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

Re: [existlist] Re: Quantum Psychoziolocist, et alia

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Schroedinger, Not sure what cat you used in that box of yours, but our new friend s feline is clearly from Cheshire: eternal and soulful smiles, wrought
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Not sure what cat you used in that box of yours, but our new friend's feline
      is clearly from Cheshire: eternal and soulful smiles, wrought without any
      obvious causality (other than a pesky prefrontal lobe, perhaps). More spiritual
      than intellectual (as intellectuals can "lie right to your face", it is said
      (and what is more outrageous than THAT?), whereas spirits have peek experiences
      that can never lie -- or die, it would seem).

      putting toe in Heraclitus' river

      In a message dated 3/18/07 8:31:48 AM, knott12@... writes:

      > > 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.

      AOL now offers free email to everyone.
      Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.