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

Re: Quantum Psychoz

Expand Messages
  • 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 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.

      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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.