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

refuse to value the refuse

Expand Messages
  • Siobhan
    When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I guess you d also have to determine the value of philosophy for production. Scientists and
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I guess
      you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for production.
      Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for years, but
      they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted. Traditional
      philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for years,
      and their value for the individual or society is still arguable. Then
      you have to contrast value and productivity for the individual vs.
      society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
      expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It makes a
      difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
      governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
      intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are debatable. The
      necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
      reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is trying to
      fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and throws
      down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves as an
      alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact and
      meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or garbagemen.

      Siobhan
    • Bob Keyes
      Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However, Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ? After all from a Scientific
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
        Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
        After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely strong case
        to the extreme-scientifically)
        should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is true. It
        may
        be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that is it is in
        the Code.
        Bob...
        -----Original Message-----
        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
        Behalf Of Siobhan
        Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse


        When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I guess
        you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for production.
        Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for years, but
        they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted. Traditional
        philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for years,
        and their value for the individual or society is still arguable. Then
        you have to contrast value and productivity for the individual vs.
        society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
        expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It makes a
        difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
        governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
        intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are debatable. The
        necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
        reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is trying to
        fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and throws
        down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves as an
        alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact and
        meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or garbagemen.

        Siobhan





        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        --
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

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

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • C. S. Wyatt
        I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It s a great magazine dedicated to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com, I think. Indeed, the
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It's a great magazine dedicated
          to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com, I think.

          Indeed, the more we know about the mind, the greater problems with
          notions of "Free Will" are. I happen to think we have free will, so
          any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
          bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors to
          be determined precisely.

          I still believe we choose what to do, and what not to do. Still, the
          magazine's articles and suggested journal readings have me wondering
          where the lines are between the brain and the abstract mind.

          - CSW
        • ken
          ... A few decades ago Merleau-Ponty put together a work which quite thoroughly takes apart physical/material notions of the mind s or brain s role in
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            C. S. Wyatt wrote:

            >I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It's a great magazine dedicated
            >to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com, I think.
            >
            >Indeed, the more we know about the mind, the greater problems with
            >notions of "Free Will" are. I happen to think we have free will, so
            >any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
            >bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors to
            >be determined precisely.
            >
            >I still believe we choose what to do, and what not to do. Still, the
            >magazine's articles and suggested journal readings have me wondering
            >where the lines are between the brain and the abstract mind.
            >
            >- CSW
            >
            >

            A few decades ago Merleau-Ponty put together a work which quite
            thoroughly takes apart physical/material notions of the mind's or
            brain's role in consciousness. Although the text of
            _The_Structure_of_Behavior_ isn't on the web, it's still available for sale.

            --
            A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't like to
            do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care to live.
            -- Bradford Angier
          • nolanhatley
            Bob, What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and making scientific
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob,

              What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed
              from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and
              making "scientific" conclusions on them? I have seen the exhibit,
              done the research and I'm not convinced. Something's there, in the
              past beyond our empirical explanations, but you have to be really
              intellectually naive in my opinion to believe everything you hear
              from the "Scientific" community. I say that with force more to
              attack the notion of setting up science as the supreme methodology by
              which we know in this universe. Facts can be interpreted in many
              ways.

              Peace,

              Nolan





              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
              > Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
              > Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
              > After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely
              strong case
              > to the extreme-scientifically)
              > should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is
              true. It
              > may
              > be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that is it
              is in
              > the Code.
              > Bob...
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
              On
              > Behalf Of Siobhan
              > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse
              >
              >
              > When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I
              guess
              > you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for
              production.
              > Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for
              years, but
              > they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted.
              Traditional
              > philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for
              years,
              > and their value for the individual or society is still arguable.
              Then
              > you have to contrast value and productivity for the individual vs.
              > society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
              > expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It
              makes a
              > difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
              > governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
              > intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are debatable. The
              > necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
              > reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is
              trying to
              > fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and
              throws
              > down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves as an
              > alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact
              and
              > meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or
              garbagemen.
              >
              > Siobhan
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              >
              >
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              --------
              > --
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
              >
              > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • nolanhatley
              To all existentially concerned: To reduce humanity to matter is to leave humanity in a tangled mass of bloody meat. Atoms clash and slash through space, yet
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                To all existentially concerned:

                To reduce humanity to matter is to leave humanity in a "tangled mass
                of bloody meat." Atoms clash and slash through space, yet we have
                the freedom to stand still. There's more than material, and each day
                we live to live fully we prove that deeply inside believe that.

                Peace,

                Nolan



                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@s...> wrote:
                > C. S. Wyatt wrote:
                >
                > >I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It's a great magazine
                dedicated
                > >to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com,
                I think.
                > >
                > >Indeed, the more we know about the mind, the greater problems with
                > >notions of "Free Will" are. I happen to think we have free will, so
                > >any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
                > >bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors
                to
                > >be determined precisely.
                > >
                > >I still believe we choose what to do, and what not to do. Still,
                the
                > >magazine's articles and suggested journal readings have me
                wondering
                > >where the lines are between the brain and the abstract mind.
                > >
                > >- CSW
                > >
                > >
                >
                > A few decades ago Merleau-Ponty put together a work which quite
                > thoroughly takes apart physical/material notions of the mind's or
                > brain's role in consciousness. Although the text of
                > _The_Structure_of_Behavior_ isn't on the web, it's still available
                for sale.
                >
                > --
                > A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't
                like to
                > do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care
                to live.
                > -- Bradford Angier
              • Trinidad Cruz
                In poker one may occasionally bluff another player with a stronger hand into folding by wagering higher than the other player is willing to go. The object is
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  In poker one may occasionally bluff another player with a stronger
                  hand into folding by wagering higher than the other player is willing
                  to go. The object is to impress the idea upon the player with the
                  stonger hand that the player with the weaker hand believes very
                  strongly that his hand will win. Here we have belief systems testing
                  one another. The post-modernist view holds that arguments between
                  science and religion are like such a poker game. In fact this has
                  often been the case historically. The game will change. One must
                  remember that a player with four aces or a royal flush will never
                  fold. We are faced with two possibilities: 1) Jesus returns, 2)
                  science produces fact. Wager as you like, but keep in mind: it is
                  nothing less than your personal sanity that you wager, and a player
                  with a winning hand will never fold. Fact wins. Laying down your life
                  for me cannot convince me that you are right, only that you
                  underestimated my cards. Know when to fold 'em.

                  Trinidad

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bob,
                  >
                  > What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed
                  > from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and
                  > making "scientific" conclusions on them? I have seen the exhibit,
                  > done the research and I'm not convinced. Something's there, in the
                  > past beyond our empirical explanations, but you have to be really
                  > intellectually naive in my opinion to believe everything you hear
                  > from the "Scientific" community. I say that with force more to
                  > attack the notion of setting up science as the supreme methodology by
                  > which we know in this universe. Facts can be interpreted in many
                  > ways.
                  >
                  > Peace,
                  >
                  > Nolan
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
                  > > Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
                  > > Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
                  > > After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely
                  > strong case
                  > > to the extreme-scientifically)
                  > > should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is
                  > true. It
                  > > may
                  > > be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that is it
                  > is in
                  > > the Code.
                  > > Bob...
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                  > On
                  > > Behalf Of Siobhan
                  > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I
                  > guess
                  > > you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for
                  > production.
                  > > Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for
                  > years, but
                  > > they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted.
                  > Traditional
                  > > philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for
                  > years,
                  > > and their value for the individual or society is still arguable.
                  > Then
                  > > you have to contrast value and productivity for the individual vs.
                  > > society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
                  > > expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It
                  > makes a
                  > > difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
                  > > governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
                  > > intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are debatable. The
                  > > necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
                  > > reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is
                  > trying to
                  > > fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and
                  > throws
                  > > down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves as an
                  > > alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact
                  > and
                  > > meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or
                  > garbagemen.
                  > >
                  > > Siobhan
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                  > nothing!
                  > >
                  > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > --------
                  > > --
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                  > >
                  > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Trinidad Cruz
                  You are not up to date. Science proposes that humanity is material and the lack of material. tc
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You are not up to date. Science proposes that humanity is material and
                    the lack of material.

                    tc
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > To all existentially concerned:
                    >
                    > To reduce humanity to matter is to leave humanity in a "tangled mass
                    > of bloody meat." Atoms clash and slash through space, yet we have
                    > the freedom to stand still. There's more than material, and each day
                    > we live to live fully we prove that deeply inside believe that.
                    >
                    > Peace,
                    >
                    > Nolan
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@s...> wrote:
                    > > C. S. Wyatt wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It's a great magazine
                    > dedicated
                    > > >to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com,
                    > I think.
                    > > >
                    > > >Indeed, the more we know about the mind, the greater problems with
                    > > >notions of "Free Will" are. I happen to think we have free will, so
                    > > >any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
                    > > >bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors
                    > to
                    > > >be determined precisely.
                    > > >
                    > > >I still believe we choose what to do, and what not to do. Still,
                    > the
                    > > >magazine's articles and suggested journal readings have me
                    > wondering
                    > > >where the lines are between the brain and the abstract mind.
                    > > >
                    > > >- CSW
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > A few decades ago Merleau-Ponty put together a work which quite
                    > > thoroughly takes apart physical/material notions of the mind's or
                    > > brain's role in consciousness. Although the text of
                    > > _The_Structure_of_Behavior_ isn't on the web, it's still available
                    > for sale.
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't
                    > like to
                    > > do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care
                    > to live.
                    > > -- Bradford Angier
                  • Nolan Hatley
                    Trinidad, Interesting. Today I read in Job when, weary and faced with bloody black uncertainty before him, he reached far in advance to the aeons of
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Trinidad,

                      Interesting. Today I read in Job when, weary and faced with bloody black
                      uncertainty before him, he reached far in advance to the aeons of existence,
                      and said..."I know (certain) that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end one
                      day he will stand upon the earth."

                      The Book of Job perists to be a mystery to secular and religous scholars.
                      With such an ancient date, before the "developing" Messiah talk of the
                      Jewish people, this man talks about a phyiscal and material manifestation of
                      deity. Your right. It is all black (vacous space), or it is a curtain
                      waiting to be unveiled, inside and outside the human body. That's the
                      unique conclusion. In the end, deity will manifest itself factually to the
                      human cognition, but by that point cognition and knowledge won't matter.

                      Meanwhile, how's time travel coming along? Or how about overcoming the
                      obstacles of being in more than one space at a time? Until, then you won't
                      have OMNI science that your searching for.
                      You can't prove something empircally that is thousands of years removed from
                      you with incomplete data. That's not in accord with authentic scientific
                      principles. No, I think I will stay in on this cosmic bet. I'll even raise
                      the stakes. I bet there's beauty, love, truth, and freedom that can lightly
                      feel the spaces in between us. I am sure glad to be playing with the best,
                      and by that I mean those filled with an admirable "passionate intensity."

                      Grace and Peace,

                      Nolan



                      >From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
                      >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      >Subject: [existlist] Re: refuse to value the refuse
                      >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:22:46 -0000
                      >
                      >In poker one may occasionally bluff another player with a stronger
                      >hand into folding by wagering higher than the other player is willing
                      >to go. The object is to impress the idea upon the player with the
                      >stonger hand that the player with the weaker hand believes very
                      >strongly that his hand will win. Here we have belief systems testing
                      >one another. The post-modernist view holds that arguments between
                      >science and religion are like such a poker game. In fact this has
                      >often been the case historically. The game will change. One must
                      >remember that a player with four aces or a royal flush will never
                      >fold. We are faced with two possibilities: 1) Jesus returns, 2)
                      >science produces fact. Wager as you like, but keep in mind: it is
                      >nothing less than your personal sanity that you wager, and a player
                      >with a winning hand will never fold. Fact wins. Laying down your life
                      >for me cannot convince me that you are right, only that you
                      >underestimated my cards. Know when to fold 'em.
                      >
                      >Trinidad
                      >
                      >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Bob,
                      > >
                      > > What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed
                      > > from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and
                      > > making "scientific" conclusions on them? I have seen the exhibit,
                      > > done the research and I'm not convinced. Something's there, in the
                      > > past beyond our empirical explanations, but you have to be really
                      > > intellectually naive in my opinion to believe everything you hear
                      > > from the "Scientific" community. I say that with force more to
                      > > attack the notion of setting up science as the supreme methodology by
                      > > which we know in this universe. Facts can be interpreted in many
                      > > ways.
                      > >
                      > > Peace,
                      > >
                      > > Nolan
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
                      > > > Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
                      > > > Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
                      > > > After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely
                      > > strong case
                      > > > to the extreme-scientifically)
                      > > > should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is
                      > > true. It
                      > > > may
                      > > > be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that is it
                      > > is in
                      > > > the Code.
                      > > > Bob...
                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                      > > On
                      > > > Behalf Of Siobhan
                      > > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
                      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I
                      > > guess
                      > > > you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for
                      > > production.
                      > > > Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for
                      > > years, but
                      > > > they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted.
                      > > Traditional
                      > > > philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for
                      > > years,
                      > > > and their value for the individual or society is still arguable.
                      > > Then
                      > > > you have to contrast value and productivity for the individual vs.
                      > > > society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
                      > > > expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It
                      > > makes a
                      > > > difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
                      > > > governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
                      > > > intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are debatable. The
                      > > > necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
                      > > > reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is
                      > > trying to
                      > > > fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and
                      > > throws
                      > > > down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves as an
                      > > > alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact
                      > > and
                      > > > meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or
                      > > garbagemen.
                      > > >
                      > > > Siobhan
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                      > > nothing!
                      > > >
                      > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > --------
                      > > > --
                      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > > >
                      > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                      > > >
                      > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > > >
                      > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      > > Service.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Trinidad Cruz
                      Existence has a substance or fabric. You have a substance or fabric. What stands between you and existence that enables you to be aware of existence? tc ...
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Existence has a substance or fabric. You have a substance or fabric.
                        What stands between you and existence that enables you to be aware of
                        existence?

                        tc
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Nolan Hatley" <the_nolster@h...> wrote:
                        > Trinidad,
                        >
                        > Interesting. Today I read in Job when, weary and faced with bloody
                        black
                        > uncertainty before him, he reached far in advance to the aeons of
                        existence,
                        > and said..."I know (certain) that my Redeemer lives, and that in the
                        end one
                        > day he will stand upon the earth."
                        >
                        > The Book of Job perists to be a mystery to secular and religous
                        scholars.
                        > With such an ancient date, before the "developing" Messiah talk of the
                        > Jewish people, this man talks about a phyiscal and material
                        manifestation of
                        > deity. Your right. It is all black (vacous space), or it is a curtain
                        > waiting to be unveiled, inside and outside the human body. That's the
                        > unique conclusion. In the end, deity will manifest itself factually
                        to the
                        > human cognition, but by that point cognition and knowledge won't matter.
                        >
                        > Meanwhile, how's time travel coming along? Or how about overcoming the
                        > obstacles of being in more than one space at a time? Until, then
                        you won't
                        > have OMNI science that your searching for.
                        > You can't prove something empircally that is thousands of years
                        removed from
                        > you with incomplete data. That's not in accord with authentic
                        scientific
                        > principles. No, I think I will stay in on this cosmic bet. I'll
                        even raise
                        > the stakes. I bet there's beauty, love, truth, and freedom that can
                        lightly
                        > feel the spaces in between us. I am sure glad to be playing with
                        the best,
                        > and by that I mean those filled with an admirable "passionate
                        intensity."
                        >
                        > Grace and Peace,
                        >
                        > Nolan
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > >From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
                        > >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > >Subject: [existlist] Re: refuse to value the refuse
                        > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:22:46 -0000
                        > >
                        > >In poker one may occasionally bluff another player with a stronger
                        > >hand into folding by wagering higher than the other player is willing
                        > >to go. The object is to impress the idea upon the player with the
                        > >stonger hand that the player with the weaker hand believes very
                        > >strongly that his hand will win. Here we have belief systems testing
                        > >one another. The post-modernist view holds that arguments between
                        > >science and religion are like such a poker game. In fact this has
                        > >often been the case historically. The game will change. One must
                        > >remember that a player with four aces or a royal flush will never
                        > >fold. We are faced with two possibilities: 1) Jesus returns, 2)
                        > >science produces fact. Wager as you like, but keep in mind: it is
                        > >nothing less than your personal sanity that you wager, and a player
                        > >with a winning hand will never fold. Fact wins. Laying down your life
                        > >for me cannot convince me that you are right, only that you
                        > >underestimated my cards. Know when to fold 'em.
                        > >
                        > >Trinidad
                        > >
                        > >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...>
                        wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Bob,
                        > > >
                        > > > What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed
                        > > > from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and
                        > > > making "scientific" conclusions on them? I have seen the exhibit,
                        > > > done the research and I'm not convinced. Something's there, in the
                        > > > past beyond our empirical explanations, but you have to be really
                        > > > intellectually naive in my opinion to believe everything you hear
                        > > > from the "Scientific" community. I say that with force more to
                        > > > attack the notion of setting up science as the supreme
                        methodology by
                        > > > which we know in this universe. Facts can be interpreted in many
                        > > > ways.
                        > > >
                        > > > Peace,
                        > > >
                        > > > Nolan
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
                        > > > > Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
                        > > > > Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
                        > > > > After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely
                        > > > strong case
                        > > > > to the extreme-scientifically)
                        > > > > should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is
                        > > > true. It
                        > > > > may
                        > > > > be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that
                        is it
                        > > > is in
                        > > > > the Code.
                        > > > > Bob...
                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                        > > > On
                        > > > > Behalf Of Siobhan
                        > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
                        > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I
                        > > > guess
                        > > > > you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for
                        > > > production.
                        > > > > Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for
                        > > > years, but
                        > > > > they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted.
                        > > > Traditional
                        > > > > philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for
                        > > > years,
                        > > > > and their value for the individual or society is still arguable.
                        > > > Then
                        > > > > you have to contrast value and productivity for the
                        individual vs.
                        > > > > society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
                        > > > > expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It
                        > > > makes a
                        > > > > difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
                        > > > > governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
                        > > > > intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are
                        debatable. The
                        > > > > necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
                        > > > > reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is
                        > > > trying to
                        > > > > fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and
                        > > > throws
                        > > > > down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves
                        as an
                        > > > > alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact
                        > > > and
                        > > > > meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or
                        > > > garbagemen.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Siobhan
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                        > > > nothing!
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > > > --------
                        > > > > --
                        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > > >
                        > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                        > > > >
                        > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > >
                        > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                        Terms of
                        > > > Service.
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                      • Nolan Hatley
                        Trinidad, Wordplay for sure. Existence IS a state of being. You exist or you don t. Nothing stands in our way of existing because WE EXIST. Nothing
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 29, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Trinidad,

                          Wordplay for sure. Existence IS a state of being. You exist or you don't.
                          Nothing stands in our way of existing because WE EXIST. Nothing separates
                          us from our existence and we are poingantly aware of it.

                          Grace and Peace,

                          Nolan

                          >From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
                          >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          >Subject: [existlist] Re: refuse to value the refuse
                          >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:49:24 -0000
                          >
                          >Existence has a substance or fabric. You have a substance or fabric.
                          >What stands between you and existence that enables you to be aware of
                          >existence?
                          >
                          >tc
                          >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Nolan Hatley" <the_nolster@h...> wrote:
                          > > Trinidad,
                          > >
                          > > Interesting. Today I read in Job when, weary and faced with bloody
                          >black
                          > > uncertainty before him, he reached far in advance to the aeons of
                          >existence,
                          > > and said..."I know (certain) that my Redeemer lives, and that in the
                          >end one
                          > > day he will stand upon the earth."
                          > >
                          > > The Book of Job perists to be a mystery to secular and religous
                          >scholars.
                          > > With such an ancient date, before the "developing" Messiah talk of the
                          > > Jewish people, this man talks about a phyiscal and material
                          >manifestation of
                          > > deity. Your right. It is all black (vacous space), or it is a curtain
                          > > waiting to be unveiled, inside and outside the human body. That's the
                          > > unique conclusion. In the end, deity will manifest itself factually
                          >to the
                          > > human cognition, but by that point cognition and knowledge won't matter.
                          > >
                          > > Meanwhile, how's time travel coming along? Or how about overcoming the
                          > > obstacles of being in more than one space at a time? Until, then
                          >you won't
                          > > have OMNI science that your searching for.
                          > > You can't prove something empircally that is thousands of years
                          >removed from
                          > > you with incomplete data. That's not in accord with authentic
                          >scientific
                          > > principles. No, I think I will stay in on this cosmic bet. I'll
                          >even raise
                          > > the stakes. I bet there's beauty, love, truth, and freedom that can
                          >lightly
                          > > feel the spaces in between us. I am sure glad to be playing with
                          >the best,
                          > > and by that I mean those filled with an admirable "passionate
                          >intensity."
                          > >
                          > > Grace and Peace,
                          > >
                          > > Nolan
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > >From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
                          > > >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >Subject: [existlist] Re: refuse to value the refuse
                          > > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:22:46 -0000
                          > > >
                          > > >In poker one may occasionally bluff another player with a stronger
                          > > >hand into folding by wagering higher than the other player is willing
                          > > >to go. The object is to impress the idea upon the player with the
                          > > >stonger hand that the player with the weaker hand believes very
                          > > >strongly that his hand will win. Here we have belief systems testing
                          > > >one another. The post-modernist view holds that arguments between
                          > > >science and religion are like such a poker game. In fact this has
                          > > >often been the case historically. The game will change. One must
                          > > >remember that a player with four aces or a royal flush will never
                          > > >fold. We are faced with two possibilities: 1) Jesus returns, 2)
                          > > >science produces fact. Wager as you like, but keep in mind: it is
                          > > >nothing less than your personal sanity that you wager, and a player
                          > > >with a winning hand will never fold. Fact wins. Laying down your life
                          > > >for me cannot convince me that you are right, only that you
                          > > >underestimated my cards. Know when to fold 'em.
                          > > >
                          > > >Trinidad
                          > > >
                          > > >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...>
                          >wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Bob,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > What is so obvious about finding bones thousands of years removed
                          > > > > from the present that is not even a complete skeleton and
                          > > > > making "scientific" conclusions on them? I have seen the exhibit,
                          > > > > done the research and I'm not convinced. Something's there, in the
                          > > > > past beyond our empirical explanations, but you have to be really
                          > > > > intellectually naive in my opinion to believe everything you hear
                          > > > > from the "Scientific" community. I say that with force more to
                          > > > > attack the notion of setting up science as the supreme
                          >methodology by
                          > > > > which we know in this universe. Facts can be interpreted in many
                          > > > > ways.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Peace,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Nolan
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
                          > > > > > Sibohan, I love your Optimism and tend to agree with it. However,
                          > > > > > Is it really true that Science has not proved enough already ?
                          > > > > > After all from a Scientific Point of View Evolution ( a hugely
                          > > > > strong case
                          > > > > > to the extreme-scientifically)
                          > > > > > should be viewed as obvious now, yet most people don't think it is
                          > > > > true. It
                          > > > > > may
                          > > > > > be a slow painful process if what I suspect is true, and that
                          >is it
                          > > > > is in
                          > > > > > the Code.
                          > > > > > Bob...
                          > > > > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          >[mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
                          > > > > On
                          > > > > > Behalf Of Siobhan
                          > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:42 PM
                          > > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > > Subject: [existlist] refuse to value the refuse
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > When it comes to determining value, production and philosophy, I
                          > > > > guess
                          > > > > > you'd also have to determine the value of philosophy for
                          > > > > production.
                          > > > > > Scientists and philosophers may theorize about concepts for
                          > > > > years, but
                          > > > > > they won't yield any tangible value until they're accepted.
                          > > > > Traditional
                          > > > > > philosophers and religions have had their concepts accepted for
                          > > > > years,
                          > > > > > and their value for the individual or society is still arguable.
                          > > > > Then
                          > > > > > you have to contrast value and productivity for the
                          >individual vs.
                          > > > > > society. It gets very subjective and personal. What's the old
                          > > > > > expression? One's man's garbage is another man's treasure? It
                          > > > > makes a
                          > > > > > difference if poets and artists get to decide or technology and
                          > > > > > governments do. The latter serve a very practical though often
                          > > > > > intrusive and dangerous purpose. The specifics are
                          >debatable. The
                          > > > > > necessity of the former is also debatable but both keep us from
                          > > > > > reverting to the apes we once were. In our day philosophy is
                          > > > > trying to
                          > > > > > fill in the meaning gap until science produces more facts and
                          > > > > throws
                          > > > > > down religion once and for all. Until then philosophy serves
                          >as an
                          > > > > > alternate belief system. When science and philosophy merge fact
                          > > > > and
                          > > > > > meaning, look out. There won't be any need for belief or
                          > > > > garbagemen.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Siobhan
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                          > > > > nothing!
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          >--------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > > > --------
                          > > > > > --
                          > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                          >Terms of
                          > > > > Service.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • alan
                          See when you say “I happen to think we have free will, so ... what you or I think or like has nothing to do with TRUTH OR FACT. ... From:
                          Message 12 of 13 , May 1, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            See when you say “I happen to think we have free will, so
                            >any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
                            >bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors to
                            >be determined precisely.” <-- you are engaging in a tendentious argument,
                            what you or I think or like has nothing to do with TRUTH OR FACT.

                            >



                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
                            Of ken
                            Sent: Friday, 29 April 2005 8:44 PM
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: refuse to value the refuse

                            C. S. Wyatt wrote:

                            >I suggest Scientific American: MIND. It's a great magazine dedicated
                            >to the science of the human brain. The Web addy is sciammind.com, I think.
                            >
                            >Indeed, the more we know about the mind, the greater problems with
                            >notions of "Free Will" are. I happen to think we have free will, so
                            >any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
                            >bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors to
                            >be determined precisely.
                            >
                            >I still believe we choose what to do, and what not to do. Still, the
                            >magazine's articles and suggested journal readings have me wondering
                            >where the lines are between the brain and the abstract mind.
                            >
                            >- CSW
                            >
                            >

                            A few decades ago Merleau-Ponty put together a work which quite
                            thoroughly takes apart physical/material notions of the mind's or
                            brain's role in consciousness. Although the text of
                            _The_Structure_of_Behavior_ isn't on the web, it's still available for sale.

                            --
                            A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't like to
                            do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care to live.
                            -- Bradford Angier



                            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



                            _____

                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                            * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

                            * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                            * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • louise
                            Alan: [quoting CSW] See when you say I happen to think we have free will, so any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons bothers me.
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 1, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Alan: [quoting CSW]
                              See when you say "I happen to think we have free will, so
                              any notion that we are nothing but determined masses of neurons
                              bothers me. There are too many environmental and internal factors to
                              be determined precisely." <-- you are engaging in a tendentious
                              argument, what you or I think or like has nothing to do with TRUTH OR
                              FACT.

                              This wasn't an argument, I think, it was the statement of a hunch,
                              given the context. If someone said this at a dinner-party, one might
                              say it is simply the statement of a preference. Since this is a
                              mailing-list dedicated to existentialism and related literature, I see
                              Chris's comments as one possible starting-point for an argument,
                              which, as you say, must separate itself from personal likings in order
                              to claim the reliability of truth or fact. Looking at the overnight
                              posts, I'm not quite so optimistic that the scientific faction here
                              can jostle along happily with those like Nolan and myself who value
                              psychological and literary approaches. However, I intend to continue
                              to try. Right now, though, I am struggling with the sheer effort of
                              believing just how intelligent people manage so to value evasion and
                              discourtesy whilst refusing to look at what they are valuing. For me,
                              there is something of a 'new start' feel about this list at present.
                              Another poetic illusion, perhaps, like so much of human thought. The
                              integrity of the continuing attempt is what matters. Just a brief
                              pennyworth for now.

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