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

Re: [existlist] Re: Quantum Psychoz

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.