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

Re: Quantum Psychology

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 13, 2007
    • 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 2 of 10 , Mar 13, 2007
      • 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 3 of 10 , Mar 15, 2007
        • 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 4 of 10 , Mar 15, 2007
          • 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 5 of 10 , Mar 16, 2007
            • 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 6 of 10 , Mar 16, 2007
              • 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 7 of 10 , Mar 18, 2007
                • 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 8 of 10 , Mar 18, 2007
                  • 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 9 of 10 , Mar 18, 2007
                    • 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.