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

Re: [gthomas] Moments of Truth

Expand Messages
  • joseph baxter
    ... Jung called it acausal, but I don t see that as part of the necessary explanation. As you put it, it is difficult to reject cause and effect. So it could
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:31 AM 10/1/2000 , you wrote:

      >--
      >If you are willing to actually accept synchronicity as real I suppose it
      >could exist. The problem with synchronicity is that it is purportedly
      >"acausal". It is very difficult to reject the laws of cause & effect which
      >are required by science & the scientific method.

      Jung called it acausal, but I don't see that as part of the necessary
      explanation. As you put it, it is difficult to reject cause and effect. So
      it could be that two things happening at the same time are the effects of
      causes. By way of example only, one could argue that both efffects are
      sympathetic responses to something larger, as opposed to one being the
      cause of the other. I believe that Jung himself meant something like this.

      Joe


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
      Regarding synchronicity, I work on compilers, which are computer programs that translate programming languages, such as FORTRAN or C or C++ into machine
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding synchronicity, I work on compilers, which are computer
        programs that translate programming languages, such as FORTRAN or
        C or C++ into machine language. These programs are themselves
        written in a programming language and so are used to compile themselves.
        (Sorry for the long technical explanation -- I'm getting to the point
        soon). Now, the C compiler is written in C. A new version is compiled
        with an old version of the compiler. Then we recompile it with the
        new version we just compiled. Then, we do it again, and make sure
        this third generation of compilations is identical to the second
        generation. The new compiler compiled with the old compiler should
        generate the same results as the new compiler compiled with
        itself. However, if the new compiler has a bug, it might generate
        incorrect code for some portion of itself, causing the new compiler
        compiled with itself to behave differently than the new compiler compiled
        with the old compiler. More often than is reasonable, the module it
        generates incorrect code for is the module that has the bug that
        caused the incorrect code to be generated in the first place. This
        happens so often its downright spooky.

        Jeff
        http://www.jeff-jackson.com
      • odell mcguire
        ... Joe/Jim Excuse me for butting in, but it seems to me this synchroneity business poses something of a dilemma for the historian. No one trying to do
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          joseph baxter wrote:

          > At 09:31 AM 10/1/2000 , you wrote:
          >
          > >--
          > >If you are willing to actually accept synchronicity as real I suppose it
          > >could exist. The problem with synchronicity is that it is purportedly
          > >"acausal". It is very difficult to reject the laws of cause & effect which
          > >are required by science & the scientific method.
          >
          > Jung called it acausal, but I don't see that as part of the necessary
          > explanation. As you put it, it is difficult to reject cause and effect. So
          > it could be that two things happening at the same time are the effects of
          > causes. By way of example only, one could argue that both efffects are
          > sympathetic responses to something larger, as opposed to one being the
          > cause of the other. I believe that Jung himself meant something like this.
          >
          > Joe

          Joe/Jim

          Excuse me for butting in, but it seems to me this 'synchroneity' business poses
          something of a dilemma for the historian. No one trying to do history from
          primary sources can accept the kind of seemingly meaningful coincidences being
          discussed without exhaustively eliminating all possibility of causal
          connection. If he does not hesitate to entertain the idea of simple coincidence
          he will never learn anything about his subject from his documents except what
          their writers want him to think.

          Coincidences happen. But some cannot be swallowed. I keep thinking of
          Jesus bar Ananias. According to Josephus (Jewish War.VI.300ff) this character
          was a peasant, a posessesed lunatic who, some four years before the war began,
          created an incident in the temple by repeating the words of his 'voices' at the
          Feast of Booths: "... a voice against Jerusalem and the temple (NAOS), a voice
          against bridegroom and bride, a voice against all the people" and carried these
          cries into the streets. "Woe to Jerusalem" he kept repeating. He was chastised
          first by 'leading citizens' and finally brought before the Roman governor and,
          when he refused to identify or defend himself, he was scourged 'to the bone.'
          Woe to Jerusalem.' he said. But he recovered and continued repeating his dire
          prophecies until he was finally killed by a ballista bolt during the last weeks
          of the siege in 70 AD.

          A total coincidence that a peasant named Jesus, thought to be crazy, speaking
          with the voice of a spirit, was involved in a temple incident, predicted the
          fall of city and temple before the war, was finally hauled before the Roman
          governor, refused to say who he was or defend himself, and was severely scourged
          -all a few months before Mark composed his tale--??? Some say so. But I smell
          fish, a barrelful. Else I am no historian.

          But I am nowhere near accepting as explanation the theory, currently being
          mentioned favorably by some on the Xtalk list, that Jesus, as Mark portrays him,
          was a Markan midrashic creation. (Partly based on an oral memory of Jesus
          Ananias.)

          What, then? The best I am able to come up with is that there *was* a lunatic
          Jesus Ananias who prophesied the destruction of the city, but probably after the
          siege began, and that he thereby got himself in somekind of trouble with the
          authorities and thus left a trace in the documents that Josephus worked with.
          (So far, an acceptable mass of coincidence; one can easily imagine kooks such
          as this in Jerusalem under siege and Jesus was a very common name; Josephus
          alone deals with some 20 Jesuses)

          But it was not enough by itself for a good Josephan story. (And they *were* all
          *very* good stories) By most accounts, I think, Josephus wrote 'War' in the
          80s. About 10 years after Mark wrote 2G. I suspect that Josephus had a copy of
          Mark's gospel in his library (or its predecessor PN), recognized the real
          parallels, and copied the rest to
          flesh out his story. If this is true, the real historical value of the Jesus
          Ananias 'coincidence mass' lies in the fact that Josephus had access to Mark
          before he wrote 'Antiquities' and the passages lying behind the Testimonium
          Flavianum. Etc. Etc.

          I love a mass coincidence in primary texts. As another Mark wrote about
          Historical Geology:

          "It yields such wholesale returns of conjecture out of a trifling investment
          of fact"
          From *Life on the Mississippi*
          --
          Best wishes, Odell

          Odell McGuire
          omcguire@...
          Prof. Geology Em., W&L
          Lexington, VA
        • Tom Ragland
          All that is being attempted is to abstract concepts and put them into a relational framework and intuitively deduce insights by the construction. This is the
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            All that is being attempted is to abstract concepts and put them into a
            relational framework and intuitively deduce insights by the construction.
            This is the basis for Kaballah (Quabalah, and other spellings), which is
            supposed to be the mystical tradition of Judaism going back to before the
            time of Jesus. Judaism sees three divisions in their tradition. The Bible
            (Old Testament, Torah and Prophets) is the physical set of rules and
            instructions for the physical molding to the covenant. The Talmud (which we
            in Christian tradition may think of the Church Fathers instead) is the
            mental reflection on the covenant, the logical arguments and conclusions.
            The Kaballah is the mystical gnosis, the direct intuitive link as reflected
            to the chosen by the archangel Metatron. There are countless books that
            show evidence of Kaballistic understanding in the writers of the books of
            Ezekiel and Isaiah, thus pushing the tradition back quite a distance. "For
            thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever" ending to
            the Lord's Prayer is an obvious reference to Kaballah to anyone who has
            experienced the Tree of Life. All of this to say that Kaballah is a system
            of rearranging ideas according to themes and studying the relationships of
            these ideas at a level higher than that of rational logic. It is intuitive
            and inspirational and the Jews say that it is angels who guide the awakened
            insights that are received as if by intuition and an experience that cannot
            be put back into words. This is why the Kaballah is not a text but rather a
            drawing. The discussions about the deity in the ancient Gnostic texts prove
            that early Gnostic Christianity was Kaballistic. The "Self Begotten", the
            "Silent One", Christos, Logos, the Virgin Mother, the emanations and
            overflowings, the Sophia who wanted to know the Father and thus gave birth
            to the universe, the Zoe who is the etheric aura that sustains life--all
            relate back to the greatest treasure that Judaism has given to the world.
            It is all confusing contradictory words until placed in the organizational
            structure of the Kaballah. And then it all comes together, but in a way
            that you can't explain in just logical terms. But you can introduce someone
            to the Kaballah and have them come to the same realizations. Sort of a
            holistic reptilian primative understanding that dissipates in the light of
            the almighty logical ego trip. Heart over head once again. Seems to be a
            reoccuring theme of gnosis in general.


            On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:39:37 -0600, jbauer@... wrote:


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Andrew Smith <asmith@...>
            To: gthomas@egroups.com <gthomas@egroups.com>
            Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:18 PM
            Subject: [gthomas] Re: Saying 45


            >> I take this as another piece of internal
            >> evidence for the jigsaw puzzle theory, according to which the
            >reader
            >> is intended to rearrange parts of GoT - even to remove parts of it
            >-
            >> to form a different, more perfect, structure than appears at first.

            This sounds like the "Bible codes" which are so popular with
            Fundamentalists
            now. Just in case you're unsure what I mean, they do things like read
            every
            fifth word & then pretend some meaningful insight to what's really
            nonsense.
            The jigsaw puzzle is probably equally eroneous unless you can show how
            using
            Thomas this way actually produces any more coherent view of the whole. I
            think finding such "meaning" is probably of the same order as the meaning
            of
            dreams in the psychoanalysis game. Dennet used it in _Consciousness
            Explained_ (the title of which historian of science Bob Richards said
            should
            be followed by a question mark).

            Dennet uses it as an explanation of hallucination. The game consists of
            sending one of the party members as a dupe to leave the room while the
            remaider of the party concoct a dream for him to analyze. It is to be
            related to him by his asking the remainder yes-no questions When the dupe
            is gone the remainder agree that they will answer yes if the last letter
            of
            the last word is in the first half of the alphabet & no if otherwise. In
            short, the dupe concocts a dream out of the questions provided him. I'm
            afraid any attempt to break Thomas down into a code or jigsaw puzzle
            probably has you asking the same kind of questions & getting the same kind
            of answers.

            Jim Bauer
            >>
            >>
            >-------------------------------------------------
            >To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
            >To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com


            -------------------------------------------------
            To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
            To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com



            Tom Ragland --> tomragland@...
            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8219/centuries/





            _______________________________________________________
            Say Bye to Slow Internet!
            http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.