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

Re: Quantum Psycho

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 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.

          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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.