One can *objectively* communicate the attributes of an
                  object if he/she and the receptor share its definition
                  and those of its attributes. This allows the other to
                  perceive the object as one has.

                  Joao



                  PS: Diana, I think Poincaré's also with you..


                  ZMM - chapter 22 (on Poincaré)

                  "...

                  What guarantees the objectivity of the world in which
                  we live is that this world is common to us with other
                  thinking beings. Through the communications that we
                  have with other men we receive from them ready-made
                  harmonious reasonings. We know that these reasonings
                  do not come from us and at the same time we recognize
                  in them, because of their harmony, the work of
                  reasonable beings like ourselves. And as these
                  reasonings appear to fit the world of our sensations,
                  we think we may infer that these reasonable beings
                  have seen the same thing as we; thus it is that we
                  know we haven't been dreaming. It is this harmony,
                  this quality if you will, that is the sole basis for
                  the only reality we can ever know.

                  ..."

                  --- Diana <da-sein@...> escreveu: > << ...
                  regarding the first reason, it is not
                  > impossible ... there are
                  > techniques to at least statistically get close ...
                  > if it were
                  > impossible, none of the tests done by science would
                  > be valid ... in
                  > the case of medical testing there is the
                  > "double-blind" and "placebo"
                  > techniques ...>>
                  >
                  > How do you find out what is objectively true?
                  >
                  > << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff
                  > which does not
                  > relate to the issue ... the objective view has
                  > nothing to do with the
                  > state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated
                  > under universal
                  > laws" and "having no independent life of its own"
                  > ... so what? ... if
                  > one is subjugated that does not have any impact on
                  > the ability to see
                  > something with an objective view ... objective
                  > viewing simply means
                  > observing and recording the attributes of an object
                  > without adding
                  > subjective judgements ...>>
                  >
                  > If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then
                  > what you say
                  > sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a
                  > good recording
                  > ability and I regard the subjective factor as
                  > important as I attempt
                  > to gain an understanding on my own/others
                  > world-view(s).



                  _______________________________________________________________________________________________
                  Yahoo! GeoCities
                  Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCites. É fácil e grátis!
                  http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
                • Eduard Alf
                  Bill, i would suggest that it is the subjective interpretation of objective results that is the problem ... the data itself does not imply cause and effect, it
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 31 11:06 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill,

                    i would suggest that it is the subjective interpretation of objective
                    results that is the problem ... the data itself does not imply cause and
                    effect, it is the persons who use this data for their own purposes ... it is
                    an old saying that you can prove anything by such studies ... but the "you"
                    is a person and not the data ... another case of confusing the objective
                    view with the subjective view ...

                    it is very nice out today ... all sun ... and warm for a change ... it is
                    supposed to go up to 17c but i would suspect that it is more than that now
                    ... i bought ceramic lepricons (we call them bonhommes) to put in the garden
                    ... which reminds me that i have to move some dirt around today ...

                    eduard

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: William Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:01 AM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [existlist] Discussing METHOD


                    Diana, I agree with you to the level of observation that I would call
                    counting studies. Certainly simple observation can be prejudiced by ones
                    subjective mind set. Counting can come clowser to an objective view, yet the
                    problem remains , what do you count, IE, the hanging chad? I personally
                    trust
                    very few statistical studies, especially those that imply cause and effect
                    relationship where none is proven. Bill

                    Diana wrote:

                    > << ... regarding the first reason, it is not impossible ... there are
                    > techniques to at least statistically get close ... if it were
                    > impossible, none of the tests done by science would be valid ... in
                    > the case of medical testing there is the "double-blind" and "placebo"
                    > techniques ...>>
                    >
                    > How do you find out what is objectively true?
                    >
                    > << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff which does not
                    > relate to the issue ... the objective view has nothing to do with the
                    > state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated under universal
                    > laws" and "having no independent life of its own" ... so what? ... if
                    > one is subjugated that does not have any impact on the ability to see
                    > something with an objective view ... objective viewing simply means
                    > observing and recording the attributes of an object without adding
                    > subjective judgements ...>>
                    >
                    > If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then what you say
                    > sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a good recording
                    > ability and I regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt
                    > to gain an understanding on my own/others world-view(s).
                    >
                    > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                    > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                    >
                    > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                    > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                    Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                    (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                    TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                    existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • thebookdoc@aol.com
                    Oh,
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 31 11:10 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      <<... you measure a color as being y = 0.29 and x = 0.70 which is a
                      red color ... this kind of measurement is done everyday in a number of
                      industries...>>

                      Oh, poo.

                      What made red ...red?

                      I can see there are devices and measurements...but who is to say how
                      accurate a device, how consistent...Is it affected by weather, by
                      altitude, by speed, by time? And MORE IMPORTANTLY: what IS red. You
                      have a definition of red created by people who saw red. Is the
                      definition of this thing 'red' inate? Why is it red rather than
                      orange? I have the feeling that someone's senses got in there and
                      said "Hey, this is red!" rather than red naming itself or because of
                      a property of the wave measure that said "precisely here is red."
                      This means it was somehow created by observation. That would be a
                      subjective point-of-view. Here is a dictionary definition...you like
                      these:

                      "The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the
                      human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately
                      630 to 750 nanometers"

                      Why, ahem, the word 'approximately'? If this is a science and an
                      exacted objective notation, red would ALWAYS be red...'evoked by a
                      human observer' would seem to suggest there are at the very least
                      snails looking at the darned redness (because we know snails are more
                      human than dead people via the book of 'duard) and I would know it as
                      red as would a color-blind person, instead of one like myself (who is
                      completely blind). If a blind person 'measured' what is red, he would
                      have a quantity of measurement (if he could see the instrument), but
                      would no more understand red than a brick would. You can have
                      measurement without understanding...and understanding would seem to
                      come through...senses. Which in some chain of events are interpreted.
                      There is a measurement, and I see the measure and then DECIDE what it
                      means. The quality 'red' is a consensus that may or may not be held
                      by everyone to differing degrees. And when does the mighty signal of
                      the synapse turn into belief and raise the flag of triumph in 'duard
                      town? The meaning is not inherent...it is not inate...and if it were
                      'obvious' there would be no need for testing, confirmation, etc. Tell
                      me, and sticking with light, if our observations are so darned
                      accurate, why is it that we can't see the bulbs that flicker 60 times
                      a second? And if we don't see that...what the heck else are we
                      missing?

                      You keep arguing that we have to just accept certain things...well, I
                      guess. If we play a game, we accept the rules and move on. However,
                      that is in a rather confined situation where there are a small set of
                      rules that are defined. But I can't find the rule book (well, except
                      yours, oh, godot-de-'duard). I can't even see how a rule can be made.
                      Considering the potential error in observation born(e) by the need to
                      interpret, it seems that there are exceptions, and that everyone can
                      make matter of their own observation, and that those observations
                      might just not match the observations of Le 'duard. Yet every one of
                      those perceptions and perspectives is valid...if nothing else, FROM
                      that perspective. Which, daresay, is subjective.

                      There is nothing real about society, or about the fictitious
                      constructs that generations have created to manufacture 'society.'
                      There is nothing real in objective 'science' that has no prediction
                      for every existing case.

                      It is quite another thing to say: "I can't solve that, so I am moving
                      on." Which is an understandible acceptance of ignorance. However,
                      that you want to make your perspective the basis of so much fact only
                      dearly explains why you need your own personal god with which to
                      'order' the universe. Personally, I think that would make it pretty
                      easy to do. You have to be able to deceive yourself into believing
                      the god. However, I find accepting ignorance distasteful somehow. I
                      can't brush the lack of proof under the rug and say "ah, so there is
                      nothing to base this on...but what the heck!" It creates a
                      dementia...and if you build a building on no cornerstone, I guess you
                      just will it to stand?

                      I.see.said.the.blind

                      --------------------------------------------
                    • thebookdoc@aol.com
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 31 11:13 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        << It seems that someone will not accept the fact that meter readings
                        > and everything have to be digested and then understood before they
                        > are 'used.' >>
                        >
                        > You saw a contradiction as I wrote that I would use the `subjective
                        > factor' to understand other people's world-views?>>

                        'twas directed at 'duard...I was AGREEING with you. I did not make
                        that clear.

                        oops.backward=pooo

                        --------------------------------------
                      • Eduard Alf
                        Diana, lets try for Dictionary.com; Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one s own consciousness, in distinction from external observation; relating to
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 31 11:21 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Diana,

                          lets try for Dictionary.com; "Especially, pertaining to, or derived from,
                          one's own consciousness, in distinction from external observation; relating
                          to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or
                          material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal
                          states." ... i would take it that the "external observation" to mean what we
                          see before we interpret using subjective factors ...

                          in the below "meter readings" are separate from that "digested and then
                          understood" ...one follows the other ... the former is objective and the
                          latter is subjective ...

                          have fun ...

                          eduard

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Diana [mailto:da-sein@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:24 AM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Discussing METHOD and malice and microscopic
                          pillars of ...of ... nothing

                          << It seems that someone will not accept the fact that meter readings
                          and everything have to be digested and then understood before they
                          are 'used.' >>

                          You saw a contradiction as I wrote that I would use the `subjective
                          factor' to understand other people's world-views?

                          1) I don't reject the existence of human nature;
                          2) I believe that inquiry into the way I form my own subjective world-
                          view will help me gain insight into other people's world-views.
                          3) It does hurt to read such a remark;

                          Diana

                          PS. Perhaps what has to be cleared out is what exactly is meant
                          by `subjective'.
                        • Eduard Alf
                          Joao et folks, yes, i agree with Poincaré ... there is a point where you need to accept the reality as perceived by people in common ... the artist taking
                          Message 12 of 20 , May 31 11:44 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Joao et folks,

                            yes, i agree with Poincaré ... there is a point where you need to accept the
                            reality as perceived by people in common ...

                            the artist taking photos may not need to know that light can be represented
                            either as a particle or a wave ...but then he still has his own technical
                            level .. he has to measure light (in lux) to know the available foreground
                            and background illuminations ... such measurement is best understood in
                            terms of particles ... the photographer also has to have an understanding of
                            lens theory and to an extent this is dependent upon a wave concept ...

                            it is not so much a concern for ability to record observed data, but to
                            understand when one is dealing with data from an objective view or having
                            interpreted data and thus a subjective view ...

                            for example, i tend to deal with money in a subjective fashion ... and when
                            im in the US i find myself giving 20s instead of 1s ... in Canada i know
                            what the denominations are by the color of the bill ... quite honestly, i
                            dont know how you guys manage with everything in the same color ... hey wait
                            a minute, isnt a "clam" a five dollar bill ... hmmmm is someone trying to
                            tell us something ...

                            have fun (you can be serious when you're dead) ...

                            eduard

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: João Silva [mailto:joao_csilva@...]
                            Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:00 PM
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Discussing METHOD

                            > observing and recording the attributes of an object
                            > without adding
                            > subjective judgements ...>>

                            Like Diana, I don't have such a good recording
                            ability..

                            Our concept of an object (ex: light) is a definition,
                            whose selection is based on its ability to handle the
                            facts. To say that light is made of waves is not more
                            true than to say that its made of particles.
                            Nevertheless, one definition can be more advantageous
                            than the other. In fact, the wave-particle definition
                            is a very good one for modern physics. But what's its
                            value for an artist taking photos?

                            For different definitions, there are different
                            attributes.


                            oversimplifying.. a bit confused here:

                            One can *objectively* communicate the attributes of an
                            object if he/she and the receptor share its definition
                            and those of its attributes. This allows the other to
                            perceive the object as one has.

                            Joao
                          • Eduard Alf
                            dear I.see.said.the.blind, go to http://www.gemex.com/html/explain.html and you will see a chromaticity diagram ... the color which you refer to as
                            Message 13 of 20 , May 31 12:16 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              dear I.see.said.the.blind,

                              go to http://www.gemex.com/html/explain.html and you will see a chromaticity
                              diagram ... the color which you refer to as approximately 630 to 750
                              nanometers is the range of colors which are on the edge of this diagram ...
                              when we use the values "y" and "x" we are specifying a specific color within
                              this range ... the values were derived by testing ... i grant that these
                              colors may be somewhat off for different people .. that is why we say
                              approximate or "range" ... for example, it would not be suitable to have a
                              red traffic light that is close to yellow (orange) so that there is a
                              confusion of interpretation ... so when the highways department orders color
                              filters, they stipulate an allowable tolerance ... so that the red that is
                              displayed in california is the same as that displayed in nevada ...

                              everything that you use, from potatoes to computer screens are specified in
                              some fashion ... this ensure not only that you get what you anticipate, but
                              also it will not harm you ...

                              we could argue forever as to what is "red" ... but i think underneath it
                              all, we both know what red is ... or blue for that matter ...

                              we cant see light flicker at 60Hz because the eye does not have time between
                              capturing and processing one image and being ready for the next ... but what
                              is your point ... so what, if we cant see this ... we are intelligent enough
                              to devise means of measuring it and also of slowing things down so that you
                              can indeed see it ...

                              we are probably missing a lot ... the whole spectrum of radiated energy,
                              except for a minute portion called "light" ... we also have a blind spot
                              which the brain has to fill in ... but all of that does not mean that we
                              cant be accurate ...

                              i did not say that we have to accept anything ... it occurs to me, however,
                              that at some point there needs to be a common understanding in order to
                              simply survive ... there is no point in argueing what is red, if we both
                              have the ability to see red, versus seeing instead a green color ...

                              color is not on the same level as god ... you have a habit of bringing all
                              sorts of side issues into the discussion ... but since you make mention of
                              god, lets look at it ... the idea of having a personal god was a proposition
                              of something that might be of benefit ... as any fantasy might be of benefit
                              ... it related to something that gives focus .. as Viktor Frankl noted that
                              you can survive the most terrible circumstance if you are able to have a
                              focus/a belief/a philosophy ... for Frankl, his focus was the knowledge that
                              he could still choices ... and that was of value to him ... that is all i
                              meant by having a personal god ... but it was amazing how people were more
                              inclined to complain than providing constructive input ...

                              have fun (colorfully) ...

                              eduard

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: thebookdoc@... [mailto:thebookdoc@...]
                              Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:11 PM
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: fear of red clam beach and docketed ministers
                              of 'objectivity'

                              <<... you measure a color as being y = 0.29 and x = 0.70 which is a
                              red color ... this kind of measurement is done everyday in a number of
                              industries...>>

                              Oh, poo.

                              What made red ...red?

                              I can see there are devices and measurements...but who is to say how
                              accurate a device, how consistent...Is it affected by weather, by
                              altitude, by speed, by time? And MORE IMPORTANTLY: what IS red. You
                              have a definition of red created by people who saw red. Is the
                              definition of this thing 'red' inate? Why is it red rather than
                              orange? I have the feeling that someone's senses got in there and
                              said "Hey, this is red!" rather than red naming itself or because of
                              a property of the wave measure that said "precisely here is red."
                              This means it was somehow created by observation. That would be a
                              subjective point-of-view. Here is a dictionary definition...you like
                              these:

                              "The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the
                              human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately
                              630 to 750 nanometers"

                              Why, ahem, the word 'approximately'? If this is a science and an
                              exacted objective notation, red would ALWAYS be red...'evoked by a
                              human observer' would seem to suggest there are at the very least
                              snails looking at the darned redness (because we know snails are more
                              human than dead people via the book of 'duard) and I would know it as
                              red as would a color-blind person, instead of one like myself (who is
                              completely blind). If a blind person 'measured' what is red, he would
                              have a quantity of measurement (if he could see the instrument), but
                              would no more understand red than a brick would. You can have
                              measurement without understanding...and understanding would seem to
                              come through...senses. Which in some chain of events are interpreted.
                              There is a measurement, and I see the measure and then DECIDE what it
                              means. The quality 'red' is a consensus that may or may not be held
                              by everyone to differing degrees. And when does the mighty signal of
                              the synapse turn into belief and raise the flag of triumph in 'duard
                              town? The meaning is not inherent...it is not inate...and if it were
                              'obvious' there would be no need for testing, confirmation, etc. Tell
                              me, and sticking with light, if our observations are so darned
                              accurate, why is it that we can't see the bulbs that flicker 60 times
                              a second? And if we don't see that...what the heck else are we
                              missing?

                              You keep arguing that we have to just accept certain things...well, I
                              guess. If we play a game, we accept the rules and move on. However,
                              that is in a rather confined situation where there are a small set of
                              rules that are defined. But I can't find the rule book (well, except
                              yours, oh, godot-de-'duard). I can't even see how a rule can be made.
                              Considering the potential error in observation born(e) by the need to
                              interpret, it seems that there are exceptions, and that everyone can
                              make matter of their own observation, and that those observations
                              might just not match the observations of Le 'duard. Yet every one of
                              those perceptions and perspectives is valid...if nothing else, FROM
                              that perspective. Which, daresay, is subjective.

                              There is nothing real about society, or about the fictitious
                              constructs that generations have created to manufacture 'society.'
                              There is nothing real in objective 'science' that has no prediction
                              for every existing case.

                              It is quite another thing to say: "I can't solve that, so I am moving
                              on." Which is an understandible acceptance of ignorance. However,
                              that you want to make your perspective the basis of so much fact only
                              dearly explains why you need your own personal god with which to
                              'order' the universe. Personally, I think that would make it pretty
                              easy to do. You have to be able to deceive yourself into believing
                              the god. However, I find accepting ignorance distasteful somehow. I
                              can't brush the lack of proof under the rug and say "ah, so there is
                              nothing to base this on...but what the heck!" It creates a
                              dementia...and if you build a building on no cornerstone, I guess you
                              just will it to stand?

                              I.see.said.the.blind
                            • William Harris
                              Eduard, Spin, spin. when will it end? Now we not only spin politics. we spin research. I suppose at some level of increduality a counter spin movement will
                              Message 14 of 20 , May 31 12:25 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Eduard, Spin, spin. when will it end? Now we not only spin politics. we spin
                                research. I suppose at some level of increduality a counter spin movement will
                                restore a level of trust. Bill

                                Eduard Alf wrote:

                                > Bill,
                                >
                                > i would suggest that it is the subjective interpretation of objective
                                > results that is the problem ... the data itself does not imply cause and
                                > effect, it is the persons who use this data for their own purposes ... it is
                                > an old saying that you can prove anything by such studies ... but the "you"
                                > is a person and not the data ... another case of confusing the objective
                                > view with the subjective view ...
                                >
                                > it is very nice out today ... all sun ... and warm for a change ... it is
                                > supposed to go up to 17c but i would suspect that it is more than that now
                                > ... i bought ceramic lepricons (we call them bonhommes) to put in the garden
                                > ... which reminds me that i have to move some dirt around today ...
                                >
                                > eduard
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: William Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
                                > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:01 AM
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [existlist] Discussing METHOD
                                >
                                > Diana, I agree with you to the level of observation that I would call
                                > counting studies. Certainly simple observation can be prejudiced by ones
                                > subjective mind set. Counting can come clowser to an objective view, yet the
                                > problem remains , what do you count, IE, the hanging chad? I personally
                                > trust
                                > very few statistical studies, especially those that imply cause and effect
                                > relationship where none is proven. Bill
                                >
                                > Diana wrote:
                                >
                                > > << ... regarding the first reason, it is not impossible ... there are
                                > > techniques to at least statistically get close ... if it were
                                > > impossible, none of the tests done by science would be valid ... in
                                > > the case of medical testing there is the "double-blind" and "placebo"
                                > > techniques ...>>
                                > >
                                > > How do you find out what is objectively true?
                                > >
                                > > << ... regarding the second, you are adding stuff which does not
                                > > relate to the issue ... the objective view has nothing to do with the
                                > > state of the person ... why bring in "subjugated under universal
                                > > laws" and "having no independent life of its own" ... so what? ... if
                                > > one is subjugated that does not have any impact on the ability to see
                                > > something with an objective view ... objective viewing simply means
                                > > observing and recording the attributes of an object without adding
                                > > subjective judgements ...>>
                                > >
                                > > If we accept that such "recording" is possible, then what you say
                                > > sounds all right. I myself haven't developed such a good recording
                                > > ability and I regard the subjective factor as important as I attempt
                                > > to gain an understanding on my own/others world-view(s).
                                > >
                                > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                > >
                                > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > >
                                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                >
                                > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                >
                                > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • thebookdoc@aol.com
                                Message 15 of 20 , May 31 1:41 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  <<... it is an old saying that you can prove anything by such studies
                                  ... but the "you" is a person and not the data ... another case of
                                  confusing the objective view with the subjective view ...>>

                                  And I would not suppose that it is a contradiction to say "Everyone
                                  views the objective data differently" and "there is only one way to
                                  view objective data"?

                                  How do you know which 'you' has the right view there 'duard? Or I
                                  suppose we just vote and the most popular wins?

                                  All I can say is, good thing we voted the world round, cause a few
                                  hundred years ago I was afraid I'd fall off...Now that the world
                                  became round by our saying so, I am living a happier life.

                                  been.there.done.nothing

                                  -----------------------------------------
                                • Eduard Alf
                                  Bill, i doubt it ... there will always be some problem somewhere ... like that the personnel at that union office who went on strike for higher wages and
                                  Message 16 of 20 , May 31 5:22 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Bill,

                                    i doubt it ... there will always be some problem somewhere ... like that the
                                    personnel at that union office who went on strike for higher wages and
                                    better working conditions ...

                                    it is all part of the limitations of the human condition ... perhaps one
                                    might say that it is a characteristic of human nature ...

                                    have fun ...

                                    eduard

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: William Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
                                    Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:25 PM
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [existlist] Discussing METHOD


                                    Eduard, Spin, spin. when will it end? Now we not only spin politics. we spin
                                    research. I suppose at some level of increduality a counter spin movement
                                    will
                                    restore a level of trust. Bill
                                  • Eduard Alf
                                    dear been.there.done.nothing, you are mixing things up again ... i would agree that it is possible for people to view objective data differently ... but that
                                    Message 17 of 20 , May 31 5:51 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      dear been.there.done.nothing,

                                      you are mixing things up again ... i would agree that it is possible for
                                      people to view objective data differently ... but that is the subjective
                                      view ... it does not change the point ...

                                      and you can obtain different data depending upon the direction of view ...
                                      the road ahead, in blistering heat, appears to have a layer of water that is
                                      unseen by someone in a helicopter ... but that does not change the fact that
                                      the collection of data is the objective view ... that is why you also need
                                      subjective view as pointed out by Diana ... someone has to make a judgement
                                      that perhaps there isnt any water on that road ...

                                      no one voted the world to be round ... a few hundred years ago, it was known
                                      to be round ... in fact, i think the greeks did the first calculation of
                                      just how round ... the old sun light in the well in egypt ... but given this
                                      possibility there were always the few who felt they could not believe in
                                      anything ... and were afraid that they would starve to death or die of
                                      thirst before they could sail the complete distance to the far east ...
                                      although Columbus purposely fudged his figures to convince Liz to support
                                      his mission, at least he had the personal conviction to do something ...
                                      otherwise he would still be sitting on the beach in Spain saying to himself,
                                      "i wonder", "i wonder" ...

                                      have fun (but watch out for the sea monsters)...

                                      eduard

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: thebookdoc@... [mailto:thebookdoc@...]
                                      Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:42 PM
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Gee, thanks for the diagram...I usually draw
                                      stick figures myself.


                                      <<... it is an old saying that you can prove anything by such studies
                                      ... but the "you" is a person and not the data ... another case of
                                      confusing the objective view with the subjective view ...>>

                                      And I would not suppose that it is a contradiction to say "Everyone
                                      views the objective data differently" and "there is only one way to
                                      view objective data"?

                                      How do you know which 'you' has the right view there 'duard? Or I
                                      suppose we just vote and the most popular wins?

                                      All I can say is, good thing we voted the world round, cause a few
                                      hundred years ago I was afraid I'd fall off...Now that the world
                                      became round by our saying so, I am living a happier life.

                                      been.there.done.nothing
                                    • thebookdoc@aol.com
                                      You are the most insane person I know of...and I congratulate you. I know a lot of nuts. I wish I was able to see with
                                      Message 18 of 20 , May 31 7:15 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        << you are mixing things up again ... >>

                                        You are the most insane person I know of...and I congratulate
                                        you. I know a lot of nuts. I wish I was able to see with these rose
                                        glasses.

                                        I mix nothing up. I tell you what you say, and you don't like the
                                        juxtaposition, so you tell me I am wrong. That is 'order' I guess.

                                        <<i would agree that it is possible for people to view objective
                                        data differently ... but that is the subjective view ...>>

                                        Then who can possibly see objective data objectively? if it is all
                                        necessarily interpreted...then where is the objectivity? Don't
                                        show me anything I have to interpret...I guarantee I get it wrong
                                        from your perspective.

                                        << no one voted the world to be round ...>>

                                        From what little I know of history, it was not a popular belief to
                                        think that the world was round at some point. I believe --
                                        according to these history-fictions that you like so -- that people
                                        were even killed for suggesting otherwise ... or was that for
                                        suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe?

                                        In any case—or either case—at some point the popular opinion
                                        was that the earth was flat...IN FACT, there is still a group that
                                        prefers to believe that the earth IS flat.

                                        http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm

                                        Try that. Oh, but they are exceptions...and [vhoooomp!] they
                                        disappear from the Alf world. TO WHOSE RULE ARE THEY
                                        EXCEPTIONS? You are pledging that you know more than them?
                                        And is reality governed by the rule of Alf? For all we know you are
                                        a former cloth TV alien puppet. A fictional character...who played
                                        himself...just like me. Not only should I believe in a puppet, but I
                                        should follow the puppet's rule?

                                        You think in so few dimensions that I get claustrophobic just
                                        reading your replies. You are so contradictory that your replies
                                        are an exercise in chaos. You squalk about order and such...why
                                        not try to convey some? Or is this all a perspective of Alf order?
                                        All that has to happen is that 'duard Alf has to believe it, and it is
                                        LAW. Don't look further for god, you are him.

                                        Yes, I do add tangents and exceptions. But only because you
                                        want to believe so heartily that they don't exist. And all I am trying
                                        to do is get to the bottom of what does exist and how in the heck
                                        you are so sure...but you can't seem to make the least
                                        convincing argument. I wish like hell you could. I certainly can't
                                        tell you that you are wrong, but i certainly see you lack sense and
                                        consistency from this perspective -- which might be just as
                                        errant or worse than yours.

                                        And I fight and claw with you and begin, I think, to see flaws in my
                                        own arguement -- through no help of yours. That a logical
                                        paradox appears in the circular notion that I might think I have a
                                        perception of brain and thinking and I...where there is no reason,
                                        none at all, to believe that people have brains, that everything I
                                        see is not some dream, that perception is as little attributable to
                                        sense as my deception that I have senses. All I really ever know
                                        is I, and only to so limited an extent as I can remember, and
                                        somehow distinguish between what is i and what is not. There
                                        is less here than I thought, and mose swiftly I become more of
                                        nothing. Perhaps I will disappear. Perhaps I am an exception.

                                        rubbing.lamps.wishing

                                        ---------------------------------------------------
                                      • Eduard Alf
                                        dear rubbing.lamps.wishing, hmmmm the bookduck disagrees and then rants on ... providing no real explanation ... anyone can see objective data objectively ...
                                        Message 19 of 20 , May 31 7:43 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          dear rubbing.lamps.wishing,

                                          hmmmm the bookduck disagrees and then rants on ... providing no real
                                          explanation ...

                                          anyone can see objective data objectively ... if i say that one can look at
                                          something from above and report what is seen objectively, you will counter
                                          with what about seeing it from the bottom or any of 360 degrees from the
                                          side ... of course it will be different from different directions ...

                                          a lot was popularly believed in the middle ages ... like flies appearing
                                          spontaneously from exposed meet ...the fact is that those who had a
                                          sufficient level of learning were aware that the earth was round ... the
                                          crucial question was how long one had to sail to get from one side to the
                                          other ... from Spain to riches of China ... you could only carry a certain
                                          amount of provisions on a ship and the expected speed was known ... it does
                                          not take too much to do the calculation ... but Liz was prepared to take the
                                          risk, considering that the alternate route around africa was also long and
                                          held by the portuguese ...

                                          sure, there are still people that think the earth is flat ... there are also
                                          people who believe in blue clams ...

                                          i think in many dimensions ... at least more than the constraints of your
                                          imagination which has only the one of negativity ...

                                          it is not that tangents and exceptions do not exist ... it is just that they
                                          are not part of the discussion ... im sure that in the controversy as to who
                                          would be the next president of the united states, that your contribution was
                                          something of the order of the events of Ted Kennedy's last escapade ... it
                                          is beyond me how you can think you are seeking to get to the bottom of what
                                          exists by talking about everything else, including snails, the blind and
                                          dead humans ... but then how can a person who does not even know that he
                                          exists do any revealing ...

                                          have fun (if you are in the same universe) ...

                                          eduard

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: thebookdoc@... [mailto:thebookdoc@...]
                                          Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:15 PM
                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: diagram for a flat earth...or nothing


                                          << you are mixing things up again ... >>

                                          You are the most insane person I know of...and I congratulate
                                          you. I know a lot of nuts. I wish I was able to see with these rose
                                          glasses.

                                          I mix nothing up. I tell you what you say, and you don't like the
                                          juxtaposition, so you tell me I am wrong. That is 'order' I guess.

                                          <<i would agree that it is possible for people to view objective
                                          data differently ... but that is the subjective view ...>>

                                          Then who can possibly see objective data objectively? if it is all
                                          necessarily interpreted...then where is the objectivity? Don't
                                          show me anything I have to interpret...I guarantee I get it wrong
                                          from your perspective.

                                          << no one voted the world to be round ...>>

                                          From what little I know of history, it was not a popular belief to
                                          think that the world was round at some point. I believe --
                                          according to these history-fictions that you like so -- that people
                                          were even killed for suggesting otherwise ... or was that for
                                          suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe?

                                          In any case—or either case—at some point the popular opinion
                                          was that the earth was flat...IN FACT, there is still a group that
                                          prefers to believe that the earth IS flat.

                                          http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm

                                          Try that. Oh, but they are exceptions...and [vhoooomp!] they
                                          disappear from the Alf world. TO WHOSE RULE ARE THEY
                                          EXCEPTIONS? You are pledging that you know more than them?
                                          And is reality governed by the rule of Alf? For all we know you are
                                          a former cloth TV alien puppet. A fictional character...who played
                                          himself...just like me. Not only should I believe in a puppet, but I
                                          should follow the puppet's rule?

                                          You think in so few dimensions that I get claustrophobic just
                                          reading your replies. You are so contradictory that your replies
                                          are an exercise in chaos. You squalk about order and such...why
                                          not try to convey some? Or is this all a perspective of Alf order?
                                          All that has to happen is that 'duard Alf has to believe it, and it is
                                          LAW. Don't look further for god, you are him.

                                          Yes, I do add tangents and exceptions. But only because you
                                          want to believe so heartily that they don't exist. And all I am trying
                                          to do is get to the bottom of what does exist and how in the heck
                                          you are so sure...but you can't seem to make the least
                                          convincing argument. I wish like hell you could. I certainly can't
                                          tell you that you are wrong, but i certainly see you lack sense and
                                          consistency from this perspective -- which might be just as
                                          errant or worse than yours.

                                          And I fight and claw with you and begin, I think, to see flaws in my
                                          own arguement -- through no help of yours. That a logical
                                          paradox appears in the circular notion that I might think I have a
                                          perception of brain and thinking and I...where there is no reason,
                                          none at all, to believe that people have brains, that everything I
                                          see is not some dream, that perception is as little attributable to
                                          sense as my deception that I have senses. All I really ever know
                                          is I, and only to so limited an extent as I can remember, and
                                          somehow distinguish between what is i and what is not. There
                                          is less here than I thought, and mose swiftly I become more of
                                          nothing. Perhaps I will disappear. Perhaps I am an exception.

                                          rubbing.lamps.wishing
                                        • thebookdoc@aol.com
                                          I would rebut had I the slightest notion that you would a) understand,
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jun 1, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            <<hmmmm the bookduck disagrees and then rants on ... providing no real
                                            explanation ...>>

                                            I would rebut had I the slightest notion that you would a)
                                            understand, or b) try.

                                            The only thing I will say is the perspective I had taken was a mostly
                                            logical one. You make grand leaps, and the 'tangents' are those
                                            details you'd prefer to ignore. That you can't seem to fathom that
                                            there is a difference between thought and belief is not surprising
                                            considering the slim grasp you appear to have on conceptualizing and
                                            perception. Your inability to entertain different means, modes and
                                            perspectives only adds to a deaded lack of possibility in exploring
                                            understanding. Perhaps I was taking the long way around to a solid
                                            beginning. That would require a and b. But I am in no position to
                                            make rules as is der got alfen.

                                            I'll not bother more. It seems, suddenly, to have become somewhat
                                            less interesting. And there are busy things to do.

                                            I thank all for the entertainment. May your beaches be full of clams
                                            in whatever color you prefer, and be you not less human than a snail
                                            for many long happy years.

                                            bows.over.and.out

                                            ----------------------------------
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.