Quantitative vs. Speculative
DubiousChrisJ
Zenom
I have nothing to add - but this quote :
"Our action strategy must come from an intimate awareness of the field
of knowledge which David Bohm calls the super-implicate order, which
Mae-Wan Ho calls quantum coherence, which Philip Callahan calls "God
in little things" and which Glenda Green calls love."
Source : http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/evolution.htm
There are quite a few ideas out there - but - I think this may be a
good starting point of "Quest for Fire" !
Cheers
Erica Moreau
> So, as we have clearly seen, there seem to be two major archetypes in this
> group: those who seek to quantify the world based on rational analysis and
> deductive reasoning, and those who seek to find something greater; an
> outside pattern that drives it all, that some might call God.
>
> I don't intend to begin another round of Science vs. Philosophy here; we
> have plenty of active threads for that. But I am truly curious about what it
> might be that makes one human accept an understanding of the universe based
> on mathematical extrapolation, and a singular drive to provide proof that
> the understanding is accurate, and another person to form firm belief sets
> around speculation, based loosely on a scientific basis, but translating
> into a cosmic version of "What if?"
>
> Of course, the irony is that quantum mechanics is all about the "What if"
> factor, and so the core of each of these mindsets have commonalities that
> make the conversation a little muddied. Pedantic dissection becomes the
> order of the day when trying to sort between them.
>
> But what is the Faith Factor? What makes me such a hard facts and figures
> guy (despite being a romantic, and ponderer, in the literary sense), and
> Pottsie such a staunch supporter of the concept that existence itself proves
> that God exists?
I don't know how relevent this is, but reading through this an image
popped in my head I must share ( I think in pictures...)
I think that the difference here isn't as big as all that. You're a
hard facts and figures guy... so you could look at a chunk of letters
(A, G, C, T) and see a pattern that represents a mathematical
approach. Pottsie could look at the same letters and say "Ah Ha! It's
you."
Does that make sense? I mean, DNA is essentially mathematical, and one
(who was unaware of the whole concept) could study it for YEARS and
never conclude that those letter equaled a person.... but it does.
Eventually it could be discovered, and one person could guess that it
was the blueprint to humans, but would have no way to really prove it
for quite some time.
In my head, this makes sense... let me know if I need to clarify more...
Pottsie
This reply will probably be a qood example of what you
mean. =)
I wonder why it is that you've asked for answers from
"anyone whose done research on the subject"....and why
do you not ask for answers from someone who has
"speculated" on the subject? ROFLMAO!!
I look at the world and see two types of people 1.
Those who quantify the world based on rational
analysis and deductive, and 2. Those who seek to find
something greater.....as you said.
You see the pattern, see the effect, and look for a
physical cause. You ask what it IS, what makes it the
way it is..You don't care what it MEANS.
I see the pattern and could give a good rat's ass
about what it is. I can SEE what it is. I want to
know what is its meaning. What does it mean for my
life.
(You and I are neither fully in either camp, but as
archetypes...I think this is true.)
The reason that you don't see God....is that you are
not interested in meaning. What It SAYS to you. (I
really don't believe that, but I believe that YOU
believe that).
I believe that basically these two groups can be
classified as Materialists and Idealists. (Not
Idealists in terms of looking for Utopia, but
Idealists who look at the world from a Consciousness
or Mental/Spiritual point of view)
The thing that pisses me off more than anything when
it comes to this sort of thing is the attitude of the
majority of the Materialists in that they believe,
because they can grasp the world through the 5 senses
that that is all there is.......and then by extention,
the people who see that that is NOT all there is are
dumb and delusional. (All one has to do is look at
this board and other boards where Atheism vs Theism is
discussed and look to see where the majority of the
sarcasm and insults come from)
MOST Theists (with the exception of the fundamentalist
camps)are open-minded....they HAVE to be because of
their inclination toward Speculation which rewards an
open mind. Most Atheists, on the other hand, have
closed-minds which only opens AFTER the skepticism is
overcome. If they weren't closed-minded, they wouldn't
be skeptical...so that is not necessarily a knock on
skepticism.
Psychologically, it probably has to do with, some sort
of defense mechanism. With the Theist, not being
threatened, but comforted, by knowing that there is
order.....a greater power in control of natural
forces, while the Atheist, feeling threatened and
needing to be in control as a defense against natural
forces, has to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and LOOKS
for order.
Of course this is all very speculative, since I
haven't done much research on it! =)))))
I have a saying when it comes to American politics
which also applies in this case....
"Thank God for the Liberals! They keep us moving
forward. Thank God for the Conservatives! They keep
us from moving too fast!"
With a twist....
Thank God for the Materialists! They keep us
grounded.
Thank God for the Idealists! They help us to see what
we are grounded in!
(I actually read where as an antedote for the
delusions brought about by a novice meditator who had
over extended himself in meditation.....was being
forced to eat a great big juicy hamburger with all the
fixin's! .......brought him back to earth! )
Namaste
Pottsie
--- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
DubiousChrisJ
ka...@insightbb.com
DubiousChrisJ
Pottsie
--- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like knowing the trick. It gives a sense of order
> and control. Although
> this is not possible across the board, the more
> areas in which this is
> present, the more ordered and in control I am.
>
>
(Pottsie)
My point exactly! When I said that the Materialists
have somewhat of a need for order and control. The
Idealist, in general, is fine with lack of control.
He SEES the order, and "knows" that even though
something may APPEAR to be Chaotic, there is an ORDER
behind it all.
Another way of putting it is that the Materialist sees
himself standing apart from a material Universe...that
he must control to remain safe....to remain an
individual.
The Idealist sees himself a Part OF the Universe, and
is safe BECAUSE of it. That his individuality is not
threatened by being a part of it all.
(This is subsconscious, of course. I'm not accusing
Materialists of being less than mentally stable!
lol)
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Mike Burtner
people relate their belief system through a lens of culture and
individual emotional expression. I am sure that there is someone on
this earth who believes almost precisely what I do, yet they call it
"God" and I call math.
As one very small example, for my own reasons, I see the effort put
forth in spirituality as effort that would be better spent, in terms
of the advancement of the human condition. To state that in a mixed
group would bring about quite a heated debate, with tales of x-tian
missionaries and how many blankets are handed out by the Salvation
Army.
But I see the billions of dollars, hours and lives that have gone to
feed a self-serving system. If all that effort were spent on trying
to understand the emotional and substantial issues in peoples lives as
human conditions, made and affected only by man himself, I believe we
would be farther along. My argument against the necessity of
spirituality is not based on the validity of any individuals beliefs.
It is based on what is, admittedly, my own opinion that religion, like
war and racism, are cultural anomalies that we must overcome in order
to advance. I try to make it clear that I do not think less of an
individual for their spirituality; it is the obeisance to culture and
tradition at expense of rationally based thought that is my concern.
The debate itself seems a bit superfluous, in that the 'sides', if one
chooses to see it as such, are intractable. There is always a
suspicion of an agenda from both camps. Most people do not want the
foundation of their world to change, for therein lies safety.
Personally, I would be more than happy for someone to change my whole
paradigm by showing me a genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
dust cloud, or even the mildest empirical evidence of such.
On May 8, 10:33 am, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
DubiousChrisJ
--- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like knowing the trick. It gives a sense of order
> and control. Although
> this is not possible across the board, the more
> areas in which this is
> present, the more ordered and in control I am.
>
>
(Pottsie)
My point exactly! When I said that the Materialists
have somewhat of a need for order and control. The
Idealist, in general, is fine with lack of control.
He SEES the order, and "knows" that even though
something may APPEAR to be Chaotic, there is an ORDER
behind it all.
Another way of putting it is that the Materialist sees
himself standing apart from a material Universe...that
he must control to remain safe....to remain an
individual.
The Idealist sees himself a Part OF the Universe, and
is safe BECAUSE of it. That his individuality is not
threatened by being a part of it all.
(This is subsconscious, of course. I'm not accusing
Materialists of being less than mentally stable!
lol)
DubiousChrisJ
The debate itself seems a bit superfluous, in that the 'sides', if one
chooses to see it as such, are intractable. There is always a
suspicion of an agenda from both camps. Most people do not want the
foundation of their world to change, for therein lies safety.
Personally, I would be more than happy for someone to change my whole
paradigm by showing me a genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
dust cloud, or even the mildest empirical evidence of such.
Mike Burtner
I am curious as to your derivation of the idea that materialists, to
use your word, wish to control the universe by understanding it. You
suggest that the reason for this is that they feel threatened and out
of control, whereas the idealist (implying that spiritualism is an
'ideal', whereas rational thought is 'materialistic'....hmmm) feels
that there is a higher power (hopefully congenial) in control.
I cannot, of course, speak for all the materialistic types, nor for
the ideal ones, but I for one do not feel threatened by the universe,
now that I understand it better. And I have absolutely zero illusion
about controlling anything. It could all be gone in an instant,
cosmologically speaking.
If, however, I felt that there were some deity running things,
especially with the examples of dieties like YHWH and Shiva, and their
petulance and emotional baggage, I would be scared witless. But
that's just me.
Here's a story: When I was a teen, my 6 year old brother was
diagnosed with a malignant carcinoma in his chest and given very low
odds for survival (this was 1977). As I was then a good church-going
boy, I prayed and prayed, then resorted to curses and, finally,
outright contempt for the brand of god I was being served, as I
watched my brother wasting away, in agony. But when I started
studying cancer and radiology as a way of dealing with it all, I began
to believe that, if more people spent more time figuring out how cells
work and less time speculating about how angels dance, we'd have less
misery, on the whole.
I realize, then, that much of my belief system, purportedly rational
and scientific, stems from an emotional landmine I stepped on in the
past. But so it goes. And since my brother eventually made a full
recovery and now travels the world on a Formula 1 racing team, some
people would have used the same story to evince their belief in
whatever spiritual entity healed him. He,as a point of fact, doesn't
even believe in anything that doesn't come apart with a wrench. And
again, so it goes.
On May 8, 11:30 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pottsie
--- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I like knowing the trick. It gives a sense of
> order
> > > and control. Although
> > > this is not possible across the board, the more
> > > areas in which this is
> > > present, the more ordered and in control I am.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > (Pottsie)
> >
> > My point exactly! When I said that the
> Materialists
> > have somewhat of a need for order and control.
> The
> > Idealist, in general, is fine with lack of
> control.
> > He SEES the order, and "knows" that even though
> > something may APPEAR to be Chaotic, there is an
> ORDER
> > behind it all.
>
>
> Of course there is, an order which I believe can be
> scientifically
> quantified...and almost has.
(Pottsie)
See? You say that soooooo matter-of-factly!
You say "Of course there is."
I say....."Of COURSE there is!!!!!! Don't you see
what that MEANS?!?!?!?!?!?" =)))
THAT is the basic difference. You don't put as much
importance on the MEANING as I do.
(Old Pottsie)
>
> Another way of putting it is that the Materialist
> sees
> > himself standing apart from a material
> Universe...that
> > he must control to remain safe....to remain an
> > individual.
>
>
(DC)
> I think you have gone a little too far with this
> assumption. I don't feel I
> need control to remain safe. I need to know the
> facts, and have that sense
> of "control", to know the best actions to take in
> any circumstance. I prefer
> to be as successful as possible in the short time I
> have as a mortal
> organism, and so wish to make every action a Right
> Action, to borrow from
> your Bhuddist brothers. And I certainly don't see
> myself standing apart from
> the Universe. I like String Theory, remember? My
> goal is to become the
> alpha, and to do so, I need to understand the system
> within which I am
> working.
(Pottsie)
No. NO. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, at
all......Simply that you are MORE so than me. It's
not a matter of good or bad. I know you feel a part
of it all. But that sense is a continuum. The Zen
Master is so far ahead of me on that scale it is
ridiculous. Jesus and Buddha even more so. "I and my
father are One"....remember?
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
DubiousChrisJ
> > > while waiting for this evening's design work to upload to the server.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Burtner
imaginative family of squiggly lines to inter-relate those numbers.
In fact, there are so many ways to prove and disprove things* with
number and squiggles, that the slippery semantics of New Agers look
like a recipe for choco-chip cookies by comparison.
* Even things that don't strictly need proof or disproof.
> "Open up my head and let me out." ~Dave Matthews
DubiousChrisJ
Mike Burtner
I was invited to a Yahoo Group by, I suspect, someone here. And
that's great. Because, despite my opening salvos of Dawkins and
Darwin adulation, I am far from a completely 'facts-n-figures' guy.
I believe that, within the context of what we, those alive at this
moment, can experience, there *are* greater truths to be discovered.
The potential of this little race of pink accidents is still huge.
Maybe insignificant in the 10,000 parsec view, but while we're here,
we (collectively) can experience a pleasant existence.
I do not, believe, however, that belief in any outside presence, or
even the possibility of one, is necessary or even helpful to the
improvement of the human condition. I believe that the collected
knowledge of man that looks inward is more beneficial than speculation
about something 'beyond', something immeasurable. But that's just
me.
Here is an example of a work that, to me, is non-spiritual, yet spirit-
healing. Tell me if you can see the parallels with the realist ideas
about consciousness by people like Daniel Dennett and Doug Hofstadter.
These are words from the Dhamma of the last Buddha Siddhattha Gotama
(563-483 BC).
This is entitled "The Illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison"
The illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison!
The Blessed Buddha once said:
'I am' is an illusion. 'This I am' is an illusion. 'I shall be' is an
illusion.
'I shall not become this or that' is an illusion. 'I shall be of form'
is an illusion. 'I shall become formless' is an illusion. 'I shall
become
endowed with perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become without any
perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become neither with nor without
perception' is an illusion. Illusion is torture, illusion is a mind
cancer,
illusion is a thorn in the future. If, however, all illusion is
overcome,
one is called a stilled one, a sage. And the stilled one, the sage, is
no
more reborn, grows no more old, & does not cumulate future death..
Why not? That craving through which he could be reborn again does
not exist anymore! If he is not reborn, how can he ever grow old?
If he never grows old, how can he ever die? If he never dies again,
how can he ever be in panic and urge? If neither in panic nor urge,
how can he still experience any craving?
Source Text (extract): Majjhima Nikaya 140: Analysis of the Elements:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html
On May 8, 2:08 am, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pottsie
On May 8, 11:33?am, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I would be more than happy for someone to change my whole
> paradigm by showing me a genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
> dust cloud, or even the mildest empirical evidence of such.
(Pottsie)
I don't believe there is anyone currently posting on this board who is
talking of a "genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
dust cloud" (One qualification to that statement.......there is a
difference between "A deity" and deity. There is certainly no
Individual Deity. How can the Universal be Individual? But there
certainly is Deity.)
It seems that Atheists and skeptics just can't understand
Unity.....Oneness. And the reason, I believe is their penchant for
Analysis as opposed to Synthesis.
Namaste
Pottsie
Christopher A. Crosdale
it is. I can SEE what it is. I want to
I think you have hit the nail on the head with this statement. The answer
to all this hullabaloo is that people are seeking meaning. But are we
SEEKING meaning or ASCRIBING meaning or both?
1. Is the universe meaning-less on its own, without beings like humans to
ascribe meaning to it?
2. Is there meaning inherit in the universe that beings like humans, when
they think the right way, can discover?
3. Something in the middle: where world events may TRIGGER meaning in
humans--suggesting a world/meaning interaction?
4. All of the above.
By the way, is there any way for this board to get over this
"close-minded"/"delusional" name-calling fetish? I know I have participated
in this, but it seems really silly at some point....
~C
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
Yes. It has sort of a Zen quality to it, don't you
think?
Namaste
Pottsie
--- DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very concise, Potts. ;)
>
> On 5/8/07, Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
DubiousChrisJ
Christopher A. Crosdale
You two have reverted to talking about “understanding the universe”, far different in context to the “meaning of the universe” where the religious imagination lies.
~C
From:
Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of DubiousChrisJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:19 AM
To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
On 5/8/07, Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Crosdale
Do you think that there may be "Oneness-as-an-intellectual-concept" as
distinct from "Oneness-as-an-emotionally-meaningful-intuition"? As you
know, I agree that the universe is a unity and that the divisions of the
universe are the constructs of the observer--this, I think, is a perfectly
valid intellectual concept. However, the statement you are trying to make,
I feel, is that this idea of the unity is meaningful to you, that you feel
"at one" with the universe in that way. True?
~C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pottsie
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Minds Eye
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
Pat
On 8 May, 16:49, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/8/07, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > --- DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
You mean he WASN'T intending on admitting to an incestuous
relationship...You can just see the Monty Python sketch...crowd of
Jews gathering in front of one of the priests and the Priest says, "We
are gathered here today to separate from our community all those who
practice homosexuality and or incest. Now, would anyone here present
know of any?" At which point, on the opposite side of the court,
Jesus, teaching, is overheard to say...
Although it never stops it completely...No offense intended by the
above satire.
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>
> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Pottsie
--- "Christopher A. Crosdale"
<chrisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Pottsie): "...I see the pattern and could give a
> good rat's ass about what
> it is. I can SEE what it is. I want to
> know what is its meaning. What does it mean for my
> life...."
>
> I think you have hit the nail on the head with this
> statement. The answer
> to all this hullabaloo is that people are seeking
> meaning. But are we
> SEEKING meaning or ASCRIBING meaning or both?
(Pottsie)
A monk asked his master "Where can I find Truth?". To
which the master replied "You could not seek but that
you were not already found."
Yes. We are both seeking and ascribing. That is what
Humans are. We are the beings that give the world
meaning. As Voltaire said, "If there were no God, it
would be necessary for us to invent Him."
It is the mystical meaning of the idea of God being
lonely, and creating man so as to have someone to
commune with.
Your statement is a perfect example of what I mean
when I say that a materialist places the emphasis on
the material, while the idealist places the emphasis
on the mental. You don't place as much importance on
the fact that there IS "meaning" as I do, and think
that it all is unimportant "hullabaloo".
I don't think it is hullabaloo at all. (Except when
it disentegrates into insult throwing)
(Chris)
>
> 1. Is the universe meaning-less on its own, without
> beings like humans to
> ascribe meaning to it?
(Pottsie)
No. The meaning is there. However, the recognition
of meaning by humans that they themselves are
meaningful is....well, in itself meaningful. Man...a
manifestation of God.....of meaning.
We are talking of Consciousness again.
(Chris)
> 2. Is there meaning inherit in the universe that
> beings like humans, when
> they think the right way, can discover?
(Pottsie)
I don't know that it is a matter of "thinking in the
right way". It is probably more a matter of
enlightenment. (That is NOT to say that there are
some enlightened who are somehow superior to others
who are not)
(Chris)
> 3. Something in the middle: where world events may
> TRIGGER meaning in
> humans--suggesting a world/meaning interaction?
(Pottsie)
There IS a world/meaning interation....IMHO. As I've
said before....There is the Thing Itself, The Way It
works, and What It does. The Idea, It's Operation,
and It's manifestation.
> 4. All of the above.
>
> By the way, is there any way for this board to get
> over this
> "close-minded"/"delusional" name-calling fetish? I
> know I have participated
> in this, but it seems really silly at some point....
(Pottsie)
I was not using "Closed" and "Open" minded in a
derogatory manner. There is nothing "wrong" with
being skeptical. And along with that there is nothing
"better" about being "open-minded". The type of
"closed-mindedness" that is wrong is that which
believes it is preferable to be "Skeptical". The type
of Open-mindedness that is wrong is the type that is
Arrogant in its relationship to the Skeptic.
I don't think I've ever "beat up" a skeptic for being
skeptical. But I WILL lower the boom on Arrogance.
As far as the "delusional" goes. There is not one of
us on this board who is fully enlightened. So we are
ALL delusional about some things. The goal is to
become "disillusioned", become free of Maya, and
enlightened beings. If one thinks one is enlightened
that is just proof that he is not. "Those who know
don't speak, those who speak don't know" - Lao-Tzu
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
__________________________________________________
Pottsie
> You two have reverted to talking about
> "understanding the universe", far
> different in context to the "meaning of the
> universe" where the religious
> imagination lies.
>
>
>
> ~C
(Pottsie)
Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your definitions of
"meaning" and "understanding"! ;)
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
As a Psychotherapist you are aware that the Intellect
is a conscious operation. Knowing something with the
Intellect is something entirely different that
"knowing" something with the Subjective Mind.
I use "Subjective" here as being subject to the
Conscious Mind...the automatic Mind. I repeat over
and over and over to myself something until I believe
it. Then it goes on autopilot.
I stopped drinking 20 years ago at the age of 41. Not
by trying to stop....but by changing my lifestyle. I
once saw myself as a person who drinks. I now have a
totally different self image. I don't have to
Consciously think..."I shouldn't have that beer."
When I first stopped, it was an "intellectual" thing.
No longer. It is now in my being.
Emotional/meaningful/Intuitive reaction to life.
It is the same thing with Unity. Once I begin to
affirm my Unity with Life. Life responds to me and I
"SEE" the Unity.
Before I stopped drinking, I couldn't see how I could
live without it. Once I stopped, I began to see how I
could live without it.
People ask me, "Why would you wouldn't you want to
feel better....have fun....relax....whatever?" I tell
them, "I AM having fun, I AM relaxed, I feel better
than I've felt in my life! I am at One with the
Universe!"
......They look at me as if I'm crazy!
I ask you.....Who is it that is insane?
You will understand this.
Years ago after 4 1/2 of sobriety, I had to go to
Therapy. I couldn't pick up the phone....I was
catatonic, the fear of calling on people was horrific.
I had lost my wife and family because I couldn't
support them.....I was an Insurance Salesman! An
Insurance Salesman who was afraid to pick up the
phone! Imagine!
So....I finally decided on therapy. It was either
that or kill myself.
After about six months of looking inward, I was
walking down the street one day, and it dawned on me
what the problem was. I called my therapist, and told
him. He said "Great....come on in and let's talk
about it." (He wanted one more fee!)
I walked in, sat down, and he asked me to tell him
what I had discovered.
I told him. "Steve, the only thing that is wrong with
me.........is that I think there is something wrong
with me."
He said, "You've got it!" And I've never been back
since.
Now, that was NOT an Intellectual understanding. I
didn't "figure it out". It just "popped" into my
head.....an emotional, meaningful, intuition of my
OKness.....my Oneness with all there is.
In religious terms, it's called Justification. In Pop
Psychology, it's called "I'm Ok, You're Ok." In
classic? Psychology, it's called
Self-Actualization...though I believe as Maslow
presented it, it is both the State of Being
(Justification) as well as the Process
(Sanctification)
I'm not a Psychology major, Psychotherapist, or
Doctoral Candidate, so I don't pretend to know all the
ins and outs of this stuff, but I DO know what my
experience is.
So, yes, that I am one with the Universe has a GREAT
DEAL of meaning for me. And though that meaning may
be talked about in terms of neurotransmitters, and how
the brain operates.....it is not those
neurotransmitters nor molecules of oxygen, hydrogen
and nitrogen that give meaning....it is the
EXPERIENCE! The COMBINATION of Self and Other that
gives meaning.
This addresses your other post about whether the world
has meaning or do humans ascribe meaning. It is the
UNITY of the TWO into one that brings the meaning.
There IS no me without a YOU!
Namaste
Pottsie
--- "Christopher A. Crosdale"
<chrisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pottsie,
>
> Do you think that there may be
> "Oneness-as-an-intellectual-concept" as
> distinct from
> "Oneness-as-an-emotionally-meaningful-intuition"?
> As you
> know, I agree that the universe is a unity and that
> the divisions of the
> universe are the constructs of the observer--this, I
> think, is a perfectly
> valid intellectual concept. However, the statement
> you are trying to make,
> I feel, is that this idea of the unity is meaningful
> to you, that you feel
> "at one" with the universe in that way. True?
>
> ~C
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
__________________________________________________
Pottsie
--- Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Pottsie)
Jesus would probably have doubled up with laughter at
Monty Python's Life of Brian!
*whistle - whistle" ......"Always look on the bright
side of life..... *whistle - whistle" =))))
Namaste
Pottsie (A proud member of the "Sandal" sect!)
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
__________________________________________________
Christopher A. Crosdale
Your answer to those questions is what I expected... I'm sure you could have
guessed mine also.... Although I should have asked for people to "pick the
one closest to their own position". I assume that No.3 is probably your
choice, orthodox monotheists may go for No.2, secular humanists No. 1, and
so on....
I'd personally assume the universes to be "meaningless" and that any meaning
is ascribed by the meaner. I could point to some inferential cases of this,
but what's the point....?
I can also see the viewpoint that the meaning needs something to be ascribed
to in order to be meaningful--that the meaning and the
thing-ascribed-meaning come about together in a way. But I can't see any
inherit meaning in the thing-ascribed-meaning without a meaner, which
implies an intelligent being, a brain, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah...
But I think this is one piece in this "puzzle" of looking at religious
experience: whether or not you personally ascribe meaning, especially what
has been described as "spiritual meaning", to an internal source, such as a
brain, or an external source, such as god. And no matter how close-minded
or open-minded, rational or delusional, someone would appear, we ALL
actively slide up and down this continuum in our daily lives. It is only in
thoughtful reflection that one chooses a side.
~C
As I'm sure that you could guess my opinions about each: that I don't see
"meaning" as something that is generated,
-----Original Message-----
From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pottsie
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:12 PM
To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
I *ahem* applaud your recognition of it!
James Barlow
Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
wrote:
>
> Pottsie,
>
> Do you think that there may be
> "Oneness-as-an-intellectual-concept" as
> distinct from
> "Oneness-as-an-emotionally-meaningful-intuition"?
> As you
> know, I agree that the universe is a unity and that
> the divisions of the
> universe are the constructs of the observer--this, I
> think, is a perfectly
> valid intellectual concept. However, the statement
> you are trying to make,
> I feel, is that this idea of the unity is meaningful
> to you, that you feel
> "at one" with the universe in that way. True?
>
> ~C
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
DubiousChrisJ
Christopher A. Crosdale
Thanks for sharing the story....
This may be hard to swallow, considering my overly-rational stance here on
this forum, but my working state of consciousness, when I'm involved in
therapy, and doing it right, is almost entirely intuitive. If I'm not in
that mode, and I'm "over thinking" what is being said, I miss a lot. I do
however, have to keep one foot grounded in rationality to help improve the
dialogue, both internally in the client and externally in our sessions,
toward therapeutic exchange; namely, resolving the conflict between
feelings/drives/intuitions and thoughts/expectations.
What you would call "subjective mind", I would probably call the
subconscious or unconscious. In this "intuitive mode" of therapy, I have to
been keenly aware that this is going on all the time. That what is going on
in conscious-awareness has been entirely filtered through unconscious
process first. However, we are not aware of this, or it would be conscious.
Your brain works in a bottom-up process, from unconscious toward conscious,
where willful conscious control takes over and begins a top-down process.
Unconscious drives/emotions/intuitions steer thoughts and present these to
conscious attention where they are worked out, appeased, rejected, acted on,
etc. Example:
Bottom-up: Arousal in the brain stem > feelings of anxiety > thoughts that
are anxiety-suggestive
Top-down: plan to reduce anxiety > appease thoughts that are
anxiety-suggestive > reduction in anxiety > relaxation of the brain stem
If someone has a history of abandonment, you could see that it would not be
unlikely that they would have thoughts that represent a fear of that
happening again, regardless of the facts. The greater this fear, the
greater the attention given to these thoughts, the more likely that someone
would act to assuage them. The more they act, the greater the likelihood of
abandonment again. Around and around it goes.
As you have suggested in your examples, change is nothing more complicated
than overriding the system in a top-down way. You're lucky enough to be
insightful enough about your own experience to do that; a lot can't get it.
Therapy offers that insight, but if people aren't "there yet", they will
have a hard time getting it.
Your epiphany regarding feeling that there was "something wrong with you"
was the resolution of the conflict in the system that was causing you grief.
You suggest two state of affairs with this: you were "involve with 6 months
of soul searching" AND it "came you all at once". I've worked with enough
people to know that I get very little credit for the great "epiphanies" that
people have 6 months or a year down the road. As a matter of fact, I'm
amazed just how blind people are to the fact that I have suggested the same
thing to them a bunch of times and, all of sudden, "It just came to me!"
Not that I'm bitter, but the process is like that. They aren't "there yet".
It's kind of the same with children when they are learning to talk. They
will have a few days of sleepiness as their brains are re-wiring and, bam, a
huge leap in ability.
In any regard, none of this would need the addition of a spirit or soul or
cosmic intelligence to make sense. The feelings or meaning that we ascribe
to things are purely the unconscious working of your brain based on
experience and underlying function. I know this may sound cold-hearted or
overly-rational, but it can be demonstrated within the framework of a
materialist model very effectively.
~C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pottsie
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
I applaud *ahem* your recognition of it!
Namaste
Pottsie
On May 8, 12:42�pm, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The sound of one hand clapping?
>
> On 5/8/07, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > (Pottsie)
>
> > Yes. It has sort of a Zen quality to it, don't you
> > think?
>
> > Namaste
>
> > Pottsie
>
> > --- DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Very concise, Potts. ;)
>
> > > On 5/8/07, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
Pottsie
(Pottsie)Maybe I didn't make myself clear. There is no meaning in the Universe without a "Meaner"......for the Universe IS the Meaner. The Universe and The Meaner are One. That Unity IS the Meaning. Meaning is not "generated by" Unity. Meaning IS Unity.When we say "Meaner" or "Universe", we are thinking dualistically. The Seer and the thing Seen. When the Seer and the Thing Seen are seen as One.....THAT IS THE Meaning.When one asks "What is the Meaning of Life?, he is asking "What is the Purpose of Life?The Purpose/Meaning/Importance/Significance is Unity....Love....Oneness.....Being......Wholeness.....Health.....Actualization. Tell me that that is not what you are attempting to get your clients to realize. To realize themselves in their highest potential. To be All that they can be....to borrow the Army slogan.A person who has reached this point (and we are all simply sojourners along the Way) is what is known as a Saint. (Did you know that the word "Saint" is connected to the word "Health"?) Not a saint because the Church has designated them as such, but because they have realized it in their own Soul.....their own Being. This is the recognition that they are One with the Universe, that they are One with God, that they are Justified by Faith. Because they KNOW it. No one has to give them the stamp of approval. God has given it to them. Their Being has given it to them. It is their birthright as a Human Being, as a child of God, as a child of the Universe. They have seen it for themselves. It is called grace. Self-Acceptance. Self-Respect.NamastePottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Christopher A. Crosdale
Pottsie,
I think you have made your opinions clear in the past. I think I have made my opinions clear in the past. We are at an impasse on this subject I assume. As I have mentioned in the past, I feel like this whole debate revolves around the how and why certain qualities are attributed to certain objects or states of affairs, including the universe as a whole. I suppose I could run down my argument for this one more time, but I get the feeling that, in the end, it would only be “typing in the wind”. From your posts, I’m fairly sure you must also have that same feeling by now….
In answer to your direct question: I’m looking for my clients to achieve a maximum degree of happiness in their lives—whatever that means to them, not what it means to me. It would ridiculous for me, in my opinion, to assert to them that that meaning is “out there” somewhere. “Meaning” is an entity-dependent quality; the same reason that I find meaning in certain things and you find meaning in others. There is, of course, some overlap in what we are likely to find meaningful as we are part of the same type of entities, but all the things that are meaningful to you (“unity, love, oneness, being, wholeness, health, actualization, etc.) are not necessarily all that meaningful to everyone in their pursuit of happiness. I could see how people could equally value independence, autonomy, getting angry, personal responsibility, self-determination, etc…. And yes, even materialism. Believe it or not, I find the idea of being a “saint”, in the way that you describe it, as something that would not be meaningful to me at all. I find the idea of being a self-contained entity, out there on my own, ascribing meaning as I see fit, loving who I want to love, as far more meaningful and exhilarating than some oceanic unity.
~C
From:
Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pottsie
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:58 AM
To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
The fish are biting.
Get
more visitors on your site using Yahoo!
Search Marketing.</a
Lee
This is the very question that I wonder about perhaps more than any.
As I say, people are differant, this much is apparent, as is the
reason, differing mindsets.
Why differing mindsets, or differant methoeds of thought though, umm
that is a big question.
I'm prepared to bellive that the majority of it comes soley from
nuture, some of it is genetic, and a bit from your own self.
Let me start backwards if I may. What do I mean when I say from your
own self?
I mean the diffferance between a mind that quests for answers, and one
that does not is basicaly one of lazyness. Inate inteligence has nowt
to do with this, it seems to me that the deafualt thought process for
humanity is one of irrational learned responses. Monkey see, monkey
do. Those that question, do so because for whatever reasons we do not
feel inclined to belive as our fathers did, or what the TV tells us
to(perhaps then mistust is a key?) blind following of tradition seems
to play a more important role than basic education for the vast
majority of us, logical and critical thought is something that must be
learned to be used, and the willingness or not to learn this skills is
what I mean by lazyness, and our own selfs.
Genetics plays it's part I belive in the ability we have to use these
aformentioned skills. I can only ever be as intelegent as my brain
alows me to be. In addition I think it is well know here abouts now
that I am dyslexic, which means that my brain processes data
differantly, again a genetic thing. Is it possible to transcend
biological bounderies, I would not have thought so.
Which brings us to nurture. Most highly educated people I know come
form educated families whilst most toerags I know come from
backgrounds that reflect this also, of course there are always
exceptons. Did any Brits see that programe on Tuesday night, called
Return of the Tribe?
It was about a tribe that some filmmaker spent some time with in PNG,
and their first time out of the forrest and in London. It was full of
cutural differances, and belifes, and very much showed that your
upbringing plays a very important role in your future thought
processes.
Just to end, DC I don't entirly agree with your first . Either this
or that, has never really been indicitive of the what I see in people,
rather like the Ying Yang, we can be a little of this, and a little of
that, and maybe a touch or smidgein of the other.
For example I personaly have never sought this something greater, I
have come to my conclusions rationaly, and belive what I do more
because of all the hypothesis I have seen 'God did it' at least is an
all encompasing answer.
So you see, not this or that, but a little bit of all sorts.
On 8 May, 07:08, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, as we have clearly seen, there seem to be two major archetypes in this
> group: those who seek to quantify the world based on rational analysis and
> deductive reasoning, and those who seek to find something greater; an
> outside pattern that drives it all, that some might call God.
>
> I don't intend to begin another round of Science vs. Philosophy here; we
> have plenty of active threads for that. But I am truly curious about what it
> might be that makes one human accept an understanding of the universe
> based on mathematical extrapolation, and a singular drive to provide proof
> that the understanding is accurate, and another person to form firm belief
> sets around speculation, based loosely on a scientific basis, but
> translating into a cosmic version of "What if?"
>
> Of course, the irony is that quantum mechanics is all about the "What if"
> factor, and so the core of each of these mindsets have commonalities that
> make the conversation a little muddied. Pedantic dissection becomes the
> order of the day when trying to sort between them.
>
> But what is the Faith Factor? What makes me such a hard facts and figures
> guy (despite being a romantic, and ponderer, in the literary sense), and
> Pottsie such a staunch supporter of the concept that existence itself proves
> that God exists?
>
> I don't think I am any more intelligent than most of the people on the
> board, so I really don't think it's a matter of IQ or education. I think
Pottsie
On May 9, 3:20�pm, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Pottsie,
>
> I think you have made your opinions clear in the past. I think I have made
> my opinions clear in the past. We are at an impasse on this subject I
> assume. As I have mentioned in the past, I feel like this whole debate
> revolves around the how and why certain qualities are attributed to certain
> objects or states of affairs, including the universe as a whole. I suppose
> I could run down my argument for this one more time, but I get the feeling
> that, in the end, it would only be "typing in the wind". From your posts,
> I'm fairly sure you must also have that same feeling by now..
>
> In answer to your direct question: I'm looking for my clients to achieve a
> maximum degree of happiness in their lives-whatever that means to them, not
> what it means to me. It would ridiculous for me, in my opinion, to assert
> to them that that meaning is "out there" somewhere. "Meaning" is an
> entity-dependent quality; the same reason that I find meaning in certain
> things and you find meaning in others.
(Pottsie)
The thing that you are not seeing, IMHO, is the fact that meaning is
not ENTIRELY dependent upon the subject. It ALSO needs an object.
The meaning is not realized until there is Unity between the two.
Yes, we FIND meaning in different things, places, and events, but
there are meanings that we never see. Synonyms for meaning are
"significance" and "purpose". Everything has
significance.....everything "says" something.....we may not hear it,
but everything says something. Everything has purpose, we may not
understand the utility of the thing, but it is there nonetheless.
"Out there" somewhere is a universe filled with cures for "incurable"
diseases. Somewhere there is a thing that will cure cancer. We
haven't found it yet. That does not mean that it isn't there. When
That thing comes together in Unity with a particular individual.....It
will have great meaning for humanity. But the meaning will not simply
reside in the Individual side of the equation.
(Chris)
There is, of course, some overlap in
> what we are likely to find meaningful as we are part of the same type of
> entities, but all the things that are meaningful to you ("unity, love,
> oneness, being, wholeness, health, actualization, etc.) are not necessarily
> all that meaningful to everyone in their pursuit of happiness. I could see
> how people could equally value independence, autonomy, getting angry,
> personal responsibility, self-determination, etc.. And yes, even
> materialism. Believe it or not, I find the idea of being a "saint", in the
> way that you describe it, as something that would not be meaningful to me at
> all. I find the idea of being a self-contained entity, out there on my
> own, ascribing meaning as I see fit, loving who I want to love, as far more
> meaningful and exhilarating than some oceanic unity.
(Pottsie)
So you hope to help an individual who's purpose, goal, or happiness
results in self-mutilation ? I think not. Surely, you don't think
that is HEALTHY, or Whole, or Self-Actualized. It is certainly,
though, an independent and autonomous act, involves anger, and he or
she alone is personally responsible, and it was self-determined.
I don't think so. You would help that individual to Love themselves,
to feel as if they had self-worth and value, and acheive Mental Health
and Wholeness.
Come on, Chris, the ideas that you've set forth �are valuable on a
particular level of Consciousness, perhaps the middle of Maslow's
heirarchy, but they are not the ultimate. It is the reason that a
great number of spiritual disciplines depict Spiritual Attainment as
an evolution.........there are many stages one goes through before
reaching "Paradise"
Namaste
Pottsie
>
> ~C
>
> From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Pottsie
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:58 AM
> To: Mind...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
>
> Unity....Love....Oneness.....Being......Wholeness.....Health.....Actualizati
> on. Tell me that that is not what you are attempting to get your clients to
> realize. To realize themselves in their highest potential. To be All that
> they can be....to borrow the Army slogan.
>
> A person who has reached this point (and we are all simply sojourners along
> the Way) is what is known as a Saint. (Did you know that the word "Saint"
> is connected to the word "Health"?) Not a saint because the Church has
> designated them as such, but because they have realized it in their own
> Soul.....their own Being. This is the recognition that they are One with
> the Universe, that they are One with God, that they are Justified by Faith.
> Because they KNOW it. No one has to give them the stamp of approval. God
> has given it to them. Their Being has given it to them. It is their
> birthright as a Human Being, as a child of God, as a child of the Universe.
> They have seen it for themselves. It is called grace. Self-Acceptance.
> Self-Respect.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>
> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
>
> _____
>
> The fish are biting.
> Get
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*http:/searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp...
> oredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50> more
Christopher A. Crosdale
(Chris): THIS is where we differ in our ideology on the subject. You suggest metaphysics, I don't. This is the impasse. I don't think that I could create a reasoned enough, or intuitive enough, argument for you to change your personal disposition toward this inclination; nor do I think you could create one for me.
(Pottsie) "So you hope to help an individual who's purpose, goal, or happiness results in self-mutilation? I think not. Surely, you don't think that is HEALTHY, or Whole, or Self-Actualized. It is certainly, though, an independent and autonomous act, involves anger, and he or she alone is personally responsible, and it was self-determined...."
(Chris): You're creating a straw man here. You're suggest a certain state of affairs that are so very highly unlikely--that self-mutilation or self-destruction could be the result of self-autonomy and self-actualization--that your argument seems desperate. Go find any self-mutilating individual and show me a high degree of self-autonomy. The exact opposite is typically the case. People become self-destructive and self-mutilating when they relinquish control of their experience, when they can't effectively express their anger, when they have no self-determination and feel oppressed or out-of-control. Your statement, although considered, makes no sense.
(Pottsie): "...I don't think so. You would help that individual to Love themselves, to feel as if they had self-worth and value, and acheive Mental Health and Wholeness...."
(Chris): Yes. But that does not mean that it has to be through any of the things that YOU or I find meaningful or valuable. This self-love MAY involve the ability to understand that it is okay to be angry--that they are not a bad person for being angry, for asserting some independence from others, for asserting their own place in the world, etc. Religion, along with a lot of other -isms and ideologies, no matter how well intentioned, can be horribly oppressive if they do take into account the individual's development toward self-control....
(Pottsie): "...the ideas that you've set forth are valuable on a particular level of Consciousness, perhaps the middle of Maslow's heirarchy, but they are not the ultimate. It is the reason that a great number of spiritual disciplines depict Spiritual Attainment as an evolution.........there are many stages one goes through before reaching "Paradise""
(Chris): I see the matter the same, but in a much different way. Any 'evolution' in this department of "spiritual attainment" is through an integration and subsuming of various "lower" areas our brain/mind, not through transcendence of it. This is what I consider "spirituality": an inward arc in the material, not a transcendence of it.
To address all the issues discussed above, people who see psychologists are typically working on the "outward arc" of development: to establish a balance between these bottom-up and top-down processes to be effective and happy person "in the world". For some, this is enough and the best they could hope to achieve.....
For others, they begin the "inward arc" of this process: to work back through the muck to integrate the rational with the non-rational--to be a happy person "in their soul" (I, of course, use "soul" creatively here. In reality, this is only a continued refinement of the bottom-up/top-down process through integration of levels of the brain rather than balancing levels of the brain, which creates a synergistic effect.) Sometimes this process needs religious "techniques" to loosen up the hold of the rational (meditation, fasting, dance, psychedelics, etc.).... The "psychonauts" of this process work all the way back down--to speak metaphorically--into amoeba consciousness (void). But this whole process is all neurons dancing with neurons.
~C
James Barlow
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
DubiousChrisJ
It's really just a commonplace. There is so much more to intellectual activity than mere functioning consciousness, as Jung and others have demonstrated more than adequately.The statement is hardly inflammatory. Rationalism had among its tenets a faith that "intellect is consciousness" (or rather, more Cartesian, "consciousness is intellect.")Since consciousness takes place within biological organisms, to say that "consciousness itself is purely a biological function" is indicative of little more than mastery of the obvious, and says nothing interesting.
James Barlow
James Barlow
DubiousChrisJ
Pottsie
rhetorical obfuscation" should feel right at home with
it.
Namaste
Pottsie
=== message truncated ===
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Paul
Genisis 1:1
For me that speaks for itself
-Paul
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
I'm happy for you. And I can see you've put a lot of
thought into it.
Namaste
Pottsie
--- Paul <pburi...@gmail.com> wrote:
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
paradox
Stick around.
On 10 May, 20:08, James Barlow <market...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, it sounds to me like both sides in this are manifesting the usual great deal of rhetorical obfuscation so common to these forums.
>
> DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/07, James Barlow <market...@yahoo.com> wrote: It's really just a commonplace. There is so much more to intellectual activity than mere functioning consciousness, as Jung and others have demonstrated more than adequately.
> The statement is hardly inflammatory. Rationalism had among its tenets a faith that "intellect is consciousness" (or rather, more Cartesian, "consciousness is intellect.")
> Since consciousness takes place within biological organisms, to say that "consciousness itself is purely a biological function" is indicative of little more than mastery of the obvious, and says nothing interesting.
>
> Apparently, there are some who disagree with something you find obvious.
>
> Indirect as well as Directed Thinking can both be conscious, so alas for the tuning fork analogy.
> You know lists like these are funny. -james
>
> DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> This is a very inflammatory statement. I, for one, believe that intellect is fine tuned consciousness, and that consciousness itself is a purely biological function.
>
> Would you care to expound upon your statement that "this was the failure of Rationalism"?
>
> On 5/8/07, James Barlow < market...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyone who truly believes that the Intellect is a conscious operation in solum really needs to have their head examined. For this was the failure of Rationalism. -james
>
> ---------------------------------
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.- Hide quoted text -
A.
On May 7, 11:08 pm, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, as we have clearly seen, there seem to be two major archetypes in this
> group: those who seek to quantify the world based on rational analysis and
> deductive reasoning, and those who seek to find something greater; an
> outside pattern that drives it all, that some might call God.
>
> I don't intend to begin another round of Science vs. Philosophy here; we
> have plenty of active threads for that. But I am truly curious about what it
> might be that makes one human accept an understanding of the universe
> based on mathematical extrapolation, and a singular drive to provide proof
> that the understanding is accurate, and another person to form firm belief
> sets around speculation, based loosely on a scientific basis, but
> translating into a cosmic version of "What if?"
I routinely do both and see no inherent conflicts. So does the guy
who sits next to me on the couch every night - and many others we
know.
>
> Of course, the irony is that quantum mechanics is all about the "What if"
> factor, and so the core of each of these mindsets have commonalities that
> make the conversation a little muddied. Pedantic dissection becomes the
> order of the day when trying to sort between them.
Only if the more pedantic view prevails - which it seems to, on
usenet.
>
> But what is the Faith Factor? What makes me such a hard facts and figures
> guy (despite being a romantic, and ponderer, in the literary sense), and
> Pottsie such a staunch supporter of the concept that existence itself proves
> that God exists?
There's middle ground. I'm not fond of faith-only systems. But there
are plenty of empirical data that require some explanation not yet
afforded by physics or math.
>
> I don't think I am any more intelligent than most of the people on the
> board, so I really don't think it's a matter of IQ or education. I think
> there is something fundamentally different in the way we think.
>
> Has anyone read any research on this?
I don't know of any research - indeed, research into "learning styles"
or "personality" is in its infancy. In short - your question is one
that you might as well ask of an astrologer as of a physicist.
I think there are bigger reasons why people fall into these (three)
camps - but that's just me.
>
> Sorry if I've rambled a bit; it's after 2 AM, and I am pecking this out
> while waiting for this evening's design work to upload to the server.
Good evening to you - these are great questions.
A.
A.
On May 8, 7:33 am, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/07, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, as we have clearly seen, there seem to be two major archetypes in this
> > group: those who seek to quantify the world based on rational analysis and
> > deductive reasoning, and those who seek to find something greater; an
> > outside pattern that drives it all, that some might call God.
>
> > I don't intend to begin another round of Science vs. Philosophy here; we
> > have plenty of active threads for that. But I am truly curious about what it
> > might be that makes one human accept an understanding of the universe based
> > on mathematical extrapolation, and a singular drive to provide proof that
> > the understanding is accurate, and another person to form firm belief sets
> > around speculation, based loosely on a scientific basis, but translating
> > into a cosmic version of "What if?"
>
> > Of course, the irony is that quantum mechanics is all about the "What if"
> > factor, and so the core of each of these mindsets have commonalities that
> > make the conversation a little muddied. Pedantic dissection becomes the
> > order of the day when trying to sort between them.
>
> > But what is the Faith Factor? What makes me such a hard facts and figures
> > guy (despite being a romantic, and ponderer, in the literary sense), and
> > Pottsie such a staunch supporter of the concept that existence itself proves
> > that God exists?
>
> I don't know how relevent this is, but reading through this an image
> popped in my head I must share ( I think in pictures...)
>
> I think that the difference here isn't as big as all that. You're a
> hard facts and figures guy... so you could look at a chunk of letters
> (A, G, C, T) and see a pattern that represents a mathematical
> approach. Pottsie could look at the same letters and say "Ah Ha! It's
> you."
I think I understand what you're trying to say - but I disagree.
>
> Does that make sense? I mean, DNA is essentially mathematical, and one
> (who was unaware of the whole concept) could study it for YEARS and
> never conclude that those letter equaled a person.... but it does.
No, it doesn't. On many different levels - your DNA doesn't equal a
"person." Defining "person" is beyond the scope of this discussion
board, but surely, you see that you are more than your DNA.
What is true, however, is that a person could study the sequences of
nucleotides that make up any one typical person (mutations and all)
and never realize that's what they were looking at. That's true.
But that's true of all the components of a person, especially at the
empirical level.
I don't believe it is the same act of viewing to look at something
without knowledge and to look at it with knowledge. A person, to me,
as has knowledge (but that's just a part of how I'd go about thinking
about who is and isn't a person).
> Eventually it could be discovered, and one person could guess that it
> was the blueprint to humans, but would have no way to really prove it
> for quite some time.
It's not merely the blueprint for humans - it's the blueprint for all
life. And some humans, especially those with recognized DNA defects,
don't resemble other humans as much as some would make out.
>
> In my head, this makes sense... let me know if I need to clarify more...
I get what you're saying - about the fact that something complex can
be displayed right in front of us, something that pertains intimately
to who we are (as individuals or as groups) but we don't get it. That
part is clear.
But to attribute to Pottsie the ability to See what such codes might
mean (as though that's what Pottsie is doing when Pottsie Sees God) is
a major analytic error, in my view.
A.
A.
On May 8, 9:35 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 11:33?am, Mike Burtner <mikeburt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I would be more than happy for someone to change my whole
> > paradigm by showing me a genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
> > dust cloud, or even the mildest empirical evidence of such.
>
> (Pottsie)
>
> I don't believe there is anyone currently posting on this board who is
> talking of a "genie, a deity or a super-intelligent cosmic
> dust cloud" (One qualification to that statement.......there is a
> difference between "A deity" and deity. There is certainly no
> Individual Deity. How can the Universal be Individual? But there
> certainly is Deity.)
>
> It seems that Atheists and skeptics just can't understand
> Unity.....Oneness. And the reason, I believe is their penchant for
> Analysis as opposed to Synthesis.
I think it's more than mere lack of understanding of Oneness. And I
think Deists/Religionists make it sound all too simple (Oneness).
The only reason to believe in anything "spiritual" (in my view) is
that one has direct experience that can't be explained except through
reference to invisible, non-quantifiable forces that act upon the
world in ways that one can observe.
A.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
A.
On May 8, 8:08 am, DubiousChrisJ <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you're saying makes sense, Potts, from an Idealist point of view... ;)
>
> It doesn't account for the fact that I worked in the inverse of what you are
> saying, though...I was an idealist through my youth, and early adulthood. My
> skepticism was built in bits and pieces over time.
>
> I do, indeed, look for a why, and a meaning, but what I see is that there is
> a pattern in place which is quantifiable; that the point of existence is to
> exist. No, all of the answers are not there yet, but they come at ever
> increasing speed.
So are you saying that if some meaning wasn't a pattern - it wouldn't
exist? Or it wouldn't exist for you, personally?
Are you saying that there is no meaning if it isn't quantifiable?
How did the stuff about "points" get into your sentences? Meaning can
exist and not have a point. Meaning can exist and not be
quantifiable.
Are you into patterns or not? It's true that many people seem built
to see patterns (you seem to be - you insist there are patterns, for
example, to others' postings that I'm not sure I see) - but is that
meaning, to you? Meaning = patterns?
What if there is no pattern? Can't there still be meaning?
A.
>
> You say you SEE what it is, but want to know the meaning. Do you SEE the
> ordered and disordered states of carbon nanotubes? Do you SEE the 0,1, and
> superstates of the quantum processor? It almost seems like you have a more
> assumptive state of the material than I do, and feel enough is known to
> begin speculating, while I see how much we do know, and how as we find out
> more, speculation is often disproven. Apparently, thunder is not the sound
> of Gods fighting. Who knew?
>
> On 5/8/07, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (Pottsie)
>
> > This reply will probably be a qood example of what you
> > mean. =)
>
> > I wonder why it is that you've asked for answers from
> > "anyone whose done research on the subject"....and why
> > do you not ask for answers from someone who has
> > "speculated" on the subject? ROFLMAO!!
>
> > I look at the world and see two types of people 1.
> > Those who quantify the world based on rational
> > analysis and deductive, and 2. Those who seek to find
> > something greater.....as you said.
>
> > You see the pattern, see the effect, and look for a
> > physical cause. You ask what it IS, what makes it the
> > way it is..You don't care what it MEANS.
>
> > I see the pattern and could give a good rat's ass
> > about what it is. I can SEE what it is. I want to
> > know what is its meaning. What does it mean for my
> > life.
>
> > (You and I are neither fully in either camp, but as
> > archetypes...I think this is true.)
>
> > The reason that you don't see God....is that you are
> > not interested in meaning. What It SAYS to you. (I
> > really don't believe that, but I believe that YOU
> > believe that).
>
> > I believe that basically these two groups can be
> > classified as Materialists and Idealists. (Not
> > Idealists in terms of looking for Utopia, but
> > Idealists who look at the world from a Consciousness
> > or Mental/Spiritual point of view)
>
> > The thing that pisses me off more than anything when
> > it comes to this sort of thing is the attitude of the
> > majority of the Materialists in that they believe,
> > because they can grasp the world through the 5 senses
> > that that is all there is.......and then by extention,
> > the people who see that that is NOT all there is are
> > dumb and delusional. (All one has to do is look at
> > this board and other boards where Atheism vs Theism is
> > discussed and look to see where the majority of the
> > sarcasm and insults come from)
>
> > MOST Theists (with the exception of the fundamentalist
> > camps)are open-minded....they HAVE to be because of
> > their inclination toward Speculation which rewards an
> > open mind. Most Atheists, on the other hand, have
> > closed-minds which only opens AFTER the skepticism is
> > overcome. If they weren't closed-minded, they wouldn't
> > be skeptical...so that is not necessarily a knock on
> > skepticism.
>
> > Psychologically, it probably has to do with, some sort
> > of defense mechanism. With the Theist, not being
> > threatened, but comforted, by knowing that there is
> > order.....a greater power in control of natural
> > forces, while the Atheist, feeling threatened and
> > needing to be in control as a defense against natural
> > forces, has to UNDERSTAND, what is going on, and LOOKS
> > for order.
>
> > Of course this is all very speculative, since I
> > haven't done much research on it! =)))))
>
> > I have a saying when it comes to American politics
> > which also applies in this case....
>
> > "Thank God for the Liberals! They keep us moving
> > forward. Thank God for the Conservatives! They keep
> > us from moving too fast!"
>
> > With a twist....
>
> > Thank God for the Materialists! They keep us
> > grounded.
> > Thank God for the Idealists! They help us to see what
> > we are grounded in!
>
> > (I actually read where as an antedote for the
> > delusions brought about by a novice meditator who had
> > over extended himself in meditation.....was being
> > forced to eat a great big juicy hamburger with all the
> > fixin's! .......brought him back to earth! )
>
> > Namaste
>
> > Pottsie
> > > I don't think I am any more intelligent than most of
> > > the people on the
> > > board, so I really don't think it's a matter of IQ
> > > or education. I think
> > > there is something fundamentally different in the
> > > way we think.
>
> > > Has anyone read any research on this?
>
> > > Sorry if I've rambled a bit; it's after 2 AM, and I
> > > am pecking this out
> > > while waiting for this evening's design work to
> > > upload to the server.
>
> > You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
>
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> >http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Erica Moreau
Meaning can
exist and not have a point.
(Eternity)
I don't understand. Isn't meaning essentially what one wishes to
convey, and isn't a point essentially what the meaning leads to? So
wouldn't meaning essentially be equated to time, and the point is the
end? *confused*
Erica Moreau
> I think it's more than mere lack of understanding of Oneness. And I
> think Deists/Religionists make it sound all too simple (Oneness).
>
> The only reason to believe in anything "spiritual" (in my view) is
> that one has direct experience that can't be explained except through
> reference to invisible, non-quantifiable forces that act upon the
> world in ways that one can observe.
>
> A.
>
(eternity)
Everything that exists takes the route that is as simple as possible.
Water, for example. It always takes the short, simple, and the most
direct route to wherever its going. In fact, its route is not planned,
and its destination is unknown as well. Why can't the concept of
oneness, or God, diety, ect... be simple? Why can't our lives be like
the journey of the water frmo glacier to ocean to cloud to rain... ?
In reality everything is simple. It does what it is supposed to do,
and just because we can't wrap our minds around it, or have not yet
truely calculated it, does not mean that in reality it is not simple.
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
Let's see....... We say, "What is the meaning of it
all?"......and we also say "What is the point of it
all?". "What is the significance of it all?" "What
is the purpose of it all?"
Sort of says the same thing, huh, EG?
Get my point? uh....meaning? ;)
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
____________________________________________________________________________________Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Erica Moreau
>
>
> --- Erica Moreau <Erica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > (A)
> >
> > Meaning can
> > exist and not have a point.
> >
> > (Eternity)
> >
> > I don't understand. Isn't meaning essentially what
> > one wishes to
> > convey, and isn't a point essentially what the
> > meaning leads to? So
> > wouldn't meaning essentially be equated to time, and
> > the point is the
> > end? *confused*
>
> (Pottsie)
>
> Let's see....... We say, "What is the meaning of it
> all?"......and we also say "What is the point of it
> all?". "What is the significance of it all?" "What
> is the purpose of it all?"
>
> Sort of says the same thing, huh, EG?
>
> Get my point? uh....meaning? ;)
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>
> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
>
See, I was thinking that... and then I looked them up, and there is a
difference. Small one... but maybe that's what A was getting at...
but... umm... I'd have to say that what A was trying to say doesn't
make sense to me.
Christopher A. Crosdale
see is that there is a pattern in place which is quantifiable; that the
A: "...So are you saying that if some meaning wasn't a pattern - it wouldn't
exist? Or it wouldn't exist for you, personally? Are you saying that there
is no meaning if it isn't quantifiable? ... Meaning can exist and not have
a point. Meaning can exist and not be quantifiable.... "
Chris: By "meaning", are you talking about the understood qualities one
would reference regarding a referent thing or concept through the use of a
symbol or word, as in, "a word has a specific meaning"; or are you talking
about something more in terms of being "meaningful"--that the intellectual
concept, combined with an emotional reaction, provides a "deep meaningful
experience" to you personally?
I could see how the former would be what DubiousChrisJ is talking about and
how the latter may be what you're talking about. However, if you're going
to talk about idealism, it may be worthwhile to straighten that out.
~C
DubiousChrisJ
Please support the 3 Day Breast Cancer Walk for the Cure:
http://www.the3day.org/tampabay07/thatgirltiana
paradox
"interpretation"; yes, a directional distinction; but is there a
conceptual distinction, since both are perfectly symbiotic?
Difficult to see how concepts, or objects, or relationships over time
are inherently meaningful without "predictive" value, which of course
requires an interface of sorts; hmm, meaning in this sense may not be
uniquely "human".
On 15 May, 16:24, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Chris: By "meaning", are you talking about the understood qualities one
Pottsie
(Pottsie)
Uh oh. You shouldn't have said that now you are going
to incur the wrath of the All knowing A. Don't you
know she ALWAYS makes sense?
At least she does to the guy who sits next to her on
the couch every night. ;)
Namaste
Pottsie
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!
A.
On May 15, 1:25 am, Erica Moreau <EricaMor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it's more than mere lack of understanding of Oneness. And I
> > think Deists/Religionists make it sound all too simple (Oneness).
>
> > The only reason to believe in anything "spiritual" (in my view) is
> > that one has direct experience that can't be explained except through
> > reference to invisible, non-quantifiable forces that act upon the
> > world in ways that one can observe.
>
> > A.
>
> (eternity)
I'm not sure I see "eternity" as a force - but, I can understand how
someone else could - and I might merely have a different name for the
same thing, in my own inner lexicon of invisible forces.
>
> Everything that exists takes the route that is as simple as possible.
Yep, that's certainly one way to look at it - not the only way, of
course.
>
> Water, for example. It always takes the short, simple, and the most
> direct route to wherever its going. In fact, its route is not planned,
> and its destination is unknown as well.
Can't agree yet, not on the face of what you said. I know nothing
about the consciousness of water (or electrons) and I'm still
pondering some things physicists have written about the apparent
intentionality of what they hold to be forms of matter - such as
electrons or strings. Do electrons "know" what they're doing? Do
humans "know" what they are doing - or do we just think we do at
times?
Seems to me there's a difference in the quality of "knowing" between
myself and some other Homo sapiens, so I'm still pondering how I'd
know whether humans are particular good planners (compared to water)
and whether any of us knows where we are going.
Why can't the concept of
> oneness, or God, diety, ect... be simple? Why can't our lives be like
> the journey of the water frmo glacier to ocean to cloud to rain... ?
It is, if you see it that way. There are plenty of reasons why people
contemplate water as a poetic image, revealing much about the deeper
questions - and then find, after such meditation, that they don't need
to involve themselves in combat with people who want to ask questions
in a different way.
>
> In reality everything is simple. It does what it is supposed to do,
> and just because we can't wrap our minds around it, or have not yet
> truely calculated it, does not mean that in reality it is not simple.
I agree. It could all be very simple. Many humans, however, resist
such a view, perhaps because of their own natures. Moving back and
forth between simple views and answers, and more complex ones, is
possible and often meaningful, as well.
A.
A.
That's certainly one way of defining meaning - but that's not the way
I look at it. I'm more Wittgensteinian than your view implies, but I
can't possible hold myself to a purely WIttgensteinian view of
meaning.
Surely you can imagine behaviors, stances, attitudes and utterances
that lead away from where the intender-of-meaning might intend?
And no - I don't believe meaning resides solely in the mind of the
speaker/intender. If that were the case, then we could all pack up
our words and go home. Meaning resides outside the meaning-intender,
at least in part.
If you want to make "time" the end point of meaning, you can do so -
but that's completely meaningless to me.
Many statements (and I'm not saying meaning is only utterances, but
utterances can and do have meaning) are designed to have quite a
precise meaning, and there are languages and statements that in my
view are objective statements, such as 1 + 1 = 2 I know many
people who share my view (including many philosophers). But I don't
think that these kinds of statements are the only meaningful ones.
As to the issue of the "point" of a statement, well, sometimes the
point of something is to convey specifics. "That guy in the third
story window has a machine gun!" has a very different relationship to
meaning (and time) than the statement "Druids knew how to fly over
treetops."
I'm not a reductionist, and while you spoke of simplicity earlier, I
don't think meaning is a simple thing. It's complex enough, in fact,
that often people don't understand the meaning of others' actions and
statements or even, their mere existence.
I do agree with Wittgenstein that in order for language to produce
meaning (and I believe that's one of its purposes), there has to be
some agreement about the rules of the game. These rules exist outside
the speaker/intender of meaning and unless the speaker learns the
rules somehow, no matter what their intent, their meaning is likely to
remain unconveyed. And no, simply intending to mean something isn't
the same as meaning it.
A.
A.
On May 15, 5:29 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Erica Moreau <EricaMor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (A)
>
> > Meaning can
> > exist and not have a point.
>
> > (Eternity)
>
> > I don't understand. Isn't meaning essentially what
> > one wishes to
> > convey, and isn't a point essentially what the
> > meaning leads to? So
> > wouldn't meaning essentially be equated to time, and
> > the point is the
> > end? *confused*
>
> (Pottsie)
>
> Let's see....... We say, "What is the meaning of it
> all?"......and we also say "What is the point of it
> all?". "What is the significance of it all?" "What
> is the purpose of it all?"
I rarely ask the three last questions - and no, I don't think they can
all be reduced to the same statement. I think it would be a real
shame, philosophically speaking (in the way that Mind's Eye usually
considers philosophy) to reduce them all to the same thing.
I'm not sure what is meant by significance - perhaps that's the same
as meaning, I don't know. But I prefer to keep words like "purpose"
separate from "meaning," and I don't ever ask, "What's the point?"
unless the person I'm speaking to has indicated they hope to have one
- then I try to find it.
A.
On May 15, 8:24 am, "Christopher A. Crosdale"
True - although I'm pleasantly surprised to see the conversation got
this far! Wasn't prepared for that. (Must be one of my more water-
like days).
I am talking about "meaning" in all of those ways. I am not yet at a
point where I am willing to confine meaning to some small set of what
it might consist of. Frankly, the problem of meaning seems to me to
be one of the more difficult philosophical issues we can speak of, in
a forum like this one.
But the second part - the "deep meaningful experience to me" (my
subjective sense of self) was pretty low on my list of what i actually
had in my mind when I referred to "meaning."
I certainly wouldn't want to exclude meaningful statements that are
quantifiable or, indeed, mathematic in nature. It's hard to get
around the older philosophical discussions (and moods) that deal with
idealism, when it comes to meaning. Personally (for whatever reasons)
I strongly resist the notion of something like a "god" as a securer of
meaning - that without such an entity, there would be little or no
meaning (yada yada). I think it's far more likely that people use the
word "god" to delimit and point to something (a concept?) that they
believe gives their world meaning - and it's very likely
intersubjective in nature (they've been taught by others to see this
"god" and to employ it as a concept to secure meaning; if the "god" is
removed from their viewpoint, some are able to substitute some other
conceptual notion, others are simply unable to make sense for
themselves....)
Anyway, I find discussions about meaning (and intensionality) far more
interesting than discussions about "god."
As for this forum, I'm more interested in why people assume so quickly
that many ordinary words are owned entirely by them (such as "we" or
"society" or "the good") and don't engage in more reflection about
what they're really trying to say. Some words (like "god" or
"religion") motivate some people to post, but I find the entire
exercise circular and a case of putting the cart before the horse,
meaningwise.
A.
Christopher A. Crosdale
no point". Although assumptive on my part, I was checking to see if the
"meaning" she was talking about DID have a point and WAS purposeful:
providing a personal emotional experience for her.
I was asking that question because I felt the underlying current here was
not about WHAT "meaning" is, but WHERE the meaning is coming from; the
difference between "quantitative and speculative" personalities.... Is
"meaning", especially "pointless meaning" as she talks about, in the
referencing entity (us), in the referent (thing or concept referenced), or
coming from a cosmic "meaning provider" (divine or cosmic revelation)?
Not to put words in A.'s mouth, or discuss her experience (especially as it
is only based on my assumption of what she is talking about), but instead to
use it as a catalyst for discussion....
People quite often attribute "meaningful" experiences to a "higher power",
but why is that? I'm not talking about the bland meanings that we give to
words to reference widgets in the world, but the integrated personal
experience that provides intellectual insight combined with a powerful
emotional reaction; the type of experience that, when asked the question:
"Name a meaningful experience you've had in your life", you would be able to
identify it readily.
This kind of flashes back to the idea I brought up between the tendency
toward a style of thinking that assumes that our experience in the universe
is a bottom-up or top-down system, or little bit of both.
For instance, I assume that in our little chunk of space-time, here on
planet Earth, where we have a Sun to fight off the laws of entropy, we have
developed physically and mentally in a bottom-up way and that we are
currently the "pinnacle of meaning"; that any attribution of meaning in the
world, as we know it, is through our own brain/mind and that any assumed
"meaningful experience" is intrapersonal not interpersonal.
So paradox, to answer your question: Although the origins of the two types
of meanings discussed are certainly the same (human brain), the conceptual
distinction between the two would be in the intrapersonal qualities of what
would traditionally be called "meaning" and "meaningful experience". For
instance, advertisers don't sell meaning ("Our soap will clean your
clothes"), but meaningful experience ("Using our soap will be like running
through a daisy-covered field on a sunny spring day wearing nothing but
white cotton clothes...").
~C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of paradox
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:03 AM
To: Minds Eye
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
A.
On May 16, 9:58 am, "Christopher A. Crosdale"
<chriscrosd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point was mostly to A., who was stating that "meaning can exist and have
> no point". Although assumptive on my part, I was checking to see if the
> "meaning" she was talking about DID have a point and WAS purposeful:
> providing a personal emotional experience for her.
>
> I was asking that question because I felt the underlying current here was
> not about WHAT "meaning" is, but WHERE the meaning is coming from; the
> difference between "quantitative and speculative" personalities.... Is
> "meaning", especially "pointless meaning" as she talks about, in the
> referencing entity (us), in the referent (thing or concept referenced), or
> coming from a cosmic "meaning provider" (divine or cosmic revelation)?
>
> Not to put words in A.'s mouth, or discuss her experience (especially as it
> is only based on my assumption of what she is talking about), but instead to
> use it as a catalyst for discussion....
Thanks. It's nice to see someone address the content of a post rather
than try to play mindreader.
>
> People quite often attribute "meaningful" experiences to a "higher power",
> but why is that? I'm not talking about the bland meanings that we give to
> words to reference widgets in the world, but the integrated personal
> experience that provides intellectual insight combined with a powerful
> emotional reaction; the type of experience that, when asked the question:
> "Name a meaningful experience you've had in your life", you would be able to
> identify it readily.
Many people do use the word "meaningful" in exactly this way. I think
you've answered your own question. If a person defines "meaningful"
in advance including "that which provides a powerful emotional
reaction", then of course, that's exactly how they'll fill up their
basket of meaning.
This is a highly subjective way of defining meaning, making meaning
roughly equivalent to someone's personal experience. We can then,
each of us, listen to each others' meanings and have our own reactions
(a lot of what others find emotionally powerful, the rest of us will
find meaningless). If I use the term "meaningful" in this way, I
certainly would not feel compelled to discuss meaning on usenet with a
bunch of strangers, who almost certainly aren't going to share my
powerful emotional responses.
>
> This kind of flashes back to the idea I brought up between the tendency
> toward a style of thinking that assumes that our experience in the universe
> is a bottom-up or top-down system, or little bit of both.
>
> For instance, I assume that in our little chunk of space-time, here on
> planet Earth, where we have a Sun to fight off the laws of entropy, we have
> developed physically and mentally in a bottom-up way and that we are
> currently the "pinnacle of meaning"; that any attribution of meaning in the
> world, as we know it, is through our own brain/mind and that any assumed
> "meaningful experience" is intrapersonal not interpersonal.
Lots of assumptions there. But a good start to a discussion of
meaning.
>
> So paradox, to answer your question: Although the origins of the two types
> of meanings discussed are certainly the same (human brain),
this is not at all certain - please give your reasoning here. how did
it become certain? you speak as if it's certain for everyone...it's
not so clear to at least one of us. So can you explain your evidence
or argument for stating that all meaning is ultimately located in or
emanating from the human brain? That's an extraordinarily
controversial claim.
the conceptual
> distinction between the two would be in the intrapersonal qualities of what
> would traditionally be called "meaning" and "meaningful experience". For
> instance, advertisers don't sell meaning ("Our soap will clean your
> clothes"), but meaningful experience ("Using our soap will be like running
> through a daisy-covered field on a sunny spring day wearing nothing but
> white cotton clothes...").
I think you're on a different page, entirely, than I am, with your
views on meaning.
Regards,
A.
Christopher A. Crosdale
Part one --------------
Personally, I don't think "meaning" in the standard sense can be pinned down
to a "quantitative" set--even numbers would only have qualitative meaning.
However, I think that we can set some limits between the extremes of
thinking in this department:
1) That meanings are reflective of some absolute essence.
2) That meanings are absolutely relative.
We can also make a distinction between (for lack of better terms):
a) Concept-meaning: as in the triad of word/symbol > meaning/sense >
referent thing/concept. The think of it.
b) Emotive-meaning: concept-meanings that are charged with a positive or
negative valiance and provided salience through the addition of emotional
experience. The feel of it.
Part two ----------------
Now here's the real rub--and to keep the discussion on topic... The above
statements reflects what I think DubiousChrisJ is intending in the
"quantitative personality" label of this subject thread. As a process, it
is a thinking-intuitive approach to personal experience. Those that are
"speculative" in nature, are inclined to a sort of feeling-intuitive
approach and will not particularly want to engage in this. Some like the
think of it, some like the feel of it. By the way, this is not a pejorative
statement toward either inclination....
When approaching how-do-I-know-what-I-know questions, the thinking-intuitive
approach would break down personal experience and define it in a thinking
way ("I can show you example x, y, z...."), whereas the feeling-intuitive
approach would assess it's accuracy based on whether it feels right ("I just
KNOW that I know it."). Now, imagine these two types talking about a
subject like, say, the existence of God....
~C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of A.
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:32 AM
To: Minds Eye
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Quantitative vs. Speculative
DubiousChrisJ
When approaching how-do-I-know-what-I-know questions, the thinking-intuitive
approach would break down personal experience and define it in a thinking
way ("I can show you example x, y, z...."), whereas the feeling-intuitive
approach would assess it's accuracy based on whether it feels right ("I just
KNOW that I know it."). Now, imagine these two types talking about a
subject like, say, the existence of God....
paradox
Obliged if you would share those thought experiments at some point.
On 16 May, 17:36, "A." <atalanta.brillia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:03 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm confused...yes, there's "attribution" and there's
> > "interpretation"; yes, a directional distinction; but is there a
> > conceptual distinction, since both are perfectly symbiotic?
>
> > Difficult to see how concepts, or objects, or relationships over time
> > are inherently meaningful without "predictive" value, which of course
> > requires an interface of sorts; hmm, meaning in this sense may not be
> > uniquely "human".
>
> As usual, a very good post, Paradox.
>
> I'm confused too - but the issues at the root of the confusion would
> need careful and considered discussion to un-confuse me. I totally
> agree that any account of meaning has to include the "symbiotic"
> relationships.
>
> I know some would reject the notion that an object could be meaningful
> in and of itself (over time and without humans involved, especially).
> I think this is something I'd like to ponder for the next little
> while, though. That guy I live with (the philosopher) has quite a few
> examples (I'm working on the simple ones) of thought experiments that
> help me ponder this one.
>
> Even something so simple as what we're doing now (typing posts,
> reading them) can be meaningful without any humans around to read them
> in the future. The meaning is IN the posts, and a non-human could in
> theory find the meaning. I think I'm going to ponder whether I can
> take that last sentence and substitute something else for "a non-
> human" and see what happens.
>
> Regards,
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 May, 16:24, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Chris: By "meaning", are you talking about the understood qualities one
> > > would reference regarding a referent thing or concept through the use of a
> > > symbol or word, as in, "a word has a specific meaning"; or are you talking
> > > about something more in terms of being "meaningful"--that the intellectual
> > > concept, combined with an emotional reaction, provides a "deep meaningful
> > > experience" to you personally?- Hide quoted text -
paradox
On 16 May, 17:58, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I was asking that question because I felt the underlying current here was
> not about WHAT "meaning" is, but WHERE the meaning is coming from; the
> difference between "quantitative and speculative" personalities....
Therein lies my inquiry; can one properly analyse the WHERE without
the WHAT? I think the same logical weakness applies to the
"quantitative vs speculative" dichotomy; all "speculation" derives
from material experience or percept, guided by logical structure; even
the neuro-psychology of dreaming has an "experiential" basis. There is
no pure distinction, merely a question of degrees.
Is
> "meaning", especially "pointless meaning" as she talks about, in the
> referencing entity (us), in the referent (thing or concept referenced), or
> coming from a cosmic "meaning provider" (divine or cosmic revelation)?
As above
> People quite often attribute "meaningful" experiences to a "higher power",
> but why is that?
I suggest for the same reason that Science is passionate about
theoretical constructs; it helps to project a "sense" of order, the
one through a "moral" frame, the other through a "causal" frame. One
subsumes "control", the other asserts it.
> For instance, I assume that in our little chunk of space-time, here on
> planet Earth, where we have a Sun to fight off the laws of entropy, we have
> developed physically and mentally in a bottom-up way and that we are
> currently the "pinnacle of meaning"; that any attribution of meaning in the
> world, as we know it, is through our own brain/mind and that any assumed
> "meaningful experience" is intrapersonal not interpersonal.
Would be interesting to hear how Pat might approach this, from a
systems dynamics point of view.
> So paradox, to answer your question: Although the origins of the two types
> of meanings discussed are certainly the same (human brain), the conceptual
> distinction between the two would be in the intrapersonal qualities of what
> would traditionally be called "meaning" and "meaningful experience".
Still struggling to see this very fine distinction, as noted above.
For
> instance, advertisers don't sell meaning ("Our soap will clean your
> clothes"), but meaningful experience ("Using our soap will be like running
> through a daisy-covered field on a sunny spring day wearing nothing but
> white cotton clothes...").
Like your imagery here, not sure about the "running" bit; a casual
stroll perhaps ..;)). Again, the point; even the most creative of ad
execs is unlikely to substitute "soap" with "tar" and achieve the same
phenomenal effect, wouldn't you agree?
Pat
Ooohh, my wittle ears are burning. Well, I've never heard of the
sun being viewed as an entropy-fighting object, as it is the largest
generator of entropy in our vicinity in that it is, in these parts,
renowned for its ability to redistribute heat and helping the general
thermal equilibrium by taking huge amounts of heat and throwing it
into space. That aside, I would agree that we were developed from the
bottom up but I would add to that that the One having access to all
space and time, would have known how to develop from the ground up
with impeccable teleological precision. I would also add that, from a
monistic viewpoint, all consciousness is intrapersonal, as the
'others' are illusory and conversations with them is analogous to the
communication between neurons in the CNS.
> > So paradox, to answer your question: Although the origins of the two types
> > of meanings discussed are certainly the same (human brain), the conceptual
> > distinction between the two would be in the intrapersonal qualities of what
> > would traditionally be called "meaning" and "meaningful experience".
>
> Still struggling to see this very fine distinction, as noted above.
>
> For
>
> > instance, advertisers don't sell meaning ("Our soap will clean your
> > clothes"), but meaningful experience ("Using our soap will be like running
> > through a daisy-covered field on a sunny spring day wearing nothing but
> > white cotton clothes...").
>
> Like your imagery here, not sure about the "running" bit; a casual
> stroll perhaps ..;)). Again, the point; even the most creative of ad
> execs is unlikely to substitute "soap" with "tar" and achieve the same
> phenomenal effect, wouldn't you agree?
Unless it's an ad for Wright's Coal Tar Soap!! ;-)
paradox
Christopher A. Crosdale
is, but WHERE the meaning is coming from..."
Paradox: Therein lies my inquiry; can one properly analyse the WHERE without
the WHAT? I think the same logical weakness applies to the "quantitative vs
speculative" dichotomy; all "speculation" derives from material experience
or percept, guided by logical structure; even the neuro-psychology of
dreaming has an "experiential" basis. There is no pure distinction, merely a
question of degrees.
CC: I would agree also. However, introduced some time in the past was the
idea of absolute meanings (essence). This was, or course, back when they
thought the brain was really just a radiator to cool the blood, so you can't
blame them too much for making some hasty judgments about the nature of mind
and meaning.... However, these conclusions have been hard to stamp out. If
you take something like the idea of numbers, which seem so practical, so
useable, so universal, that it only makes sense that they MUST be present
outside our own brains, right? As a matter of fact, numbers are SO special
that it must be evidence that the universe was created by someone that
understood math, right?
Paradox: I suggest for the same reason that Science is passionate about
theoretical constructs; it helps to project a "sense" of order, the one
through a "moral" frame, the other through a "causal" frame. One subsumes
"control", the other asserts it.
CC: I think you may want to make a distinction between "science" and
"scientists" here.... I would agree that there is great deal of passion on
both sides of this discussion and everyone, of course, has some degree of
stock in their own ideas and perceptions of the world. We also assume that
both have the ability, if they want, to see each other's point of view--for
the "thinking types" among us to access our "feeling side" and visa versa.
So here is where your Nobel Prize comes in.... How do we find a way for
these two sides to come to agreement that is satisfactory in the long-term
for both? Pat is taking a stab at it, and you have to give him some props
for that.
Old CC: "...Although the origins of the two types of meanings discussed are
certainly the same (human brain), the conceptual distinction between the two
would be in the intrapersonal qualities of what would traditionally be
called "meaning" and "meaningful experience..."
Paradox: Still struggling to see this very fine distinction, as noted above.
CC: I'm saying that the distinction, if there is one, is not an external vs.
internal locus of meaning (as we both agree it is internal), but in the
thinking vs. feeling qualities of that internal experience, where meanings
with attributional feeling qualities are mislabeled and misunderstood as
being "external". [Disclaimer: this statement represents my "scientific"
bias as you mention above.]
~C
Christopher A. Crosdale
that it is, in these parts, renowned for its ability to redistribute heat
and helping the general thermal equilibrium by taking huge amounts of heat
and throwing it
Chris: Hmmm.... I wonder if that energy (light, heat, etc.) might hit a
small planet that is orbiting it? I wonder if that energy might warm things
up a bit and eventually be used by some living things to maintain their
metabolism, helping them grow, and develop over time?
Pat: "....That aside, I would agree that we were developed from the bottom
up but I would add to that that the One having access to all space and time,
would have known how to develop from the ground up with impeccable
teleological precision. I would also add that, from a monistic viewpoint,
all consciousness is intrapersonal, as the 'others' are illusory and
conversations with them is analogous to the communication between neurons in
the CNS...."
Chris: Yes, of course He would.... And if we find that our universe was the
result of two colliding bodies, then it will be The One who pushed them
together, and on, and on, and on.......
Paradox: "...even the most creative of ad execs is unlikely to substitute
"soap" with "tar" and achieve the same phenomenal effect, wouldn't you
agree?"
Pat: Unless it's an ad for Wright's Coal Tar Soap!!
Chris: Do cigarettes count?
~C
Pat
On 17 May, 17:21, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Pat: "..The sun ...is the largest generator of entropy in our vicinity in
> that it is, in these parts, renowned for its ability to redistribute heat
> and helping the general thermal equilibrium by taking huge amounts of heat
> and throwing it
> into space...."
>
> Chris: Hmmm.... I wonder if that energy (light, heat, etc.) might hit a
> small planet that is orbiting it? I wonder if that energy might warm things
> up a bit and eventually be used by some living things to maintain their
> metabolism, helping them grow, and develop over time?
>
Obviously, but the Sun is kicking out energy in 360 spherical degrees
of which Earth is small percentage. Most of the energy goes into
warming the local environment of the Milky Way as our system revolves
around it (and, of course the whole galaxy is headed through space in
its own right); right now we're sort of headed towards the Vega
system.
> Pat: "....That aside, I would agree that we were developed from the bottom
> up but I would add to that that the One having access to all space and time,
> would have known how to develop from the ground up with impeccable
> teleological precision. I would also add that, from a monistic viewpoint,
> all consciousness is intrapersonal, as the 'others' are illusory and
> conversations with them is analogous to the communication between neurons in
> the CNS...."
>
> Chris: Yes, of course He would.... And if we find that our universe was the
> result of two colliding bodies, then it will be The One who pushed them
> together, and on, and on, and on.......
>
Well, that could be one interpretation of yin and yang--active energy
moving through a passive zero-point field is reasonably analogous to
two colliding bodies; but, yes, I DID get a chuckle or two from
that. ;-)
> Paradox: "...even the most creative of ad execs is unlikely to substitute
> "soap" with "tar" and achieve the same phenomenal effect, wouldn't you
> agree?"
>
> Pat: Unless it's an ad for Wright's Coal Tar Soap!!
>
> Chris: Do cigarettes count?
>
And that leads into a terrific segue to commedian Steve Wright, "I
took up smoking again. My Doctor told me I wasn't getting enough
tar."
> ~C
A.
On May 17, 12:48 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Glad to have you back, A.
>
> Obliged if you would share those thought experiments at some point.
>
Here's one (he didn't make this one all by himself, but he's published
a twist or two to it).
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle really existed and really wrote novels about
Sherlock Holmes, who is a fictional character.
Sir Arthur is now dead, but his books are still around.
Now, imagine a time centuries into the future, intelligent beings find
one of Doyle's books about Sherlock. They decipher the
"code" (English and its orthography) and are able to read the novel.
Sherlock Holmes is once again a fictional character with an audience.
Do fictional characters exist? Is their existence wholly dependent on
whether someone reads about them or hears their story? How do they
get independent existence, if they do? Do fictional characters, once
they exist, depend on their audiences for existence? What's the
difference between a dead human from the past and a fictional
character?
The problem isn't meant to get into problems of translatability
(Donald Davidson's twist on the same set of ideas goes into that
direction - and he concludes that English would be decipherable in the
future to any beings as intelligent as humans are). The thought
experiment posits that in the future, there would be even more
intelligent beings than the ones we have now (whether from this planet
or not - just for fun). But the idea is that people think they can
read Aristophanes - and they do. So, in the future, Sherlock will
exist again.
I maintain he existed throughout the entire period - once he was
created and without regard to whether any particular person reads the
books at all. But that's just me. And I'm not a philosopher.
The key term, as I've been told the problem, is of course
"existence." I believe fictional characters *exist* - and so do lots
of philosophers. Concepts, ideas, words, rocks, notions - all share
some form of existence.
The second problem in this experience is that of attribution (that's
the one that interests both me the most).
If we have an attribute (existence - whether fictional or not) how
does it get affixed to an object? What makes us know that anything
exists?
I keep saying that there must be some kind of taxonomy of existence -
that surely "matter exists" and "Sherlock Holmes exist" have to be
different statements - but philosophers aren't into that. "Existence"
is a property, they say - and somehow it gets attached to "things" (I
notice that philosophers use the term "object" or "thing" to refer to
matter and meaning and everything in between.
So, if meaning exists, fictional characters exist, rocks exist, books
exist - but humans are no longer around....etc.
Interesting to think about for me, anyway. And I don't think every
single fictional character springs into what I think is a sort of
eternal existence in the way Sherlock did. Sir Arthur was a genius.
A.
paradox
Here is a definition, (i hope) comprehensive enough to bridge the
object/concept divide, contentious enough to stimulate engagement, and
rigorous enough to form the building blocks (perhaps) of an emergent
position:
For an object (or better still, a thing) to be said to "exist", it
must possess 3 attributes: the potential to exist (loose form), the
expression of that potential (phenomenal point in space/time), and a
contingent reference point (relational or "attributive" value).
I need you to "rip it apart", in a manner of speaking.
paradox
On 17 May, 16:58, "Christopher A. Crosdale" <chriscrosd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
donnadonne
possess attributes and one object/thing's qualities which qualify the
object/thing to be what and that it is.
The subject of the proposed definition might not be aware of that.]
donnadonne
possess attributes and one object/thing's qualities which qualify the
object/thing to be what and that it is.
The subject of the proposed definition might not be aware of that.]
On May 18, 11:44 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
paradox
fundamental prerequisite of it's concept category? Well, that's
logically indefensible, i'm afraid.
> > > A.- Hide quoted text -
donnadonne
paradox
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
donnadonne
paradox
On 24 May, 03:11, "A." <atalanta.brillia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For an object (or better still, a thing) to be said to "exist", it
> > must possess 3 attributes: the potential to exist (loose form), the
> > expression of that potential (phenomenal point in space/time), and a
> > contingent reference point (relational or "attributive" value).
>
> Wow - that's very good. I think both the terms "object" and "thing"
> convey to some people the wrong idea - but your working definition is
> great. I've been mulling it over. It's the third part (the
> contingent reference point) that makes my mind stop. What makes up
> attribution or relationship?
What the definition attempts to do is to find supervenient conceptual
territory for possible worlds, subjective worlds, and intersubjective
worlds ("contingent refererence points" in spatial terms). To attempt
to answer your specific question: Meaning has no meaning without
referential (relational or attrbutive) value; which of course
underpins intersubjective worlds; which resolves (philosophically) the
paradox between "it exists", and "it exists for (or to) me".
> This is of interest to me in many different circumstances, and of
> course is the root of my questions about attributes of groups. We
> might be able to establish that Paradox exists and A. exists - but how
> do we establish more than that?
By mutually realising mutually (relational) possible worlds, through
the subjective worlds of Paradox and A.
> People are very fast to decide that there are larger groupings of
> objects - and then attributes shared by those groups - even when they
> can't prove the existence of the objects in the group.
I think that what they intuit are tacit "rules" (in the case of
animates), or "properties" (in the case of inanimates), which they
assume may apply "universally" within a concept category; in fact,
they may not be far off the mark, though they may make errors of
judgement in assuming that these are either a "given", or are
sufficiently probable to be predictive.
> As for problematic "things" that I think are hard to prove the
> existence of:
>
> ...society...
> ......species.....
> ..........humanity.....
I think that these are all "atttractor" concepts; they possess core
attributes without clearly definable boundaries, but with an internal
dynamic; hence the difficulty with technical proof. The concepts are
widely diffused, and have been equally widely employed
(intersubjectively); qualitative proof of sorts (or so Nozick would
claim).
> Etc. Apologies for the choppy writing - wanted to respond to you
> though, because I have been thinking about your words and can't find
> anything to tear apart. That's strange.
Is that a compliment? :) Please keep at it if you have the time; i'd
like to prove it inadequate.