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

Collective conscious???? Woo-Woo #1

Expand Messages
  • Marlene Martin
    MARLENE I had previously posted to the list that I had a hard time understanding what one of the posters on a discussion page I m on is actually saying.
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 2 7:34 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      MARLENE
      I had previously posted to the list that I had a hard time understanding
      what one of the posters on a discussion page I'm on is actually saying.
      Someone here thought they may be of some help so the next three posts will
      be comments this lady has made. Too me, it's a bunch of woo-woo but I'm at
      a loss to find the exact words to argue. I've tried but seem to have failed
      miserably. I hope someone can help.
      "When I first posted here, I mentioned
      The antithesis to an explanation of the world without consciousness? I�ve
      already explained the leading argument here among classical physicists and
      the new physics. That
      there is no solid explanation as to the basic construction of the physical
      world by itself. It�s main
      proponents within it�s own realm are point-like ingredients that float
      around and bump into each
      other occasionally to produce local events. In other words, there is no
      explanation as to the details
      of its construction, how form and order arrive from elementary particles
      alone, or where or how
      gravity fits in unconditionally. Pertaining to the latter, it�s not nearly
      enough to assume that this
      attraction is simply a trait of the physical properties themselves; this is
      merely a metaphysical
      assumption only arrived upon years of seeking meaning and rationalizations
      in materialist and
      mechanistic views. After examining the nature of the "specifics" of the
      physical world itself, the more
      one can see them as streamless and arbitrary. It fits in with the old
      saying, "The more you learn, the
      less you know." You can immerse yourself into a world of numbers, objects,
      and elementary
      particles and ultimately determine your life and those around you as
      important only so long as what
      they can be reduced to."
    • Harry Hominid
      ... Well, concidering the fragmented sentences, improper punctuation, and verbose style, it s easy to understand how one could have difficulty comprehending
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 2 8:29 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 02 April 2000, Marlene Martin wrote:


        > MARLENE
        > I had previously posted to the list that I had a hard time understanding
        > what one of the posters on a discussion page I'm on is actually saying.
        > Someone here thought they may be of some help so the next three posts will
        > be comments this lady has made. Too me, it's a bunch of woo-woo but I'm at
        > a loss to find the exact words to argue. I've tried but seem to have failed
        > miserably. I hope someone can help.

        Well, concidering the fragmented sentences, improper punctuation, and verbose style, it's easy to understand how one could have difficulty comprehending this drivel. It does not read like the work of an educated person.

        > "When I first posted here, I mentioned
        > The antithesis to an explanation of the world without consciousness? I�ve
        > already explained the leading argument here among classical physicists and
        > the new physics. That
        > there is no solid explanation as to the basic construction of the physical
        > world by itself. It�s main
        > proponents within it�s own realm are point-like ingredients that float
        > around and bump into each
        > other occasionally to produce local events.

        That sounds like some people I know.

        > In other words, there is no
        > explanation as to the details
        > of its construction, how form and order arrive from elementary particles
        > alone, or where or how
        > gravity fits in unconditionally. Pertaining to the latter, it�s not nearly
        > enough to assume that this
        > attraction is simply a trait of the physical properties themselves; this is
        > merely a metaphysical
        > assumption only arrived upon years of seeking meaning and rationalizations
        > in materialist and
        > mechanistic views. After examining the nature of the "specifics" of the
        > physical world itself, the more
        > one can see them as streamless and arbitrary. It fits in with the old
        > saying, "The more you learn, the
        > less you know." You can immerse yourself into a world of numbers, objects,
        > and elementary
        > particles and ultimately determine your life and those around you as
        > important only so long as what
        > they can be reduced to."

        She seems to have some philosophic objections to scientific reductionism. The idea that everything in nature is reducable to elementary particles and forces (which are themselves reducable to particles) confuses and frightens some people. I might try to explain to her that reducing all of nature to particles does not cheepen life or reduce the mystery in nature. In fact, quite the oposite is true. The more we discover about the universe and life on earth, the more marvelous and woudnerfull it all seems.

        Regards,

        Harry
        ____________________________________________________________________

        For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com

        ____________________________________________________________________
      • Eva Durant
        ... Some on this list would say, that it is not important to be important. I d say, that it is two different thing to relate to the physical and to relate to
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 3 1:26 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > " You can immerse yourself into a world of numbers, objects,
          > and elementary
          > particles and ultimately determine your life and those around you as
          > important only so long as what
          > they can be reduced to."
          >
          >


          Some on this list would say, that it is not important
          to be important.
          I'd say, that it is two different thing to relate
          to the physical and to relate to the social environment.

          For the physical universe we are not important, as we are
          those tiny flicks of coincidentally
          assembled grouping of atoms.
          But the physical universe is important to us,
          because the more sense we
          make of its workings, the better chance we have
          to survive. Due to our evolutionarily produced
          character we are capable to make sense of
          it all - eventually - given enough time.

          For the social universe, we should
          be important, central in fact, and ofcourse,
          every individual is the centre of its own
          existence and in this sphere the "reduction to
          elementary particles" of other humans
          does not make sense.

          so any need for transcendentality to make us
          feel important is artifical.


          Eva
        • Eva Durant
          ... The problem is not education or punctuation but the absence of coherence... Eva (concidering...)
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 3 3:21 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Harry:
            >
            > Well, concidering the fragmented sentences, improper punctuation, and verbose style, it's easy to understand how one could have difficulty comprehending this drivel. It does not read like the work of an educated person.
            >


            The problem is not education or punctuation
            but the absence of coherence...

            Eva (concidering...)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.