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

Re: Quantum Psycho

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 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.

        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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.