One Skeptic's Motives
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> On a current thread, someone questioned the "hidden" motives of
> skeptics. I gave it some thought and decided that being a skeptic, I
> would at least give my motives for being that way.
Firstly, to discover "hidden" motives one might need a little
psychology. What kind of background do you have in psychology? Or is
this skepticism not the same "skepticism" that you believe you employ?
> When I was younger, I was impressed with what looked like plausible
> sounding but remarkable claims. As a teenager, UFOs and the
> possibility of alien visits were an awe inspiring proposition.
Well it would seem statistically a given, but then I am skeptical of
ststistics as well.
> The
> stories seemed to be real and were presented convincingly. I also
> went through a stage where the possibility of another realm of reality
> swept my imagination and I seriously considered the possibility of
> things like spirits , psychics, astrology, etc.
Well a little pragmatism would have revealed that you dream every
night-so other realities is not an airy fairy speculation but quite a
reality. Although the physical body does not go anywhere (which is only
logical since its a product of and in THIS reality) it certainly seems
as though the consciousness does-and I speak from 10 years of study in
this area. You would assume if physical reality was a self sufficient
and closed reality, such a waste of time as sleeping would be
unnecessary-but that is because I am skeptical that physical reality can
be the only reality.
> These possibilities
> made the world a far more interesting place.
Here you use the old worn out cynical argument that only people unstable
and unwilling to face the "real" world are people who could possibly be
skeptical of a cynical view as being the correct one. Problem is, the
greatest thinkers of all time fall in the mystical rather than pragmatic
side of that distinction. This tells us more of the reasons YOU may tend
to believe in nonsense and little of why others see the plausibility of
other worlds etc.
Again, it seems you are unaware of psychology to any appreciable degree.
This leads to skepticism on my part that you could in any way detect the
"hidden motives" of others let alone your own that is bound to be
favorably biased to make yourself look positive.
> They stimulated the
> intellect and stirred the consciousness.
Yes, all dis-covery does as it is the release from hell (from the old
english helan, which means to "cover over or to hide from
consciousness).
> They offered a sense of deep
> wonderment and a continuous source of amazement which had an almost
> narcotic effect.
Oh now here we go with the delusional nature of people with
imaginations!:-))))) Best include Einstein in there;
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A Einstein.
Don't you think cynicism could have a "narcotic effect" because it
protects the ego from painful realizations it would rather not accept
because they conflict with its schema? OOOpps forgot, you believe you
are fully cognizant of your own psychic contents. How you could have
this awareness escapes us who have spent a lifetime seeking these
understandings and know they are more illusive than they appear on the
surface.
> Then two things happened over the years. First, I became aware of
> skeptical literature.
You could have just taken a critical thinking class at your local
college or university and had a more realistic picture of what it means
to critically think-OOppps I am being skeptical of your skepto babble
again -sorry.
> Despite the idea that the world might be more
> like Kansas than like Oz,
The world can be anything you are willing, bold and insightful enough to
percieve it can be. As was evidenced by the profound effect
psychologically of this timeless classic.
> these new thoughts and arguments had a ring
> of truth and an intrinsic appeal that I found hard to resist.
That is because it is believing is seeing, and so when you see realities
that confirm your belief in what they "really are" you hear this "ring
of truth"-problem is it is your own bias and subjectivity that is
reflected in the "truth" and it really tells us more of the contents of
your psyche than any "turth" external from it-OOOOpppps I forgot I am
being skeptical of your psychological awareness and perceptions again-I
should just assume you understand these things.
> I began
> to doubt some of the things I had considered.
Yes, again, if you believe in a negative reinfoircing reality, then that
is what you will get, the universe is unbiased in its reflection of your
expectations on the nature of things because you are a co-creator and
whatever you say is "real" you will find reflected in your experiential
reality.
> Concurrent with my
> introduction to critical literature came my awareness of the beauty
> and grandeur of the real world.
So the world you were experiencing before that was not real? Or it was
just not reinforcing what you needed to have in order to BELIEVE it was
real?
> I recalled a subtle awe I had sensed
> when discovering the complexity of a flower on the microscopic scale
> and learning how it all added up to life.
Yes, I can relate to that, not unlike the awe I feel when I look at the
planetary positions on a piece of paper and can discern a consciousness
sitting across from me in counsel-it is wonderful is it not? Truth you
see is reflected throughout the multiverse-because it is all one thing
in wonderous synchronous accord.
> The magnitude of space, the
> interactions of atoms, and the evolution of life were breathtaking new
> frontiers to explore.
Yes, all the physical VERSIONS of an infinite "All That Is" that extends
beyond your limited little sense perceptions.
> I became hungry for more of this knowledge.
> Its appeal derived from its reality, while these other areas of
> paranormal wonders became somewhat frustrating, repetitive,
> predictable, and inconclusive.
Well that was your own consciousness you were seeing as usual. The
multiverse has no built-in meaning, so either you were putting them
there or trusting other individuals who couldn't move beyond that
perspective either.
> The fact that they might not exist at
> all rendered them far less interesting.
Not possible, if you can imagine it it must be real on some level;
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
I guess you are as good as dead.
> Still, I decided that I wanted to know the truth.
Which will always only be your truth. Science does not = truth. Only to
insecure individuals who do not recognize that they always had the
ability to enter or exit Oz at will. It is a matter of perspectives and
choice not truth.
> Over the
> successive years, knowledge of the natural world and the science we
> have used to discover it continued to offer me a greater understanding
> and appreciation of life and the universe.
And of course more security, because if you align your beliefs with a
subject that can reinforce the fears others have as well that they might
be "wrong" "bad" or other such judgmental nonsense, then you have a
belief system which has more power you believe to FORCE your "rights"
down everyone elses throat because you are aligned with them-but this
only reinforces that you do not believe that they are "all that is"
either because if you did, you would be unconcerned with whether other
"believe" in them or not because they work for you-and that is all that
matters.
> The paranormal just seemed
> to keep coming up with more junk which echoed the same arguments and
> suspicious confirmations while never seeming to have the same
> validation as the things I had learned through science.
Well no surprise there again, if you believe in a negative reinforcing
reality that is what you will get. If this is what allows you to feel
secure in your limited journey through life so when you die you didn't
make any "mistakes" then so be it. But recognize this is just yours and
those who need this truth to protect them from a broader exploration-not
a universal "truth", there is no such thing.
> At the age of 36, on one otherwise uneventful morning, I woke up and
> suddenly discovered I no longer believed in God.
Well, after looking at that flower and other things and ending up with
this perspective-then all I can say is you are not only cynical-but
blind.
> At first I was
> fearful of the emotional consequences, but that apprehension was
> immediately allayed by a sense of overwhelming freedom, as if I had
> been released from the chains of Marley's ghost.
What you felt was the freedom from judging yourself-which people
"Believe" a "God" does, therefore a little psychological awareness and
more skepticism of what the experience meant would have lead you to more
clear conclusions rather than such a delusional throwing the "baby out
with the bathwater" limited perspective. This is precisely WHY you need
more imaginative introspection into your psyche-not less, to counteract
this fear of self judgment which cynics have that they then turn and
project by judging everyone else who doesn't align with their "truth".
> Once I had lost the
> notion of God, then I discovered that there was no longer any
> precedent for another reality or the supernatural.
What is the purpose of living then? To cynically separate all possible
underlying metaphoric and symbolic understnadings of life and possible
reasons for our existence so you can have no reason to be cynical?
OOOOpppps now I was being skeptical of your philosophical
understandings.
Makes perfect sense to me, remove all meaning from existence so that
your only purpose is to remove meaning until you die. Yeah right. Plato
said; "The purpose of living is to discover the purpose of living." I
suppose your thoughts are that the fastest way to get to that
understanding is to remove any purpose for it to begin with?
> That was the final
> blow to any residual mystical or metaphysical inclinations which might
> have been still rattling around in my brain.
You are mistaking mind for brain. Your consciousness is not "in" your
body, your body is "in" and moves through your consciousness which is
everywhere all at once-and don't give me yuour silly "remove the brain
and the mind disappeares" garbage-because I can remove a radio and that
doesn't make the stations dissappear either. There will just be nothing
there to pick anything up.
> Since then I have developed a fully gratifying appreciation of the
> world...the way it is. I am not motivated to look for More.
Then you ARE dead. There is no "thats the way it is" as Einstein showed
the smug physicists of early 1900-and new individuals will no doubt
destroy your smugness as well. What would be truly scary is if the
limited, bigoted and small minded perspective of individuals such as you
were allowed to stay as the model of "truth"-then surely it would be
more logical for the rest of us to find the nearest extremely high
bridge and jump from it.
> I feel
> no need to *believe* I am somehow connected to the cosmos.
> Now I
> *know* I am, and what's more, I know how.
Wonderful. Ypou came to the same conclusion many of us "know" from the
beginning. You see this as a triumph? I see it as the long way round
actually.
> This skeptic does not
> challenge fringe beliefs because he is afraid to accept their
> implications. Surely one who is satisfied with the natural world
> would not be disappointed to find out that it is even more special
> than he had believed.
Nothing is special-it just is. Remove your value judgments and then that
will allow other viewpoints that diverge from yours to be just as
"special" as you believe yours must be.
> I have learned that there is no shame in being wrong or not knowing
> something, so the possibility of embarrassment does not motivate me to
> resist new ideas.
Then you should find my response exhileratingly enlightening and
non-threatening.
> For each of us our ignorance is far greater than
> our knowledge. In such a complex world, populated with so many things
> to know, this is nothing to be ashamed of.
No!?
> The only motive which drives me is to show the world for what it is.
Well this is where you are mistaken-your motivation is security because
you can't handle others being happy with their own view unless it
conforms to your definition of truth.
> I don't appreciate those who paint their own special brand of graffiti
> over the masterpiece of nature.
Then you don't appreciate yourself?
> I don't appreciate those who shave
> the pieces on the puzzle of human knowledge and understanding. There
> is an ulterior motive, though, which I must confess. I believe,
> especially with the pervasive channels of communication available
> today, that there is a good chance that bogus ideas and philosophies
> could become prevalent in our society and present dangers of many
> sorts.
Well that is your belief that others need to be protected from
themselves because reality is thrust upon them from external "forces".
This is one of the fallacies to believing in an external universe and
the system of reinforcing logic that goes with it (cynicism). You need
to be more critical (and skeptical I might add:-) in your own
perspective about the purpose of living, because this type of philosophy
implies no purpose and no purpose is not possible.
> Ignorance and superstition are easier, and lately becoming
> more popular than knowledge and understanding.
Yes, so it would be more impressive to see you studying the subjects you
cynicise.
> This condition compels
> some of us to become more active in the role of presenting reason and
> critical thinking to others.
This is just pure garbage, I don't need you to protect me from my
reality, your arrogance is sickening actually. What makes you think you
hold the key to understanding the universe? I thought you said "For each
of us our ignorance is far greater than our knowledge" but now only OUR
ignorance is greater and yours is not?
> For myself and for some other skeptics
> here, this is the only outlet for the expression of that ideal.
It is your fears speaking and that is all-study some psychology and
learn to be more skeptical of your own assessments. OOOppps I was
skeptical again. Silly astrologers, when will they learn that only
cynics are truly skeptical.
> We don't do this because we feel somehow specially endowed with
> superior minds, but as a condition of our own need to understand, we
> have recognized the need to learn how to think and have made a point
> of learning that skill the best we could.
Then it would behoove you to ACT like it-this would be far more
convincing than criticising things you know nothing of.
> The world is more wonderful than most will ever know...less
> miraculous than most will ever believe.
It is far more wonderful AND miraculous than you perspective will ever
see.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein
Oh sorry, I think perhaps if we are going to "appeal to authorities" it
might as well be one who actually discovered things and used science in
the proper way-instead of acquiescing to "Brant the newsnet cynic" or
would that be too skeptical?
> This is *my* hidden motive.
This is a long dissertation and rationalization for your inability to
discern your own hidden motives.
--
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
JeffMo
Here are some of the phrases Edmond used in his post:
(Lots of quotes here. If you get the point quickly, skip ahead to the
end.)
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> This tells us more of the reasons YOU may tend
>to believe in nonsense and little of why others see the plausibility of
>other worlds etc.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Again, it seems you are unaware of psychology to any appreciable degree.
>This leads to skepticism on my part that you could in any way detect the
>"hidden motives" of others let alone your own that is bound to be
>favorably biased to make yourself look positive.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> OOOpps forgot, you believe you are fully cognizant of your own
> psychic contents.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> OOppps I am being skeptical of your skepto babble again -sorry.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>That is because it is believing is seeing, and so when you see realities
>that confirm your belief in what they "really are" you hear this "ring
>of truth"-problem is it is your own bias and subjectivity that is
>reflected in the "truth" and it really tells us more of the contents of
>your psyche than any "turth" external from it
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Yes, all the physical VERSIONS of an infinite "All That Is" that extends
>beyond your limited little sense perceptions.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> quoted Einstein:
>"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
>sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
>whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
>in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
>exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
>which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
>forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
>religiousness."
>Albert Einstein
and then wrote:
>I guess you are as good as dead.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Science does not = truth. Only to insecure individuals....
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Well, after looking at that flower and other things and ending up with
>this perspective-then all I can say is you are not only cynical-but
>blind.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>What you felt was the freedom from judging yourself-which people
>"Believe" a "God" does, therefore a little psychological awareness and
>more skepticism of what the experience meant would have lead you to more
>clear conclusions rather than such a delusional throwing the "baby out
>with the bathwater" limited perspective.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Then you ARE dead. There is no "thats the way it is" as Einstein showed
>the smug physicists of early 1900-and new individuals will no doubt
>destroy your smugness as well. What would be truly scary is if the
>limited, bigoted and small minded perspective of individuals such as you
<snip>
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Wonderful. Ypou came to the same conclusion many of us "know" from the
>beginning. You see this as a triumph? I see it as the long way round
>actually.
Then, finally:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> This skeptic does not
>> challenge fringe beliefs because he is afraid to accept their
>> implications. Surely one who is satisfied with the natural world
>> would not be disappointed to find out that it is even more special
>> than he had believed.
and Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> replied:
>Nothing is special-it just is. Remove your value judgments and then that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>will allow other viewpoints that diverge from yours to be just as
>"special" as you believe yours must be.
COME ON, ED!
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> Here are some of the phrases Edmond used in his post:
> (Lots of quotes here. If you get the point quickly, skip ahead to the
> end.)
SNIP!
And I was just complimenting you on your attempts to be objective.
I guess I was wrong. If my posts serve you use them-if they don't don't.
I am removing myself from this petty back and forth jealousy. I have
work to do.
Eric Scott
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Brant Watson wrote:
>
<had to snip a bit here>
Gee, I kind of like to think of the world as OZ. Let's see, you've got
your
yellow brick road (money!), peoples of great variation, fantastic
animals,
metaphoric witches, both good and bad (evangelists, spiritual gurus,
politicians <grin>. It is a wondrous, magical place indeed.
>
> The world can be anything you are willing, bold and insightful enough to
> percieve it can be. As was evidenced by the profound effect
> psychologically of this timeless classic.
>
> > these new thoughts and arguments had a ring
> > of truth and an intrinsic appeal that I found hard to resist.
>
> That is because it is believing is seeing, and so when you see realities
> that confirm your belief in what they "really are" you hear this "ring
> of truth"-problem is it is your own bias and subjectivity that is
> reflected in the "truth" and it really tells us more of the contents of
> your psyche than any "turth" external from it-OOOOpppps I forgot I am
> being skeptical of your psychological awareness and perceptions again-I
> should just assume you understand these things.
Indeed, believing is seeing, but be careful, it also negates seeing
other
things that just don't seem to fit in that viewpoint. Thomas Kuhn puts
forth
the idea that existing schemes keep bringing up questions that just
can't be
answered with given knowledge. Those questions grow and grow in number
and
"annoyance", until finally someone with great imagination (and
interestingly
enough, not necessarily a lot of experience in the field of those
questions)
come up with a working hypothesis.
Brant's viewpoint seems to come from the fact that he did not wish to
deal
with those questions that couldn't seem to be answered. Yes the real
world
and its straight mechanics is way cool. And yes, it can become a way of
looking at the world, but _it_does_not_take_away_the_questions_! I feel
that
it is the "child's" way out. "I don't like it so I'm going to pretend it
doesn't
exist. And I will fight anybody who asks those questions."
>
> > I began
> > to doubt some of the things I had considered.
>
> Yes, again, if you believe in a negative reinfoircing reality, then that
> is what you will get, the universe is unbiased in its reflection of your
> expectations on the nature of things because you are a co-creator and
> whatever you say is "real" you will find reflected in your experiential
> reality.
Doubt, or became frightened that they did not follow they orderly path
of
the mechanics you had been taught?
>
> > Concurrent with my
> > introduction to critical literature came my awareness of the beauty
> > and grandeur of the real world.
>
> So the world you were experiencing before that was not real? Or it was
> just not reinforcing what you needed to have in order to BELIEVE it was
> real?
It was real, and it remains real. The viewpoint had altered. Brant
became
aware how wondrous the mechanics were. Yeay! But instead of keeping his
awareness open, it seems to me that he fixated on the wondrousness of
the
mechanics, and let them become "truth". Well, here's my response:
Truth is a state of mind.
Let's make a thread of that if anyone wishes.
>
> > I recalled a subtle awe I had sensed
> > when discovering the complexity of a flower on the microscopic scale
> > and learning how it all added up to life.
>
> Yes, I can relate to that, not unlike the awe I feel when I look at the
> planetary positions on a piece of paper and can discern a consciousness
> sitting across from me in counsel-it is wonderful is it not? Truth you
> see is reflected throughout the multiverse-because it is all one thing
> in wonderous synchronous accord.
>
> > The magnitude of space, the
> > interactions of atoms, and the evolution of life were breathtaking new
> > frontiers to explore.
>
> Yes, all the physical VERSIONS of an infinite "All That Is" that extends
> beyond your limited little sense perceptions.
>
> > I became hungry for more of this knowledge.
> > Its appeal derived from its reality, while these other areas of
> > paranormal wonders became somewhat frustrating, repetitive,
> > predictable, and inconclusive.
>
> Well that was your own consciousness you were seeing as usual. The
> multiverse has no built-in meaning, so either you were putting them
> there or trusting other individuals who couldn't move beyond that
> perspective either.
Yes, the questions could not be answered. But the questions are still
there,
every "frustrating, repetitive, predictable, and inconclusive" one of
them,
and we're still banging our heads on the wall trying to figure them out.
Instead of keeping the "Open Mind," he chose to keep to the secure
mechanical
view. And that's OK, but at that point, it severely limited his ability
to
provide any help to resolving those questions.
>
> > The fact that they might not exist at
> > all rendered them far less interesting.
>
> Not possible, if you can imagine it it must be real on some level;
Less interesting given your chosen mind set, Brant. I think that deep
inside,
you gave up. You loved the mechanics of the universe as you knew them,
but those
stupid nagging questions just wouldn't go away. You couldn't get an
answer for
them, like you had gotten used to getting answers for all the other
questions
you had studied. Possibly your subconscious mind, out of fear, decided
to
respond to those "frustrating, repetitive, predictable, and
inconclusive"
questions by considering them as nonsense.
>
> "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
> sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
> whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
> in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
> exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
> which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
> forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
> religiousness."
> Albert Einstein
>
> I guess you are as good as dead.
From the possibility of answering the problems dealt with here, perhaps.
>
> > Still, I decided that I wanted to know the truth.
>
> Which will always only be your truth. Science does not = truth. Only to
> insecure individuals who do not recognize that they always had the
> ability to enter or exit Oz at will. It is a matter of perspectives and
> choice not truth.
See my above comment re: truth.
>
> > Over the
> > successive years, knowledge of the natural world and the science we
> > have used to discover it continued to offer me a greater understanding
> > and appreciation of life and the universe.
Yes, it will, because it is providing answers to some unsolved
questions.
You found more fulfillment answering those, naturally, than you would
trying
to resolve those paranormal ones.
>
> And of course more security, because if you align your beliefs with a
> subject that can reinforce the fears others have as well that they might
> be "wrong" "bad" or other such judgmental nonsense, then you have a
> belief system which has more power you believe to FORCE your "rights"
> down everyone elses throat because you are aligned with them-but this
> only reinforces that you do not believe that they are "all that is"
> either because if you did, you would be unconcerned with whether other
> "believe" in them or not because they work for you-and that is all that
> matters.
>
> > The paranormal just seemed
> > to keep coming up with more junk which echoed the same arguments and
> > suspicious confirmations while never seeming to have the same
> > validation as the things I had learned through science.
>
> Well no surprise there again, if you believe in a negative reinforcing
> reality that is what you will get. If this is what allows you to feel
> secure in your limited journey through life so when you die you didn't
> make any "mistakes" then so be it. But recognize this is just yours and
> those who need this truth to protect them from a broader exploration-not
> a universal "truth", there is no such thing.
Brant, it seems to me here that it is frustration that is talking.
Because of that
fantastic scientific mind of yours (I am truly being kind here, don't
misunderstand me), used to the answering of questions, and continuous
advancement
of knowledge, displaced the "frustrating, repetitive, predictable, and
inconclusive"
nature of those questions from the existence of them, to the belief in
the
non-existence of them. And you are wiring yourself up for pain by trying
to pass
on this belief to others in these NG's. Not in the sense that you have
_nobly_
opened up your psyche for inspection, but in that by trying to force
others to accept
your conscious view that these questions are tripe and don't exist, that
your
subconscious mind is reeling from the impact of having to face questions
that _it_
does_not_want_to_deal_with. My evidence is the voracity with which your
posts, and many
other skeptics attack the questions, to be so absolutely nit-picky, when
the open-minded
person just wants to say, "OK, interesting possible evidence. I'll keep
it in mind
for later when we can start making some conclusions." To be fair, there
are those
way out proponents who I think are suffering similar probs with "Why
can't I solve
these questions?! WHY WHY WHY!!!" That's why posts between these two
types are so
incredibly libelous and slandering. Each are pressed, forced, obsessed,
as it were.
>
> > At the age of 36, on one otherwise uneventful morning, I woke up and
> > suddenly discovered I no longer believed in God.
>
> Well, after looking at that flower and other things and ending up with
> this perspective-then all I can say is you are not only cynical-but
> blind.
I don't agree with blind. Spirituality is spirituality. I go for
oneness, myself,
but I don't go for a GOD notion either. But, it does not reduce my level
of spirit-
uality. I feel that it is this universe, cyclically
expanding/collapsing, that is the
constant, not this GOD. I just can't see this GOD as being outside the
universe
controlling it.
Don't forget that the GOD idea has it's own questions that just havent
been resolved
for hundreds of years. Eschatology (why is there evil?), Divine
abstention (why can't
we interact directly with Him?). Probably my spiritual response is
subconsciously
because I can't handle those questions. Logical.
>
> > At first I was
> > fearful of the emotional consequences, but that apprehension was
> > immediately allayed by a sense of overwhelming freedom, as if I had
> > been released from the chains of Marley's ghost.
>
> What you felt was the freedom from judging yourself-which people
> "Believe" a "God" does, therefore a little psychological awareness and
> more skepticism of what the experience meant would have lead you to more
> clear conclusions rather than such a delusional throwing the "baby out
> with the bathwater" limited perspective. This is precisely WHY you need
> more imaginative introspection into your psyche-not less, to counteract
> this fear of self judgment which cynics have that they then turn and
> project by judging everyone else who doesn't align with their "truth".
Eek, I don't think it's a judging issue entirely. I am constantly
judging
myself, measuring my day on whether I've helped someone today
and I see people who profess strong beliefs in GOD doing stuff that
they would absolutely NOT be doing if they truly judged themselves
(drugs,
alcoholism, crime).
Yeah, GOD apparently judges is, if you go for that. No offense, but it's
a
fallback. Humans get an amazing physiologically response when they,
uncoerced, perform a good act. Pulse and Blood pressure drops,
endorphins are
released into the body. It's a high, believe it or not. It feels good to
do
good for good's sake. It does not feel good to do good when you are
forced
to, out of a belief system, or strict upbringing. That's another prob I
have
with this GOD notion. GOD is watching you so you'd better be good, or
you're
going straight to hell! Come on! It's boogey-man tactics that we
incorrectly
push on our kids. It gives them no dignity, it does not induce
creativity,
and it is programming with fear. That _never_ is good.
>
> > Once I had lost the
> > notion of God, then I discovered that there was no longer any
> > precedent for another reality or the supernatural.
Oops. Major displacement. Brant, from a caring human being to another.
You
need to discuss this. Can you not see how that statement does not work?
GOD is a form of spirituality, and yes you replaced it with the
mechanic's viewpoint. But there are many others. Zen, oneness, even
paganism.
(Hey my wife is a self professed animist! And even though I don't agree
with
it, I swear it makes her an incredible gardener!)
>
> What is the purpose of living then? To cynically separate all possible
> underlying metaphoric and symbolic understnadings of life and possible
> reasons for our existence so you can have no reason to be cynical?
> OOOOpppps now I was being skeptical of your philosophical
> understandings.
> Makes perfect sense to me, remove all meaning from existence so that
> your only purpose is to remove meaning until you die. Yeah right. Plato
> said; "The purpose of living is to discover the purpose of living." I
> suppose your thoughts are that the fastest way to get to that
> understanding is to remove any purpose for it to begin with?
He's not removing meaning. He found a different one, that's all. But it
is a
more close-minded individual now. But hey, there are others WAY more
close-
minded than Brant. So cut the guy some slack, people.
>
> > That was the final
> > blow to any residual mystical or metaphysical inclinations which might
> > have been still rattling around in my brain.
>
> You are mistaking mind for brain. Your consciousness is not "in" your
> body, your body is "in" and moves through your consciousness which is
> everywhere all at once-and don't give me yuour silly "remove the brain
> and the mind disappeares" garbage-because I can remove a radio and that
> doesn't make the stations dissappear either. There will just be nothing
> there to pick anything up.
Don't be too nit-picky. That's closed minded thinking. You are also
throwing
a beleif onto him that may not be shared. An interesting one that I
pretty
much subscribe to, but never forget, we could be wrong.
>
> > Since then I have developed a fully gratifying appreciation of the
> > world...the way it is. I am not motivated to look for More.
>
> Then you ARE dead. There is no "thats the way it is" as Einstein showed
> the smug physicists of early 1900-and new individuals will no doubt
> destroy your smugness as well. What would be truly scary is if the
> limited, bigoted and small minded perspective of individuals such as you
> were allowed to stay as the model of "truth"-then surely it would be
> more logical for the rest of us to find the nearest extremely high
> bridge and jump from it.
Who said, "The day I stop learning is the day I die?"
Always reach. In someway or another. Stretch grow. Like ligament,
without
streching somes rigidity, and then brittleness. Don't succumb to a fall
through lack of preparation, Brant. Don't ever give up an open mind that
allows you to stretch and work on new ideas. Yes, you can pass the torch
of investigation onto someone else, that's ok. But don't stagnate by not
looking for more. There is ALWAYS "More"!
>
> > I feel
> > no need to *believe* I am somehow connected to the cosmos.
> > Now I
> > *know* I am, and what's more, I know how.
You aren't part of the cosmos? Here, basic Big Bang stuff.
Big Bang
Planets and suns
Planets with life
Life becomes intelligent.
No mysticism! You are connected to the universe at a basic, intrinsic
level
because you were developed out of the same processes that occur all over
the
universe. You bet you're connected, Brant. You may not realize just how
connected.
>
> Wonderful. Ypou came to the same conclusion many of us "know" from the
> beginning. You see this as a triumph? I see it as the long way round
> actually.
I don't follow this response. Is it implied that everyone knows they're
not
connected. Some elucidation (or a retraction) please.
>
> > This skeptic does not
> > challenge fringe beliefs because he is afraid to accept their
> > implications. Surely one who is satisfied with the natural world
> > would not be disappointed to find out that it is even more special
> > than he had believed.
Are you sure? When you look deep down into yourself, are you really
sure?
If you said that line to yourself in a mirror, does your heart leap, or
your
stomach? Seriously.
Yes the universe is special. It is probably special more than we'll ever
know.
That's why we study, to find out this specialness.
>
> Nothing is special-it just is. Remove your value judgments and then that
> will allow other viewpoints that diverge from yours to be just as
> "special" as you believe yours must be.
No agree. Everything has its degree of fascination. Elegance.
Specialness.
1+1=2 That is elegant and special. the chemical composition of hydrogen.
That's
special. Robert Fulghum: "Always be aware of wonder." - All I really
need to know
I learned in Kindergarten.
> > I have learned that there is no shame in being wrong or not knowing
> > something, so the possibility of embarrassment does not motivate me to
> > resist new ideas.
There can be fear, however. Humans are often/usually afraid of the
unknown.
>
> Then you should find my response exhileratingly enlightening and
> non-threatening.
Yeah, right. You blasted him with all the gentleness of a cinderblock.
He's a
fellow human being, for crying out loud. He opened himself up to
examination,
perhaps for self-gain, but I doubt it. He was responding to a question
that, in
retrospect, had to be asked and answered from both sides of the debate.
I applaud
Brant for that. It took great guts to do this. Shame on you!
Is there a "respected/known" proponent who is willing to undergo the
same treatment?
I will if anyone wants, but I'm not a major name here.
>
> > For each of us our ignorance is far greater than
> > our knowledge. In such a complex world, populated with so many things
> > to know, this is nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> No!?
No! But it is important to be _willing_ to learn in any field, and to be
open to
knowledge, of any type.
>
> > The only motive which drives me is to show the world for what it is.
As your mechanics viewpoint sees it, you mean. And you should be aware
of its
problem with those questions I've been discussing. And as I've indicated
above,
it seems that the voracity you've displayed suggests that it is fear of
that
unknown that is motivating you. See response. It has some validity,
IMHO.
>
> Well this is where you are mistaken-your motivation is security because
> you can't handle others being happy with their own view unless it
> conforms to your definition of truth.
>
> > I don't appreciate those who paint their own special brand of graffiti
> > over the masterpiece of nature.
>
> Then you don't appreciate yourself?
>
> > I don't appreciate those who shave
> > the pieces on the puzzle of human knowledge and understanding. There
> > is an ulterior motive, though, which I must confess. I believe,
> > especially with the pervasive channels of communication available
> > today, that there is a good chance that bogus ideas and philosophies
> > could become prevalent in our society and present dangers of many
> > sorts.
Brant, communication and its information dissemination can NEVER, EVER
be a bad thing. It is indeed called education. Yes, bad info can be
passed
along. But it can and will be brought down, in time. It is lack of
communication
and education that brought about the prevalence of most of the organized
religions of the world. Yes you can say, what about the evangelicals on
TV?
If people had enough education, and the open mind, which was taken away
from
them during their upbringing, TV evangelists and similar cult movements
would
not be as prevalent. Hopefully, education systems will improve and more
respect
for children will give them the open mind they need to make their own
decisions,
and not have them made for them.
>
> Well that is your belief that others need to be protected from
> themselves because reality is thrust upon them from external "forces".
> This is one of the fallacies to believing in an external universe and
> the system of reinforcing logic that goes with it (cynicism). You need
> to be more critical (and skeptical I might add:-) in your own
> perspective about the purpose of living, because this type of philosophy
> implies no purpose and no purpose is not possible.
>
> > Ignorance and superstition are easier, and lately becoming
> > more popular than knowledge and understanding.
Yes, religions are easier. But they aren't the cause of the questions we
are
dealing with here. They are still here, and they are growing because
those
questions have not been answered. And more and more people know about
those
questions.
>
> Yes, so it would be more impressive to see you studying the subjects you
> cynicise.
>
> > This condition compels
> > some of us to become more active in the role of presenting reason and
> > critical thinking to others.
Understandable. But note that the standard mechanics way of thinking has
no
answer for these questions.
>
> This is just pure garbage, I don't need you to protect me from my
> reality, your arrogance is sickening actually. What makes you think you
> hold the key to understanding the universe? I thought you said "For each
> of us our ignorance is far greater than our knowledge" but now only OUR
> ignorance is greater and yours is not?
I have to agree. It's great to have a strong viewpoint. It is great to
present it.
But Brant is presuming that his "reason" is superior.
>
> > For myself and for some other skeptics
> > here, this is the only outlet for the expression of that ideal.
Ideal? Pure science is not the ideal.
>
> It is your fears speaking and that is all-study some psychology and
> learn to be more skeptical of your own assessments. OOOppps I was
> skeptical again. Silly astrologers, when will they learn that only
> cynics are truly skeptical.
>
> > We don't do this because we feel somehow specially endowed with
> > superior minds, but as a condition of our own need to understand, we
> > have recognized the need to learn how to think and have made a point
> > of learning that skill the best we could.
Brant, again I see here a need of something that needs to be worked out.
You state above that: "I am not motivated to look for More." Yet here
you state that you are driven by a need to understand.
Yes, you can think. You have learned a thinking skill. But
please,please,
please remember that there is more than one mode of thinking. You are
good
in one. You are trained in it. But that mode of thinking is not
conducive
to solving these questions. Only in trying to make them go away.
>
> Then it would behoove you to ACT like it-this would be far more
> convincing than criticising things you know nothing of.
>
> > The world is more wonderful than most will ever know...less
> > miraculous than most will ever believe.
>
> It is far more wonderful AND miraculous than you perspective will ever
> see.
> "There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a
> miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle."
> Albert Einstein
>
> Oh sorry, I think perhaps if we are going to "appeal to authorities" it
> might as well be one who actually discovered things and used science in
> the proper way-instead of acquiescing to "Brant the newsnet cynic" or
> would that be too skeptical?
>
> > This is *my* hidden motive.
>
> This is a long dissertation and rationalization for your inability to
> discern your own hidden motives.
Can we get a similar dissertation from a known "beleiver?"
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
--
Response address is: esc...@rci.rogers.com (I hate junk mail)
An open eye, an open mind, but above all, a working brain!
You are one with the universe...
Edmond Wollmann
J. Morales wrote:
> How can "truth"* possibly be a state of mind, unless you are using a
> different dictionary?
How can truth be anything else?
True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it.
EHW
There is no one truth, the poster is accurate in this discernment. THE
truth is the composition of all truths-even the dictionary one.
"Postmodernism, according to Griffin (1988), refers to a diffuse
sentiment rather than to any common set of doctrines—the sentiment that
humanity can and must go beyond the modern. The goal of postmodern
science is to construct a new worldview through a revision of modern
premises and traditional concepts. While there is the recognition that
modern science has produced many important and useful advances that must
not be lost in a general revulsion against its negative features, there
is also an openness to the recovery of truths and values from various
forms of premodern thought that had been dogmatically rejected by
modernity. At the heart of postmodernism is a recurrent theme: truth is
a matter of perspective.
Empiricism, reductionism, determinism - these are perspectives that
produce or construct certain apparent truths, but upon closer
examination
these "truths" fade back into the perspectives that generated them. All
knowledge claims are products of particular perspectives that are,
themselves, shaped by the conventions of a culture. Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) point out that truth is always relative to a conceptual system
that is defined in large part by metaphor. These metaphors, like myths,
evolve within one's culture and have their roots in basic assumptions
about the nature of reality. The mechanistic paradigm of modern science
is based on the metaphor that reality is "like a machine". While this
metaphor constructs reality by giving it a concreteness we can
immediately understand, it also constricts reality by ignoring or
suppressing those aspects that do not fit within the parameters of the
metaphor. In other words, a metaphor does not describe reality itself,
it describes only those aspects of reality that can be captured by the
metaphor.
Although the original goal of positivist-based science was the
establishment of comprehensive theory grounded in the certainty of
observation statements, by the 1950s it was relatively clear that
positivism had failed (Polkinghorne, 1983). There is now almost uniform
agreement that the goal of absolute certainty of knowledge is untenable
since observations do not produce "facts" that are independent of an
observer's interpretation. Even what we take to be objective facts are
largely constructs, as the Latin factum, "that which is made", reminds
us.
Observations invariably presuppose some theory about the phenomenon
under
study. The presumption of different theories will likely give rise to
different observations, i.e. to different "facts". The process is
recursive since the explanations we construct to explain the nature of
the phenomena we observe are actually indicative of our commitment to a
particular view of reality. Observations cannot prove a theory because
the theory itself influences what can be observed; i.e., attempts to
prove a theory unavoidably involve circular reasoning. Harman (1988)
concludes that science is but a "cultural artifact", i.e., a way (not
the way) of knowing, which conforms to certain presuppositions about the
nature of reality. What one considers knowledge is relative to one's
worldview.
There can be no absolute point of view outside of one's historical and
cultural situation. Theories are merely instruments for organizing
perceptions; they help to shape what is observed, what is considered
factual and relevant, and what meanings can be constructed. All
knowledge,in effect, is "theory laden".
Unaltered from "From Paradigm to Method in Astrological Research"
by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
--
"Weep no more for treasures you've been searching for in vain cause the
truth is gently falling with the rain. High above the forest lie the
pastures of the Sun where the two who learned the secret-now are one."
The Moody Blues "Every Good Boy Deserves Favor"
--
J. Morales
How can "truth"* possibly be a state of mind, unless you are using a
different dictionary?
If you are using the term in the sense of 2a(3) (ie ACTUALITY), it
seems to me that it refers to some "real" reality (!) that must be the
same for everyone.
[I would normally choose to interpret it as 2a(2)].
But, from the context, I think you have effectively redefined the word
"truth". When you write "truth", you are not talking about the same
thing everyone else thinks of as "truth".
You are trying to say, in effect, "your perception of reality is a
state of mind" but you are really saying "reality is a state of mind".
Of course, I disagree with that.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
JRM
*The WWWebster says:
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th_]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity;
akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character,
and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real
things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized :
a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment,
proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of
thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or
reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original
or to a standard
Eric Scott <esc...@rci.rogers> wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> Brant Watson wrote a game exposition:
[snip]
>Yeay! But instead of keeping his
>awareness open, it seems to me that he fixated on the wondrousness of
>the>mechanics, and let them become "truth". Well, here's my response:
>Truth is a state of mind.
>Let's make a thread of that if anyone wishes.
[lop LOP]
>> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>An open eye, an open mind, but above all, a working brain!
>You are one with the universe...
I have no choice!
Edmond Wollmann
TYGHOCK wrote:
> >>How can truth be anything else?
> >True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
> system and reality that created it.
> EHW
> >There is no one truth, the poster is accurate in this discernment. THE
> >truth is the composition of all truths-even the dictionary one.
> >(blah, blah, blah, snipped)
> Yes, yes, truth IS a state of mind. I was saying that to myself the other
> day, as I stepped in front of the bus I did not believe in.
You are unaware of your unconscious beliefs I see.
> The body cast comes off on Labor Day.
Wouldn't it be easier to test your threshold of believability by simply
examining the contents of your psyche rather than stepping in front of
buses?
> -TYGHOCK (Who has studied Kant, Keirkegaard's Either/Or, Hegel's Absolute,
> Monadology, Nietzche, Sartre's Being and Nothingness, and who'd love to
> engage in deep and meaningful philosophical discussions .... but my kid
> wants to play legos now. First things first.)
A belief in the separateness of "philosophy" and the "real" world-which
creates the reality you then experience of them being separate.
> "I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Isn't that lovely? Hmmm?" - Marvin the Martian
"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." Richard
Bach "Illusions"
--
"Many dreams come true, and some have silver linings. I live for my
dream and a pocketful of gold.
Mellow is the man, who knows what he's been missing. Many, many men
can't see the open road.
Many is a word, that only leaves you guessing, guessing 'bout a thing-
You really ought to know-
You really ought to know-
Ohhhhhhh oh, I really ought to know, you know I should, you know I
should..." Led Zepplin "Over The Hills and Far Away"
--
Zee Little Warrior Princess & Friends
JeffMo wrote:
>
> JeffMo
>
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
>
> Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
>
> For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
> It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
Whats wrong with dipstick??
We all depend on them to till us what's going on.
bewise
Edmond Wollmann
Keith A. McGuinness wrote:
> Far be it from me to criticise something just on the basis of the
> source. But, according to Ed, the source of the above was:
> >Unaltered from "From Paradigm to Method in Astrological Research"
> >by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
> This, and similar arguments, depend largely on the the supposed
> "theory dependence of observations". But, as Chalmers ("What is this
> thing called science" and "Science and its fabrication"; the latter an
> unfortunate title in my view) demonstrates, these critics overstate
> their case very greatly.
Well I guess Einstein the astrologer had that in mind when he said
"It is the thoery that determines what we can observe."
or Kuhn the astrologer when he said;
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
education. Anomalys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
Or Amit Goswami Ph D Physicist/astrologer when he said
Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
way things are or must be. That assumption is the very thing that Amit
Goswami, with the assistance of Richard E. Reed and Maggie Gos-
wami, brings into question in the book you are about to read. For this
assumption, like its cloudy predecessors of the century before, seems
to
be signaling not only the end of a century but the end of science as we
know it. That assumption is that there exists, "out there," a real,
objective reality.
This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through
time expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the
microworld, such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet
the clouds still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the
objective world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into
matter, and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our
rational
minds working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
But we physicists are a stubborn lot, and we fear the proverbial toss
of
the baby out with che bathwater. We still lather and shave our faces
watching carefully as we use Occam's razor to make sure that we cut
away all superfluous "hairy assumptions." What are these clouds that
obscure the end of the twentieth century's abstract art form? They boil
down to one sentence:
The universe does not seem to exist without a
perceiver of that universe.
Well, at some level this certainly makes sense. Even the word "uni-
verse" is a human construct. So it would make some kind of sense that
what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
human beings. But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
there a universe? It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around? Again, logic
dictates that the laws of nature, forces and causes, etc., even though
we
didn't know about such things as atoms and subatomic particles, cer
tainly had to exist.
But it is just these assumptions about objective reality that have been
called into question by our present understanding of physics. Take, for
example, a simple particle, the electron. Is it a little speck of
matter? It
turns out that to assume that it is such, consistently behaving itself
as
such, is clearly wrong. For at times it appears to be a cloud made up
of
an infinite number of possible electrons that "appear" as a single
particle when and only when we observe one. Furthermore, when it is
not a single particle it appears to be an undulating wavelike cloud
that
is capable of moving at speeds in excess of light speed, totally
contra-
dicting the Einstein concern that nothing material can move faster
than light. But Einstein's worry is assuaged, for when it moves this
way
it is not actually a piece of matter
Take as another example the interaction between two electrons. Ac-
cording to quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
communication to move faster than light. Yet before those observations,
before a conscious observer made up his or her mind, even the form of
the connection was totally indeterminate. And as a third example, a
quantum system such as an electron in a bound physical state appears
to be in an indeterminate state, and yet the indeterminacy can be
analyzed into component certainties that somehow add to the original
uncertainty. Then along comes an observer who, like some gigantic
Alexander chopping the Gordian knot, resolves the uncertainty into a
single, definite but unpredictable state simply by observing the elec-
tron.
Not only that, the blow of the sword could come in the future
determining what state the electron is in now. For we have now even the
possibility that observations in the present legitimately determine
what
we can say was the past.
Thus we have come to the end of a road once again. There is too
much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
the objective world-one that is running forward in time like a clock,
one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action
at a
distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
more
places at the same time-is an illusion of our thinking.
Amit Goswami Ph.D. (Physics) "Self Aware Universe"
> The significance of observations may be influenced by theory, as may
> the "interpretation" (although that is a vague word, open to
> mis-interpretation). But the observations themselves are NOT
> determined by the theory: nature (i.e. the real world, or whatever you
> want to call it) determines the observations.
Wrong, there is no one "real world".
> At this point some-one might say: "Okay, but the observers who collect
> those observations may be fallible". Indeed, individual observers may
> be, and sometimes are, fallible or deluded. But eventually this is
> discovered and corrected.
SNIP
Perhaps the strict empiricist (cynical) believers such as yourself
overemphasise the validity and value of this "real world" you believe
in?
Here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
--
Or perhaps these astrologers (not) were overemphasising the same point
because they were mistaken?
"You can always claim that everything you percieve is real because there
exists a larger system which collapses when you see into reality by
'measuring' or 'observing' it." Paul Davies "Reality and Modern Science"
"Science will be the formalized creation of a process. One of the
methodologies for viewing the self. One of the methodologies for
recognizing the vibrational patterns of energy that are differentiated
out of the unbroken wholeness."
Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
"A centrally relevant change in the descriptive order required by
quantum theory is thus the dropping of the notion of analysis of the
world into relatively autonomous parts, separately existant but in
interaction. Rather, the primary emphasis is now on UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS,
in which the observing instrument is not separated from what is
observed." David Bohm "Wholeness and The Implicate Order"
"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on
observations, not theories... I have never come across
anyone who carries this profession into practice...
Observation is not sufficient...theory has an important
share in determining belief."
Arthur Eddington (astronomer)
--
Keith A. McGuinness
The significance of observations may be influenced by theory, as may
the "interpretation" (although that is a vague word, open to
mis-interpretation). But the observations themselves are NOT
determined by the theory: nature (i.e. the real world, or whatever you
want to call it) determines the observations.
At this point some-one might say: "Okay, but the observers who collect
those observations may be fallible". Indeed, individual observers may
be, and sometimes are, fallible or deluded. But eventually this is
discovered and corrected. The famous "N-rays" debacle is a good
example. Some people had convinced themselves that they had discovered
a new type of radiation (N-rays) that could only be detected through a
special prism. During an experiment a skeptic removed the prism but
the believers continued to observe N-rays. End of N-rays.
Harman and Perry may believe that science is a cultural artefact, but
its discoveries remain true whether you are part of the culture or
not.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith A. McGuinness <k_mcgu...@nospam.bligh.ntu.edu.au>
School of Biological & Environmental Sciences
Northern Territory University
Darwin NT AUSTRALIA
----------------------------------------------------------
Remove "nospam." from address to send email.
----------------------------------------------------------
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>TYGHOCK wrote:
>> Yes, yes, truth IS a state of mind. I was saying that to myself the other
>> day, as I stepped in front of the bus I did not believe in.
>You are unaware of your unconscious beliefs I see.
Do you mean that unconscious beliefs are immutable? You seem to be
quite sure that TYGHOCK has _no_choice_ but to hold an unconscious
belief in the danger represented by a speeding bus....
1. Buses are real, and stepping in front of one will demonstrate that
reality.
2. Buses are a creation of everyone's unconscious minds, and even
though we may all hold totally different conscious models of a bus,
our unconscious minds conspire to have us all believe that exactly the
same result has occurred, whenever some one among us makes the ill-
advised move of stepping (or SEEMING to step) in front of such a bus.
We could perhaps argue all day long about the relative utility of
these two different representations. However, my question is somewhat
different: "How exactly are these two conceptions different?"
If speeding buses are "real", or if they are an unavoidable and
unchangeable construct of our collective conscious, what possible
difference does it make? Suppose the word "real" is equivalent to
"created by our unconscious or conscious minds and subject to change
in just those ways of which we are currently aware?" Doesn't that
reduce your philosophical distinction to mere semantic juggling?
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >TYGHOCK wrote:
> >> Yes, yes, truth IS a state of mind. I was saying that to myself the other
> >> day, as I stepped in front of the bus I did not believe in.
> >You are unaware of your unconscious beliefs I see.
> Do you mean that unconscious beliefs are immutable?
No I mean that unconscious beliefs will reflect the threshold of
believability (this is the threshold of trust a person has ABOUT the
beliefs they hold-PLEASE see my Definitions A to Z post!)
Trust is what CONCRETIZES belief. Because ACTION-what you ACT like
reflects what you TRULY believe. Action is the reflected conviction of
belief. And the actions that occur in your life are the production-in
every way shape and form of that conviction.
> You seem to be
> quite sure that TYGHOCK has _no_choice_ but to hold an unconscious
> belief in the danger represented by a speeding bus....
He has a choice-but like you if your are unable to break up your
habitual ritual ways of thinking TO BEGIN WITH it is pretty easy TO
PREDICT your reality-PLEASE read my post on "Self Awareness and
Conviction." Your habit of thinking and his allows your reality to
REMAIN fixed and rigid. You cannot change something you do not own. I
have 3000 posts where I have reiterated these philospophical
understandings repeatedly-anyone who is truly inclined to see them- will
see them- I have NEVER contradicted myself. Walking on water IS possible
when you have complete and full trust ON ALL LEVELS OF YOUR
CONSCIOUSNESS, that the water and you ARE ONE!!!!
It is BELIEVING IS SEEING not the other way around.
> 1. Buses are real, and stepping in front of one will demonstrate that
> reality.
Belief system="This will be one of the aspects that creates your
artificial construct personality. It will be one of the cornerstones of
the prism of personality. The other two will be emotion and thought. It
is what is responsible for the methodology, along with the other two
ideas, of how you choose to exercise your physiological mental free will
in giving yourself the type of approach to your life that you do. It
will be responsible for the creation of your physical reality and the
reflection of that reality through your physical senses back to your
mentality."
Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
> 2. Buses are a creation of everyone's unconscious minds,
NOT exactly-buses are a COLLECTIVE unconscious and higher self creation
as a PARAMETER agreement for the belief system and reality called
"physicality" a radio station upon which we all CHOOSE at this time to
be "on". They are an EFFECT of a certain TYPE of FOCUS-this reality and
this focus. In the dream state I can get hit by a bus and nothing
PHYSICALLY happens-so it is not real? Those with this "reality=physical"
of course will say yes, those who know that realities are just DIFFERENT
views will know it is still real even though it is not THIS reality.
> and even
> though we may all hold totally different conscious models of a bus,
> our unconscious minds conspire to have us all believe that exactly the
> same result has occurred,
They do not, the effects are the effect of this focus which CAN BE
CHANGED. We will never be able to cross infinite reaches of space for
travel until we get this idea (propulsion is not possible)-it is sort of
a "protect the multiverse from limited idiot" lock. Therefore those who
can traverse time and space are those who have unlocked this key to
understanding-WE ARE THE REALITY IT APPEARS WE EXIST WITHIN.
> whenever some one among us makes the ill-
> advised move of stepping (or SEEMING to step) in front of such a bus.
Irrelevant.
> We could perhaps argue all day long about the relative utility of
> these two different representations. However, my question is somewhat
> different: "How exactly are these two conceptions different?"
I have explained it repeatedly-however you must have eyes to see and
ears to hear.
> If speeding buses are "real", or if they are an unavoidable and
> unchangeable construct of our collective conscious, what possible
> difference does it make? Suppose the word "real" is equivalent to
> "created by our unconscious or conscious minds and subject to change
> in just those ways of which we are currently aware?" Doesn't that
> reduce your philosophical distinction to mere semantic juggling?
(Some) Alien beings are capable of dissolving material objects-actually
WE ARE AS well!!!! But we are just not conscious of the fact that we ARE
DISSOLVING AND RECREATING OUR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ALL THE TIME. It is
not semantics it is MECHANICS-PHYSICS and time will prove my arguments
for me-hence I reamin fixed and confident.
I have trust that you and other cynics can and will begin to create
different and more broad perspectives no matter how limited and
miserable you insist "reality" must be.
> JeffMo
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Curious how this sig reflects what you need to learn as you seek to
teach it-yes?
--
Woe unto you hypocrites! Blind guides! You do not enter the kingdom of
heaven yourselves-nor do you allow others to enter. You strain at a gnat
and swallow a camel.
You bow to the letter of the law and violate the heart of the law!
Justice! Mercy! Good faith!
Yours is a house of desolation!
You shall not see me here again until you learn to cry...
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord, for I and my father are
one and the same!
The Christ in The synoptic gospel
--
I H Spedding
On Sat, 31 May 1997 22:33:37 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[...]
>"Postmodernism, according to Griffin (1988), refers to a diffuse
>sentiment rather than to any common set of doctrines葉he sentiment that
>humanity can and must go beyond the modern. The goal of postmodern
>science is to construct a new worldview through a revision of modern
>premises and traditional concepts. While there is the recognition that
>modern science has produced many important and useful advances that must
>not be lost in a general revulsion against its negative features, there
>is also an openness to the recovery of truths and values from various
>forms of premodern thought that had been dogmatically rejected by
>modernity. At the heart of postmodernism is a recurrent theme: truth is
>a matter of perspective.
[...]
>Unaltered from "From Paradigm to Method in Astrological Research"
>by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
valid as yours.
Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian H Spedding (sped...@mognet.u-net.com)
There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in
UFO's. But on the grounds of probability it should be kept as an
explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than
routinely weak evidence to support it.
Richard Dawkins: Richard Dimbleby Lecture (12 November 1996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I H Spedding
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:33:01 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[...]
>He has a choice-but like you if your are unable to break up your
>habitual ritual ways of thinking TO BEGIN WITH it is pretty easy TO
>PREDICT your reality-PLEASE read my post on "Self Awareness and
>Conviction." Your habit of thinking and his allows your reality to
>REMAIN fixed and rigid. You cannot change something you do not own. I
>have 3000 posts where I have reiterated these philospophical
>understandings repeatedly-anyone who is truly inclined to see them- will
>see them- I have NEVER contradicted myself. Walking on water IS possible
>when you have complete and full trust ON ALL LEVELS OF YOUR
>CONSCIOUSNESS, that the water and you ARE ONE!!!!
>It is BELIEVING IS SEEING not the other way around.
In which case, you should be able to pass Alan Sokal's 21st floor
window test with ease, but somehow I don't think you'll try it.
Edmond Wollmann
I H Spedding wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:33:01 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[...]
> >habitual ritual ways of thinking TO BEGIN WITH it is pretty easy TO
> >PREDICT your reality-PLEASE read my post on "Self Awareness and
> >Conviction." Your habit of thinking and his allows your reality to
> >REMAIN fixed and rigid. You cannot change something you do not own. I
> >have 3000 posts where I have reiterated these philospophical
> >understandings repeatedly-anyone who is truly inclined to see them- will
> >see them- I have NEVER contradicted myself. Walking on water IS possible
> >when you have complete and full trust ON ALL LEVELS OF YOUR
> >CONSCIOUSNESS, that the water and you ARE ONE!!!!
> >It is BELIEVING IS SEEING not the other way around.
> window test with ease, but somehow I don't think you'll try it.
> Ian
If I don't do some ridiculous tests-it is because I KNOW the truth of
what I say, and that I obviously know very little about the nature of
reality and am learning this trust I speak of as are we all. I know that
I do not have the threshold of believability to walk on water on all
levels of my psyche-but mine is far above yours-this should be an
indication of your fear level-instead you use it to reinforce your
feafullness and doubt.
Can you not believe without seeing Thomas?
I know that I know nothing-as to whether I am more aware than you or
know more than you-well, that is an entirely different question.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles
or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and
sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
--
"But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
William Shakespeare, 1564-1616
Measure for Measure, II, ii.
Edmond Wollmann
I H Spedding wrote:
> Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
> argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
> valid as yours.
> Ian
You may be as negative as you possibly can-I will not try to stop you.
--
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
--
Edmond Wollmann
Keith A. McGuinness wrote:
> >> In article <339109...@aznet.net>, woll...@aznet.net wrote:
> >
> >> > Observations invariably presuppose some theory about the phenomenon
> >> >under study. The presumption of different theories will likely give rise to
> >> >different observations, i.e. to different "facts". The process is
> >> >recursive since the explanations we construct to explain the nature of
> >> >the phenomena we observe are actually indicative of our commitment to a
> >> >particular view of reality. Observations cannot prove a theory because
> >> >the theory itself influences what can be observed; i.e., attempts to
> >> >prove a theory unavoidably involve circular reasoning.
> [snip]
> >> This, and similar arguments, depend largely on the the supposed
> >> "theory dependence of observations". But, as Chalmers ("What is this
> >> thing called science" and "Science and its fabrication"; the latter an
> >> unfortunate title in my view) demonstrates, these critics overstate
> >> their case very greatly.
> Ed responds with quotes thus:
> >Well I guess Einstein the astrologer had that in mind when he said
> > "It is the thoery that determines what we can observe."
> > or Kuhn the astrologer when he said;
> >"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
> >and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
> >only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
> >Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
> >to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
> >education. Anomalys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
> >paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
> >Or Amit Goswami Ph D Physicist/astrologer when he said
> >Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
> > way things are or must be.
> [long ramble snipped]
> These supposedly refute my view.
> In response I make these points:
> 1) A ten word quote from anyone--either Einstein or my cleaner--is
> unlikely to convince me of anything. The context of the statement is
> not given and that could greatly alter its meaning and interpretation.
> Even *if* the statement directly supports Ed's views, Einstein, as
> most people know, what by no means always right.
No one claimed that he was-irrelevant-neither are you always right and
neither is your ten word statement likely to be all inclusive.
> 2) People who cite Kuhn's, undoubtedly influential, views either don't
> realise or don't mention that these views have been widely and
> effectively criticised. His description of science is NOT widely
> regarded as accurate either by scientists or philosophers of science.
> I am *so* tired of hearing "Kuhn said this... Kuhn said that..."
Well of course you are when I quote astrologers, you knock them down,
when I quote scientists you knock them down-this is simple psychological
tactics. This is called source reattribution, control reattribution, to
protect your self image because you refuse to acknowledge that truth is
a state of mind. All truths are subject to criticism, how does this
prove anything? You underestimate your opponents, thats all.
Therefore you choose a high elaboration mode psychologically to try to
dissuade the audience away from your ignorance of the subject of
astrology. This conformity you seek to express, defends the ego against
rejection of what you believe to be group expectations.
Therefore when cynics such as yourself seek to demean me or argue
against things you know nothing of, you run into trouble immediately
because your elaboration model you hold of what you "believe" an
astrologer to have is shattered because I have studied all the things
you can throw at me and I know the truth of them-then you must
acellarate your elaboration model to compensate. Proving that truth is a
state of mind.
You fail to acknowledge that your arguments are not based on realistic
cognitions but upon your bias and habitual ritual ways of thinking. This
tells the audience far more about the state of flexibility of your
mental processes than the subject at hand-in simple terms-your zeal
blinds you to the truth.
> 3) The remaining quotes are equally unconvincing. A large number of
> people have said a large number of vague and unconvincing (at least
> to me) things about how "perception determines reality".
Studies! The things you "scientific types" espouse have PROVEN
perception determines reality-read up. I can post a string of them if
you would like-would it not be easier for this exceedingly rigid ego
structure called "cynical perspective" to acknowledge its ignorance of a
subject that can have healthy application in a diverse and modern world?
That it has not investigated it in an unbiased way? Or is the fear of a
loss of control SO great that it will take the defeat of that ego to
see? That is what will be. Time and learning will prove me correct I am
confident.
> As anyone
> with some understanding of the way in which nervous systems functions
> knows, this is *to some extent* true (our brain does *not* receive
> unfiltered sense impressions). The act of selective filtering and
> attention does NOT, however, alter the external world. "Reality" stays
> the same, regardless of how perceptions of it alter.
Which reality?
> How can I be sure of this? No, I can't be absolutely sure. But I can
> be sure for all practical purposes.
Define "for all practical purposes"? Is this some arbitrary measurement?
Or a new scientific measurement I have not heard of-or just possibly,
YOUR TRUTH?
> I can be sure for all practical
> purposes because observable regularities persist, and do so despite
> misperceptions on the part of myself or others.
Of course there are regularities-it is the basis for astrology and
cycles-thanks for the support-but that has NO effect on our ability to
create the reality we prefer-period.
There are only degrees of inductive proof based on what we can observe
now-in this time with these faculties. Statistical studies only give us
correlation co-efficients which give us THE DEGREE of truth in the
premise of an INDUCTIVELY argued world. And we are even cautioned that
this may not extend to what you call the "real" world experience.
I repeat-there is NO ONE AND ONLY REAL WORLD-therefore there can be no
one truth, I will stand by this. If there were only one truth, there
would only be one person.
--
"No one's out to break your heart, it only seems that way. Bend little
willow, wind's gonna blow you, cold and hard tonight." Paul McCartney
"Little Willow"
Edmond Wollmann
The horoscope can be likened to a photograph of the solar system
(geocentric perspective of the heavens) at the time of your birth from
the place of your birth of the positions of the planets against the
backdrop of Constellational configurations (actually segments of space).
It is a web or matrix of vibrational frequency, which is then
interpreted. It is a map of the mathematical relationship of the planets
to the earth and each other at the time of our birth and reflects
individuality and
identity, it does not cause it. The planets REFLECT the archetypal
references that are inherent in the multiverse holographically. Perhaps
this is where superstitious and uninformed beliefs about astrology come
from.
Here are a few of the unsubstantiated assumptions about astrology;
1) Astrology is a subject that one either "believes" in or not.
Astrology is not a religion or cult. Therefore faith is not required for
it to function. It is a subject that can be known and is operationally
obvious once it is learned. Hence the concept of believing in it is an
effect of the misperception of what it is. We cannot believe or not
believe in something that we know nothing about anyway. Sciences are
beliefs systems it must be acknowledged.
2) Astrology must be an Art or a Science.
Astrology is an Art/Science. The scientific aspect is in the horoscope's
construction, calculation, and mathematical interrelationship
measurements between astronomical bodies against galactic backdrop
(geometrics). The art aspect is in the intuited blending of astrological
significators into psychodynamic awareness and the communication of this
awareness and remediation to client. This part like all crafts must be
mastered before application can ensue. Physics is now demonstrating that
the consciousness of the observer is intimately connected with the
creation of the observed.
3) Astrology must be proven scientifically before we can accept it as
valid.
Astrology and science are two different ways of investigating the
universe. The horoscope like art, requires sensibilities not found in
science. However astrology does contain science found in science. But
astrology is more than science as described above and cannot limit its
application to such a focused and exclusionary subject as science.
Science is an ELEMENT of astrology. Since astrology is an Art/Science
only the scientific aspects can stand empiricism. The Art of
interpretation may be open to debate as to style or application, but
VALIDITY is always based on service to client or public-as is
psychology,
stock market forecasting, weather forecasting or earthquake prediction
(which by the way scientists have never done accurately) NONE of which
are totally empirically working models. Service is the customers or the
served's decision and evaluation as to life quality enhancement-period.
4) Astrology influences human behavior.
This myth is the most difficult for everyone. We create our EXPERIENTIAL
reality utterly and only as the end product of what we believe or have
been taught to believe is true (although it must be stated emphatically
that most of these definitions are held in an unconscious state and must
be acknowledged). The horoscope "causes" nothing. It is a synchronistic
reflection of other aspects of the self and its definitions OF reality
at
any given moment. A vibrational frequency determination based on the
self's definitions. The illusion of external reality is just that, real
while you are focused and oriented to it-but an illusion none-the-less
"All That Is" or God is all that is, and we are all the different ways
that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the creation that it
is-eternally. Philosophers and Religions have long known that the
"kingdom of heaven is within". This is NOT a new idea.
The value of astrology is in the ability through this reflection to
understand these beliefs and defintions that we may possess
unconsciously
so that we can acknowledge and own them, once you own them you can
redifine them. You cannot change something you do not own! Life is a
configuration of CHOICES. Nothing in the universe has built in meaning,
we give it meaning by the definitions we hold AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. We
then attach this meaning to things, then we extract that meaning from
the
neutral props known as physical reality.
Positive meaning in-positive effect out, negative effect in-negative
effect out. IT IS SIMPLE MECHANICS. Psychological mechanics- which the
observer then observes,creates, establishes theories of, propogates
ideas of, collects data from makes hypothesis about and otherwise
CHOOSES TO MAKE IT SO!
Yes- we create en mass an agreed upon collectively established reality
that appears to be fixed.
But that in no sense means that we are bound 100% to it. Each of us
created the "hallway" of experiential choice at incarnation reflected
through the horoscope.
Our actions-unless consciously acknowledged from unconscious belief and
momentum-are just REactions to the prescription the oversoul (ourselves)
made as a choice of general thematic "hallway" experiences. The free
will of the physical self (the oversoul in its physical VERSION) then
chooses HOW it will go down this "hallway" but go down this "hallway" we
have already WILLED.
Our creations have shown this, that even COLLECTIVE limitations are
mass imposed- we have gone to the moon and back. So we can redefine
THAT one at any given moment as well. It is a preferencial choice.
"Do you not know that the Sun and the Moon and the stars and all the
planets are within you?"
Origen mystic theologian.
--
J. Morales
sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H Spedding) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 1997 22:33:37 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>"Postmodernism, [...]
[snip]
>>Unaltered from "From Paradigm to Method in Astrological Research"
>>by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
>Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
>argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
>valid as yours.
>Ian
He's right.
Mr. Wollmann, do you agree?
If not, why are you not being hypocritical in so disagreeing?
JRM
Keith A. McGuinness
>
>> In article <339109...@aznet.net>, woll...@aznet.net wrote:
>
>> > Observations invariably presuppose some theory about the phenomenon
>> >under study. The presumption of different theories will likely give rise to
>> >different observations, i.e. to different "facts". The process is
>> >recursive since the explanations we construct to explain the nature of
>> >the phenomena we observe are actually indicative of our commitment to a
>> >particular view of reality. Observations cannot prove a theory because
>> >the theory itself influences what can be observed; i.e., attempts to
>> >prove a theory unavoidably involve circular reasoning.
>>
>> This, and similar arguments, depend largely on the the supposed
>> "theory dependence of observations". But, as Chalmers ("What is this
>> thing called science" and "Science and its fabrication"; the latter an
>> unfortunate title in my view) demonstrates, these critics overstate
>> their case very greatly.
>
Ed responds with quotes thus:
>Well I guess Einstein the astrologer had that in mind when he said
>
> "It is the thoery that determines what we can observe."
>
> or Kuhn the astrologer when he said;
>
>"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
>and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
>only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
>Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
>to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
>education. Anomalys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
>paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
>
>Or Amit Goswami Ph D Physicist/astrologer when he said
>Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
> way things are or must be.
[long ramble snipped]
These supposedly refute my view.
In response I make these points:
1) A ten word quote from anyone--either Einstein or my cleaner--is
unlikely to convince me of anything. The context of the statement is
not given and that could greatly alter its meaning and interpretation.
Even *if* the statement directly supports Ed's views, Einstein, as
most people know, what by no means always right.
2) People who cite Kuhn's, undoubtedly influential, views either don't
realise or don't mention that these views have been widely and
effectively criticised. His description of science is NOT widely
regarded as accurate either by scientists or philosophers of science.
I am *so* tired of hearing "Kuhn said this... Kuhn said that..."
3) The remaining quotes are equally unconvincing. A large number of
people have said a large number of vague and unconvincing (at least
to me) things about how "perception determines reality". As anyone
with some understanding of the way in which nervous systems functions
knows, this is *to some extent* true (our brain does *not* receive
unfiltered sense impressions). The act of selective filtering and
attention does NOT, however, alter the external world. "Reality" stays
the same, regardless of how perceptions of it alter.
How can I be sure of this? No, I can't be absolutely sure. But I can
be sure for all practical purposes. I can be sure for all practical
purposes because observable regularities persist, and do so despite
misperceptions on the part of myself or others.
Regards
Avital Pilpel
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> 1) Astrology is a subject that one either "believes" in or not.
>
> Astrology is not a religion or cult. Therefore faith is not required for
> it to function.
since it does not function...
> Sciences are
> beliefs systems it must be acknowledged.
>
in the trivial sense of the word; not in the sense you seem to imply, that
is that there is no right or wrong in science,m that it is all "what we
believe".
> 2) Astrology must be an Art or a Science.
>
> Astrology is an Art/Science. The scientific aspect is in the horoscope's
> construction, calculation, and mathematical interrelationship
> measurements between astronomical bodies against galactic backdrop
> (geometrics).
That does _NOT_ make something scientific!!!!!!!
mere claculations are _not_ enough to make anythig scientific. If I preform
a rain dance while carefully measuring the lenght of my steps to get them
"right", does it make it scientific? no.
It is missing the core element: Hypotheses that are used to make
predictions and are tested continously. this does not happen in astrology.
> The art aspect is in the intuited blending of astrological
> significators into psychodynamic awareness and the communication of this
> awareness and remediation to client.
pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. what does "psychodynamic awareness" mean
here? What is the "remediation"?
> Physics is now demonstrating that
> the consciousness of the observer is intimately connected with the
> creation of the observed.
Nonsense. The idea that "the consciousness of the observer determines what
is observed" is a statement that is based on a total misunderstanding of
what Quantum mechanics is about, and at any rate it is _not_ a result of
qunatum mechanics hhat the "awareness of the client" of his astrological
chart "creates" the universe or the effects it is supposed to prodeuce any
more than your "awareness" of a star creates it.
if you are such an expert on Qunatum mechanics, tell me if you will what is
the _mathematical_ formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? What
is a meson? What is the difference between h and h-bar?
What, you don't know that? But you know that "physics now tell us that the
consciousness of the obsever..." etc. right.
For a excellent article of where this claim about "consciousness shaping the
universe" is totally wrong and misleading, see The Skeptical Inquirer,
Jan/Feb 1997 (if I remeber correctly. Hmmm... if not, let me _think_ that
it is in that issue and it will appear there, right? After all, "reality is
determined by my consciousness"...).
>
> 3) Astrology must be proven scientifically before we can accept it as
> valid.
>
> Astrology and science are two different ways of investigating the
> universe.
Science is, Astrology isn't.
> The horoscope like art, requires sensibilities not found in
> science.
That is, requires a good eye for the type of person you are making a
horoscope for ("cold reading") and making the horoscope accordingly, or
making it extremely obscure (e.g. "you _Might_ be interested in sports...";
"_if things will work out_ you will succeed...").
Astrologers never tell you that it has been proven conclusively that most
people will accept practically _any_ mildly positive decription of
characteristics as "accurately describing" them (if unaware that it is done
on purpose that way, of course). Just keep your horoscope mildly flattering
and you will be all right.
> However astrology does contain science found in science.
No, it contains calcualtions. so what?
> Science is an ELEMENT of astrology.
Pseudo-science, rather. so far you have shown that it _resembles_ science
in making complex charts and _saying_ that it is "based on physics".
however...
> Since astrology is an Art/Science
> only the scientific aspects can stand empiricism.
.... you claim that it is _more_ than science in order to protect it from
falsification: That is, you claim it cannot be refuted and does not need to
stand "empricism". In short, you simply _say_ that it is "more than
science" as an excuse for taking out the core of scientific thought: making
experiments to verify hypotheses. If it does not have it, it is not "more
than science", it is _not_ science at all, but pseuado-science.
>The Art of
> interpretation may be open to debate as to style or application, but
> VALIDITY is always based on service to client or public-as is
> psychology,
> stock market forecasting, weather forecasting or earthquake prediction
> (which by the way scientists have never done accurately) NONE of which
> are totally empirically working models.
The critical difference is that the models used in these sciences are
tentative and continually improve and change with new evidence. These models
offer a causal mechanism that is continually tested. Astrologers, however,
are _never_ willing to challange the cherished belief that some stars and
planets billions of miles away somehow determine your life. just _how_ do
they do that? What is the causal mechanism? and no mumbo-jumbo about "the
interconnective link between our consciousness and the universe", please.
all you have said so far is to compare astrology to scientific models that
do _not_ work too well, and yet you claim that astrology is "more than
science"...
> Service is the customers or the
> served's decision and evaluation as to life quality enhancement-period.
>
mumbo-jumbo. it means "astrology is right if the customer thinks it helps
him". If I will think there is no gravity, will i float in midair.
> 4) Astrology influences human behavior.
>
> This myth is the most difficult for everyone. We create our EXPERIENTIAL
> reality utterly and only as the end product of what we believe or have
> been taught to believe is true (although it must be stated emphatically
> that most of these definitions are held in an unconscious state and must
> be acknowledged).
Not true. the acceleration of gravity (on earth) is 9.8 meters/second^2
regardless of what you believe. The radius of the earth is 6,000km (approx)
even if you think it is flat. Light travels at 300,000km per second even if
you don't think so. Again, this is mumbo-jumbo based on a deep
misundestanding of what quantum mechanics is about.
> The horoscope "causes" nothing. It is a synchronistic
> reflection of other aspects of the self and its definitions OF reality
> at
> any given moment.
We do not "define" reality. At most, we "define" what we _believe_. So I
concede that if you _believe_ astrology works, then in your "reality" it
works. but by the same token, if i _believe_ I am the king of England, then
in "my reality" I am the king of england: I honestly and truly believe it,
and I object to people who say i am wrong. does this _really_ make me king
of england? It is a play on words on the word "reality".
> A vibrational frequency determination based on the
> self's definitions.
what frequency? what object is supposed to vibrate? What kind of waves
does it send? Can I measure this vibration in someone else? Is it an
harmonic vibration?
> The illusion of external reality is just that, real
> while you are focused and oriented to it-but an illusion none-the-less
so if I am not "focused and oriented" on the bus that is coming at me I
won't get run over? Or do i only get run over becasue my "unconsciousness"
is "focused on reality"? What about a rock that is rolling downhill - will
it stop or not depending about its "focus on reality"?
> "All That Is" or God is all that is, and we are all the different ways
> that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the creation that it
> is-eternally. Philosophers and Religions have long known that the
> "kingdom of heaven is within". This is NOT a new idea.
The way you state it, it is not an idea at all: It can mean anything you
want, depending on how you want to interpret it...
>
> The value of astrology is in the ability through this reflection to
> understand these beliefs and defintions that we may possess
> unconsciously
> so that we can acknowledge and own them, once you own them you can
> redifine them.
So why astrology? why not psychoanalysis or talking to your friends?
All astrology does, then, is "tell you things about yourself" that are
always obscure, and do much worse than what your friends or analyst can tell
you. Yet, they claim to be "more than science": That they know this
obscure knowledge because they know how you "create reality" (if we all
create our own reality, how does the astrologer know the kind of reality the
customer has, exactly? The customer - and the star systems the astrologer
calcualtes - are also what _he_ creates as an "illusion of reality" - so why
should they be the same for the client?), and "discover our inner relation"
to the universe.
Yet, astrology makes no empirical tests , gives no causal explanation, is
utterly unfalsifiable and useless in predicitons that are not based on a
subject's beliefs (which do not require the constellations to know in the
first place!) and shows us no way of why the stars as seen from earth should
effect your life. astrology has no idea of _how_ we create reality
exactly, why are the important parts of the reality we "create" the
constellations, or how those cosntellations are supposed to effect our
"inner being".
Stripped of the mumbo-jumbo psuedoscience and the preposterous claims that
it is "more than science" so it does not have to submit to lowly things like
empirical tests or qunatitive analysis of predictions, it boils down to
saying that an astrologer can "tell you things about yourself". I'll bet he
can; but so can anyone who talks with you for a while, and so can your
friends, without claiming that they know this becasue they calculate your
"creation of reality" or whatever (the "explanation" of what exactly an
astrologer _does_ was quite obscure in this post - in my opinion, on
purpose, mainly so the poster will later be able to claim that "I did not
understand what astorlogers do". I suspect I was never meant to - as long as
one can veil it with obscure mumbo-jumbo about "creating reality", the
astrologers hope we will not dicover they are phonies...). At best, then,
astrology is bad amateur pop psychology. You can do the same thing by
simply talking to friends, with proabably much better results.
> You cannot change something you do not own! Life is a
> configuration of CHOICES. Nothing in the universe has built in meaning,
Er.... the law of universal gravitation means (among many other things) that
if I jump off the roof I fall. The speed of light means that it takes light
81/2 minutes to get from the sun to earth.
What _exactly_ do you have in mind, may i ask, when you talk about "meaning"
here? Again, obscurity is the astrologer's best friend. As long as
"nothing has inherent meaning", everything the astrologer will say will be
correct "if understood the right way".
Incidentally, in that case, why should the constellation of the zodiac have
any meaning to us?
> we give it meaning by the definitions we hold AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. We
> then attach this meaning to things, then we extract that meaning from
> the
> neutral props known as physical reality.
>
If physical reality is all "neural props", you would not mind if I will come
to your home and kill you, for example, or detonate a few A-bombs over large
cities for the fun of it? After all, it "has no meaning", and i feel like
defining reality as "the end of all life on earth" tommorow.
Incidentally, what about objects that do _not_ have neurons? They are not
real, I guess, or they have "no reality". In that case, why does a stone
fall down if it has "no reality" of its own? Why should it care for
gravitation if gravitation is part of those "neural props" _we_ have? If I
_want_ to, can I arrange my "neural props" in a way that rocks do not fall
or people do not die? Please, pretty please, can I "create my reality" this
way?
> Positive meaning in-positive effect out, negative effect in-negative
> effect out. IT IS SIMPLE MECHANICS. Psychological mechanics- which the
> observer then observes,creates, establishes theories of, propogates
> ideas of, collects data from makes hypothesis about and otherwise
> CHOOSES TO MAKE IT SO!
No he does not. the observer does not "choose to make it so" that if he
steps off a tall building he falls down. That is pure nonsense,
psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
> Yes- we create en mass an agreed upon collectively established reality
> that appears to be fixed.
so it only _appears_ to us that rocks fall? If we "choose to make it so",
can we chose to create a world with no gravity? If we can only "choose" in
one way, what exactly does the word "choice" mean here?
> But that in no sense means that we are bound 100% to it.
Yes, we are. Let's see you _not_ observe the law of universal gravitation,
or violate the most "insignificant" physical law to the tiniest degree. Can
you do that? Wanna bet?
> Each of us
> created the "hallway" of experiential choice at incarnation reflected
> through the horoscope.
Proof? If we create reality, didn't we create the constellaitons as well?
Why should _they_ have a special status? You seem to imply here that we all
create reality in owr own way - _Except_ that there is one fixed thing in
all those realities: The different constellations of the zodiac (or else,
obviosuly, the whole system immediatelly breaks down becasue it measn that
what is Pisces for me is Capricosrn for you if we "create" it this way...).
Why and how? isn't this a logical paradox that undermies the whole thing
even from a logical point of view - that we all create our own reality, but
there _really_ are different cosntellations that can tell the astrologer
about the different rrealities each of his subjects has?
> Our actions-unless consciously acknowledged from unconscious belief and
> momentum-are just REactions to the prescription the oversoul (ourselves)
> made as a choice of general thematic "hallway" experiences.
what is this hallway? why are these experiences "thematic"? what is the
"oversoul", and what is it made of? Howe does it interact with the
constelations? Deatails, please. Not obscure generalizations.
> The free
> will of the physical self (the oversoul in its physical VERSION)
So what is the "oversoul"? What versions, exactly, does it have? What
versions except for the physical does it have? Where are they? How are the
related? How can I know you're right?
> then
> chooses HOW it will go down this "hallway" but go down this "hallway" we
> have already WILLED.
So if my "physical self" is at one moment in the air 1000 feet above ground,
it is just the "will" of the "oversoul" that I will fall down? Why doesn't
anyone ever will otherwise? Surely, many people would rather will that they
could fly or be immortal? Why cant we will that?
> Our creations have shown this, that even COLLECTIVE limitations are
> mass imposed- we have gone to the moon and back. So we can redefine
> THAT one at any given moment as well. It is a preferencial choice.
>
Really? So I can fly if I just will it "in the right way"? willing makes
it so?
We went to the moon not becasue we "willed" anything. it was becasue we
understood the laes of physics, their practical applications in engineering,
our biology, and a zillion other things well enough to build a machine that
could carry men to the moon and back. Without that knowlege, no amount of
willing - indeed, it cannot be denied thqt for ages manking wanted to go to
the moon - could have gotten us there. When, exactly, did the moon mission
employ astrologers to "change our reality" and just _make_ us go to the
moon? Why, if reality is "constructed" by us, didn't _medieval_ astrologers
send people to the moon by wishing it would happen, or by choosing people
wiht exactly the same astrology chart as (Dr., incidentally) Neil Armstrong?
> "Do you not know that the Sun and the Moon and the stars and all the
> planets are within you?"
> Origen mystic theologian
No they're not. they are thousands and millions of miles away.
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Eric Scott
> >establishment of comprehensive theory grounded in the certainty of
> >observation statements, by the 1950s it was relatively clear that
> >positivism had failed (Polkinghorne, 1983). There is now almost uniform
> >agreement that the goal of absolute certainty of knowledge is untenable
> >since observations do not produce "facts" that are independent of an
> >observer's interpretation. Even what we take to be objective facts are
> >largely constructs, as the Latin factum, "that which is made", reminds
> >us.
> Far be it from me to criticise something just on the basis of the
> source. But, according to Ed, the source of the above was:
>
> >by Glenn Perry, Ph.D.
>
> "theory dependence of observations". But, as Chalmers ("What is this
> thing called science" and "Science and its fabrication"; the latter an
> unfortunate title in my view) demonstrates, these critics overstate
> their case very greatly.
>
> the "interpretation" (although that is a vague word, open to
> mis-interpretation). But the observations themselves are NOT
> determined by the theory: nature (i.e. the real world, or whatever you
> want to call it) determines the observations.
>
> At this point some-one might say: "Okay, but the observers who collect
> those observations may be fallible". Indeed, individual observers may
> be, and sometimes are, fallible or deluded. But eventually this is
> discovered and corrected. The famous "N-rays" debacle is a good
> example. Some people had convinced themselves that they had discovered
> a new type of radiation (N-rays) that could only be detected through a
> special prism. During an experiment a skeptic removed the prism but
> the believers continued to observe N-rays. End of N-rays.
>
> Harman and Perry may believe that science is a cultural artefact, but
> its discoveries remain true whether you are part of the culture or
> not.
Do they? I have to wonder. Are scientific discoveries absolute? Or would
they be true until another paradigm arose that also addressed those
truths but in a different manner? Particularly a paradigm that resolved
other observations that did not fit commonly accepted "science".
Let's take the subject of this newsgroup. Let's, for the record, accept
the existence of ET life here on Earth, based on the case evidence that
goes back thousands of years.
There are straightforward, what we would call objective, encounters. I'm
reading Vallee's book Dimensions, and have also read Von Daniken's
Chariot of the Gods. There is "evidence" for ET visits and activity that
are objective and concrete. Yet the "debunkers" completely cannot accept
the validity of these claims. Is it a refusal, or are they hard wired
such that these experiences are simply not possible for them? Debunkers
of the world: I invite your response...
Also there are other case histories that are more subjective to the
point of being mystical. Faeries of old for example. These enter the
realm of what the objective science world call dreamland.
And then, to be fair, "way out" occurences. Ghosts, hauntings.
It appears to me to be a continuum of experiences, ranging from our
version of objectivity to our version of sprituality. Looking at this
range, and seeing what we call objective case studies, where something
is left behind or what not, i can't help but wonder if the range of
"acceptable" or "objective" expereinces would change if our cultural
viewpoints were changed.
For example, if the human race had instead of going extroverted into the
world, in the way of science, had spent as much effort going introverted
into the human mind, would our "acceptable" and "objective" evidences be
different. Would ghosts now be a completely understood phenomenon. Would
we be in touch with the "Creator" any more so than some "are" now? Would
we be able to have a better contact with these "ET's" that are
"visiting"? (Boy, how I love quotation marks!) If so, have we lost
something that we need in order to resolve the dilemmas facing this NG,
and others like it? Can we regain it?
In closing, I fell that yes, science has provided what can be called
discoveries, and that those discoveries can be shared amongst similar
mind sets. But if a mind set is strongly different, would it see the
discovery? This was my thought opening this thread.
Any ideas, people?
>
> Regards
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Keith A. McGuinness <k_mcgu...@nospam.bligh.ntu.edu.au>
> School of Biological & Environmental Sciences
> Northern Territory University
> Darwin NT AUSTRALIA
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Remove "nospam." from address to send email.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
--
Auglaize-Mercer C.A.C.
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes: > I H Spedding wrote:
>
> > Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
> > argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
> > valid as yours.
>
> > Ian
>
> --
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
Jim Meritt
In article <3390c...@proxy.gist.net.au>, yor...@gist.net.au says...
>
>How can "truth"* possibly be a state of mind, unless you are using a
>different dictionary?
>
Hard-core QM? The failure of "objective reality" would do it...
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.
Eric Scott
Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Astrology is a subject that one either "believes" in or not.
> >
> > Astrology is not a religion or cult. Therefore faith is not required for
> > it to function.
>
> since it does not function...
> > 2) Astrology must be an Art or a Science.
> >
> > Astrology is an Art/Science. The scientific aspect is in the horoscope's
> > construction, calculation, and mathematical interrelationship
> > measurements between astronomical bodies against galactic backdrop
> > (geometrics).
>
> That does _NOT_ make something scientific!!!!!!!
>
> mere claculations are _not_ enough to make anythig scientific. If I preform
> a rain dance while carefully measuring the lenght of my steps to get them
> "right", does it make it scientific? no.
>
> It is missing the core element: Hypotheses that are used to make
> predictions and are tested continously. this does not happen in astrology.
>
For what it's worth, the issue of astrology as a valid information
source was put to rest when I watched a PBS show in which James Randi
(Nova) had a college class give him their birth information as requested
by a respected astrologer (now to be fair, the astrologer was not
identified, as I recall, Randi _could_ have been doing a con job, but I
doubt it). The astrologer made his "examinations" and returned to James
completed astrological profiles of each person. Randi then returned
these profiles to the individual students, and had them simply raise
their hands if they felt that the astrologer had gotten a good
accounting of themselves. Everyone raised their hand. Some were amazed
at how close the astrologer was. Randi then had the students randomly
exchange the examinations with other students and repeat the process.
Again, to the surprise of the students, everybody raised their hand. The
accounts were different, but bang on.
At that point I began to believe that astrology, while looking like a
"fringe science", really comes down to unconciously imparting
generalities which everyone can relate to.
> --
> Avital Pilpel.
Edmond Wollmann
Bosse Omhav wrote:
I say, please click now if you are afraid of opposing or divergent
views. This is not the "Outer Limits" I do NOT have control of either
your computer or your will.
>Is truth really a matter of knowledge or information?
You used knowledge and information to convey this view-so yes to a great
degree it is a matter of that.
Newsnet and the internet is one of the few places on the planet where
information is not sanctioned, controlled and propogandized (by S or
anyone else)-many people can't stand to possess such power and freedom
to be whatever they wish-or the inability to stop information they fear.
So they then seek to control those who are capable of doing whatever
they wish without hurting anyone else in the doing.
Perhaps because it allows the individual to demonstrate their true
nature, and those who fear, don't want to acknowledge things that are
allowed to come through-or the fact that the may possess so many fears
to begin with.
Although everyone has the ability with a click to dispose of realities
they don't prefer here, they STILL believe this information to be so
threatening and dangerous or whatever, that they do not feel "secure"
unless they issue dicta and attempt to channel information into "proper"
directions. Can simple writing on a screen, that one can wipe out with a
click be that threatening? I am sure I am not the only one capable of
seeing the profound sillyness and belief in powerlessness this reflects?
> There is a story of some men who went into a mango orchard and busied
> themselves in counting the leaves, the twigs, and the branches,
> examining their colour, comparing their size, and noting down
> everything most carefully, and then got up a learned discussion on
> each of these topics, which were undoubtedly highly interesting to
> them. But one of them, more sensible than the others, did not care for
> all these things, and instead thereof, began to eat the mango fruit.
> And was he not wise?
This is simply choice. And did he have to go somewhere else to eat the
mango? Or did he simply choose different options within the framework
that already existed?
In my view, not as wise as the one who allowed both ways to be valid,
useful and "true". And acted upon either when he chose with confidence
and freedom.
Perhaps there was still another?- who could eat the fruit thereof and
discuss all the ramifications as well.
Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
"Proper" place? As you correctly revealed in the story above anyone and
everyone has the ability to choose and act upon whatever it moves them
to do at any given moment regardless of what others may do.
It may lead them to heaven-
It may lead them to hell.
Both are of their own making either way.
Please don't take this as an "argument", it is my view and I'm sticking
with it:-)
I repeat if you find information in certain posts to be useful-use
them-if you do not-CLICK or skip.
There are no guns being held to anyone's head to read anything on
nrewsnet-of this I believe I can be quite certain.
Thanks.
--
"Rules and models destroy genius and art" William Hazlitt
I H Spedding
On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:28:17 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[...]
>"Science will be the formalized creation of a process. One of the
>methodologies for viewing the self. One of the methodologies for
>recognizing the vibrational patterns of energy that are differentiated
>out of the unbroken wholeness."
>Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
There is no end to this meta-twaddle
Gellner E (1992). Postmodernism, Reason and Religion.
Routledge, London.
I H Spedding
>I H Spedding wrote:
>
>> Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
>> argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
>> valid as yours.
>
>> Ian
>
>You may be as negative as you possibly can-I will not try to stop you.
You are most tolerant, but I regard the exposure of falsehood as a
positive thing.
I H Spedding
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:39:37 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[...]
>You fail to acknowledge that your arguments are not based on realistic
>cognitions but upon your bias and habitual ritual ways of thinking. This
>tells the audience far more about the state of flexibility of your
>mental processes than the subject at hand-in simple terms-your zeal
>blinds you to the truth.
You fail to acknowledge that your arguments are not based on anything.
There is no empirical support for astrology, nor are your claims for
it based in existing scientific theory. Your arguments are no more
than sophistry and rhetoric.
[...]
>I repeat-there is NO ONE AND ONLY REAL WORLD-therefore there can be no
>one truth, I will stand by this. If there were only one truth, there
>would only be one person.
It does not follow that assuming the existence of one truth leads to
the conclusion that there can only be one person. In any case, as I
said before, if all views are equally valid then mine, that astrology
is nonsense, is just as valid as yours.
Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Wollmann
I H Spedding wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:52:39 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >I H Spedding wrote:
> >> Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
> >> argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
> >> valid as yours.
> >You may be as negative as you possibly can-I will not try to stop you.
> You are most tolerant, but I regard the exposure of falsehood as a
> positive thing.
> Ian
Then this has been a positive experience for you, I am glad to hear of
your views expanding-this is the only way it can be felt as positive.
Anxiety and excitement are the same energy-one judged and one not. The
trick to understanding your own energy is the ability to discern which
it is. Inclusive perspectives reflect positive energy.
Since negative energy is separative, cynical, limited and
constrictive-it is easy to discern that you respond from anxiety-not
excitement.
Thanks for being a willing participant in this demonstration of the
principles I espouse. I will not bother to answer any more of your
sarcastic and cynical posts.
--
"Standing in the hall of the great cathedral, waiting for the transport
to come. Starship 21zedna9, a good friend of mine studies the stars,
Venus and Mars are alright tonight.
Come away on a strange vacation, holiday hardly begun. Run into a good
friend of mine, sold me her sign, reach for the stars, Venus and
Mars-are alright tonight." Paul McCartney "Venus and Mars are Alright
Tonight"
Bosse Omhav
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 , Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>Bosse Omhav wrote:
>>Is truth really a matter of knowledge or information?
>You used knowledge and information to convey this view-so yes to a great
>degree it is a matter of that.
"When you get to the bottom of the hole...stop digging"
My point is that "truth" has to be assimilated by a subjective
participation. This is what makes astrology special, isn't it? That it
is capable of enhancing our *understanding* of things.
>> There is a story of some men who went into a mango orchard and busied
>> themselves in counting the leaves, the twigs, and the branches,
>> examining their colour, comparing their size, and noting down
>> everything most carefully, and then got up a learned discussion on
>> each of these topics, which were undoubtedly highly interesting to
>> them. But one of them, more sensible than the others, did not care for
>> all these things, and instead thereof, began to eat the mango fruit.
>> And was he not wise?
>This is simply choice. And did he have to go somewhere else to eat the
>mango? Or did he simply choose different options within the framework
>that already existed?
> Perhaps there was still another?- who could eat the fruit thereof and
>discuss all the ramifications as well.
Yes...perhaps, maybe it was you : ) you have a tendency to say it
all. :-) anyway, in the beginning this fellow might as well have
counted the leaves, don't you think? What did Einstein say about
it.....you can't count everything that counts?
As you know there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those
who can't.
However, we can never look at anything and *understand* it in
isolation or only in reference to one or two factors of the total
context in which it occurs (you have written about it).This gives the
statistician trouble since we have to look at the chart as a whole to
understand it. To use astrology creatively one must understand the
meaning, value and purpose with symbols.
Edmond Wollmann
Bosse Omhav wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 , Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >Bosse Omhav wrote:
> >>Is truth really a matter of knowledge or information?
> >You used knowledge and information to convey this view-so yes to a great
> >degree it is a matter of that.
> "When you get to the bottom of the hole...stop digging"
Good point, however the multiverse is a bottomless whole (mispelled on
purpose):-)
> My point is that "truth" has to be assimilated by a subjective
> participation. This is what makes astrology special, isn't it? That it
> is capable of enhancing our *understanding* of things.
It is like art or a puzzle, looking at a piece rarely gives you much
clue as to the whole picture-yes, you are very correct. Cynics are car
parts drivers who think that the cars they are taking the parts for look
like those parts:-) Then they get mad because I try to tell them what
the car looks like they are carrying the parts for-SCIENCE serves
astrology-not defines it.
> >> There is a story of some men who went into a mango orchard and busied
> >> themselves in counting the leaves, the twigs, and the branches,
> >> examining their colour, comparing their size, and noting down
> >> everything most carefully, and then got up a learned discussion on
> >> each of these topics, which were undoubtedly highly interesting to
> >> them. But one of them, more sensible than the others, did not care for
> >> all these things, and instead thereof, began to eat the mango fruit.
> >> And was he not wise?
> >This is simply choice. And did he have to go somewhere else to eat the
> >mango? Or did he simply choose different options within the framework
> >that already existed?
> > Perhaps there was still another?- who could eat the fruit thereof and
> >discuss all the ramifications as well.
> Yes...perhaps, maybe it was you : ) you have a tendency to say it
> all. :-) anyway, in the beginning this fellow might as well have
> counted the leaves, don't you think? What did Einstein say about
> it.....you can't count everything that counts?
Yes, and sometimes being extremely familiar with the leaves give a
greater understanding of the tree. But what cynical types miss is that
ability to shift from looking at leaves to realize there is a tree-that
is NOT amenable to "leaf" tests:-) Thats why I constantly argue that
leaf AND tree tests are the sign of a balanced and intelligent tree
study. POSITIVE. INCLUSIVE.
> As you know there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those
> who can't.
Who's the 3rd kind? (just kidding:-)
> However, we can never look at anything and *understand* it in
> isolation or only in reference to one or two factors of the total
> context in which it occurs (you have written about it).This gives the
> statistician trouble since we have to look at the chart as a whole to
> understand it. To use astrology creatively one must understand the
> meaning, value and purpose with symbols.
Yes, thank you very much for your post-it is simple mechanics-you cannot
take one puzzle piece (negative energy) to understand the whole
(positive energy) picture. See how easy it is when a positive person
answers these?:-) And you didn't have to say anything about how
"delusional" or "bogus" or "fraudulent" or anything else about another
subject BESIDES science is.
One cynic is even bragging about how I was nailed when he demonstrated
everything I have been saying for years!!!:-))))) I laughed so hard!!
--
"Things that you held high and told yourself were true, lost or changin
as the days come down to you. Down to you constant stranger -you're a
brute, your an angel, you can crawl, you can fly too-its down to
you...it all comes down to you!" Joni Mitchell "Court and Spark"
Edmond Wollmann
TYGHOCK wrote:
> >One cynic is even bragging about how I was nailed when he demonstrated
> >everything I have been saying for years!!!:-))))) I laughed so hard!!
> passing for Philosophy. If you want a real deep one, consider reading the
> average astrology prediction. Now that IS a laugh!
Would you please quit trolling my personal e-mail, I haven't the
slightest interest in your opinions after a few seconds of reading them.
You seem to be hypocritical in that I supposedly need to study all these
things in order to discuss them with you (which I have anyway) but you
needn't study astrology to render your ignorant opinions-all that aside,
pls keep out of my e-mail. I send them as a courtesy to persons who
might wish to have the information not to attack them as I do not wish
to recieve personal e-mails all the time with garbage I have heard a
gazillion times-OK? And I don't subscribe to this group
(alt.alien.visitors) So post your attack all you wish-one good aspect of
being stuck with AOL (for me anyway) I guess.
--
"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
Andromeda
> No I mean that unconscious beliefs will reflect the threshold of
> believability (this is the threshold of trust a person has ABOUT the
> beliefs they hold-PLEASE see my Definitions A to Z post!)
> Trust is what CONCRETIZES belief. Because ACTION-what you ACT like
> reflects what you TRULY believe. Action is the reflected conviction of
> belief. And the actions that occur in your life are the production-in
> every way shape and form of that conviction.
First, the truth is only what you beleive in some cases. I'm not going
to tell you that your religion is a total lie because I havn't anything
to prove it is, to you, or myself besides that of what I don't have. So
to you, what you beleive in that field can be the truth, but only to you
and the ones who beleive the same. Now if I were to steel something of
yours and tell you I didn't do it, and you beleived me, though you
beleive that to be the truth, it's isn't, and there's my proof for that
theory. Also, I don't beleive actions always reflect what someone truely
beleives. Excluding severe Terrets Sydrome, some things people do are
subconscience, with no basis other then that of a primitive chemical
reaction that can be found in the lowest of life forms. Some things
people do are just plain stupid, but still might not have anything to do
with what they truley beleive. For example, someone can slash someones
tires. It doesn't always mean they hate that person though. Most of the
time it was just a stupid thing they did because they thought it would
be fun, and didn't stop to think how damaging it really is, and
sometimes they may care, sometimes they may not. One more thing, I find
that most people just get angered by words in caps because it's often
thought of as yelling, even though you might just be trying to stress a
word, and in that case, people are more willing to listen when they
aren't mad.
Edmond Wollmann
Andromeda wrote:
> > No I mean that unconscious beliefs will reflect the threshold of
> > believability (this is the threshold of trust a person has ABOUT the
> > beliefs they hold-PLEASE see my Definitions A to Z post!)
> > Trust is what CONCRETIZES belief. Because ACTION-what you ACT like
> > reflects what you TRULY believe. Action is the reflected conviction of
> > belief. And the actions that occur in your life are the production-in
> > every way shape and form of that conviction.
The "truth" is ALWAYS what you believe it to be, whether that truth is a
part of a collective agreement, or a personal one-conscious or
UNCONSCIOUS.
This seems to be very difficult for most persons to understand-You have
an UNCONSCIOUS, it contains UNCONSCIOUS BELIEFS, those beliefs are
responsible for most of your physical observational bias. Do you
remember forming many beliefs when you were say 3?
Unconscious=not conscious or aware, often used with temporarily devoid
of consciousness or not having the mental faculties awake; not endowed
with consciousness or knowledge of one's existence, condition or
situation; not known to or percieved by oneself; as, an unconscious
mistake; unintentional, as unconscious slight. Psych. a general name for
the mental processes which are NOT conscious. Lexicon/Webster
Now how can you see a physical reality creation from a belief you are
not even aware you have???? Answer please. Astrology and psychology are
tools we use to help us understand those unconscious bias and beliefs we
may not be aware we have.
> I'm not going
> to tell you that your religion is a total lie because I havn't anything
> to prove it is, to you, or myself besides that of what I don't have.
It is not a religion. It is a tool to understand the psyche lkike
psychology. My philosophy derivates from many years of observation and
counsel+study of various schools of thought COMBINED. If you are not
fully aware of astrology, psychology, philosophy or various metaphysical
schools of thought, then you might be more intelligent at this point to
ask questions rather than assert postulates you have no inkling of,
correct?
> So
> to you, what you beleive in that field can be the truth, but only to you
> and the ones who beleive the same.
No. I can delineate the consciousness and beliefs of ANYONE (at my
consciousness level or below) with astrology, there is no need for them
to be aware of or have any inclination for astrological knowledge at
all. Which is strong evidence that it is an objective tool for
understanding the beliefs one holds, and allows us to understand HOW
they got there.
Whether they are consciously AWARE of all that I may see is another
question. That is why empirical tests are useless. because the person
making the evaluation of themselves is not totally objective nor is the
astrologer (the observer). Let alone an experiementer untrained in
psychology.
> Now if I were to steel something of
> yours and tell you I didn't do it, and you beleived me, though you
> beleive that to be the truth, it's isn't, and there's my proof for that
> theory.
No. This is a concious defense mechanism called denial-or many other
ways that the conscious mind can discount unconscious contents it deems
"untrue" or unacceptable. Because I must believe on some level
internally that someone is LIKELY to steal from me to begin with if this
reality occurs.
> Also, I don't beleive actions always reflect what someone truely
> beleives.
Then this simply reflects your beliefs about reality-that you have
little control or connection to the apparently external events in your
reality and that is why THAT action is seen in your reality by
you-because all systems of belief have the reinforcing logic necessary
to reinforce the reality you choose to manifest. You believe it-so you
see it. Simple mechanics.
>Excluding severe Terrets Sydrome, some things people do are
> subconscience, with no basis other then that of a primitive chemical
> reaction that can be found in the lowest of life forms.
Not always. Hormones do not cause beliefs, beliefs cause hormonal
activity. Yes, there are effects of the choice to be in this state
called physical reality. We have many functions controlled by the
autonomic nervous systems etc. so that we do not have to be consciously
aware of every little function-but rather can focus on specific ideas we
wish to explore while our consciousness is focused here in this manner.
> Some things
> people do are just plain stupid, but still might not have anything to do
> with what they truley beleive.
If you do noy believe it on some level you will not see it.
> For example, someone can slash someones
> tires. It doesn't always mean they hate that person though.
Hate is not truly an opposite of love, doubt is.
But it does reflect the idea that they believe that;
A) Physical reality MUST be outside of them and so they must lash out to
control the threat they percieve.
B) That this external reality CAN thwart them if they don't do so.
C) That they are NOT as powerful as they need to be to create whatever
they prefer in their reality without having to hurt themselves or
someone else in order to create it. Therefore they are out of integrity.
D) That there is no purpose to their existence and the events that occur
in it, because of the above beliefs and this detracts from them taking
responsibility for the whole event from square one. Therefore, they are
likely to increase the momentum of this belief and only see things that
reinforce their powerlessness rather than it having something to do with
their BELIEFS and end up in a vicious cycle of reinforcing events until
hopefully they see how they have created it. If not, they will co-create
with others the idea that they may be incarcerated to restrict ACTION
and ENFORCE this introspection to take back power from external reality.
> Most of the
> time it was just a stupid thing they did because they thought it would
> be fun, and didn't stop to think how damaging it really is, and
Not possible. Nothing is "just" this or that. It is an effect of belief
and definitions. Feelings are reactions to beliefs.
> sometimes they may care, sometimes they may not. One more thing, I find
> that most people just get angered by words in caps because it's often
> thought of as yelling, even though you might just be trying to stress a
> word, and in that case, people are more willing to listen when they
> aren't mad.
Well I don't have the ability for italics on my reader. Then they must
examine these beliefs that they are creating that allows them to "get
angry". I am not responsible for others reality constructs. They choose
to get mad. I do my best to explain the premise, perhaps I would not
have to capitalize if they were more observant and read what I wrote the
first time that wasn't in caps? Or referenced my other posts that
explain concepts they keep asking the same questions about. I admit that
sometimes I lose patience and that is something I need to look at. But
that does not "make" anyone do anything. That is my construct.
--
"Can you hear me that when it starts to rain, everything is the same.
Can you hear me? I can show you that when it rains and shines-its just a
state of mind, I can show you." The Beatles "When The Rain Comes"
J. Morales
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Cynics are car>parts drivers who think that the cars they are taking the parts for look
>like those parts:-) Then they get mad because I try to tell them what
>the car looks like they are carrying the parts for-SCIENCE serves
>astrology-not defines it.
As someone who has been known to be cynical, I cannot agree with your
assertion ("Cynics are car>parts drivers...").
You appear to be generalizing.
I think you should substantiate this claim, or admit it is but your
opinion.
[snip]
>Yes, and sometimes being extremely familiar with the leaves give a
>greater understanding of the tree. But what cynical types miss is that
>ability to shift from looking at leaves to realize there is a tree-that
>is NOT amenable to "leaf" tests:-) Thats why I constantly argue that
>leaf AND tree tests are the sign of a balanced and intelligent tree
>study. POSITIVE. INCLUSIVE.
I fail to understand what your point is here.
Please explain to me the concept of "a tree-that>is NOT amenable to
"leaf" tests".
It seems to me that if a tree has leaves, (and I believe leaves are
part of what constitutes "treeness"), then they SHOULD be amenable to
leaf tests.
>> As you know there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those
>> who can't.
:)
[snip]
>One cynic is even bragging about how I was nailed when he demonstrated
>everything I have been saying for years!!!:-))))) I laughed so hard!!
I doubt this highly.
JRM
[snip]
Edmond Wollmann
J. Morales wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Cynics are car>parts drivers who think that the cars they are taking the parts for look
> >like those parts:-) Then they get mad because I try to tell them what
> >the car looks like they are carrying the parts for-SCIENCE serves
> >astrology-not defines it.
> As someone who has been known to be cynical, I cannot agree with your
> assertion ("Cynics are car>parts drivers...").
> You appear to be generalizing.
> I think you should substantiate this claim, or admit it is but your
> opinion.
No, I don't have to do anything.
There are only three aboslutes.
1) That you exist.
2) The one is all and the all is one.
3) What you creatively extend is what you get back.
The rest is choice.
> [snip]
> >Yes, and sometimes being extremely familiar with the leaves give a
> >greater understanding of the tree. But what cynical types miss is that
> >ability to shift from looking at leaves to realize there is a tree-that
> >is NOT amenable to "leaf" tests:-) Thats why I constantly argue that
> >leaf AND tree tests are the sign of a balanced and intelligent tree
> >study. POSITIVE. INCLUSIVE.
> I fail to understand what your point is here.
> Please explain to me the concept of "a tree-that>is NOT amenable to
> "leaf" tests".
> It seems to me that if a tree has leaves, (and I believe leaves are
> part of what constitutes "treeness"), then they SHOULD be amenable to
> leaf tests.
!:-))))
> >> As you know there are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those
> >> who can't.
> :)
> [snip]
> >One cynic is even bragging about how I was nailed when he demonstrated
> >everything I have been saying for years!!!:-))))) I laughed so hard!!
> I doubt this highly.
Of course you do thats part of being cynical- a doubting Thomas:-)
These are cynics assertions about me and here is how I define cynics.
Case # 3,539,044
Diagnosis-cynical and unable to acknowledge larger frameworks within
which fragmented knowledge fits.
Psych-Inferiority, persistant feeling that one does not measure up to
societal standards and personal fictional standards. Ego lock on
physicality and the belief that only psychic material acessable to
egoistic functions is "real."
Habitual responses. Inability for wholistic cognitions.
Philo-The desire to participate in emotivism and the inability to remove
such judgments. Begging the question vicious and cyclic argumentation
which denies purposeful existence other than to prove pointlessness.
Fear that existence is pointless and construct development to reinforce
this conclusion. Pleasure derived from invalidating arguments that
inspire and improve the human condition.
Inability to understand coherence theory of truth. Inability to
understand the pragmatic theory of truth.
Sci-Participates in repeated inductive generalizations. Materialism
focused and rigid. Believes that because information not cognizable by
the ego self, it must not exist, delusional and inability for rigorous
investigation prior to conclusions. Projection that "others" do this.
Conclusion-Perspective alteration necessary. Insists on misery and
negativity in order to resist the slightest appearance of a
relinquishment of control-which inadvertantly reinforces inferiority
feelings. Denial. No known remediation at this point. Likelyhood of
future crisis in perspective great.
Continuation of this reinforces the necessity that I remain involved in
all their affairs to assist others in the recognition of the cynical
mental disorder.
Soon in the DSM-IV.
:-)
--
"On the big screen they showed us a Sun-but never as bright and real
life as the real one, its never quite the same as the real one. And tell
me grey seal how does it feel to be so wise? To see through eyes that
only see whats real? Tell me, grey seal." Elton John/Bernie Taupin "Grey
Seal"
--
Keith A. McGuinness
In article <339a2265.2834459@news>, No need to reply wrote:
>Is truth really a matter of knowledge or information?
>
>themselves in counting the leaves, the twigs, and the branches,
>examining their colour, comparing their size, and noting down
>everything most carefully, and then got up a learned discussion on
>each of these topics, which were undoubtedly highly interesting to
>them. But one of them, more sensible than the others, did not care for
>all these things, and instead thereof, began to eat the mango fruit.
>And was he not wise?
No. You see I happen to hate mangos. (Which is unfortunate since they
are both plentiful and good--according to other people--in my local
area; there is even a tree in my yard.)
I guess it really depends what the "men" were trying to do. If it was
to try and solve a problem of mango blight which threatened the
orchard, I would say he was either stupid or selfish, or both.
>So leave this counting of leaves and twigs and note-taking to others.
>This kind of work has its proper place, but if you search for truth.
>Hmm ....
Indeed, hmm...
Ilja Schmelzer
In article <339109...@aznet.net> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>> How can "truth"* possibly be a state of mind, unless you are using a
>> different dictionary?
Very simple, truth is agreement with reality. Read Popper for
details.
>There is no one truth, the poster is accurate in this discernment.
There is only one truth, according to this definition. But we can
never know if we have found the truth - even if we have found it.
>At the heart of postmodernism is a recurrent theme: truth is
>a matter of perspective.
And this theory of truth is plain nonsense. It would be better to say
simply there is no truth. That's a position which may be discussed.
>Lakoff and Johnson
>(1980) point out that truth is always relative to a conceptual system
>that is defined in large part by metaphor. These metaphors, like myths,
>evolve within one's culture and have their roots in basic assumptions
>about the nature of reality.
Thus, they mingle the predictions of certain belief systems with
truth.
If (A) is true, (not A) is not true. Any notion of "truth" which is
in contradiction with this rule is nonsense, it causes only confusion.
Of course, nobody can forbid me to name my cup of tea "truth". To name
particular belief systems truth is the same type of nonsense.
>Observations invariably presuppose some theory about the phenomenon
>under
>study.
The interpretation of observation, not the observation itself.
>The presumption of different theories will likely give rise to
>different observations, i.e. to different "facts". The process is
>recursive since the explanations we construct to explain the nature of
>the phenomena we observe are actually indicative of our commitment to a
>particular view of reality. Observations cannot prove a theory because
>the theory itself influences what can be observed; i.e., attempts to
>prove a theory unavoidably involve circular reasoning.
That's correct. But we can falsify theories by observation, of course
only if we try to find such falsifications - that means, if we choose
to follow scientific methodology.
>Harman (1988)
>concludes that science is but a "cultural artifact", i.e., a way (not
>the way) of knowing, which conforms to certain presuppositions about the
>nature of reality.
Correct. But because science makes predictions, tests these
predictions, and rejects falsified theories, there is some probability
that it finds more truth than religious belief systems.
>There can be no absolute point of view outside of one's historical and
>cultural situation. Theories are merely instruments for organizing
>perceptions; they help to shape what is observed, what is considered
>factual and relevant, and what meanings can be constructed.
You forgot that it allows to make predictions, remark, predictions
inside the own belief system, but predictions. They may be falsified
by observations, even if they are interpreted in our belief system.
And this shows that there is something wrong with our belief system.
Ilja
--
Ilja Schmelzer, D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38, <schm...@wias-berlin.de>
http://www.cyberpass.net/~ilja
Ilja Schmelzer
In article <339259...@aznet.net> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>> >Although the original goal of positivist-based science was the
>> >establishment of comprehensive theory grounded in the certainty of
>> >observation statements, by the 1950s it was relatively clear that
>> >positivism had failed (Polkinghorne, 1983). There is now almost uniform
>> >agreement that the goal of absolute certainty of knowledge is untenable
>> >since observations do not produce "facts" that are independent of an
>> >observer's interpretation. Even what we take to be objective facts are
>> >largely constructs, as the Latin factum, "that which is made", reminds
>> >us.
As a replacement, we have now Popper's methodology - critical rationalism.
>Well I guess Einstein the astrologer had that in mind when he said
> "It is the thoery that determines what we can observe."
In full agreement with this methodology.
>"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
>and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
>only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
>Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
>to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
>education.
So far, no problem.
>Anomalys are disregarded because they do not articulate the
>paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
That happens only if we violate scientific methodology. Of course,
this happens in academic science. But this only decreases efficiency
of science, does not avoid any progress in the direction of more
truth.
>Or Amit Goswami Ph D Physicist/astrologer when he said
> Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
> way things are or must be.
No, only a particular theory makes such assumptions.
Science itself is only a set of rules of this game named science -
methodological rules. These rules do not depend on any assumption.
Only the jusitification of these rules - why they are better than
religious rules - depends on an assumption. The assumption is that
absoute truth exists - independent of the question if we are able to
find this truth.
> This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
> have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
> momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through
> time expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the
> microworld, such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet
> the clouds still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the
> objective world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into
> matter, and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our rational
> minds working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
> mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
This is obvious for scientific methodology. Science will never end.
> The universe does not seem to exist without a
> perceiver of that universe.
So what? I'm observing it ;-)
> So it would make some kind of sense that
> what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
> human beings.
We are able to say "universe". We are also able to say "Universum",
"Kosmos", "Weltall". Thus, our word-making capacity is strong enough
to name this thing.
> But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
> tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
> there a universe?
I assume, yes. Any problem?
> It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
> the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around?
I assume, yes. Any problem?
> Take as another example the interaction between two electrons. Ac-
> cording to quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
> distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
> indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
> communication to move faster than light.
Thus, may be, relativity is wrong. We have to find a better theory, or
to modify relativity. This is the way science works.
> Thus we have come to the end of a road once again.
No end visible.
> There is too
> much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
> the objective world
I have seen no experiment in conflict with the idea of an objective
world.
> -one that is running forward in time like a clock,
That's a particular theory which may be wrong or not.
> one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action
> at a
> distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
> more
> places at the same time
That's a particular theory which may be wrong or not.
>> The significance of observations may be influenced by theory, as may
>> the "interpretation" (although that is a vague word, open to
>> mis-interpretation). But the observations themselves are NOT
>> determined by the theory: nature (i.e. the real world, or whatever you
>> want to call it) determines the observations.
>Wrong, there is no one "real world".
That's an assumption about our world.
I believe that there is objective truth, a synonym for a real world.
That's all I have to believe in to prefer the scientific method.
>Perhaps the strict empiricist (cynical) believers such as yourself
>overemphasise the validity and value of this "real world" you believe
>in?
May be, we can never be certain that we have found truth.
>Here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
>taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
>Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
>"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
>according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
>however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
>enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
>factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
>enter
>into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
>scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
>conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
>paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
>the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
which consists of the assumption that there exists objective truth.
>"A centrally relevant change in the descriptive order required by
>quantum theory is thus the dropping of the notion of analysis of the
>world into relatively autonomous parts, separately existant but in
>interaction. Rather, the primary emphasis is now on UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS,
>in which the observing instrument is not separated from what is
>observed." David Bohm "Wholeness and The Implicate Order"
IMO nonsense. Bohmian mechanics require only infinite signal speed,
something we have had already in Newtonian mechanics. Nothing which
jusitifies such conclusions.
>"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on
>observations, not theories... I have never come across
>anyone who carries this profession into practice...
>Observation is not sufficient...theory has an important
>share in determining belief."
>Arthur Eddington (astronomer)
Full agreement. I base my beliefs on theories, not observation.
Observations I need only to rule out bad theories, to find out which
theories are better. Standard scientific methodology, read Popper.
Just about to...Go out in the reign
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E7993D22C830E5DD35705BA6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Spam SUX
--------------E7993D22C830E5DD35705BA6
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Riddlebits Nillmightall
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Riddlebits Nillmightall
n: Nillmightall;Riddlebits
org: Tree's and Sphere's
email;internet: babb...@maui.net
title: Jest El Mundi
note: beyond all sense
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------E7993D22C830E5DD35705BA6--
Just about to...Go out in the reign
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> NOSPAM please
How can you be sure that, "perception determines reality",
is true or not?
use yer own scientific method.
practise a few experiments
see if perception does or does not alter reality
and to what degree.
there is the old"perception changes percieved reality" which is obviate.
there is also the old "perception determines reality consequentially".
both miss up a bit I think(but I am stupid, my perception, my reality).
anyhoo the only way too find out is to test.
so try on some different realities, believe them for awhile and see what
happens.
keep a record of course that also notes the flexibility or rigidity of
the human nervous sytem to change belief or percieved reality at will.
ya'll ha fun now!!!!!!!!
--------------CC001BDB7AD6644E387A62C5
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Riddlebits Nillmightall
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Riddlebits Nillmightall
n: Nillmightall;Riddlebits
org: Tree's and Sphere's
email;internet: babb...@maui.net
title: Jest El Mundi
note: beyond all sense
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------CC001BDB7AD6644E387A62C5--
Matt Beckwith
schm...@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer) wrote:
>Very simple, truth is agreement with reality.
>
>If (A) is true, (not A) is not true. Any notion of "truth" which is
>in contradiction with this rule is nonsense, it causes only confusion.
Ilja, thanks for shining the light of clear thinking onto this
age-old, ridiculous debate.
Edmond Wollmann
Yes! Thank you-and since we create our reality it is only logical that
it would follow that OUR truth agrees with OUR reality-wonderful input
thanks again!
This is what I said at the beginning of this thread-and they are always
confirmed.
"True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it." EHW
--
"And its up to you, why won't you say, make our lives turn out this way.
If they knew, that we have got nothing to lose, no reason to hide from
whats true." The Moody Blues "Its Up To You"
Patrick Alessandra Jr.
Actually truth is, as to human experience, transcendentaly relatively
absolute. There are many paths to the same realization ....( see
http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/service.html ).
Shanti,
Patrick Alessandra
--
*** A.Priori / 1441C Bellevue Way NE / Bellevue, WA 98004 USA
*** apri...@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html
*** (425) 455-9259
Brant Watson
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:11:25 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>I H Spedding wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:33:01 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> >He has a choice-but like you if your are unable to break up your
>> >habitual ritual ways of thinking TO BEGIN WITH it is pretty easy TO
>> >PREDICT your reality-PLEASE read my post on "Self Awareness and
>> >Conviction." Your habit of thinking and his allows your reality to
>> >REMAIN fixed and rigid. You cannot change something you do not own. I
>> >have 3000 posts where I have reiterated these philospophical
>> >understandings repeatedly-anyone who is truly inclined to see them- will
>> >see them- I have NEVER contradicted myself. Walking on water IS possible
>> >when you have complete and full trust ON ALL LEVELS OF YOUR
>> >CONSCIOUSNESS, that the water and you ARE ONE!!!!
>> >It is BELIEVING IS SEEING not the other way around.
>
>> In which case, you should be able to pass Alan Sokal's 21st floor
>> window test with ease, but somehow I don't think you'll try it.
>
>> Ian
>
>If I don't do some ridiculous tests-it is because I KNOW the truth of
>what I say,
<snip>
Following dialog is approximate:
Galileo to church representatives, "Just look through this telescope
and you will be able to see for yourselves that Saturn has
protuberances like ears."
Church representatives to Galileo, "We don't *need* to look through
your telescope. We *know* you are lying."
Ed, do you know who Alan Sokal is and Ian's most likely reason for
mentioning him?
Brant
I H Spedding
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 15:17:25 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>I H Spedding wrote:
[...]
>> You are most tolerant, but I regard the exposure of falsehood as a
>> positive thing.
>
>> Ian
>
>Then this has been a positive experience for you, I am glad to hear of
>your views expanding-this is the only way it can be felt as positive.
>Anxiety and excitement are the same energy-one judged and one not. The
>trick to understanding your own energy is the ability to discern which
>it is. Inclusive perspectives reflect positive energy.
>Since negative energy is separative, cynical, limited and
>constrictive-it is easy to discern that you respond from anxiety-not
>excitement.
>Thanks for being a willing participant in this demonstration of the
>principles I espouse. I will not bother to answer any more of your
>sarcastic and cynical posts.
As you choose. Time will tell which of our views reflects the better
understanding of reality.
Ian
wconrad
Eric
The PBS show with Randi: The 'Great Randi's' Data is missing a lot.
1 ) What SYSTEM did the Astrologer use.
2 ) How good is he/she with Astrology.
3 ) Can this so-called 'Astrologer' show PREDICTIVE results from
the past that were correct.
4 ) How well did the people in the test know them selfs.
5 ) Etc.
Randi seems to fool a lot of people that don't know the subject well
enough to see through his little tests. Don't be one of them.
Bill
Cluster User
> > Thus, if truth is a matter of perspective then, by Mr Perry's own
> > argument, my view, that astrology is a load of old rubbish, is just as
> > valid as yours.
> >
> > Ian
>
> Good point, Ian. Let me take the argument one step further in your
> direction:
>
> Anyone that believes the truth is a matter of perspective, perform the
> following experiment. Go jump in front of some cars on the highway and
> see if the cars are "real".
I take it you assume the experimenter meets an unfortunate reality in this
case. But the mistake such an assumption makes is to presume that there is
one and only one "reality" that unfolds from such an incident.
I think it is much more likely that reality is not so serial; rather, that
it is parallel, and that many or perhaps an infinity of outcomes are
possible for any given probablistic event, and of that infinity, it is the
filtering mechanisms of your particular variety of consciousness that
require such a particular outcome. Such an outcome is required to maintain
continuity in the overal paradigm of your foundational beliefs. And this
is necessary because without such filtering, there can be no ability to
create dualisms, and without that possibility, there is no possibility for
individiated consciousness. And for some reason more than likely well
beyond the reach of the tools available to us, consciousness likes to
split itself in to parcels that can, among other things, consider
themselves independent of their source. That seems to be the branch of
overall reality we ended up in, at least. I'm sure there are many other
eddies in the current, though, and certainly the vast majority make no
sense whatsoever from out vantage point.
I think the most important decision anyone wishing to understand the
nature of reality, be it a scientist or a philosopher or a Buddhist monk,
is whether consciousness precedes matter, or matter precedes
consciousness. Scientists generally start their scientific quest with that
decision falling on the side of consciousness being a by-product of
matter- which is an understandable assumption, because to accept the other
possibility takes the relatively tractable, 2D problem of a physical
reality and adds several more dimensions to it, greatly complicating it
and making it harder or impossible to create a solid foundation. OTOH, the
science of Psychology already shows that understanding mind is infinitely
more dificult than understanding the realtively simple and orderly
behavior examined by physics.
Unlike scientists in our sense, Buddhists, among others, generally start
with a view of consciousness being fundamental to matter, which is
probably a better bet, since as a scientist, if you are wrong about
consciousness (sort of like Pascal's view of being wrong about there being
a God!), you are really screwed in the end, all the work can be
potentially devalued if the foundation is shown to have a major flaw. But
if you apporach physical reality from the point of view that
consciousness is the superior to matter, you'll inevitably end up with a
science resembling ours superficially, keeping it's effectiveness, but
having much greater flexibility to deal with probablistic issues raised by
consciousness. Of course, it would also take much longer to develop such a
view to the point of our science, since it is a bigger project. And we
know scientists are in a hurry... so, as is often said of our perspective,
that it is better to rush 70 MPH down the wrong road that to turn around
and drive the 30 miles wasted back to the right fork. Fact is, the wrong
road will eventually get there too, but you may have to drive around the
earth to achieve it.
Besides, our present science makes fun toys. Hasn't actually helped the
world yet, however- more like it has simply raised the stakes, made it
possible for an uncomfortable number of people to share and pollute this
ball we're on until one of the myriad newly introduced threats (thanks to
out technologies) looming in the distance find their moment. But quality
of life... in the local timeline, say from the Dark Ages until now,
Science has made things better. But we have to remember that it was
improvements in plumbing and agriculture that made the Dark Ages possible
in the first place, and I tend to think that science and technology have
still much further to go before we are restored to the sort of low-stress
par and potential happiness indexes that people from tribal cultures tend
to display in antrhopological studies. It is a wicked irony that
technology in general has merely increased the pacing and appetite of
people- emphasizing an addiction to consumption, rather than increasing
quality. People who think tribal life would be hell are merely those who
would not be able to survive the withdrawl as a result of their addictions
to... stuff, to consumption.
Well, we're here now, and if we're not going to undergo withdrawl (I'm
certainly not up for it), then let's hope science does within out
lifetimes start to improve quality rather than increase the quantity of
consumption.
Phoenix
<== wconrad wrote to All:
w> The PBS show with Randi: The 'Great Randi's' Data is missing a lot.
why don't you ask him for it? ra...@randi.org if I'm right.
==>
Garry Bryan
wconrad (wco...@snip.net) wrote:
: Eric
: The PBS show with Randi: The 'Great Randi's' Data is missing a lot.
: 1 ) What SYSTEM did the Astrologer use.
: Bill
: Eric Scott <esc...@rci.rogers> wrote:
: >
You have made a mistake in the recollection of this test. The "charts" were all
the same. There were no differances between them. What he had written up was
a vague listing of "predictions" and "facts" about the subject. When Randi had
everyone exchange "charts" it was then that they all knew they were tricked. . .
Garry (%^{>
J. Morales
wco...@snip.net (wconrad) wrote:
>Eric
>The PBS show with Randi: The 'Great Randi's' Data is missing a lot.
>1 ) What SYSTEM did the Astrologer use.
>2 ) How good is he/she with Astrology.
>3 ) Can this so-called 'Astrologer' show PREDICTIVE results from
> the past that were correct.
>4 ) How well did the people in the test know them selfs.
>5 ) Etc.
>Randi seems to fool a lot of people that don't know the subject well
>enough to see through his little tests. Don't be one of them.
I fail to understand what relevance any of the points quoted has as to
whether the astrologer succeeded or failed, unless you are trying to
say that the subject was not a _real_ astrologer.
Would you please explain that relevance to those of us who fail to
understand it, or confirm that you indeed think that it was not a
_real_ astrologer on the "show".
>Bill
[snip]
>>Response address is: esc...@rci.rogers.com (I hate junk mail)
[]
JRM
Edmond Wollmann
SFKitten wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote to JeffMo:
> No I mean that unconscious beliefs will reflect the threshold of
> believability (this is the threshold of trust a person has ABOUT the
> beliefs they hold-PLEASE see my Definitions A to Z post!)
> Trust is what CONCRETIZES belief. Because ACTION-what you ACT like
> reflects what you TRULY believe. Action is the reflected conviction of
> belief. And the actions that occur in your life are the production-in
> every way shape and form of that conviction.
> A lovely stellium in Scorpio (3rd house) next to Sun and Moon in Libra and
> Chiron in Pisces opposite my Virgo rising predispose my subconscious to
> not always act as I TRULY believe, as you say.
Ah, Ah! Your "subconscious" is not "predisposed" to anything-is not your
unconscious you? And are not the planets and chart within you? They are
you, what you see outside of you are the projected versions of YOU.
Threrefore nothing is imposed from without or "predisposes" anyone to
anything. Only their beliefs-recognized or not-creates probabilities of
experiential reality-which they are then subject to as the effect of
their own extension-what you put out is what you get back-because it is
you all the while.
> I can harbor many hidden
> motives, much to my chagrin. Does that make my actions untrue or are they
> true simply because they occured?
2 in a row from my definitions I posted;
True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it.
Trust-The conviction of belief that manifests mind into matter and
experience.
> Your correspondence as follows:
> > You seem to be
> > quite sure that TYGHOCK has _no_choice_ but to hold an unconscious
> > belief in the danger represented by a speeding bus....
This was written by someone else in response to me. I wrote the below, I
think this is what you are intimating.
> Your habit of thinking and his allows your reality to
> REMAIN fixed and rigid. You cannot change something you do not own. I
> have 3000 posts where I have reiterated these philospophical
> understandings repeatedly-anyone who is truly inclined to see them- will
> see them- I have NEVER contradicted myself. Walking on water IS possible
> when you have complete and full trust ON ALL LEVELS OF YOUR
> CONSCIOUSNESS, that the water and you ARE ONE!!!!
> It is BELIEVING IS SEEING not the other way around.
> SFKitten writes:
> Ah, yes, firewalkers, et alia. Seen firewalkers, not seen water-walkers.
Believing is seeing, because true transformation and trust, and the
vibration you are will always be the reality you experience. When the
student is ready not only the teachers, but other aspects of the reality
appears as well. It is not displayed in a circus atmosphere so as to
prove it to the person who is doing the walking-but you may have heard
of person's picking up cars etc. in order to save the life of another
from compassion-this comes from within-not as a display to impress and
seek to "prove" from without. This is why cynics don't get it-they
simply are seeking to force their opinions upon others in an attempt to
prove postulates to themselves because they do not have any convicted
beliefs of their own upon which to act.
> Doesn't mean I don't believe if they believe.
What they believe is irrelevant to what you believe-except as a
reflection of what you believe.
> I would hope, however, that
> believing wasn't simply seeing, but experiencing.
Believing is experiencing yes, you cannot experience anything that is
not a part of you on some level-this DOES NOT mean however that every
little thing one observes is a "lesson" or one to one reflection of the
observer-but if you have issue with it-then it serves in some way.
> In which case, can we
> call experience truth? Can we have an experience without acting?
Our experience is our reality and our truth. We create our experiential
reality UTTERLY as the product of what we believe, have been taught to
believe, or have brought over from other time tracks or lives as belief.
> You wrote:
> Belief system="This will be one of the aspects that creates your
> artificial construct personality. It will be one of the cornerstones of
> the prism of personality. The other two will be emotion and thought. It
> is what is responsible for the methodology, along with the other two
> ideas, of how you choose to exercise your physiological mental free will
> in giving yourself the type of approach to your life that you do. It
> will be responsible for the creation of your physical reality and the
> reflection of that reality through your physical senses back to your
> mentality."
Bashar channeled this.
> SF Kitten writes:
> I don't see the word "perception" in here anywhere as an element of the
> "artificial construct personality," though it seems simply a sin of
> omission. Geshe Rabten, in "The Mind and its Functions" writes: "In
> classifying the different perceptions that we have, the first distinction
> to be made will be that between sense-perception and mental-perception.
> 'Sense-perception' here refers to all non-conceptual cognitions that are
> dependent for the arisal upon a physical sense-organ, an external form and
> a previous state of cognition. Mental perceptions are similar in nature to
> sense perceptions except that they do not depend upon a physical
> sense-organ as their dominant condition." Both of these, I think, combine
> to produce the "reality" to which we choose to react or respond.
> Mental perceptions could indeed be called "thought," as could emotions
> for when documented (i.e. when you actually sit down and write out an
> emotion), emotions turn out to only be series upon series of frantic
> thoughts in one direction or another. Usually embarrassing as hell.
I cannot speak for Bashar, but we agree on the idea that feelings are
reactions to beliefs. I think you and the person you refer to are
confused on the different levels or banks of psychic material. The
unconscious may be "felt" which can be percieved as a "sense" perception
when in reality the feeling is simply a reaction to an unconsciously
held belief. But all of reality including the bias of observation and
other sense perceptions are the EFFECT of beliefs held at any given
level of the psyche.
> You quoted:
> Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
> Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
> Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
> SF Kitten writes:
> For the most part, but what about shared reality?
The collective unconscious of which Jung identified to some degree is
reflected in DNA and the mechanics of physicality as an agreed upon
parameter and/or effect of simply being focused in a certain frame of
reference-i.e., we all have eyes because physicality has the effect of
"light" being broken down into its physical component that has a very
small band of which the physical "eyes" detect-but as we move along the
EM spectrum the UNBROKEN WHOLE OF THE "LIGHT" of "All That Is" becomes
more and more UNDETECTABLE in physical terms because they are PERIPHERAL
to the "station" of physicality. (PLease Mr. cynics, I used to work for
the US Government in electro optics-no lectures on the EM spectrum or
light refraction etc.)
> Like when we ALL see the
> bus hurling down the street aiming for us? Or when the disgruntled postal
> worker walks into the McDonald's and mows everyone down? How do we address
> group reality?
Why would YOU be there? If there is a major quake and you do not need to
be with the collectivity that is there to be "shaken awake" when it
occurs-you will simply, synchronistically and automatically NOT BE THERE
WHEN IT OCCURS. You are not "subject" to ANY PORTION of physicality
simply because you participate in the collective "dream". Therefore we
are only responsible for and capable of changing and redefining our OWN
REALITY and in so doing change the collective in REFLECTIVE AND
PIONEERING EXAMPLE. Negative things CANNOT AFFECT POSITIVE PEOPLE-no
matter what current books that promote this powerless perspective
"believe". Even if the intentions of others are negative the positive
person will STILL extract a positive effect. Please see my "Integrity
and self definitions" post.
> Does this fall into what you're saying below about everyone
> being tuned into the same radio station? In situations such as this, I am
> far more comfortable thinking that everyone is tuned in to the same KARMA
> station.
"Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose, whether
from the higher consciousness level or the physiological level."
Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
"Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself. All
karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition of
balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out, that
is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will allow for
that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
> And, I DO know that everyone is tuned in to different views -- I
> work above a Zendo in a hospice where the collective reality is that
> people die all the time; yet, we all have different views about what it is
> we do, where it is people go when they die, etc., due in large part to
> what it is you're saying. Additionally, Many of the Buddhist workers there
> (me included) also believe that pursuing the concepts of "no-thing-ness"
> and "potentiality" are essential in what we do.
Then real-ize that death is truly just transformation-as nothing ever
"goes" anywhere-it only changes.
> You said:
> NOT exactly-buses are a COLLECTIVE unconscious and higher self creation
> as a PARAMETER agreement for the belief system and reality called
> "physicality" a radio station upon which we all CHOOSE at this time to
> be "on". They are an EFFECT of a certain TYPE of FOCUS-this reality and
> this focus. In the dream state I can get hit by a bus and nothing
> PHYSICALLY happens-so it is not real? Those with this "reality=physical"
> of course will say yes, those who know that realities are just DIFFERENT
> views will know it is still real even though it is not THIS reality.
> WE ARE THE REALITY IT APPEARS WE EXIST WITHIN.
> SFKitten writes:
> I agree, except with the "we." "We" implies a group of "I" beings and any
> study of eastern metaphysics (especially Buddhism) will immediately tell
> you to go and meditate upon the "I."
I meant if you are there with others in a "situation" the artificial
construct person-alities there experiencing it ARE the reality it
appears is going on OUTSIDE of "them".
> Can you find it? Does it exist?
Yes, as a choice of definition-everything you can imagine must exist on
some level-you are dreaming the self you percieve yourself to be into
existence all the time-real while you experience it-but an illusion none
the less. What you are trying to convey and these ancient mystery
schools were trying to convey, is that the you you percieve yourself to
be NOW is not the only nor entire you that you are-and therefore to
unlock from this belief that the you you are is ALL you are is what was
meant to be inspired (meaning to breathe in) by this assertion. The
cynical and skeptical view is LOCKED into this fear of the loss of
identity-this they cannot understand and think I am calling them
cowards-I am trying to convey this recognition. But BECAUSE they are so
locked in this fearful defense thay cannot see it. Believing is seeing
-see?:-)
> Where? Of course it doesn't, it's the most harmful construct of them all.
Ah, Ah, OF THE EARTH IS ALSO SPIRITUAL. If "All That Is" is all that is
literally-which part of it shall we deem "better" than another? The life
you are living is a wonderful spiritual experience in the idea we call
matter-it is the glorius expression of the "All That Is" in all of these
different ways-it is not something to be shunned-banned-gotten rid
of-etc. When you create something to be negative and threatening you
INCREASE ITS POWER OVER YOU.
From my "Saturn/Neptune Paradox" article;
"But what is to be overcome? The limiting idea that the physical self
that we perceive ourselves to be, is all that we are, and all that we
focus on (Saturn/satan). In Matthew:21 christ tells the disciples how he
must go into jerusalem and suffer and be killed. "Then Peter took him,
and began to rebuke him, saying, be it far from thee, lord: this shall
not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me
Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things
that be of God" (Neptune), "but those that be of men." (Saturn).
> Another sign, signifier, signified all happening in the same physical
> place. A dog chasing its tail looking for the dog. Reality is. "We" are
> not.
We are one of the ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself
within the creation it is-invalidate that-and you invalidate the "All
That Is" and THOSE WAYS. There is no one way or one truth-lest there be
only ONE PERSON.
> You wrote:
> (Some) Alien beings are capable of dissolving material objects-actually
> WE ARE AS well!!!! But we are just not conscious of the fact that we ARE
> DISSOLVING AND RECREATING OUR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ALL THE TIME. It is not
> semantics it is MECHANICS-PHYSICS and time will prove my arguments for
> me-hence I reamin fixed and confident. I have trust that you and other
> cynics can and will begin to create different and more broad perspectives
> no matter how limited and miserable you insist "reality" must be.
> SFKitten writes:
> I live and work in a place where "reality" can be perceived as dismal and
> miserable.
And that would be a choice in creation.
> Our "reality" is that we take care of people facing the
> ultimate and, truly, the ONLY real experience we all share in: Death.
Ah, Ah! NOT POSSIBLE. "The only real experience?" It is just another
transformation-from one "reality" to another.
> So,
> I don't mean to imply that I am cynical about the issues you raise and so
> eloquently present, merely that I have some questions and your posts
> intrique me. This is my first newsgroup experience, so I'm probably doing
> something wrong and beg your indulgence.
No, there is nothing to "indulge" there are no "wrong things"-everything
you are reflecting-you are PERFECTLY reflecting to lead you to those
things that YOU WANT TO SEE-YOU WANT TO LEARN YOU WANT TO EXPLORE. How
does it serve you to tell you of you and your beliefs to see death as
"the one and only true reality'? Doubt is a 100% trust in a reality you
DON'T prefer-that is WHERE cynicism "comes from". You are acting
perfectly and there is nothing to forgive or worry about OK?
> Jeff Mo wrote:
> > "A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
> > "A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
> SFKitten replies:
> Don't get carried away quoting yourself. Seems his implication here is
> that valid argument, in his case, is a combination of ignorance and
> assertion. I wouldn't be too proud of that one.
We often teach best what we are learning.
> (I've deleted the Biblical quotes. Too much for me.)
Alright, why? They are just another way to say the same things-what you
may be fearful of is the judgment others have attached to what they
THINK these quotes mean-which tells us more of them than the passages.
> You've got me interested here--the combo of post-modernism (spent two
> years wading through this in grad school and finally ended up a Buddhist
> when someone handed me the book "Mind in Tibetan Buddhism" and I realized
> they had a far better grip on this stuff than any French and/or American
> intellectual, the Buddhists having established their system some 2,500
> years ago. . .) and astrology is a tempting bait.
Thank you for your insightful and intelligent response:-)
I am not interested in lables. Whatever works for someone will be their
"system". All truths are true in this way. There are simply two types of
energy that apply to the entire multiverse;
Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
--
"It is wise to agree that all things are one." Heraclitus
Edmond Wollmann
SFKitten wrote:
> > You wrote:
> Ah, Ah! Your "subconscious" is not "predisposed" to anything-is not your
> unconscious you? And are not the planets and chart within you? They are
> you, what you see outside of you are the projected versions of YOU.
> anything. . .
> SFKitten:
> >I agree. But, I also think there are certain karmic predispositions,
> which if not
> recognized, carry themselves out (for the cynic especially), as they
> should, as you say they should, etc.
All karma is self imposed.
"Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose, whether
from the higher consciousness level or the physiological level."
Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
"Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself. All
karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition of
balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out, that
is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will allow for
that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
> This may just be a matter of
> semantics. I agree that they can be altered through awareness in an awake
> state of potentiality. Both of these default to the unconscious
> "beliefs-recognized" creation of experiential reality.
They can be altered in any state, many times we simply choose
probabilities in the dream state and then experience the one chosen
there here.
> >You wrote:
> 2 in a row from my definitions I posted;
> True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
> system and reality that created it.
> Trust-The conviction of belief that manifests mind into matter and
> experience.
> SFKitten writes:
> What if it doesn't conform?
Either we create our reality or we don't-you cannot play "what if" and
still believe 100% in anything-as "what if" implies less than 100%. If
you say what if it doesn't, then you are saying your reality contains
"what ifs" out of your control-if you define your reality this way and
then act as if it is true then you will see what ifs. Then your reality
will be CONFORMING 100% to your definition-that contains "what ifs"-it
always works this way and it never doesn't work.
> Is this even a possibility?
If this is what you believe your reality to be, then you will not be
able to find the counterparts that allow you to see that is does
conform-but then it will be conforming perfectly to what you have
defined as the most likely reality. See?
>It's still an
> action, a projected version of "me" -- if it doesn't conform to the
> "belief system," does this argument simply default to saying, "Well, what
> you THOUGHT you believed is obviously different from what you REALLY
> believe" ? I'm definitely leaning towards "not conforming" not even being
> an option. It conforms because it is. But, still, the question presents
> itself.
Reality always reflects and perfectly conforms to the definitions you
hold about it. Every system of belief has its own reinforcing logic.
> >You wrote:
> Believing is seeing, because true transformation and trust, and the
> vibration you are will always be the reality you experience. When the
> student is ready not only the teachers, but other aspects of the reality
> appears as well. . .this is why cynics don't get it-they simply are
> seeking to force their opinions upon others in an attempt to prove
> postulates to themselves because they do not have any convicted beliefs of
> their own upon which to act.
> SFKitten writes:
> Silly question, but what if I'm blind? I suppose you mean "seeing" in the
> largest sense.
Then you must believe that the most likely reality you are to experience
in this life is being blind. This may be a choice of definition in
"Hallway A"-pls look up my explanation of prebirth choices.
> And, true, true, true about teachers and reality appearing.
> Most definitely. And, those cynics--why, they must believe something,
> right?
Yes, they believe in a negative reinforcing reality-therfore they have
one as it perfectly reflects the idea THEY are being.
> They have their convictions, even if they're not yours or mine. I'd
> put them in the "scientism" category. And give them a break in their own
> personally torturous samsara.
Negative beliefs do not have any more power than positive. So they are
not necessarily "unfortunate", for every being creates their reality
utterly as the product of what they believe or have been taught to
believe is true. There is no one truth, except that THE truth is
composed of all truths within that system. Individuals can act in
positive ways or in negative ways.
Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive,
inclusive-INTEGRAL.
Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
> >You wrote:
> What they believe is irrelevant to what you believe-except as a reflection
> of what you believe.
> SFKitten writes:
> Well, my experience,
Remember-your experience is the product of your belief. Every being
creates their EXPERIENTIAL reality as the product of belief.
>in watching hundreds of people "transition" from this
> "reality" to another, is that, in this particular situation, because it is
> truly the one thing we all know for sure will happen on the physical plane
> (and, I daresay that you must have this experience over and over again to
> even begin to speak of it and it is an IMPORTANT one for both those who go
> and those who stay--short version: I know (how could I not?) whereof I
> speak), that my projection of what I believe is both futile and has no
> effect. I can project my unconscious as much as I want (consciously, of
> course : ) ) and it makes no difference. I am "in-between" and that's what
> so attracts me to this work. It can be addictive, to be allowed into this
> space. It's the only place I've found where this happens. Ritual,
> psychedelics, spiritual ecstasy, whatever--don't hold a candle to it.
> Which you can go ahead and toss off as "my reality," but I felt the need
> to say it, because I think it's the one place where this CAN happen, the
> "reality-merge-and-don't-matter" effect.
Not sure I get your point, this of course is your choice of reality
experiences-I have experienced many deaths (even my own) and it is just
a change.
> >You said:
> Believing is experiencing yes, you cannot experience anything that is not
> a part of you on some level-this DOES NOT mean however that every little
> thing one observes is a "lesson" or one to one reflection of the
> observer-but if you have issue with it-then it serves in some way.
> SFKitten: True.
> You wrote:
> Our experience is our reality and our truth. We create our experiential
> reality
> UTTERLY as the product of what we believe, have been taught to believe, or
> have
> brought over from other time tracks or lives as belief.
> SFKitten: True. Especially "other time tracks or lives."
Not especially-equally, there may be stronger or weaker mometums or
e-motions involved in different ideas either from here or anywhere else.
That is what Scorpio is about-the momentums of belief that the ego
accumulates and need to be transcended and transformed to equalize.
Nothing has built-in meaning. Only the meaning we give it.
> > You wrote:
> I cannot speak for Bashar, but we agree on the idea that feelings are
> reactions to beliefs. I think you and the person you refer to are confused
> on the different levels or banks of psychic material. The unconscious may
> be "felt" which can be perceived as a "sense" perception when in reality
> the feeling is simply a reaction to an unconsciously held belief. But all
> of reality including the bias of observation and other sense perceptions
> are the EFFECT of beliefs held at any given level of the psyche.
> SFKitten:
> I don't think I'm confused. I agree with you here. Wondering what made you
> think I was confused. Certainly wouldn't want you to think I was as
> confused as the correspondent who spurred me to initially write! : ) And,
> wouldn't dare accuse Geshe Rabten of confusion without further
> investigation. : )
I simply address what I see to be the issue and point-I don't extend it
over into personal judgments.
> I'm more interested in this conversation here now, but will peruse your
> other posts if this is frustrating for you.
You are not frustrating me, I just may not have too much time to answer
in any great length that is why I refer people to my posts-the same
issues and questions come up over and over.
> I'm new to this newsgroup
> thing and you were the most interesting thing I found. I apologize for not
> doing all the course reading. I'm usually way ahead of the class. . . : )
No need to apologize for anything, I just go with the flow from what I
read and see. I don't see you out of line or anything:-)
> I certainly don't mean to be intruding in any way. I can be persuaded to
> shut-up quite easily.
Just need to clarify your questions maybe not sure what you are asking
sometimes.
> >You wrote:
> Then real-ize that death is truly just transformation-as nothing ever
> "goes" anywhere-it only changes.
> SFKitten writes:
> Please, don't test me on this one. I KNOW. And I completely agree. And,
> what you are responding to is not what I said. You haven't touched
> "no-thing-ness" or "potentiality," which is what I was aiming for. (You
> got my Scorpio tail up on this one. Of course, it's buffered by all the
> Libra diplomacy and I'm trying to be nice and deflect it . . : ) )
I believe I did-I said that identity and the I is a real thing-just like
time/space (of which it is a product) but an illusion none the less-it
depends on WHAT reality you are viewing it from. Unless I am still
misunderstanding you will have to clarify. Paradox is when we are within
the realm of the higher self-where paradox is allowed to exist.
> > You said:
> > WE ARE THE REALITY IT APPEARS WE EXIST WITHIN.
> > SFKitten writes:
> From Ngakpa Chogyam, Crazy Wisdom Master in the White Lineage tradition of
>
> Tibetan Buddhism: "Every state of mind is open to liberation. Every moment
> is a
> possibility, every negative state of mind has something of the quality of
> an aspect of our naturally liberated state. Every thought, every feeling,
> every sensation or action IS enlightenment--but we do not realize it. When
> we drink a glass of wine, eat a piece of cheese, wash the dishes, cook
> food, make love, go shopping or hit our thumb with a hammer, enlightenment
> is there--we are never separated from it. There is no need to look for
> enlightenment in any other place than where we are. This is not a matter
> for intellectual speculation--thinking will not really help us."
Perhaps, perhaps not. What I gather is being conveyed is that everywhere
you are is your perfect place-yes?
> >You wrote:
> What you are trying to convey and these ancient mystery schools were
> trying to convey, is that the you you perceive yourself to be NOW is not
> the only nor entire you that you are-and therefore to unlock from this
> belief that the you you are is ALL you are is what was meant to be
> inspired (meaning to breathe in) by this assertion. The cynical and
> skeptical view is LOCKED into this fear of the loss of identity-this they
> cannot understand and think I am calling them cowards-I am trying to
> convey this recognition. But BECAUSE they are so locked in this fearful
> defense they cannot see it. Believing is seeing-see?:-)
> SFKitten writes:
> Or not. They are suffering within the confines of what they "believe" to
> be "true." It's a tough one. My brother is a major scientist of some
> acclaim. Difficult to talk with his cynical self sometimes, but always
> worth it.
"Science will be the formalized creation of a process. One of the
methodologies for viewing the self. One of the methodologies for
recognizing the vibrational patterns of energy that are differentiated
out of the unbroken wholeness."
Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
> >You wrote:
> Ah, Ah, OF THE EARTH IS ALSO SPIRITUAL. If "All That Is" is all that is
> literally-
> which part of it shall we deem "better" than another? The life you are
> living is a
> wonderful spiritual experience in the idea we call matter-it is the
> glorious expression of the "All That Is" in all of these different ways-it
> is not something to be shunned-banned-gotten rid of-etc. When you create
> something to be negative and threatening you INCREASE ITS POWER OVER YOU.
> SFKitten:
> I agree. Don't see my "self" doing this here. Can't imagine trying to get
> rid of anything. This is good stuff. : )
> >You wrote:
> From my "Saturn/Neptune Paradox" article;
> "But what is to be overcome? The limiting idea that the physical self that
> we perceive ourselves to be, is all that we are, and all that we focus on
> (Saturn/satan). In Matthew:21. . .
> SFKitten writes:
> I don't do well with the Biblical metaphor. Too many Mormons and Born
> (Bored?)
> Again Christians in my background for this to be a system I am comfortable
> with.
Then it is something you have issue with and beliefs about-nothing has
built-in meaning and nothing is inherently anything-anymore than the
Upanishads are "bad or good"-just different ways really to say the same
things.
>To each his own. I just tune out. Don't care. Need another
> metaphorical system to work with, one that grabs me. Buddhism, Astrology,
> good music (parenthetically, I'm a Deadhead).
Well then how about where Saturn is, is where you decieve yourself into
thinking that reality is outside of you. It tests our ability to cognize
and percieve what our beliefs about reality create PHYSICALLY.
> SFKitten wrote previously:
> > Another sign, signifier, signified all happening in the same physical
> place. A dog chasing its tail looking for the dog.
> >You wrote:
> We are one of the ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within
> the creation it is-invalidate that-and you invalidate the "All That Is"
> and THOSE WAYS. There is no one way or one truth-lest there be only ONE
> PERSON.
> SFKitten:
> Have no intention of invalidating that. Am with you here. Butcha' didn't
> even touch the post-modernism bit that attracted me to this conversation
> in the first place.
Define your question plainly.
> > You wrote (re: death):
> Ah, Ah! NOT POSSIBLE. "The only real experience?" It is just another
> transformation-from one "reality" to another.
> SFKitten writes:
> Ok, I'll bite. Tell me about the other transformations of which death is
> "just another." Things I'll accept automatically are: the moment-to-moment
> default explanation; spiritually ecstatic and/or dark and deep movements
> o' the soul and psychedelic illuminations of the shamanistic type. Still,
> none of these equal death. "Just another?" Hmm. Not willing to accept this
> so easily. Not willing at all. NDEs? Maybe. Perhaps you could clue me in
> to your own experience which makes it so easy for you to say "just
> another. . ." I'm not being facetious or disrespectful here, I'm quite
> curious.
Sex. The change from one state to another. Anything. You are attaching
great meaning to the loss of the physical body. Everything in
physicality is a prop anyway when you come right down to it-so whats so
big a difference between changing one's perspective dramatically or
dying. Both are just transformations from one view or state to
another-it happens all the time everyday in the multiverse.
"What the catepillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a
butterfly." Richard Bach
> >You wrote (re: Biblical quotes):
> Alright, why? They are just another way to say the same things-what you
> may be fearful of is the judgment others have attached to what they THINK
> these quotes mean-which tells us more of them than the passages.
> SFKitten:
> Not my metaphorical system at all. And, I'm not afraid to admit it. It's a
> DANGEROUS book.
I knew these beliefs would come out. Nothing is inherently dangerous.
These are judgments pure and simple.
> I agree with you about the "judgement" it carries because
> of others, but doesn't work for me. Carries a shitload of heavy cultural
> weight, especially for women.
What do you think that is? You can only percieve these judgments because
they are coming from you.
> Can't forget the "collective unconscious"
> which has historically backed it up. Refer to it as infrequently as
> possible. Consider it a good story, a bad piece of literature, etc. Men
> always ask women, "Why don't you like the Bible?" Duh. (Which is not to
> say that other philosophical systems aren't equally patriarchal and
> harmful to women, especially my preferred Buddhism. However, the Buddhist
> dudes are way open to change in the west. People who brandish the Bible,
> for the most part, are not.)
I "brandish" many things-what does that make me? (In your judgment:-)
"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet-Shakespeare
"I know and am persuaded by the lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of
itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean." Romans
14:14
Same idea different books-makes no difference-YOU create the difference.
> > You wrote:
> Thank you for your insightful and intelligent response:-) I am not
> interested in labels. Whatever works for someone will be their "system".
> All truths are true in this way. There are simply two types of energy that
> apply to the entire multiverse; Positive is simply integrative, unifying,
> expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL. Negative is separative, segragative,
> limited, conflicted functions in PARTS.
--
"It is wise to agree that all things are one." Heraclitus
> SFKitten writes:
> See Chogyam above. A Ruby Tuesday coming up. ; )
--
"Hillmen are sworn to allegiance,
Living a life of silent dignity Oh Oh,
for your protection, only so you don't worry,
your pretty little head!" Paul McCartney "Pretty Little Head"
Edmond Wollmann
SFKitten wrote:
> Three things:
> 1. There is no self to redefine.
:-)))) Then what wrote this? The "self" in and of itself (pun) is not
INHERENTLY "bad"-but the effects, delusions and the "forgetting" of the
other aspects of the "self" can be limiting-it is all just a view to
begin with.
> 2. Post-modernism ultimately undermines itself by positing the futile
> nature of it all. Sign, signifier, signified; the "truth" is the thing
> itself which we can never get to unless,
Since the "All That Is" and EVERYTHING that exists-EXISTS, it is
true-all of it-all of the infinite ways that "All That Is" has of
expressing itself IS "truth". We are all those ways and all those
truths-there is no mystery here.
There are only (in physicality) polarized ways of expressing THE TRUTH
(which is ALL these truths);
Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
The only thing that is futile-at this point-is comprehending with the
conscious mind WHY all this "truth" exists.
Significance=real or IMPLIED meaning.
> 3. We CAN conceive nothing-ness by being it. It exists in that pure moment
> of potentiality. Where karma happens. Or not.
Contradiction! Then you would not have created this physical
incarnation. You cannot concieve of nothingness-because you cannot
imagine "nothing". And whatever you imagine MUST be real on some level.
Define this nothingness? The moment you do -its something!
Inherent in your statment is the REMOVAL OF MEANING which is what this
dissociated state is meant to convey-but there can be no nothingness.
There are only 3 absolutes;
1) That you exist
2) The all is one and the one all (holographics)
3) Whatever you extend or put out is what you get back
The rest is concoction.
We always have this "ability", to be "non-focused" (would perhaps be a
clearer way of stating it)-however since we chose to incarnate into
physicality to explore the idea of focus and limitation, along with that
comes the idea WE CREATED AND CHOSE TO HAVE AND BE-
An identity. Enjoy that choice.
--
"The myth brings us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual . .
. there is a condescension on the part of the infinite to the mind of
man, and that is what looks like God." Joseph Campbell "Myths To Live
By"