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

Quantum Psychology

Expand Messages
  • Knott
    Anyone read this title by Robert Anton Wilson ( 90)? I just finished it...I d be curious as to reactions. Perhaps this way discussion can be mined away from
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 12 8:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Anyone read this title by Robert Anton Wilson ('90)? I just finished
      it...I'd be curious as to reactions. Perhaps this way discussion can
      be mined away from personality.

      non-local
    • Trinidad Cruz
      ... Anyone read this title by Robert Anton Wilson ( 90)? I just finished it...I d be curious as to reactions. Perhaps this way discussion can be mined away
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 13 7:55 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:

        "Anyone read this title by Robert Anton Wilson ('90)? I just finished
        it...I'd be curious as to reactions. Perhaps this way discussion can
        be mined away from personality."

        non-local

        She lives in the great white north, "God's country". Her mother has a
        house with a few acres and some horses. Her mother IS divorced. Her
        mother IS white and her father IS black. They were married while both
        were in the military. She IS their child. She IS twenty one years old.
        She has a boyfriend who goes to a local state college. The sun IS
        shining. She IS driving him back to school after a weekend together.
        She IS forced to the side of the road by another vehicle. She and he
        ARE murdered and left there. She IS dead. He IS dead. She WAS. He WAS.
        That's it. The sun is shining. The earth is not flat. Almost all
        American people are not free. They are programmable machines. The
        breakdown is inevitable. I like junkyards. My uncle owned one.
        Literature can be personality or programming. It depends whether or
        not YOU are a machine. If you are not free; it is for sure I'm gonna
        build my house right in the middle of your junkyard, and there is
        absolutely nothing you can do about it. Oops there it IS - already. It
        just pisses you off that there's no candle in the window. There is.
        It's just a color you can't see. Then of course there are all those
        "orders" of intentionality. Well: She was. He was. That's it. I doubt
        that was their intention at the time. What is yours? Or "what do you
        think it appears to be"? If I had to guess I would say envy. Sorry,
        I'm not trying to make new friends. I'm holding out for old ones.
        Re-tooling, or even scrapping the assembly line, won't do a damn thing
        for the lemons that are already manufactured. Perhaps you just want to
        be rewarded for trying. I'll send you a few bucks if you like. There's
        a bum in El Paso who owes me seven. Like my little daughter used to
        say: "It's a popsicle illusion.", but then she was five years old. Is
        it all logo-machist or knott?

        Let's discuss your book by all means - "fetish" comes to mind. Dawkins
        quips that he has never run across a good argument that existence is
        not computer generated - perhaps you can make one. I already am one. I
        think that happens when personality and literature combine. Gee, I
        wonder what happens when they don't.

        tc
      • Knott
        ... I see you have either some interest or issue with e-prime. I think one of the things I like most about Wilson is the apparent lack of certainty, and the
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 13 4:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > Her mother IS divorced.

          I see you have either some interest or issue with e-prime. I think one of the things I like
          most about Wilson is the apparent lack of certainty, and the sensible exploration of that. I
          am pretty sure you disagree. One of the simplest notions, I think, not really embraced
          through the discussion in the book -- or perhaps I misunderstood: If there is a reality, or
          something that could be defined as such, no one could really know what it is, as no one
          can see it but from their own broken optics, and then when interpreted it is constantly in
          flux--that is: perception of perception is not still.

          But 'divorced'...how do you measure that.

          You see I am not so fearfull of the word IS. I just don't know how to apply it to context of
          being.

          > Let's discuss your book by all means - "fetish" comes to mind.

          Whose fetish?

          > Dawkins
          > quips that he has never run across a good argument that existence is
          > not computer generated - perhaps you can make one. I already am one.

          I am not interested in making an arguement against that. It seems one of the many
          possibilities.

          I am hoping not to put words in your mouth. You mention e-prime without mentioning it.
          You lay into it like you have a notion to make fun...Can you reason aloud without pushing
          an agenda with a pointed thing?

          Mace In Jar
        • Trinidad Cruz
          I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am short of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post something that may or
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 15 7:35 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am short
            of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post
            something that may or may not interest you on this subject. Dawkins
            has an anecdote that utilizes a perception of a hollow Einstein mask
            to illustrate optical illusion, and the idea that the brain has a
            preconceived picture of many things that the eye is attempting to see.
            I maintain that it is a gigantic and simplistic assumption to expect
            literature to perform the same way, or have the same effect, just
            because it is most often absorbed optically. I also would argue that
            literature is a finite formulation with limited orders or powers. It
            seems sensible to me that literature is unlikely to be able to
            overcome the force of evolution. If that is the case it is unlikely
            that the free man would be able to liberate anyone through argument;
            unless of course such a person was evolved with a pre-disposition to
            freedom. I also would argue that an optical illusion and an illusion
            created by literature are two utterly unrelated phenomena even if it
            involves the use of the same preconceived pictures in the brain. The
            optical illusion is an accident of mixed signals or confusion; and
            while the illusion created by literature may be an accident of mixed
            signals or confusion; it is one entirely created by imagination and
            the attempt to self-present rationally selected images to fit the
            words. These are two separate orders of experience. I also think that
            those who write illusion into literature can only effect it on readers
            who reason in similar fashion, so no potential for improvement in
            understanding, maybe just a solidarity of slow thinking. Do you know
            what logo-machist argument is? Which is more likely to be undone by
            death: uncertainty or freedom? Is a junkyard still a junkyard when
            there is a home in the middle of it?

            tc


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Her mother IS divorced.
            >
            > I see you have either some interest or issue with e-prime. I think
            one of the things I like
            > most about Wilson is the apparent lack of certainty, and the
            sensible exploration of that. I
            > am pretty sure you disagree. One of the simplest notions, I think,
            not really embraced
            > through the discussion in the book -- or perhaps I misunderstood: If
            there is a reality, or
            > something that could be defined as such, no one could really know
            what it is, as no one
            > can see it but from their own broken optics, and then when
            interpreted it is constantly in
            > flux--that is: perception of perception is not still.
            >
            > But 'divorced'...how do you measure that.
            >
            > You see I am not so fearfull of the word IS. I just don't know how
            to apply it to context of
            > being.
            >
            > > Let's discuss your book by all means - "fetish" comes to mind.
            >
            > Whose fetish?
            >
            > > Dawkins
            > > quips that he has never run across a good argument that existence is
            > > not computer generated - perhaps you can make one. I already am one.
            >
            > I am not interested in making an arguement against that. It seems
            one of the many
            > possibilities.
            >
            > I am hoping not to put words in your mouth. You mention e-prime
            without mentioning it.
            > You lay into it like you have a notion to make fun...Can you reason
            aloud without pushing
            > an agenda with a pointed thing?
            >
            > Mace In Jar
            >
          • Knott
            ... OK...but funny that your short answers are longer than most of my long ones...excepting the one time you agreed to discuss, and came back shortly on
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 15 5:36 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              > I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am short
              > of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post
              > something that may or may not interest you on this subject.

              OK...but funny that your short answers are longer than most of my long ones...excepting
              the one time you agreed to discuss, and came back shortly on questions...

              > the idea that the brain has a
              > preconceived picture of many things that the eye is attempting to see.

              I recently had a pet of some 19 years die. I see it many times in places where it should be,
              or mistake other motions for those that were there before. It is what I expect, from
              experience. Somehow experience is wrong. Somehow things change.

              Is it possible that physics is not static?

              > freedom...I also would argue that an optical illusion and an illusion
              > created by literature are two utterly unrelated phenomena

              I left the word 'freedom where it was, but added elipses. Is one not creating an illusion by
              reading and imagining? Is one to think that the word one reads is one-to-one with the
              meaning? Is meaning defined by what the author intended? by the words themselves? By
              the interpretation?

              > I also think that
              > those who write illusion into literature can only effect it on readers
              > who reason in similar fashion, so no potential for improvement in
              > understanding

              More likely to be effective speaking to one's peers, and more likely making sense to them.
              But why the burden on 'literature'?


              > Do you know
              > what logo-machist argument is?

              No.

              > Is a junkyard still a junkyard when
              > there is a home in the middle of it?

              well, that depends on where you are standing...in the shoes of the person owning the
              home, or in the shoes of the junkyard owner, or in the shoes of the person dumping their
              trash. It is one reality...and yet there are several conclusions.

              Oneless Facet
            • † Angel Sola
              We can believe that our dogs (pets) have souls. I once understood that once love exists it cannot EVER go out of existence. This is the truth as it was
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 16 9:16 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                We can believe that our dogs (pets) have souls. I once understood
                that once love exists it cannot EVER go out of existence. This is the
                truth as it was revealed in a spiritual experience. Love may be among
                the only phenomena that is permanent. It is the only one I know about
                through the fact that in a moment it was revealed to me.

                Everything might be perfect. To us finite beings, with limited,
                finite access to reality, it only SEEMS that it might be leading to
                perfection.

                There can be a belief in revelation? Miracles CAN capture our
                attention as lessons in revelation. Things can be revealed which are
                true independent of our belief in them? So we can take a leap of
                faith. If we sense a revelation that the soul exists we can take the
                further leap of faith and live as though it does.

                It could not be impossible for the truth TO BE. That seems revealed.
                The truth IS regardless of humanity. Nonbeing MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE, for
                BEING IS. It could not have been that we were not. Or our beloved
                animals. There is an inution also that our soul has something to do
                with the creation of how our lives (experiences) proceed in time.

                So what IS is TRUE, AND DOES NOT DECEIVE WHAT IS TRUE. Because words
                are tools they misrepresent in their imperfection. Tools are never
                perfect. Humans use words as manipulative tools, not as mere forms of
                communicating objective truth. There is A LOT of human behavior which
                lies about what it KNOWS to be true.




                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                >
                > > I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am
                short
                > > of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post
                > > something that may or may not interest you on this subject.
                >
                > OK...but funny that your short answers are longer than most of my
                long ones...excepting
                > the one time you agreed to discuss, and came back shortly on
                questions...
                >
                > > the idea that the brain has a
                > > preconceived picture of many things that the eye is attempting to
                see.
                >
                > I recently had a pet of some 19 years die. I see it many times in
                places where it should be,
                > or mistake other motions for those that were there before. It is
                what I expect, from
                > experience. Somehow experience is wrong. Somehow things change.
                >
                > Is it possible that physics is not static?
                >
                > > freedom...I also would argue that an optical illusion and an
                illusion
                > > created by literature are two utterly unrelated phenomena
                >
                > I left the word 'freedom where it was, but added elipses. Is one
                not creating an illusion by
                > reading and imagining? Is one to think that the word one reads is
                one-to-one with the
                > meaning? Is meaning defined by what the author intended? by the
                words themselves? By
                > the interpretation?
                >
                > > I also think that
                > > those who write illusion into literature can only effect it on
                readers
                > > who reason in similar fashion, so no potential for improvement in
                > > understanding
                >
                > More likely to be effective speaking to one's peers, and more
                likely making sense to them.
                > But why the burden on 'literature'?
                >
                >
                > > Do you know
                > > what logo-machist argument is?
                >
                > No.
                >
                > > Is a junkyard still a junkyard when
                > > there is a home in the middle of it?
                >
                > well, that depends on where you are standing...in the shoes of the
                person owning the
                > home, or in the shoes of the junkyard owner, or in the shoes of the
                person dumping their
                > trash. It is one reality...and yet there are several conclusions.
                >
                > Oneless Facet
                >
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                Let me know what drugs you are taking. Sounds like what the Dr ordered! WS ... From: sola_blue_angel@yahoo.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 16 Mar
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 16 9:24 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Let me know what drugs you are taking. Sounds like what the Dr ordered!

                  WS

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: sola_blue_angel@...
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:16 AM
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: Quantum Psychoz

                  We can believe that our dogs (pets) have souls. I once understood
                  that once love exists it cannot EVER go out of existence. This is the
                  truth as it was revealed in a spiritual experience. Love may be among
                  the only phenomena that is permanent. It is the only one I know about
                  through the fact that in a moment it was revealed to me.

                  Everything might be perfect. To us finite beings, with limited,
                  finite access to reality, it only SEEMS that it might be leading to
                  perfection.

                  There can be a belief in revelation? Miracles CAN capture our
                  attention as lessons in revelation. Things can be revealed which are
                  true independent of our belief in them? So we can take a leap of
                  faith. If we sense a revelation that the soul exists we can take the
                  further leap of faith and live as though it does.

                  It could not be impossible for the truth TO BE. That seems revealed.
                  The truth IS regardless of humanity. Nonbeing MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE, for
                  BEING IS. It could not have been that we were not. Or our beloved
                  animals. There is an inution also that our soul has something to do
                  with the creation of how our lives (experiences) proceed in time.

                  So what IS is TRUE, AND DOES NOT DECEIVE WHAT IS TRUE. Because words
                  are tools they misrepresent in their imperfection. Tools are never
                  perfect. Humans use words as manipulative tools, not as mere forms of
                  communicating objective truth. There is A LOT of human behavior which
                  lies about what it KNOWS to be true.

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am
                  short
                  > > of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post
                  > > something that may or may not interest you on this subject.
                  >
                  > OK...but funny that your short answers are longer than most of my
                  long ones...excepting
                  > the one time you agreed to discuss, and came back shortly on
                  questions...
                  >
                  > > the idea that the brain has a
                  > > preconceived picture of many things that the eye is attempting to
                  see.
                  >
                  > I recently had a pet of some 19 years die. I see it many times in
                  places where it should be,
                  > or mistake other motions for those that were there before. It is
                  what I expect, from
                  > experience. Somehow experience is wrong. Somehow things change.
                  >
                  > Is it possible that physics is not static?
                  >
                  > > freedom...I also would argue that an optical illusion and an
                  illusion
                  > > created by literature are two utterly unrelated phenomena
                  >
                  > I left the word 'freedom where it was, but added elipses. Is one
                  not creating an illusion by
                  > reading and imagining? Is one to think that the word one reads is
                  one-to-one with the
                  > meaning? Is meaning defined by what the author intended? by the
                  words themselves? By
                  > the interpretation?
                  >
                  > > I also think that
                  > > those who write illusion into literature can only effect it on
                  readers
                  > > who reason in similar fashion, so no potential for improvement in
                  > > understanding
                  >
                  > More likely to be effective speaking to one's peers, and more
                  likely making sense to them.
                  > But why the burden on 'literature'?
                  >
                  >
                  > > Do you know
                  > > what logo-machist argument is?
                  >
                  > No.
                  >
                  > > Is a junkyard still a junkyard when
                  > > there is a home in the middle of it?
                  >
                  > well, that depends on where you are standing...in the shoes of the
                  person owning the
                  > home, or in the shoes of the junkyard owner, or in the shoes of the
                  person dumping their
                  > trash. It is one reality...and yet there are several conclusions.
                  >
                  > Oneless Facet
                  >


                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Knott
                  ... Sorry, I did not hope to imply that I was seeing a soul...more that there was/is part of my cognition which I do not believe can be explained by reality. I
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 18 6:29 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > We can believe that our dogs (pets) have souls. I once understood
                    > that once love exists it cannot EVER go out of existence.

                    Sorry, I did not hope to imply that I was seeing a soul...more that
                    there was/is part of my cognition which I do not believe can be
                    explained by reality. I am fairly sure there IS not a cat (I did the
                    part about putting it in the box and hole myself, so I can be
                    reasonably assured where it is), but I see it--be it for a
                    moment--likely because I am pre-disposed to see it (though I won't
                    rule out other explanations as likely I am not able to). Soul was not
                    a first thought. Or 12th. I have enough difficulty with the idea that
                    I am not quite the reverse: I might be, in essence, my own soul in
                    which I try to believe...or not. Far be it for me to take some leap of
                    faith or suck up to some transient's 'miracle'.

                    My thought bubble was tossed up for TC to pop, as he is so much into
                    existing in the here and now that we are polar opposites. Where his
                    perception is infallible, I can only trust mine as is in some state of
                    'waking' where I find motivation by interest, which I have been slack
                    to define. I do not trust perception, or science, or even math, and
                    ceretainly not history (which seems continually reinvented).

                    I find the phrase "once understood" to be curious. Where as I would
                    skeptically not relate to having once understood anything (though I
                    must admit my actual drive of interest forces me to pretend in the
                    very least that I understand SOMETHING, else there is a certain
                    inertia -- though what ertia may entertain I cannot be sure, though
                    some may make that as en excuse to dream--but even this is making me
                    laugh), Your suggestion of having once understood love (see quote
                    above), which "lasts forever" would suggest that you would have to
                    still understand it unless you either do not anymore or that it is not
                    so durable.

                    Don't fret, it is semantic. So is the following...

                    Anyone want to try to write the following in e-prime?

                    > So what IS is TRUE


                    Weeping Will O.
                  • † Angel Sola
                    Re: your statements........ I find the phrase once understood to be curious. Where as I would skeptically not relate to having once understood anything
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 18 8:05 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Re: your statements........

                      "I find the phrase "once understood" to be curious. Where as I would
                      skeptically not relate to having once understood anything (though I
                      must admit my actual drive of interest forces me to pretend in the
                      very least that I understand SOMETHING, else there is a certain
                      inertia -- though what ertia may entertain I cannot be sure, though
                      some may make that as en excuse to dream--but even this is making me
                      laugh), Your suggestion of having once understood love (see quote
                      above), which "lasts forever" would suggest that you would have to
                      still understand it unless you either do not anymore or that it is not
                      so durable."

                      I think I know about your problems, somewhat. It has to do with
                      memory, and HOW we remember. Sometimes we are more than normally
                      astounded by what a cynic would call coincidence or biological
                      processes. Being astounded might be a spiritual thing related to the
                      quality we witness. Do we apply our own affect to our memory?
                      Probably. But THAT came from somewhere, too. That feeling!

                      But some things stand out as a light in memory, even when we are in
                      our darkest hours. But I admit, when we are in our darkest hours
                      sometimes darkness is all there is.....even the light gets blocked,
                      which includes the memory of it's existence or intensity. But
                      sometimes, I admit, it is like a bit of water to remember when we are
                      on the desert of emptiness. It is a miserable consolation, but we can
                      sometimes say..well, this empty, dark desert......I guess I'd better
                      study it to find out what it is all about. It's miserable, though. So
                      what I when I was trapped in the dark desert for years....my
                      philosophy became DEAL WITH IT. Sometimes I talked about making lemon-
                      ade......but when people would begin to complain about a
                      trifle.....I'd either think or say to myself or them what my
                      philosophy was.......DEAL WITH IT. So, I had the deal with it
                      philosophy for a long time. Every day was DEAL WITH IT. It wasn't a
                      matter of dealing with ordinary existence.....it was a matter of
                      dealing with something dark. But still.......I tell you.......God
                      showed me some things that were NOT ORDINARY. So, I am not
                      disrespectful to being in darkness. I will not go so far as to say it
                      is my CHOICE to BELIEVE in God, because I think it is more a matter
                      of detection. And if you don't carry the microscope or macroscope in
                      your mind for detection purposes.......you may be looking the other
                      way. Insights do come upon us unexpectedly. We need to be careful, I
                      admit.....and beware that it is not wishful thinking, but after you
                      eliminate that possibility then you are clearer, and you will see
                      better. It is about being open to insight that comes from somewhere
                      other than you. If we close ourselves to what is trying to
                      communicate to us, then it can't get through....so being open is
                      important. I think, in a way, from what I've read so far about
                      Dawkins, he makes some rash, very CLOSED-SYSTEM statements. Having a
                      closed system stifles growth.....life. That is no small thing,
                      though, because he is EXTREMELY influential and HE KNOWS THAT. He may
                      be a clever man with an agenda.

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > We can believe that our dogs (pets) have souls. I once understood
                      > > that once love exists it cannot EVER go out of existence.
                      >
                      > Sorry, I did not hope to imply that I was seeing a soul...more that
                      > there was/is part of my cognition which I do not believe can be
                      > explained by reality. I am fairly sure there IS not a cat (I did the
                      > part about putting it in the box and hole myself, so I can be
                      > reasonably assured where it is), but I see it--be it for a
                      > moment--likely because I am pre-disposed to see it (though I won't
                      > rule out other explanations as likely I am not able to). Soul was
                      not
                      > a first thought. Or 12th. I have enough difficulty with the idea
                      that
                      > I am not quite the reverse: I might be, in essence, my own soul in
                      > which I try to believe...or not. Far be it for me to take some leap
                      of
                      > faith or suck up to some transient's 'miracle'.
                      >
                      > My thought bubble was tossed up for TC to pop, as he is so much into
                      > existing in the here and now that we are polar opposites. Where his
                      > perception is infallible, I can only trust mine as is in some state
                      of
                      > 'waking' where I find motivation by interest, which I have been
                      slack
                      > to define. I do not trust perception, or science, or even math, and
                      > ceretainly not history (which seems continually reinvented).
                      >
                      > I find the phrase "once understood" to be curious. Where as I would
                      > skeptically not relate to having once understood anything (though I
                      > must admit my actual drive of interest forces me to pretend in the
                      > very least that I understand SOMETHING, else there is a certain
                      > inertia -- though what ertia may entertain I cannot be sure, though
                      > some may make that as en excuse to dream--but even this is making me
                      > laugh), Your suggestion of having once understood love (see quote
                      > above), which "lasts forever" would suggest that you would have to
                      > still understand it unless you either do not anymore or that it is
                      not
                      > so durable.
                      >
                      > Don't fret, it is semantic. So is the following...
                      >
                      > Anyone want to try to write the following in e-prime?
                      >
                      > > So what IS is TRUE
                      >
                      >
                      > Weeping Will O.
                      >
                    • Trinidad Cruz
                      For want of better terminology, and in discourse with you that is a challenge, I think the vast majority of literate Americans operate as undergraduates in
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 18 8:12 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        For want of better terminology, and in discourse with you that is a
                        challenge, I think the vast majority of literate Americans operate as
                        "undergraduates" in reading, writing, and their view of scientific
                        propositions. The course of their life most normally causes them to a
                        kind of "undergraduate" research concerning questions of meaning and
                        so forth. Operating in this way can only lead to faith or belief
                        assumptions, and in the worst cases - lasting delusion. I will make
                        the statement: Theory cannot be applied allegorically to life, or to
                        any discipline for that matter, in order to be tested for truth.
                        Unfortunately this is the most common application of new ideas in
                        "undergraduate" research. When it comes to theory an allegorical "fit"
                        is not data. "Undergraduates" most often fancy themselves as
                        interdisciplinary, a fallacious presumption indeed. Literature and
                        philosophy are in a state of upheaval brought on in post-modernism
                        with its introspective forms of literary criticism, semiotics, radical
                        empiricism, and so forth; and modern pragmatics becomes self defeating
                        whenever it considers itself interdisciplinary. Science is enduring a
                        similar kind of upheaval with quantum theory; and the "folk" or
                        "undergraduate" view is just as self defeating when it considers
                        itself interdisciplinary. For a field to be interdisciplinary there is
                        a prerequisite: you must be a graduate in both disciplines,
                        mathematics and bio-chemistry for example, or literature and
                        philosophy. The difficulty of obtaining data, indeed the real lack of
                        substantial data, prevents one from being a graduate of quantum
                        theory, and for that matter, post-modernism. They are only developing
                        disciplines. Quantum theory is just that - "theory"; and certain data
                        laden facts, or laws of bio-chemistry are not transmuted by its
                        existence. Quantum theory, and a good deal of post-modernist
                        philosophy, seem to be bringing only one suggestion forward: there are
                        venues of reality and the differentiation is relative to size and
                        velocity. Unfortunately, even if you were small enough, or fast
                        enough, not to be governed by bio-chemical facts, in that blissful
                        insignificance you would discover that you are governed by a
                        bio-chemical machine not your own. These are the facts of quantum
                        theory that are coming to light. Allegorical conjecture is fun; but
                        it's your choice, and an existential one at that: "Pilgrim's Progress"
                        or the theory of evolution. I utterly disagree with the radical
                        empiricists. Meaning has absolutely nothing to do with belief. It is
                        more often associated with fatigue and maintenance.

                        tc


                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I actually would like to discuss this further with you, but I am short
                        > > of time the next few days. Perhaps over the weekend I will post
                        > > something that may or may not interest you on this subject.
                        >
                        > OK...but funny that your short answers are longer than most of my
                        long ones...excepting
                        > the one time you agreed to discuss, and came back shortly on
                        questions...
                        >
                        > > the idea that the brain has a
                        > > preconceived picture of many things that the eye is attempting to see.
                        >
                        > I recently had a pet of some 19 years die. I see it many times in
                        places where it should be,
                        > or mistake other motions for those that were there before. It is
                        what I expect, from
                        > experience. Somehow experience is wrong. Somehow things change.
                        >
                        > Is it possible that physics is not static?
                        >
                        > > freedom...I also would argue that an optical illusion and an illusion
                        > > created by literature are two utterly unrelated phenomena
                        >
                        > I left the word 'freedom where it was, but added elipses. Is one not
                        creating an illusion by
                        > reading and imagining? Is one to think that the word one reads is
                        one-to-one with the
                        > meaning? Is meaning defined by what the author intended? by the
                        words themselves? By
                        > the interpretation?
                        >
                        > > I also think that
                        > > those who write illusion into literature can only effect it on readers
                        > > who reason in similar fashion, so no potential for improvement in
                        > > understanding
                        >
                        > More likely to be effective speaking to one's peers, and more likely
                        making sense to them.
                        > But why the burden on 'literature'?
                        >
                        >
                        > > Do you know
                        > > what logo-machist argument is?
                        >
                        > No.
                        >
                        > > Is a junkyard still a junkyard when
                        > > there is a home in the middle of it?
                        >
                        > well, that depends on where you are standing...in the shoes of the
                        person owning the
                        > home, or in the shoes of the junkyard owner, or in the shoes of the
                        person dumping their
                        > trash. It is one reality...and yet there are several conclusions.
                        >
                        > Oneless Facet
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.