The Structure of Philosophies
Edmond Wollmann
the universe. Thinking persons can see that the UNIverse is all one
thing. We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
and postulates.
Understanding comes from many paradigms. The well rounded thinker
blends, marries and harmonizes all truths in the search for knowingness.
Since everything functions in harmonious synchronous accord we can never
dismiss new ideas? What has been the historical norm? That what we
believed was true and has never changed? Intolerance is the enemy of
information and truth seeking. Is it rigidity and self sureness that
indicates intelligence?
"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
"That is a prime question, I would say, of this hour
in the bringing up of children. That is the problem,
indeed, that was sitting beside me that day at the lunch
counter. In that case, both teacher and parent were on
the side of an already outdated illusion; and generally
-or so it looks to me-most guardians of society have
a tendency in that direction, asserting their authority
not for, but against the search for disturbing truths.
The Impact of Science on Myth
(1961) Joseph Campbell "Myths To Live By"
"THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you questioned
it? The uncritical acceptance of beliefs handed down to you by parents,
teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous. Many of these
beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies, designed to control
you. Even when what has been handed down is true, it is not your truth.
To merely accept anything without questioning it is to be somebody
else's puppet, a second-hand person.
Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down. Wisdom
can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom. Trying to
hand down philosophy is unphilosophical.
Wisdom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything is
question-able, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what
philosophy is: the art of questioning everything." "The Experience of
Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
There is a positive and negative way to approach anything. There need be
no confusion over what constitutes an intelligent approach.
Positive is inclusive and negative is segregative.
The Essential structure of all philosophies
Positive manifestations+ -Negative manifestations
Positive action Negative re-action
allowance judgements/separation
preference/integration playing not to lose
winning/playing to win playing to lose
playing not to win losing
Where your attitude fits on this chart determines the quality of your
life.
From "The New Metaphysics" Bashar, 1987, Light and Sound Communications
Inc.
A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
open. If it doesn't STAY open, the collision with reality may be
traumatic indeed.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Astrology is
Used by you to scam rubes.
Marc Granby
> Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
> the universe.
No, it isn't. It's a superstitious divination system reviled by all
reasonable people.
Milan
"Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41BFBF...@earthlink.net...
> The Essential structure of all philosophies
> Positive manifestations+ -Negative manifestations
> Positive action Negative re-action
> allowance judgements/separation
> preference/integration playing not to lose
> winning/playing to win playing to lose
> playing not to win losing
>
> Where your attitude fits on this chart determines the quality of your
> life.
> From "The New Metaphysics" Bashar, 1987, Light and Sound Communications
> Inc.
>
What is this new fad of calling all this new age shit "Metaphysics"?
Everywhere there are talks and books purporting to be about "metaphysics"
and they are instead pure and adulterated inane shit.
regards
Milan
Pedantus
No, it ain't, and never was.
>
> "THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
[.....]
The Experience of
> Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
Kolak is here misquoting Kafka, without even mentioning the author...a
real Edmo scholar, huh....:)?
> --
> Ed
Wally Anglesea™ >
<arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>A mind is like a parachute-it doesn't function properly if it isn't
>open.
Do you steal all of your ideas from bumper stickers?
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
Woody Pequre
news:41BFBF...@earthlink.net:
> Astrology is
The same crap coming from you. Even when you spam it from two different
user accounts.
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
> the universe.
Kam:
lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
> Thinking persons can see that the UNIverse is all one
> thing.
Kam:
Thinking persons can also distinguish between separate
and different things within the universe. We may arbitrarily
decide that x is one thing, or a composition of many things,
as long as x isn't a fundamental particle. It simply depends
on the arbitrary way in which we are thinking about x.
> We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
> that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
Kam:
Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
things.
>
> Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
> This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
> philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
> investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
> and postulates.
Kam:
The above seems true enough, with the exception of the
assertion that "most believe..." I'd bet that most believe that
science is simply founded on reason, and not its creator. But,
that's neither here nor there.
Kam:
This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
Larry Huntley
this thing on?" and, in alt.astrology, message news:32b370F3hm8l5U1
@individual.net, prounounced:
Ah - you've read postings from Ed before.
- L
--
Larry Huntley Beaverton, Oregon
Skep-Ti-Cult® Member #130-978649-969 http://www.skepticult.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2004, alcha...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in
alt.astrology, message
news:35325a08.04051...@posting.google.com:
> Would you like me to yank your internet account now or later?
(I chose "now")
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Gee, a frog can do that too, what's your point?
>
That you're a fool.
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Path:
>
> newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!199.218.7.141!news.glorb.com!mpls-transit-01.news.qwest.net!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!delta.newsreader.com!not-for-mail
> Date:
> Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:13:08 -0500
> From:
> Spämster <dont-...@gmail.com>
> Message-ID:
> <20041216201258.208$z...@news.newsreader.com>
> Organization:
> None
> User-Agent:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
> X-Accept-Language:
> en-us, en
> MIME-Version:
> 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> alt.astrology, alt.astrology.metapsych,
> alt.wanker.edmond-wollmann, alt.nocem.edmond-wollmann
> Subject:
> Re: The Structure of Philosophies
> References:
> <41BFBF...@earthlink.net>
> <10s2820...@corp.supernews.com> <41C232...@earthlink.net>
> In-Reply-To:
> <41C232...@earthlink.net>
> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> 7bit
> X-Trace:
> delta.newsreader.com
> HoL30kOAT1qWICzwEH3CnzY3A,FVsSXt_oVd@sPh9x_ZTkMQ
> Lines:
> 11
> Xref:
> news.earthlink.net alt.astrology:646880
> alt.astrology.metapsych:204332
> X-Received-Date:
> Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:14:01 PST
> (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
>
>
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>
>>Gee, a frog can do that too, what's your point?
>>
>
>
>
> That you're a fool.
:Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
:Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.policy
:NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.179.244.103
:X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
Sux2BU!
wollma...@spam.free
http://www.nocem.org/
http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03057
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C232...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.philosophy alt.dream.lucid alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcJHbFIcW5ONdL49EQIEDgCeKf7fCS6oK2tw4I/vP6PWXRyOgwcAn1gj
IEbfIv3kKInb5GmQ6+1mN/gF
=xFOM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03060
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C235...@earthlink.net> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcJI+lIcW5ONdL49EQJYxQCfUqY/Z+QqKiB+LFPNVeniS404P8QAoIaM
jRHYA04imepkp4qawuyZFopz
=Z3Mo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
>>>the universe.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
>>study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
>>we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
>
>
> Sure we can, what do you think dream studies are?
Kam:
Studies of the pseudo-conscious state(s) that we
are in while in a state of REM. These states
do not entail any metaphysical points about a "psyche,"
including any connection between it and anything else,
any more than any other conscious or unconscious state.
>
>
>>>Thinking persons can see that the UNIverse is all one
>>>thing.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Thinking persons can also distinguish between separate
>>and different things within the universe. We may arbitrarily
>
>
> I never said they couldn't.
>
>
>>decide that x is one thing, or a composition of many things,
>>as long as x isn't a fundamental particle. It simply depends
>>on the arbitrary way in which we are thinking about x.
>
>
> Gee, a frog can do that too, what's your point?
Kam:
We cannot draw metaphysical conclusions from
our arbitrary way of looking at things.
>
>
>>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
>>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
>
>
> I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
>
>
>>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
>>things.
>
>
> Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
> heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
Kam:
Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
it is justified.
>
>
>>>Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
>>>This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
>>>philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
>>>investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
>>>and postulates.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> The above seems true enough, with the exception of the
>>assertion that "most believe..." I'd bet that most believe that
>>science is simply founded on reason, and not its creator. But,
>>that's neither here nor there.
>
>
> It is quite here and there, because LOGIC is the father of science and
> LOGIC is an aspect of philosophy, science is not above philosophy, it is
> a derivation from philosophy.
Kam:
Of course - I was only commenting that the belief of
most people is neither here nor there. Truth, of course,
doesn't depend on popular vote.
<snip>
>>Kam:
>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
>
>
> And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
> not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
Kam:
It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
able to be convinced.
>
>
>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
>
>
> I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
> know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
> fall out.
Kam:
Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:tu95s09qmq18ok57g...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:21:25 -0600, in alt.astrology, Kamerynn
> <idon'tdoe...@sorry.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
>>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
>>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
>>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE
>>> you know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind
>>> cannot even fall out.
>>
>>Kam:
>> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
>>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
>
> Beware Kam!
>
> Edmond has used predictive astrology several times.
>
> in 2000 he predicted: Bush will lose... and guess what, he won.
> in 2004 he stated Kerry will win... and oops Kerry lost.
> in 2004 he stated Bush will leave office in shame...
>
> Guess look around an bit and you will find Edmond has used astrology
> to predict dozens of things, none of which came to pass.
>
> This shows that Edmond lies. Edmond lies and doesn't understand when
> he makes statements such as "Kerry will win" on usenet, then states to
> you "I have argued against astrological prediction", he is lying to
> you.
You haven't rilly scorched Edmo's panties until you've been threatened
with a February lawsuit. Make sure you get the Feb. 2002 vintage. It's
going to "blossom" any day now, right after he shuts down Usenet and gets
his castle completed.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"It is truly KOOKY to be so obsessed with someone's success and your
inability to defeat them, that you parade around as them." Edmo,
explaining his use of all his sockpuppets.
Dan Baldwin
>
>
> I have argued against astrological prediction
and at the same time you've crowed about finding all sorts of similar
aspects in the charts of world leaders who'd been assassinated. Not to
mention prattling on and on about how the stars foretold who would win
the US Presidential elections, only to fuck up a 50/50 chance of being
correct. Twice.
Its no wonder people think of you as a bilious butt nugget or
antagonistic ass chancre.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
shrikeback
"Common Man" <not.p...@all.times> wrote in message
news:1103288374.7b1cd213c72265d51e2685790c73bff4@teranews...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:05:21 -0800, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@invalid.net> wrote the following in
> alt.astrology.metapsych:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:37:46 GMT, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann
>><arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
>>>the universe.
>>
>>
>>Astrology is a psuedo-science and superstition based upon one of the
>>so-called hermetic principals: *As above, so below.*
>>
>>As a religious belief is it laughable, as a science totally unbelievable.
>
> And those are it's strong points!
It is the twilight of the Age of Aquariums!
Lard Lad
> with a February lawsu<kerrrang!>
Your fellow AUKer pal John Lewis knows something about sending out false
lawsuit threats. Did he study under Edmo?
Remember all of the fun you had playing with John and Carl on your off-group
listserve? Whatever happened to all of those other Yahoo!(TM) kooks?
Spanked off of Usenet? New sock puppets for them? Are there ever
AAR_Skeptics reunions? Maybe in Orlando? (heh.)
--
Official Grand Wizard of alt.fuck alt.military.collecting.medals and THIS
FROUP! (coming soon)
Hi Everybody But J***!
http://tinyurl.com/4qqae
http://tinyurl.com/6nghc
NOW YOU SEE 'EM: http://tinyurl.com/48bh2
NOW YOU DON'T! : http://tinyurl.com/585ow
http://tinyurl.com/67hvd
http://tinyurl.com/55thz
http://tinyurl.com/5ma5x
"I professed no wisdom of any sort" - cu...@petitmorte.net
"Are you hot for retards, Mop Jockey?" - Lunch Lady J*** trolls for a date.
"Thanks for keeping me in your .sig for months and years." - Lunch Lady J***
torlled again.
"I wish I could concentrate 5-10 years of a useful jizzstain like cujo
harrassing a complete moron like Edmo into a sig... You just can't
compress that much stupidity into such a small space... Once you got down
the the size of a crab wonton, quantum mechanics ceases to explain things."
- Me
Mike Davis: Lots of people enjoy seeing Roberta be exposed as a kook and
freak.
Outside Observer: As an outside observer, all I see him doing is exposing
you and your kooky gang of sock puppets as the idiots that you are. That
yahoo 'skeptic' group is a joke. You guys must really be desperate for
attention, huh?
Fun Google Query: insubject:"test to see if mike is stupid"
"I've had multiple Usenet accounts for years, kook." - Mike Davis
"Wow, getting multiple accounts just so you can try to troll Usenet with
your lame sock puppet act is really kooky" - Mike Davis
"You have multiple accounts? Most kooks do so that they have at least one
place to whine from when their access is nuked." - Cujo DeCrotchPuppet
Kamerynn
Bob Officer wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:21:25 -0600, in alt.astrology, Kamerynn
> <idon'tdoe...@sorry.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
>>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
>>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
>>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
>>>know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
>>>fall out.
>>
>>Kam:
>> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
>>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
>
>
> Beware Kam!
>
> Edmond has used predictive astrology several times.
>
> in 2000 he predicted: Bush will lose... and guess what, he won.
> in 2004 he stated Kerry will win... and oops Kerry lost.
> in 2004 he stated Bush will leave office in shame...
>
> Guess look around an bit and you will find Edmond has used astrology to
> predict dozens of things, none of which came to pass.
>
> This shows that Edmond lies. Edmond lies and doesn't understand when he
> makes statements such as "Kerry will win" on usenet, then states to you "I
> have argued against astrological prediction", he is lying to you.
Kam:
Your warning doesn't go unheeded; I have always... um...
beworn. Especially Ed and George Hammond. I have criticized
Ed many a time in the past, and remember his babble about
jupiter-this and astrological-that. You might remember me. :-)
But, when it looks like someone is willing to be rational,
I will certainly humour them. I haven't yet completely given
up hope on any of the usenet kooks that I've encountered. It
could be that Ed is having a change of heart and mind, and I
wouldn't for the life of me discourage such a thing even if it
is only remotely possible. But, I will always beware ;-)
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Kamerynn wrote:
> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
> >>>the universe.
> >>Kam:
> >> lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
> >>study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
> >>we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
> > Sure we can, what do you think dream studies are?
> Kam:
> Studies of the pseudo-conscious state(s) that we
> are in while in a state of REM. These states
> do not entail any metaphysical points about a "psyche,"
> including any connection between it and anything else,
> any more than any other conscious or unconscious state.
If you say so, the ones you read anyway. If we exert the same (often
more) energy when we are in the sleep state as when we are awake, why is
it that we are regenerated?
Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
pass. How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
and see it?
> >>>Thinking persons can see that the UNIverse is all one
> >>>thing.
> >>Kam:
> >> Thinking persons can also distinguish between separate
> >>and different things within the universe. We may arbitrarily
> > I never said they couldn't.
> >>decide that x is one thing, or a composition of many things,
> >>as long as x isn't a fundamental particle. It simply depends
> >>on the arbitrary way in which we are thinking about x.
> > Gee, a frog can do that too, what's your point?
> Kam:
> We cannot draw metaphysical conclusions from
> our arbitrary way of looking at things.
Nor can we draw objective discernements from subjective belief system
constructs. You are not as insightful as you believe yourself to be.
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
"I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
> >>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
> >>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
> >>Kam:
> >> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
> > I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
> >>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
> >>things.
> > Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
> > heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
> Kam:
> Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
> chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
> the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
> not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
> it is justified.
Only in the reality construct of those who believe they must do
something "special" in order to deserve to exist and gain insight. Those
of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence. When
you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
this and no longer "need" justifications.
> >>>Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
> >>>This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
> >>>philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
> >>>investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
> >>>and postulates.
> >>Kam:
> >> The above seems true enough, with the exception of the
> >>assertion that "most believe..." I'd bet that most believe that
> >>science is simply founded on reason, and not its creator. But,
> >>that's neither here nor there.
> > It is quite here and there, because LOGIC is the father of science and
> > LOGIC is an aspect of philosophy, science is not above philosophy, it is
> > a derivation from philosophy.
> Kam:
> Of course - I was only commenting that the belief of
> most people is neither here nor there. Truth, of course,
> doesn't depend on popular vote.
There is no "THE TRUTH" except that the truth is the composition of all
truths, if there were only one truth, there would only be one person.
> <snip>
> >>Kam:
> >> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
> >>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
> >>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
> > And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
> > not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
> Kam:
> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
> a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
> place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
> able to be convinced.
All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
> >>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
> >>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
> >>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
> >>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
> > I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
> > know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
> > fall out.
> Kam:
> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
> veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
Astrology is a valid art/science. I don't "push" anything, I simply
present my truths as I see them, it is your versions of, and creations
of your own reality that allows you to see whatever you see, because I
cannot create it for you.
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one
encounters in later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident"
concepts." Albert Einstein
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > Kamerynn wrote:
>
>> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the
>> >>>rest of the universe.
>
>> >>Kam:
>> >> lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
>> >>study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
>> >>we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
>
>> > Sure we can, what do you think dream studies are?
>
>> Kam:
>> Studies of the pseudo-conscious state(s) that we
>> are in while in a state of REM. These states
>> do not entail any metaphysical points about a "psyche,"
>> including any connection between it and anything else,
>> any more than any other conscious or unconscious state.
>
> If you say so, the ones you read anyway. If we exert the same (often
> more) energy when we are in the sleep state as when we are awake, why
> is it that we are regenerated?
Please cite the evidence that the same or more energy is exerted while in
sleep state under normal conditions.
> Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
> molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come
> to pass. How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the
> future and see it?
It doesn't, you're simply deluded about it, you freak.
<snip>
Keep kicking Edmo's ass, Kam. It's time for Pantyhead's annual Xmas
Meltdown and Rantfest.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"I am not in the habit of calling anyone stupid or inferring that they
are stupid, because I'm not overly bright myself." - Raytard Murphy shows
his grasp of the blindingly obvious.
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
>>>>>the universe.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
>>>>study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
>>>>we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
>
>
>>>Sure we can, what do you think dream studies are?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Studies of the pseudo-conscious state(s) that we
>>are in while in a state of REM. These states
>>do not entail any metaphysical points about a "psyche,"
>>including any connection between it and anything else,
>>any more than any other conscious or unconscious state.
>
>
> If you say so, the ones you read anyway. If we exert the same (often
> more) energy when we are in the sleep state as when we are awake, why is
> it that we are regenerated?
Kam:
Go ahead and look up some studies on, for example,
how much food energy we consume while asleep as opposed to
when we are awake. I think that you'll be surprised.
Anyway, feeling "regenerated" after sleeping isn't
about using less energy - it's about, among other things,
cognitive process, believed by some to be the process through
which the brain stores and "solidifies" memories. The body
relaxes - it is the kind of thing that will wear out with
constant exertion.
> Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
> molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
> pass.
Kam:
Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
> How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
> and see it?
Kam:
Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
it until I have.
Dreams are much like imaginings - and those can come true.
>
>
>>>>>Thinking persons can see that the UNIverse is all one
>>>>>thing.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Thinking persons can also distinguish between separate
>>>>and different things within the universe. We may arbitrarily
>
>
>>>I never said they couldn't.
>
>
>>>>decide that x is one thing, or a composition of many things,
>>>>as long as x isn't a fundamental particle. It simply depends
>>>>on the arbitrary way in which we are thinking about x.
>
>
>>>Gee, a frog can do that too, what's your point?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> We cannot draw metaphysical conclusions from
>>our arbitrary way of looking at things.
>
>
> Nor can we draw objective discernements from subjective belief system
> constructs.
Kam:
Is there an echo in here?
> You are not as insightful as you believe yourself to be.
Kam:
Our statements are in so much agreement that you've
nearly uttered a tautology. I believe myself insightful
enough to believe that I have much to learn. During the
course of this learning, I will need evidence, as I will
not be tricked into accepting false beliefs. My cards are
on the table - it is *your* insight that is now required.
>
> "The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
> and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
> a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
> "I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
> matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
Kam:
So? Banter about what people may or may not believe
(e.g. atomism, positivism) really shows me nothing, here.
Not to be rude, but what I need is evidence, not banter.
>
>
>>>>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
>>>>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
>
>
>>>I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
>
>
>>>>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
>>>>things.
>
>
>>>Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
>>>heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
>>chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
>>the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
>>not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
>>it is justified.
>
>
> Only in the reality construct of those who believe they must do
> something "special" in order to deserve to exist and gain insight.
Kam:
I believe that people must meet a certain requisite morality
to deserve to exist. I'm not sure exactly where the line is (it's
a hard line to draw, historically speaking), but I know that Hitler,
for example, is on the other side of it.
Everyone deserves to gain insight, as insight will make people
more moral. That is, if that insight includes something leading to
the idea that being moral is in one's best interests. The smarter
people become, the more efficient and liberal our societies will
be.
> Those
> of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
> doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
> more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence.
Kam:
Reference to faith (or knowingness) isn't philosophically
defensible. It amounts to the mere assertion that "I believe x
and cannot justify that belief." Faith-like sentiments have
no force over a reasonable mind. If I'd experienced what you
have, then perhaps I'd change my tune. After all, it would then,
for me, no longer be faith.
So, I hope you can understand why I cannot assent to your
statements. I still need evidence.
> When
> you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
> this and no longer "need" justifications.
Kam:
I've caught myself in the throws of self-deception, and
swam upstream to avoid it, if that's what you mean. I can
also dream lucidly much of the time. None of that counts as
justification for an ontological statment (that is, a statement
about *being*, about existence).
>
>
>>>>>Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
>>>>>This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
>>>>>philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
>>>>>investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
>>>>>and postulates.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> The above seems true enough, with the exception of the
>>>>assertion that "most believe..." I'd bet that most believe that
>>>>science is simply founded on reason, and not its creator. But,
>>>>that's neither here nor there.
>
>
>>>It is quite here and there, because LOGIC is the father of science and
>>>LOGIC is an aspect of philosophy, science is not above philosophy, it is
>>>a derivation from philosophy.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Of course - I was only commenting that the belief of
>>most people is neither here nor there. Truth, of course,
>>doesn't depend on popular vote.
>
>
> There is no "THE TRUTH" except that the truth is the composition of all
> truths, if there were only one truth, there would only be one person.
Kam:
It's hard to know what you are getting at, but you seem to
be leaning toward idealism - the position that all of the
"furniture of the universe" is actually ideas... mind stuff.
There is no physicality per se., and reality exists only by
the sum total mind stuff of each person. A similar, and equally
crazy, theory is solipsism: the position of one who believes that
they are the only person in existence, and all is a figment of one's
imagination (all is one's mind stuff). Such positions are usually
the culimation of lots of nasty self deception and other of the
unconscious processes that we discussed earlier. After all, no
one *actually lives* as though they're a solipsist or idealist.
>
>
>><snip>
>
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
>>>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
>>>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
>
>
>>>And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
>>>not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
>>a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
>>place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
>>able to be convinced.
>
>
> All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
Kam:
That is included in my statements, since being able to
be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
>
>
>>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
>>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
>>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
>>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
>
>
>>>I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
>>>know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
>>>fall out.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
>>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
>
>
> Astrology is a valid art/science. I don't "push" anything, I simply
> present my truths as I see them, it is your versions of, and creations
> of your own reality that allows you to see whatever you see, because I
> cannot create it for you.
Kam:
If astrology were a science, there would be subject
matter that is applicable to science. Astrologers study
the positions of celestial bodies and relate them to
events in large groups of individual's lives. It makes the
same mistake as Jung did with his archetypes: it reduces
not only individuals, but events in their lives, down to
a severly finite number of variables, when there are actually
countless more variables that cause events than the ones that
astrology discusses.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
>
> "Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
> laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one
> encounters in later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident"
> concepts." Albert Einstein
Kam:
But, I'm not about to question the need for evidence for
belief. I'm not going to question the law of the excluded
middle (every proposition is either true or false). There are,
in fact, a whole bunch of things that are preconditions for
reason, and I cannot question them without questioning reason.
I cannot question reason, because I would need reason to do that.
Call this my limitation if you will - I call it being reasonable.
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Many people have discovered
That you're a fraud.
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03070
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C7AE...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.philosophy alt.dream.lucid alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQciENFIcW5ONdL49EQI3mQCePjEMpl4937V0P1qCHY9Y3I4jEgsAn35e
JNSEpMcTN7KfxJIlK8zDLBJm
=6zFQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Edmond Wollmann
> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>Kamerynn wrote:
> >>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
I see. And why does that happen?
> > Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
> > molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
> > pass.
> Kam:
> Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
> such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
> there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
> these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
I can show you nothing, each being creates their experiential reality by
the product of what they believe or have been taught to believe.
> > How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
> > and see it?
> Kam:
> Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
have some more information.
> of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
That is because it is believing is seeing, and you do not believe.
> I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
> mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
> of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
> about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
> of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
> it until I have.
Alright, then you go right ahead, I will not try to stop you.
But it does not work that way, it works in the reverse of what you
believe the facts to be.
"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
It is actually imagination that creates the theories, which leads to
operationalizing constructs and variables YOU BELIEVE have significance,
you then find the reinforcing logic to justify your own belief system.
> > "The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
> > and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
> > a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
> > "I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
> > matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
> Kam:
> So? Banter about what people may or may not believe
> (e.g. atomism, positivism) really shows me nothing, here.
> Not to be rude, but what I need is evidence, not banter.
You miss the point, the point is that Einstein is indicating exactly
what I am saying. Nothing is deduced purely by logical procedures and
"facts", the theories INduce the constructs that are then tested.
> >>>>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
> >>>>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
> >>>I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
No comment?
> >>>>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
> >>>>things.
> >>>Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
> >>>heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
> >>Kam:
> >> Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
> >>chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
> >>the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
> >>not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
> >>it is justified.
I see, kinda like Vioxx and Naproxin, and Celebrex?
> > Only in the reality construct of those who believe they must do
> > something "special" in order to deserve to exist and gain insight.
> Kam:
> I believe that people must meet a certain requisite morality
> to deserve to exist. I'm not sure exactly where the line is (it's
> a hard line to draw, historically speaking), but I know that Hitler,
> for example, is on the other side of it.
I see, what about the greatest crimes against humanity and genocide
committed by the US--the ONLY country in history to actually USE weapons
of mass destruction by killing hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima.
Morality is a subjective value judgement.
> Everyone deserves to gain insight, as insight will make people
> more moral. That is, if that insight includes something leading to
Incorrect. Self-Empowerment allows people to feel able to create
whatever they wish in their reality without having to hurt themselves or
others in oreder to do so. It is actually "morals" (subjective value
judgments created by believing in power-less behavior such as Religion,
the science of following) that has created all of the worlds wars,
cruelty and inequity.
Which would allow you to "feel" more comfortable:
Standing on a 3000 high ft ledge 3 inches wide?
Or sitting on your couch in the living room?
In which scenario would you be more likely to be generous and giving of
space and power to others?
> the idea that being moral is in one's best interests. The smarter
> people become, the more efficient and liberal our societies will
> be.
And liberty may have 0 to do with morality.
> > Those
> > of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
> > doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
> > more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence.
> Kam:
> Reference to faith (or knowingness) isn't philosophically
> defensible. It amounts to the mere assertion that "I believe x
> and cannot justify that belief." Faith-like sentiments have
> no force over a reasonable mind. If I'd experienced what you
> have, then perhaps I'd change my tune. After all, it would then,
> for me, no longer be faith.
> So, I hope you can understand why I cannot assent to your
> statements. I still need evidence.
You cannot agree with my statements because your reality is based on
doubt, and mine on trust.
> > When
> > you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
> > this and no longer "need" justifications.
> Kam:
> I've caught myself in the throws of self-deception, and
> swam upstream to avoid it, if that's what you mean. I can
> also dream lucidly much of the time. None of that counts as
> justification for an ontological statment (that is, a statement
> about *being*, about existence).
Then please explain to us what facts and evidence you possess about the
purpose of living? WHY do we exist and "need" to know why? If you cannot
find any to justify why billions of people, animals and plants have
lived and died on this planet for billions of years, I suggest you stop
fooling yourself and others and acting like a hypocrite and stop living
right now until you can justifications and evidence as to why you must
do it.
> >>>>>Most believe that science evokes or created critical thinking and logic.
> >>>>>This is incorrect. Philosophy is the "father" of logic and it is from
> >>>>>philosophy that logic is derived. All scientific theory and
> >>>>>investigation derives from questioning critically all accepted beliefs
> >>>>>and postulates.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> The above seems true enough, with the exception of the
> >>>>assertion that "most believe..." I'd bet that most believe that
> >>>>science is simply founded on reason, and not its creator. But,
> >>>>that's neither here nor there.
> >>>It is quite here and there, because LOGIC is the father of science and
> >>>LOGIC is an aspect of philosophy, science is not above philosophy, it is
> >>>a derivation from philosophy.
> >>Kam:
> >> Of course - I was only commenting that the belief of
> >>most people is neither here nor there. Truth, of course,
> >>doesn't depend on popular vote.
Nor is science= to truth. It is a METHOD of investigating the phenomenon
we call PHYSICAL reality, it is not "THE" only way, nor does it
necessarily lead to truth.
> > There is no "THE TRUTH" except that the truth is the composition of all
> > truths, if there were only one truth, there would only be one person.
> Kam:
> It's hard to know what you are getting at, but you seem to
> be leaning toward idealism - the position that all of the
> "furniture of the universe" is actually ideas... mind stuff.
> There is no physicality per se., and reality exists only by
> the sum total mind stuff of each person. A similar, and equally
> crazy, theory is solipsism: the position of one who believes that
> they are the only person in existence, and all is a figment of one's
> imagination (all is one's mind stuff). Such positions are usually
> the culimation of lots of nasty self deception and other of the
> unconscious processes that we discussed earlier. After all, no
> one *actually lives* as though they're a solipsist or idealist.
You are creating your reality perfectly as we speak, you believe very
strongly in the idea that physical reality is something outside of you
that you must "justify" etc. We always create our reality 100%, even if
you choose to use 90% to make it appear as though you only have the
other 10% under your control.
> >><snip>
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
> >>>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
> >>>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
> >>>And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
> >>>not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
> >>Kam:
> >> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
> >>a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
> >>place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
> >>able to be convinced.
The mind and the brain are not necessarily the same things, an asumption
you make only because of your philosophical belief in materialism as
"THE" reality, when it isn't.
> > All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
> Kam:
> That is included in my statements, since being able to
> be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
> wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
There is no "that's the way it is, the Universe has no built-in meaning,
you give it meaning by what you believe or have been taught to believe
it means.
"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
> >>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
> >>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
> >>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
> >>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
> >>>I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
> >>>know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
> >>>fall out.
> >>Kam:
> >> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
> >>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
> > Astrology is a valid art/science. I don't "push" anything, I simply
> > present my truths as I see them, it is your versions of, and creations
> > of your own reality that allows you to see whatever you see, because I
> > cannot create it for you.
> Kam:
> If astrology were a science, there would be subject
> matter that is applicable to science. Astrologers study
I see, so you don't believe math is applicable to science?
> the positions of celestial bodies and relate them to
> events in large groups of individual's lives. It makes the
> same mistake as Jung did with his archetypes: it reduces
I don't believe Jung made the mistakes you believe he did.
> not only individuals, but events in their lives, down to
> a severly finite number of variables, when there are actually
> countless more variables that cause events than the ones that
> astrology discusses.
Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? There are truths that overlap, and
they are neither 100% this or 100% that, but still they share a common
truth.
> Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
> link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
> bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
> possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
> someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
> need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
I see, and how much research have you done on astrology to come to these
conclusions?
> > "Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
> > laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one
> > encounters in later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident"
> > concepts." Albert Einstein
> Kam:
> But, I'm not about to question the need for evidence for
> belief. I'm not going to question the law of the excluded
> middle (every proposition is either true or false). There are,
> in fact, a whole bunch of things that are preconditions for
> reason, and I cannot question them without questioning reason.
> I cannot question reason, because I would need reason to do that.
> Call this my limitation if you will - I call it being reasonable.
I call it unwise.
"THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you questioned
it? The uncritical acceptance of beliefs handed down to you by parents,
teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous. Many of these
beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies, designed to control
you. Even when what has been handed down is true, it is not your truth.
To merely accept anything without questioning it is to be somebody
else's puppet, a second-hand person.
Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down. Wisdom
can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom. Trying to
hand down philosophy is unphilosophical.
Wisdom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything is
question-able, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what
philosophy is: the art of questioning everything." "The Experience of
Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> I can show you nothing
Exactly.
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03074
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C8D0...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.philosophy alt.dream.lucid alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcjt91IcW5ONdL49EQLKrgCdFSrAqRujsOzdxKczLoWd52F0tqYAn3qg
L+l3A9mCo3bNsRNYmffgiNEk
=oGM4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03075
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C8D0...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.astrology.metapsych alt.consciousness alt.consciousness.mysticism alt.tarot
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcjuX1IcW5ONdL49EQIDRwCbBGWZXpuDahgVSBu+jsr7ilpYjWQAn1/P
C+xscdiv46ufS1a8jYHu4TD3
=GUTT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marc Granby
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
> You cannot agree with my statements because your reality is based on
> doubt, and mine on
delusions.
Marc Granby
Wollmann wrote:
> If we exert the same (often
> more) energy when we are in the sleep state as when we are awake, why is
> it that we are regenerated?
We DON'T exert the same amount of energy when we sleep, you moronic
fucking dunce! Where the HELL did you pull that bullshit from?
We expend LESS energy. It's a period of _rest_. That is why we are
_rejuvenated_, not "regenerated", you insane buffoon.
Max Mustermann
<wollma...@spam.free> wrote:
>
> http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
> http://www.nocem.org/
> http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
>
> @@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
> Version: 0.9
> Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
> Type: spew
> Action: hide
> Count: 1
> @BEGIN NCM BODY
> alt.philosophy alt.dream.lucid alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal
> @END NCM BODY
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 6.5.8
>
> L+l3A9mCo3bNsRNYmffgiNEk
> =oGM4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SPNAK!!1!!
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03077
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C8D3...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal alt.psychology alt.psychology.jung
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQckWYFIcW5ONdL49EQLdNwCdEgK80HhEAHK9nKctrVfyWsWth40An09I
crOi0wUMwTHqqDqXYHaXDB1A
=Vnmz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marc Granby
> How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
> and see it?
Gee, why don't we ask Presidents Gore and Kerry that question, huh, you
babbling fuckmonkey?
"Bush will lose" -Ed Wollmann, REMming himself into oblivion, 2000.
"Kerry will win" -Ed "That's not REM, that's a schizophrenic tic"
Wollmann, 2004
Max Mustermann
<wollma...@spam.free> wrote:
>
SPNAK!!1!!
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
Kam:
Why does the body relax, or why does it wear out?
Or, do you mean to ask why the brain must store and
solidify memory? I suppose that the answers to the
former questions are intuititive - the body, through
exertion, undergoes some "wear and tear" and must
rest to repair itself, or it would break down. At least,
I suppose that's the answer to the former question.
The latter question I can't answer. I'm not sure
why some believe that the brain must undergo such a
process to place things in long term memory. The purpose
of REM is still controversial, and that's only one theory.
I haven't yet invested any belief in theories about the
purpose of REM.
>
>
>>>Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
>>>molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
>>>pass.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
>>such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
>>there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
>>these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
>
>
> I can show you nothing, each being creates their experiential reality by
> the product of what they believe or have been taught to believe.
Kam:
Sure, each person's experiences is run through a filter
of previous experience, and of reason/understanding - we
call that cognition.
But, "secrets of life" seems to refer to some objective
bit of knowledge or other. Surely, secrets of life cannot
simply be secrets about our own experiential reality - they
must be about reality itself. Otherwise, they are not true
secrets - truth implies a correspondence to reality.
>
>
>>>How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
>>>and see it?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
>
>
> The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
> Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
> have some more information.
Kam:
Ok - but that leads me to my definition of prediction
as conscious or unconscious reasoning that produces an
educated guess about what will happen next.
>
>
>>of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
>
>
> That is because it is believing is seeing, and you do not believe.
Kam:
I meant it literally - one cannot actually see the actual
event - that event isn't anywhere, and doesn't exist, and so
isn't accessible to sense experience. We can, however, *imagine*
an event, and if we've imagined it correctly, we will say that
we have "forseen" it. I believe that I understand your use
of the word "seen," and I was just commenting on how we cannot
take that word too seriously (literally), since the event isn't (yet)
available to see.
>
>
>>I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
>>mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
>>of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
>>about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
>>of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
>>it until I have.
>
>
> Alright, then you go right ahead, I will not try to stop you.
Kam:
That's too bad. What that means is that you will not
try to supply evidence of another kind of prediction, or
point me to that evidence, and so I have no choice but
to refrain from believing in another kind of prediction.
Kam:
That our beliefs, even our foundational ones, are theory
laden, is not something that I wish to deny. But, that doesn't
mean that theories actually determine *what* we observe -
something is either available to sense experience or it isn't,
regarless of any theory that we may or may not hold. Our
theories determine what we think we are observing - that is,
our theories determine *how we cognize* what we observe.
But, our theories don't change the actual fact of the matter,
since what actually is, is independent of our observation.
That is, after all, why we can observe it - because it
*is there* for us to observe in the first place.
>
>
>>>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
>>>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
>>>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
>>>"I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
>>>matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> So? Banter about what people may or may not believe
>>(e.g. atomism, positivism) really shows me nothing, here.
>>Not to be rude, but what I need is evidence, not banter.
>
>
> You miss the point, the point is that Einstein is indicating exactly
> what I am saying. Nothing is deduced purely by logical procedures and
> "facts", the theories INduce the constructs that are then tested.
Kam:
I understand what you were getting at, now.
Even Kant derived his "a priori" categories
"synthetically" (i.e. with reference to sense
experience in general). Empiricism seems to be the
road to truth; reason alone cannot take us there.
But, the want for evidence/justification is an empirical
matter. Surely both reason and experience have a part
to play in finding the truth. The truth cannot depend
on only experience - reality cannot depend on nothing but
our experiences or beliefs.
>
>
>>>>>>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
>>>>>>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
>
>
>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
>
>
>>>>>I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
>
>
> No comment?
Kam:
That's right. We are getting down to the meat and potatoes
of the issue of discovery and truth elsewhere in this post.
>
>
>>>>>>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
>>>>>>things.
>
>
>>>>>Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
>>>>>heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
>>>>chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
>>>>the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
>>>>not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
>>>>it is justified.
>
>
> I see, kinda like Vioxx and Naproxin, and Celebrex?
Kam:
Huh? Those sound like drugs...
If Celebrex is a drug that is supposed to do x, we will
not know that we have *actually discovered* a drug that
does x until we verify that fact - test the drug, and
observe it doing x. So, yes, we need evidence to proclaim
something to truely be a discovery.
>
>
>>>Only in the reality construct of those who believe they must do
>>>something "special" in order to deserve to exist and gain insight.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I believe that people must meet a certain requisite morality
>>to deserve to exist. I'm not sure exactly where the line is (it's
>>a hard line to draw, historically speaking), but I know that Hitler,
>>for example, is on the other side of it.
>
>
> I see, what about the greatest crimes against humanity and genocide
> committed by the US--the ONLY country in history to actually USE weapons
> of mass destruction by killing hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima.
Kam:
Yes, that was terrible as well.
> Morality is a subjective value judgement.
Kam:
I suppose that it is, in a sense. There are those who
believe that the U.S. was justified in bombing Hiroshima.
We can, however, make a few more or less objective points
when it comes to the actios of the U.S. The U.S. invaded on the
suspicion that there were WMD, but the U.S. has WMD itself. So, why
shouldn't others invade the U.S.? Surely, if it is a
crime for a country to have WMD, then it is the same crime for
the U.S. Of course, I'm vastly oversimplifying the issue.
While morality is a human creation (that is, assuming
atheism), and thus subjective in a sense, we can bring reason
to bear on moral issues and, in that way, be more confident
of our conclusions. So, while controversy rages in the
grey area, there are still cut and dried "objective" moral
statements, such as the statement "Hitler was immoral."
>
>
>> Everyone deserves to gain insight, as insight will make people
>>more moral. That is, if that insight includes something leading to
>
>
> Incorrect. Self-Empowerment allows people to feel able to create
> whatever they wish in their reality without having to hurt themselves or
> others in oreder to do so. It is actually "morals" (subjective value
> judgments created by believing in power-less behavior such as Religion,
> the science of following) that has created all of the worlds wars,
> cruelty and inequity.
Kam:
Morality has done no such thing - what you bring to
the table is tragedy brought about by morality worship...
blind faith. Moral thinking ought to always be just that:
thinking. Morality is nothing without reason.
While morality worship has brought about the tragedy
you mention, moral thinking has also brought about
concepts like basic rights and natural law. We have
progressed from the feudal society in which only the
nobility had rights, to societies in which there is
at least a recognition of the fact that rights ought to
apply to all equally. It is moral outrage - moral reaction -
to the inquisition that make us realize how cruel it was.
You state that religion has created cruelty and inequity...
how could we even come to that realization without moral
thinking? I understand why you feel that "morality" has
brought about bad things - but we can only know that because
we're capable of moral thinking.
> Which would allow you to "feel" more comfortable:
> Standing on a 3000 high ft ledge 3 inches wide?
> Or sitting on your couch in the living room?
> In which scenario would you be more likely to be generous and giving of
> space and power to others?
Kam:
I'm not sure what the point of your question is.
I would likely be more generous and giving if I were
in a tenuous position, in which one small push could
make me plummet to my death. If someone demanded an
inch of my couch, I could deny it with confidence. If
someone demanded a portion of my ledge, I just might
give it to him so that I don't have to fight him for
the whole thing.
>
>
>>the idea that being moral is in one's best interests. The smarter
>>people become, the more efficient and liberal our societies will
>>be.
>
>
> And liberty may have 0 to do with morality.
Kam:
I believe that freedom has everything to do with
morality. Authoritarian tyranny has no place in moral
thinking. If a people are oppressed by a tyrant, then
their lives aren't valued - they are treated no better
than commodities.
>
>
>>>Those
>>>of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
>>>doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
>>>more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Reference to faith (or knowingness) isn't philosophically
>>defensible. It amounts to the mere assertion that "I believe x
>>and cannot justify that belief." Faith-like sentiments have
>>no force over a reasonable mind. If I'd experienced what you
>>have, then perhaps I'd change my tune. After all, it would then,
>>for me, no longer be faith.
>> So, I hope you can understand why I cannot assent to your
>>statements. I still need evidence.
>
>
> You cannot agree with my statements because your reality is based on
> doubt, and mine on trust.
Kam:
Lol - you've hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid.
I have, for example, experienced too much U.S. propaganda
to trust the news as to what's going on. I've seen too many
lies. More specifically, I've seen too many people lie, saying
things like "I can see auras," or, "I can predict the future."
These are falsifiable statements - that is, they can be tested and they
can thus be found to be false or they can be confirmed. I have seen
such tests, and put people through them myself, and all hypothesis have
been falsified. I've seen people pretend to see an aura - the aura
of a person - coming from the arm of a mannequin.
>
>
>>>When
>>>you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
>>>this and no longer "need" justifications.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I've caught myself in the throws of self-deception, and
>>swam upstream to avoid it, if that's what you mean. I can
>>also dream lucidly much of the time. None of that counts as
>>justification for an ontological statment (that is, a statement
>>about *being*, about existence).
>
>
> Then please explain to us what facts and evidence you possess about the
> purpose of living?
Kam:
Purpose? As far as I know, no one possesses any facts about
the purpose of life. People only possess their beliefs about this
matter, not any facts or evidnece, as far as I can tell. Some
believe in heaven, while others believe that there is no purpose.
> WHY do we exist and "need" to know why?
Kam:
I do not need to know why I exist - it is enough that
I do. However, if someone tells me that they actually know
why I exist, I will listen to their evidence.
> If you cannot
> find any to justify why billions of people, animals and plants have
> lived and died on this planet for billions of years, I suggest you stop
> fooling yourself and others and acting like a hypocrite and stop living
> right now until you can justifications and evidence as to why you must
> do it.
Kam:
Huh? How is the desire to live a happy life, regarless
of the fact that I don't know life's purpose, akin to hypocrisy?
I don't need to know the purpose of life to have a right to live.
I don't need to end my life to avoid hypocrisy - I only need to
reconcile my beliefs with my actions. That is, after all,
included in the meaning of "hypocrisy."
Kam:
The assertion "we have 100% under our control" is testable.
You, who believes this, could imagine a big banana split, and it
would appear before your very eyes. If you do such, and it
appears, then you've confirmed the hypothesis. If you do such,
but a banana split fails to appear, then you've falsified the
hypothesis. So, there can even be justificaiton for the idea that
we create our reality. Justification is the sublime concept, here.
>
>
>>>><snip>
>
>
>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
>>>>>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
>>>>>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
>
>
>>>>>And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
>>>>>not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
>>>>a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
>>>>place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
>>>>able to be convinced.
>
>
> The mind and the brain are not necessarily the same things, an asumption
> you make only because of your philosophical belief in materialism as
> "THE" reality, when it isn't.
Kam:
On what basis do you say that I make that assumption?!
I am *not* an identity theorist, or an eliminative materialist.
It is clear to me that the mind is not identical to the brain;
one is accessible to all possible viewers in principle, while
the other (the mind) is only accessible to the one who
possesses it. As Jackson once asserted, even if Jones knew
*everything* that there was to know about the brain, he still
doesn't know what pain is unless he knows what it *feels like.*
If the brain and the mind do not have all of their properties
in common, then they cannot, strictly speaking, be identical.
The identity theory has only a correlation between brain
events and mind events to back it up - correlation *can*
count as evidence of causation, but not of identity.
You must refrain from imputing certain positions to
me based on your idea that I'm a common, unthinking
layman. Fyi, the majority of philosophers are functionalists,
and the rest range from identity theorists to property
dualists to biological naturalists. The majority of thinkers
reject the identity theory, although functionalists make
the same mistakes as identity theorists, imo.
>
>
>>>All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> That is included in my statements, since being able to
>>be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
>>wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
>
>
> There is no "that's the way it is, the Universe has no built-in meaning,
> you give it meaning by what you believe or have been taught to believe
> it means.
Kam:
Meaning is the result of conventional use. Being open to
being convinced often means being open to being convinced that
one is wrong. The universe has no built in meaning, but words
have a conventional meaning, and we know this because we can use
them to communicate (to understand each other). If they did not
have this shared meaning, communication would be impossible.
>
> "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
>
>
>>>>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
>>>>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
>>>>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
>>>>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
>
>
>>>>>I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
>>>>>know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
>>>>>fall out.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
>>>>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
>
>
>>>Astrology is a valid art/science. I don't "push" anything, I simply
>>>present my truths as I see them, it is your versions of, and creations
>>>of your own reality that allows you to see whatever you see, because I
>>>cannot create it for you.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> If astrology were a science, there would be subject
>>matter that is applicable to science. Astrologers study
>
>
> I see, so you don't believe math is applicable to science?
Kam:
Reread the above carefully. I said that *if* astrology
were a science, there would be subject matter..." I then
go on to name the subject matter of astrology. That is
*not* the denial that you think it is.
Number and numeral count as math's subject matter.
>
>
>>the positions of celestial bodies and relate them to
>>events in large groups of individual's lives. It makes the
>>same mistake as Jung did with his archetypes: it reduces
>
>
> I don't believe Jung made the mistakes you believe he did.
>
>
>>not only individuals, but events in their lives, down to
>>a severly finite number of variables, when there are actually
>>countless more variables that cause events than the ones that
>>astrology discusses.
>
>
> Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? There are truths that overlap, and
> they are neither 100% this or 100% that, but still they share a common
> truth.
Kam:
What philosopher isn't familiar with Venn?
I'm not saying that Jungian archetypes can't be made to fit
people, but that they aren't *sufficiently complex* to
distinguish between each and every individual. It is possible
that there is, or will be, an individual that doesn't fit any
of the archetypes.
In any case, an astrological prediction, such as "all
of a certain class of Taurus will find love on Dec.15th"
is falsified when some of the members of that class fail to
find love on that date. Just as an archetype might fail to
range over all the people its meant to range over, an astrological
prediction can fail to range over all of the people in its
category. Apart from being too general and vague, both archetypes
and astrological predictions have been falsified.
>
>
>> Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
>>link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
>>bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
>>possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
>>someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
>>need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
>
>
> I see, and how much research have you done on astrology to come to these
> conclusions?
Kam:
I cannot give you a number or quantity, but I can
relay some of the case studies that I've been witness to.
In any case, the burden of proof does *not* rest on my
shoulders. If you believe in the veracity of astrology,
then it is up to you to say why. I ought not believe in
that which is not justified - and I need no research to
hold that position. Justify astrology, and I'll have no
choice but to believe. Fail to do so, and I have no
motive to believe.
Kam:
A very good quote, from a text that I happen to have read.
It nicely displays my point - that we must question everything.
Of course, it does *not* tell us to use something other than
reason in our questioning, and hence doesn't prove that my point
is unwise. It is, instead, an expression of what I've been adhering
to this entire time - and that's exactly why I'm questioning you. That
I don't question the need for questioning (i.e.reasoning/justification),
or the law of the excluded middle, is beside the point.
Marc Granby
"borrow" money from you; he has a tendency to never pay it back, and
then make public any intimate communications you had.
Marc Granby
Dan Baldwin
>
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
> > Kam:
> > Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
>
> The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
> Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
> have some more information.
You misspelt "laughable, pseudo intellectual gibberish". HTH.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03087
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41C9C4...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.astrology.metapsych alt.consciousness alt.consciousness.mysticism alt.tarot
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcnS1FIcW5ONdL49EQJUlACfW5qKCnViDpQ1qmorXz30vSxxAPcAnisN
KX0fA5Dn/RINV4F2/MTf1tl8
=TR+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Edmond Wollmann
SNIP!
You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
Thanks
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03111
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41CA17...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.philosophy alt.dream.lucid alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcoYvlIcW5ONdL49EQImVQCgr45H1F7oy1+s679y7tQX6gUQpMYAoPsK
bJjDTpO/QsPU3XPru+sa6T0d
=PhqY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03112
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41CA16...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.meditation alt.religion.gnostic alt.pagan alt.astrology.metapsych alt.religion.wicca
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcoZH1IcW5ONdL49EQJmwwCg/FRXFSX4ToZ09UaNS+Ue6pzBzzoAoOVZ
dWKIHsscZUEPPJXkRgIDOdZy
=r8+6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03114
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41CA13...@earthlink.net> alt.astrology
alt.astrology.metapsych alt.paranormal alt.mythology alt.dreams.lucid
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcoacFIcW5ONdL49EQK3nwCgz0nVaydRywlRKYiNRVBzPCUFGMUAnjiV
ZgGQH1GLIZv9UyJ+zQhEnRhd
=kqyb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03115
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<20041222190027...@mb-m17.aol.com> alt.astrology
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQcobo1IcW5ONdL49EQKsiQCgt/zzyShz/+dM7lJ9flu41gG5VmAAn2NK
+9jTb8lNijkpuWgbPcsG1fyO
=eIku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cujo DeSockpuppet
@earthlink.net:
> Kamerynn wrote:
> SNIP!
>
> You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
SPANK!!!!1!!!!!
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Yes, anyone can give their power away to illusions, be it the
Christian cult, or astrology." - Ed, getting his act confused with
more successful scammers.
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Kamerynn wrote:
> SNIP!
>
> You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
> Thanks
That'll happen right after you get a clue.
Dan Baldwin
>
> Kamerynn wrote:
> SNIP!
>
> You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
> Thanks
Congratulations, Kamerynn, on becoming another part-owner of Edmo's ass.
Edmond Wollmann
I see, and so to what do we attribute the concept of "intutive"?
> The latter question I can't answer. I'm not sure
> why some believe that the brain must undergo such a
> process to place things in long term memory. The purpose
> of REM is still controversial, and that's only one theory.
> I haven't yet invested any belief in theories about the
> purpose of REM.
OK, fair enough, then you cannot speculate on any theories of the psyche
either.
> >>>Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
> >>>molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
> >>>pass.
> >>Kam:
> >> Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
> >>such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
> >>there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
> >>these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
> > I can show you nothing, each being creates their experiential reality by
> > the product of what they believe or have been taught to believe.
> Kam:
> Sure, each person's experiences is run through a filter
> of previous experience, and of reason/understanding - we
> call that cognition.
Incorrect. You assume that the filter is from without to within, when in
reality, the beliefs are patterned and then filtered as subjective
perceptions of the outer.
> But, "secrets of life" seems to refer to some objective
> bit of knowledge or other. Surely, secrets of life cannot
> simply be secrets about our own experiential reality - they
> must be about reality itself. Otherwise, they are not true
> secrets - truth implies a correspondence to reality.
I believe it is called the Bucky ball? One of the constructs that came
to the person in the dream state.
> >>>How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
> >>>and see it?
> >>Kam:
> >> Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
> > The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
> > Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
> > have some more information.
> Kam:
> Ok - but that leads me to my definition of prediction
> as conscious or unconscious reasoning that produces an
> educated guess about what will happen next.
Not exactly, actions taken determine future events, so it is not
perception alone, but perception of trajectory, if you will, much like
the trajectory of an object in space, beliefs have momentum that can
predict future events to a great degree.
> >>of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
> > That is because it is believing is seeing, and you do not believe.
> Kam:
> I meant it literally - one cannot actually see the actual
> event - that event isn't anywhere, and doesn't exist, and so
> isn't accessible to sense experience. We can, however, *imagine*
I will have to disagree here to a great extent, only because of my 20
year dream journal which evidences otherwise.
> an event, and if we've imagined it correctly, we will say that
> we have "forseen" it. I believe that I understand your use
> of the word "seen," and I was just commenting on how we cannot
> take that word too seriously (literally), since the event isn't (yet)
> available to see.
With no discussion or information (for example of the dream journal) I
dreamt my father had a heart attack. I told him of it, we dismissed it
as "just a dream". A year later he was told by the doctor he needed
elective triple by-pass to avoid a heart attack. Imagination? Hardly, I
was asleep.
> >>I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
> >>mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
> >>of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
> >>about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
> >>of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
> >>it until I have.
> > Alright, then you go right ahead, I will not try to stop you.
> Kam:
> That's too bad. What that means is that you will not
> try to supply evidence of another kind of prediction, or
> point me to that evidence, and so I have no choice but
> to refrain from believing in another kind of prediction.
Not true, it means that I am wise enough to know that WHATEVER I
provide, your beliefs may prevent you from SEEING any evidence that
might be compelling to another individual but not you. I will still
provide what ever I believe supports my views.
Sure it does, you will never find something you aren't looking for
because you believe it doesn't even exist.
It is BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around.
> something is either available to sense experience or it isn't,
Not true, many things are available that we either choose or are not
capable or willing to see.
> regarless of any theory that we may or may not hold. Our
> theories determine what we think we are observing - that is,
> our theories determine *how we cognize* what we observe.
> But, our theories don't change the actual fact of the matter,
> since what actually is, is independent of our observation.
There is no "that's the way it is" the way it is is the way we create
and define it to be on all levels.
> That is, after all, why we can observe it - because it
> *is there* for us to observe in the first place.
Einstein and I disagree.
> >>>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
> >>>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
> >>>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act."
> >>>"I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
> >>>matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
> >>Kam:
> >> So? Banter about what people may or may not believe
> >>(e.g. atomism, positivism) really shows me nothing, here.
> >>Not to be rude, but what I need is evidence, not banter.
> > You miss the point, the point is that Einstein is indicating exactly
> > what I am saying. Nothing is deduced purely by logical procedures and
> > "facts", the theories INduce the constructs that are then tested.
> Kam:
> I understand what you were getting at, now.
> Even Kant derived his "a priori" categories
> "synthetically" (i.e. with reference to sense
> experience in general). Empiricism seems to be the
> road to truth; reason alone cannot take us there.
You are partially correct.
Truth is one--the sages speak of it by many names. Upanishads
There are MANY ways to find "truth", some of them have 0 to do with
Empiricism.
> But, the want for evidence/justification is an empirical
> matter. Surely both reason and experience have a part
> to play in finding the truth. The truth cannot depend
Of course, I do not deny THAT truth either. I simply am trying to
balance your BELIEFS about what truth constitutes.
> on only experience - reality cannot depend on nothing but
> our experiences or beliefs.
Of course not, that's why THE truth is the composition of ALL truths,
not just empiricism, not just imagination, but a more powerful blending
of the two.
> >>>>>>>We may not be able to MATERIALLY prove all these connections, but
> >>>>>>>that is what dis-covery (to uncover) is all about.
> >>>>>>Kam:
> >>>>>> Discovery is not about being unable to prove things.
> >>>>>I did not say that, DIS-COVERY is the opposite of Helan.
> > No comment?
> Kam:
> That's right. We are getting down to the meat and potatoes
> of the issue of discovery and truth elsewhere in this post.
OK, if you say so.
> >>>>>>Discovery is about providing evidence - justification - for
> >>>>>>things.
> >>>>>Wrong, discovery can be many things, an epiphany whilst looking
> >>>>>heavenwords, it does not HAVE to be what you are defining it to be.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> Yes, I suppose that there are many events along a
> >>>>chain of events that we name a "discovery." I concede that
> >>>>the word "discovery" has many uses, including yours. But, we would
> >>>>not concede that something *actually is* a discovery until
> >>>>it is justified.
> > I see, kinda like Vioxx and Naproxin, and Celebrex?
> Kam:
> Huh? Those sound like drugs...
> If Celebrex is a drug that is supposed to do x, we will
> not know that we have *actually discovered* a drug that
> does x until we verify that fact - test the drug, and
> observe it doing x. So, yes, we need evidence to proclaim
> something to truely be a discovery.
They are popular drugs, that were supposedly "empirically tested" and
found safe, until recent evidence indicated otherwise, now why do you
suppose in one incidence the empiricism supported, and in another denied
their safety if it were NOT for beliefs??
> >>>Only in the reality construct of those who believe they must do
> >>>something "special" in order to deserve to exist and gain insight.
> >>Kam:
> >> I believe that people must meet a certain requisite morality
> >>to deserve to exist. I'm not sure exactly where the line is (it's
> >>a hard line to draw, historically speaking), but I know that Hitler,
> >>for example, is on the other side of it.
> > I see, what about the greatest crimes against humanity and genocide
> > committed by the US--the ONLY country in history to actually USE weapons
> > of mass destruction by killing hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima.
> Kam:
> Yes, that was terrible as well.
Of course, but the spin is missing from that, whilst Saddam Hussein is
made to look like a "Hitler" when in reality, his crimes compared to the
US's are miniscule.
> > Morality is a subjective value judgement.
> Kam:
> I suppose that it is, in a sense. There are those who
> believe that the U.S. was justified in bombing Hiroshima.
Ahhhhh, yes, we DO get to the "meat and potatos" now don't we?
> We can, however, make a few more or less objective points
> when it comes to the actios of the U.S. The U.S. invaded on the
> suspicion that there were WMD, but the U.S. has WMD itself. So, why
> shouldn't others invade the U.S.? Surely, if it is a
> crime for a country to have WMD, then it is the same crime for
> the U.S. Of course, I'm vastly oversimplifying the issue.
Of course, but the adminstration stifles THOSE arguments, all the while
taughting that it it is IN Iraq for the sake of freedom. Hypocrisy has
never been so clear and the US so in the wrong and on that wrong side as
you say, as they have been for the last 5 years. All in the name of the
"Good Christians"--you see, it is RELIGION that has created the most
inwequity on this planet. Which is why thinking persons want it OUT of
government and hicks want it in, because they have NO OTHER POWER.
> While morality is a human creation (that is, assuming
> atheism), and thus subjective in a sense, we can bring reason
> to bear on moral issues and, in that way, be more confident
> of our conclusions. So, while controversy rages in the
> grey area, there are still cut and dried "objective" moral
> statements, such as the statement "Hitler was immoral."
> >> Everyone deserves to gain insight, as insight will make people
> >>more moral. That is, if that insight includes something leading to
> > Incorrect. Self-Empowerment allows people to feel able to create
> > whatever they wish in their reality without having to hurt themselves or
> > others in oreder to do so. It is actually "morals" (subjective value
> > judgments created by believing in power-less behavior such as Religion,
> > the science of following) that has created all of the worlds wars,
> > cruelty and inequity.
> Kam:
> Morality has done no such thing - what you bring to
> the table is tragedy brought about by morality worship...
> blind faith. Moral thinking ought to always be just that:
> thinking. Morality is nothing without reason.
Then replace your statements with ethical thinking and I may agree.
> While morality worship has brought about the tragedy
> you mention, moral thinking has also brought about
> concepts like basic rights and natural law. We have
> progressed from the feudal society in which only the
> nobility had rights, to societies in which there is
> at least a recognition of the fact that rights ought to
> apply to all equally. It is moral outrage - moral reaction -
> to the inquisition that make us realize how cruel it was.
> You state that religion has created cruelty and inequity...
> how could we even come to that realization without moral
> thinking? I understand why you feel that "morality" has
> brought about bad things - but we can only know that because
> we're capable of moral thinking.
See above.
> > Which would allow you to "feel" more comfortable:
> > Standing on a 3000 high ft ledge 3 inches wide?
> > Or sitting on your couch in the living room?
> > In which scenario would you be more likely to be generous and giving of
> > space and power to others?
> Kam:
> I'm not sure what the point of your question is.
> I would likely be more generous and giving if I were
> in a tenuous position, in which one small push could
> make me plummet to my death. If someone demanded an
> inch of my couch, I could deny it with confidence. If
> someone demanded a portion of my ledge, I just might
> give it to him so that I don't have to fight him for
> the whole thing.
You would not want to move more likely and throw him down. The point was
that persons who believe themselves powerful enough to create the
reality they prefer, do not need to rob banks or act out of ethical
guidelines in order to do so. Only persons who feel power-LESS exhibit
such behavior.
> >>the idea that being moral is in one's best interests. The smarter
> >>people become, the more efficient and liberal our societies will
> >>be.
> > And liberty may have 0 to do with morality.
> Kam:
> I believe that freedom has everything to do with
> morality. Authoritarian tyranny has no place in moral
> thinking. If a people are oppressed by a tyrant, then
You are confusing me with the loaded word "moral", ethical is another
issue.
> their lives aren't valued - they are treated no better
> than commodities.
Kinda like the way Bush treats the middle class now?
> >>>Those
> >>>of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
> >>>doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
> >>>more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence.
> >>Kam:
> >> Reference to faith (or knowingness) isn't philosophically
> >>defensible. It amounts to the mere assertion that "I believe x
> >>and cannot justify that belief." Faith-like sentiments have
> >>no force over a reasonable mind. If I'd experienced what you
> >>have, then perhaps I'd change my tune. After all, it would then,
> >>for me, no longer be faith.
> >> So, I hope you can understand why I cannot assent to your
> >>statements. I still need evidence.
> > You cannot agree with my statements because your reality is based on
> > doubt, and mine on trust.
> Kam:
> Lol - you've hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid.
> I have, for example, experienced too much U.S. propaganda
> to trust the news as to what's going on. I've seen too many
> lies. More specifically, I've seen too many people lie, saying
> things like "I can see auras," or, "I can predict the future."
But these things are information conduits, not the "controllers of my
reality", you can choose your own beliefs using critical thinking.
> These are falsifiable statements - that is, they can be tested and they
> can thus be found to be false or they can be confirmed. I have seen
> such tests, and put people through them myself, and all hypothesis have
> been falsified. I've seen people pretend to see an aura - the aura
> of a person - coming from the arm of a mannequin.
I agree with you here.
> >>>When
> >>>you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
> >>>this and no longer "need" justifications.
> >>Kam:
> >> I've caught myself in the throws of self-deception, and
> >>swam upstream to avoid it, if that's what you mean. I can
> >>also dream lucidly much of the time. None of that counts as
> >>justification for an ontological statment (that is, a statement
> >>about *being*, about existence).
> > Then please explain to us what facts and evidence you possess about the
> > purpose of living?
> Kam:
> Purpose? As far as I know, no one possesses any facts about
> the purpose of life.
Then NO ONE has the 100% correctly empirically provable moral fact in
regard to how ANYONE "should" live their life. ALL may be wrong.
>People only possess their beliefs about this
> matter, not any facts or evidnece, as far as I can tell. Some
> believe in heaven, while others believe that there is no purpose.
> > WHY do we exist and "need" to know why?
> Kam:
> I do not need to know why I exist - it is enough that
> I do. However, if someone tells me that they actually know
> why I exist, I will listen to their evidence.
Why do you need justification for all other issues, but your very own
existence you do not???
> > If you cannot
> > find any to justify why billions of people, animals and plants have
> > lived and died on this planet for billions of years, I suggest you stop
> > fooling yourself and others and acting like a hypocrite and stop living
> > right now until you can justifications and evidence as to why you must
> > do it.
> Kam:
> Huh? How is the desire to live a happy life, regarless
> of the fact that I don't know life's purpose, akin to hypocrisy?
Because the thrust of your previous arguments were "justification
through empiricism", and yet for the most important issue of all you
abandon your argument.
> I don't need to know the purpose of life to have a right to live.
Nor do I need empiricism or justification to to have the right to
practice and utilize astrology.
> I don't need to end my life to avoid hypocrisy - I only need to
> reconcile my beliefs with my actions. That is, after all,
> included in the meaning of "hypocrisy."
Then reconcile the contradiction I just pointed out, if you can.
Ahhhh, not necessarily, you are assuming CONCIOUS control, and I have
made no such assertion.
> You, who believes this, could imagine a big banana split, and it
> would appear before your very eyes. If you do such, and it
> appears, then you've confirmed the hypothesis. If you do such,
> but a banana split fails to appear, then you've falsified the
> hypothesis. So, there can even be justificaiton for the idea that
> we create our reality. Justification is the sublime concept, here.
If I have control over all levels of my consciousness, this is precisely
what could be done.
> >>>><snip>
I am cutting this in half to be able to answer all of it.
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
shaped by the senses of man."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
Marc Granby
> Edited for clarity.
Even more so.
Dan Baldwin
>
> Edited for clarity.
>
Yup - you make much more sense this way.
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> "THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
>From Sixpence None the Richer:
"
I left my conscience like a crying child
Locked the door behind me put the pain on file
Broken like a window I see my blindness now
I need love
Not some sentimental prison
I need God
Not the political church
I need fire
To melt the frozen sea inside me
I need love
Driving into town tired and depressed
Like a flare the street light bursts into an SOS
Peace comes to my rescue and I don't know what it means
I need love
Not some sentimental prison
I need God
Not the political church
I need fire
To melt the frozen sea inside me
I need love
Broken like a window I see my blindness now
I need love
Not some sentimental prison
I need God
Not the political church
I need fire
To melt the frozen sea inside me
I need love
"
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Edited for SNIP!
>
Indeed. Now where's my lawsuit?
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:41CAFD27...@invalid.com:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> Kamerynn wrote:
>> SNIP!
>>
>> You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
>> Thanks
>
> Congratulations, Kamerynn, on becoming another part-owner of Edmo's
> ass.
I'd like to know what newsreader Ed uses that won't handle a post that
"large". It sure never stopped Ed from posting bigger screed than that.
Nice asskicking, Kam! Stop by more often!
As a token of my esteem I hereby present you with the PF Chang's Crab
Wonton Award for kicking kook ass above and beyond the call of
kookology!
Wear it proudly and slap Edmo around some more.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Interesting how you abusers try to make things a "chuckle", but you
obsess over the chuckle for 7 years." - Ed the numerically-challenged.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
> Edited for clarity.
How did you edit a post that you claimed was too big for your newsreader,
you lying scumbag?
I hope that's pretty clear.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Ed Wollmann is a man of substance! Unfortunately, that substance is
shit." - Mr. Doobie just before having to apologize to shit worldwide.
Marc Granby
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>>"THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
>
>
>>From Sixpence None the Richer:
>
What is it with you kooks and your plagiary?
Kali
23 Dec 2004 21:31:48 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
cu...@petitmorte.net says...
>Dan Baldwin <dan_b...@invalid.com> wrote in
>news:41CAFD27...@invalid.com:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Kamerynn wrote:
>>> SNIP!
>>>
>>> You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Congratulations, Kamerynn, on becoming another part-owner of Edmo's
>> ass.
>
>I'd like to know what newsreader Ed uses that won't handle a post that
>"large". It sure never stopped Ed from posting bigger screed than that.
>
>Nice asskicking, Kam! Stop by more often!
>
>As a token of my esteem I hereby present you with the PF Chang's Crab
>Wonton Award for kicking kook ass above and beyond the call of
>kookology!
APPLAUSE!!!
>Wear it proudly and slap Edmo around some more.
Yes, please do.
Kali
--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,
simple, and wrong. - H L Mencken
wollma...@spam.free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03141
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<20041224111937...@mb-m02.aol.com> alt.astrology.metapsych
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQc6EW1IcW5ONdL49EQJeKQCbBuLNOss6HtsmxcnsKqHwN3fqnH4AoLcx
eMwsgkm6zn1dOnWaX4da+uEa
=v4Ur
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Phillips
Kooks seem to have no talent themselves, so they have to steal
it from others.
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"Whoever declares another heretic is himself a devil. Whoever places a
relic or artifact above justice, kindness, mercy, or truth is himself a
devil and the thing elevated is a work of evil magic." -- S. Tepper
el...@no.spam
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>It's time for Pantyhead's annual Xmas Meltdown and Rantfest.
Too bad the library was closed.
el...@no.spam
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>I'd like to know what newsreader Ed uses that won't handle a post that
>"large". It sure never stopped Ed from posting bigger screed than that.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
Cujo DeSockpuppet
I take it that's an old version of Nutscrape?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Few things suppress female sexuality more than a flaccid dick and a guy
talking like Mickey Mouse while wearing panties on his head." - Phoenix
describing Ed "Pantyhead" Wollmann in one sentence.
el...@no.spam
Marc Granby <mgr...@milleniumsys.org> wrote:
>We DON'T exert the same amount of energy when we sleep, you moronic
>fucking dunce! Where the HELL did you pull that bullshit from?
>
>We expend LESS energy. It's a period of _rest_. That is why we are
>_rejuvenated_, not "regenerated", you insane buffoon.
He "thinks" he's Borg?
BaronLurk
el...@no.spam () graced Usenet with:
>He "thinks"...?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
el...@no.spam
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cu...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
>I take it that's an old version of Nutscrape?
Pre-Cambrian.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann
Kamerynn wrote:
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>>>Kam:
> >>>>>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
> >>>>>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
> >>>>>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
> >>>>>And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
> >>>>>not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
> >>>>a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
> >>>>place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
> >>>>able to be convinced.
> > The mind and the brain are not necessarily the same things, an asumption
> > you make only because of your philosophical belief in materialism as
> > "THE" reality, when it isn't.
> Kam:
> On what basis do you say that I make that assumption?!
Because ACTION is the conviction of belief, you ACT as though only
material evidence will convince you, hence your actions speak for you.
> I am *not* an identity theorist, or an eliminative materialist.
> It is clear to me that the mind is not identical to the brain;
> one is accessible to all possible viewers in principle, while
> the other (the mind) is only accessible to the one who
> possesses it. As Jackson once asserted, even if Jones knew
No one's reality is creatable by anyone else, hence, it is not veiwable
by anyone else, so you deceive yourself here.
> *everything* that there was to know about the brain, he still
> doesn't know what pain is unless he knows what it *feels like.*
And all "feelings" are reactions to beliefs. You cannot just feel
anything without first having a belief about that thing.
Because, as I have said over and over again (it is one of the first
sentences in my book) the universe (material or otherwise) has no
built-in meaning, we give it meaning, and then extract "feelings" that
are energy-momentums (e-motions) of those beliefs.
> If the brain and the mind do not have all of their properties
> in common, then they cannot, strictly speaking, be identical.
> The identity theory has only a correlation between brain
> events and mind events to back it up - correlation *can*
> count as evidence of causation, but not of identity.
Wrong, correlation can NEVER be used as causation. Correalations only
measures the relationship between variables--not ALL variables.
In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
have;
1) Cause must precede effect.
2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
ruled out.
Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies
are observational and more natural.
Correlations are greatly affected by outliers (anomaly). Outliers makes
predictions less accurate.
Inferential statistic=based on PROBABILITY, which is all one will
get-not "proof." It compares what would happen by chance if only done
once as compared to what would be results over many or time. We simply
get statements of the HO (the null hypothesis) being false in degrees of
probability. Hence we disproved in degrees that the Earth was flat-never
PROVED it was round.
> You must refrain from imputing certain positions to
> me based on your idea that I'm a common, unthinking
> layman. Fyi, the majority of philosophers are functionalists,
I have no beliefs about you, I simply respond to your defective
arguments.
> and the rest range from identity theorists to property
> dualists to biological naturalists. The majority of thinkers
> reject the identity theory, although functionalists make
> the same mistakes as identity theorists, imo.
That's because there is no "one" truth, those truths are all true on
some level. ANYTHING one can conceive of MUST be real on some level or
you could not conceive of it.
> >>>All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
> >>Kam:
> >> That is included in my statements, since being able to
> >>be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
> >>wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
> > There is no "that's the way it is, the Universe has no built-in meaning,
> > you give it meaning by what you believe or have been taught to believe
> > it means.
> Kam:
> Meaning is the result of conventional use. Being open to
No, meaning is assigned by BELIEF.
> being convinced often means being open to being convinced that
> one is wrong. The universe has no built in meaning, but words
> have a conventional meaning, and we know this because we can use
> them to communicate (to understand each other). If they did not
> have this shared meaning, communication would be impossible.
That is simply a collective belief. You have made no sound argument.
> > "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
> >>>>>>I've seen no justification for an adherence to the veracity of
> >>>>>>astrological prediction, and I know that's what you're driving
> >>>>>>at (yes, I know you, Ed). Keeping an open mind means remaining
> >>>>>>skeptical in the absence of evidence. I remain skeptical, Ed.
> >>>>>I have argued against astrological prediction, so, no, you BELIEVE you
> >>>>>know me, that is because your mind is so closed, your mind cannot even
> >>>>>fall out.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> Lol - my mistake. In the past, I've seen you pushing the
> >>>>veracity of astrology, and presumed that you still did so.
> >>>Astrology is a valid art/science. I don't "push" anything, I simply
> >>>present my truths as I see them, it is your versions of, and creations
> >>>of your own reality that allows you to see whatever you see, because I
> >>>cannot create it for you.
> >>Kam:
> >> If astrology were a science, there would be subject
> >>matter that is applicable to science. Astrologers study
> > I see, so you don't believe math is applicable to science?
> Kam:
> Reread the above carefully. I said that *if* astrology
> were a science, there would be subject matter..." I then
> go on to name the subject matter of astrology. That is
> *not* the denial that you think it is.
Astrology contains math, math is deductive logic, deductive logic is one
of the tenets of science, therefore astrology is at least partially a
science.
> Number and numeral count as math's subject matter.
Your ignorance of astrology is showing.
> >>the positions of celestial bodies and relate them to
> >>events in large groups of individual's lives. It makes the
> >>same mistake as Jung did with his archetypes: it reduces
> > I don't believe Jung made the mistakes you believe he did.
> >>not only individuals, but events in their lives, down to
> >>a severly finite number of variables, when there are actually
> >>countless more variables that cause events than the ones that
> >>astrology discusses.
> > Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? There are truths that overlap, and
> > they are neither 100% this or 100% that, but still they share a common
> > truth.
> Kam:
> What philosopher isn't familiar with Venn?
> I'm not saying that Jungian archetypes can't be made to fit
> people, but that they aren't *sufficiently complex* to
> distinguish between each and every individual. It is possible
They are not meant to describe individuals. They describe archetypal
references.
> that there is, or will be, an individual that doesn't fit any
> of the archetypes.
Not possible, both DNA and archtypal references are simply
recombinations of archetypal significances that describe individuation.
> In any case, an astrological prediction, such as "all
> of a certain class of Taurus will find love on Dec.15th"
That is newspaper astrology--which isn't even astrology. I suppose you
take Ann Landers and other silly newsprint as gospel as well?
> is falsified when some of the members of that class fail to
> find love on that date. Just as an archetype might fail to
> range over all the people its meant to range over, an astrological
> prediction can fail to range over all of the people in its
> category. Apart from being too general and vague, both archetypes
> and astrological predictions have been falsified.
Just as one Gene would fail to describe an individual, you again make no
logical argument but instead simply display your ignorance.
> >> Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
> >>link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
> >>bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
> >>possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
> >>someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
> >>need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
> > I see, and how much research have you done on astrology to come to these
> > conclusions?
> Kam:
> I cannot give you a number or quantity, but I can
> relay some of the case studies that I've been witness to.
As they say in court: Hearsay.
> In any case, the burden of proof does *not* rest on my
> shoulders. If you believe in the veracity of astrology,
> then it is up to you to say why. I ought not believe in
Not on mine either, I do what I wish when I wish and do not need to
justify my choices anymore than you do--your opinions are your choices
based on your beliefs, so likewise are mine.
> that which is not justified - and I need no research to
> hold that position. Justify astrology, and I'll have no
> choice but to believe. Fail to do so, and I have no
> motive to believe.
Yet you fail to justify your own existence, why such hypocrisy?
> >>>"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
> >>>laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one
> >>>encounters in later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident"
> >>>concepts." Albert Einstein
> >>Kam:
> >> But, I'm not about to question the need for evidence for
> >>belief. I'm not going to question the law of the excluded
> >>middle (every proposition is either true or false). There are,
> >>in fact, a whole bunch of things that are preconditions for
> >>reason, and I cannot question them without questioning reason.
> >>I cannot question reason, because I would need reason to do that.
> >>Call this my limitation if you will - I call it being reasonable.
> > I call it unwise.
> > "THERE IS A FROZEN SEA WITHIN US. Philosophy is an axe.
> > Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you questioned
> > it? The uncritical acceptance of beliefs handed down to you by parents,
> > teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous. Many of these
> > beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies, designed to control
> > you. Even when what has been handed down is true, it is not your truth.
> > To merely accept anything without questioning it is to be somebody
> > else's puppet, a second-hand person.
> > Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down. Wisdom
> > can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom. Trying to
> > hand down philosophy is unphilosophical.
> > Wisdom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything is
> > question-able, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what
> > philosophy is: the art of questioning everything." "The Experience of
> > Philosophy", 2nd edition, Kolak & Martin, 1993
> Kam:
> A very good quote, from a text that I happen to have read.
> It nicely displays my point - that we must question everything.
> Of course, it does *not* tell us to use something other than
> reason in our questioning, and hence doesn't prove that my point
> is unwise. It is, instead, an expression of what I've been adhering
What part of "everything is questionable" is escaping you?
> to this entire time - and that's exactly why I'm questioning you. That
> I don't question the need for questioning (i.e.reasoning/justification),
> or the law of the excluded middle, is beside the point.
I question everything and everyone, which ks why I arouse so much
defensiveness from lesser "questioners".
"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
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> I have no beliefs about you, I simply respond to your defective
> arguments.
>
Where's my lawsuit?
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
Marc Granby wrote:
> What is it with you kooks and your plagiary?
What plagiary? I attributed the author.
As for being a kook - we all kook, some kook better than others. And I
surely kook better than you.
Marc Granby
> Marc Granby wrote:
>
>>What is it with you kooks and your plagiary?
>
>
> What plagiary? I attributed the author.
Fine then. What is it with kooks and their wholesale quoting of others
in a post, instead of putting forth a single original thought or word of
their own?
> As for being a kook - we all kook, some kook better than others. And I
> surely kook better than you.
>
In the Kentucky Kook Derby, Ilya, I can't even figure how to get past
the gate, while you're holding the Championship Kook Kup aloft.
You surely have me beat when it comes to being a Kook.
Marc Granby
> I question everything and everyone,
You should ask yourself then, why you created a reality in which you are
such a degree-less, unethicsl, sleazy, stupid, lying, sociopathic child
killer.
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Edited for clarity.
>
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>Astrology is the study of the psyche and its connections to the rest of
>>>>>>>>>the universe.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>>>> lol - the psyche isn't even capable of being an object of
>>>>>>>>study. It isn't accessible to sense experience. Therefore,
>>>>>>>>we cannot collect empirical evidence pertaining to "the psyche."
>
>
>>>>>>>Sure we can, what do you think dream studies are?
>
>
>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>> Studies of the pseudo-conscious state(s) that we
>>>>>>are in while in a state of REM. These states
>>>>>>do not entail any metaphysical points about a "psyche,"
>>>>>>including any connection between it and anything else,
>>>>>>any more than any other conscious or unconscious state.
>
>
>>>>>If you say so, the ones you read anyway. If we exert the same (often
>>>>>more) energy when we are in the sleep state as when we are awake, why is
>>>>>it that we are regenerated?
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Go ahead and look up some studies on, for example,
>>>>how much food energy we consume while asleep as opposed to
>>>>when we are awake. I think that you'll be surprised.
>>>> Anyway, feeling "regenerated" after sleeping isn't
>>>>about using less energy - it's about, among other things,
>>>>cognitive process, believed by some to be the process through
>>>>which the brain stores and "solidifies" memories. The body
>>>>relaxes - it is the kind of thing that will wear out with
>>>>constant exertion.
>
>
>>>I see. And why does that happen?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Why does the body relax, or why does it wear out?
>>Or, do you mean to ask why the brain must store and
>>solidify memory? I suppose that the answers to the
>>former questions are intuititive - the body, through
>>exertion, undergoes some "wear and tear" and must
>>rest to repair itself, or it would break down. At least,
>>I suppose that's the answer to the former question.
>
>
> I see, and so to what do we attribute the concept of "intutive"?
Kam:
So, are you saying that it was the body you were asking
about?
Anyway - like I asserted, I only suppose that's the
answer to the former question. Intuition, here, means
an educated guess.
>
>
>> The latter question I can't answer. I'm not sure
>>why some believe that the brain must undergo such a
>>process to place things in long term memory. The purpose
>>of REM is still controversial, and that's only one theory.
>>I haven't yet invested any belief in theories about the
>>purpose of REM.
>
>
> OK, fair enough, then you cannot speculate on any theories of the psyche
> either.
Kam:
A lack of justification or evidence does not preclude
speculation. In fact, I'd bet that speculation is responsible
for all valid criticism of any theory, including theories
of the psyche. Speculation is what might cause someone to
form beliefs, and is certainly not precluded by one not yet
having beliefs on a certain subject.
>
>
>>>>>Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
>>>>>molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
>>>>>pass.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
>>>>such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
>>>>there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
>>>>these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
>
>
>>>I can show you nothing, each being creates their experiential reality by
>>>the product of what they believe or have been taught to believe.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Sure, each person's experiences is run through a filter
>>of previous experience, and of reason/understanding - we
>>call that cognition.
>
>
> Incorrect. You assume that the filter is from without to within, when in
> reality, the beliefs are patterned and then filtered as subjective
> perceptions of the outer.
Kam:
Firstly, I don't mean to be rude, but mere assertion doesn't count
as justification, and I can't even tell if that assertion is
the conclusion of some undisplayed reasoning.
Secondly, if "subjective perceptions of the outer" are
subjective perceptions *of* the outer, then the outer must
already exist in order for us to have perceptions *of* it.
>
>
>> But, "secrets of life" seems to refer to some objective
>>bit of knowledge or other. Surely, secrets of life cannot
>>simply be secrets about our own experiential reality - they
>>must be about reality itself. Otherwise, they are not true
>>secrets - truth implies a correspondence to reality.
>
>
> I believe it is called the Bucky ball? One of the constructs that came
> to the person in the dream state.
Kam:
It? Bucky ball?
>
>
>>>>>How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
>>>>>and see it?
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
>
>
>>>The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
>>>Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
>>>have some more information.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Ok - but that leads me to my definition of prediction
>>as conscious or unconscious reasoning that produces an
>>educated guess about what will happen next.
>
>
> Not exactly, actions taken determine future events, so it is not
> perception alone, but perception of trajectory, if you will, much like
> the trajectory of an object in space,...
Kam:
I agree up to this point; prediction is perception of
what will happen next based on what's happening now, including
the role that I'm playing.
>...beliefs have momentum that can
> predict future events to a great degree.
Kam:
A minor point: beliefs cannot predict, only
people do that. But, I assume that you are talking
about people predicting things according to beliefs
that "have momentum." Which brings me to an important
question: what could possibly be meant by the momentum
of a belief? How does it help with prediction?
>
>
>>>>of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
>
>
>>>That is because it is believing is seeing, and you do not believe.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I meant it literally - one cannot actually see the actual
>>event - that event isn't anywhere, and doesn't exist, and so
>>isn't accessible to sense experience. We can, however, *imagine*
>
>
> I will have to disagree here to a great extent, only because of my 20
> year dream journal which evidences otherwise.
Kam:
How can you be certain that the events recorded in your
journal aren't imagined events which later happen to come true?
>
>
>>an event, and if we've imagined it correctly, we will say that
>>we have "forseen" it. I believe that I understand your use
>>of the word "seen," and I was just commenting on how we cannot
>>take that word too seriously (literally), since the event isn't (yet)
>>available to see.
>
>
> With no discussion or information (for example of the dream journal) I
> dreamt my father had a heart attack. I told him of it, we dismissed it
> as "just a dream". A year later he was told by the doctor he needed
> elective triple by-pass to avoid a heart attack. Imagination? Hardly, I
> was asleep.
Kam:
I use the "imagining" analogy for dreaming that isn't
an actual vision of the future. That you were asleep doesn't
prove that it was an actual vision instead of an imagining that
just happened to come true.
>
>
>>>>I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
>>>>mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
>>>>of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
>>>>about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
>>>>of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
>>>>it until I have.
>
>
>>>Alright, then you go right ahead, I will not try to stop you.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> That's too bad. What that means is that you will not
>>try to supply evidence of another kind of prediction, or
>>point me to that evidence, and so I have no choice but
>>to refrain from believing in another kind of prediction.
>
>
> Not true, it means that I am wise enough to know that WHATEVER I
> provide, your beliefs may prevent you from SEEING any evidence that
> might be compelling to another individual but not you. I will still
> provide what ever I believe supports my views.
Kam:
That's all I've asked for - I will, of course,
subject your views to my criticisms.
<snip>
>>>But it does not work that way, it works in the reverse of what you
>>>believe the facts to be.
>>>"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
>>>It is actually imagination that creates the theories, which leads to
>>>operationalizing constructs and variables YOU BELIEVE have significance,
>>>you then find the reinforcing logic to justify your own belief system.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> That our beliefs, even our foundational ones, are theory
>>laden, is not something that I wish to deny. But, that doesn't
>>mean that theories actually determine *what* we observe -
>
>
> Sure it does, you will never find something you aren't looking for
> because you believe it doesn't even exist.
Kam:
That isn't true to my experience. I found a bug in
my soup about a year ago, and I wasn't expecting it one bit.
The bug, however, was a part of reality - a piece of the
"furniture of the universe" - and didn't care about the
fact that I wasn't looking for him. He was there anyway.
There are quite clearly some things which are more than
subjective; there are things that are *inter-subjective*,
(objective).
> It is BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around.
Kam:
That statement is inconsistent with every occurence
of surprise.
>
>
>>something is either available to sense experience or it isn't,
>
>
> Not true, many things are available that we either choose or are not
> capable or willing to see.
Kam:
...And those things are either available to sense
experience or they aren't. Whether or not we sense them
is another matter.
>
>
>>regarless of any theory that we may or may not hold. Our
>>theories determine what we think we are observing - that is,
>>our theories determine *how we cognize* what we observe.
>>But, our theories don't change the actual fact of the matter,
>>since what actually is, is independent of our observation.
>
>
> There is no "that's the way it is" the way it is is the way we create
> and define it to be on all levels.
Kam:
Then there would be no basis for any agreement among
us. There *is*, however, such a basis - actual, objective
reality.
<snip>
>>Kam:
>> I understand what you were getting at, now.
>>Even Kant derived his "a priori" categories
>>"synthetically" (i.e. with reference to sense
>>experience in general). Empiricism seems to be the
>>road to truth; reason alone cannot take us there.
>
>
> You are partially correct.
> Truth is one--the sages speak of it by many names. Upanishads
>
> There are MANY ways to find "truth", some of them have 0 to do with
> Empiricism.
Kam:
There are only two possible ways to find truth - experience
and reason. Even revelations and miracles involve one or both.
>
>
>>But, the want for evidence/justification is an empirical
>>matter. Surely both reason and experience have a part
>>to play in finding the truth. The truth cannot depend
>
>
> Of course, I do not deny THAT truth either. I simply am trying to
> balance your BELIEFS about what truth constitutes.
Kam:
A true statement is one that corresponds with reality and
thus coheres with other true statements. If there were no objective
reality, then the word "truth" would be utterly meaningless.
>
>
>>on only experience - reality cannot depend on nothing but
>>our experiences or beliefs.
>
>
> Of course not, that's why THE truth is the composition of ALL truths,
> not just empiricism, not just imagination, but a more powerful blending
> of the two.
Kam:
How can true statements be combined to produce one,
super-truth known as "the" truth?
>>Kam:
>> Huh? Those sound like drugs...
>>If Celebrex is a drug that is supposed to do x, we will
>>not know that we have *actually discovered* a drug that
>>does x until we verify that fact - test the drug, and
>>observe it doing x. So, yes, we need evidence to proclaim
>>something to truely be a discovery.
>
>
> They are popular drugs, that were supposedly "empirically tested" and
> found safe, until recent evidence indicated otherwise, now why do you
> suppose in one incidence the empiricism supported, and in another denied
> their safety if it were NOT for beliefs??
Kam:
Because the delayed effects of such drugs cannot be
viewed ahead of time, but only when they happen, despite
the fact that people often dream.
>>>Morality is a subjective value judgement.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I suppose that it is, in a sense. There are those who
>>believe that the U.S. was justified in bombing Hiroshima.
>
>
> Ahhhhh, yes, we DO get to the "meat and potatos" now don't we?
>
>
>>We can, however, make a few more or less objective points
>>when it comes to the actios of the U.S. The U.S. invaded on the
>>suspicion that there were WMD, but the U.S. has WMD itself. So, why
>>shouldn't others invade the U.S.? Surely, if it is a
>>crime for a country to have WMD, then it is the same crime for
>>the U.S. Of course, I'm vastly oversimplifying the issue.
>
>
> Of course, but the adminstration stifles THOSE arguments, all the while
> taughting that it it is IN Iraq for the sake of freedom. Hypocrisy has
> never been so clear and the US so in the wrong and on that wrong side as
> you say, as they have been for the last 5 years. All in the name of the
> "Good Christians"--you see, it is RELIGION that has created the most
> inwequity on this planet. Which is why thinking persons want it OUT of
> government and hicks want it in, because they have NO OTHER POWER.
Kam:
I haven't much of a quarrel with any of that.
>
>
>> While morality is a human creation (that is, assuming
>>atheism), and thus subjective in a sense, we can bring reason
>>to bear on moral issues and, in that way, be more confident
>>of our conclusions. So, while controversy rages in the
>>grey area, there are still cut and dried "objective" moral
>>statements, such as the statement "Hitler was immoral."
>
>
>>>> Everyone deserves to gain insight, as insight will make people
>>>>more moral. That is, if that insight includes something leading to
>
>
>>>Incorrect. Self-Empowerment allows people to feel able to create
>>>whatever they wish in their reality without having to hurt themselves or
>>>others in oreder to do so. It is actually "morals" (subjective value
>>>judgments created by believing in power-less behavior such as Religion,
>>>the science of following) that has created all of the worlds wars,
>>>cruelty and inequity.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Morality has done no such thing - what you bring to
>>the table is tragedy brought about by morality worship...
>>blind faith. Moral thinking ought to always be just that:
>>thinking. Morality is nothing without reason.
>
>
> Then replace your statements with ethical thinking and I may agree.
Kam:
The term "ethics" simply connotes societal (or group) convention
instead of pure theory. We could discuss business ethics,
environmental ethics, or the moral thinking that such ethics
are actually founded on. Morality is the sublime concept, here,
and ethics is simply a cultural or regional/group bent on
morality.
>
>
>> While morality worship has brought about the tragedy
>>you mention, moral thinking has also brought about
>>concepts like basic rights and natural law. We have
>>progressed from the feudal society in which only the
>>nobility had rights, to societies in which there is
>>at least a recognition of the fact that rights ought to
>>apply to all equally. It is moral outrage - moral reaction -
>>to the inquisition that make us realize how cruel it was.
>>You state that religion has created cruelty and inequity...
>>how could we even come to that realization without moral
>>thinking? I understand why you feel that "morality" has
>>brought about bad things - but we can only know that because
>>we're capable of moral thinking.
>
>
> See above.
Kam:
A small and inadequate answer to a relevant question -
made no less relevant because it uses the word "moral"
instead of the more limited "ethical."
>
>
>>>Which would allow you to "feel" more comfortable:
>>>Standing on a 3000 high ft ledge 3 inches wide?
>>>Or sitting on your couch in the living room?
>>>In which scenario would you be more likely to be generous and giving of
>>>space and power to others?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I'm not sure what the point of your question is.
>>I would likely be more generous and giving if I were
>>in a tenuous position, in which one small push could
>>make me plummet to my death. If someone demanded an
>>inch of my couch, I could deny it with confidence. If
>>someone demanded a portion of my ledge, I just might
>>give it to him so that I don't have to fight him for
>>the whole thing.
>
>
> You would not want to move more likely and throw him down. The point was
> that persons who believe themselves powerful enough to create the
> reality they prefer, do not need to rob banks or act out of ethical
> guidelines in order to do so. Only persons who feel power-LESS exhibit
> such behavior.
Kam:
Why is that?
>
>
>>>>the idea that being moral is in one's best interests. The smarter
>>>>people become, the more efficient and liberal our societies will
>>>>be.
>
>
>>>And liberty may have 0 to do with morality.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I believe that freedom has everything to do with
>>morality. Authoritarian tyranny has no place in moral
>>thinking. If a people are oppressed by a tyrant, then
>
>
> You are confusing me with the loaded word "moral", ethical is another
> issue.
Kam:
In Hitler's Germany, it was ethical - doing the "common good"
to kill Jews. Perhaps you disagree, but only because you can
state that killing Jews is in fact immoral. On some level, you
do moral thinking without the permission of or input from
society. You can do that because you can feel empathy - you can
emote. Morality is not loaded; ethics, with its dependence on
the status quo, is varied in meaning, and is the loaded term.
>
>
>>their lives aren't valued - they are treated no better
>>than commodities.
>
>
> Kinda like the way Bush treats the middle class now?
Kam:
Yea, kinda.
>
>
>>>>>Those
>>>>>of us who accept that whatever created the Universe knew what it was
>>>>>doing when it created us, trust that knowingness is as powerful--if not
>>>>>more so--than those who must justify their knowledge and existence.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> Reference to faith (or knowingness) isn't philosophically
>>>>defensible. It amounts to the mere assertion that "I believe x
>>>>and cannot justify that belief." Faith-like sentiments have
>>>>no force over a reasonable mind. If I'd experienced what you
>>>>have, then perhaps I'd change my tune. After all, it would then,
>>>>for me, no longer be faith.
>>>> So, I hope you can understand why I cannot assent to your
>>>>statements. I still need evidence.
>
>
>>>You cannot agree with my statements because your reality is based on
>>>doubt, and mine on trust.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Lol - you've hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid.
>>I have, for example, experienced too much U.S. propaganda
>>to trust the news as to what's going on. I've seen too many
>>lies. More specifically, I've seen too many people lie, saying
>>things like "I can see auras," or, "I can predict the future."
>
>
> But these things are information conduits, not the "controllers of my
> reality", you can choose your own beliefs using critical thinking.
Kam:
Your argument assumes that beliefs create/control reality,
and that point has not been granted, but is in contention.
>
>
>>These are falsifiable statements - that is, they can be tested and they
>>can thus be found to be false or they can be confirmed. I have seen
>>such tests, and put people through them myself, and all hypothesis have
>>been falsified. I've seen people pretend to see an aura - the aura
>>of a person - coming from the arm of a mannequin.
>
>
> I agree with you here.
Kam:
Of course - how could you *disagree* about what I've seen?
>
>
>>>>>When
>>>>>you DIS-cover your own unconscious belief patterns, you will then know
>>>>>this and no longer "need" justifications.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> I've caught myself in the throws of self-deception, and
>>>>swam upstream to avoid it, if that's what you mean. I can
>>>>also dream lucidly much of the time. None of that counts as
>>>>justification for an ontological statment (that is, a statement
>>>>about *being*, about existence).
>
>
>>>Then please explain to us what facts and evidence you possess about the
>>>purpose of living?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Purpose? As far as I know, no one possesses any facts about
>>the purpose of life.
>
>
> Then NO ONE has the 100% correctly empirically provable moral fact in
> regard to how ANYONE "should" live their life. ALL may be wrong.
Kam:
That seems absolutely true to me - there is no certainty
in the moral arena, or in any arena that is properly
considered an arena of philosophy. So, we may be stuck with
admitting that morality is a human invention, subject to
human flaws.
So, as far as I know, no one possesses any facts about
the purpose of life. What say you?
>
>
>>People only possess their beliefs about this
>>matter, not any facts or evidnece, as far as I can tell. Some
>>believe in heaven, while others believe that there is no purpose.
>
>
>
>>>WHY do we exist and "need" to know why?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I do not need to know why I exist - it is enough that
>>I do. However, if someone tells me that they actually know
>>why I exist, I will listen to their evidence.
>
>
> Why do you need justification for all other issues, but your very own
> existence you do not???
Kam:
My existence *is* justified. I haven't justified any
assertions concerning *why* I exist - and I *do* need
justification to accept any such assertions.
>
>
>>>If you cannot
>>>find any to justify why billions of people, animals and plants have
>>>lived and died on this planet for billions of years, I suggest you stop
>>>fooling yourself and others and acting like a hypocrite and stop living
>>>right now until you can justifications and evidence as to why you must
>>>do it.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Huh? How is the desire to live a happy life, regarless
>>of the fact that I don't know life's purpose, akin to hypocrisy?
>
>
> Because the thrust of your previous arguments were "justification
> through empiricism", and yet for the most important issue of all you
> abandon your argument.
Kam:
If you look more closely, you'll see that I haven't.
I only hold beliefs which are empirically justified, the
purpose of life *notwithstanding*. That's precisely why
I have no beliefs in that area.
>
>
>>I don't need to know the purpose of life to have a right to live.
>
>
> Nor do I need empiricism or justification to to have the right to
> practice and utilize astrology.
Kam:
But, you cannot *rationally* act without justification
or evidence, and so to practice and utilize astrology
and *remain rational* your belief in the veracity and
efficacy of astrology must be justified.
>
>
>>I don't need to end my life to avoid hypocrisy - I only need to
>>reconcile my beliefs with my actions. That is, after all,
>>included in the meaning of "hypocrisy."
>
>
> Then reconcile the contradiction I just pointed out, if you can.
Kam:
That turns out to be a simple misinterpretation of two
of my positions, which happen to be perfectly consistent.
>>>You are creating your reality perfectly as we speak, you believe very
>>>strongly in the idea that physical reality is something outside of you
>>>that you must "justify" etc. We always create our reality 100%, even if
>>>you choose to use 90% to make it appear as though you only have the
>>>other 10% under your control.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> The assertion "we have 100% under our control" is testable.
>
>
> Ahhhh, not necessarily, you are assuming CONCIOUS control, and I have
> made no such assertion.
Kam:
Even unconscious control would produce anomalies - unexplained,
and quite obviouly unexplainable, events. I've never seen a fork
float, walk through a wall, or do a jig. If belief controls reality,
then belief - including the beliefs of others - hardly ever do anything
that surprises me. And when it does, it isn't a big deal. Not like
a talking meatball, or something.
Why should anyone believe that reality is controlled (remotely)
by the (unconscious) mind? What motivates such a belief?
A [Temporary] Dog
red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy and
shouted:
MINE!
--
- A (Temporary) Dog
"I surely kook better than you." - Ilya Shambat tells it like it is.
Kamerynn
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Edited for clarity (pt 2)
>
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>>>>><snip>
>
>
>>>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>>>> This thought about keeping an open mind is all well and
>>>>>>>>good - and philosophically important - but, the saying goes,
>>>>>>>>one shouldn't keep such an open mind that one's brain falls out.
>
>
>>>>>>>And just exactly how will my brain fall out by keeping my mind (which is
>>>>>>>not necessarily my BRAIN) open?
>
>
>>>>>>Kam:
>>>>>> It's just an expression. We must retain some resistance to
>>>>>>a change in our beliefs or we could not hold beliefs in the first
>>>>>>place. In other words, we must remain skeptical, but still be
>>>>>>able to be convinced.
>
>
>>>The mind and the brain are not necessarily the same things, an asumption
>>>you make only because of your philosophical belief in materialism as
>>>"THE" reality, when it isn't.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> On what basis do you say that I make that assumption?!
>
>
> Because ACTION is the conviction of belief, you ACT as though only
> material evidence will convince you, hence your actions speak for you.
Kam:
Your knowledge of my philosophical beliefs is simply
incomplete and leads you to false conclusions. What is
meant by "mind" and what is meant by "brain" is generally
well known, as well as what is meant by "identical." It
is simply false to say that the mind is identical to the
brain. The mind consists of subjective, qualitative
phenomena. The brain consists of objective, quantitative
phenomena. They cannot be identical because they do not
have all of their properties in common.
I've already told you that I'm not an identity theorist.
You can take my word for it, or you can ask questions and
confirm it for yourself.
>
>
>>I am *not* an identity theorist, or an eliminative materialist.
>>It is clear to me that the mind is not identical to the brain;
>>one is accessible to all possible viewers in principle, while
>>the other (the mind) is only accessible to the one who
>>possesses it. As Jackson once asserted, even if Jones knew
>
>
> No one's reality is creatable by anyone else, hence, it is not veiwable
> by anyone else, so you deceive yourself here.
Kam:
You are mixing solipsism and idealism - two inconsistent
positions. If my reality isn't "creatable" by you, then it
is not you posting here, but my overactive imagination (solipsism).
But, you also wish to include concepts like "anyone
else," implying that there is more than one person in the
universe, and all create reality (idealism). Reality either is,
or it is not, created by more than one person. Which is it?
>
>
>>*everything* that there was to know about the brain, he still
>>doesn't know what pain is unless he knows what it *feels like.*
>
>
> And all "feelings" are reactions to beliefs.
Kam:
That's flat out false according to experience.
I can have a tummy ache even if I don't have a single
belief. I could have a tummy ache because I have poison
in my tummy, and not in reaction to some belief or other.
*All* feelings are reactions to *stimuli*. A stimulus
might be a belief and it might not.
> You cannot just feel
> anything without first having a belief about that thing.
Kam:
It is clear that beliefs themselves can be *conditioned*
(i.e. learned), and conditioning happens according to the
pleasure/pain principle. Watch as a cat burns his paw in
a candle, *feels* pain, and internalizes the danger of
the candle, evidenced by the cat's future caution around
candles. Humans internalize - form beliefs - in much the
same way, especially in childhood. The point is: feelings
come *before* beliefs (in many cases). Therefore, beliefs are not
requried for feelings.
> Because, as I have said over and over again (it is one of the first
> sentences in my book) the universe (material or otherwise) has no
> built-in meaning, we give it meaning, and then extract "feelings" that
> are energy-momentums (e-motions) of those beliefs.
Kam:
Why would you say that, especially over and over?
How can a qualitative, subjective event of consciousness
(a feeling) be reduced to an objective, quantitative,
scientific concept such as energy/momentum? That's
the same move as identity theorists make! Should I now
talk of your actions, and presume you a materialist and
identity theorist!?
Tell me - how much energy is produced by a strong
fear reaction, how is that energy measured, and what
effect does it have?
>
>
>>If the brain and the mind do not have all of their properties
>>in common, then they cannot, strictly speaking, be identical.
>>The identity theory has only a correlation between brain
>>events and mind events to back it up - correlation *can*
>>count as evidence of causation, but not of identity.
>
>
> Wrong, correlation can NEVER be used as causation.
Kam:
Of course, "used as" is very different from "can be
used as evidence of."
> Correalations only
> measures the relationship between variables--not ALL variables.
> In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
> have;
> 1) Cause must precede effect.
Kam:
Uh-huh. That's the common belief, and mine as well.
Of course, nothing I wrote contradicts (1).
> 2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
Kam:
That's what correlation is, Ed. The more two
things "co-vary," the higher the correlation between
them. If I would have known that your problem was with
your (mis)understanding of the word "correlation," then
I could have saved us some time.
> 3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
> ruled out.
Kam:
That would constitute *proof*, Ed. Ruling out every other
possible explanation isn't required to *provide evidence* for
a hypothesis. Scientific *confirmation* never provides certainty
against all other possible explanations. It is simply a failure
to falsify a hypothesis.
To see the correlation between brain states and one's
mind states - to actually see a doctor stimulate an area over
and over and to smell burnt toast each time - provides
*evidence* of a causal connection between the mind and the
brain. To think otherwise is to think the perfect one to one
correlation to be nothing but coincidence. Unlike professional
psychics and astrologers, the brain never fails to predict the
content of the mind. Yes, Ed - that's evidence of causality.
>
> Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
> description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
> astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies
> are observational and more natural.
Kam:
You seem to know what those two shouted words mean - so why
would you suggest that feelings are energy-momentum?
> Correlations are greatly affected by outliers (anomaly). Outliers makes
> predictions less accurate.
> Inferential statistic=based on PROBABILITY, which is all one will
> get-not "proof." It compares what would happen by chance if only done
> once as compared to what would be results over many or time. We simply
> get statements of the HO (the null hypothesis) being false in degrees of
> probability. Hence we disproved in degrees that the Earth was flat-never
> PROVED it was round.
Kam:
I will focus on the part of the above that deals with
prediction: The Randi Educational Foundation offers over one
million dollars for anyone who can definitively beat random
odds. It is a simple matter to run many trials and compare
the results to average results (what random guesses produce,
on average). Yes, beating those odds would count as evidence.
>
>
>> You must refrain from imputing certain positions to
>>me based on your idea that I'm a common, unthinking
>>layman. Fyi, the majority of philosophers are functionalists,
>
>
> I have no beliefs about you, I simply respond to your defective
> arguments.
Kam:
Wrong. You mistakenly believe that I am an identity
theorist when you have no justification for doing so.
Besides - you have yet to actually *show* me that my arguments
are defective. Your mere assertion that they are convinces no one.
>
>
>>and the rest range from identity theorists to property
>>dualists to biological naturalists. The majority of thinkers
>>reject the identity theory, although functionalists make
>>the same mistakes as identity theorists, imo.
>
>
> That's because there is no "one" truth, those truths are all true on
> some level. ANYTHING one can conceive of MUST be real on some level or
> you could not conceive of it.
Kam:
Only in as much as the mind is real, and those conceptions
are thoughts or feelings (states of consciousness - the stuff of
the mind). They are real because they are states of consciousness,
and states of consciousness are real. To demonstrate any more than
this, you'll have to supply some reasoning at the very least.
>
>
>>>>>All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
>
>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> That is included in my statements, since being able to
>>>>be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
>>>>wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
>
>
>>>There is no "that's the way it is, the Universe has no built-in meaning,
>>>you give it meaning by what you believe or have been taught to believe
>>>it means.
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> Meaning is the result of conventional use. Being open to
>
>
> No, meaning is assigned by BELIEF.
Kam:
Wrong. Meaning as I'm speaking of it - as in the "meaning"
of words - is decided on by convention. I have supplied reasons
for that position, and your mere assertion doesn't refute them.
>
>
>>being convinced often means being open to being convinced that
>>one is wrong. The universe has no built in meaning, but words
>>have a conventional meaning, and we know this because we can use
>>them to communicate (to understand each other). If they did not
>>have this shared meaning, communication would be impossible.
>
>
> That is simply a collective belief. You have made no sound argument.
Kam:
How does that refute the idea that meaning is derived from
convention?
Remember: meaning only exists if words have uses. Words
only have uses if we share a common understanding of their
meaning.
Kam:
No one is questioning any astrologer's ability with
numbers, here. It isn't the math that's questioned, it's
the causal connection between the movements of celestial
bodies and, say, our love lives.
>
>
>> Number and numeral count as math's subject matter.
>
>
> Your ignorance of astrology is showing.
Kam:
The sentence you responded to is about math, not
astrology. If you believe that math is about something
other than number and numeral, then say so. State what
it is. Pretending your opponent is ignorant doesn't make
her so; mere assertions and simple statments aren't even
evidence of thought, Ed.
>> I'm not saying that Jungian archetypes can't be made to fit
>>people, but that they aren't *sufficiently complex* to
>>distinguish between each and every individual. It is possible
>
>
> They are not meant to describe individuals. They describe archetypal
> references.
Kam:
Jungian archetypes are categories of personality.
They are not "descriptions" of "references."
>
>
>>that there is, or will be, an individual that doesn't fit any
>>of the archetypes.
>
>
> Not possible, both DNA and archtypal references are simply
> recombinations of archetypal significances that describe individuation.
Kam:
I suppose I could pull out some Jung, post a few pages, and
show you just how simplistic and inadequate it is. But, since Jung
has already been thoroughly discredited by others, I feel that
justice has already been served.
>
>
>> In any case, an astrological prediction, such as "all
>>of a certain class of Taurus will find love on Dec.15th"
>
>
> That is newspaper astrology--which isn't even astrology. I suppose you
> take Ann Landers and other silly newsprint as gospel as well?
Kam:
I take nothing as gospel. Aren't you listening?
If what you have is different, I'll only know if you state
exactly how it is different. You cannot expect me to read
your mind - I don't believe that I can, remember?
>
>
>>is falsified when some of the members of that class fail to
>>find love on that date. Just as an archetype might fail to
>>range over all the people its meant to range over, an astrological
>>prediction can fail to range over all of the people in its
>>category. Apart from being too general and vague, both archetypes
>>and astrological predictions have been falsified.
>
>
> Just as one Gene would fail to describe an individual, you again make no
> logical argument but instead simply display your ignorance.
Kam:
A minor point: an argument's validity (that is, proper logical
form) is not the same as its truth value. You have not even attempted
to show that my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises. By the
way, genes actually *fail* to describe *all* of an individual. They
describe the pattern by which an individual grows, and decide on
certain characteristics (such as eye colour). An individual's
*environment* plays a large part in his or her characteristics.
This is widely accepted, and evidenced by simple things like
the difference between the people of central Africa and North
America. Besides that - genes can't predict ugly scars and
dropped babies. Archetypes are similar.
>
>
>>>> Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
>>>>link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
>>>>bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
>>>>possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
>>>>someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
>>>>need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
>
>
>>>I see, and how much research have you done on astrology to come to these
>>>conclusions?
>
>
>
>>Kam:
>> I cannot give you a number or quantity, but I can
>>relay some of the case studies that I've been witness to.
>
>
> As they say in court: Hearsay.
Kam:
Is that a request for case studies, or a pre-judgemental
attitude about case studies that I have not yet relayed to you?
>
>
>>In any case, the burden of proof does *not* rest on my
>>shoulders. If you believe in the veracity of astrology,
>>then it is up to you to say why. I ought not believe in
>
>
> Not on mine either, I do what I wish when I wish and do not need to
> justify my choices anymore than you do--your opinions are your choices
> based on your beliefs, so likewise are mine.
Kam:
I also often act on instinct and *not* on belief.
The picture is more complex than you give it credit for.
>
>
>>that which is not justified - and I need no research to
>>hold that position. Justify astrology, and I'll have no
>>choice but to believe. Fail to do so, and I have no
>>motive to believe.
>
>
> Yet you fail to justify your own existence, why such hypocrisy?
Kam:
Wrong. I fail to justify the *purpose of* my existence.
I have no evidence of purpose. I have *plenty* of evidence
of my existence.
Kam:
The part in which I'm supposed to accept everything
you say as true when you do no reasoning... propose no
evidence or justification. I'm questioning, Ed. What
part of "questioning requires reason* is escaping *you*?
>
>
>>to this entire time - and that's exactly why I'm questioning you. That
>>I don't question the need for questioning (i.e.reasoning/justification),
>>or the law of the excluded middle, is beside the point.
>
>
> I question everything and everyone, which ks why I arouse so much
> defensiveness from lesser "questioners".
Kam:
Would lesser questioners be... ones not as well versed
in the art of questioning - i.e. in reason? Perhaps they
just can't keep up... because they aren't being reasonable?
Kamerynn
Kali wrote:
> In article <cqfdg2$i16$2...@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, posted Thu,
> 23 Dec 2004 21:31:48 +0000 (UTC), Cujo DeSockpuppet
> cu...@petitmorte.net says...
>
>
>>Dan Baldwin <dan_b...@invalid.com> wrote in
>>news:41CAFD27...@invalid.com:
>>
>>
>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kamerynn wrote:
>>>>SNIP!
>>>>
>>>>You need to cut the post down, too large for my reader.
>>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Congratulations, Kamerynn, on becoming another part-owner of Edmo's
>>>ass.
>>
>>I'd like to know what newsreader Ed uses that won't handle a post that
>>"large". It sure never stopped Ed from posting bigger screed than that.
>>
>>Nice asskicking, Kam! Stop by more often!
>>
>>As a token of my esteem I hereby present you with the PF Chang's Crab
>>Wonton Award for kicking kook ass above and beyond the call of
>>kookology!
>
>
> APPLAUSE!!!
<blush>
>
>
>>Wear it proudly and slap Edmo around some more.
>
>
> Yes, please do.
Discussing with Ed (and George Hammond) is one of my
favourite past times. Keeps my teeth sharp.
Kamerynn
Marc Granby
>
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Kam:
> ... what could possibly be meant by the momentum
> of a belief?
Good luck with that one!
>>> Kam:
>>> Huh? How is the desire to live a happy life, regarless
>>> of the fact that I don't know life's purpose, akin to hypocrisy?
Good luck with that one, too.
>>
>>> I don't need to know the purpose of life to have a right to live.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor do I need empiricism or justification to to have the right to
>> practice and utilize astrology.
>
>
> Kam:
> But, you cannot *rationally* act without justification
> or evidence, and so to practice and utilize astrology
> and *remain rational* your belief in the veracity and
> efficacy of astrology must be justified.
Oh, shit. Now Ed is gonna call her a "dumb bitch".
Marc Granby
>
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> Edited for clarity (pt 2)
>> Because ACTION is the conviction of belief, you ACT as though only
>> material evidence will convince you, hence your actions speak for you.
>
>
> Kam:
> Your knowledge of my philosophical beliefs is simply
> incomplete and leads you to false conclusions. What is
> meant by "mind" and what is meant by "brain" is generally
> well known, as well as what is meant by "identical." It
> is simply false to say that the mind is identical to the
> brain. The mind consists of subjective, qualitative
> phenomena. The brain consists of objective, quantitative
> phenomena. They cannot be identical because they do not
> have all of their properties in common.
SPANK!!1
>>
>>
>> No one's reality is creatable by anyone else, hence, it is not veiwable
>> by anyone else, so you deceive yourself here.
>
>
> Kam:
> You are mixing solipsism and idealism - two inconsistent
> positions. If my reality isn't "creatable" by you, then it
> is not you posting here, but my overactive imagination (solipsism).
> But, you also wish to include concepts like "anyone
> else," implying that there is more than one person in the
> universe, and all create reality (idealism). Reality either is,
> or it is not, created by more than one person. Which is it?
SPANK!!!2!
>>
>> And all "feelings" are reactions to beliefs.
>
>
> Kam:
> That's flat out false according to experience.
> I can have a tummy ache even if I don't have a single
> belief. I could have a tummy ache because I have poison
> in my tummy, and not in reaction to some belief or other.
> *All* feelings are reactions to *stimuli*. A stimulus
> might be a belief and it might not.
SPANK!!3!!
>
>> You cannot just feel
>> anything without first having a belief about that thing.
>
>
> Kam:
> It is clear that beliefs themselves can be *conditioned*
> (i.e. learned), and conditioning happens according to the
> pleasure/pain principle. Watch as a cat burns his paw in
> a candle, *feels* pain, and internalizes the danger of
> the candle, evidenced by the cat's future caution around
> candles. Humans internalize - form beliefs - in much the
> same way, especially in childhood. The point is: feelings
> come *before* beliefs (in many cases). Therefore, beliefs are not
> requried for feelings.
SPNAK!!4!!
>
>> Because, as I have said over and over again (it is one of the first
>> sentences in my book) the universe (material or otherwise) has no
>> built-in meaning, we give it meaning, and then extract "feelings" that
>> are energy-momentums (e-motions) of those beliefs.
>
>
> Kam:
> Why would you say that, especially over and over?
> How can a qualitative, subjective event of consciousness
> (a feeling) be reduced to an objective, quantitative,
> scientific concept such as energy/momentum? That's
> the same move as identity theorists make! Should I now
> talk of your actions, and presume you a materialist and
> identity theorist!?
SPANKY!!5!!!
>>
>> Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
>> description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
>> astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies
>> are observational and more natural.
>
>
> Kam:
> You seem to know what those two shouted words mean - so why
> would you suggest that feelings are energy-momentum?
I YAM SHOUTING SPANK!6!!!!!
>>
>> I have no beliefs about you, I simply respond to your defective
>> arguments.
>
>
> Kam:
> Wrong. You mistakenly believe that I am an identity
> theorist when you have no justification for doing so.
> Besides - you have yet to actually *show* me that my arguments
> are defective. Your mere assertion that they are convinces no one.
SCHPANKALICIOUS!!!7!!!!
>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, meaning is assigned by BELIEF.
>
>
> Kam:
> Wrong. Meaning as I'm speaking of it - as in the "meaning"
> of words - is decided on by convention. I have supplied reasons
> for that position, and your mere assertion doesn't refute them.
I AM LOSING COUNT OF THE SPANKAGES!!!!15,864!!!
>> What part of "everything is questionable" is escaping you?
>
>
> Kam:
> The part in which I'm supposed to accept everything
> you say as true when you do no reasoning... propose no
> evidence or justification. I'm questioning, Ed. What
> part of "questioning requires reason* is escaping *you*?
The "being able to reason" part.
Edmond Wollmann
> Discussing with Ed (and George Hammond) is one of my
> favourite past times. Keeps my teeth sharp.
> Kamerynn
Thanks for the compliment, and you spell like a Brit.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Spämster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>
>>Discussing with Ed (and George Hammond) is one of my
>>favourite past times. Keeps my teeth sharp.
>
>
>
>>Kamerynn
>
>
> Thanks for the compliment, and you spell like a Brit.
Hook, line, sinker.
Dan Baldwin
>
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
> > Discussing with Ed (and George Hammond) is one of my
> > favourite past times. Keeps my teeth sharp.
>
> > Kamerynn
>
> Thanks for the compliment, and you spell like a Brit.
Whoosh Birds are migrating again, it seems.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
Cujo DeSockpuppet
@earthlink.net:
> Kamerynn wrote:
>
>> Discussing with Ed (and George Hammond) is one of my
>> favourite past times. Keeps my teeth sharp.
>
>> Kamerynn
>
> Thanks for the compliment, and you spell like a Brit.
It wasn't a compliment and you are a shit.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Trust me, the astrological ramblings are not realistic, pragmatic, or
applicable in real counseling or consulting scenarios either." - Ed, being
realistic, pragmatic and kooky.
Edmond Wollmann
> > Kamerynn wrote:
> >>>>>><snip>
Then you say things without the conviction of them when you say my brain
will fall out if I keep my mind too open.:-)))
> I've already told you that I'm not an identity theorist.
> You can take my word for it, or you can ask questions and
> confirm it for yourself.
> >>I am *not* an identity theorist, or an eliminative materialist.
> >>It is clear to me that the mind is not identical to the brain;
> >>one is accessible to all possible viewers in principle, while
> >>the other (the mind) is only accessible to the one who
> >>possesses it. As Jackson once asserted, even if Jones knew
> > No one's reality is creatable by anyone else, hence, it is not veiwable
> > by anyone else, so you deceive yourself here.
> Kam:
> You are mixing solipsism and idealism - two inconsistent
> positions. If my reality isn't "creatable" by you, then it
> is not you posting here, but my overactive imagination (solipsism).
No, it is because we are co-creating the interaction--making those Venn
circles cross for a moment--if you will. You CHOOSE to talk to me, and I
CHOOSE to respond in kind, while others choose to mock me, hence we
co-create an actual conversation, whilst they create evasion through
name-calling and kook contests to deal with their own fears of
inadequacy and doubts about themselves.
> But, you also wish to include concepts like "anyone
> else," implying that there is more than one person in the
> universe, and all create reality (idealism). Reality either is,
> or it is not, created by more than one person. Which is it?
Both and neither. You must understand, that to stand outside of the
paradigm that you are an actually GLIMPSE the truth to some degree,
paradox will become an attribute that TELLS YOU you are beginning to
see.
I impress the definition I am upon the reality you have created for
yourself, but I could not do so without your agreement and desire on
some level, otherwise I would not even exist and you would have never
heard of me.
> >>*everything* that there was to know about the brain, he still
> >>doesn't know what pain is unless he knows what it *feels like.*
> > And all "feelings" are reactions to beliefs.
> Kam:
> That's flat out false according to experience.
> I can have a tummy ache even if I don't have a single
> belief. I could have a tummy ache because I have poison
> in my tummy, and not in reaction to some belief or other.
And why would you (perhaps albeit unconsciously) choose to ingest
poison?
> *All* feelings are reactions to *stimuli*. A stimulus
> might be a belief and it might not.
The stimulous is the effect of the definition you create for yourself
that attracts the event into your reality, in the same way that birds of
a feather flock together.
> > You cannot just feel
> > anything without first having a belief about that thing.
> Kam:
> It is clear that beliefs themselves can be *conditioned*
> (i.e. learned), and conditioning happens according to the
> pleasure/pain principle. Watch as a cat burns his paw in
> a candle, *feels* pain, and internalizes the danger of
> the candle, evidenced by the cat's future caution around
> candles. Humans internalize - form beliefs - in much the
> same way, especially in childhood. The point is: feelings
> come *before* beliefs (in many cases). Therefore, beliefs are not
> requried for feelings.
All pain, and all difficulty is resistance to one's own growth and
developmental creation. We create pain when we refuse to acknowledge our
part in the creation of scenarios.
> > Because, as I have said over and over again (it is one of the first
> > sentences in my book) the universe (material or otherwise) has no
> > built-in meaning, we give it meaning, and then extract "feelings" that
> > are energy-momentums (e-motions) of those beliefs.
> Kam:
> Why would you say that, especially over and over?
> How can a qualitative, subjective event of consciousness
> (a feeling) be reduced to an objective, quantitative,
> scientific concept such as energy/momentum? That's
> the same move as identity theorists make! Should I now
> talk of your actions, and presume you a materialist and
> identity theorist!?
These contradictions you experience fade when you realize that all is
one and one is all.
> Tell me - how much energy is produced by a strong
> fear reaction, how is that energy measured, and what
> effect does it have?
If a man has a strong conflict of opinion with his mother, and yet deems
his mother the authority and powerful (on all or some level(s)), then
his wife will be the most difficult instructor he has ever had. When he
realizes that it is himself in the mirror of mother and wife and that
the resolution has been and is within himself, they will become his
greatest assets. Fear is simply a belief in a reality riddled with
doubt, a 100% trust in a reality you do NOT prefer. If you believe you
can only make money for example working at a McDonalds, but "hope" to be
a movie star (but do not REALLY believe you could be one), your reality
will supply you with plenty of opportunities to work at McDonals and few
to be the movie star.
You were asserting CAUSE not speculation. In order to show CAUSE the
above are required.
> To see the correlation between brain states and one's
> mind states - to actually see a doctor stimulate an area over
> and over and to smell burnt toast each time - provides
> *evidence* of a causal connection between the mind and the
> brain. To think otherwise is to think the perfect one to one
Of course it does, but it does NOT tell you which is "causing" which.
A radio does not "cause" a radio station.
> correlation to be nothing but coincidence. Unlike professional
> psychics and astrologers, the brain never fails to predict the
> content of the mind. Yes, Ed - that's evidence of causality.
Yes, and weathermen never fail to predict the weather either.
> > Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
> > description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
> > astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE. Most behavioral studies
> > are observational and more natural.
> Kam:
> You seem to know what those two shouted words mean - so why
> would you suggest that feelings are energy-momentum?
Because they are belief momentum effects, feelings are the EFFECTS of
beliefs. When you smell that toast, it brings feelings to mind related
to something involved with the toast, hence you will like toast or not
dependent upon the FEELINGS (beliefs) you hold in relation to the smell
of the toast--as much as if not more so than--the actual taste of the
toast. The toast ITSELF has no built-in meaning that evokes "feelings"
of any sort. The feelings correalate to the beliefs connected to the
smell of the toast. Your test above cannot tell you that, but I can.
> > Correlations are greatly affected by outliers (anomaly). Outliers makes
> > predictions less accurate.
> > Inferential statistic=based on PROBABILITY, which is all one will
> > get-not "proof." It compares what would happen by chance if only done
> > once as compared to what would be results over many or time. We simply
> > get statements of the HO (the null hypothesis) being false in degrees of
> > probability. Hence we disproved in degrees that the Earth was flat-never
> > PROVED it was round.
> Kam:
> I will focus on the part of the above that deals with
> prediction: The Randi Educational Foundation offers over one
> million dollars for anyone who can definitively beat random
> odds. It is a simple matter to run many trials and compare
> the results to average results (what random guesses produce,
> on average). Yes, beating those odds would count as evidence.
But since I state over and over, and do so on my website:
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
That astrology is not ABOUT prediction and that prediction is basically
irrelevant to increasing one's awareness about themselves and improving
the quality of their own experiential reality, then Randi's garbage is
nothing but childish challenging of something he obviously hasn't the
first clue about to begin with meant only to try to dissuade thinking
persons from the obviousness of their connection to the solar system
that spawned them, and he should go back to magic tricks and deception
openly, instead of feigning that he is actually AN INTELLECTUAL...
qualified to determine the value of people's choices, when he cannot
accurately state what that primary Venn circle PROVES we "must do" with
our lives in order to be ethically correct.
> >> You must refrain from imputing certain positions to
> >>me based on your idea that I'm a common, unthinking
> >>layman. Fyi, the majority of philosophers are functionalists,
> > I have no beliefs about you, I simply respond to your defective
> > arguments.
> Kam:
> Wrong. You mistakenly believe that I am an identity
> theorist when you have no justification for doing so.
I made no such assertion, I only asserted your arguments are defective
and unfounded and have handily exposed them as such.
> Besides - you have yet to actually *show* me that my arguments
> are defective. Your mere assertion that they are convinces no one.
Your mere assertion that I "shouldn't" choose astrology to gain insight
into myself and others is no more convincing than that I should prefer
hamburgers instead of hotdogs--either, but you have spent a lot of time
deluding yourself into believing that anyone found your assertions other
than what I stated them to be from the beginning; your beliefs and that
is all.
> >>and the rest range from identity theorists to property
> >>dualists to biological naturalists. The majority of thinkers
> >>reject the identity theory, although functionalists make
> >>the same mistakes as identity theorists, imo.
> > That's because there is no "one" truth, those truths are all true on
> > some level. ANYTHING one can conceive of MUST be real on some level or
> > you could not conceive of it.
> Kam:
> Only in as much as the mind is real, and those conceptions
> are thoughts or feelings (states of consciousness - the stuff of
> the mind). They are real because they are states of consciousness,
> and states of consciousness are real. To demonstrate any more than
> this, you'll have to supply some reasoning at the very least.
I long ago learned that I don't "have" to do anything.
That's because I am a TRUE scientist:
"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.
Anamolys are disregarded because they do not articulate the paradigm."
Thomas Kuhn-Author of the widely acclaimed "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions".
> >>>>>All knowledge is tentative, even IF we are convinced.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> That is included in my statements, since being able to
> >>>>be convinced includes being able to be convinced that one is
> >>>>wrong. In fact, that is usually what it is to be convinced.
> >>>There is no "that's the way it is, the Universe has no built-in meaning,
> >>>you give it meaning by what you believe or have been taught to believe
> >>>it means.
> >>Kam:
> >> Meaning is the result of conventional use. Being open to
> > No, meaning is assigned by BELIEF.
> Kam:
> Wrong. Meaning as I'm speaking of it - as in the "meaning"
> of words - is decided on by convention. I have supplied reasons
> for that position, and your mere assertion doesn't refute them.
Irrelevant, they are still assigned meanings based on beliefs,
convention or not. You are really grasping at straws now.
> >>being convinced often means being open to being convinced that
> >>one is wrong. The universe has no built in meaning, but words
> >>have a conventional meaning, and we know this because we can use
> >>them to communicate (to understand each other). If they did not
> >>have this shared meaning, communication would be impossible.
> > That is simply a collective belief. You have made no sound argument.
> Kam:
> How does that refute the idea that meaning is derived from
> convention?
Convention is just collectively agreed upon belief.
> Remember: meaning only exists if words have uses. Words
> only have uses if we share a common understanding of their
> meaning.
Wrong, significance in any case is real or implied.
"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet-Shakespeare
There never has been a "causal connection" anymore than the mirror
"causes" you to look any certain way, but we STILL find mirrors useful,
likewise astrrology is useful despite your bigoted view of it.
> >> Number and numeral count as math's subject matter.
> > Your ignorance of astrology is showing.
> Kam:
> The sentence you responded to is about math, not
> astrology. If you believe that math is about something
> other than number and numeral, then say so. State what
> it is. Pretending your opponent is ignorant doesn't make
> her so; mere assertions and simple statments aren't even
> evidence of thought, Ed.
What astrological text have you studied?
> >> I'm not saying that Jungian archetypes can't be made to fit
> >>people, but that they aren't *sufficiently complex* to
> >>distinguish between each and every individual. It is possible
> > They are not meant to describe individuals. They describe archetypal
> > references.
> Kam:
> Jungian archetypes are categories of personality.
Nope, they are conceptual constructs inherent in history, society, and
inherited generationally.
> They are not "descriptions" of "references."
They are construct references, yes they are. Just like your linguistics
of empiricism and proof etc. are archetypal references to science
constructs.
> >>that there is, or will be, an individual that doesn't fit any
> >>of the archetypes.
> > Not possible, both DNA and archtypal references are simply
> > recombinations of archetypal significances that describe individuation.
> Kam:
> I suppose I could pull out some Jung, post a few pages, and
> show you just how simplistic and inadequate it is. But, since Jung
> has already been thoroughly discredited by others, I feel that
> justice has already been served.
Jung has not been discredited, he is still taught in Universities.
> >> In any case, an astrological prediction, such as "all
> >>of a certain class of Taurus will find love on Dec.15th"
> > That is newspaper astrology--which isn't even astrology. I suppose you
> > take Ann Landers and other silly newsprint as gospel as well?
> Kam:
> I take nothing as gospel. Aren't you listening?
> If what you have is different, I'll only know if you state
> exactly how it is different. You cannot expect me to read
> your mind - I don't believe that I can, remember?
I expect you to read my website, it is quite complete with all the
explanations you could ask for, why must I start from sqaure one just
because you are lazy or incompetant or both?
> >>is falsified when some of the members of that class fail to
> >>find love on that date. Just as an archetype might fail to
> >>range over all the people its meant to range over, an astrological
> >>prediction can fail to range over all of the people in its
> >>category. Apart from being too general and vague, both archetypes
> >>and astrological predictions have been falsified.
> > Just as one Gene would fail to describe an individual, you again make no
> > logical argument but instead simply display your ignorance.
> Kam:
> A minor point: an argument's validity (that is, proper logical
> form) is not the same as its truth value. You have not even attempted
> to show that my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises. By the
> way, genes actually *fail* to describe *all* of an individual. They
> describe the pattern by which an individual grows, and decide on
> certain characteristics (such as eye colour). An individual's
> *environment* plays a large part in his or her characteristics.
> This is widely accepted, and evidenced by simple things like
> the difference between the people of central Africa and North
> America. Besides that - genes can't predict ugly scars and
> dropped babies. Archetypes are similar.
You can't challenge or TEST a topic you cannot even operationalize. I
suggest you educate yourself a bit and come back with some realistic
arguments.
> >>>> Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is a causal
> >>>>link between celestial happenings and, for example, marital
> >>>>bliss or winning the lottery. Such causation, were it actually
> >>>>possible, would be miraculous and stunning. You cannot expect
> >>>>someone to accept that story about causation on your word. You'll
> >>>>need to provide evidence - and it will have to be stellar.
> >>>I see, and how much research have you done on astrology to come to these
> >>>conclusions?
> >>Kam:
> >> I cannot give you a number or quantity, but I can
> >>relay some of the case studies that I've been witness to.
> > As they say in court: Hearsay.
> Kam:
> Is that a request for case studies, or a pre-judgemental
> attitude about case studies that I have not yet relayed to you?
It is a recognition that your response is to cover the fact that you
yourself have not studied ANY yourself. I was born at noon, not
yesterday noon.
> >>In any case, the burden of proof does *not* rest on my
> >>shoulders. If you believe in the veracity of astrology,
> >>then it is up to you to say why. I ought not believe in
> > Not on mine either, I do what I wish when I wish and do not need to
> > justify my choices anymore than you do--your opinions are your choices
> > based on your beliefs, so likewise are mine.
> Kam:
> I also often act on instinct and *not* on belief.
> The picture is more complex than you give it credit for.
Explain to us the difference.
> >>that which is not justified - and I need no research to
> >>hold that position. Justify astrology, and I'll have no
> >>choice but to believe. Fail to do so, and I have no
> >>motive to believe.
> > Yet you fail to justify your own existence, why such hypocrisy?
> Kam:
> Wrong. I fail to justify the *purpose of* my existence.
But try to tell others what their purpose "should" be, why the hypocrisy
and arrogance?
> I have no evidence of purpose. I have *plenty* of evidence
> of my existence.
If you have no evidence of the purpose, then how can you challenge
others choices if you yourself have no clue what is the "real" purpose
of living?
> >>>I call it unwise.
Where does it say in the above quote that questioning is dependent upon
reasoning? And since when is preference (for someone who can't tell me
the "true" purpose for living) not a "good enough" reason for choices or
questioning? And when are we gonna question your assumptions? You assume
empiricism to be the answer, who says?
> >>to this entire time - and that's exactly why I'm questioning you. That
> >>I don't question the need for questioning (i.e.reasoning/justification),
> >>or the law of the excluded middle, is beside the point.
> > I question everything and everyone, which is why I arouse so much
> > defensiveness from lesser "questioners".
> Kam:
> Would lesser questioners be... ones not as well versed
> in the art of questioning - i.e. in reason? Perhaps they
> just can't keep up... because they aren't being reasonable?
When you learn some astrology to ask real questions, I would be glad to
answer them, but you just clarified the primary reason why answering
your questions is becoming profoundly boring. Your arrogance about
astrology far outweighs your actual ability to question the issues about
it. This is precisely your problem, you belabor the values of reasoning
and yet don't do enough research to actually use any on the topic at
hand.
"There is no bar to knowledge greater than contempt prior to
examination." Herbert Spencer
Edmond Wollmann
> > Kamerynn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
Like the other sections of this exchange, I try to lead you to broader
views and to question your own thought processes. The idea is this,
generally, when we question everything enough we will come to questions
that CANNOT be answered so easily or through empirical methods alone. In
this way I allow you to see that although you assert you are reasonable,
there still are many leaps you make and beliefs you hold that betray
your asserted approach.
> Anyway - like I asserted, I only suppose that's the
> answer to the former question. Intuition, here, means
> an educated guess.
I see. But we do agree that there can be no solid "evidence" as to what
the purpose of our whole existence is and why we even try to figure
things out, am I correct in that understanding?
> >> The latter question I can't answer. I'm not sure
> >>why some believe that the brain must undergo such a
> >>process to place things in long term memory. The purpose
> >>of REM is still controversial, and that's only one theory.
> >>I haven't yet invested any belief in theories about the
> >>purpose of REM.
> > OK, fair enough, then you cannot speculate on any theories of the psyche
> > either.
> Kam:
> A lack of justification or evidence does not preclude
> speculation. In fact, I'd bet that speculation is responsible
> for all valid criticism of any theory, including theories
If it is only speculation, it is only "valid" in the mind of the
beholder, this is according to your own quest for "justification and
evidence" if I remember correctly. Conversely, then, speculation can be
responsible for all valid theories, and you then contradict your
original assertions that belief has little to do with theoretical
quests, if you stick to your guns that is.
> of the psyche. Speculation is what might cause someone to
> form beliefs, and is certainly not precluded by one not yet
> having beliefs on a certain subject.
You might wish to brush up on some psychology while talking to me, you
keep referring to beliefs in the "conscious" context, but beliefs form
at all levels of the psyche. When you approach the concept of creating
one's reality by "belief" from that context, it of course seems silly,
but if you understand the depth of the psychology of the personality and
that it does indeed manifest as behavior, which results in effects from
behavior etc., it is not only not silly, but quite logical.
Unconscious beliefs affect conscious choices and fears, which results in
behavior, which results in experiential reality. This is quite
reasonable.
> >>>>>Many people have discovered secrets of life through the dream state,
> >>>>>molecular structure, equations, and myself I have seen my dreams come to
> >>>>>pass.
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> Secrets of life? Perhaps by chance. I have heard no
> >>>>such secrets, and when such secrets were promised to me,
> >>>>there were, in the end, denied. You must actually show me
> >>>>these secrets, or I will get bored of this line of reasoning.
> >>>I can show you nothing, each being creates their experiential reality by
> >>>the product of what they believe or have been taught to believe.
> >>Kam:
> >> Sure, each person's experiences is run through a filter
> >>of previous experience, and of reason/understanding - we
> >>call that cognition.
> > Incorrect. You assume that the filter is from without to within, when in
> > reality, the beliefs are patterned and then filtered as subjective
> > perceptions of the outer.
> Kam:
> Firstly, I don't mean to be rude, but mere assertion doesn't count
> as justification, and I can't even tell if that assertion is
> the conclusion of some undisplayed reasoning.
The period between 3 and 5 in a childs youth is KNOWN to be quite
powerful in the formulation of schemata (beliefs), this belief structure
is then carried forth unconsciously and acts as a FILTER of the
PERCEIVED reality (in essence re-creating a version of it), the
reconstructed precept then acts as the filter and is RE-projected onto
the reality screen in its new version, complete with unconscious colored
glasses and all.
> Secondly, if "subjective perceptions of the outer" are
> subjective perceptions *of* the outer, then the outer must
> already exist in order for us to have perceptions *of* it.
Yes, there is a COLLECTIVELY created externalized physical reality, this
reality is the effect of sub and unconscious agreement collectively, not
only as to what it will look like but as to how "difficult" or not
"difficult" it is to change or recreate. All one has to do is look at
historical events to see that what we once thought "airy-fairy" flights
of fancy, are now commonly accepted events (such as discussing these
ideas from a keyboard across cyberspace). Do you not see that a Greek
from the era BCE would find our assertion that this is possible just by
the combination of digits would think you insane?
> >> But, "secrets of life" seems to refer to some objective
> >>bit of knowledge or other. Surely, secrets of life cannot
> >>simply be secrets about our own experiential reality - they
> >>must be about reality itself. Otherwise, they are not true
> >>secrets - truth implies a correspondence to reality.
> > I believe it is called the Bucky ball? One of the constructs that came
> > to the person in the dream state.
> Kam:
> It? Bucky ball?
I will have to revisit this when I have time--look it up, there are a
lot of scientists and researchers that have allowed their dreams to lead
them to answers their conscious mind could not solve.
> >>>>>How on Earth could the REM state allow me to move into the future
> >>>>>and see it?
> >>>>Kam:
> >>>> Good question. Future events *don't exist,* and because
> >>>The events themselves do not, but the time track probabilities do.
> >>>Please do a search on Google with Time Tracks and my name and you will
> >>>have some more information.
> >>Kam:
> >> Ok - but that leads me to my definition of prediction
> >>as conscious or unconscious reasoning that produces an
> >>educated guess about what will happen next.
> > Not exactly, actions taken determine future events, so it is not
> > perception alone, but perception of trajectory, if you will, much like
> > the trajectory of an object in space,...
> Kam:
> I agree up to this point; prediction is perception of
> what will happen next based on what's happening now, including
> the role that I'm playing.
And that role is determined by your beliefs.
> >...beliefs have momentum that can
> > predict future events to a great degree.
> Kam:
> A minor point: beliefs cannot predict, only
> people do that. But, I assume that you are talking
> about people predicting things according to beliefs
> that "have momentum." Which brings me to an important
> question: what could possibly be meant by the momentum
> of a belief? How does it help with prediction?
E.g., a rigid belief has a very strong momentum (difficult to change
because it is a HABIT, a habit necessarily, by definition being a
behavior pattern that one is UNconscious of). Ideas have momentum and
e-motional effects (energy-momentums).
> >>>>of that, there is no way to see them (let alone travel to them).
> >>>That is because it is believing is seeing, and you do not believe.
> >>Kam:
> >> I meant it literally - one cannot actually see the actual
> >>event - that event isn't anywhere, and doesn't exist, and so
> >>isn't accessible to sense experience. We can, however, *imagine*
> > I will have to disagree here to a great extent, only because of my 20
> > year dream journal which evidences otherwise.
> Kam:
> How can you be certain that the events recorded in your
> journal aren't imagined events which later happen to come true?
Because they have E-motional content-meaning the same "feeling" is
extracted from the event (like Deja Vu) that the dream evoked at the
time, which often reminds me of the dream I had completely forgotten.
This momentum or trajectory is "in existence" so to speak, in the future
because of the "force" of the momentum of the idea when the energy
motion is "launched." For example, in the waking state in 1983, I had a
Deja Vu of a Deja Vu I WOULD be having while sitting at the computer
writing: I saw myself in another location writing in the future having a
Deja Vu, the thing I was writing was my article on Saturn Opposition
Saturn (1986). I could not recognize the place, nor did I have the ideas
for the article at that time, only the feeling of the Deja Vu. In the
future I had the same Deja Vu whilst WRITING the article and immediately
experienced the two Deja Vus simultaneously about both points in time.
The momentum of the idea DID have a trajectory as a probability in the
future at the first Deja Vu, and I "caught" the trajectory by actually
manifesting the event IN the future. I don't know if I conveyed the idea
well enough for you to grasp the meaning. But there are other ways to
convey it. I.e., the Roman Architecture concept still has a momentum
even though the buildings are long gone, and that idea still strongly
affects the beliefs systems now manifesting.
> >>an event, and if we've imagined it correctly, we will say that
> >>we have "forseen" it. I believe that I understand your use
> >>of the word "seen," and I was just commenting on how we cannot
> >>take that word too seriously (literally), since the event isn't (yet)
> >>available to see.
> > With no discussion or information (for example of the dream journal) I
> > dreamt my father had a heart attack. I told him of it, we dismissed it
> > as "just a dream". A year later he was told by the doctor he needed
> > elective triple by-pass to avoid a heart attack. Imagination? Hardly, I
> > was asleep.
> Kam:
> I use the "imagining" analogy for dreaming that isn't
> an actual vision of the future. That you were asleep doesn't
> prove that it was an actual vision instead of an imagining that
> just happened to come true.
Imagination is a conscious mind quality.
> >>>>I can often predict the future, and I understand "predict" to
> >>>>mean consciously or unconsciously using reason to gain enough
> >>>>of an understanding of an event to be able to make good guesses
> >>>>about the nature of the next event. I have witness evidence
> >>>>of no other kind of prediction, and will remain skeptical about
> >>>>it until I have.
> >>>Alright, then you go right ahead, I will not try to stop you.
> >>Kam:
> >> That's too bad. What that means is that you will not
> >>try to supply evidence of another kind of prediction, or
> >>point me to that evidence, and so I have no choice but
> >>to refrain from believing in another kind of prediction.
> > Not true, it means that I am wise enough to know that WHATEVER I
> > provide, your beliefs may prevent you from SEEING any evidence that
> > might be compelling to another individual but not you. I will still
> > provide what ever I believe supports my views.
> Kam:
> That's all I've asked for - I will, of course,
> subject your views to my criticisms.
And I will of course, not have much concern for that action:-)
> <snip>
> >>>But it does not work that way, it works in the reverse of what you
> >>>believe the facts to be.
> >>>"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
> >>>It is actually imagination that creates the theories, which leads to
> >>>operationalizing constructs and variables YOU BELIEVE have significance,
> >>>you then find the reinforcing logic to justify your own belief system.
> >>Kam:
> >> That our beliefs, even our foundational ones, are theory
> >>laden, is not something that I wish to deny. But, that doesn't
> >>mean that theories actually determine *what* we observe -
> > Sure it does, you will never find something you aren't looking for
> > because you believe it doesn't even exist.
> Kam:
> That isn't true to my experience. I found a bug in
> my soup about a year ago, and I wasn't expecting it one bit.
Again, you perceive everything in terms of CONSCIOUS mind functioning.
Many men, much to their dismay, find their MOTHER in the woman they
marry, not consciously expecting or creating it you see, but
unconsciously attracting the similarity REGARDLESS. You cannot
experience ANYthing that is not a part of you on some level. It's just
not possible.
> The bug, however, was a part of reality - a piece of the
> "furniture of the universe" - and didn't care about the
> fact that I wasn't looking for him. He was there anyway.
> There are quite clearly some things which are more than
> subjective; there are things that are *inter-subjective*,
> (objective).
Man does not live by bread (or soup) alone.
> > It is BELIEVING IS SEEING, not the other way around.
> Kam:
> That statement is inconsistent with every occurence
> of surprise.
Incorrect. It is consistent with all that occurs when you real-ize that
your conscious mind is not quite as in control as your ego deceives you
into wishing to believe it is. Actually, persons such as yourself who
INSIST that the conscious mind and physical world is the "real" world,
are actaully the MOST self-deceived and delusional.
> >>something is either available to sense experience or it isn't,
> > Not true, many things are available that we either choose or are not
> > capable or willing to see.
> Kam:
> ...And those things are either available to sense
> experience or they aren't. Whether or not we sense them
> is another matter.
Some would say if we don't hear the tree falling it never did.
> >>regarless of any theory that we may or may not hold. Our
> >>theories determine what we think we are observing - that is,
> >>our theories determine *how we cognize* what we observe.
> >>But, our theories don't change the actual fact of the matter,
> >>since what actually is, is independent of our observation.
> > There is no "that's the way it is" the way it is is the way we create
> > and define it to be on all levels.
> Kam:
> Then there would be no basis for any agreement among
> us. There *is*, however, such a basis - actual, objective
> reality.
And that so-called "actual reality" is only the collectively agreed upon
belief construct. As history has advanced that so-called "objective
reality" has dramatically altered.
And it is a delusion of granduer that persons like you even HINT that
there is such a thing.
"There is included in human nature an ingrained naturalism and
materialism of mind which can only admit facts that are actually
tangible sort of mind the entity called "Science" is the idol. Fondness
for the word "scientist" is one of the notes by which you may know its
votaries; and its short way of killing any opinion that it disbelieves
in is to call it "unscientific." It must be granted that there is no
slight excuse for this. Science has made such glorious leaps in the last
300 years . . . that it is no wonder if the worshippers of Science lose
their heads. In this very University, accordingly, I have heard more
than one teacher say that all the fundamental conceptions of truth have
already been found by Science; and that the future has only the details
of the picture to fill in. But the slightest reflection on the real
conditions will suffice to show how barbaric such notions are. They show
such a lack of scientific imagination that it is hard to see how one who
is actively advancing any part of Science can make a statement so crude.
Think how many absolutely new scientific conceptions have arisen in our
generation, how many new problems have been formulated that were never
thought of before, and then cast an eye upon the brevity of Science's
career. Is this credible that such a mushroom knowledge, such a growth
overnight as this, can represent more than the minutest glimpse of what
the universe will really prove to be when adequately understood? No! Our
Science is but a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain,
this at least is certain: that the world of our present natural
knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort, of whose residual
properties we at present can frame no positive idea." William James,
1895 addressing colleagues at Harvard
> <snip>
> >>Kam:
> >> I understand what you were getting at, now.
> >>Even Kant derived his "a priori" categories
> >>"synthetically" (i.e. with reference to sense
> >>experience in general). Empiricism seems to be the
> >>road to truth; reason alone cannot take us there.
> > You are partially correct.
> > Truth is one--the sages speak of it by many names. Upanishads
> > There are MANY ways to find "truth", some of them have 0 to do with
> > Empiricism.
> Kam:
> There are only two possible ways to find truth - experience
> and reason. Even revelations and miracles involve one or both.
There is no "that's the way it is" and the more you insist on that, the
more unstable and illogical the evidence is of your mental state.
> >>But, the want for evidence/justification is an empirical
> >>matter. Surely both reason and experience have a part
> >>to play in finding the truth. The truth cannot depend
> > Of course, I do not deny THAT truth either. I simply am trying to
> > balance your BELIEFS about what truth constitutes.
> Kam:
> A true statement is one that corresponds with reality and
> thus coheres with other true statements. If there were no objective
> reality, then the word "truth" would be utterly meaningless.
Incorrect:
True=tro, a.truer, truest. (O.English treowe, D trowe, Goth triggws,
true, faithful: cf. trow, truce and trust). Steadfast or adhereing, as
to friend, a cause, or a promise; firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful;
trusty; honest; free from deceit; sincere; honorable or upright; being
consistent with the actual state of things. Agreeing with a standard,
pattern, rule or the like. A true copy; exact, correct, or accurate...
Since we create our experiential reality by the definitions we hold; our
reality experiences therefore AGREE with that "standard, pattern, rule
or the like" that we define it to be. Whether it is mechanistically
feasable, biased, based on fundemental attribution errors, observational
bias and such is another question.
And since the accuracy of the "state of things" is an ongoing process,
we are never in a complete state of knowing what the "actual" state of
things is. Please refer to my post on Perfection.
Significance and the like is always REAL or IMPLIED. The meaning you
give it determines its truth value for you.
> >>on only experience - reality cannot depend on nothing but
> >>our experiences or beliefs.
> > Of course not, that's why THE truth is the composition of ALL truths,
> > not just empiricism, not just imagination, but a more powerful blending
> > of the two.
> Kam:
> How can true statements be combined to produce one,
> super-truth known as "the" truth?
Because neither are even "true" without the all.
> >>Kam:
> >> Huh? Those sound like drugs...
> >>If Celebrex is a drug that is supposed to do x, we will
> >>not know that we have *actually discovered* a drug that
> >>does x until we verify that fact - test the drug, and
> >>observe it doing x. So, yes, we need evidence to proclaim
> >>something to truely be a discovery.
> > They are popular drugs, that were supposedly "empirically tested" and
> > found safe, until recent evidence indicated otherwise, now why do you
> > suppose in one incidence the empiricism supported, and in another denied
> > their safety if it were NOT for beliefs??
> Kam:
> Because the delayed effects of such drugs cannot be
> viewed ahead of time, but only when they happen, despite
> the fact that people often dream.
It is the THEORY which determines WHAT WE CAN observe.
Cutting here to manage content.
"Every person, all the events of your life are there because you have
drawn them there. What you choose to do with them is up to you."
Richard Bach "Illusions"
--
wollma...@spam.free
http://www.nocem.org/
http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollma...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03165
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<41D34F...@earthlink.net> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQdOciFIcW5ONdL49EQJgQACg97yuRQzza1pQOqRW1frEA+2kN8wAn2DI
Z8uYsOuOc3xIKuWIBfWJOq6W
=GfNo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----