Dialogue on Dreaming
rbb
Kind of liked this one:
D.R.C.:
PART ONE:
SHIN: What does dreaming reveal to you?
MEM: Many things - a snapshot of the inner workings of my mind, the dynamics
of my psyche at some point; glimpses of the future or past, possibilities
other than those I otherwise perceive.
SHIN: When you dream, how do you perceive these things?
MEM: My mind perceives images, sounds, all of the same sensory information
that I perceive while awake.
SHIN: Where do these dream perceptions come from?
MEM: I believe that most of them come from my mind, and some seem to come
from some other place or being.
SHIN: What is the difference between what is perceived in a dream and what
is perceived while awake?
MEM: What is perceived in a dream is not so objective as the material world.
What is perceived in the material world is less dependent upon, less
influenced by my mind.
SHIN: What do you mean by “my mind?”
MEM: It is my unique centre of consciousness and its specific contents. It
might be compared to a specific collection of information, desire and
action, as well as a unique perspective of perception.
SHIN: So, when you dream, where is that centre?
MEM: The centre is located in the “I” that perceives the images of the
dream.
SHIN: And where are the images that are being perceived?
MEM: They are also in my mind.
SHIN: What is their substance?
MEM: The energy of my mind is the substance of the perceptions, but it
occurs to me that the perceptions are mental reflections of things apart
from my mind.
SHIN: So, when you dream, you experience yourself as the centre of
perception within the mind, and the perceptions are also within that mind,
but there may be things outside of that mind that stimulate the perceptions?
MEM: Yes, that is what I think.
SHIN: How do you know when a perception in your dreams is caused by
something other than your mind?
MEM: I may never be able to answer that question about some of the
perceptions. However, there are times when I experience things in waking
consciousness that reveal to me that certain perceptions are based on a
reality that is not limited to my mind.
SHIN: When you experience things in your dreams that are again perceived in
the waking state as part of the material world, then you suspect that those
dream perceptions are more likely to have some other source than your mind,
that they are reflections of things that are separate from you?
MEM: Yes, that sounds like what I mean.
SHIN: When you are actually dreaming, are you aware of any such distinction
between the dream and some other reality?
MEM: Most of the time, I am not. Sometimes I wake up in the dream, knowing
that I am dreaming.
SHIN: How does that change your perceptions?
MEM: It doesn’t necessarily change them in sensory terms, except that
sometimes they seem even more tangible. That seems a little odd to me right
now, that the perceptions would have a more tangible quality simultaneous
with my realisation that they are actually illusions.
SHIN: Yes, there is an awakening taking place. What happens to your
perception of the “I”?
MEM: It becomes more concrete, more aware of itself and its environment.
SHIN: So when you wake up in a dream, both your sense of self and your sense
of what is apart from self seem to become more concrete?
MEM: Yes, indeed they do.
SHIN: And yet you are undeniably aware that your perceptions are illusions?
MEM: Yes, this seems strange to me. It seems paradoxical. I have to admit I’
m puzzled, even a little troubled by this.
SHIN: What is it about these thoughts that is troubling you?
MEM: I’m not sure. I can’t quite understand how it is that knowing things
are an illusion correlates with them seeming more real. That sounds absurd!
But I know it’s true for I have experienced it.
SHIN: You are troubled because you think what your own experience tells you
is true is contradicted by what your reason calculates should be true.
MEM: Yes, that is it in a nutshell, but there is more. There is some other
implication that I cannot put into words. There is something here about the
nature of mind, or of reality, or… I’m not sure. Please help me with this.
PART TWO:
SHIN: What causes you to wake up in a dream?
MEM: Sometimes it simply happens, and I am not aware of any cause. Other
times, I realise that something is happening that shouldn’t be possible and
that wakes me up to the fact that I am dreaming.
SHIN: If dreams are, as you say, for the most part limited to your own mind,
what does it mean that uncontrollable and unexpected things can happen in
your dreams?
MEM: It must mean that my mind is more than I perceive.
SHIN: Think about what you just said.
MEM: My mind is more than I perceive. Well, it tells me that the notion of
an unconscious mind is undeniably true.
SHIN: That is an analysis of what you mean only by the word mind. What does
it suggest about the “I” that perceives this mind?
MEM: I’m not sure. What are you getting at?
SHIN: Who or what ultimately controls the dream?
MEM: It must be the unconscious mind.
SHIN: And the “I” that perceives the dream, it does not control the dream?
MEM: Sometimes it seems that I have a little control, but not much, except
perhaps over myself once I wake up in the dream.
SHIN: Think about what you just said.
MEM: Well, I am calling myself the “I” that is perceiving the dream.
SHIN: Yes, but you have already said that in so many words. There is more
behind your words.
MEM: I’m missing it.
SHIN: Does the “I” control the dream?
MEM: Not really, it mainly perceives.
SHIN: Does it control itself?
MEM: Apparently not very much, but it seems to have more control over itself
when it is awake than it does when it is dreaming.
SHIN: Compare what you said about control with what you earlier said about
concreteness. How do concreteness and control vary according to whether or
not you are awake in a dream?
MEM: When I am not awake in a dream, there is less concreteness to the “I”
that perceives, and to the perceptions. There is also less awareness of the
whole issue of control or lack of it. The “I” that perceives the dream
simply seems to flow along with the dream as just another element of it.
SHIN: What does this say about the “I” that perceives?
MEM: It suggests that it is a function of the mind in which the dream
occurs.
SHIN: And what of the notion of control?
MEM: It must also be a function of the dream.
SHIN: So dreaming reveals to you that your sense of self as a separate
centre of perception, a thing apart from other things, is really just
another part and perception within the dream?
MEM: Yes, it must be so.
SHIN: And what did you say is the substance of all things perceived in
dreams?
MEM: I said it is the energy of the mind.
SHIN: Then what is the fundamental reality of dreams?
MEM: It must be the mind, or the energy of the mind, which seem
indistinguishable to me now.
SHIN: Do you recall what it was that earlier troubled you?
MEM: Yes, it was that things seemed more real, more concrete, I should say,
when I have been more awake and aware of the fact that I am in a dream.
SHIN: Good. Keep that in mind. Now, what is the difference between the “I”
that perceives in dreams and the “I” that perceives otherwise?
MEM: I’m not sure. When I am awake in the dream, my experience of it is
nearly the same as when I am not dreaming. It seems more concrete, more
differentiated from other perceptions, and seems more in control of itself
when I am not dreaming.
SHIN: However, you are saying that whether you are asleep or awake, the
essential nature of the “I” is the same?
MEM: Yes, it is the same “I”, but perceived differently by itself.
SHIN: But what did you say the “I” is?
MEM: It is a function of the mind that is dreaming, it is part of the dream
itself.
SHIN: And this is the same “I” that you only perceive differently when you
are not dreaming?
MEM: Yes, I see where you are going, but just because it is the same “I”,
that does not necessarily mean that the mind which contains it and the dream
is also the source of perceptions when I am not dreaming.
SHIN: How would you know whether that is the case or not?
MEM: In dreams I have become awake and known that I was dreaming, realised
that my perceptions were not a part of any separate reality. Although I can
think of the material world as being just a dream, I have never yet had any
experience of waking up and simply knowing that it is an illusion of the
mind.
SHIN: You know it is possible, but you don't think you have experienced it,
so you don’t believe it has happened?
MEM: That’s right.
PART THREE:
SHIN: Tell me again how you have realised that you were dreaming.
MEM: Sometimes it simply happens and other times it becomes obvious because
something surreal has happened. In fact, as I think about it more carefully,
it is that quality of surrealism, whether general or of something specific,
that always accompanies or stimulates the initial realisation that I am in a
dream.
SHIN: And such moments of surrealism never happen when you are not dreaming?
MEM: Well, yes they do, sometimes.
SHIN: Such as?
MEM: Déjà vu is the first thing that comes to mind, and dreams that turn out
to be visions of the future. Sometimes I have powerful intuitions and I
simply know that something is about to happen, or I spontaneously do the
necessary thing in a given situation without even thinking about it. There
are occasional events of profound coincidence. There are also times of
powerful incongruity between my experience of what is and my convictions
about what is supposed to be – paradoxes that send my mind reeling.
SHIN: And are you in control of any of those things? Do you make them
happen?
MEM: I would say they usually just happen, though sometimes I may help bring
them on by thinking or doing certain things. They seldom seem to happen as a
result of my wanting them to happen.
SHIN: What is the difference between these experiences and those that wake
you up in a dream?
MEM: I don’t know. I guess they just don’t seem as surreal.
SHIN: Why not?
MEM: I don’t know.
SHIN: You mentioned dreams that turn out to be visions of the future. What
do these suggest?
MEM: I’ve thought about this one a lot. Psychic experiences like this
suggest that my mind is somehow able to cross the normal parameters of space
and time.
SHIN: What does it mean that such experiences happen in dreams as well as
out of dreams?
MEM: I’m not sure. I guess it could mean that mind is not limited by
dreaming or being awake, that it transcends both of these states.
SHIN: Think about what you just said.
MEM: I’m saying that mind is bigger than these states, it transcends them….
Oh! It contains them!
SHIN: Are you saying that dreaming and wakefulness are both states of mind,
different modes of mind?
MEM: Yes! So mind must be the fundamental reality.
SHIN: Your mind?
MEM: No… and yes. The “I” that has been calling itself “my mind” is just a
part or function of a greater mind, one that encompasses everything. It is
the container of space and time. That mind, THE Mind, is not my mind in that
I possess it. It is my mind in the sense that I belong to it; it possesses
me.
SHIN: Then, when you perceive that you are in a dream, who or what is doing
the dreaming?
MEM: It must be the Mind.
SHIN: How does this understanding affect that troubling paradox of yours?
MEM: It suggests that there are dreams within dreams.
SHIN: What do you mean?
MEM: Well, perhaps there are different levels of dreaming. There is the
dreaming where I don’t realise that I am dreaming, and the dreaming where I
realise that I am. Perhaps when I don’t realise that I am dreaming, what is
really happening is that my little mind is having its own dream within the
big Mind’s dream. But I still don’t understand why things would seem more
differentiated, more concrete when I know that I am dreaming. Unless…
unless it’s because my little dream was somehow getting in the way of
perceiving the big dream. When I am wrapped up in my little dream, I am not
aware of anything else. Things just happen and my awareness flits around
within all of the imagery and action, totally oblivious to the incongruities
and absurdities. But sometimes one of them shakes me hard enough to make me
question things and suddenly I realise that it is a dream.
PART FOUR:
SHIN: There was something you said that sounds important. When you stop
dreaming your little dream, you perceive the big dream more concretely,
including yourself. Is that right?
MEM: Yes.
SHIN: Think about that. What does it say about the nature of the big dream?
MEM: That the big dream is more real?
SHIN: What would make it more real?
MEM: I don’t know.
SHIN: But you do know that the things you perceive, including your own mind,
seem more concrete and distinct from each other?
MEM: Yes.
SHIN: What does this say about how you determine what is real?
MEM: That my concept of reality is based upon things seeming more concrete
and distinct from other things. The less concrete and distinct, the less
real they are to me.
SHIN: And yet when you wake up within a dream things become more distinct
and concrete, despite the fact that you know you are experiencing an
illusion. Then what is the real problem in your paradox?
MEM: It must be my criteria for determination of reality.
SHIN: What happens if you abandon the idea that concreteness is the basic
criteria for realness? What takes its place?
MEM: I don’t know. Can anything else suffice?
SHIN: Without concreteness to be the determining factor of reality, what
real difference is there between normal wakefulness and being in a dream and
not knowing it?
MEM: I don’t know what it could be.
SHIN: Then of these three states of consciousness – asleep dreaming, awake
dreaming, and normal wakefulness – which one is most different from the
other two?
MEM: Awake dreaming.
SHIN: Why is it so different?
MEM: I simply know that it is. I know that the things I perceive are not
really separate from me, that it is all a dream.
SHIN: Are you saying that in the other two states, you have no immediate
awareness of any transcendent reality?
MEM: Yes…. Yes! I get it! I am more aware of reality when I am awake in a
dream, more than at any other time!
SHIN: What is that reality?
MEM: It is the big Mind dreaming the big dream, one that includes me as an
“I” that perceives the dream, itself and other dreamed things as separate
things.
SHIN: And what of your little dreams?
MEM: It must be that the big Mind is dreaming of a little mind that has
little dreams, and that those little dreams are what keep it unaware of the
big dream.
SHIN: Hmm…. And what of normal wakefulness?
MEM: It is just like the little dreams, only more powerful in its ability to
make things seem concrete and distinct. I’m starting to see something. The
state of being awake in a dream is a kind of centre for the spectrum of
consciousness. It is between the lack of awareness that characterises
asleep dreaming, and the concreteness of normal wakefulness. A movement in
either direction is what interferes with the realisation of the fundamental
reality of the big Mind having the big dream.
SHIN: So when are we really most awake?
MEM: Ha ha! When we know we are in a dream!
SHIN: And what of normal wakefulness?
MEM: It must really be just another sort of asleep dreaming.
SHIN: Are you now awake in this dream?
MEM: I think so, but it doesn’t feel as certain as when I wake up from my
little dreams. This is more like wanting to wake up and not being able to.
SHIN: Doesn’t wanting to wake up mean that you know you are dreaming?
MEM: Well, yes, it certainly does. I guess it’s a matter of degrees. I’m
not as awake as I want to be.
SHIN: Who is doing the wanting?
MEM: I am.
SHIN: I am? Are you falling back asleep? What are you?
MEM: Oh. I am a part of the big dream.
SHIN: What did you say earlier about whom or what is the source of the big
dream?
MEM: It is the big Mind.
SHIN: So whom or what is dreaming that you want to wake up?
MEM: The big Mind.
SHIN: And how do you experience the big Mind waking up to itself?
MEM: I just know that I’m dreaming. What else do you mean?
SHIN: What was your first answer when I asked you whom it was that wants to
wake up?
MEM: I said it was me.
SHIN: No, your exact words were….
MEM: “I am.”
SHIN: Have you ever heard that before?
MEM: Ah! So “I am” is what the big Mind says when it is becoming aware of
itself through the little minds that it dreams in the big dream!
SHIN: So when will you fully awaken to the reality that you are in a dream?
MEM: Only when the big Mind dreams it is so… like right now!
PART FIVE:
SHIN: Is there anywhere else to go with this conversation?
MEM: It doesn’t appear that there is. Dreaming and normal wakefulness are
both functions of the big Mind dreaming its big dream, and so is “I am”,
which is actually true wakefulness.
SHIN: Is there no other state of consciousness?
MEM: Well, the only other state is dreamless sleep, but we call that
unconsciousness.
SHIN: How does it differ from dreaming and wakefulness?
MEM: There are no perceptions of any kind, no concreteness, no distinctions,
no desire, no thought or action, no “I am.”
SHIN: What effect does this state have upon dreaming and wakefulness?
MEM: It completely stops them, severs them, sets them apart.
SHIN: Yet do we not experience some continuity from one period of dreaming
or wakefulness to another?
MEM: Yes, we experience the “I” that perceives, and remember it from one
period to another. It brings other memories with it, and these memories
bridge the gap of dreamless sleep.
SHIN: How can any of these perceptions of consciousness pass through
unconsciousness and emerge on the other side?
MEM: It must be that the big Mind transcends dreaming, wakefulness and
unconsciousness. Mind must still be, even when there is no awareness of it.
SHIN: So the big Mind is the fundamental reality, and its modes are
dreaming, wakefulness and dreamless sleep?
MEM: Yes.
SHIN: And the difference between dreamless sleep and the other modes is….
MEM: That in dreamless sleep there is no perception.
SHIN: And yet Mind remains?
MEM: Yes, it must be. In fact, it occurs to me that this is a state of pure
mind in perfect unity, and that within it there is the unmanifest potential
for all that ever was or ever shall be.
SHIN: Potential? An interesting word! What is stored in an electric cell?
MEM: Potential energy, which is then released as electricity when the cell
discharges.
SHIN: And when the cell discharges and its potential is released, what do we
call that?
MEM: We say that the cell has become weak, or that it is dead.
SHIN: Interesting, isn’t it? Well now, this conversation has taken us late
into the evening, and I am tired. Let’s call it a night and get some sleep.
MEM: Very well. Thanks for the chat. Pleasant dreams. See you in the
morning.
Chris Rodgers
> Kind of liked this one:
Where did you find this 'Bird?
Good stuff. Chinese dudes or
what? Very accurate about how
dreaming works. I can't add
anything to what these guys said.
They have an interesting way of
presenting a story with gems in
the middle of their conversation.
Did everyone catch that? :)
Jeremy Donovan
Chris Rodgers <cr...@att.net> wrote:
It's mental masturbation. :-)
And let me just add, obviously so...
They completely fail to account for (or even mention -- LOL) the
salient characteristics of waking consciousness, such as its
durability, its repeatability, its continuity, and how it is shared in
minute detail with many other consciousnesses, and all that that
implies. They mentioned only it's 'concreteness', and never went
beyond that.
All to force the conclusion that some big "mind" is all there is. And
that's the mistake. Our minds are the generator of all that we can
know and perceive of reality, yet they are not all there is to
reality.
I'm not a master, so I'll only ask ONE question to make this clear:
If all of mankind ceased to exist entirely, wouldn't the earth and the
sun and the universe continue to function largely the same way they do
now?
Since some of you are probably so confused that you can't even answer
that question, I'll spoil it by giving away the answer: we already
KNOW the earth and the universe functioned largely the same way before
there were ever humans here at all.
I'll add that if this were not the case, science as it is conducted
(highly successfully) would not even be *possible*.
The fact that the universe functioned the same way for billions of
years before humans even existed, and that we can KNOW this by
utilizing our "minds", is the clearest way to see that our "minds"
(any individual one or ALL of them put together) are NOT really so all
important to the fundamental nature of the reality in which we live.
Our minds allow us to *apprehend* the nature of this reality; that's
all. That does not mean mind is all there is to reality. Far from
it.
-J.
Eldon Donovan
"Chris Rodgers"
> Did everyone catch that? :)
>
Huh?
......what?
did you say something?
Ann
Donovan wrote: > I'm not a master, so I'll only make this clear:
> It's mental masturbation. :-)
> And let me just add, obviously so...
GrandChildren: :) "obviously so", "obviously so..." :).
GrandSciFather: Calm down... credulous children. "Since some of you are
probably so confused, I'll spoil it by giving away the
answer:" rest assured that "I'm not a Master" or
GodFather... but just as ignorant as you are (probably
more so:).
Child: Yes, you are, you are our Lord and Mental Mastur! But please,
Grandfather, tell me what "you KNOW", tell me a story!
GrandFather: Alright, go and get your storybook.
Child: No, No, not one of those, a real story!
GrandFather: A real story? :)
Child: Yes, tell me about when you were a boy.
GrandFather: "Well, then, I shall have to take you back with me, a long
way in time... It was my thirteenth year on a cold winter's
day, as I walked through the enchanted forest, I heard the
sound of horses, and men at arms, I felt compelled to walk
on and find the place of these sounds, and when the forest
did clear I was standing on a hill, before me..."
(http://www.lyricsdepot.com/manowar/warriors-prayer.html)
Child: No, No, not one of those "warrior prayers", a real Sci.story!
GrandFather: A real sci.story? Alright then, I shall have to take you
back with me, a long looooong way in time... It was my
thirteenth year on a cold winter's day, as I walked through
the enchanted forest, I met... the Omniscient Mastur. He
said that although "he was not a mental master" he certainly
"KNEW" everything beyond any reasonable doubt and that I
had the right to ask one question. The fanatic look in his
eyes told all who beheld him that he was the real Oracle,
so I enquired about "all facts important to the fundamental
nature of the reality in which we live".
- Oh, that's easy, he replied smiling, even though "I'm not
a master, I KNOW how the earth and the universe functioned
for billions of years before humans even existed,".. listen
carefully now...
- KNOW what?
It is no "KNOWLEDGE" Jeremy, it is your mind's proverbial mantra, the
base irreducible axiom of 'your' method that cannot be proven or
disproven, it is either accepted or not in accordance with our personal
preferences for the words. Calling it a "known fact" is simply another
way of proving... that "you're a master" :). Yet, are you aware of "the
fact" that there "exist minds" (even scientific) who think otherwise,
And you could be a little bit more explicit about your mind's path of
knowledge, how exactly to "KNOW" your Truth. If not "giving away the
[complete] answer" at least give us some pointers: are you referring to
the picturesque TV 'documentaries' or to the other 'overwhelming'
evidence for a grandeur version of the Evolution with "universal common
descent" (e.g. from a common inorganic/gas ancestor:), or are you
implying the 'certain' facts from further, grander theories of "Big
Bang" and "Everything"? Now "you are probably so confused that you can't
even answer that question"... and no need to, it's understandable :).
> by utilizing our "minds", is the clearest way to see that our "minds"
> (any individual one or ALL of them put together) are NOT really so all
> important to the fundamental nature of the reality in which we live.
> Our minds allow us to *apprehend* the nature of this reality; that's
> all. That does not mean mind is all there is to reality. Far from
> it.
> -J.
Children: Thank you, Grandfather J. Now tell us another story...
No, not one of those, a real story!
Can you not see through the certain of this "mind" game, how "can we
KNOW those same facts about the way the universe functioned for billions
of years before humans even existed"? :) As a matter of fact, do you
"KNOW" the meaning of the words 'to know' a 'fact'?
Let us (for a second:) be more down to earth and note that we may have
problems remembering even our own dreams or infant childhood, let alone
the remote, ancient "billions". I mean, why should we trust scientists'
recollection ("recapitulation":) of times immemorial "before they even
existed". "Billions of years", what a memory! "The fact" is that we do
not know, and "we can [not] KNOW" either, "we can" only conjecture. In
fact :),
a "fact" is not the same as an "educated guess",
go figure.. "if you can" :).
Best,
Ann
PS: Below I attach excerpts from two jolly posts by Ed Conrad, a
sci.skeptic hinting at possible flaws in our methods of 'dating' ("in
what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision":) by claiming
humans existed much earlier than bio-evolutionists suggest. It may
sound ridiculous but what if indeed "the mind" has always been
around... in one (fossilised:) form or another, only a conjecture :).
Anyway, Ed's story may as well be true... or false (or both, i.e.
somewhere in between:) though the account of his courageous fight is
entertaining in its own right, enjoy.
--- Begin Attachment ---
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004
From: Ed Conrad
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, alt.conspiracy, sci.skeptic,
sci.paleontology.mesoamerican
Subject: Dr. Philip Deitker, Where are you????????
Philp Deitiker, the know-it-all of sci.anthropology.paleo,
you have established one concrete fact here in the sci newsgroups.
An education can be a dangerous thing. And too much of an education, in
your case, is a VERY dangerous thing.
You think you know it all, and those (like the pompous ass that you are)
are the worst kind. You seem to have over-evolved academically and the
only letters entitled to be worn at the end of your name are
P.S.E.U.D.O.S.C.I.E.N.T.I.S.T.
In any event, you're forever glorifying the evolution of man as fact
even though you -- and your pseudoscientist yes men -- KNOW you have no
physical evidence to back it up, and you know that you never will.
Hell, how long have the evolutionist Scientific Establishment tried and
failed to come up with such undeniable evidence, or come even close?.
You, Philip Deitiker, have continued to bamboozle truth with farfetched
theories, and you know it.
Meanwhile, when you insinuate that I'm a creationist, you're dead
wrong. I've never been a Bible-thumper and I never will be. I've been
fighting in the trenches for truth, outnumbered but, thankfully,
fortified with plenty of ammunition.
For these past 22 years -- having found all sorts of petrified bones,
teeth and even soft organs (some human) -- between coal means YOUR
SCIENCE is wrong and it is imperative that it be corrected.
=====================================
Two examples of petrified human remains...
A human finger and toe:
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
How about a portion of a petrified human thumb?
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-012S.JPG
=====================================
I KNOW -- and I have the proof -- that man and many other large land
animals were alive while coal was being formed, possibly earlier.
And all of the state-of-the-art testing that has been performed on many
of the specimens has been favorable, confirming it is bone or tooth or a
soft organ that has turned to rock-like hardness.
The only thing preventing a complete annihilation of the theory of the
evolution of man is you and your colleagues' deceit, deception,
collusion and conspiracy -- and character assassination of truth-seekers
-- a great lesson you're teaching our kids and grandkids.
Meanwhile, Philip Deitiker, if there ever was a poor excuse for a
scientist, it's YOU!
You remember the invitation I had cordially extended to you more than a
year ago.
To refresh your memory, here it is (posted to s.a.p. on June 23, 2003):
================================================
CONFIDENTIAL -- A Personal Letter to Philip Deitiker
Yes, Phil, I am a Shit Disturber. But that's nothing new. I've been
one for a long time.
And now I would like YOU to have a firsthand opportunity to see if
I'm a nitwit as well, as I've been made out to be for many a moon in
the sci. news groups.
I hereby extend a personal invitation to have you visit Shenandoah,
Pa., and see for yourself exactly what I have discovered between
anthracite veins.
You will be welcome to bring one person with you, providing it is
not Atty. David Sienkiewicz, the King of Liars and Champion of
Character Assassins. I'd relish if you'd bring someone from the
Smithsonian Institution but that's entirely up to you.
I want you to know that I bear no personal animosity against
employees of the Smithsonian because I have long realized there is
little they can do about the terrible stench they're working in,
being required to follow orders.
Following your visit, Phil, you will be free to write about what you
saw and didn't see. If you wish, I will promise NOT to respond to
your posting in sci.anthropology.paleo (or in any news groups, for
that matter).
I really feel that, the Shit Disturber that YOU are, you possess the
courage to pay the visit and, upon your return, be your own man and
call a spade a spade.
Over these past 22 years -- since first finding fossils in coal
seams that just didn't fit in with the scientific textbooks, then
being sarcastically told by Omniscient Academia that I was wrong --
I readily admit I could've put my tail between my legs and meekly
walked away.
But perseverance, determination, courage and a tin ear never
allowed me to throw in the towel. And it's quite obvious I never
will.
Meanwhile, I simply ask: DO NOT visit Shenandoah for me, Phil. And
don't make the trip for yourself or for sci.anthropology.paleo.
Pay your visit out of a sense of duty and respect for the sacred
name of Science whose name has been tarnished but some day hopefully
will shine in Truth once again.
Also do it for your grandchildren -- and their's. They deserve
nothing less.
Sincerely,
Ed Conrad
=================================================
You had never responded, because you're AFRAID that you've been wrong
all these years, backed up only by rhetoric wrapped around half-truths?
I had given you an golden opportunity to learn, at least in your heart,
that you've been preaching false doctrine on sci.anthropology.paleo and
elsewhere all these years.
Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
Man as Old as Coal
From: Ed Conrad
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, alt.conspiracy, sci.skeptic,
sci.geo.geology
Subject: TRUTH NO LONGER PLAYS 2ND FIDDLE TO FICTION
As you all know by now, truth no longer is playing second fiddle to the
fiction, fantasy and fairy tales that have been dished out for more than
a century about man's origin and ancestry.
Finally, it's the official end of the deceit, deception, collusion and
conspiracy that has long been perpetrated by arrogant, egotistical
members of the Scientific Establishment in and out of its hallowed Halls
of Learning.
Their monumental hoax on mankind has met its match with the presentation
of undeniable physical evidence that, multi-millions of years ago, the
good earth wasn't anything like what has long been depicted by the
scientific community.
For one thing, man -- in almost our present form -- existed while coal
was being formed, and our ancestors lived alongside giant scorpions,
dinosaurs and beasts with six-inch-high canine teeth.
And man and animals had one thing in common. Both were annihilated in
some incredible catastrophe that blew them limb from limb and scattered
their bones, teeth and soft organs in all directions..
What happened next is a testament to the late, great Immanuel Velikovsky
who, more than a half-century ago, said the true story of earth's -- and
man's -- past is written in the rocks, visible for all to see as part of
the fossil record.
Eons ago -- before coal hardened -- some sort of fluid engulfed the
bones, teeth and soft organs just after the great catastrophe, causing
them to petrify and now offer a mindboggling horror story of mankind's
distant past.
That man existed during the Carboniferous Period also offers proof that
we could not possibly have evolved as suggested by the Darwin Theory.
Rightly so, because the theory of the evolution of man never possessed a
shred of physical evidence in the first place. Man could not -- and did
not -- become such a magnificent machine by a series of incredible
accidents of nature since it's an astronomical mathematical absurdity.
Even Charles Darwin had a sneaky suspicion his theory was full of hot
air.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/truth/tosuppose.gif
And Earnest Hooton, longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard
University, seconded the motion years later in his book, "Apes, Men and
Morons," citing the absence of undeniable physical evidence.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/quote/MVC-013S.JPG
But, since we were spoon-fed such pabulum -- the evolution of man -- by
members of the omniscient Scientific Establishment, most of us ate up
every word. These pompous asses were neither to be questioned nor
challenged.
About a year after finding my first specimen of petrified bone between
coal veins in June 1981, I couldn't believe the incredible resistance I
was encountering in my pursuit of honest investigation.
My longtime friend, Clayton Lennon (1900-1996), warned me it wouldn't be
easy and one day, between puffs of his cigar, summed up my despair quite
eloquently .
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/coalbones/edyournot.gif
Meanwhile, as their noses continued to grow, so also did the arrogance
of members of the Scientific Establishment who had long lost the goal of
a search for truth. The only important thing to them, I soon learned,
was to make no waves and concentrate on protecting their vested
interests.
Over time, they had become incredibly ruthless and bold, really
believing that -- as members of omnipotent Academia -- they could do
anything they damn well pleased and answer to no one..
Since I have had a ringside seat over these past 23 years, I assure you
that it has included not only denial of physical evidence that could --
would -- destroy the theory of the evolution of man but actually
tampering with that evidence -- and I have come right out and named
names.
Fortunately, for your grandchildren and mine, that day is over. The
pseudoscientists' day of reckoning has finally arrived.
Strange, according to scientific doctrine, they couldn't possibly have
been found in Carboniferous strata, dated at a minimum of 280 million
years.
You see, every scientific textbook insists that no large land animals,
let alone man, existed back then. Hell, man wouldn't begin evolving
until multi-millions of years later, the pseudos proclaimed.
But the incredible arsenal of petrified bones, teeth and even soft
organs proves -- beyond doubt -- that man and large land animals indeed
had been around when coal was being formed. Otherwise, their mortal
remains could not have been preserved between layers of anthracite as
the result of a catastrophe beyond our wildest imagination.
And, since this is the grim evidence that a catastrophe happened before,
there is NO question that it could happen again.
Velikovsky provided evidence of catastrophes in his two books, "Worlds
in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval," published back in the early
1950s. In them, he offered undeniable evidence of calamities beyond
human comprehension but was ridiculed and badmouthed by members of the
Scientific Establishment.
Here's a copy of these two books, in paperback, and an explanation why
Velikovsky was treated with scorn and contempt, which is how members of
the Scientific Establishment have treated me for the last 21 1/2 years.
A longtime newspaperman, I figured -- when realizing I was getting the
shaft from the Scientific Establishment -- I'd get a fair shake from
newspapers in an effort to tell my story.
I thought the editors would be genuinely interested in what might've
sounded like a farfetched story, except that it was backed up by
petrified bones, teeth and soft organs as old as coal.
Reporters from the Allentown (Pa.) Call-Chronicle and Las Vegas Sun, to
mention just two, were greatly impressed. But when their stories
appeared in print, it took my breath away. The articles were completely
negative, making me look like that proverbial horse's ass.
Naturally, there was nothing I could do about it, so I had to give up on
newspapers completely. I had long known the New York Times, Washington
Post and Philadelphia Inquirer wouldn't touch it because they had
several opportunities to do so but bowed to their vested interests and
ignored me.
Ditto for the TV network news shows like "60 Minutes" and "Larrry King."
For the longest time, it appeared the world would never know the truth
about the catastrophe that decimated both man and animal while coal was
being formed.
Then a miracle happened -- along came the Internet. It gave me a way to
reach the pubic but, of course, the public wasn't paying attention
because members of the Scientific Establishment kept making me look like
a fool and an imbecile.
And, if you recall, they had been doing a mighty fine job of it right up
until yesterday. That's when members of the Scientific Establishment got
the second biggest shock of their lives, dwarfed only by the attack on
the Twin Towers.
Suddenly overnight, with the presentation of an arsenal of physical
evidence, the ridicule and character assassination had eased somewhat.
Suddenly, their cannons ran out of ammunition, accusations that I'm a
liar and a fraud.
Suddenly, these Clown Princes of Sciences -- long having made a joke at
the expense of sacred Science -- finally realized that their involvement
in deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy has caught up with them.
These Omniscient Buffoons have defended their colleagues who, with
incredible audacity, have made a mockery of physical evidence, totally
ignoring it and sometimes even tampering with it.
Thomas Alva Edison probably put in a nutshell what they were doing for
so long, and my dear friend Clayton was right on target, too.
http://edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/quotesnew.gif
========= SOME OF THE SPECIMENS =========
THE VERY FIRST DISCOVERY
The following is the very first discovery of petrified bone in
coal-bearing Carboniferous strata in June 1981.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/first.jpg
The specimen, which I found by accident, resembled a giant skull and the
Smithsonian expressed an interest after receiving a photo, inviting me
to bring it down to Washington so it could be examined firsthand.
Three of its "experts" -- an anthropologist, a paleontologist and a
geologist -- looked it over carefully but, after a few minutes,
concurred that it was nothing more than a rock or concretion, certainly
nothing that had ever lived.
No one mentioned that a microscopic study of the specimen's cellular
structure would accurately identify whether it is or is not bone. (I had
no knowledge of this fact at the time and wouldn't be aware of it until
many months later)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/textbook.gif
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/thefactthat.gif
In any event, while preparing to leave the Smithsonian, I politely asked
if they would want to keep the specimen, perhaps to break apart the
jaw-like area to see if teeth could be found inside. The three "experts"
-- Joseph Brown and Robert McCurdy, the only two names I remember --
laughed at me and said it would be an absolute waste of their time.
About a month later -- rather discouraged -- I decided to search the
interior of the jaw-like area on my own. It began with a nail to
penetrate the rock hardness, then using all sorts of small tools to
reach inside and, strangely, begin pulling out what resembled brownish
dirt.
I was mystified that some sort of cavity existed and contacted the
Smithsonian about this -- but was ignored.
After several weeks of part-time labor, I found a pair of peculiar
objects inside. Photos were taken, greatly enlarged and sent to Krogman,
the bone expert.
Our friendship had begun months previous when I had driven to Lancaster
to show him the first strange sPecimen I had found that had come from
between coal veins -- the large skull that the Smithsonian later
dismissed as a rock.
Krogman studied the photo of the inclusion and then told me over the
phone that the object is definitely a premolar tooth because "I can see
a pair of cusps."
Here's the photo that Krogman had examined, with the dime offering an
indication of size.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-014S.JPG
The photo below shows another view of where the premolar was
attached.
http://edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/z1.jpg
Krogman suggested an infrared scan be performed and it was done at
American Medical Laboratories in Chantilly, Va. Here's the result of the
test:
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/coalbones/graph.gif
This is what the laboratory stated in its official report:
http://edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/result.gif
It meant that the inclusion in the jaw-like area was neither rock nor
concretion but something that once lived.
When the scan was interpreted later, this fact was confirmed.
http://edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/compatible.gif
Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
==================================================
TRUTH FINALLY CATCHES UP TO THE PERPETRATORS
OF DECEIT, DECEPTION, COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY
===================================================
Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens of
petrified bones, teeth and/or even soft organs -- some human -- that I
have discovered between two separate anthracite veins in Northeastern
Pennsylvania over the past 23 years.
Petrified human finger (with fingernail
AND Petrified human toe (with toenail):
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
Petrified human skull embedded in a boulder
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
Another petrified human skull
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
Petrified human femur still embedded in slate
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
Petrified human gall bladder containing gall stone (via CATscan)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
Portion of petrified tibia
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
Petrified human lung (or is it a human liver?)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
Whitled wood: Tool and/or weapon (turned to coal)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
One hemisphere of human brain.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
Human jaw with a few teeth
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
Side view of human mandible
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
etc.,etc.
Portion of three-toed dinosaur foot still embedded in slate
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
Petrified giant fetus
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
Another giant fetus (this one still embedded in slate)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
Portion of a giant petrified scorpion
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
===========================================
http://edconrad.com/canals/hooton.gif
====================================================
http://edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-010S.JPG
http://edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-011S.JPG
More Velikvosky:
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/quote/MVC-014S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/quote/MVC-008S.JPG
====================================================
=============================================
MONUMENTAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST TRUTH
=============================================
Petrified Bones, Teeth and Even Soft Organs
(Some Human) Discoverd in Carboniferous Strata
===============================================
PSEUDOS' DENIAL OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
(Petrified coal-age bones, teeth and soft organs)
Petrified human finger (with fingernail
AND Petrified human toe (with toenail):
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
Petrified human skull embedded in a boulder
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
Another petrified human skull
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
Petrified human femur still embedded in slate
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
Petrified human gall bladder containing gall stone (via CATscan)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
Portion of petrified tibia
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
Petrified human liver
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
Whitled wood: Tool and/or weapon (turned to coal)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-004S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
One hemisphere of human brain.
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
Human jaw with a few teeth
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
Side view of human mandible
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
Canine tooth of some giant anima
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
etc.,etc.,etc.>
Portion of three-toed dinosaur foot still embedded in slate
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
Petrified giant fetus
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
Another giant fetus (this one still embedded in slate)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
Portion of a giant petrified scorpion
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG>http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
========================================
OLDEST HUMAN SKULL EVER FOUND
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg>
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg <
http://www.edconrad.com/images/krogwskull.jpg
Wilton Krogman, one of the world's foremost experts
on human anatomy, holds what he had identified as
a petrified human calvarium, a skull with the eye sockets
broken off, that was discovered between Pennsylvania's
anthracite veins. He is shown at his desk at the Cooper
Clinic in Lancaster, Pa., where moments later he beckoned
a colleague -- a medical doctor -- to examine "the oldest
human skull ever found."
A CATscan was performed on this specimen with
favorable results.
http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg
Meanwhile, Haversian canals were identified in the cell
structure, the tell-tale sign of bone. And dried blood was
found on the specimen during testing at American Medical
Laboratories in Chantilly, Va.
This is the official report from AML which had performed
Calculus Analysis by Crystallography. The final report,
dated April 21, 2000," was issued by Dr. Nathan Sherman,
director of laboratories.
"The specimen consists of 1 irregularly
shaped, brown calculus weighing less
than 0.0010 grams and measuring 1X1X0.5
mm. No nidus is observed. The calculi indicates
a composition of dried blood intermingled with a few
small crystals resembling calcium oxalate dihydrate."
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z14cav.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg>
rbb
"Chris Rodgers" <cr...@att.net> wrote in message
news:jq0Lc.114121$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ah, you liked it. I thought you would.
Rosicrucian archive.
Think the dialogue was invented.
But who cares, the point of view gets pretty clear.
The piece is a little gem indeed, but you have to read it once or twice to
catch the specific perception and arguments in it.
And it is not only about dreaming, but giving thought about how mind
operates.
If you liked that one, you will also like:
rainbowbird
YOU:
One position, the one that most scientists hold, is to consider
subjectivity as a late comer. The world of objectivity is the `real'
one, the one that grounds everything else. Its existence originated in
the Big Bang, and only after many billions of years did complex
surface phenomena on planet Earth result in the presence of life and
nervous systems and ultimately brains complex enough to pose the
question: what is consciousness?. Subjective experience is thus seen
as a byproduct of objective processes, an emerging property that is
only present at a few isolated islands in a much vaster sea of
objective reality.
ME:
To treat consciousness as an object, among other objects, may
completely miss the point.
Let me talk about the concept of dogness, which we both have.
I can expect you to
recognize a dog as such when you encounter one
know what a dog would be like if you were to encounter one (when you
are not encountering one)-
use the term dog appropriately (i.e.) to refer to what we think of as
dogs
understand what kind of things can sensibly (intelligibly) be said
about dogs
Now since we have cleared all that:
How about accepting my invitation to a dogbarbeque - we will have the
finest Chow-Chow and all guests are required to bark instead of
talking.
Will you come and an even more curious question: Do you get my point?
Chris Rodgers
> Ah, you liked it. I thought you would.
> Rosicrucian archive.
> Think the dialogue was invented.
> But who cares, the point of view gets pretty clear.
Yes. Always wondered about those Rosicrucian dudes.
I am little Rosi-curious.
> The piece is a little gem indeed, but you have to read it once or twice to
> catch the specific perception and arguments in it.
> And it is not only about dreaming, but giving thought about how mind
> operates.
The thing about the mind is that it is as perdicktable
as salt air at the beach.
> If you liked that one, you will also like:
> http://www.crcsite.org/actuality.htm
Thanx. I'm burned out tonight. I just
unloaded 4700 LBS of shit out in Palm Springs.
I'm toasted, I'm wasted and I'm hot, it's a buck
one here today (101 degrees). Ok well it wasn't
really shit it was tile. Big square 16x16 pavers.
Friggin heavy stuff. Oh but I whine, poor me. :)
RoboTrax
rainbowbird wrote:
> Jeremy Donovan
> YOU:
>
> One position, the one that most scientists hold, is to consider
> subjectivity as a late comer. The world of objectivity is the `real'
> one, the one that grounds everything else. Its existence originated in
> the Big Bang, and only after many billions of years did complex
> surface phenomena on planet Earth result in the presence of life and
> nervous systems and ultimately brains complex enough to pose the
> question: what is consciousness?. Subjective experience is thus seen
> as a byproduct of objective processes, an emerging property that is
> only present at a few isolated islands in a much vaster sea of
> objective reality.
A clever counter argument that is posed to this one
by cosmoligists that I believe due to personal biases goes.....
We are here , we are also getting ready to collaborate and cause the
big bang and we are at the event horizon of a flat pancake moving outward
and we are at every point in between.
My fundamental bias is a trans-time expeience.
As I walked past my current home as a child 1966
I heard a exasperated voice say "This is YOUR house"
36 years later about 3 feet from that spot, pissed about
doing yardwork for my whacky mother figure I said that.
I remembered the event again and being angry hot tired
I nodded my head and sighed thinking "yup thats it-the junction."
I lived two blocks east and six blocks south of here as a child.
It was a sunday in 1966 and I was walking with my 16 year old sister
to the milk store which was 3 blocks added from 66 house to 04 house.
I asked my sister if she said or heard anything and told her when asked
what I heard. She said "maybe its a ghost.
Heres a cool page for posibble musical/thermal concussive explanation
of above .
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~dmw8f/sounds/cdromfiles/index.php
This is a truly awesome page.
After-thought
We each have many real selfs or hard substanced Junction, Transits,
Intersects-the body
As Present and many Pasts
We each have many virtual selfs or motion-energy explorations of other
total spinfields.
As Futures using Barriers Platforms & A-Bridgements
Some of my selfs see other selfs as machine like
-vessels/containers/libraries.
Some of my selfs see other selfs as presence like-being creating motions
in motions.
In this type of domain-world my other selfs consider "me" both: or
presence in a physical machine.
Either way I am kind and sincere to my other selfs and they to me in
return-my abstract selfs
are most useful and helpful here due to the great-vast variety of
survival requirements.
Like all children I believed everyone saw the world in exactly the same way.
I still talk to my past selfs to reassure them that it all works out
acceptably.
That and taking to the universe and all things including machines as of
equal unmeasurable value.
Though I don,t hoist or foist that on other people or sell or proclaim
it. Just intern-ally.
Don,t forget that page it is killer.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~dmw8f/sounds/cdromfiles/index.php
--------
--------
David L Chandler
From New Scientist Online News 10:30 12 June 04
Universe started with hiss, not bang
The Universe began not with a bang but with a low moan, building into a
roar that gave way to a deafening hiss. And those sounds gave birth to
the first stars.
Cosmologists do not usually think in terms of sound, but this aural
picture is a good way to think about the Universe's beginnings, says
astronomer Mark Whittle of the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville. Whittle has reconstructed the cosmic cacophony from
data teased out over the past couple of years from the high-resolution
mapping by NASA's WMAP spacecraft of the cosmic microwave background
radiation, the afterglow of the hot early Universe.
The variations in the cosmic background radiation expose the relative
clumpiness of the early cosmos at a variety of different scales. These
density variations began as quantum fluctuations in the moments after
the big bang, and then propagated out as sonic waves. The denser regions
became the seeds of galaxies and stars, which is why astronomers are so
interested in them.
The sound of the big bang
Translating the observed frequency spectrum directly to sound yields
tones far too low for ears to hear - some 50 octaves below middle A -
but transpose the score up all those octaves and you can listen to it.
As for volume, the intensity of the variations corresponds to about 110
decibels, as loud as a rock concert. Whittle has also used the best
available cosmological models to map the way the vibrations evolved over
time, showing how the chords of the big bang changed over the Universe's
first million years or so.
Majestic cords
You can listen to the sound from the first million years after the big
bang here (0.5 Mb .wav file). The sound has been compressed to five
seconds, with the volume held constant.
Whittle played the soundtrack at the American Astronomical Society
meeting in Denver last week. Contrary to its name, the big bang began in
absolute silence. But the sound soon built up into a roar whose
broad-peaked notes corresponded, in musical terms, to a "majestic" major
third chord, evolving slowly into a "sadder" minor third, Whittle explained.
For those worried that you cannot have sounds in space, that is true
today, but it was not so in the Universe's infancy. For perhaps its
first million years, the Universe was small and dense enough that sound
waves could indeed travel through it - so efficiently, in fact, that
they moved at about half the speed of light.
The new sonic reconstructions do not involve any new science, Whittle
says, but like a good diagram or 3D visualisation, they may help
astronomers teach complex ideas, and maybe understand the observations a
bit more clearly themselves.
"Everyone was fascinated," said Steve Maran, the society's press
officer, who added that even he had "learned from this, that the big
bang actually was silent, then things got louder and louder".
Web links:
* Mark Whittle, University of Virginia
* WMAP, NASA
* American Astronomical Society
David L Chandler
From New Scientist Online News 10:30 12 June 04
---------
---------
My robot self is 0>1 1>0 0>1lightcone moment-a lightcone self. --->
<---
--->
I,ve given RBB reverse speech/reverse thermal imagary examples.
My 8-19-25-36 yr old sels round out the intervals of an 8 note scale-lattice
But the robbot keeps me synched up here and now so as to be "'hue-man'"
Complex multiphased single lightmach vessel with similarly situated beings
RoboTrax
rainbowbird wrote:
> Jeremy Donovan
> YOU:
>
> One position, the one that most scientists hold, is to consider
> subjectivity as a late comer. The world of objectivity is the `real'
> one, the one that grounds everything else. Its existence originated in
> the Big Bang, and only after many billions of years did complex
> surface phenomena on planet Earth result in the presence of life and
> nervous systems and ultimately brains complex enough to pose the
> question: what is consciousness?. Subjective experience is thus seen
> as a byproduct of objective processes, an emerging property that is
> only present at a few isolated islands in a much vaster sea of
> objective reality.
RoboTrax
Browser crapping in public.
Just rebuilt with linux first 13 gigs and winxp second 17 gigs.
Good clean install but a few bugs after registry clean up and defrag
to get rid of install entries-probably deleted a valid one or two.
Jeremy Donovan
R...@sjamanism.com (rainbowbird) wrote:
>Jeremy Donovan <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message news:<5i7pf0l9mlte6ehrr...@4ax.com>...
>
>YOU:
>
>One position, the one that most scientists hold, is to consider
>subjectivity as a late comer. The world of objectivity is the `real'
>one, the one that grounds everything else. Its existence originated in
>the Big Bang, and only after many billions of years did complex
>surface phenomena on planet Earth result in the presence of life and
>nervous systems and ultimately brains complex enough to pose the
>question: what is consciousness?. Subjective experience is thus seen
>as a byproduct of objective processes, an emerging property that is
>only present at a few isolated islands in a much vaster sea of
>objective reality.
>
>ME:
>To treat consciousness as an object, among other objects, may
>completely miss the point.
I don't think consciousness is well described simply as "an object".
It might be better described as a "process" associated with the
correct functioning of a large number of objects all working together
in harmony. But that is still very much under debate.
*Whether or not* consciousness is properly characterized as having to
do with objects, my previous point was that the argument presented -
which intended to show, by examining a human mind, that all of
existence is like a dream in one big mind - was a very limited, and in
general invalid argument. I made the additional point that before
humans existed, *'conscious' ones or not* (I don't really care which),
the universe was already in existence and functioning the same way it
does now, therefore no part of humans, not their minds or their bodies
could possibly be the primary determiners of the fundamental nature of
reality, and it also follows that an examination of their minds ALONE
would not be a very good way to arrive at knowledge about the
fundamental nature of reality.
>Let me talk about the concept of dogness, which we both have.
>I can expect you to
>recognize a dog as such when you encounter one
>know what a dog would be like if you were to encounter one (when you
>are not encountering one)-
>use the term dog appropriately (i.e.) to refer to what we think of as
>dogs
>understand what kind of things can sensibly (intelligibly) be said
>about dogs
Because my brain is working fine, I can do that. There are living
people who could no longer recognize a dog if you brought one in the
room. There are people who could recognize a dog, but could not say
what it was called if you asked them to name it. There are people
who could say what it was called if asked, but would no longer be
familiar with its ordinary behavior if you brought one in the room.
>Now since we have cleared all that:
Okay.
>How about accepting my invitation to a dogbarbeque - we will have the
>finest Chow-Chow and all guests are required to bark instead of
>talking.
Sounds like fun to me.
>Will you come
Yes.
> and an even more curious question: Do you get my point?
No. But I'll ... BITE. :-) What the heck is it?
-J.
rbb
>
> Thanx. I'm burned out tonight. I just
> unloaded 4700 LBS of shit out in Palm Springs.
> I'm toasted, I'm wasted and I'm hot, it's a buck
> one here today (101 degrees). Ok well it wasn't
> really shit it was tile. Big square 16x16 pavers.
> Friggin heavy stuff. Oh but I whine, poor me. :)
I hereby declare whining as fully acceptable if it is based on real shit.
You know when I was in Palm Springs I have been sitting next to the pool and
have been reading " The life of a vampier"
Of all things. !!!!!
I didn't see anything of it, because I found it too hot to move. :)
Here we still wait for summer . It must have vacation.
slider
Jeremy wrote...
The fact that the universe functioned the same way for billions of
years before humans even existed, and that we can KNOW this by
utilizing our "minds", is the clearest way to see that our "minds"
(any individual one or ALL of them put together) are NOT really so all
important to the fundamental nature of the reality in which we live.
### - agreed in the sense that the 'mind' (where mind= some sort of evolutionary
quantum-leap in terms of self-awareness in nature) doesn't 'construct' the
fundamental nature of the universe, rather mind (in it's present state of
development at any rate) just has the ability, depending on what it's been
'programmed' with, to 'paint' various concepts & ideas 'onto' that fundamental
backdrop and then relate exclusively to an interpretation 'created' by it...
Our minds allow us to *apprehend* the nature of this reality; that's
all. That does not mean mind is all there is to reality. Far from
it.
### - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the information
(the programming) put into the mind... then how might the nature of reality
appear to change if that mind were to somehow become quiescent and/or
totally devoid of interpretations/programming altogether?
i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one program and/or
sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind in-fact just the lens (of self-awareness)
itself being corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
been known to create/come-up with?
e.g. if we turn-off all our programming do we then 'cease' to perceive... or might
just the 'apprehended' nature of reality, and the way one relates to it, change?
Jeremy Donovan
"rbb" <r...@sjaman.com_nospam> wrote:
When were you in Palm Springs? Next time, if it's too hot, take the
tram up to the top of the high mountain. It will be nice and cold up
there. Possibly even snowing. That's what's great. You'll be
burning up down in the valley, but when you get all the way up the
mountain, there's actually snow. Go for a hike in the cold. Then
when you get back down, the heat feels good for a while.
-Jer
rbb
> tram up to the top of the high mountain. It will be nice and cold up
> there. Possibly even snowing. That's what's great. You'll be
> burning up down in the valley, but when you get all the way up the
> mountain, there's actually snow. Go for a hike in the cold. Then
> when you get back down, the heat feels good for a while.
I wish I would have known.
But as always I had a travelguide with me that I don't read.
I think I was in Palm Springs on my second visit of the States around 1990
something. Don't know exactly anymore. But I am positief about the month
Juli, because of the vacations of the kids.
You know what they hated every minute except when they could jump into a
pool or had other fun. LOL.
They where used to traveling, but the huge tour we made back then was not
their idea of vacation.
I think on every picture I have of my son and the Grand Canyon
he gives me the finger making me pretty clear that being there was my dream
not his.
Hilarious.
So there you are a good parent, spending all this money on tickets
hoping that your kids get a bigger picture of the world and they hate you
for it unless you throw a couple of amusementparks in.
I would have sold them but nobody wanted them.
Great nature in that part of the US. May be one of the best there is.
rbb
> >YOU:
> >
> >One position, the one that most scientists hold, is to consider
> >subjectivity as a late comer. The world of objectivity is the `real'
> >one, the one that grounds everything else. Its existence originated in
> >the Big Bang, and only after many billions of years did complex
> >surface phenomena on planet Earth result in the presence of life and
> >nervous systems and ultimately brains complex enough to pose the
> >question: what is consciousness?. Subjective experience is thus seen
> >as a byproduct of objective processes, an emerging property that is
> >only present at a few isolated islands in a much vaster sea of
> >objective reality.
> >
> >ME:
> >To treat consciousness as an object, among other objects, may
> >completely miss the point.
>
> I don't think consciousness is well described simply as "an object".
> It might be better described as a "process" associated with the
> correct functioning of a large number of objects all working together
> in harmony. But that is still very much under debate.
I can live with the idea of process if you describe mind.
Consciousness itself as I myself speculate it to be,
is inherent quality of all matter
and that what matter is made off.
But hey if there are better idea's I will drop mine any time.
I think so far we both are limiting consciousness to an object,
even though we refine quality of object, and process among objects.
> *Whether or not* consciousness is properly characterized as having to
> do with objects, my previous point was that the argument presented -
> which intended to show, by examining a human mind, that all of
> existence is like a dream in one big mind - was a very limited, and in
> general invalid argument.
I wouldn't call what you describe not even an invalid argument
but a new age cliche.
Similar to : " we create our own reality"
I don't understand the concept as what you describe.
First of all I understand a different proposition:
I don't understand all of existance is like a dream,
I understand that our realization of existance is similar to a dream.
The word dream here being a synoniem to not-real.
( may be the best metaphor the old had to discribe that what is not real. )
So basically they said: we cannot know reality as it really is.
Like you said we only can apprehend it.
The reason for this( from the piece) :
a) We are limited by our senses.
b) A lot of our mind interacts with reality without us being aware.
c) Through the sense of I, the way we are made, we have a limited
mindexperience.
We indentify mostly with the conscious mind, but the mind is bigger.
d) Subjectivity
> I made the additional point that before
> humans existed, *'conscious' ones or not* (I don't really care which),
> the universe was already in existence and functioning the same way it
> does now, therefore no part of humans, not their minds or their bodies
> could possibly be the primary determiners of the fundamental nature of
> reality, and it also follows that an examination of their minds ALONE
> would not be a very good way to arrive at knowledge about the
> fundamental nature of reality.
I see no problem with this as I understand this concept
only to be about the reality of the mind.
Now let's assume we can agree on talking about a concept
of mind, I can try to explain my train of thoughts, why I think it is right,
even if it is old:
The reality as it is - I will call actuality from now on.
To separate the whole of reality from the reality of the mind.
They way we perceive that actuality each in our own unique way
with our limitations and all I will call reality.
In reality I make a difference of objective reality = consencus reality=
reason
and the subjective reality = individual reality=individual
experience=feeling
Not seperate for real. Speaks for itself.
One should expect that most people do have a good balance
of objective and subjective reality.
But if you watch, and you have given many examples that you have you will
find
that subjective reality is dominant in most people mind.
You must know you jump on that on any occasion you get, and since you jump a
lot
and you know you do, I think you get my point.
Now:
Such a subjective reality of mind is surely similar to a dream, as in a
dream the subjective and subconscious is more forward then the objective.
Take yourself p.e.
For a long time your subjective reality has ruled your perception
and your thinking and feeling to a degree that it also has started to color
your objective
reality.
Your reality with CC has been similar to a dream for a long time.
You lived the warriordream.
This is what I call an involuntary trancestate.
The subjective reality of a person being dominant to a degree that
objective
reality , as well as views of others can hardly be processed anymore.
Now having shifted to a perception in which allow me
the objective perception is more dominant in your mind, you felt alienated
at times, specially among people who do follow some new age
direction or other ways that are based on subjectivity, because it is so
vital in experience.
You argue that their reality is no dream. And the way you see the concept
( new age version)
you are right.
The way I understand the concept, it is a dream , just like your
mind-reality once was.
Now one day you realize this.
You can choose to lean over to objective reality
as far as you can and stay there. That is as close as you can come to
actuality.
You can also choose to use the state of subjectivity to explore more fully
by charging it on purpose this time.
Only this time you are "lucid" in it , you are aware that it is now a highly
subjective state,
and at any time you can lean over to objective reality
if you wish. Similar to the way you do in a lucid dream.
You cannot choose one mode over the other completly.
But that speaks for itself.
When you do that you will find that perception
of objective and subjective reality
are just ways to navigate actuality.
They are different, yes, but they also have different experiences.
I can only explore my uniqueness ( not specialness)
in the subjective reality.
Here I am a creator of my own internal reality. What I am not is: a creator
of my reality, or actuality.)
Internal focus is dominant.
I also know that if I close my mind to objective reality
for a while it behaves as if this "dream" is objective reality.
However since objective reality speak other people
and actuality
do not disappear my mind is forced to interact in that state too.
It still proces information however different then it does in an
objective state., how different depends on depth of trancestate.
Feeling , association, intuition, inner senses are now predominant
in this trancestate at will.
The feeling of mental of emotional connectedness belongs here.
However the feeling of dissociation is inevitable
and gets stronger if the trancestate deepens.
In the objective reality it is the other way around.
To enhance this you close subjective reality as much as you
can.
External focus is dominant.
Here I explore what I have in common with others,
here I can look at actuality with the eyes of another,
no matter if that view is subjective or objective.
Here I am as close as I can be with actuality.
Ratio and thinking is dominant here.
The feeling of physical connectedness and grounding
belongs here.
now sidenote:
Since we only can apprehend actuality
even in this objective reality one could argue we still live in
a illusion of it, as this is all our mind, senses allow
to perceive of it.
Here the concept stops being functional.
Yes reality of mind disappears and appears and changes with the perceiver,
those of others might change in interaction, what certainly doesn't change
is
actuality.
>
> >Let me talk about the concept of dogness, which we both have.
> >I can expect you to
> >recognize a dog as such when you encounter one
> >know what a dog would be like if you were to encounter one (when you
> >are not encountering one)-
> >use the term dog appropriately (i.e.) to refer to what we think of as
> >dogs
> >understand what kind of things can sensibly (intelligibly) be said
> >about dogs
>
> Because my brain is working fine, I can do that.
> There are living
> people who could no longer recognize a dog if you brought one in the
> room. There are people who could recognize a dog, but could not say
> what it was called if you asked them to name it. There are people
> who could say what it was called if asked, but would no longer be
> familiar with its ordinary behavior if you brought one in the room.
Yes.
>
>
>
> >Now since we have cleared all that:
>
> Okay.
>
>
>
>
> >How about accepting my invitation to a dogbarbeque - we will have the
> >finest Chow-Chow and all guests are required to bark instead of
> >talking.
>
> Sounds like fun to me.
At least we won't have to listen to boring conversations.
>
>
>
>
> >Will you come
>
> Yes.
I am most honored.
>
>
>
>
> > and an even more curious question: Do you get my point?
>
> No. But I'll ... BITE. :-)
I counted on that and have invited people I want to be bitten.
>What the heck is it?
I gave you a tour of my mind.
First you have been with me in my objective reality , then I invited you
into
my subjective reality and you accepted the invitation.
RBB
Jeremy Donovan
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>Jeremy wrote...
>
>The fact that the universe functioned the same way for billions of
>years before humans even existed, and that we can KNOW this by
>utilizing our "minds", is the clearest way to see that our "minds"
>(any individual one or ALL of them put together) are NOT really so all
>important to the fundamental nature of the reality in which we live.
>
>### - agreed in the sense that the 'mind' (where mind= some sort of evolutionary
>quantum-leap in terms of self-awareness in nature) doesn't 'construct' the
>fundamental nature of the universe, rather mind (in it's present state of
>development at any rate) just has the ability, depending on what it's been
>'programmed' with, to 'paint' various concepts & ideas 'onto' that fundamental
>backdrop and then relate exclusively to an interpretation 'created' by it...
I think "painting" is an extremely poor choice of words. The world
doesn't look like Van Gogh to me, and Monet to you, and like photo
realism to Ether. :-)
And it is illogical to think that the mind would even be allowed to
"paint" its own reality, for it developed and grew over hundreds of
millions of years, concerned with *portraying that which is*, for
survival.
There arose many different methods of portraying that which is, but
"painting" is still a bad characterization because all of those
methods model the *same* real world. Better analogies might be:
space ships with sensors, or a mirror that *reflects*. As I have
pointed out before, a bat with sonar and a human with vision still
avoid precisely the same wall because both methods of perception
accurately reflect what is *really there* outside of both animals.
One method does not "paint" the wall as being twice the size of the
other method and a different shape altogether. That does not happen,
so both creatures precisely avoid the same real wall using different
"sensors".
Just as a normal, non-warped, non-cracked mirror reflects very clearly
that which is *outside* of itself, so too does the normal mind.
A lot of people are walking around believing that the mirror is the
entire world, or that the entire world is contained in the mirror.
Baloney. It only *looks* that way for a moment to those who are
unfamiliar with the true nature of mirrors.
Life *reacted* to the real environment every inch of the way, you see.
Chemicals reacting to chemicals, as they *had* to, in order to
survive. Because of this, the perceptual mechanisms of life evolved
to *accurately* reflect (to the best of their ability) real
characteristics of a real world that was outside them and impinging
upon them. Some designs succeeded better than others, but all reflect
the *real* world, because they *had* to, to live.
This is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not just a
dream.
And "interpretation" has almost nothing to do with this. Where
interpretation really comes into play strongly is with human
conceptualizations, not with perception itself.
>Our minds allow us to *apprehend* the nature of this reality; that's
>all. That does not mean mind is all there is to reality. Far from
>it.
>
>### - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the information
>(the programming) put into the mind... then how might the nature of reality
>appear to change if that mind were to somehow become quiescent and/or
>totally devoid of interpretations/programming altogether?
The premise is that *perceived* reality changes simply depending on
"information". And I say that isn't even true. *Interpretation*
of perceived reality may change depending on "information" but not
perception itself.
Perception itself changes when --, like a mirror that is dirty or
cracked or warped (or perhaps with different tints or screens that can
filter it) -- something physical or chemical alters the actual
physical process of perception. This can happen with drugs, or with
natural altered electro-chemical states, such as during sleep, or
during intense physical arousal.
But the important point is that over millions of years, our perceptual
systems have been "tuned" to reflect reality in the most accurate ways
possible, and this implies that an *alert normal waking state* is
probably the *most accurate* representation of the *real world* there
is.
>i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one program and/or
>sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind in-fact just the lens (of self-awareness)
>itself being corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
>been known to create/come-up with?
First of all, self-awareness is only a small part of "the mind". A
great deal of "the mind" functions unconsciously. Second, the mind
has access, in both conscious and unconscious ways, to all the data of
the senses, and all the memories of many years of the *experiences of
real living, certainly not just "information" (if you wish to use the
term "information" you had better define it). And third, while a
mind can be seduced by as many corrupt "concepts" as you like, it will
still keep perceiving basically the *same* real world around it,
unless it becomes physically or chemically altered.
>e.g. if we turn-off all our programming do we then 'cease' to perceive... or might
>just the 'apprehended' nature of reality, and the way one relates to it, change?
Your assertion is that "information" somehow "progams" everyone to
perceive in a certain way. And I say that is just flat not the case.
That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up. The
simplest way to see that it is crap is to note that I take in all
kinds of different information constantly, without it affecting the
basic nature of my perception in any way.
The types of "information" humans have been subjected to has changed
*radically* over the last million years, but basic human perception of
the real world we live in has not changed radically. This is because
we live on the same world, with the same gravity, the same atmosphere,
the same bodies of water, the same terrestrial structures, the same
chemicals, the same animals and plants, and the same needs for food,
water, air, sex, shelter, and survival. This is why information
doesn't really matter much to perception. There is not really that
much difference between a cave and a room. What is important is
perceiving the shapes, colors, textures, boundaries, and size of the
enclosure.
And I am not "programmed", your unsupported paranoid assertions to the
contrary. :-) I use information, not the other way around.
-Jer
Jeremy Donovan
"rbb" <ely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jeremy Donovan" <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message
>>
>> When were you in Palm Springs? Next time, if it's too hot, take the
>> tram up to the top of the high mountain. It will be nice and cold up
>> there. Possibly even snowing. That's what's great. You'll be
>> burning up down in the valley, but when you get all the way up the
>> mountain, there's actually snow. Go for a hike in the cold. Then
>> when you get back down, the heat feels good for a while.
>
>I wish I would have known.
>But as always I had a travelguide with me that I don't read.
>
>
>I think I was in Palm Springs on my second visit of the States around 1990
>something. Don't know exactly anymore. But I am positief about the month
>Juli, because of the vacations of the kids.
Not the best time to go. Early spring is great. Desert in bloom.
Already hot but not too hot yet. Lots of snow still on the mountains.
>You know what they hated every minute except when they could jump into a
>pool or had other fun. LOL.
>They where used to traveling, but the huge tour we made back then was not
>their idea of vacation.
>I think on every picture I have of my son and the Grand Canyon
>he gives me the finger making me pretty clear that being there was my dream
>not his.
>Hilarious.
>So there you are a good parent, spending all this money on tickets
>hoping that your kids get a bigger picture of the world and they hate you
>for it unless you throw a couple of amusementparks in.
>I would have sold them but nobody wanted them.
What a shame. I always worked to impress on my son that he should
make the most of enjoying wherever we travel, because he may never get
to be there again. And for the most part, he did that.
Only one time, at Yosemite, did he start acting a little bratty and
oblivious and unappreciative. I actually sat him down and gave him
the speech. "You may *never* be here in this amazing place again, and
you are *missing out* by not being attentive and appreciative." He
acted like he didn't care that much, but his attitude changed over the
rest of the day, so I could tell it sunk in. To this day he sometimes
tells me "I'd like to go back to Yosemite some time." LOL. I'll
say, "who knows, maybe you will get to again, some day. Maybe..."
:-)
>Great nature in that part of the US. May be one of the best there is.
Giving someone the finger at the Grand Canyon -- that's blasphemous.
:-) Would definitely have elicited a full-fledged *sermon* from me,
and I would have gotten *coercively pissed* at the first sign he
wasn't listening respectfully to it too. LOL. But you know, a
teenage son will start running over a woman. Happens a lot.
-J.
Ann
it's "no shooting back" (keeping my "promise":), 'simply' when I read
your "d) Subjectivity, subjective reality, subjective state" I was
instantly reminded of a philosophical discussion I had last summer in
sci.skeptic. Before that and as a link to the "subjective" topic I'll
provide the scientific link (just found, yet already promised in the
"Re:opened issues" thread) in support of the
extraordinary-gifted-babies hypothesis: the younger they are, the
better their sense of 'hearing' or ability to distinguish all sounds
from the world languages.
Because human languages vary in sound and meaning, children
must learn which distinctions their language uses. For speech
perception, this learning is selective: initially infants are
sensitive to most acoustic distinctions used in any
language[1-3], and this sensitivity reflects basic properties
of the auditory system rather than mechanisms specific to
language[4-7]; however, infants' sensitivity to non-native
==> sound distinctions declines over the course of the first
year[8].
Psychologists Susan J. Hespos, Vanderbilt Univ.
Elizabeth S. Spelke, Harvard Univ.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v430/n6998/full/nature02634_fs.html
The "Nature" article is called "Conceptual precursors to language",
which means the authors are preoccupied with testing a much grander
hypothesis: mental concepts and thoughts before language. Which
translated into old Greek would read:
Logos before Logos :),
(recollecting the classic meaning of Logos - Word, language, meaning,
concept, thought). So how does it sound, isn't it a funny hypothesis to
test, see how far we've got in our bifurcated oblivion: first we took
the Word (seriously:) and split it (as part of the Big Bang explosion
and consequent expansion) into two 'completely' independent parts:
external dialogue/language, audible words, sounds, 'readable'
characters (i.e. gibberish:) on a sheet of paper; and "internal
dialogue", thoughts, concepts, meanings. As if one could exist without
the other, we imagined it first.
Then we forgot (the separation was documented even in our dictionaries
defining the "stalking" meanings of words like 'word', 'language',
'thought')... then we braced ourself up to address the fundamental
'chicken and egg' paradox of which one of them was truer, more
'objective', more 'independent', which came first on the 'real' arrow
of 'time': the conceptual thoughts or their external/communication
carrier. What if both, how could the one be without the other, what is
the meaning of t-h-o-s-e c-h-a-r-a-c-t-e-r-s o-n t-h-e s-c-r-e-e-n
without their m-e-a-n-i-n-g, without the 'knowing' mind (and 'efforts',
'energy', 'concentration', 'attention') of their conscious perceiver.
And are we sure those 'meanings' would persist long after the entire
human race were gone with the wind and for good?
As a matter of special case, my remembered childhood beginnings with
basic words of Logos were always education caused, I was first taught
(shown, made hear) the concept several times until I
learned/imagined/visualized/knew it (e.g. the way I first
'saw'/'recognised' the TV-man)... and it'd stayed there (in my internal
dialogue:) for the longest of time, or... hopefully not :).
On the other hand, the design of the above 'independent' experiments
with infants seems truly... interesting, although it might still be
preferable to "know thyself", i.e. to know/learn what's in a baby's mind
by remembering our babyhood, recollecting all our beginnings with the
Word (starting from the first number I: 'me' and 'other') -- it's far
from impossible once we forget about the alleged 'limitations' of the
bio-chemical brain and remember instead (the 'wings' of:) oursoul.
Semantic Externalism
If you think about it the questions the two "Nature" authors address
touch the heart of the scholastic (scientific and religious) paradigm,
for it tries to defend the True object of our "natural desire to know" -
the Logos itself. I mean, if the Word were not somehow universally true
and objective, how could we hope to find the ultimate laws of the
universe ("the theory of everything") and objectify/codify/express them
in divine words. If we imagine different things upon writing/reading the
words, if their meanings were subjective to each writer/reader/perceiver
then the universality of the Truth breaks down. 'Therefore', it would be
'better' if it happened to turn out the 'real' thoughts and concepts in
our head had little to do with our dialogue, they've came before, they
are sort of external and independent from (or preceding, in this case)
language, i.e. they are almost objective (and probably determined by the
absolute nature of that consensus reality outside:).
Which is all nice and well, I mean nothing's wrong in defending the
divine nature of Logos. The argument even reminds me of the "universal
forms" (Greek form=idea:) of Plato's "chair, table, bed...", his ideal
world of universal ideas, "the absolute Truth". Alas despite the
desperate search he could find nowhere those "forms"... apart from the
Number, towards the end of his life he was mesmerised by the absolute
Truth in numbers.
While I (keenly aware of my personal preferences for the words separate,
parallel realities:) have found that they all were relative concepts,
the only universal about them was the abstract symbol/Word describing
them.
{And the meanings of even such 'obvious' words often blur, e.g. tables
used/looking like 'chairs' or 'beds', the idea itself of the perfect
'bad' or 'chair' may be relative and varying across space, time and
cultures. Moreover, if we weren't trying all the time to imagine they
were the same objects our perception of them would have been always
different... for the simple reason that from every different space-time
point of view our perspective on the chair is different, in accordance
with general relativity :)}
Yet, for some 'reason' modern philosophers (of science:) lean towards
the so called "semantic externalism" in which meanings are not solely
determined by the ideas we associate with them. As if meanings (words)
fall from the objective sky (e.g. "the external, natural objective
social practice"), and not from a subjective human 'Creator'. Which is
not without the usual (seventh:) sense of irony, since the externalist
'proof' rests on Creator's (Putnam 1975) "Twin Earth" 'example' --
i.e. a thought experiment.
{Note that when it comes to basic axioms we usually abandon the
"empirical" (scientific) practice of verifiability and repeated
experiments and instead resort to real thought experiments, 'albeit'
untestable. Recall the scientific 'proof' from the eternal debate on
what is first: 'mind' or 'matter' (spirit or gases, soul or body).
Eradication of all mindful life on Earth, goes their argument (in fact,
some of them might be even working towards that end: the ultimate
testing of the axiom, but then who's going to verify/witness/document
their so desired victory:), will still leave matter's continual
existence unimpressed, and for sure. In a similar fashion we can see
through the purpose of all the other certain doomsday prophesies or
apocalyptic scenarios, like the mindless Big Bang and the prediction of
the eventual/inevitable death ("cooling off":) of all planets, stars
and entire universe -- 'sticks' meant for one thing, to keep us under
control, to shock our soul, stop thinking and accept whatever else they
have to say... Anyways,}
Putnam's science-fiction 'experiment' is a great example of inventor's
superb mastery of words and eloquence, and it almost had me convinced
... if it weren't for its major flaw, a Cunning 'unimportant' detail in
the grand scheme of things was harbouring the 'Devil'. If you could only
see my gales of laughter upon 'discovering' it, I'm sure you would laugh
too... when I find the time to dig out and repost the essence from the
virtual (yet memorable) fight with Martin last year.
In general (and returning to your "subjectivity"), my quixotic line of
attack was intuitively simple: to demonstrate that the meanings of the
key words we used were far from objective. And guess what, the search
was over even before it has began: it turned out the most subjective of
meanings was attached precisely to his root word 'objective' :), I could
hardly believe my eyes, but his definition of 'objective' was completely
different from mine (and the dictionaries I've consulted). This settled
the debate, for we couldn't agree on the external objectivity of even
the core word 'objective', our 'internal' meanings of it differed
markedly although we're in a similar "objective" environment (for 'some'
reason he preferred the wording "linguistic social practice":). Then
came the real shock: although a professional philosopher he had a
(sixth:) sense of humour and jokingly agreed to the conclusion that in
some very real sense "semantic externalists were out of their mind".
Best,
Ann
slider
Jeremy wrote
>
>The fact that the universe functioned the same way for billions of
>years before humans even existed, and that we can KNOW this by
>utilizing our "minds", is the clearest way to see that our "minds"
>(any individual one or ALL of them put together) are NOT really so all
>important to the fundamental nature of the reality in which we live.
>
> - agreed in the sense that the 'mind' (where mind= some sort of evolutionary
>quantum-leap in terms of self-awareness in nature) doesn't 'construct' the
>fundamental nature of the universe, rather mind (in it's present state of
>development at any rate) just has the ability, depending on what it's been
>'programmed' with, to 'paint' various concepts & ideas 'onto' that fundamental
>backdrop and then relate exclusively to an interpretation 'created' by it...
I think "painting" is an extremely poor choice of words. The world
doesn't look like Van Gogh to me, and Monet to you, and like photo
realism to Ether. :-)
### - i tried to use a new term here (paint) in place of 'projection' is all, hoping
that it might lend itself to some objectivity in the conversation, but it means just
about the same thing really... i.e. the (human) minds' ability, depending on what's
been put-into it, to then 'project' an 'interpretation' of the world around us and
relate exclusively to & via it... how 'colourful' it is depends on the mind involved
And it is illogical to think that the mind would even be allowed to
"paint" its own reality, for it developed and grew over hundreds of
millions of years, concerned with *portraying that which is*, for
survival.
### - in the animal kingdom yes, totally... but i was referring there to mind as
developed in the 'human' kingdom in the sense that only we humans are (to
varying degrees) aware of being aware (previously referred to as being some
sort of 'quantum leap' in terms of self-awareness appearing in nature)
There arose many different methods of portraying that which is, but
"painting" is still a bad characterization because all of those
methods model the *same* real world. Better analogies might be:
space ships with sensors, or a mirror that *reflects*. As I have
pointed out before, a bat with sonar and a human with vision still
avoid precisely the same wall because both methods of perception
accurately reflect what is *really there* outside of both animals.
One method does not "paint" the wall as being twice the size of the
other method and a different shape altogether. That does not happen,
so both creatures precisely avoid the same real wall using different
"sensors".
### - yes, but all that changed when the human race came along with their
strange ability to 'conceptualise' - i.e. that humans are, in that sense, animals-plus
(although there does indeed appears to be still some batty-ones floating around,
i agree... quite a lot of them in fact :)
Just as a normal, non-warped, non-cracked mirror reflects very clearly
that which is *outside* of itself, so too does the normal mind.
### - actually this was my question in another (more direct) form in the sense
of asking: just what IS normal... bearing in-mind that obviously, because of
our extra perceptual abilities, 'normal' for humans is very different to that in
the animal kingdom...
A lot of people are walking around believing that the mirror is the
entire world, or that the entire world is contained in the mirror.
Baloney. It only *looks* that way for a moment to those who are
unfamiliar with the true nature of mirrors.
### - okay it might be true that outside reality is somehow 'mirrored' by the
mind...after all, the term mirror is used in the past many times in that context
(+ i don't particularly mind looking at it that way) - and/or that the mind itself
IS then a mirror of sorts that 'reflects' reality in the sense that the extra
self-awareness humans have is maybe even something to do with perceiving
our world via that mirror/lens... the question in 'that' context arises from the
observation that via our beliefs (and/or depending on the information/education
involved) what about our innate + unconscious ability to 'bend/distort' that
mirror so as to give us a 'tweaked' view of (reflected) reality - plus if that's all
actually true, then how do we UN-tweak it so as to make that mirror utterly
smooth and thus, for example, have it more faithfully reflect reality as it
actually is instead of a rippled/distorted one - or, like a telescope looking at the
stars: how do we 'focus' it... and on what?
Life *reacted* to the real environment every inch of the way, you see.
Chemicals reacting to chemicals, as they *had* to, in order to
survive. Because of this, the perceptual mechanisms of life evolved
to *accurately* reflect (to the best of their ability) real
characteristics of a real world that was outside them and impinging
upon them. Some designs succeeded better than others, but all reflect
the *real* world, because they *had* to, to live.
### - i agree with you... right up to the human kingdom where it all changes?
and because now it's a much more complex/delicate set-up/arrangement altogether
& than ever before (the quantum leap i mentioned, although i'm tired of calling it
that... from my own way of thinking i actually prefer to call it a 'bloom' of awareness
in nature... so different it actually marks a clear line between the animal kingdom
and a new one: the human
This is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not just a
dream.
### - the 'world' is not a dream (at least i don't think so:) but our
ideas/conceptualisations of what it's all about, is... and a
changing/evolving/manipulated one at that for sure - in other words: we
have to wake-up from those dreams...
And "interpretation" has almost nothing to do with this. Where
interpretation really comes into play strongly is with human
conceptualizations, not with perception itself.
### - agreed (actually:) other than we are arguing whether or not conceptualisations
(programmed or not or whatever) 'impinge' upon perception so as to distort one's
'view' of the world and what it's all supposed to 'mean' and all be about (something
only humans do) - and that those 'meanings' (or beliefs in their various forms if you
prefer) is what we've (collectively) come to exclusively (but now questioningly)
relate to
>Our minds allow us to *apprehend* the nature of this reality; that's
>all. That does not mean mind is all there is to reality. Far from
>it.
>
> - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the information
>(the programming) put into the mind... then how might the nature of reality
>appear to change if that mind were to somehow become quiescent and/or
>totally devoid of interpretations/programming altogether?
The premise is that *perceived* reality changes simply depending on
"information". And I say that isn't even true. *Interpretation*
of perceived reality may change depending on "information" but not
perception itself.
Perception itself changes when --, like a mirror that is dirty or
cracked or warped (or perhaps with different tints or screens that can
filter it) -- something physical or chemical alters the actual
physical process of perception. This can happen with drugs, or with
natural altered electro-chemical states, such as during sleep, or
during intense physical arousal.
But the important point is that over millions of years, our perceptual
systems have been "tuned" to reflect reality in the most accurate ways
possible, and this implies that an *alert normal waking state* is
probably the *most accurate* representation of the *real world* there
is.
### - raw perception in the animal-sense isn't in question here... nature
having explored virtually every possibility in the range in that department
via the animal kingdoms and below... but humans are a bit different, they
innately carry a bloom of unprecedented awareness - awareness &
consciousness taken to the next degree: self-awareness... plus with that
goes a whole 'host' (range) of inherent abilities such as the ability to
conceptualise and/or to relate to an idea and then view the world
exclusively via/through it... that in 'that' sense we seem to have this ability
to 'paint' (project) conceptualisations onto the backdrop of the world which
then becomes 'The Truth' as we relate to it...
>i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one program and/or
>sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind in-fact just the lens (of self-awareness)
>itself being corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
>been known to create/come-up with?
First of all, self-awareness is only a small part of "the mind". A
great deal of "the mind" functions unconsciously. Second, the mind
has access, in both conscious and unconscious ways, to all the data of
the senses, and all the memories of many years of the *experiences of
real living, certainly not just "information" (if you wish to use the
term "information" you had better define it).
### - information in the sense of how one is 'introduced' to the world...
And third, while a
mind can be seduced by as many corrupt "concepts" as you like, it will
still keep perceiving basically the *same* real world around it,
unless it becomes physically or chemically altered.
### - at least you accept that perception 'can' be different, and that it can
change due to many known (+ possibly still unknown) things... bash someone's
brain-in and they do indeed tend to see the world a bit differently (heh:) - so
now all we need to work out is 'how' we bash those brains in: e.g. do we do it
chemically? or psychologically? or emotionally? - how about educationally?
or sociologically? scientifically! there's many ways to damage a mind and the
way it perceives... brainwashing, and dis-information - we could even drive it
mad in the sense that mad people are easier to manipulate...
>e.g. if we turn-off all our programming do we then 'cease' to perceive... or might
>just the 'apprehended' nature of reality, and the way one relates to it, change?
Your assertion is that "information" somehow "progams" everyone to
perceive in a certain way. And I say that is just flat not the case.
### - walls are stills walls, the sky is still the sky, rocks are still rocks... that bit
doesn't change... what changes is the (shifting) 'meanings' we keep putting on
everything and then calling it the truth
That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
### - forget about castaneda... having poked his nose into virtually every
available + possible crevice re consciousness & awareness etc, it just 'appears'
that his head keeps popping-up at every juncture is all... conversation/debates
and/or probes into the nature of mind, perception & reality is still completely valid
The
simplest way to see that it is crap is to note that I take in all
kinds of different information constantly, without it affecting the
basic nature of my perception in any way.
### - i meant it in the (human) sense that what ones sees & experiences can
necessarily 'colour' that perception to the point that it effects behaviour, or
maybe even the things one learns from then on - or in the case of derangement:
to the point of things possibly looking very different indeed! (although i have
no 'clinical' qualifications as such in that dept, at least not yet anyway :)
The types of "information" humans have been subjected to has changed
*radically* over the last million years, but basic human perception of
the real world we live in has not changed radically. This is because
we live on the same world, with the same gravity, the same atmosphere,
the same bodies of water, the same terrestrial structures, the same
chemicals, the same animals and plants, and the same needs for food,
water, air, sex, shelter, and survival. This is why information
doesn't really matter much to perception. There is not really that
much difference between a cave and a room. What is important is
perceiving the shapes, colors, textures, boundaries, and size of the
enclosure.
### - well i could be like ann and say that gravity doesn't exist... that
with hindsight we can say that what we 'called' gravity was just a very neat
idea that everyone adopted, an 'erroneous' idea that nevertheless afforded us
a (rather slanted) view on life for 200 years, a rather tick-Toc mechanical idea
that, and based on it, gave rise to some rather mechanical/perfunctory societies
where mechanics became the norm in all the (good) schools and universities
(an obvious way to get everyone to relate to it) until now where basically
anything to the contrary confuses us... we who were brought up to 'expect' a
totally mechanical world only to realise that the world around us isn't (and wasn't)
quite so, other than we were literally 'groomed' to view it that way...
And I am not "programmed", your unsupported paranoid assertions to the
contrary. :-) I use information, not the other way around.
### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already been trained
to look at & process things in a certain + particular way (like myself: a rather
western/1st-world version if nothing else)
heh heh plus what i've got flashing in front of me now is that scene from
woody allen's film 'sleeper' where he's been sent for re-programming and
it's just not working properly? (funny scene 'coz he's just too stupid for
the programming to take or something:) ha ha and they're trying to fit him
for a proper life in their society by making him go-through certain (imaginary)
things like winning a beauty pageant (LOL:) and the next thing ya know he's
trying to loop some really long data spool into a machine and it's all going
wrong and he's getting tangled in it and falling out the window & stuff, and
because basically, for one reason or another not absolutely everyone
apparently can adapt so 'perfectly' to the program... thus you get rejects
of one type or another that just can't (or wont) fit in... plus maybe the
difficulties involved (for the rulers/owners) in stopping the programmed ones
in there from all falling out (easy really;)
i.e. just give 'em alcohol and football matches, plus for example: plenty of sex
at weekends... seems to do the trick apparently...
no one wants to leave... no one 'wants' to wake up ;-)
rbb
"Jeremy Donovan" <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message
> What a shame. I always worked to impress on my son that he should
> make the most of enjoying wherever we travel, because he may never get
> to be there again. And for the most part, he did that.
Basically that is my idea if I travel, to make the most out of it because
most of the time just seeing a place once is all you get.
He
> acted like he didn't care that much, but his attitude changed over the
> rest of the day, so I could tell it sunk in. To this day he sometimes
> tells me "I'd like to go back to Yosemite some time." LOL. I'll
> say, "who knows, maybe you will get to again, some day. Maybe..."
> :-)
You are lucky.
However you had just to deal with one kid
and we with two that shared the same opinion at the moment,
however my daughter still could enjoy a bit of the nature.
I tried the same argument over and over. It wouldn't sink in.
However I understood theirs.
Rock overdose and to many hours in the car.
They just didn't have the same concept of Grand Canyon as I had
and where not willing to accept mine. :)
>
> >Great nature in that part of the US. May be one of the best there is.
>
> Giving someone the finger at the Grand Canyon -- that's blasphemous.
> :-)
Indefinetly so.
Specially if you see it at a wonderful day with a marvelous sun going down
on top.
> Would definitely have elicited a full-fledged *sermon* from me,
> and I would have gotten *coercively pissed* at the first sign he
> wasn't listening respectfully to it too. LOL. But you know, a
> teenage son will start running over a woman. Happens a lot.
Teenage ? Not at all. He was only 8 years old.
But he was born with a raised middlefinger.
He did nothing the way other kids did. And there was no way to change his
mind. Well we didn't try brainwashing, but that was no option for us.
My ex had sort of a reaction you describe, but then I reminded him
that he would ruin his own fun , so he did his best to ignore it at that
time.
I had a bit of fun though taking all the pictures, knowing that when he got
older he kind of would laugh about them.
Him as well as my daughter now love to travel
and are kind of proud that they have seen so much of the world already.
He came over today to borrow our tent, making his first long trip with his
car. To France, with his girlfriend and one of her kids.
And guess where he is going. To one of the places we have taken him to
twice. He hated France too. :) LOL.
Chris Rodgers
> I had a bit of fun though taking all the pictures, knowing that when he got
> older he kind of would laugh about them.
I have pics of my younger daughter at Bryce Canyon
in Utah. She's pissed because she has to ride a mule.
I always ask her (when I show her the pic) who is the
mule in this picture sweety? It's a classic picture,
we use it when she gets into her "shit". I say to her
"riding the mule again"? That usually snaps her out
of it. It's not easy living with a mean shaman father. :)
Jeremy Donovan
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>### - i agree with you... right up to the human kingdom where it all changes?
Nope. A great many of the structures for processing basic perception
are conserved over millions of years. Once you've got something
right, the basics don't change; you just build on those basics, add
flourishes, extra features. Just like that article Art posted the
other day about how the fundamental mechanism at the heart of
photosynthesis hasn't changed. A lot of the same structures of
perception utilized in very early animals (even one-celled) are widely
deployed in a human body. And it's still basically the same external
world it's all perceiving, whatever the structure; that was the main
point.. Not one damn thing has changed about that, not even for the
oh-so "special" human race.
Complex interpretation is something added. When I saw an apple at age
three, I perceived that apple the SAME way I do now, even though
gigabytes of "information" have been pumped through my "mind" since.
I saw a round, smooth, red object with a thin linelike thing coming
out of it, and when I picked it up I felt how it felt, and when I
tasted it I tasted how it tasted. Those things haven't changed, and
aren't affected by all my complex "interpretation". Being human,
people were able to teach me that what I saw was called "round" and
called "an apple" and called "red" and that the smooth part was called
a "skin" and that it felt "smooth" and that some dude shot one off
some other dude's head, and that you give 'em to teachers, and that
some girl tricked some guy into eating one for some imaginary being's
disapproval, etc. etc. But the sight, the feel, the smell, the taste,
those were basic, and are more related to what an apple IS to a
creature of my physical nature, and those things haven't changed for
me and WON'T be changing.
Because they are related to:
1) What I AM apart from any elaborate "interpretations" of my "mind".
2) What they ARE apart from any elaborate "interpretations" of my
"mind".
Not one. Both. Always both.
If a bat miscalculates by 1 inch, or if I do, either of us will get
slammed into by the same very real truck, and have our "minds" and all
the REST of us spread over the pavement. And if that happens,
neither "mind" - one with all its fancy schmancy interpretations and
the other without (we assume) - will be able to do one damn thing
about it. Because that's real, buddy, and not subject to
"interpretation". :-)
-Jeremy
slider
Jeremy wrote
If a bat miscalculates by 1 inch, or if I do, either of us will get
slammed into by the same very real truck, and have our "minds" and all
the REST of us spread over the pavement. And if that happens,
neither "mind" - one with all its fancy schmancy interpretations and
the other without (we assume) - will be able to do one damn thing
about it. Because that's real, buddy, and not subject to
"interpretation". :-)
### - i don't see the problem + i've 'already' agreed with you about unchanging
+ raw/underlying animal awareness... but humans have both that basic
perception 'and' the one that makes interpretations/conceptualisations etc that's
then superimposed on the first (i just said painted before) to create something
more akin to a 'crafted' view... a view that twists & changes its focus depending
on how that overlay is configured, and/or depending on what it contains
the one thing humans DON'T do being to deal 'directly' with that underlying + raw
awareness devoid of any interpretations & superimposures, like the animals do...
i.e. it's just something we all unconsciously learned to do without question: attributing
'meanings' to things and then insisting/persisting in viewing everything 'via' those
meanings... in other words we keep turning things into something they're not
but we don't have to do it... or if we do, then we don't have to pay it any attention...
e.g. one can realise what one 'tends' to do, and then learn to ignore/tolerate it, and/or
take it into consideration :)
small tortoiseshell
> . But the sight, the feel, the smell, the taste,
> those were basic, and are more related to what an apple IS to a
> creature of my physical nature, and those things haven't changed for
> me and WON'T be changing.
>
> Because they are related to:
>
> 1) What I AM apart from any elaborate "interpretations" of my "mind".
if you substitute 'what' with: That I am.it will last 'longer' then
'what', which has a de-finite finite quality to it. that, i am,
usually refers to non-differentiation between perceiver and the
perceived in Indian philosophy, in particular, perhaps, the
Samkara-system, said to be the apex off Indian thinking. in sanskrit
expressed and translated as 'that thou art ',and as such could be said
to be a term carrying your 'basic' perception un-polluted by
'"interpretations" of my "mind".',as you say. so if the senses dictate
'who' you are in the 'sense' of constituting temporary 'experience' as
a I AM. that I am, does not necessarily go beyond the immediate
experience off the meeting between 'apple-ness' and 'human-ness', and
the time it takes for that apple-ness to evaporate on your tongue,
that is the exact time you are given your 'human-ness', and that is
basic perception.
> 2) What they ARE apart from any elaborate "interpretations" of my
> "mind".
hard to say actually ... if one apple contain apple-ness, as such,
does that mean that many apples might contain many apple-nesses? or
is it just one apple-ness that keep re-creating itself as one
apple-ness in the many apple-nesses, or what ?
>
> Not one. Both. Always both.
true
>
> -Jeremy
rbb
Bad really bad...... LOL.....
On the other hand elegant defense.
rbb
"Ann" <ao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040722...@cicero.local...
>
> In general (and returning to your "subjectivity"), my quixotic line of
> attack was intuitively simple: to demonstrate that the meanings of the
> key words we used were far from objective. And guess what, the search
> was over even before it has began: it turned out the most subjective of
> meanings was attached precisely to his root word 'objective' :), I could
> hardly believe my eyes, but his definition of 'objective' was completely
> different from mine (and the dictionaries I've consulted). This settled
> the debate, for we couldn't agree on the external objectivity of even
> the core word 'objective', our 'internal' meanings of it differed
> markedly although we're in a similar "objective" environment (for 'some'
> reason he preferred the wording "linguistic social practice":). Then
> came the real shock: although a professional philosopher he had a
> (sixth:) sense of humour and jokingly agreed to the conclusion that in
> some very real sense "semantic externalists were out of their mind".
As if that would be possible. :)
If it get's that far it get's funny.
Objective and subjective are just one among many concepts to distuinguish
what the mind can see as internal and external.
If you take the concept " you and I"
It seems a pretty simple concept of the above. But is it?
I am external to you.
But I am not external to me and vice versa.
So we are at the same time internal and external
and what is more I have to rely on you to tell me about my externalness
however that will be mostly an account in what way you experience me.
In that way my externalness depends highly on your internalness.
I have to conclude that the only externalness I can know is the
internalness
of another. And even that only partial.
Camera and mirrors included, because then the experience of my externalness
is through my internalness.
So we come to the point that neither you or I can fully know about
ourselves or each other.
So either we amuse us further with details about "you and
I" or try an internal to internal communication, no longer concerned
to bring light into the dark.
which doesn't need so much time to reinforce the "you and I" concept
and is much more logical.
Following the last post you have written to me.
I was writing a long response to it, but basically I can do with two words
confirming most.
Here a piece from my communicationmap
verbal subconscious - emotional subconcious- vibrational aware
do not take words literal , meanings of words not important
experience words as soundpattern or vibrational pattern ( feeling)
are hardly aware or concerned what individual words mean
sent vibration, images or sound with words and retranslate words
into vibration, image and sound
Have many distiction in internal voices and internal images
but proces both as rush.
don't think in words for concept or very few words
don't see words consciously when reading
don't use words consciously when writing or talking
but conscious of vibrations, so words jump out or
appear to be pattern if reading.
Grasp verbal concepts without conscious understanding.
Communicate mostly telepathic with words as carriers
twist brain with verbal aware people
and can appear verbal aware through patternimitation.
Variation:
emotional semiaware
verbal semiaware
RBB
small tortoiseshell
> the
> Samkara-system,
typo.should have read samkhya, not the philosopher Samkara.
Jeremy Donovan
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>### - yes, but all that changed when the human race came along with their
>strange ability to 'conceptualise' -
As far as *perception* goes, virtually nothing changed.
Your idea that "all that changed" is mistaken, and you can't back it
up.
You asked "what is normal"? What I am calling "normal" is just alert
waking consciousness in an undamaged, fully functional human mind.
That's a good thing. see, to be alert, undamaged, and fully
functional. That has survival value.
>This is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not just a
>dream.
>
>### - the 'world' is not a dream (at least i don't think so:) but our
>ideas/conceptualisations of what it's all about, is... and a
>changing/evolving/manipulated one at that for sure - in other words: we
>have to wake-up from those dreams...
If you agree that the world is not a dream, then you agree with me,
and I don't want to spend any more time jawing about this.
Above you start using the word dream in a different sense than I was
(and I always wonder if you are doing it to make arguments go on and
on...). My simple point was and is that our fundamental *perception*
of the world is not a dream and therefore is not best understood by
looking at it as if it is a dream.
>> - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the information
>>(the programming) put into the mind...
Most of the time, it doesn't. It can be forced to. But under normal
circumstances, it doesn't. And even under the circumstances where
basic perception can be manipulated by "information", that doesn't
change the real world or the normal means of perceiving that real
world.
I actually think it's kind of silly to spend a lot of time arguing
about how human conceptualizations affect perception, because
ordinarily the effect is less than, say, drinking a cup of coffee.
PHYSICAL changes always have a much more profound affect on
perception.
And that is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not
just a dream. Drink three cups of coffee, chela, and find out for
yourself. :-)
How simple is that?
>### - raw perception in the animal-sense isn't in question here... nature
>having explored virtually every possibility in the range in that department
>via the animal kingdoms and below... but humans are a bit different, they
>innately carry a bloom of unprecedented awareness - awareness &
>consciousness taken to the next degree: self-awareness... plus with that
>goes a whole 'host' (range) of inherent abilities such as the ability to
>conceptualise and/or to relate to an idea and then view the world
>exclusively via/through it...
"View the world" is different from SEE the world. Again, you are
just extending argument by using different meanings of words.
The 50 year old Marxist has a completely different view of the world
than the the 19 year old Scientologist who has a completely different
view of the world than a 10 year old girl scout. Yeap. But they all
SEE basically the same world.
>>i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one program and/or
>>sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind in-fact just the lens (of self-awareness)
>>itself being corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
>>been known to create/come-up with?
>
>First of all, self-awareness is only a small part of "the mind". A
>great deal of "the mind" functions unconsciously. Second, the mind
>has access, in both conscious and unconscious ways, to all the data of
>the senses, and all the memories of many years of the *experiences of
>real living, certainly not just "information" (if you wish to use the
>term "information" you had better define it).
>
>### - information in the sense of how one is 'introduced' to the world...
That's too broad and vague. If I walk out into a field at age 1 1/2
for the first time on my own and bump into a tree, I am being
"introduced to the world", but I don't think that is
well-characterized simply as "information".
>Your assertion is that "information" somehow "progams" everyone to
>perceive in a certain way. And I say that is just flat not the case.
>
>### - walls are stills walls, the sky is still the sky, rocks are still rocks... that bit
>doesn't change... what changes is the (shifting) 'meanings' we keep putting on
>everything and then calling it the truth
Fine. Almost anyone knows that (except for your assertion that we
call our shifting meanings "the truth"). The point is that the sky
is not the sky because we all *dream* it the same way, implying that
if we somehow decided to dream the sky a different way it would then
BE different and have completely different characteristics.
>That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
>
>### - forget about castaneda...
Why? He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
back up everything you say too.
>The simplest way to see that it is crap is to note that I take in all
>kinds of different information constantly, without it affecting the
>basic nature of my perception in any way.
>
>### - i meant it in the (human) sense that what ones sees & experiences can
>necessarily 'colour' that perception to the point that it effects behaviour, or
>maybe even the things one learns from then on - or in the case of derangement:
>to the point of things possibly looking very different indeed! (although i have
>no 'clinical' qualifications as such in that dept, at least not yet anyway :)
I don't think anyone would question that our experiences, reactions,
and conceptualizations "color" our interpretations of everything and
our attitude toward everything and our choice of actions. But even a
complete madman walks around not bumping into poles, and if I put a
quarter in his hand he can grab onto it because basic perception of
the world is still the same for both of us (even in that most extreme
case).
And it is the same because the world is not just a dream.
People love to say we create our own reality (and a madman would seem
the clearest example). But not really. When speaking purely of
*perception* it is more true to say that our reality created us.
A human can choose to do a million different things in that overall
reality, and in that limited sense we create our own reality, but not
in the basic sense of the world we perceive. We do not create that.
We record it and process it, automatically, a bit more like a TV than
a projector if you must use a mechanical analogy. We are more like a
TV/VCR that experiences its own programs, and records them, and can
play them back.
Scratch that, "we" are more like a star character who acts in every
program our TV/VCR receives, and our bodies are like the TV/VCR. The
TV/VCR does not create the programs. The star actor in the programs
has a choice of how to act within the scope of the program. And the
world at large is a TV station that broadcasts all the programs here.
The actor is not the TV station. The TV/VCR is not the TV station.
The mind is not the entire world.
Castaneda, and a bajillion other gurus, said there are all kinds of
different "channels" with completely different programs (which even if
true would not change one thing in anything I said above). It seems
highly possible that there might be other "channels", when you first
hear the idea. Unfortunately, not a single person who has made the
claim could prove it.
I think the reason none of them can prove it is because, as simple and
appealing as the concept sounds, it is DEAD WRONG.
And the reason there may just be one channel for us is because
everything about us arose on THIS channel. (So even if there are
other channels, it may well be largely irrelevant for us.)
Everything about us was made by and for this channel. We arose on
this channel, we grew on this channel. We were shaped for billions of
years by this channel. Every bit of "equipment" we have was designed,
calibrated, and tuned for picking up this channel.
>The types of "information" humans have been subjected to has changed
>*radically* over the last million years, but basic human perception of
>the real world we live in has not changed radically. This is because
>we live on the same world, with the same gravity, the same atmosphere,
>the same bodies of water, the same terrestrial structures, the same
>chemicals, the same animals and plants, and the same needs for food,
>water, air, sex, shelter, and survival. This is why information
>doesn't really matter much to perception. There is not really that
>much difference between a cave and a room. What is important is
>perceiving the shapes, colors, textures, boundaries, and size of the
>enclosure.
>
>### - well i could be like ann and say that gravity doesn't exist... that
>with hindsight we can say that what we 'called' gravity was just a very neat
>idea that everyone adopted, an 'erroneous' idea that nevertheless afforded us
>a (rather slanted) view on life for 200 years, a rather tick-Toc mechanical idea
>that, and based on it, gave rise to some rather mechanical/perfunctory societies
>where mechanics became the norm in all the (good) schools and universities
>(an obvious way to get everyone to relate to it) until now where basically
>anything to the contrary confuses us... we who were brought up to 'expect' a
>totally mechanical world only to realise that the world around us isn't (and wasn't)
>quite so, other than we were literally 'groomed' to view it that way...
So what. You haven't been addressing my arguments at all. You keep
talking about "ideas", and I am talking about *perception*.
Do apples not fall to the ground for you when dropped just as they do
for me? Do you have to know the ins and outs of general relativity
to perceive that? And would knowing or not knowing general relativity
in depth have any affect on the way you *perceive* it? No.
Let's be clear. Gathering knowledge of the world is a social process
that changes just like any other social process. But the basic
principles of how the *world works* do not change. Or, one can say
that when they do change, they do so in accord with "laws" that do not
change. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom made water 2 billion
years before the first human existed. Moons orbited their planets in
the same way. etc. All that hasn't changed. Our understanding of
how it all works improves. It's not perfect, but it gets better and
better.
Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world. It IS
a social process, so the knowledge does continually change. But
because the goal is to zero in on how the *world works*, and because
the method has been optimized for that *single purpose*, we can get
closer and closer to accurately describing unchanging characteristics
and "laws" of the REAL world.
>And I am not "programmed", your unsupported paranoid assertions to the
>contrary. :-) I use information, not the other way around.
>
>### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
>your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already been trained
>to look at & process things in a certain + particular way (like myself: a rather
>western/1st-world version if nothing else)
So what. I could be "programmed" to be a good American, and brush my
teeth twice a day, and to always leave a 15 % tip, but none of that
has changed my fundamental perception of reality at all.
I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
-J.
Ann
how glad I am to have correctly predicted yet another coming of the...
"proverbial mantra" -- the average/regular dose of your unbreakable
trinity:
1. > 2 billion years before the first human existed...
2. > Science [was] the best way...
3. > the kind of crap preached, but never backed up.
> On 24 July Jer wrote.
In fact, all we need to do now to locate a wisdom-paragraph of yours is
do an auto-search for grand words, like the "billion". And then we'll
'see the light': we have had (hard) 'matter' before (e.g. human) 'mind'
for billions of certain years, an "unavoidable..." fact backed up by
the preponderance of overwhelming evidence presented by Science the
Best. Starting from the last point, I think you are absolutely 'right'
to demand rigorous "proofs of everything we say" :), and especially of
our personal and spiritual experiences and wildest lucid dreams.
Above all, however, it should be natural to expect the same rigour from
you too (e.g. to stand by your words:). Hence, the logical question to
next ask ourself is whether number 3 from your 'code of conduct'
applies also to what "you say" and to "the kind of cr.. preached" by
your apocalyptic/omniscient "gurus" (with ultra-astonishing
hyper-extra-long memory:).
> So I will ask you to back up everything you say too.
For example, have a look at "claim" number 1 above... :) I know, I know,
it looks like a sure 'fact' but it is also (still:) a claim, go figure
(but in fact a mere application of the universal law of deceiving
appearances:). That is,
> I think the reason none of them can prove it is because, as simple and
> appealing as the concept sounds, it is DEAD WRONG. Unfortunately, not
> a single person who has made the claim could prove it.
And even Prof. Jeremy himself was no exception, hiding from us the
overwhelming evidence for the bold claims. Do not be so shy, tell us
something more about the "billions" of times immemorial, "how did 'time'
begin, where did 'space' end", what are the secret sources of your
certain "knowledge": memory, documented proofs, sci-fi storybooks, TV
'documentaries'? "Unfortunately, as simple and appealing as the concept
sounds, you could not prove it", you didn't even try, but instead
employed the next best strategy of repeated eloquence :), demonstrating
enviable awareness of.. the power "of words", and especially their
"third rule" -
repetition :).
Which is key, mindless but effective, isn't it. Even though "your idea
is mistaken, and/or you can't back it up" you 'merely' restate it, at
least twice... in every post... often under different disguises:
sometimes pure, other times marked by "the billions"... Indeed you may
think you "KNOW" the scholastic 'truth', you may feel utterly convinced
of it, yet the said truth is "you were programmed" to believe so: you
met, TVwatched, heard, read, the 'truth' so many times that gradually it
became absolutely real in your 'objective' head.
Like most of us you're hard-wired to this mental construct "of appealing
concepts"; to the point that now the theory is almost your second nature
(like Rick who compared Reason to his limbs:) - you need only hear the
'billion' sounds of 'evolution' to instantly 'see' the Creation version
of your choice, perhaps even imagining the ancient Process, e.g. the
formation of the impersonal pre-historic gases of the Big Bang giving
birth and shape to lifeless Earth 'matter' and only much later to the
first ever living ('thing', 'virus', 'gene', 'cell', 'flea') product of
a chance chemical reaction (in "what was otherwise a harmony of
mathematical precision":). And after years of painstaking learning their
'truth' by heart now you're prepared to return the favour -- parroting
the wisdom (already yours) by rote, with the "*single purpose*" of
educating 'compassionately' the poor 'ignorant'/gullible readers (and
perhaps listeners too:).
You'd excuse my "mechanical analogy" but this is the simple mechanism
for how we end up believing in fairy tales that are at least as grandeur
as any other lucid dream... or story by "Castaneda and a bajillion other
gurus", for that matter :). Only that this time it is a pure
reason-dream. Something Slider was trying to tell us all along: the
advent of science has not altered our extremely rational approach to the
world, we merely swapped one reason-dream for another (relatively
duller:). Or as you said
> As far as *perception* goes, virtually nothing changed. Your idea
> that "all that changed" is mistaken, and you can't back it up.
Yeah, I know, was quoting you out of context... but is such a fun. I
realize now that you meant the sublime "perception" banished by your
fear resolved to fix forever 'here' -- on 'objectively true reality' (or
the most impartial of "assemblage point" positions, something like the
absolute Centre of the inter-galactic Universe that we and Galileo are
still very much in search of, to no avail:). That is, the age-invariant,
sturdy & stubborn position of the "unchanging waking consciousness in
one's surviving, alert, undamaged and fully functional human mind". Yet
"can you back it up", I mean, you claim twice the world is "basically
the same" in the eyes of a child and an adult:
> The 50 year old Marxist has a completely different view of the world
> than the the 19 year old Scientologist who has a completely different
> view of the world than a 10 year old girl scout. Yeap. But they all
> SEE basically the same world.
> I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
> monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
> *perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
> child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
Wow :), did you really have such a boring childhood :)? As I mentioned
earlier little Ann saw the world otherwise, it was rather DIFFERENT,
which does not necessarily mean "DEAD WRONG". The home was my (real)
world, the hometown the universe, and it worked well for all
practical/empirical purposes (and from the 'childish' perspective on
'now' and 'here':). The house seemed real huge from the real viewpoint
(of a real child:). Later as I grew up the house started to shrink and
looked smaller and smaller. Every time I came home it has 'become'
smaller, and so did later the whole town, it collapsed while the mental
Universe 'outside' was expanding by the 'day' (by the 'word':)... the
fixed global viewpoint of a serious 'adult' (i.e. an internal
dialogue/matrix full of cosmic words).
You see, much has changed in my perception of space-time 'reality',
whereas I can only conjecture about yours, "Tell me a story! No, No, not
one of those [sci-fi], a real story!"
:) Grandfather: A real story?
Child : Yes, tell me about when you were a boy.
Moreover, to remind you we have no idea "basically about the world"
animals "assemble", "perceive" or 'see'. What we know, though, for sure
is that many of them 'see' way more than we do :). What is it that I
hear; you want proofs again, "a real story"?
A: Alright, go and get your storybook :)
J: No, No, not one of those, a real story!
A: Well, then, I shall have to take you back with me, a long way in
time... It was my thirteenth year on a cold winter's day, as I
walked through the enchanted forest, I heard the sound... and felt
compelled to walk on and find the place of these sounds, and when
the forest did clear I was standing on a hill, before me... there
was a great silence... My heart began to pound, storm clouds
filled the sky with darkness, rain came, and the four winds blew
with such anger that I held fast to a tree. They met with a mighty
clash! I could feel the ground shake...
(http://www.lyricsdepot.com/manowar/warriors-prayer.html)
Well, that's it, did you like the story?
Child: Yeah, it was great!
Grandfather: Oh good, I'm glad. Now off to bed with you.
Jer: "The types of "information" humans have been subjected to has
changed *radically* over the last million years, but basic human
perception of the real world we live in has not changed radically."
Ann: Or perhaps it "has", are you sure we (can ever:) KNOW this, how?
"Well, that's it", we can only conjecture based mostly on recent (couple
of thousand years) documented evidence. But even then the facts are far
from unambiguous (contrary to the impression you'd like to convey),
remember for instance Homer. Or look at old drawings of the 'shallow',
FLAT sky and compare it with modern science fiction 'photos' of a DEEP
sky. The classic Greeks seem to have had a different "relationship" with
the 'other' creatures, they "considered unusual animal behavior to be an
esoteric form of Secret Knowledge."
The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, considered an
understanding of the relationship between unusual animal behavior
and earthquakes to be an esoteric form of Secret Knowledge. That
such strong support for the application of this knowledge exists
in the East-- in long-lived civilizations like China and Japan--
is testimony to the reality of the phenomenon, as they have
witnessed many more earthquakes in their long histories than has
a comparatively young country like the U.S.
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/quake.htm
If you felt uneasy while reading the excerpt above then you've probably
have sensed 'it' -- I was already addressing point number 2 from your
trinity:
Donovan's encomium bestowed on science
> Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world.
> It IS a social process, so the knowledge does continually
> change. But because the goal is to zero in on how the *world
> works*, and because the method has been optimized for that
> *single purpose*, we can get closer and closer to accurately
> describing unchanging characteristics and "laws" of the REAL
> world... [:) :) :)] Every bit of "equipment" we have was
> designed, calibrated, and tuned for picking up this channel.
Amen.
{Although, recalling Mark Twain, "The easy confidence with
which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to
suspect that my own is also."}
Then "there was a great silence... then a mighty clash! I could feel the
ground shake". That is, next I'll try to awaken (yours too:) ridicule
respecting the claim of "science being the best way of honing [honouring]
our knowledge of the world". Let us revert to the above example/link:
it turns out animals' "Secret knowledge" about earthquakes is way deeper
than the Scientific one of ours. "Every single bit of our continually
calibrated, tuned and optimized equipment designed by Science" becomes a
useless "kind of crap" when confronted with the reality of 'reality' --
when it comes to predicting an earthquake animals seem much better
"equipped".
Of course, 'honest' scientists hate to admit of this obvious truth,
instead they try to "measure" also... say, the temperature of the
waters, yet still, after years of geo-research the most reliable early
warning signal remains... animal behavior, go figure. I mean, do we
"know" why it is so. Might it be Logos the Verbose standing in the way
between our "most complex favoured race" and simple Nature, His abstract
(though heavy:) frame crippling our intuitive senses/perceptions. Or
maybe it was Evolution's fault, the "Natural Process" who did not want
us ("the fittest", go figure:) to "survive" (an earthquake:) and hence
"optimized" only the rest of 'His' animal kingdom, "the dogs, cats,
snakes, bees, even creatures such as millipedes, leeches, squid, and
ants and other types of animals in the wild, on farms, and in zoos;
including horses, cows, deer, goats, possums, rats, chickens, and other
birds, fish, reptiles, and even insects":
Etho-Geological Forecasting:
Unusual Animal Behavior & Earthquake Prediction
by David Jay Brown
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/quake.htm
But subjectively earthquake experiences often take on dream-like
qualities, or have a sense of unreality about them, perhaps
because our most cherished notion of what is safe and solid in the
world-- the very ground upon which we rest-- becomes wobbly and
:) unstable. Our whole sense of reality is shaken with the earth, as
one is suddenly lifted up out of the mundane, and thrust into the
center of what seems an immensely important drama...
Helmut Tributsch's beautifully written classic work on the subject
of earthquakes and unusual animal behavior-- When the Snakes
Awake-- details numerous consistent accounts of the phenomenon
from all over the world. Although these behavior patterns are very
well-documented, most geologists that I have spoken with at the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) don't take it very
seriously. The official word from the USGS is that there aren't
any earthquake prediction techniques-- unusual animal behavior
observations included-- which perform any better than chance.
In fact, the notion that odd animal behavior can help people
:) predict earthquakes is perceived by most traditional geologists in
the West as folklore, or an old wives tale, and is often cast into
the same boat as sightings of poltergeists, Elvis, and the Loch
==> Ness Monster. But not all Western geologists are close-minded with
regard to the phenomenon. James Berkland-- a retired USGS
geologist from Santa Clara County, California...
I personally experienced the latter phenomenon myself prior to a
Los Angeles earthquake in 1990. I was in graduate school working
on the fifth floor of the USC Neuroscience Building's Learning and
Memory lab with several other students, and three calm
rabbits. Suddenly the rabbits became noticeably agitated. They
started hopping around in their cages wildly for around five
minutes, right before a 5.2 earthquake sent the whole building
rolling and swaying.
After my experience with the anxious rabbits I have learned that,
since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every culture
in the world has reported observations of unusual animal behavior
prior to earthquakes (and-- to a lesser extent-- volcanic
eruptions), but conventional science has never been able to
adequately explain the phenomenon. Nonetheless, the Chinese and
Japanese have employed such sightings for hundreds of years as an
important part of a nationally-orchestrated earthquake warning
systems, with some success.
Perhaps most significantly, on February 4, 1975 the Chinese
successfully evacuated the city of Haicheng several hours before a
7.3 magnitude earthquake-- based primarily on observations of
unusual animal behavior. 90% of the city's structures were
destroyed in the quake, but the entire city had been evacuated
before it struck. Nearly 90,000 lives were saved.
"Ever wondered" who is going to protect us (including from
earthquakes:), whom to rely on once the Intelligent Designer
accomplishes (the "mission impossible":) the total reversal of the
Process (of "biodiversity":), making all other ("less favoured",
important or useful:) species "extinct". For details on the impending
"tragedy" and its main intelligent "player" check Nature magazine from
22 July. Alas, the powerful warning message in the leading editorial
"Biodiversity: Ignorance is not bliss":
"We are witnessing a catastrophic loss of species that is the
direct result of human activities. Yet we remain scandalously
ill informed about the processes that give rise to biodiversity,
and the consequences of its loss..."
has suddenly become paid/premium content, fortunately the following
"archive" link is still functional
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v430/n6998/full/430396a_fs.html:
"Biodiversity: A tragedy with many players
Peter Ng is a man with a mission: to catalogue the huge diversity of
life dwelling in habitats long dismissed as uninteresting. It's a race
against time, he tells Carina Dennis and Peter Aldhous...
Vanishing world"
Or in the words of Mark Twain "There are no buffaloes in America now,
except Buffalo Bill...I can remember the time when I was a boy, when
buffaloes were plentiful in America. You had only to step off the road
to meet a buffalo. But now they have all been killed off. Great pity it
is so. I don't like to see the distinctive animals of a country killed
off."
In any event, we have seen an example where the "continually optimized
scientific method" (with its "accurately calibrated equipment":) fails -
in predicting earthquakes. You may feel inspired ("programmed":) to
reply "Not yet! Geo-science still fails, but soon... the proverbial
promise for the bright future..."; yet can/should we be so sure, why not
have instead 'only' 99% confidence. For we may pride ourselves on our
profound "knowledge" of Earthly matters and sciences GeoLogic, "But"
("under normal circumstances":) when it comes to the verification test
we fail, dismally. So then, what "kind of cr__" is this "knowledge" if
not a distorted view of our 'omniscient' (but in fact ignorant) self, a
"basic perception manipulated by information and affected [deluded] by
conceptualizations", a perception in need... for a change, in deed.
Best,
Ann
PS: Digressive remark on the previously encountered (in "Open issues"
and Vic's "formidable guys chasing tail-light", 18 July) limitation of
the Aristotelian "more light" paradigm/frame, both the scientific and
religious one. The "empirical" 'godfather' imposed on us his own
fixation on the "delightful seeing eyes", he programmed "ALL men to
desire to know with our beloved senses and above all with the sense of
light and sight". Regrettably, we obeyed and turned into pre-programmed
'prisoners' acquainted with the daylight. It wasn't enough, the poet
said, it was incomplete, the one side of a 'partial' coin:
Acquainted With The Night
Robert Frost
I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain--and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.
I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.
I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,
But not to call me back or say good-by;
And further still at an unearthly height
One luminary clock against the sky
Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Jeremy Donovan wrote:
>>### Slider wrote:
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>>### Slider wrote:
>>> Jeremy wrote:
>>### - yes, but all that changed when the human race came along with
>>### their strange ability to 'conceptualise' -
> As far as *perception* goes, virtually nothing changed. Your idea
> that "all that changed" is mistaken, and you can't back it up.
> You asked "what is normal"? What I am calling "normal" is just alert
> waking consciousness in an undamaged, fully functional human mind.
> That's a good thing. see, to be alert, undamaged, and fully
> functional. That has survival value.
>> This is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not just
>> a dream.
>>### - the 'world' is not a dream (at least i don't think so:) but our
>>### ideas/conceptualisations of what it's all about, is... and a
>>### changing/evolving/manipulated one at that for sure - in other
>>### words: we have to wake-up from those dreams...
> If you agree that the world is not a dream, then you agree with me,
> and I don't want to spend any more time jawing about this.
> Above you start using the word dream in a different sense than I was
> (and I always wonder if you are doing it to make arguments go on and
> on...). My simple point was and is that our fundamental *perception*
> of the world is not a dream and therefore is not best understood by
> looking at it as if it is a dream.
>>?? - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the
>>?? information (the programming) put into the mind...
> Most of the time, it doesn't. It can be forced to. But under normal
> circumstances, it doesn't. And even under the circumstances where
> basic perception can be manipulated by "information", that doesn't
> change the real world or the normal means of perceiving that real
> world.
> I actually think it's kind of silly to spend a lot of time arguing
> about how human conceptualizations affect perception, because
> ordinarily the effect is less than, say, drinking a cup of coffee.
> PHYSICAL changes always have a much more profound affect on
> perception.
> And that is one thing that tells us that the world is real, and not
> just a dream. Drink three cups of coffee, chela, and find out for
> yourself. :-)
> How simple is that?
>>### - raw perception in the animal-sense isn't in question
>>### here... nature having explored virtually every possibility in the
>>### range in that department via the animal kingdoms and below... but
>>### humans are a bit different, they innately carry a bloom of
>>### unprecedented awareness - awareness & consciousness taken to the
>>### next degree: self-awareness... plus with that goes a whole 'host'
>>### (range) of inherent abilities such as the ability to conceptualise
>>### and/or to relate to an idea and then view the world exclusively
>>### via/through it...
> "View the world" is different from SEE the world. Again, you are just
> extending argument by using different meanings of words.
> The 50 year old Marxist has a completely different view of the world
> than the the 19 year old Scientologist who has a completely different
> view of the world than a 10 year old girl scout. Yeap. But they all
> SEE basically the same world.
>>>### i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one
>>>### program and/or sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind
>>>### in-fact just the lens (of self-awareness) itself being
>>>### corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
>>>### been known to create/come-up with?
>> First of all, self-awareness is only a small part of "the mind". A
>> great deal of "the mind" functions unconsciously. Second, the mind
>> has access, in both conscious and unconscious ways, to all the data
>> of the senses, and all the memories of many years of the *experiences
>> of real living, certainly not just "information" (if you wish to use
>> the term "information" you had better define it).
>>### - information in the sense of how one is 'introduced' to the
>>### world...
> That's too broad and vague. If I walk out into a field at age 1 1/2
> for the first time on my own and bump into a tree, I am being
> "introduced to the world", but I don't think that is
> well-characterized simply as "information".
>>> Your assertion is that "information" somehow "progams" everyone to
>>> perceive in a certain way. And I say that is just flat not the
>>> case.
>>### - walls are stills walls, the sky is still the sky, rocks are
>>### still rocks... that bit doesn't change... what changes is the
>>### (shifting) 'meanings' we keep putting on everything and then
>>### calling it the truth
> Fine. Almost anyone knows that (except for your assertion that we
> call our shifting meanings "the truth"). The point is that the sky is
> not the sky because we all *dream* it the same way, implying that if
> we somehow decided to dream the sky a different way it would then BE
> different and have completely different characteristics.
>> That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
>>### - forget about castaneda...
> Why? He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
> you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
> back up everything you say too.
>> The simplest way to see that it is crap is to note that I take in all
>> kinds of different information constantly, without it affecting the
>> basic nature of my perception in any way.
>>### - i meant it in the (human) sense that what ones sees &
>>### experiences can necessarily 'colour' that perception to the point
>>### that it effects behaviour, or maybe even the things one learns
>>### from then on - or in the case of derangement: to the point of
>>### things possibly looking very different indeed! (although i have no
>>### 'clinical' qualifications as such in that dept, at least not yet
>>### anyway :)
>>### exist... that with hindsight we can say that what we 'called'
>>### gravity was just a very neat idea that everyone adopted, an
>>### 'erroneous' idea that nevertheless afforded us a (rather slanted)
>>### view on life for 200 years, a rather tick-Toc mechanical idea
>>### that, and based on it, gave rise to some rather
>>### mechanical/perfunctory societies where mechanics became the norm
>>### in all the (good) schools and universities (an obvious way to get
>>### everyone to relate to it) until now where basically anything to
>>### the contrary confuses us... we who were brought up to 'expect' a
>>### totally mechanical world only to realise that the world around us
>>### isn't (and wasn't) quite so, other than we were literally
>>### 'groomed' to view it that way...
> So what. You haven't been addressing my arguments at all. You keep
> talking about "ideas", and I am talking about *perception*.
> Do apples not fall to the ground for you when dropped just as they do
> for me? Do you have to know the ins and outs of general relativity to
> perceive that? And would knowing or not knowing general relativity in
> depth have any affect on the way you *perceive* it? No.
> Let's be clear. Gathering knowledge of the world is a social process
> that changes just like any other social process. But the basic
> principles of how the *world works* do not change. Or, one can say
> that when they do change, they do so in accord with "laws" that do not
> change. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom made water 2 billion
> years before the first human existed. Moons orbited their planets in
> the same way. etc. All that hasn't changed. Our understanding of
> how it all works improves. It's not perfect, but it gets better and
> better.
> Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world. It IS a
> social process, so the knowledge does continually change. But because
> the goal is to zero in on how the *world works*, and because the
> method has been optimized for that *single purpose*, we can get closer
> and closer to accurately describing unchanging characteristics and
> "laws" of the REAL world.
>> And I am not "programmed", your unsupported paranoid assertions to
>> the contrary. :-) I use information, not the other way around.
>>### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
>>### your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already
>>### been trained to look at & process things in a certain + particular
>>### way (like myself: a rather western/1st-world version if nothing
>>### else)
slider
Jeremy wrote
>### - the 'world' is not a dream (at least i don't think so:) but our
>ideas/conceptualisations of what it's all about, is... and a
>changing/evolving/manipulated one at that for sure - in other words: we
>have to wake-up from those dreams...
If you agree that the world is not a dream, then you agree with me,
and I don't want to spend any more time jawing about this.
Above you start using the word dream in a different sense than I was
(and I always wonder if you are doing it to make arguments go on and
on...). My simple point was and is that our fundamental *perception*
of the world is not a dream and therefore is not best understood by
looking at it as if it is a dream.
### - okay... there's lots here to discuss but let's clear this one up anyway...
i.e. the 'physical' world as far as i know is not a dream... not unless it's 'god's'
dream or something (heh:) but then i wouldn't know anything about that - otherwise we've
probably just been talking at slightly cross-purposes where dreams and the world is
concerned, and because basically i've never meant anything else all-along but this thing
about one's 'basic' perception of the world being 'coloured' by the education and/or
the experiences one has...
i can also put my hand on my heart and say to you that i've never 'deliberately'
misunderstood you, and/or deliberately misconstrued something you've said for say the
purposes of prolonging a conversation... and although i indeed enjoy a prolonged
conversation, i couldn't be bothered going about it that way... rest assured:)
>> - if the nature of 'perceived' reality changes depending on the information
>>(the programming) put into the mind...
Most of the time, it doesn't. It can be forced to. But under normal
circumstances, it doesn't. And even under the circumstances where
basic perception can be manipulated by "information", that doesn't
change the real world or the normal means of perceiving that real
world.
I actually think it's kind of silly to spend a lot of time arguing
about how human conceptualizations affect perception, because
ordinarily the effect is less than, say, drinking a cup of coffee.
PHYSICAL changes always have a much more profound affect on
perception.
### - i've always meant it only in the sense of people being brainwashed in one way or
another... brainwashed as in one of those weird cults kids often have to be rescued from
for example... brainwashed as in society happily making good little 'cogs-in-the-machine'
out of everyone and no-one knowing no-better or anything different to that because it's
not in the program... brainwashed as in people being virtually forced (via their
whatever-education i mean) to think in very rigid + limiting ways, and all this in the
sense of how that brainwashing directly affects a person's perception of 'themselves' and
what it's all supposed to 'mean' to be alive & living in the world... a 'learned' meaning
that ultimately has nothing whatsoever to do with the real/physical world we experienced
as children before all that 'gunk' (of one description or another) was dumped in our
head...
>### - raw perception in the animal-sense isn't in question here... nature
>having explored virtually every possibility in the range in that department
>via the animal kingdoms and below... but humans are a bit different, they
>innately carry a bloom of unprecedented awareness - awareness &
>consciousness taken to the next degree: self-awareness... plus with that
>goes a whole 'host' (range) of inherent abilities such as the ability to
>conceptualise and/or to relate to an idea and then view the world
>exclusively via/through it...
"View the world" is different from SEE the world. Again, you are
just extending argument by using different meanings of words.
The 50 year old Marxist has a completely different view of the world
than the the 19 year old Scientologist who has a completely different
view of the world than a 10 year old girl scout. Yeap. But they all
SEE basically the same world.
### - it's the same world alright... no argument... that bit doesn't change... but
there's 2 things going on here with us humans... 1, the physical world and the fact we're
in it... and 2, the fact that our 'minds' can be programmed to view/perceive that physical
world in different ways in terms of meanings 'about' that physical world (something
for example animals & very young children never do)
and that's always been my point in every conversation basically... e.g. to get back to
that unsullied + uneducated/un-programmed perception (of the child) and thus deal with the
'real' world that's behind all that crap and that the animals still live quite happily in
for example... that what we call 'education' is really only a form of 'pollution' to that
basic perception of the world in that it eventually utterly clouds/corrupts our view of it
now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to the
kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to deal
directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms... and which, if true, would kinda
make science then just another part of a more 'general' cult
that to be self-aware 'without' analysing it... 'without' trying to understand/control
it... is actually still much better than what the animals do - much more!:)
>>i.e. is mind merely just the self-aware sum-total of some one program and/or
>>sets of information - or is what we 'call' mind in-fact just the lens (of
self-awareness)
>>itself being corrupted/seduced by the manied + various appealing concepts it's
>>been known to create/come-up with?
>
>First of all, self-awareness is only a small part of "the mind". A
>great deal of "the mind" functions unconsciously. Second, the mind
>has access, in both conscious and unconscious ways, to all the data of
>the senses, and all the memories of many years of the *experiences of
>real living, certainly not just "information" (if you wish to use the
>term "information" you had better define it).
>
>### - information in the sense of how one is 'introduced' to the world...
That's too broad and vague. If I walk out into a field at age 1 1/2
for the first time on my own and bump into a tree, I am being
"introduced to the world", but I don't think that is
well-characterized simply as "information".
### - animals don't bump into trees either (unless they're not looking where they're going
i suppose:) yet they're not walking around all day either with their heads full of
meanings & concepts about falling into holes or of maybe bumping into things... i.e.
humans go too-far in that respect and then start believing all their own crap
>Your assertion is that "information" somehow "progams" everyone to
>perceive in a certain way. And I say that is just flat not the case.
>
>### - walls are stills walls, the sky is still the sky, rocks are still rocks... that bit
>doesn't change... what changes is the (shifting) 'meanings' we keep putting on
>everything and then calling it the truth
Fine. Almost anyone knows that (except for your assertion that we
call our shifting meanings "the truth"). The point is that the sky
is not the sky because we all *dream* it the same way, implying that
if we somehow decided to dream the sky a different way it would then
BE different and have completely different characteristics.
### - the sky is the sky is the sky...and it isn't a dream... it doesn't change...
the problem lies in 'calling' it the sky, analysing it all, and then going around dreaming
we know everything about it! (heads filled with ideas see?) - plus the next thing ya
know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
everything up in the process)
>That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
>
>### - forget about castaneda...
Why?
### - because he may or may not have deliberately tried to tie everything in the world
together re awareness & perception + religion & myth... thereby inserting his own unifying
theory on the subject into every nook & cranny until it's nigh on impossible to avoid him
and the picture/vista he painted of the world from those same materials... particularly
those who may have studied his ideas in some detail...
He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
back up everything you say too.
### - in the sense that he was just one of many indirectly demonstrating what a pile
of nonsense all our precious thoughts & ideas about ourselves & the world ultimately
are + just how 'gullible' and susceptible 'people' are FOR all those nonsense thoughts,
false concepts & yearned-for meanings, yes...
i mean perhaps if people get fooled enough times they'll eventually wake up to just what a
lot of old nonsense 'everything' like that is, 'including' the ones (like science) that
have more rational appeal - and because we don't really need 'any' of it (or so 'much' of
it) to live our lives...
>The simplest way to see that it is crap is to note that I take in all
>kinds of different information constantly, without it affecting the
>basic nature of my perception in any way.
>
>### - i meant it in the (human) sense that what ones sees & experiences can
>necessarily 'colour' that perception to the point that it effects behaviour, or
>maybe even the things one learns from then on - or in the case of derangement:
>to the point of things possibly looking very different indeed! (although i have
>no 'clinical' qualifications as such in that dept, at least not yet anyway :)
I don't think anyone would question that our experiences, reactions,
and conceptualizations "color" our interpretations of everything and
our attitude toward everything and our choice of actions. But even a
complete madman walks around not bumping into poles, and if I put a
quarter in his hand he can grab onto it because basic perception of
the world is still the same for both of us (even in that most extreme
case).
And it is the same because the world is not just a dream.
People love to say we create our own reality (and a madman would seem
the clearest example). But not really. When speaking purely of
*perception* it is more true to say that our reality created us.
A human can choose to do a million different things in that overall
reality, and in that limited sense we create our own reality, but not
in the basic sense of the world we perceive. We do not create that.
### - i think we've hammered this point enough really... i.e. we don't create the 'basic'
reality with our senses any more than the animals do... it's just that humans have this
extra bit (the mind as we know it) that can be trained to take its eyes 'off' of that
basic reality, and instead view/filter it through a bunch of conceptualised ideas... and
powerful + seductive though some of those ideas are and certainly have-been; nevertheless
are they still all a 'distortion' of that most 'basic' + unchanging reality we call the
physical world
### - agreed... and then we went and invented 'entire systems' and chose to relate to
'that' instead of the 'original' + only (channel) we were designed for... i mean we gotta
get-back to the 'garden' ya-know?:)
### - aye... and my point is that we don't actually need anything such as in trying to
find out how the world works... and because in doing so we're only creating 'more'
meanings we'll ultimately have to escape from later if we're to be dealing directly with
that most 'basic' reality... the only problem with 'science' being that it turns us all
into scientists :)
>And I am not "programmed", your unsupported paranoid assertions to the
>contrary. :-) I use information, not the other way around.
>
>### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
>your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already been trained
>to look at & process things in a certain + particular way (like myself: a rather
>western/1st-world version if nothing else)
So what. I could be "programmed" to be a good American, and brush my
teeth twice a day, and to always leave a 15 % tip, but none of that
has changed my fundamental perception of reality at all.
I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
### - it hasn't changed for me neither... what changed was that my head got gradually
filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
that basically, and in 'that' sense then... what we have to 'try' to do is to realise what
happened and then 'dump' all that 'stuff' cluttering our mind's otherwise 'unsullied' view
of the world (make that mirror smooth again etc)
how? oh i dunno... i mean, 'realisation' is the key... so without necessarily shagging
everything that moves: be a 'mindless' animal for a day or something...
& take-in the sights? ;-)
Chris Rodgers
> ### - i've always meant it only in the sense of people being brainwashed in one way or
> another... brainwashed as in one of those weird cults kids often have to be rescued from
> for example... brainwashed as in society happily making good little 'cogs-in-the-machine'
> out of everyone and no-one knowing no-better or anything different to that because it's
> not in the program... brainwashed as in people being virtually forced (via their
> whatever-education i mean) to think in very rigid + limiting ways, and all this in the
> sense of how that brainwashing directly affects a person's perception of 'themselves' and
> what it's all supposed to 'mean' to be alive & living in the world... a 'learned' meaning
> that ultimately has nothing whatsoever to do with the real/physical world we experienced
> as children before all that 'gunk' (of one description or another) was dumped in our
> head...
Slider the ego that all of us now carry with us
IS the original brain bath. Everyone has replaced
their original perceiving capability with the
internal dialogue. The task (and the only task)
is to dump this monster. It is the only work in
town. I admit it is not easy to do. :)
Jeremy Donovan
Chris Rodgers <cr...@att.net> wrote:
>Everyone has replaced
>their original perceiving capability with the
>internal dialogue.
Pure nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. :-)
You've replaced your original thinking capacity with a brainwashing.
Read some real research on infant perception, for chrissakes.
-J.
Chris Rodgers
> Pure nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. :-)
Aha ha ha. You're so deep into 'it' you don't
even know it. You are having a "romance with
your very ego". You can wake up anytime you like.
But knowing you, you won't. You'll carry your
position of "being right" to the grave.
Donnie Perfecto rides again.
> You've replaced your original thinking capacity with a brainwashing.
> Read some real research on infant perception, for chrissakes.
I was reading some Stuart Wilde the other day.
He said he had read over 10,000 books. He also
said that in one mushroom trip he learned more than
all those books together. Your "research" is from
the head. Worthless actually, but you'll swear it's
the real thing. Just another chicken shit position
of the mind, big deal? What else can you show me
"dances without heart"? lol! :)
Jeremy Donovan
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>and that's always been my point in every conversation basically... e.g. to get back to
>that unsullied + uneducated/un-programmed perception (of the child) and thus deal with the
>'real' world that's behind all that crap and that the animals still live quite happily in
>for example... that what we call 'education' is really only a form of 'pollution' to that
>basic perception of the world in that it eventually utterly clouds/corrupts our view of it
Okay. I just consider that an unrealistic and naive stance on the
world in general, so I have almost no interest in discussing it. But
I will, briefly.
I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
>things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
>is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
>to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to the
>kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to deal
>directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
don't agree with it. I sure don't.
> and which, if true, would kinda
>make science then just another part of a more 'general' cult
>
>that to be self-aware 'without' analysing it... 'without' trying to understand/control
>it... is actually still much better than what the animals do - much more!:)
I don't think so. And I don't think it does jack. We've already had
about a million years of it. And we aren't going back. That *isn't*
going to happen. That's why I think your perspective is merely naive,
and unconstructive.
>### - the sky is the sky is the sky...and it isn't a dream... it doesn't change...
>the problem lies in 'calling' it the sky, analysing it all,
I don't see a 'problem'. That is what our giant neocortex is all
about, analyzing everything.
> and then going around dreaming
>we know everything about it! (heads filled with ideas see?)
But we don't think that, exactly. So ... no, I don't see.
Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
Does that somehow ruin your enjoyment of the sky? If so, what a queer
lad you are.
> - plus the next thing ya
>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
>it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
>greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
>everything up in the process)
To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
>>That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
>>
>>### - forget about castaneda...
>
>Why?
>
>### - because he may or may not have deliberately tried to tie everything in the world
>together re awareness & perception + religion & myth... thereby inserting his own unifying
>theory on the subject into every nook & cranny until it's nigh on impossible to avoid him
>and the picture/vista he painted of the world from those same materials... particularly
>those who may have studied his ideas in some detail...
And this is pretty much ... babbling. :-)
>He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
>you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
>back up everything you say too.
>
>### - in the sense that he was just one of many indirectly demonstrating what a pile
>of nonsense all our precious thoughts & ideas about ourselves & the world ultimately
>are
Speak for yourself. :-)
> + just how 'gullible' and susceptible 'people' are FOR all those nonsense thoughts,
>false concepts & yearned-for meanings, yes...
>
>i mean perhaps if people get fooled enough times they'll eventually wake up to just what a
>lot of old nonsense 'everything' like that is, 'including' the ones (like science) that
>have more rational appeal - and because we don't really need 'any' of it (or so 'much' of
>it) to live our lives...
I honestly don't think you even have a decent point. I think you're
out of touch with everything, and ranting and raving.
"You say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see
the plan."
>### - i think we've hammered this point enough really... i.e. we don't create the 'basic'
>reality with our senses any more than the animals do... it's just that humans have this
>extra bit (the mind as we know it) that can be trained to take its eyes 'off' of that
>basic reality, and instead view/filter it through a bunch of conceptualised ideas... and
>powerful + seductive though some of those ideas are and certainly have-been; nevertheless
>are they still all a 'distortion' of that most 'basic' + unchanging reality we call the
>physical world
I don't see that our pursuit of knowledge in general necessarily
"distorts" anything. Many, many things were widely viewed in a very
"distorted" manner indeed before a scientific approach ever came
along.
>Every bit of "equipment" we have was designed,
>calibrated, and tuned for picking up this channel.
>
>### - agreed... and then we went and invented 'entire systems' and chose to relate to
>'that' instead of the 'original' + only (channel) we were designed for... i mean we gotta
>get-back to the 'garden' ya-know?:)
Gee, I don't know where you live, but where I live, many of the people
pretty much ARE. :-)
I showed you Greg and Gabi's place. You've seen pictures of Eldon's
place. And Ether's. I should take some shots of my own
neighborhood, and the place where I work. Then maybe you'd get it.
We are very much creating a "garden", but no one is going to go "back"
to some old state, and no one is going to throw away what we've
learned.
What I want to know is ... where do YOU live? How much "garden" have
you made for yourself?
To address your actual point, one of my personal goals is to support
and further the careful *integration* of science, high-technology and
nature, in such a way that nature is not damaged. And that view I
consider to be current, and realistic, and constructive.
>Let's be clear. Gathering knowledge of the world is a social process
>that changes just like any other social process. But the basic
>principles of how the *world works* do not change. Or, one can say
>that when they do change, they do so in accord with "laws" that do not
>change. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom made water 2 billion
>years before the first human existed. Moons orbited their planets in
>the same way. etc. All that hasn't changed. Our understanding of
>how it all works improves. It's not perfect, but it gets better and
>better.
>
>Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world. It IS
>a social process, so the knowledge does continually change. But
>because the goal is to zero in on how the *world works*, and because
>the method has been optimized for that *single purpose*, we can get
>closer and closer to accurately describing unchanging characteristics
>and "laws" of the REAL world.
>
>### - aye... and my point is that we don't actually need anything such as in trying to
>find out how the world works... and because in doing so we're only creating 'more'
>meanings we'll ultimately have to escape from later if we're to be dealing directly with
>that most 'basic' reality... the only problem with 'science' being that it turns us all
>into scientists :)
Who are you to decide what WE need or don't need? You don't notice
anyone paying much attention to your claims (which to me are vacuous),
do you?
Go "deal" with your "basic reality" if you want. I personally do not
believe you will accomplish anything at all, and I'm sure I've made
that clear many times now.
>>### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
>>your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already been trained
>>to look at & process things in a certain + particular way (like myself: a rather
>>western/1st-world version if nothing else)
>
>So what. I could be "programmed" to be a good American, and brush my
>teeth twice a day, and to always leave a 15 % tip, but none of that
>has changed my fundamental perception of reality at all.
>
>I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
>monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
>*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
>child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
>
>### - it hasn't changed for me neither...
Let's merely note that you agree your perception has not really been
changed by all this "evil" social world.
> what changed was that my head got gradually
>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
>(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
>that basically, and in 'that' sense then... what we have to 'try' to do is to realise what
>happened and then 'dump' all that 'stuff' cluttering our mind's otherwise 'unsullied' view
>of the world (make that mirror smooth again etc)
>
>how? oh i dunno... i mean, 'realisation' is the key... so without necessarily shagging
>everything that moves: be a 'mindless' animal for a day or something...
>
>& take-in the sights? ;-)
Many people I know do that kind of thing frequently, and naturally,
without making any big deal out of it.
-Jer
slider
Chris wrote
Slider the ego that all of us now carry with us
IS the original brain bath. Everyone has replaced
their original perceiving capability with the
internal dialogue.
### - if you mean that ego is what happens to ya if ya get into all
that thinking & stuff as a way of perceiving the world... then yeah :)
The task (and the only task)
is to dump this monster. It is the only work in
town. I admit it is not easy to do. :)
### - as i was sayin' to jeremy... don't sweat it, just have an 'analysis-less' day
every once in a while...
anyone got any bananas? heh heh heh :)
Jeremy Donovan
Chris Rodgers <cr...@att.net> wrote:
>Jeremy Donovan wrote:
>
>> Pure nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. :-)
>
>Aha ha ha. You're so deep into 'it' you don't
>even know it. You are having a "romance with
>your very ego". You can wake up anytime you like.
>But knowing you, you won't. You'll carry your
>position of "being right" to the grave.
>Donnie Perfecto rides again.
One's perception of the world is not created by the "internal dialog".
You won't ever be able to support that claim.
>> You've replaced your original thinking capacity with a brainwashing.
>> Read some real research on infant perception, for chrissakes.
>
>I was reading some Stuart Wilde the other day.
>He said he had read over 10,000 books. He also
>said that in one mushroom trip he learned more than
>all those books together. Your "research" is from
>the head. Worthless actually, but you'll swear it's
>the real thing. Just another chicken shit position
>of the mind, big deal? What else can you show me
>"dances without heart"? lol! :)
So do you plan to stop reading and thinking, and just take mushrooms
or "shamanic workshops" once in awhile? That'd be a great way to
preserve your fantasies.
I've taken mushroom trips before. Have you? If so, did it change
your life a lot? Did it make you enlightened?
-J.
Chris Rodgers
> One's perception of the world is not created by the "internal dialog".
> You won't ever be able to support that claim.
This is your claim not mine.
Your perception of the world is
created by what you filter. Now if
your filter is so fucking clean, (which YOURS isn't)
then you would be seeing the essence all time.
No one does that. But whatever you do perceive
is all yours, it doesn't belong to anyone else.
So.....you do at some point have to take responsibility
for where YOU are at. Your position or take on the
world is something that you constructed over time.
No one did it to you. Let me know when your internal
dialogue comes to a big stop, I'll be holding my breath
when it does, lol!
> So do you plan to stop reading and thinking, and just take mushrooms
> or "shamanic workshops" once in awhile?
No, not anytime soon. How 'bout you?
> That'd be a great way to preserve your fantasies.
I don't have fantasies, I take action or I forgetaboutit.
> I've taken mushroom trips before.
And so? Did you take an ego trip or did you take a real trip?
My bet is that is that your ego took you for the ride of life.
> Have you? If so, did it change
> your life a lot? Did it make you enlightened?
Not important actually, it maybe for your mind
but not my mind. Whatever happened in the past is
history. Glory days are long gone. What's happenin'
today? The only show in town is right now. :)
Chris Rodgers
> ### - if you mean that ego is what happens to ya if ya get into all
> that thinking & stuff as a way of perceiving the world... then yeah :)
It happens all the time to everyone, sage or seer, sorcerer or valet.
CEO or cab driver, no one is immune to it. No one's mind stops
for ever. So we have our buddy the ID in the background always ready
to argue with someone, even people on the internet that you don't even
know. It doesn't care it just wants to "be right". Looking good here
boss, lol!
> ### - as i was sayin' to jeremy... don't sweat it, just have an 'analysis-less' day
> every once in a while...
Huge laughter, "you don't ask for much do ya"?
This guy has never admitted a mistake or apologized
to anyone, even after he found out Castaneda fucked
him to the wall. Watch he'll even come up with his
best defense here, he will pull a CofS switch-a-roo and
blame it on someone else. :)
Jeremy Donovan
Chris Rodgers <cr...@att.net> wrote:
>This guy has never admitted a mistake or apologized
>to anyone, even after he found out Castaneda fucked
>him to the wall.
Now you're just plain lying. Is that what you learned from shamanism?
How to lie all the time?
-J.
Chris Rodgers
> Now you're just plain lying. Is that what you learned from shamanism?
> How to lie all the time?
What did I tell ya?
Geez, I can set my watch to you.
Wild assumptions and assertions
set to bait. You wouldn't know
a lie from the truth anyways. :)
Jeremy Donovan
Chris Rodgers <cr...@att.net> wrote:
>Jeremy Donovan wrote:
>
>> One's perception of the world is not created by the "internal dialog".
>> You won't ever be able to support that claim.
>
>This is your claim not mine.
This is word-for-word the claim you made:
"Everyone has replaced their original perceiving capability with the
internal dialogue."
I simply disputed your claim, and pointed out that you could never
back it up.
I could also tell you what areas of the brain process our perception
of the world, and show you evidence that they do.
>Your perception of the world is
>created by what you filter. Now if
>your filter is so fucking clean, (which YOURS isn't)
>then you would be seeing the essence all time.
Oh yeah! The "filter"! Please to say, where is "the filter",
Chris? :-) Tell us where the "filter" is. Next thing you'll be
telling people to get their oil changed or something.
(And it wouldn't be any crazier than what you're already saying if you
did.)
>No one does that.
You finally got something right. No one does that, because you are
talking about stuff that isn't even real. LOL.
> But whatever you do perceive
>is all yours, it doesn't belong to anyone else.
Did anyone say it did? :-)
>So.....you do at some point have to take responsibility
>for where YOU are at.
Did anyone say you don't?
>Your position or take on the
>world is something that you constructed over time.
Did anyone say it's not.
>No one did it to you.
Did you live your whole life in a vacuum, without anyone else doing
anything to you? (This is the part you never get, even though a child
could see it.)
> Let me know when your internal
>dialogue comes to a big stop, I'll be holding my breath
>when it does, lol!
Why? Nothing happens when the internal dialog does come to a stop.
How long is it going to take you to realize that?
>> So do you plan to stop reading and thinking, and just take mushrooms
>> or "shamanic workshops" once in awhile?
>
>No, not anytime soon. How 'bout you?
Then why did you respond to my suggestion that you read some real
research on infant perception with a remark about a guy who claimed he
got more from a mushroom trip than from 10,000 books?
And why don't you actually check out some research on infant
perception, so you can learn that how we perceive the world hasn't got
anything to do with the "internal dialog".
>> That'd be a great way to preserve your fantasies.
>
>I don't have fantasies, I take action or I forgetaboutit.
Oh. Then please, tell us what "actions" you have taken that convinced
you that you have an "assemblage point". And tell us what "actions"
you have taken that make you so sure that the "internal dialog"
dictates our perception.
>> I've taken mushroom trips before.
>
>And so? Did you take an ego trip or did you take a real trip?
>My bet is that is that your ego took you for the ride of life.
You're name calling instead of listening. Is that what they teach you
in shaman school? You were talking about a guy who took a mushroom
trip and acting like he was really wise because he said he got a lot
out it, so I just thought I'd tell you that I've done it too...
Your ego trip goes like this:
"My ego is smaller than your ego."
"My heart is bigger than your heart."
Over and over and over you repeat this.
>> Have you? If so, did it change
>> your life a lot? Did it make you enlightened?
>
>Not important actually, it maybe for your mind
>but not my mind.
Who said it was important? You were acting like you put a lot of
stock in the guy who said he got a lot out of a mushroom trip, so I
just wanted to know ... have you ever done a mushroom trip? Why
didn't you simply answer the question?
> Whatever happened in the past is
>history. Glory days are long gone. What's happenin'
>today? The only show in town is right now. :)
What's happening with you is more than obvious.
Let's just say that if you are an example of a person who has had his
"assemblage point shifted", I'd just as soon do without it. :-)
-J.
Chris Rodgers
But no "bite" here.
You take care now. :)
slider
Chris wrote
> - if you mean that ego is what happens to ya if ya get into all
> that thinking & stuff as a way of perceiving the world... then yeah :)
It happens all the time to everyone, sage or seer, sorcerer or valet.
CEO or cab driver, no one is immune to it. No one's mind stops
for ever. So we have our buddy the ID in the background always ready
to argue with someone, even people on the internet that you don't even
know. It doesn't care it just wants to "be right". Looking good here
boss, lol!
### - yeah well stop dissing it, & anal-ising it and stuff... and just pack it in! lol:)
> - as i was sayin' to jeremy... don't sweat it, just have an 'analysis-less' day
> every once in a while...
Huge laughter, "you don't ask for much do ya"?
This guy has never admitted a mistake or apologized
to anyone, even after he found out Castaneda fucked
him to the wall.
### - weeeell we can all be a bit proud sometimes, don't ya think?
Watch he'll even come up with his
best defense here, he will pull a CofS switch-a-roo and
blame it on someone else. :)
### - whatever, but cha' don't have to keep pickin' on him ALL the time do ya? (lol:)
slider
Jeremy wrote
>e.g. to get back to that unsullied + uneducated/un-programmed perception
>(of the child) and thus deal with the
>'real' world that's behind all that crap and that the animals still live quite happily in
>for example... that what we call 'education' is really only a form of 'pollution' to that
>basic perception of the world in that it eventually utterly clouds/corrupts our view of
it
Okay. I just consider that an unrealistic and naive stance on the
world in general, so I have almost no interest in discussing it. But
I will, briefly.
I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
### - i meant it in the sense that it all goes to creating a (potentially false/carefully
crafted) 'view' of the world and what that world, and our life living in it, is all
supposed to 'mean' - but what if there ARE no 'meanings' other than the ones we keep
projecting onto the world in various forms? what if we're just here for a little while and
that's it? no reasons, no meanings, nothing like that; it all just happen to be here!
and then you get humanity having + exhibiting trouble trying to 'come to terms' with that
rather awesome eventuality, to the point that they start 'inventing' things about it only
to become totally lost in it when they forgot they invented it & start believing in all
their own constructions...
>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
>things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
>is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
>to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to
the kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to
>deal directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
don't agree with it. I sure don't.
### - fair enough: why the hell 'should' we attempt to experience the world 'as it is'
rather than via all our clever ideas & dreams... i.e. screw 'actual' reality... i prefer
my own version?:)
> and which, if true, would kinda
>make science then just another part of a more 'general' cult
>
>that to be self-aware 'without' analysing it... 'without' trying to understand/control
>it... is actually still much better than what the animals do - much more!:)
I don't think so. And I don't think it does jack.
### - well it might 'change' things a bit, see? :)
We've already had
about a million years of it. And we aren't going back. That *isn't*
going to happen. That's why I think your perspective is merely naive,
and unconstructive.
### - imho & experience it IS possible to back-track and maybe undo some of the mistakes
of the past; both individually & globally... it requires only the realisation & the will
to do so...
>### - the sky is the sky is the sky...and it isn't a dream... it doesn't change...
>the problem lies in 'calling' it the sky, analysing it all,
I don't see a 'problem'. That is what our giant neocortex is all
about, analyzing everything.
### - it's a well known fact that the brain grows in accordance with the stimulation it
receives (kids given classical music to listen to, and even adults in later life, having
their brain grow an extra lump to process it)
so then... might not talking and reasoning have similarly affected the growth-pattern +
size of our brains, certain parts of that brain expanding into a reasoning-centre because
of it for all we know?
> and then going around dreaming
>we know everything about it! (heads filled with ideas see?)
But we don't think that, exactly. So ... no, I don't see.
Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
### - yes! (smile:)
Does that somehow ruin your enjoyment of the sky? If so, what a queer
lad you are.
### - we don't need to know all that to enjoy it... in fact knowing all that about it
actually + only puts the whole 'experience' of the sky at some kind of intellectual
arms-length - and although that actually creates two 'different' experiences of the
sky (one 'experiencial' & the other intellectual) - i'd still have to say that the
experiencial one is by far the better & more enriching experience - the intellectual
version only really explaining everything 'away', not bringing anything closer:)
> - plus the next thing ya
>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
>it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
>greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
>everything up in the process)
To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
### - heh, it's just an observation that humanity goes too-far in all its great ideas
about everything... often + increasingly to the direct detriment of the world and
ourselves living in it... (so how clever is that?:)
>>That is the kind of crap Castaneda preached, but never backed up.
>>
>>### - forget about castaneda...
>
>Why?
>
>### - because he may or may not have deliberately tried to tie everything in the world
>together re awareness & perception + religion & myth... thereby inserting his own
unifying
>theory on the subject into every nook & cranny until it's nigh on impossible to avoid him
>and the picture/vista he painted of the world from those same materials... particularly
>those who may have studied his ideas in some detail...
And this is pretty much ... babbling. :-)
### - well he did didn't he? i.e. tried to create a unifying theory to answer/explain some
of the bigger human questions + metaphysical concerns... like what are we all doin' here!
(for example:) and what's it all about alfie! :)
>He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
>you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
>back up everything you say too.
>
>### - in the sense that he was just one of many indirectly demonstrating what a pile
>of nonsense all our precious thoughts & ideas about ourselves & the world ultimately
>are
Speak for yourself. :-)
### - difference is slider's comin' straight atcha' in these matters jeremy... not
indirectly as in 'wearing-out' people's gullibility to the point that they maybe realise
it's ALL a pile of do-dah for themselves... i've been sayin' it + challenging everything
from the beginning, science included! :)
susceptible 'people' are FOR all those nonsense thoughts,
>false concepts & yearned-for meanings, yes...
>
>i mean perhaps if people get fooled enough times they'll eventually wake up to just what
a lot of old nonsense 'everything' like that is, 'including' the ones (like science) that
>have more rational appeal - and because we don't really need 'any' of it (or so 'much' of
>it) to live our lives...
I honestly don't think you even have a decent point. I think you're
out of touch with everything, and ranting and raving.
"You say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see
the plan."
### - this conversation is getting a bit heavy... but only rationalists think in terms of
'solutions' & 'plans' i reckon... 'to be or not to be' is the question in this context...
whether to be of the 'arms-length' + intellectual approach to life... or the experiencial
one - both are available :)
>### - i think we've hammered this point enough really... i.e. we don't create the 'basic'
>reality with our senses any more than the animals do... it's just that humans have this
>extra bit (the mind as we know it) that can be trained to take its eyes 'off' of that
>basic reality, and instead view/filter it through a bunch of conceptualised ideas... and
>powerful + seductive though some of those ideas are and certainly have-been; nevertheless
>are they still all a 'distortion' of that most 'basic' + unchanging reality we call the
>physical world
I don't see that our pursuit of knowledge in general necessarily
"distorts" anything. Many, many things were widely viewed in a very
"distorted" manner indeed before a scientific approach ever came
along.
### - the scientific approach is more careful... but in the end it's still only an
intellectual system v.s. the experiencial as to which is the more profound (something the
highly intellectual 'Sartre' looked deeply into for example)
>Every bit of "equipment" we have was designed,
>calibrated, and tuned for picking up this channel.
>
>### - agreed... and then we went and invented 'entire systems' and chose to relate to
>'that' instead of the 'original' + only (channel) we were designed for... i mean we gotta
>get-back to the 'garden' ya-know?:)
Gee, I don't know where you live, but where I live, many of the people
pretty much ARE. :-)
I showed you Greg and Gabi's place. You've seen pictures of Eldon's
place. And Ether's. I should take some shots of my own
neighborhood, and the place where I work. Then maybe you'd get it.
We are very much creating a "garden", but no one is going to go "back"
to some old state, and no one is going to throw away what we've
learned.
What I want to know is ... where do YOU live? How much "garden" have
you made for yourself?
### - sarcasm?
To address your actual point, one of my personal goals is to support
and further the careful *integration* of science, high-technology and
nature, in such a way that nature is not damaged. And that view I
consider to be current, and realistic, and constructive.
### - current & constructive, yes... but i question 'realistic' in so much that so far
we've just been screwing up the world with all that kind of thing... the 'dream' of not
damaging nature with all our tinkerings being imho only a kind of denial of the truth in
that it HAS actually been screwing everything up, possibly catastophically and/or
irrepairably so! but we like it so much that we're just not prepared to give it up!
### - as far as i can tell there's nothing to 'achieve' other than to be dealing directly
with that most basic of realities... plus from that pov the rest is just human insecurity
& greed to build empires & edifices of knowledge, and to be the first ones to do it etc
etc... all nonsense... all a waste of precious + irreplaceable time, and, because i don't
believe in reincarnation: absolutely 'unique' time for every one of us who has ever lived!
now honestly, who wants to spend they one-time ever only existance... 'damaging' things?
>>### - if you went through the education-system you've been affected...
>>your mind, like everyone else who's been through it, has already been trained
>>to look at & process things in a certain + particular way (like myself: a rather
>>western/1st-world version if nothing else)
>
>So what. I could be "programmed" to be a good American, and brush my
>teeth twice a day, and to always leave a 15 % tip, but none of that
>has changed my fundamental perception of reality at all.
>
>I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
>monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
>*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
>child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
>
>### - it hasn't changed for me neither...
Let's merely note that you agree your perception has not really been
changed by all this "evil" social world.
### - i thought religion and its conception of 'evil' is surely one of the things we're
tryin' to get-away from isn't it? - no it's not 'evil' to be screwing up the world, it's
just dumb - plus we don't really have to know about an apple's atoms to enjoy the
'experience' of apple :)
> what changed was that my head got gradually
>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
>(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
### - so you were 'born' with all this inherant knowledge about atoms and things eh? - i
mean i don't remember thinking about all 'that' when i was hopping down the road for a
lollipop;)
>that basically, and in 'that' sense then... what we have to 'try' to do is to realise
what happened and then 'dump' all that 'stuff' cluttering our mind's otherwise 'unsullied'
view of the world (make that mirror smooth again etc)
>
>how? oh i dunno... i mean, 'realisation' is the key... so without necessarily shagging
>everything that moves: be a 'mindless' animal for a day or something...
>
>& take-in the sights? ;-)
Many people I know do that kind of thing frequently, and naturally,
without making any big deal out of it.
### - but that's the point jeremy... it's 'not' a big deal to be having an experiencial
experience of the world, in fact it's probably 'the' most natural thing 'in' the world
over 'millions of years' to be doing!
'science' is the big deal! :)
Jeremy Donovan
>Jeremy wrote
>
>
>>e.g. to get back to that unsullied + uneducated/un-programmed perception
>>(of the child) and thus deal with the
>>'real' world that's behind all that crap and that the animals still live quite happily in
>>for example... that what we call 'education' is really only a form of 'pollution' to that
>>basic perception of the world in that it eventually utterly clouds/corrupts our view of
>it
>
>Okay. I just consider that an unrealistic and naive stance on the
>world in general, so I have almost no interest in discussing it. But
>I will, briefly.
>
>I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
>
>### - i meant it in the sense that it all goes to creating a (potentially false/carefully
>crafted) 'view' of the world and what that world, and our life living in it, is all
>supposed to 'mean' - but what if there ARE no 'meanings' other than the ones we keep
>projecting onto the world in various forms? what if we're just here for a little while and
>that's it? no reasons, no meanings, nothing like that; it all just happen to be here!
Actually an education can include studying many ways of viewing the
world, including the one you just mentioned.
>and then you get humanity having + exhibiting trouble trying to 'come to terms' with that
>rather awesome eventuality, to the point that they start 'inventing' things about it only
>to become totally lost in it when they forgot they invented it & start believing in all
>their own constructions...
You totally lost me. The idea that it all just happens to be here is
merely your construction. And it's just one idea.
>>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
>>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
>>things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
>>is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
>>to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to
>the kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to
>>deal directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
>
>Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
>don't agree with it. I sure don't.
>
>### - fair enough: why the hell 'should' we attempt to experience the world 'as it is'
>rather than via all our clever ideas & dreams... i.e. screw 'actual' reality... i prefer
>my own version?:)
I don't think studying the real world detracts in any way from
experiencing the real world.
>> and which, if true, would kinda
>>make science then just another part of a more 'general' cult
>>
>>that to be self-aware 'without' analysing it... 'without' trying to understand/control
>>it... is actually still much better than what the animals do - much more!:)
>
>I don't think so. And I don't think it does jack.
>
>### - well it might 'change' things a bit, see? :)
How? You don't think people have been doing this for thousands of
years already? You see it changing anything?
>We've already had
>about a million years of it. And we aren't going back. That *isn't*
>going to happen. That's why I think your perspective is merely naive,
>and unconstructive.
>
>### - imho & experience it IS possible to back-track and maybe undo some of the mistakes
>of the past; both individually & globally... it requires only the realisation & the will
>to do so...
Okay, in certain ways that's true. But almost no one is going to go
back to living like animals without "analyzing anything". That's a
fantasy.
>>### - the sky is the sky is the sky...and it isn't a dream... it doesn't change...
>>the problem lies in 'calling' it the sky, analysing it all,
>
>I don't see a 'problem'. That is what our giant neocortex is all
>about, analyzing everything.
>
>### - it's a well known fact that the brain grows in accordance with the stimulation it
>receives (kids given classical music to listen to, and even adults in later life, having
>their brain grow an extra lump to process it)
>
>so then... might not talking and reasoning have similarly affected the growth-pattern +
>size of our brains, certain parts of that brain expanding into a reasoning-centre because
>of it for all we know?
So now you want to shrink the brain back down to more ape-like sizes?
:-) Would it be okay if you just do that to your own?? Ha ha ha ha!!
And stop talking and reasoning? Why don't you try just a month of
that and see how you like it? LOL. :-)
>> and then going around dreaming
>>we know everything about it! (heads filled with ideas see?)
>
>But we don't think that, exactly. So ... no, I don't see.
>
>Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
>as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
>be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
>
>### - yes! (smile:)
That's a bizarre perspective.
>Does that somehow ruin your enjoyment of the sky? If so, what a queer
>lad you are.
>
>### - we don't need to know all that to enjoy it...
I didn't say we need to know all that to enjoy it. I implied that
knowing all that doesn't need to affect one's enjoyment of it in any
way.
In fact, to me it is more like an added enjoyment, rather than taking
anything away.
> in fact knowing all that about it
>actually + only puts the whole 'experience' of the sky at some kind of intellectual
>arms-length -
I think this odd claim of yours is doing that very thing -- putting
what really happens with analysis of the world at some kind of
intellectual arms-length.
> and although that actually creates two 'different' experiences of the
>sky (one 'experiencial' & the other intellectual) - i'd still have to say that the
>experiencial one is by far the better & more enriching experience - the intellectual
>version only really explaining everything 'away', not bringing anything closer:)
They need not be separate experiences. They can both happen at the
same time. I think your obsession with this is weird.
And all kinds of fascinating new *experiences* can come out of the
intellectual analysis (such as flying up into that sky and seeing the
clouds close up, in a plane).
>> - plus the next thing ya
>>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
>>it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
>>greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
>>everything up in the process)
>
>To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
>
>### - heh, it's just an observation that humanity goes too-far in all its great ideas
>about everything... often + increasingly to the direct detriment of the world and
>ourselves living in it... (so how clever is that?:)
It's a direct side-effect of the power of knowledge. And like I said,
it's going to keep advancing.
>>He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
>>you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
>>back up everything you say too.
>>
>>### - in the sense that he was just one of many indirectly demonstrating what a pile
>>of nonsense all our precious thoughts & ideas about ourselves & the world ultimately
>>are
>
>Speak for yourself. :-)
>
>### - difference is slider's comin' straight atcha' in these matters jeremy... not
>indirectly as in 'wearing-out' people's gullibility to the point that they maybe realise
>it's ALL a pile of do-dah for themselves... i've been sayin' it + challenging everything
>from the beginning, science included! :)
I hate to tell you this. But to my eyes you aren't challenging
anything. And I don't see that you'll have much of an affect on
anything either. Science is running wild having a hey day, and it's
going to keep on doing it. And I think that's just great.
>I honestly don't think you even have a decent point. I think you're
>out of touch with everything, and ranting and raving.
>
>"You say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see
>the plan."
>
>### - this conversation is getting a bit heavy... but only rationalists think in terms of
>'solutions' & 'plans' i reckon... 'to be or not to be' is the question in this context...
>whether to be of the 'arms-length' + intellectual approach to life... or the experiencial
>one - both are available :)
You're the one who always acts like there's something terrible wrong
with the world that would be fixed if everyone would only listen to
you. Well, I've listened. And I don't think you've got the big
solution to anything.
And I don't see any necessary separation between an intellectual and
an experiential approach to life. I do both all the time.
>>Every bit of "equipment" we have was designed,
>>calibrated, and tuned for picking up this channel.
>>
>>### - agreed... and then we went and invented 'entire systems' and chose to relate to
>>'that' instead of the 'original' + only (channel) we were designed for... i mean we gotta
>>get-back to the 'garden' ya-know?:)
>
>Gee, I don't know where you live, but where I live, many of the people
>pretty much ARE. :-)
>
>I showed you Greg and Gabi's place. You've seen pictures of Eldon's
>place. And Ether's. I should take some shots of my own
>neighborhood, and the place where I work. Then maybe you'd get it.
>We are very much creating a "garden", but no one is going to go "back"
>to some old state, and no one is going to throw away what we've
>learned.
>
>What I want to know is ... where do YOU live? How much "garden" have
>you made for yourself?
>
>### - sarcasm?
Not at all. It's a very straightforward question. You professed a
desire to get back to the garden. Finally you're talking about
something real, something that's not some "hazy state of awareness"
that I can't say much about. So I want to know, is that what YOU are
doing? Are you living in a garden? Are you helping to make the
world into one? Are you supporting people that work to improve the
environment? Are you making sure you don't damage the environment --
recycling, being careful about the products you use, all that jazz?
Or are you all talk, while you live in some urban hell hole and do
nothing at all about the environmental issues of the world or your own
living environment?
>To address your actual point, one of my personal goals is to support
>and further the careful *integration* of science, high-technology and
>nature, in such a way that nature is not damaged. And that view I
>consider to be current, and realistic, and constructive.
>
>### - current & constructive, yes... but i question 'realistic' in so much that so far
>we've just been screwing up the world with all that kind of thing... the 'dream' of not
>damaging nature with all our tinkerings being imho only a kind of denial of the truth in
>that it HAS actually been screwing everything up, possibly catastophically and/or
>irrepairably so! but we like it so much that we're just not prepared to give it up!
Time will tell. But I believe I can see very clearly that technology
need not damage the world when wielded wisely. If mankind simply
arrives at largely pollutionless energy technology, that will go a
long way toward what I see as possible.
>>Let's be clear. Gathering knowledge of the world is a social process
>>that changes just like any other social process. But the basic
>>principles of how the *world works* do not change. Or, one can say
>>that when they do change, they do so in accord with "laws" that do not
>>change. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom made water 2 billion
>>years before the first human existed. Moons orbited their planets in
>>the same way. etc. All that hasn't changed. Our understanding of
>>how it all works improves. It's not perfect, but it gets better and
>>better.
>>
>>Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world. It IS
>>a social process, so the knowledge does continually change. But
>>because the goal is to zero in on how the *world works*, and because
>>the method has been optimized for that *single purpose*, we can get
>>closer and closer to accurately describing unchanging characteristics
>>and "laws" of the REAL world.
>>
>>### - aye... and my point is that we don't actually need anything such as in trying to
>>find out how the world works...
Again, you don't speak for "we". If you say that YOU don't need to
find out how the world works, then fine. You go off and play.
I DO need to know how the world works. I need to know how everything
works. And so do millions of people like me. So, that's all there is
to say on that one. Adios, and good friggin' luck to ya.
> and because in doing so we're only creating 'more'
>>meanings we'll ultimately have to escape from later if we're to be dealing directly with
>>that most 'basic' reality... the only problem with 'science' being that it turns us all
>>into scientists :)
Discovering more about the world in no way creates anything it is
necessary to "escape" from. Not for me. This is your trip.
>Who are you to decide what WE need or don't need? You don't notice
>anyone paying much attention to your claims (which to me are vacuous),
>do you?
>
>Go "deal" with your "basic reality" if you want. I personally do not
>believe you will accomplish anything at all, and I'm sure I've made
>that clear many times now.
>
>### - as far as i can tell there's nothing to 'achieve' other than to be dealing directly
>with that most basic of realities...
Maybe there isn't anything for YOU to achieve... :-)
The rest of us have lots to do. The world isn't quite the way we want
it yet. And there's a whole universe out there to explore.
> plus from that pov the rest is just human insecurity
>& greed to build empires & edifices of knowledge, and to be the first ones to do it etc
>etc... all nonsense... all a waste of precious + irreplaceable time, and, because i don't
>believe in reincarnation: absolutely 'unique' time for every one of us who has ever lived!
So you sit around dissing anyone who doesn't do what YOU want to.
That's adolescent crap.
>now honestly, who wants to spend they one-time ever only existance... 'damaging' things?
Who wants to spend it talking about "states of awareness" that never
come to anything? You, I guess. But not me. Most people don't WANT
to damage things. That isn't their intent.
>>I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
>>monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
>>*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
>>child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
>>
>>### - it hasn't changed for me neither...
>
>Let's merely note that you agree your perception has not really been
>changed by all this "evil" social world.
>
>### - i thought religion and its conception of 'evil' is surely one of the things we're
>tryin' to get-away from isn't it? - no it's not 'evil' to be screwing up the world, it's
>just dumb - plus we don't really have to know about an apple's atoms to enjoy the
>'experience' of apple :)
Sorry I disagree here too. A lot of the time it is more than dumb, it
is actually evil. By that I don't mean that the prince of darkness is
responsible or anything, I just mean that the *intent* is
unnecessarily and maliciously destructive. That is what I call evil.
>> what changed was that my head got gradually
>>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
>>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
>>(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
>
>It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
>I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
>
>### - so you were 'born' with all this inherant knowledge about atoms and things eh? - i
>mean i don't remember thinking about all 'that' when i was hopping down the road for a
>lollipop;)
You evaded what I said. I didn't say I was born knowing everything.
I said that all the knowledge I've learned has not ruined anything for
me. Not at all. It has been another series of wonders in a
continuous world of wonder.
-Jeremy
slider
Jeremy wrote
>I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
>
>### - i meant it in the sense that it all goes to creating a (potentially false/carefully
>crafted) 'view' of the world and what that world, and our life living in it, is all
>supposed to 'mean' - but what if there ARE no 'meanings' other than the ones we keep
>projecting onto the world in various forms? what if we're just here for a little while
and that's it? no reasons, no meanings, nothing like that; it all just happen to be here!
Actually an education can include studying many ways of viewing the
world, including the one you just mentioned.
### - yes it 'could' include that but generally speaking it doesn't... the current whole
emphasis being on mainstream intellectual 'meanings' for everything, and the next thing ya
know we've all to varying degrees become meaning-dependant people making it all up as we
go along with meanings begetting more meanings until that's the only way we can see to do
things...
>and then you get humanity having + exhibiting trouble trying to 'come to terms' with that
>rather awesome eventuality, to the point that they start 'inventing' things about it only
>to become totally lost in it when they forgot they invented it & start believing in all
>their own constructions...
You totally lost me. The idea that it all just happens to be here is
merely your construction. And it's just one idea.
### - it seems to me that it isn't just an 'idea' that the world is here... it really IS
here and we're in it! and that's our starting point because we can't get out of it... and
we can either 'deal' with it directly & on those terms, or we can start inventing
'meanings' (intellectual or religious, it doesn't matter) for everything & sundry and thus
avoid the 'direct' experience and the realisations that stem quite naturally from such an
approach altogether...
>>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
>>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
>>things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to
>the kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to
>>deal directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
>
>Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
>don't agree with it. I sure don't.
>
>### - fair enough: why the hell 'should' we attempt to experience the world 'as it is'
>rather than via all our clever ideas & dreams... i.e. screw 'actual' reality... i prefer
>my own version?:)
I don't think studying the real world detracts in any way from
experiencing the real world.
### - well it might be if it turns out to be an experiential world first & foremost and
only an intellectual one afterwards... as in like having some kind of afterthought and
then going for that as a kind of distraction rather than face being scared shitless by the
rather continually overwhelming direct confrontation of being alive at all...
>> and which, if true, would kinda
>>make science then just another part of a more 'general' cult
>>
>>that to be self-aware 'without' analysing it... 'without' trying to understand/control
>>it... is actually still much better than what the animals do - much more!:)
>
>I don't think so. And I don't think it does jack.
>
>### - well it might 'change' things a bit, see? :)
How? You don't think people have been doing this for thousands of
years already? You see it changing anything?
### - it doesn't change the 'world' (well, not unless everyone was doing it, plus i really
don't think there's any hope for the world) - i.e. it only changes/increases the options
for the 'individual' applying it to 'themselves'
>We've already had
>about a million years of it. And we aren't going back. That *isn't*
>going to happen. That's why I think your perspective is merely naive,
>and unconstructive.
>
>### - imho & experience it IS possible to back-track and maybe undo some of the mistakes
>of the past; both individually & globally... it requires only the realisation & the will
>to do so...
Okay, in certain ways that's true. But almost no one is going to go
back to living like animals without "analyzing anything". That's a
fantasy.
### - some do... tho' i agree its a tiny minority... some even become totally harmless
(like the buddhists via their meditations?) and come to appreciate everything, including
themselves, for its 'temporary-ness', its naturalness - its IS-ness in the moment...
having no desire to 'alter' things or to 'manipulate' things in any way... (those articles
i posted on the japanese 'Floating world' for example)
>>### - the sky is the sky is the sky...and it isn't a dream... it doesn't change...
>>the problem lies in 'calling' it the sky, analysing it all,
>
>I don't see a 'problem'. That is what our giant neocortex is all
>about, analyzing everything.
>
>### - it's a well known fact that the brain grows in accordance with the stimulation it
>receives (kids given classical music to listen to, and even adults in later life, having
>their brain grow an extra lump to process it)
>
>so then... might not talking and reasoning have similarly affected the growth-pattern +
>size of our brains, certain parts of that brain expanding into a reasoning-centre because
>of it for all we know?
So now you want to shrink the brain back down to more ape-like sizes?
:-) Would it be okay if you just do that to your own?? Ha ha ha ha!!
And stop talking and reasoning? Why don't you try just a month of
that and see how you like it? LOL. :-)
### - humans are not apes... or if they are, then they're still quite a bit different to
those lower animals in terms of this 'bloom of self-awareness' humanity contains... plus
it HAS been known for people to take long vows of silence for example... even to them
turning off their reasoning/intellects for long periods via things like meditation, so
it's not 'totally' unknown for them to do so... plus imho it's only that the western world
we live in has come to emphasise something very different to that that that has now become
the norm in the world that you & i just so happened to be born into...(lol @ 3 'thats' in
a row - howz'att:)
>> and then going around dreaming
>>we know everything about it! (heads filled with ideas see?)
>
>But we don't think that, exactly. So ... no, I don't see.
>
>Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
>as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
>be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
>
>### - yes! (smile:)
That's a bizarre perspective.
>Does that somehow ruin your enjoyment of the sky? If so, what a queer
>lad you are.
>
>### - we don't need to know all that to enjoy it...
I didn't say we need to know all that to enjoy it. I implied that
knowing all that doesn't need to affect one's enjoyment of it in any
way.
In fact, to me it is more like an added enjoyment, rather than taking
anything away.
### - i understand that there's a sort of joy in thinking one actually comprehends things
in an intellectual (i would say 'artificial' + arms-length) way... plus it's nice when
things all 'add-up' etc... but perhaps that's not all we can do - or 'should' do -
especially to the exclusion of anything & everything else, and/or just because that's all
we 'know' to do by dint of being born into a heavily industrialised western world which
perforce automatically advocates such a mechanical approach for its citizens (they 'have'
to!:)
and it looks like there's no way out of it... except then along comes some of the most
intellectual + intelligent people on the planet (i.e. the 'really' clever ones, the real
'smarty-pants' among us with brains the 'size' of a planet) like Sartre, and Albert Camus,
or Arthur Rimbaud before them, and even america's own since then like Henry Miller, Allen
Ginsberg, Jack Kerouack (& the rest of the 'beat-generation') and more, all testifying &
pointing to 'another' side to what they claimed has become our rather industrialised human
nature...
and/or just maybe some bum 26 centuries ago (who was once a prince but dropped all that to
become a buddha:) sitting there saying: ... tsk at all this 'suffering' - you just don't
have to do it, ya know? :)
> in fact knowing all that about it
>actually + only puts the whole 'experience' of the sky at some kind of intellectual
>arms-length -
I think this odd claim of yours is doing that very thing -- putting
what really happens with analysis of the world at some kind of
intellectual arms-length.
### - in a way it's true that i'm trying to distance myself (and you) from that whole
approach in certain ways for the purposes of 'examining' it... a more objective position
from say which one can then either step right back into it, or possibly even take a
sideways step into something else... a minor step back whereby the world of intellect
becomes again only 1 of several options... and because from this pov one might be tempted
(+ maybe even actually get the chance) to try something a bit 'different' for a change?:)
> and although that actually creates two 'different' experiences of the
>sky (one 'experiential' & the other intellectual) - i'd still have to say that the
>experiential one is by far the better & more enriching experience - the intellectual
>version only really explaining everything 'away', not bringing anything closer:)
They need not be separate experiences. They can both happen at the
same time. I think your obsession with this is weird.
### - this is better... plus yes both... i only query the 'order' in which they come? -
e.g. what happens if we 'reverse' the order and put the experiential first? (it turns the
world upside down?:)
And all kinds of fascinating new *experiences* can come out of the
intellectual analysis (such as flying up into that sky and seeing the
clouds close up, in a plane).
### - 'fascinating' - or rather: 'fascinated' is the apt word for it for sure... as in
kinda 'stuck' now in doing absolutely everything that way? what happened to all our
options? - i mean what if we were to say get stuck in lucid dreaming, or stuck here never
being able to it, or even stuck at that midway point i mentioned - and i know it's a
crappy analogy; but isn't it better, really, to keep as many of our options open as
possible?
>> - plus the next thing ya
>>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
>>it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
>>greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
>>everything up in the process)
>
>To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
>
>### - heh, it's just an observation that humanity goes too-far in all its great ideas
>about everything... often + increasingly to the direct detriment of the world and
>ourselves living in it... (so how clever is that?:)
It's a direct side-effect of the power of knowledge. And like I said,
it's going to keep advancing.
### - all it seems to be demonstrating so far is the incredible 'destructive' power of
(that type of) knowledge... plus if it keeps 'advancing' as you say, well then hmmm, there
probably wont be much left before long... and because what's being 'called' advancement is
really then only a 'retrograde' movement towards destruction...
>>He's a great example of something you *better not forget* unless
>>you want to get jerked around forever and ever. So I will ask you to
>>back up everything you say too.
>>
>>### - in the sense that he was just one of many indirectly demonstrating what a pile
>>of nonsense all our precious thoughts & ideas about ourselves & the world ultimately
>>are
>
>Speak for yourself. :-)
>
>### - difference is slider's comin' straight atcha' in these matters jeremy... not
>indirectly as in 'wearing-out' people's gullibility to the point that they maybe realise
>it's ALL a pile of do-dah for themselves... i've been sayin' it + challenging everything
>from the beginning, science included! :)
I hate to tell you this. But to my eyes you aren't challenging
anything. And I don't see that you'll have much of an affect on
anything either. Science is running wild having a hey day, and it's
going to keep on doing it. And I think that's just great.
### - well you're certainly in that club/world alright... plus i agree that science
probably isn't going to be stopping anytime soon - running wild or running amuck it's hard
to tell sometimes:) - plus i really don't think anyone could have an effect on it in that
sense... it's only that some of the individuals contained therein maybe stand a chance of
escaping (being liberated) 'from' it... (plus god, it's sounds like something from the
matrix now doesn't it hehe, but then maybe that's exactly what the author (and others like
him) have been hinting at all-along ;-)
>I honestly don't think you even have a decent point. I think you're
>out of touch with everything, and ranting and raving.
>
>"You say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see
>the plan."
>
>### - this conversation is getting a bit heavy... but only rationalists think in terms of
>'solutions' & 'plans' i reckon... 'to be or not to be' is the question in this context...
>whether to be of the 'arms-length' + intellectual approach to life... or the
experiential
>one - both are available :)
You're the one who always acts like there's something terrible wrong
with the world that would be fixed if everyone would only listen to
you. Well, I've listened. And I don't think you've got the big
solution to anything.
And I don't see any necessary separation between an intellectual and
an experiential approach to life. I do both all the time.
### - right... now just reverse the order in which they come for a topsy-turvy view of the
world (i.e. if nothing else it might be quite illuminating :)
### - lol oh it's an urban hell-hole alright, and the chances are nothing can ever be done
about it by now... too-late to turn back the clock it's a hell-hole that goes all the way
(it's called london by the way:) - problem is you took me a bit literally there about
'going back to the garden' etc - i.e. i was thinking more of the song and about a minority
of individuals in every generation who somehow manage get out of the workhouse & go back
to a nicer, kinder + more fundamental/basic reality (the story of oliver twist if you
think about it;)
>To address your actual point, one of my personal goals is to support
>and further the careful *integration* of science, high-technology and
>nature, in such a way that nature is not damaged. And that view I
>consider to be current, and realistic, and constructive.
>
>### - current & constructive, yes... but i question 'realistic' in so much that so far
>we've just been screwing up the world with all that kind of thing... the 'dream' of not
>damaging nature with all our tinkerings being imho only a kind of denial of the truth in
>that it HAS actually been screwing everything up, possibly catastrophically and/or
>irreparably so! but we like it so much that we're just not prepared to give it up!
Time will tell. But I believe I can see very clearly that technology
need not damage the world when wielded wisely. If mankind simply
arrives at largely pollutionless energy technology, that will go a
long way toward what I see as possible.
### - and i totally understand your hopes & dreams in that direction but the world will
probably be dead by then... and it 'could' even be done! only we buck-up on the word:
'wisely' in the sense that all our technology, clever though it is, hasn't actually made
us much 'wiser' - or if it did make us more aware in certain ways, we then go and 'ignore'
the warnings that our technology and science gives us about it damaging things! - and will
we change now? no! because it IS running wild/amuck in the world, and as you said: it
ain't gonna stop now...
>>Let's be clear. Gathering knowledge of the world is a social process
>>that changes just like any other social process. But the basic
>>principles of how the *world works* do not change. Or, one can say
>>that when they do change, they do so in accord with "laws" that do not
>>change. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom made water 2 billion
>>years before the first human existed. Moons orbited their planets in
>>the same way. etc. All that hasn't changed. Our understanding of
>>how it all works improves. It's not perfect, but it gets better and
>>better.
>>
>>Science is the best way of honing our knowledge of the world. It IS
>>a social process, so the knowledge does continually change. But
>>because the goal is to zero in on how the *world works*, and because
>>the method has been optimized for that *single purpose*, we can get
>>closer and closer to accurately describing unchanging characteristics
>>and "laws" of the REAL world.
>>
>>### - aye... and my point is that we don't actually need anything such as in trying to
>>find out how the world works...
Again, you don't speak for "we". If you say that YOU don't need to
find out how the world works, then fine. You go off and play.
I DO need to know how the world works. I need to know how everything
works. And so do millions of people like me. So, that's all there is
to say on that one. Adios, and good friggin' luck to ya.
### - i meant 'we' as in 'we-humans' is all... (you use it all the time too to make
certain points, don't worry about it) you & millions of people like you being another kind
of 'we' albeit that doesn't include the 'whole' of humanity... though personally i tend to
view a 'need' to do it as being like a kind of addiction, even for millions of people
(they all started-off claiming they could 'handle' it, smile:) and now they can't do
anything else, even worse: they can't do without it + they don't want to!
> and because in doing so we're only creating 'more'
>>meanings we'll ultimately have to escape from later if we're to be dealing directly with
>>that most 'basic' reality... the only problem with 'science' being that it turns us all
>>into scientists :)
Discovering more about the world in no way creates anything it is
necessary to "escape" from. Not for me. This is your trip.
### - discovering new things about the world is okay... it's the 'meanings' we give to
those discoveries and the new discoveries those meaning themselves give further rise to...
in that if one is not careful the next thing ya know is we're lost in a 'world' of
'meanings' that we don't really understand other than everything bar-none 'has' to have
one! (which seems pretty rigid + worthy of escape to me anyway:)
>Who are you to decide what WE need or don't need? You don't notice
>anyone paying much attention to your claims (which to me are vacuous),
>do you?
>
>Go "deal" with your "basic reality" if you want. I personally do not
>believe you will accomplish anything at all, and I'm sure I've made
>that clear many times now.
>
>### - as far as i can tell there's nothing to 'achieve' other than to be dealing directly
>with that most basic of realities...
Maybe there isn't anything for YOU to achieve... :-)
The rest of us have lots to do. The world isn't quite the way we want
it yet. And there's a whole universe out there to explore.
### - we? (just kidding:) plus is there really a 'we' - or are we ultimately just all on
our own? (a seeming contradiction i know, but then this is what happens with ideas,
concepts & words:)
personally i think we should have just left the world alone and enjoyed it for what it WAS
and IS instead of trying to make it into this & that based on our often dumb 'ideas' (plus
geez for some reason that dreadful image of the blind + skinny lion in that cage in
afghanistan (that since died) has appeared in my mind (or maybe it's just the 'Narnia'
stories & Aslan the lion coming back from my childhood to haunt me heh heh) - but could
'that' be what we're doing and have been doing to the world? plus and/or doesn't that kind
of thing reveal what all our terribly smart ideas have been doing to the world and to even
a part of ourselves maybe? (that poor lion in that cage, shudder)
> plus from that pov the rest is just human insecurity
>& greed to build empires & edifices of knowledge, and to be the first ones to do it etc
>etc... all nonsense... all a waste of precious + irreplaceable time, and, because i don't
>believe in reincarnation: absolutely 'unique' time for every one of us who has ever
>lived!
So you sit around dissing anyone who doesn't do what YOU want to.
That's adolescent crap.
### - not dissing... (well not unless i'm forced to protect myself heh, and even then not
really:) but rather just an observation made from a 'particular' pov... the 'experiential'
pov whereby all that 'industry' seems so unnecessary and such a sheer waste of
irreplaceable + unique time... especially if it's only damaging things
i.e. it's not really dissing if someone you happen to like is say working down a coal-mine
with only the prospect in front of them of another 40 years down there, to be telling them
stories of other people's perhaps more-varied lives, travels and experiences in the hope
that they'll maybe decide to do something about it (for themselves) and/or at least try
something else... i wouldn't call that dissing...
mind you, if you had to 'slag-off' their coalmine a bit in order to show them what a crock
it all is, then i can see how that someone might possibly misinterpret it (and the love of
their life) as being dissed :)
>now honestly, who wants to spend they one-time ever only existance... 'damaging' things?
Who wants to spend it talking about "states of awareness" that never
come to anything? You, I guess. But not me. Most people don't WANT
to damage things. That isn't their intent.
### - it might not be their 'intention' to damage things... it's just that when (for
example) you take an animal and dissect it to see how it all works etc... it tends to
'destroy' that animal in the process! - and for people who claim that they don't 'want' to
destroy things then perhaps they could start right there and STOP dissecting everything!
(smile:)
whereas if one switches to the experiential pov "states of awareness" is what it becomes
all about for us humans... mind/psyche, whatever it really is, our mirror, one's
'perception' then: released from all that rational clutter and the obsessive dissection of
everything because its informative & fun, leaves only the reaching-out of that uncluttered
perception into its own element & relatively unexplored range... and because we are not
just animals to be making sciences out of our physical needs for food & shelter, but
something a lot more than that that has something to do with our mind's own inherent
self-awareness
>>I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
>>monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
>>*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
>>child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
>>
>>### - it hasn't changed for me neither...
>
>Let's merely note that you agree your perception has not really been
>changed by all this "evil" social world.
>
>### - i thought religion and its conception of 'evil' is surely one of the things we're
>tryin' to get-away from isn't it? - no it's not 'evil' to be screwing up the world, it's
>just dumb - plus we don't really have to know about an apple's atoms to enjoy the
>'experience' of apple :)
Sorry I disagree here too. A lot of the time it is more than dumb, it
is actually evil. By that I don't mean that the prince of darkness is
responsible or anything, I just mean that the *intent* is
unnecessarily and maliciously destructive. That is what I call evil.
### - well it's certainly not nice i'll grant you that :) - but well ya-know, some people
get creative, others get destructive... it kinda depends on what happens to ya? - i mean
we could probably 'program' people to be destructive if we wanted to... e.g. just give 'em
an unhappy childhood, fill up their heads with ambition & a bunch of false expectations &
hopes they'll probably never ever realise to any great extent, if at all, while they're
working away in some non-descript office 20 floors up (or 20 floors down) answering calls
all day long... plus we'll continually harass them and annoy them with being forced to
make ends meet on a wage that only just allows you to do so until there's basically
nothing else you can ever be doing or thinking about, then we'll scare the livin' shit out
of them all occasionally with war & the threats of war to keep 'em all in-line and from
ever thinking too deeply about, well 'anything' really, and because they'll all be pretty
tired by now... and before ya know it you got all these dopey, jaded people who're only
too willing to press that goddamn button if & when they're ordered to:)
>> what changed was that my head got gradually
>>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
>>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
>>(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
>
>It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
>I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
>
>### - so you were 'born' with all this inherent knowledge about atoms and things eh? - i
>mean i don't remember thinking about all 'that' when i was hopping down the road for a
>lollipop;)
You evaded what I said. I didn't say I was born knowing everything.
I said that all the knowledge I've learned has not ruined anything for
me. Not at all. It has been another series of wonders in a
continuous world of wonder.
### - i just thought you were saying that the world and the way you look at it, *hasn't*
changed in 'meaning' (and thus the way one views it) since you were an uneducated kid as
it did for me...
whereas above that i was suggesting that one's education obviously alters a child's
innocence and pov by streaming all its thinking & its expectations into and along very
certain + particular lines only... in other words: we're 'groomed' to become and to adopt
a certain way whether we want it, like it, or not (called it brainwashing before heh,
although that's exactly what it is: a form of brainwashing :)
rbb
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message
news:410527e2$0$66401$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>
> Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
> as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
> be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
>
> ### - yes! (smile:)
>
>
> Does that somehow ruin your enjoyment of the sky? If so, what a queer
> lad you are.
>
> ### - we don't need to know all that to enjoy it... in fact knowing all
that about it
> actually + only puts the whole 'experience' of the sky at some kind of
intellectual
> arms-length - and although that actually creates two 'different'
experiences of the
> sky (one 'experiencial' & the other intellectual) - i'd still have to say
that the
> experiencial one is by far the better & more enriching experience - the
intellectual
> version only really explaining everything 'away', not bringing anything
closer:)
I beg to differ.
In all traditions you have the two paths:
One intellectual - the other experimental , yet both can arrive at the
same.
There was a physicist who died about fifteen years ago, Richard Feynman, and
he was asked,
"What do you experience when you look at a rose? Is it the same experience
that the rest of us have?"
And he said, "Well, I can certainly still take in the rich red color. I can
still smell the wondrous aroma of the rose.
But I can go further, because I can see the molecular interaction that gives
rise to the color,
and the interaction between the atoms that gives rise to the aroma." So the
experience of the rose is richer—it's deeper,
because one can actually see what it is that's making the rose appear as it
does.
And I think that's what physics does more generally for the world around us.
slider
rbb wrote...
experience of the rose is richer-it's deeper,
because one can actually see what it is that's making the rose appear as it
does.
And I think that's what physics does more generally for the world around us.
### - it's not like i don't understand the arguement of science & the destructive
rational materialists... but slider will always first & foremost be on the side of
Art & the creative artists...
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." --Albert Einstein" :)
rbb
>
> ### - it's not like i don't understand the arguement of science & the
destructive
> rational materialists... but slider will always first & foremost be on the
side of
> Art & the creative artists...
>
> "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my
education." --Albert Einstein" :)
I was proposing the middle road for peace, but being an artist I can say
just one thing:
Carry on !!!! The creative, intuitive needs all defenders it can get.
And I will not eat Frankenfood anyway. In fact no way.
Ahahahahaha......
By the way, the dreamstate you describe is pretty much known in
hypnosis if induced by a facilitator.
But doing it yourself is a state that is mostly used by shamans
as it goes way beyond selfhypnosis which is merily based on visualisation.
In other directions it is called projection and so on.
You describe it pretty accurate and from what you write I can only conclude
it to be genuine.
Dreamingmechanism can be induced awake willfully and it is different from
visualisation.
The strange detachment you descibe is also called elliptic awareness.
Much is possible in such a state as you become more aware and in control of
what mind processes usually subconscious.
This is the state in which telepathy starts to work for real
and your inner eye processes information for real, but will work better if
you install a symbol-language it can use.
Colors being the first. Shape and structure next.
If you want I will share mine with you to experiment with.
Welcome to the twilightzone navigator.
RBB
Jeremy Donovan
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote:
>rbb wrote...
>
>> Are you saying it's a problem simply to know that we see a clear sky
>> as being blue because the short wavelength of blue light causes it to
>> be scattered more by oxygen and nitrogen molecules in our atmosphere?
>>
>> ### - yes! (smile:)
Well, then I guess I really must apologize for ruining your enjoyment
of the sky. (smile)
Get the point? (bigger smile)
Oh. Then do you DO anything creative?
I sure hope you're not just another loner who took a Chuang Tzu book
too seriously then went around getting attention by mimicking it.
But that would be way too harsh an assessment, right? Right?? :-)
(Don't be embarrassed, it even happened to me for about two months
back in 1985).
-J.
slider
rbb wrote
> ### - it's not like i don't understand the arguement of science & the
>destructive rational materialists... but slider will always first & foremost be
>on the side of Art & the creative artists...
>
> "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my
education." --Albert Einstein" :)
I was proposing the middle road for peace,
### - okay... i accept your olive-branch for peace...
slider's new philosophy: 'never argue with the subject of peace' :)
but being an artist I can say
just one thing:
Carry on !!!! The creative, intuitive needs all defenders it can get.
And I will not eat Frankenfood anyway. In fact no way.
Ahahahahaha......
### - lol @ Frankenfood ha ha ha :))
By the way, the dreamstate you describe is pretty much known in
hypnosis if induced by a facilitator.
But doing it yourself is a state that is mostly used by shamans
as it goes way beyond selfhypnosis which is merily based on visualisation.
In other directions it is called projection and so on.
You describe it pretty accurate and from what you write I can only conclude
it to be genuine.
Dreamingmechanism can be induced awake willfully and it is different from
visualisation.
The strange detachment you descibe is also called elliptic awareness.
Much is possible in such a state as you become more aware and in control of
what mind processes usually subconscious.
This is the state in which telepathy starts to work for real
and your inner eye processes information for real, but will work better if
you install a symbol-language it can use.
Colors being the first. Shape and structure next.
If you want I will share mine with you to experiment with.
Welcome to the twilightzone navigator.
### - that was most interesting RBB... i cannot refuse such a kind offer...
everything is in the correct order for slider: the practice comes first and the theory
after :)
now if only EV was to start talking to me again... and that crsds would stop picking
on jeremy all the time: then i'm sure we'd all be a very happy bunch of bunnies in
our adc garden, now wouldn't we :)
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have
created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
--Albert Einstein :)
rbb
> Welcome to the twilightzone navigator.
>
> ### - that was most interesting RBB... i cannot refuse such a kind
offer...
> everything is in the correct order for slider: the practice comes first
and the theory
> after :)
In my opinion best way to go exploring mindstates.
Once you have reached to install them by will you have the hardware going.
Before that any experiment is useless anyway.
So what we are talking next is some software with the understanding that it
functions on my computer and cannot say if it will on yours. Not that it
matters.
At best it can inspire you to write some software of your own.
Basic Idea of mine underlying all:
Mind is functional, there is no reason to assume it is not in other states.
If it appears to be not useful it might be that we are not using it
or not using it the right way.
But first some questions about your in between state.
Can you describe the last 3 times?
Did you initiate them and so yes how or did it happen by itself.
Where you laying down, sitting or walking.
Had you eyes open or closed.
What was the experience itself.
Did you have a purpose.
How did you get out.
> now if only EV was to start talking to me again... and that crsds would
stop picking
> on jeremy all the time: then i'm sure we'd all be a very happy bunch of
bunnies in
> our adc garden, now wouldn't we :)
You can as well always expect sunshine if you want my opinion.
Got to live with the resonance as it is and hoping that it doesn't rain on
your head. But since it mostly does by surprise have an umbrella ready so
you don't get wet to the bones.
> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have
> created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
> --Albert Einstein :)
Your intuitive mind is never wrong, all that can be wrong is your
interpretation of it.
-- RBB
Chris Rodgers
> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have
> created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
> --Albert Einstein :)
No shit Al.
Jer worshits the servant.
Sig Heil to the head eh Jer? :)
slider
rbb wrote
> Welcome to the twilightzone navigator.
>
> ### - that was most interesting RBB... i cannot refuse such a kind offer...
> everything is in the correct order for slider: the practice comes first and the theory
> after :)
In my opinion best way to go exploring mindstates.
Once you have reached to install them by will you have the hardware going.
Before that any experiment is useless anyway.
So what we are talking next is some software with the understanding that it
functions on my computer and cannot say if it will on yours. Not that it
matters.
At best it can inspire you to write some software of your own.
Basic Idea of mine underlying all:
Mind is functional, there is no reason to assume it is not in other states.
If it appears to be not useful it might be that we are not using it
or not using it the right way.
### - i really don't know what 'mind' is other than as being something extra in
nature that humans have... at base it would appear to be something to do with
our extra self-awareness perhaps? it is a flexable lens perhaps...
But first some questions about your in between state.
Can you describe the last 3 times?
### - yes, they were all the same: e.g. after a few awkward bounces into & out
of lucid dream scenes: mr 'lump of lead' (heh:) finally shows-up and then i can go
either way instantly at will which always results in a rather unexciting lucid dream
if i go that way (just empty rooms for example) - or the problem of mr-lead
following me all the way out to full waking if i physically get up and move around...
Did you initiate them and so yes how or did it happen by itself.
### - initiated by relaxing/breathing etc until the first hypnogogia begin to appear...
then by fixating one of the hypnogogia by trying to see its finer details (which
definitely makes it stay for a bit longer as well) - and after a while of this interaction
(it sometimes takes several images before something happens) then either the details
of an image become so clear that it gives you quite a jolt and makes you feel like
your eyes must be wide open (a tough temptation to resist opening them, but still
fun anyway when you do + realise they were closed all the time, the: doh! factor
hehehe:) - that or a totally 3-D image will appear, and by looking into it you
somehow get automatically zoomed/pulled right in there ( a real 'yikes' factor which
tends to make you bounce straight back out again, and again, and again... until you
gradually find the correct balance in yourself to handle the jolts...
yikes! doh! - yikes! doh! just like that :)
Where you laying down, sitting or walking.
### - always lying down so far... mainly on left side, knees slightly bent, feet
together as through getting ready for sleep... right side seems to give slightly
different results as though hopping through dream after dream without moving,
often appearing in the dream in the same position i'm lying in - can apparently
stay in any dream of the sequence by choosing to get up & move around
before it changes, plus so far no middle experience that way (or not yet, or
i missed it) + always wake up after that to think about it, or wake up and
then fall into normal dreams/sleep...
Had you eyes open or closed.
### - always closed... but can be opened at any point from the middle or
from the body's pov (or both:) - but so far this has not been perceived from
the lucid dream pov (curious, i'll have to try that)
What was the experience itself.
### - the experience of being in the middle? or the dreams themselves?
- if in the middle: then it's the feeling of lying there in bed AND of being in
a lucid dream (plus somewhere in the middle) all at the same time - a sort
of 3-way view... a tri-view... or they can all be perceived separately/one at
a time, the effect being like being able to jump into a lucid dream in the blink
of an eye as you switch between them, but all that really changes is the
shifting point of view...
if in the dreams... first dreams in the sequence are always more detailed + contain
more + varyied items... later dreams are usually of bare rooms with maybe only
a small table, some small items on the window-sill... even looks like people
maybe used to live there and moved away + left those things behind etc...
everything seems very real & solid... it's just me consciously standing there in
a dream and i am wondering each time what to do with myself next:)
Did you have a purpose.
### - no purpose initially other than to do it again + lucid dream hehe... plus
once 'mr-lead' shows up anything even remotely like purpose flies out the
window - he doesn't give a 'damn' about things like purpose and totally crushes
it out of me with his sheer weight (funny way to look at it i know, but he's
so... 'alien' to me, a real heartless bastard ha ha :)
How did you get out.
### - mr lead calls the shots in that department... i mean i'd probably +
personally go-on & on all night but at some point he loses patience i suppose
and just says: "that's enough" and i get up with mr-lead in-tow for several
hours where i have to wait for him to eventually piss-off (by degrees) so i
can get back-on with my stupid + otherwise mundane life hahaha :)
> now if only EV was to start talking to me again... and that crsds would
>stop picking on jeremy all the time: then i'm sure we'd all be a very happy
>bunch of bunnies in our adc garden, now wouldn't we :)
You can as well always expect sunshine if you want my opinion.
Got to live with the resonance as it is and hoping that it doesn't rain on
your head. But since it mostly does by surprise have an umbrella ready so
you don't get wet to the bones.
### - (slider singing:) bring me sunshine, bring me love, bring me sunshine,
lord above...:)
> "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten
>the gift." --Albert Einstein :)
Your intuitive mind is never wrong, all that can be wrong is your
interpretation of it.
### - an 'empty' mind offers no resistance? - i try to have the intuition first and
only then let the reason explain it/try to put it into words (i.e. reason seems to be
something to do with the form-builder in that it puts clothes on the naked ideas...
sort of :)
slider
Chris wrote...
Jer this....
and Jer that...
nag nag nag :)
### - LOL you shouldn't get so 'upset' :)
now shake hands be friends again ya daft git, we ALL got our funny ways ain't it?
LOL :)
rbb
>
>
> ### - i really don't know what 'mind' is other than as being something
extra in
> nature that humans have... at base it would appear to be something to do
with
> our extra self-awareness perhaps? it is a flexable lens perhaps...
Definitions.
I will try and operate in yours as much as I am able too.
However it can be that for software sakes you will have to adopt mine
temporarily.
If you think you cannot do it, just say so if it comes up. I will try and
find another way to put it.
>
>
>
> But first some questions about your in between state.
> Can you describe the last 3 times?
>
> ### - yes, they were all the same: e.g. after a few awkward bounces into &
out
> of lucid dream scenes: mr 'lump of lead' (heh:) finally shows-up and then
i can go
> either way instantly at will which always results in a rather unexciting
lucid dream
> if i go that way (just empty rooms for example) - or the problem of
mr-lead
> following me all the way out to full waking if i physically get up and
move around...
In my dictionairy you are dreaming awake before Mr. Lead shows up and you
are dreaming lucid after he made his appearance.
Both states have much similarities but are not the same. Hence one state
seems a gateway for the other to you.
Now what if I suggest it was actually the other way around to start with.
Can you be comfortable with that?
>
>
> Did you initiate them and so yes how or did it happen by itself.
>
> ### - initiated by relaxing/breathing etc until the first hypnogogia begin
to appear...
So far so good.
> then by fixating one of the hypnogogia by trying to see its finer details
(which
> definitely makes it stay for a bit longer as well) -
Any order in structures and lightflashes?
> and after a while of this interaction
> (it sometimes takes several images before something happens) then either
the details
> of an image become so clear that it gives you quite a jolt and makes you
feel like
> your eyes must be wide open (a tough temptation to resist opening them,
but still
> fun anyway when you do + realise they were closed all the time, the: doh!
factor
> hehehe:)
Several images means rush , processing is too quick.
If detail comes you adjust.
One adjusts by keeping focus. Seems like it goes all by itself.
But truth is it doesn't. If you loose focus, you loose information
( first images)
- that or a totally 3-D image will appear, and by looking into it you
> somehow get automatically zoomed/pulled right in there ( a real 'yikes'
factor which
> tends to make you bounce straight back out again, and again, and again...
until you
> gradually find the correct balance in yourself to handle the jolts...
> yikes! doh! - yikes! doh! just like that :)
Looking into it, is the action that makes you zoom in. It is not
automatically.
Actually that point of action is the one I am looking for, if my software
will have any chance running on your computer.
For how long can you hold that state without going to sleep?
>
> Where you laying down, sitting or walking.
>
> ### - always lying down so far... mainly on left side, knees slightly
bent, feet
> together as through getting ready for sleep... right side seems to give
slightly
> different results as though hopping through dream after dream without
moving,
> often appearing in the dream in the same position i'm lying in - can
apparently
> stay in any dream of the sequence by choosing to get up & move around
> before it changes, plus so far no middle experience that way (or not yet,
or
> i missed it) + always wake up after that to think about it, or wake up and
> then fall into normal dreams/sleep...
Different postures can give different results.
Just wanted to know if you have experimented with that state otherwise
then laying down.
>
> Had you eyes open or closed.
>
> ### - always closed... but can be opened at any point from the middle or
> from the body's pov (or both:) - but so far this has not been perceived
from
> the lucid dream pov (curious, i'll have to try that)
>
>
> What was the experience itself.
>
> ### - the experience of being in the middle? or the dreams themselves?
> - if in the middle: then it's the feeling of lying there in bed AND of
being in
> a lucid dream (plus somewhere in the middle) all at the same time - a sort
> of 3-way view... a tri-view... or they can all be perceived separately/one
at
> a time, the effect being like being able to jump into a lucid dream in the
blink
> of an eye as you switch between them, but all that really changes is the
> shifting point of view...
Good description. Sorry I am asking so much.
You know how it is with software.
The system must be able to run it
and it is more fun if it runs smoothly.
>
> if in the dreams... first dreams in the sequence are always more detailed
+ contain
> more + varyied items...
Makes sense. How are the colors in those scenes?
More vivid? The same? Less?
Any unusual colors?
later dreams are usually of bare rooms with maybe only
> a small table, some small items on the window-sill... even looks like
people
> maybe used to live there and moved away + left those things behind etc...
> everything seems very real & solid... it's just me consciously standing
there in
> a dream and i am wondering each time what to do with myself next:)
May be those times are over. :)
>
>
> Did you have a purpose.
>
> ### - no purpose initially other than to do it again + lucid dream hehe...
plus
> once 'mr-lead' shows up anything even remotely like purpose flies out the
> window - he doesn't give a 'damn' about things like purpose and totally
crushes
> it out of me with his sheer weight (funny way to look at it i know, but
he's
> so... 'alien' to me, a real heartless bastard ha ha :)
So purpose is to do it again+ lucid dreaming.
And that is what you are exactly doing, if you ask me,
but at some point or another you have to let go as you descibe.
>
>
>
> How did you get out.
>
> ### - mr lead calls the shots in that department... i mean i'd probably +
> personally go-on & on all night but at some point he loses patience i
suppose
> and just says: "that's enough" and i get up with mr-lead in-tow for
several
> hours where i have to wait for him to eventually piss-off (by degrees) so
i
> can get back-on with my stupid + otherwise mundane life hahaha :)
With other words you go to sleep and wake up all by yourself. :)
> Your intuitive mind is never wrong, all that can be wrong is your
> interpretation of it.
>
> ### - an 'empty' mind offers no resistance? - i try to have the intuition
first and
> only then let the reason explain it/try to put it into words (i.e. reason
seems to be
> something to do with the form-builder in that it puts clothes on the naked
ideas...
> sort of :)
Very much so.
You have already given one clue yourself:
Reason has to be servant, not ruler in those states.
But to make the state functional reason needs part of the action.
To get the state into action as hardware, you have to seperate reason and
intuitive mind as much as you can.
This is the phase of the empty mind if you want, you bring the intuitive in.
The hardware runs.
Now if you have the hardware running, you bring those two closer
again but not so much that it works disturbing overloading the hardware.
The figuration would be:
Reason becomes your messenger executor of your will and wishes to the
intuitive mind and but at the same time it will be the servant of the
intuitive mind.
If not you will have all the boring dreams those other lucid dreamers go
through by dreaming what they want mostly.
Hope you can understand what I mean.
If not I have to try again. Because this here is essential.
A good symbol is the chariot.
Later, have to run now and do some wallpapers...
RBB
slider
Jeremy wrote
>### - it's not like i don't understand the arguement of science & the destructive
>rational materialists... but slider will always first & foremost be on the side of
>Art & the creative artists...
Oh. Then do you DO anything creative?
### - i've always had a tendancy in that direction for sure... likes music, writing, plus
recently i've been painting colourful images on the canvases of other people's minds:)
I sure hope you're not just another loner who took a Chuang Tzu book
too seriously then went around getting attention by mimicking it.
But that would be way too harsh an assessment, right? Right?? :-)
(Don't be embarrassed, it even happened to me for about two months
back in 1985).
### - smile, not quite... closest to that being about 15 years ago i remember sitting up
on a hill near where i live with one of henry miller's books ('the time of the assassins')
and really 'soaring' on some of the things he wrote in there about the boy-genius Arthur
Rimbaud, and then walking along the busy high-street afterwards with that little book
tucked tightly under my arm, looking at all the people milling-about & thinking: jesus,
what a completely fucked up humanity & world this is! feeling something like the man
from mars :)
slider
rbb wrote
> But first some questions about your in between state.
> Can you describe the last 3 times?
>
> ### - yes, they were all the same: e.g. after a few awkward bounces into &
out of lucid dream scenes: mr 'lump of lead' (heh:) finally shows-up and then
i can go either way instantly at will which always results in a rather unexciting
lucid dream if i go that way (just empty rooms for example) - or the problem of
mr-lead following me all the way out to full waking if i physically get up and
>move around...
In my dictionairy you are dreaming awake before Mr. Lead shows up and you
are dreaming lucid after he made his appearance.
Both states have much similarities but are not the same. Hence one state
seems a gateway for the other to you.
Now what if I suggest it was actually the other way around to start with.
Can you be comfortable with that?
### - it's hard to tell actually... mr lead showing up is definitely a 'deepening' of that
awareness in that everything gets clearer + easier to do after he shows up...
(he is a shark with 'teeth' apparently :)
> then by fixating one of the hypnogogia by trying to see its finer details
>(which definitely makes it stay for a bit longer as well) -
Any order in structures and lightflashes?
### - not really... or not that i've noticed other than the images start-off very faintly
& few and then become gradually clearer the more they are stared at... seems random,
although once i saw writing floating in the air and wanted to see more writing and then a
very clear + long list of writing appeared (so clear it was shocking) and scrolled past
too fast to read (looked like computer language), saw the word 'end' written at the bottom
just before it all disappeared, and the next thing i was standing in a lucid dream
> and after a while of this interaction
> (it sometimes takes several images before something happens) then either
the details of an image become so clear that it gives you quite a jolt and makes you
feel like your eyes must be wide open (a tough temptation to resist opening them,
but still fun anyway when you do + realise they were closed all the time, the: doh!
>factor hehehe:)
Several images means rush , processing is too quick.
If detail comes you adjust.
One adjusts by keeping focus. Seems like it goes all by itself.
But truth is it doesn't. If you loose focus, you loose information
( first images)
### - curious idea... plus i hadn't really looked them in terms of 'information' and just
saw them as random images until it gets clear + by then i'm looking to jump into one of
them for a lucid dream... i'll pay more attention next time to what those first images
are, but they are usually so fleeting + vague
> - that or a totally 3-D image will appear, and by looking into it you
> somehow get automatically zoomed/pulled right in there ( a real 'yikes'
factor which tends to make you bounce straight back out again, and again,
and again... until you gradually find the correct balance in yourself to handle
>the jolts... yikes! doh! - yikes! doh! just like that :)
Looking into it, is the action that makes you zoom in. It is not
automatically.
Actually that point of action is the one I am looking for, if my software
will have any chance running on your computer.
For how long can you hold that state without going to sleep?
### - changes each time depending on if i'm very tired or not... if very tired there's a
couple of images and then i'm asleep in an instant (big overshoot) a very fast way to fall
asleep even if not tired hehe (methods for snoring in seconds:)
other times (less tired) it might take 10 minutes to relax & get the images going... when
images get clear is the big risk of falling asleep by being caught by one of them and then
dragged into unconsciousness (which i think now is how we all fall asleep anyway - e.g. we
get hijacked by an image and then dragged off into into ordinary dreams when we should
have 'zoomed-in' instead heh heh:)
Different postures can give different results.
Just wanted to know if you have experimented with that state otherwise
then laying down.
### - i honestly think there's a daytime version of the lucid dreaming state... that lucid
dreaming is only 'one' of the things you can do with awareness while it's IN an altered
state? - e.g. lie down & close your eyes and changed awareness can be used to have
WILDs... or while walking around during the day to have zen-like experiences similar to
your description of those trees & place + colourful perception you described having while
on holiday that time... (slider's unifying theory of awareness? heh :)
>
> if in the dreams... first dreams in the sequence are always more detailed
+ contain
> more + varyied items...
Makes sense. How are the colors in those scenes?
More vivid? The same? Less?
Any unusual colors?
### - it's like walking around on a bright sunny day if outside, everything is bright
without being glaring (no need for sunglasses in the dream world heh:) or like going into
peach/orange coloured (but increasingly empty) rooms if inside... everything twinkels with
tiny rainbow colours if examined, even the air seems to have little colours, like when
being stoned on good weed for example:)
later dreams are usually of bare rooms with maybe only
> a small table, some small items on the window-sill... even looks like
people maybe used to live there and moved away + left those things behind etc...
> everything seems very real & solid... it's just me consciously standing
>there in a dream and i am wondering each time what to do with myself next:)
May be those times are over. :)
### - nice idea anyway... but so far it seems as if the dreams contain less and less
objects the more lucid i become... plus there's never any other people or signs of life in
these WILDs, just empty scenes...
to see people apparently involves 'willing' the event and then falling asleep in the dream
& waking up in another (surprised me too:) and then there's people everywhere, except i
have trouble keeping my lucidity during these (feels like drowning etc plus i end up
having to leap back out to the middle or body-view just to stay lucid)
> Your intuitive mind is never wrong, all that can be wrong is your
> interpretation of it.
>
> ### - an 'empty' mind offers no resistance? - i try to have the intuition
first and only then let the reason explain it/try to put it into words (i.e. reason
seems to be something to do with the form-builder in that it puts clothes on
>the naked ideas... sort of :)
Very much so.
You have already given one clue yourself:
Reason has to be servant, not ruler in those states.
But to make the state functional reason needs part of the action.
To get the state into action as hardware, you have to seperate reason and
intuitive mind as much as you can.
This is the phase of the empty mind if you want, you bring the intuitive in.
The hardware runs.
Now if you have the hardware running, you bring those two closer
again but not so much that it works disturbing overloading the hardware.
The figuration would be:
Reason becomes your messenger executor of your will and wishes to the
intuitive mind and but at the same time it will be the servant of the
intuitive mind.
If not you will have all the boring dreams those other lucid dreamers go
through by dreaming what they want mostly.
### - smile, i of course tried a few things that i wanted heh heh... flying is great fun
and very liberating (always feel wonderful after doing that) it's the equivilent of sex in
the dream world perhaps:))
Hope you can understand what I mean.
If not I have to try again. Because this here is essential.
A good symbol is the chariot.
### - are you saying create the hypnogogic image of a chariot and try jumping into that?
whoa! :)
rbb
> Both states have much similarities but are not the same. Hence one state
> seems a gateway for the other to you.
> Now what if I suggest it was actually the other way around to start with.
> Can you be comfortable with that?
>
> ### - it's hard to tell actually... mr lead showing up is definitely a
'deepening' of that
> awareness in that everything gets clearer + easier to do after he shows
up...
> (he is a shark with 'teeth' apparently :)
If it gets clearer when you are more towards sleeping,
it just means you have to deepen the state by letting go.
But letting go at times means to go to full sleep to soon.
With time you will find the exact balance.
Yesterday I was in a sort of red mountain sourrounding, red stones and
stuff. Looked a bit like the formation I have seen in Utah, but the
mountains where bigger.
Tried to get on the ground, but it was impossible.
I kept hovering, wondering why I couldn't set feet on the ground.
Next thing I knew, part of the rocks collapsed.
Earthquake or explosion something.
said to me, huh, didn't want to be in that.
So I went back in the timeline to see if that would happen again
and if I could change anything.
It did not change and happened over and over again. After 3 times I had
enough.
Tried a couple of other lines, but It wouldn't work so good, as I got more
to being full awake then to go to sleep.
Couldn't help being restless.
So I got up and did read the news, so see if anything unusual had happend.
Specially an explosion.
Earthquakes as you know are not the game over here.
Nothing. So I went back to sleep.
Unfortunatly there was a big explosion today. You have seen it on the news.
Just one example in what patchwork information can be presented.
Utah came from my memory and the wish to relax before going to sleep.
Still for some to me unknown reason a message breaks
the happy trip.
I writing this example down also to tell you:
That what you cannot change in information processing is not yours.
As long you can change anything in those hynogogic images or in a dream, you
are only processing your own subconscious.
Which also has it's value.
If you run something 3 times it comes again without loosing vividness or
even getting clearer and you are still not able to change
the images, you are in a broader field of information. Your bubble is
expanded.
In this case without me asking.
>
> Any order in structures and lightflashes?
>
> ### - not really... or not that i've noticed other than the images
start-off very faintly
> & few and then become gradually clearer the more they are stared at...
seems random,
Random it seems, but that is only because you have not trained
your inner eye to choose from the flow of information.
But from what you write it is working now, as images come very vivid without
you visualising them.
Now : I simply state that my mind no matter in what configuration/state
processes information.
That is the only statement I am asking you to take over for the moment.
Now what for information.
Of all kind, but it will be the information you usually process
subconscious now semiconscious.
To recognize patterns in the first vague sequence is recognizing the sort of
information in a later state. It is also tuning in.
During that vague and random phase, I call it surfing the informationfields
you now can inject directions.
1)Reading:
Which can be past or future.
People, animal, mineral, places - then aurascan/energyscan
body, emotional, mental, spiritual.
Up to this point I call this reading.
2)Journeying:
past-future, places, the subconcious of others, yourself, your own body.
3)Projection:
Remote viewing.
Now your first decicion will be:
Which of the 3 action you want to understake.
For what I want to share with you: Reading is what we need.
It is a word that is understood, as your system knows with that word you
want information.
The other I will explain later if we get that far.
Next decision is reading what:
Now it is better to have that all ready before you are in the situation that
the random images come.
Your focus has to be strong and onepointed , if it is not information will
flow in again in random.
But it also has to be effortless at the same time, because if not you are
going to think.
The trick here is: Focussing without thinking.
Next is trust. You trust the information to come.
That will not be so at the first undertakings unless you have beginners
luck, but it will come.
So what I suggest as first experiment is that you take an object with you
that you physically can hold.
A stone, or a branch, or something from an animal.
All you do is asking the intuitive mind to give you information
about the object, you assume firmly that it will come.
You assume the first image that will come has to do with your question, no
matter how little you can make sense of it and even if what appears has
nothing to do in your opinion
with the object. Important to let come what comes.
This is crucial as the rational mind can try to jump in discarding
information as disvalid.
So no matter the nonsense... let it be.
Also if nothing comes.
If that happens you just try again next night.
Important to record the next day.
What information before you went to sleep, what information when lucid.
Try to be more aware during the random process, it is ok
to record seemed to be, was a bit like......
makes you more and more aware of the random process in time.
Now if you want to experience with that for a week and let me know what you
experiencend. even if nothing.
From there I can see better what to suggest further.
In the meantime I will translate my list of colors.
I am way over time anyhow, as I have promised Ether it a long time ago.
> although once i saw writing floating in the air and wanted to see more
writing and then a
> very clear + long list of writing appeared (so clear it was shocking) and
scrolled past
> too fast to read (looked like computer language), saw the word 'end'
written at the bottom
> just before it all disappeared, and the next thing i was standing in a
lucid dream
Lol.... Had the same experience.
I know that have read it all, but no way I could tell later what I have
been reading. After that I never had a floating book in the air.
I might have missed my bestseller for all know.
Joke aside, if you see text it means that your intuitive mind will work
together with your rational mind .
It makes you aware that you can read that it does give you information. May
be now you understand why I use the word reading in the 3 actions above.
>
>
>
> > and after a while of this interaction
> > (it sometimes takes several images before something happens) then either
> the details of an image become so clear that it gives you quite a jolt and
makes you
> feel like your eyes must be wide open (a tough temptation to resist
opening them,
> but still fun anyway when you do + realise they were closed all the time,
the: doh!
> >factor hehehe:)
>
> Several images means rush , processing is too quick.
> If detail comes you adjust.
> One adjusts by keeping focus. Seems like it goes all by itself.
> But truth is it doesn't. If you loose focus, you loose information
> ( first images)
>
> ### - curious idea... plus i hadn't really looked them in terms of
'information' and just
> saw them as random images until it gets clear + by then i'm looking to
jump into one of
> them for a lucid dream... i'll pay more attention next time to what those
first images
> are, but they are usually so fleeting + vague
Basically that is why I said you are using that prestate as a portal to a
lucid dream.
Now for our experiences let go of the intent to dream lucid
as mainintent.
It will happen anyway. That function is established.
For now lets focus on the first part a bit more.
I will explain reason below.
Tiredness plays a big role.
I have all what you have. :)
Try go to bed when not so tired.
Pretend to go to sleep, to trick your inner eye into working
the way you do. See what is happening.
>
>
>
>
> Different postures can give different results.
> Just wanted to know if you have experimented with that state otherwise
> then laying down.
>
> ### - i honestly think there's a daytime version of the lucid dreaming
state... that lucid
> dreaming is only 'one' of the things you can do with awareness while it's
IN an altered
> state? - e.g. lie down & close your eyes and changed awareness can be used
to have
> WILDs...
That is basically why I am asking to focus on that prelucid dream
period.
To make daytime and prenightime version equal in intensity.
How do you your daytime wilds work anyhow?
As intense as those in the night?
or while walking around during the day to have zen-like experiences similar
to
> your description of those trees & place + colourful perception you
described having while
> on holiday that time... (slider's unifying theory of awareness? heh :)
Yes such.
Totally agree to a unified theory of awareness.
>
>
>
> >
> > if in the dreams... first dreams in the sequence are always more
detailed
> + contain
> > more + varyied items...
>
> Makes sense. How are the colors in those scenes?
> More vivid? The same? Less?
> Any unusual colors?
>
> ### - it's like walking around on a bright sunny day if outside,
everything is bright
> without being glaring (no need for sunglasses in the dream world heh:) or
like going into
> peach/orange coloured (but increasingly empty) rooms if inside...
everything twinkels with
> tiny rainbow colours if examined, even the air seems to have little
colours, like when
> being stoned on good weed for example:)
Very good. Just perfect.
I am wondering about the peach colored rooms.
Any rooms in other colors?
>
>
>
> later dreams are usually of bare rooms with maybe only
> > a small table, some small items on the window-sill... even looks like
> people maybe used to live there and moved away + left those things behind
etc...
> > everything seems very real & solid... it's just me consciously standing
> >there in a dream and i am wondering each time what to do with myself
next:)
>
> May be those times are over. :)
>
> ### - nice idea anyway... but so far it seems as if the dreams contain
less and less
> objects the more lucid i become... plus there's never any other people or
signs of life in
> these WILDs, just empty scenes...
The emptier the better. :)
Means that when you concentrate on information to flow in
it can come in with as less noise as possible.
>
> to see people apparently involves 'willing' the event and then falling
asleep in the dream
> & waking up in another (surprised me too:) and then there's people
everywhere, except i
> have trouble keeping my lucidity during these (feels like drowning etc
plus i end up
> having to leap back out to the middle or body-view just to stay lucid)
Lol. You shouldn't invite whole parties.
Stay away from people a bit. Information can be overwhelming
because if you "will" people without being specific you get what you have
gotten.
used to get a great kick out of bodyfeelings flabbing with my arms and stuff
until for some reason or another I became an eye
and mind in most dreams.
At times I truly wonder why there so many dreams in which
there is no longer a dreamego.
I have no longer a body at all. Just a kind of a vague bodyfeeling.
Like a memory.
But I don't see a body of mine.
I know when that changed.
I came into sort of black tunnels, and got kicked out from there into sort
of open windows.
Then there was this particle dream and after that dreambody gone mostly.
When I have a body occasionally I am not in it, I mostly hover on the right
behind see myself as one of the dreamfigures and I know I am in my own
bubble, processing my shit.
It is then that I do have emotions and much more thoughts.
But still bodyfeeling is very minimal.
It already happens in prestate.
I can get all paranoia because if I am looking for that bodyfeeling
it is not there or it is there and there is a heartbeat missing or a pulse.
Or my touch sense is totally distorted, I simply cannot feel my body even if
I touch it.
I do know it is perception and not for real.
But it can fuck me up. Still not used to that.
But better this than paralysis. Have had that before and I am not in for
more. It is not so bad if you cannot move or speak,
but other things can happen in that state and I am not so keen for that.
>
>
>
> Hope you can understand what I mean.
> If not I have to try again. Because this here is essential.
> A good symbol is the chariot.
>
> ### - are you saying create the hypnogogic image of a chariot and try
jumping into that?
>
> whoa! :)
If it works let me know. If not I will come up with something else.
Later.
RBB
slider
rbb wrote
> other times (less tired) it might take 10 minutes to relax & get the
images going... when images get clear is the big risk of falling asleep by
being caught by one of them and then dragged into unconsciousness (which
>i think now is how we all fall asleep anyway - e.g. we
> get hijacked by an image and then dragged off into into ordinary dreams
>when we should have 'zoomed-in' instead heh heh:)
Tiredness plays a big role.
I have all what you have. :)
Try go to bed when not so tired.
Pretend to go to sleep, to trick your inner eye into working
the way you do. See what is happening.
### - okay... this is quite interesting too in the context of maybe looking for 'other'
things to do with awareness in an altered state besides that of lucid dreaming...
i mean until now i guess i have just been racing-through all the first bits + any strange
effects etc in order to get into the lucid dreaming part... even though there 'were'
actually some hints along the way as to the existance of other potential branches/lines of
activity... i have suspected them anyway... plus i will certainly look further into it for
sure...
> Different postures can give different results.
> Just wanted to know if you have experimented with that state otherwise
> then laying down.
>
> ### - i honestly think there's a daytime version of the lucid dreaming
state... that lucid dreaming is only 'one' of the things you can do with awareness
while it's IN an altered state? - e.g. lie down & close your eyes and changed
>awareness can be used to have WILDs...
That is basically why I am asking to focus on that prelucid dream
period.
To make daytime and prenightime version equal in intensity.
How do you your daytime wilds work anyhow?
As intense as those in the night?
### - more! :) + smile at 'daytime-wilds' with visions of actor 'Oliver Reed' singing:
'Wild thing, you make my heart sing' lol :)
otherwise getting lucid during the day is like having a sartori... something/anything
triggers it and reality changes/shifts & becomes something else... slightly glowing pastle
colours dominate + twinkle in the air just like in lucid dreaming... all vibes intensify
greatly... for textures it's like being in a van gogh painting... one's thoughts flow in a
different pattern mirroring the strangeness/beauty, the meanings are changed and new +
very stimulating, emotional people might cry at some of the sights (like i do heh:) and/or
laugh their heads-off at some of the absurdity of living things... (just the look of my
cat once had me in complete stitches... he was just these 2 big green eyes in the middle
of a big black fuzz-ball ha ha, and he got all indignant when i was laughing at him so i
had to stroke him while trying to hug him at the same time + tell him i didn't mean it lol
(poor bastard's long dead now sadly, he was the hairy-kid in town:)
to initially 'activate' them one has to do some strange things using one's established
routines as a lever/counterpoint... then once you get-used to them (i.e. get used to the
strangeness of them + find your balance in them) smaller things + small realisations can
trigger these 'sartories' (i.e. i don't know what else to call them except to refer to
them as being the 'equivilent' (mirror) experiences of night-time lucid dreaming, except
it's occuring during the waking day)
added to that, my own experience suggests that long interaction with & in these altered
waking states results in a gradual change of general awareness to the effect that it
becomes more & more easy to reach these sartories... or rather: that being in a kind of
sartori gradually becomes the standard state of mind/awareness as one progresses and/or
until one becomes aware of yet 'another' kind of sartori ( a deeper/higher version) lying
beyond even that... (real freaky-deaky 'man-from-mars' shit hehehe:)
>or while walking around during the day to have zen-like experiences similar
>to your description of those trees & place + colourful perception you
>described having while on holiday that time... (slider's unifying theory of
>awareness? heh :)
Yes such.
Totally agree to a unified theory of awareness.
### - lol that was supposed to be a joke! hahaha... although god, maybe it's true!
LOL:)))
>first dreams in the sequence are always more
>detailed + contain more + varyied items...
>
> Makes sense. How are the colors in those scenes?
> More vivid? The same? Less?
> Any unusual colors?
>
> ### - it's like walking around on a bright sunny day if outside,
everything is bright without being glaring (no need for sunglasses in the
dream world heh:) or like going into peach/orange coloured (but increasingly
empty) rooms if inside... everything twinkels with tiny rainbow colours if
examined, even the air seems to have little colours, like when being stoned on
good weed for example:)
Very good. Just perfect.
I am wondering about the peach colored rooms.
Any rooms in other colors?
### - not so far :) - it's a lovely + vivid peach/orange colour (warm + glowing)
> to see people apparently involves 'willing' the event and then falling
asleep in the dream & waking up in another (surprised me too:) and then
there's people everywhere, except i have trouble keeping my lucidity during
these (feels like drowning etc plus i end up having to leap back out to the
>middle or body-view just to stay lucid)
Lol. You shouldn't invite whole parties.
Stay away from people a bit. Information can be overwhelming
because if you "will" people without being specific you get what you have
gotten.
### - the feeling is like it's much harder to maintain lucidity when there's people
around, even only one person makes it difficult, almost as if it's a deeper version of
dreaming, or like it's another layer of dreaming that's harder to reach/maintain (i have
been avoiding it in favour of honing my skills in the orange-room loading-program (ref:
Matrix 1:)
But better this than paralysis. Have had that before and I am not in for
more. It is not so bad if you cannot move or speak,
but other things can happen in that state and I am not so keen for that.
### - i know what you mean about feeling uncomfortable sometimes... imho it's the result
of looking/focusing on the self (obvious really i suppose:) the remedy of course being to
'deliberately' hold one's awareness on anything beyond the body/self until you lose sight
of it + how it's feeling (or not feeling as the case may be:) - which happens during the
daytime too because one feels very strange at first and focusing on the body's discomfort
only makes it worse and/or ends the experience
> Hope you can understand what I mean.
> If not I have to try again. Because this here is essential.
> A good symbol is the chariot.
>
> ### - are you saying create the hypnogogic image of a chariot and try
jumping into that?
> whoa! :)
If it works let me know. If not I will come up with something else.
Later.
### - smile, tried it last night but fell into a deep sleep straight away (too tired
again:)
plus had one strange non-lucid dream before waking about a cow (yes a full sized cow:)
giving birth to its calf in my hallway (lol:) there was quite a mess, and then we couldn't
find the calf which i later found hiding + shivering (still wet) under a table, which i
brought to sit with its mother in front of the gas fire and then they were both happy &
warm and went to sleep (such strange dreams haha, plus i marvel at the fact that even
having a cow in my flat seemed fine at the time, lol:)
Jeremy Donovan
> Jeremy wrote
>
>
> >I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
> >
> >### - i meant it in the sense that it all goes to creating a (potentially false/carefully
> >crafted) 'view' of the world and what that world, and our life living in it, is all
> >supposed to 'mean' - but what if there ARE no 'meanings' other than the ones we keep
> >projecting onto the world in various forms? what if we're just here for a little while
> and that's it? no reasons, no meanings, nothing like that; it all just happen to be here!
>
> Actually an education can include studying many ways of viewing the
> world, including the one you just mentioned.
>
> ### - yes it 'could' include that but generally speaking it doesn't...
Most elementary college philosophy courses cover a variety of
different approaches.
> >>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
> >>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand real
> >>things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what it
> is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces in order
> to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to
> >the kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to
> >>deal directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
> >
> >Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
> >don't agree with it. I sure don't.
> >
> >### - fair enough: why the hell 'should' we attempt to experience the world 'as it is'
> >rather than via all our clever ideas & dreams... i.e. screw 'actual' reality... i prefer
> >my own version?:)
We don't have to try to experience the world as it is. We simply DO,
because we were made to do that.
To me, you are the one with all the "clever ideas and dreams" which
are merely that. Zen and Taoism are basically a lot of clever ideas
about how it's best to just experience, without a lot of clever ideas.
And in the end, that trick isn't terribly clever :-), and it doesn't
lead to any approach to living that I find very powerful or
interesting.
> e.g. what happens if we 'reverse' the order and put the experiential first? (it turns the
> world upside down?:)
The real punchline to the joke of Zen and Taoism (for Castaneda as
well) is that the experiential DOES come first, for everyone, and
there's actually nothing you could do about that even if you wanted
to. That's how we're hardwired.
> And all kinds of fascinating new *experiences* can come out of the
> intellectual analysis (such as flying up into that sky and seeing the
> clouds close up, in a plane).
>
> ### - 'fascinating' - or rather: 'fascinated' is the apt word for it for sure... as in
> kinda 'stuck' now in doing absolutely everything that way? what happened to all our
> options? - i mean what if we were to say get stuck in lucid dreaming, or stuck here never
> being able to it, or even stuck at that midway point i mentioned - and i know it's a
> crappy analogy; but isn't it better, really, to keep as many of our options open as
> possible?
Not usually. Usually, in most any situation, there are a few options
that lead to beneficial results, and a virtually infinite number of
options that merely lead to things that are absurd, impractical or
undesirable.
> >> - plus the next thing ya
> >>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around with
> >>it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get our
> >>greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
> >>everything up in the process)
> >
> >To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
> >
> >### - heh, it's just an observation that humanity goes too-far in all its great ideas
> >about everything... often + increasingly to the direct detriment of the world and
> >ourselves living in it... (so how clever is that?:)
I think that's exactly what Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, Castaneda, etc.
ARE: going too far with "great ideas" about everything, and never
actually accomplishing jack shit.
> It's a direct side-effect of the power of knowledge. And like I said,
> it's going to keep advancing.
>
> ### - all it seems to be demonstrating so far is the incredible 'destructive' power of
> (that type of) knowledge... plus if it keeps 'advancing' as you say, well then hmmm, there
> probably wont be much left before long... and because what's being 'called' advancement is
> really then only a 'retrograde' movement towards destruction...
You can't be that dense. :-) Every cheesy ass Hollywood film uses the
plot line: with great power comes great responsibility. In other
words, it's obvious that real knowledge potentially yields great power
for 'good' as well as for 'evil'. Suppose RBB was right and all your
weird little awareness states DID lead to amplified telepathic
abilities (which I doubt). Do you think that such abilities would
have no potential power for "evil" as well as for "good"? C'mon,
think about it... And do you think that if out-of-body states were
real and could be cultivated to a level of expertise by practicing
some "exercises" that THAT would have no potential power for "evil" as
well as for "good"?? C'mon, think about it...
I saw a funny cartoon the other day. Adam is standing in the garden
of Eden taking a bite out of the apple Eve handed him and Adam says
something like "hey, these suckers are GOOD!" and the caption reads
something like "The beginnning of knowledge of good and evil". :-)
> ### - well you're certainly in that club/world alright... plus i agree that science
> probably isn't going to be stopping anytime soon - running wild or running amuck it's hard
> to tell sometimes:) - plus i really don't think anyone could have an effect on it in that
> sense... it's only that some of the individuals contained therein maybe stand a chance of
> escaping (being liberated) 'from' it... (plus god, it's sounds like something from the
> matrix now doesn't it hehe, but then maybe that's exactly what the author (and others like
> him) have been hinting at all-along ;-)
I think the real message of the Matrix was about not getting trapped
in some "Virtual world" that isn't REAL. And unfortunately that's
exactly what all the dreaming and meditating and stuff may be, imo,
just another personal virtual world to get lost in. And it's not even
as good a "virtual world" as the one they had in the Matrix, because
no else is "in there" but you. LOL.
In the end, that's one thing I strongly objected to about Castaneda.
He led everyone to be ABSOLUTELY concerned with their own little world
(dreaming and all that), to the EXCLUSION of most aspects of the real
world going on around them (friendships, love affairs, family,
careers, politics, ecology, etc. etc.). The only thing you were
supposed to care about were your own dreams. Dude was practically
selling "The Matrix." :-)
And Neo's last name is still Cortex.
> You're the one who always acts like there's something terrible wrong
> with the world that would be fixed if everyone would only listen to
> you. Well, I've listened. And I don't think you've got the big
> solution to anything.
>
> And I don't see any necessary separation between an intellectual and
> an experiential approach to life. I do both all the time.
>
> ### - right... now just reverse the order in which they come for a topsy-turvy view of the
> world (i.e. if nothing else it might be quite illuminating :)
Naw. You're talking out of your ass. :-) The order IS reversed
already, for everyone alive.
> Or are you all talk, while you live in some urban hell hole and do
> nothing at all about the environmental issues of the world or your own
> living environment?
>
> ### - lol oh it's an urban hell-hole alright, and the chances are nothing can ever be done
> about it by now... too-late to turn back the clock it's a hell-hole that goes all the way
> (it's called london by the way:) - problem is you took me a bit literally there about
> 'going back to the garden' etc - i.e. i was thinking more of the song and about a minority
> of individuals in every generation who somehow manage get out of the workhouse & go back
> to a nicer, kinder + more fundamental/basic reality (the story of oliver twist if you
> think about it;)
The song was written by Joni Mitchell, and it wasn't so much about a
few elite individuals escaping, it was about Woodstock, a rock
festival attended by half a million people (that also tore the hell
out of the countryside where it took place :-)). It was about a
youthful dream of peace and collaboration and getting "back to the
land" for a whole generation, not for a few special people who might
"escape". If you want a 60's anthem like that, try "Wooden Ships".
:-)
> ### - i meant 'we' as in 'we-humans' is all...
Exactly. And I meant to make the point that you don't speak for the
needs of 'we humans'. You don't even speak for a majority of humans.
Nothing even close to it.
> (you use it all the time too to make
> certain points, don't worry about it) you & millions of people like you being another kind
> of 'we' albeit that doesn't include the 'whole' of humanity...
Exactly. When I use "we" I am referring groups of people who really
do share similar opinions about some things that need to be done in
the world. And that's real. I'm not taking liberties of any kind.
> Discovering more about the world in no way creates anything it is
> necessary to "escape" from. Not for me. This is your trip.
>
> ### - discovering new things about the world is okay... it's the 'meanings' we give to
> those discoveries and the new discoveries those meaning themselves give further rise to...
> in that if one is not careful the next thing ya know is we're lost in a 'world' of
> 'meanings' that we don't really understand other than everything bar-none 'has' to have
> one! (which seems pretty rigid + worthy of escape to me anyway:)
Perhaps if you gave a specific example of "a discovery that is 'okay'
yet has a 'meaning' that 'we' get 'lost' in", you could convince me
that your comments above are more than babbling? (sly grin)
> >### - as far as i can tell there's nothing to 'achieve' other than to be dealing directly
> >with that most basic of realities...
>
> Maybe there isn't anything for YOU to achieve... :-)
>
> The rest of us have lots to do. The world isn't quite the way we want
> it yet. And there's a whole universe out there to explore.
>
> ### - we? (just kidding:) plus is there really a 'we' - or are we ultimately just all on
> our own? (a seeming contradiction i know, but then this is what happens with ideas,
> concepts & words:)
It is an observable fact that most people have things they want to
achieve. So again, I am not taking liberties with the word "we". You
were.
The point is that people decide what they need for themselves. No
philosopher gets to sit on a hill and say what they all "should" need
or want. I don't get to. You don't get to. So if you actually care,
then you have to find some way of *influencing* what people do and
what people are aware of.
You seem to think that what people most need to be aware of is some
"potentially interesting" states of mind. I think that's both an
unrealistic and ineffective approach, hence I have a totally different
vision of how I want to influence the world. I think the vision I
have of the world has a real chance of existing. I don't think your
vision has a snowball's chance in hell. :-)
> > plus from that pov the rest is just human insecurity
> >& greed to build empires & edifices of knowledge, and to be the first ones to do it etc
> >etc... all nonsense... all a waste of precious + irreplaceable time, and, because i don't
> >believe in reincarnation: absolutely 'unique' time for every one of us who has ever
> >lived!
>
> So you sit around dissing anyone who doesn't do what YOU want to.
> That's adolescent crap.
>
> ### - not dissing... (well not unless i'm forced to protect myself heh, and even then not
> really:) but rather just an observation made from a 'particular' pov... the 'experiential'
> pov whereby all that 'industry' seems so unnecessary and such a sheer waste of
> irreplaceable + unique time... especially if it's only damaging things
>
> i.e. it's not really dissing if someone you happen to like is say working down a coal-mine
> with only the prospect in front of them of another 40 years down there, to be telling them
> stories of other people's perhaps more-varied lives, travels and experiences in the hope
> that they'll maybe decide to do something about it (for themselves) and/or at least try
> something else... i wouldn't call that dissing...
>
> mind you, if you had to 'slag-off' their coalmine a bit in order to show them what a crock
> it all is, then i can see how that someone might possibly misinterpret it (and the love of
> their life) as being dissed :)
That whole bit makes no sense, because the more-varied lives, travels
and experiences of which you speak in your analogy happen to BE
important products OF the empires and edifices of knowledge you are
dissing.
And there are 'shit jobs' and lesser positions in almost any human
society, no matter how primitive.
> >now honestly, who wants to spend they one-time ever only existance... 'damaging' things?
>
> Who wants to spend it talking about "states of awareness" that never
> come to anything? You, I guess. But not me. Most people don't WANT
> to damage things. That isn't their intent.
>
> ### - it might not be their 'intention' to damage things... it's just that when (for
> example) you take an animal and dissect it to see how it all works etc... it tends to
> 'destroy' that animal in the process!
Not if it was already dead.
> - and for people who claim that they don't 'want' to
> destroy things then perhaps they could start right there and STOP dissecting everything!
> (smile:)
You keep attempting to dissect my arguments (yet fail). You keep
using technology and science the whole time you criticise it. And you
keep using reason and analysis the whole time you are dissing it.
(BIG evil grin)
You want to live without technology, then go for it. You want to live
without science and reason, then go for it. You'll probably wind up
in some weird commune somewhere, where some other loon might actually
listen to you decrying the horrors of the modern world.
> whereas if one switches to the experiential pov "states of awareness" is what it becomes
> all about for us humans... mind/psyche, whatever it really is, our mirror, one's
> 'perception' then: released from all that rational clutter and the obsessive dissection of
> everything because its informative & fun, leaves only the reaching-out of that uncluttered
> perception into its own element & relatively unexplored range...
Um, so you're not rational when you experiment with awareness? C'mon.
Think about it... And so experimenting with "awareness" is okay, but
not experimenting with everything else too? C'mon... You have assumed
an untenable and unrealistic position.
Hmmm. Somehow the person with no power wound up being the one to
"press the button" in your fantasy. Let me ask you something. Do you
think that in ancient times before science and technology that no one
had a hard life, a subsistence existence, or the threat of war? If
so, you are indeed living in a dream world Neo. :-)
Also, there are a lot of people who live an existence of drudgery for
many years, without becoming malicious.
> >> what changed was that my head got gradually
> >>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
> >>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically 'ruins'
> >>(occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to deal with!
> >
> >It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
> >I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
> >
> >### - so you were 'born' with all this inherent knowledge about atoms and things eh? - i
> >mean i don't remember thinking about all 'that' when i was hopping down the road for a
> >lollipop;)
>
> You evaded what I said. I didn't say I was born knowing everything.
> I said that all the knowledge I've learned has not ruined anything for
> me. Not at all. It has been another series of wonders in a
> continuous world of wonder.
>
> ### - i just thought you were saying that the world and the way you look at it, *hasn't*
> changed in 'meaning' (and thus the way one views it) since you were an uneducated kid as
> it did for me...
My *understanding* of the world has changed a lot since I was a kid.
And that's a good thing, or I certainly wouldn't be a very successful
adult.
> whereas above that i was suggesting that one's education obviously alters a child's
> innocence and pov by streaming all its thinking & its expectations into and along very
> certain + particular lines only... in other words: we're 'groomed' to become and to adopt
> a certain way whether we want it, like it, or not (called it brainwashing before heh,
> although that's exactly what it is: a form of brainwashing :)
If my education did all that to me like you say (and hey -- I had LOTS
of education), then how did I ever wind up in all the very strange
places I've been, hmmmm? :-)
You know, there was a time, again, before most of this science and
technology existed, when most of the common people didn't GET an
education. Do you think they were better off for it, hmmmm?? Do you
really think the world was a better place then? If so, you are indeed
living in a dream world...
-Jeremy
rbb
"Jeremy Donovan" <jerem...@hotmail.com>
paints a very suggestive and seductive image:
Slider BE aware:
> >
> > ### - all it seems to be demonstrating so far is the incredible
'destructive' power of
> > (that type of) knowledge... plus if it keeps 'advancing' as you say,
well then hmmm, there
> > probably wont be much left before long... and because what's being
'called' advancement is
> > really then only a 'retrograde' movement towards destruction...
>
> You can't be that dense. :-) Every cheesy ass Hollywood film uses the
> plot line: with great power comes great responsibility. In other
> words, it's obvious that real knowledge potentially yields great power
> for 'good' as well as for 'evil'. Suppose RBB was right and all your
> weird little awareness states DID lead to amplified telepathic
> abilities (which I doubt). Do you think that such abilities would
> have no potential power for "evil" as well as for "good"? C'mon,
> think about it... And do you think that if out-of-body states were
> real and could be cultivated to a level of expertise by practicing
> some "exercises" that THAT would have no potential power for "evil" as
> well as for "good"?? C'mon, think about it...
>
> I saw a funny cartoon the other day. Adam is standing in the garden
> of Eden taking a bite out of the apple Eve handed him and Adam says
> something like "hey, these suckers are GOOD!" and the caption reads
> something like "The beginnning of knowledge of good and evil". :-)
>
>
If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance
you can buffle them with your bullshit.
Are you suggesting that Slider is Adam and I am Eve feeding him
apples and next thing we know is that we are naked and evil is wrapping
around us like a phyton because we had the wish to experiment with
telepathy?
( snik)
Ahahahahahaha........
RBB
Jeremy Donovan
"rbb" <ely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:-) Not quite.
I am saying that IF by any means whatsoever either of you managed to
develop advanced telepathic abilities, that you would have just as
much ability to mess with people and take advantage of people as you
would to help them, and it would depend entirely on your character and
your own desires just exactly how you did use those abilities. The
same would be true of *anyone* who developed them.
Knowledge of any kind is power, and power can always be used to hurt
or to help.
Fortunately that kind of telepathic ability is nothing but a fantasy.
:-)
-J.
slider
Jeremy wrote
>
> >I don't think education in general "pollutes" our basic perception.
> >
> >### - i meant it in the sense that it all goes to creating a (potentially
false/carefully
> >crafted) 'view' of the world and what that world, and our life living in it, is all
> >supposed to 'mean' - but what if there ARE no 'meanings' other than the ones we keep
> >projecting onto the world in various forms? what if we're just here for a little while
> and that's it? no reasons, no meanings, nothing like that; it all just happen to be
here!
>
> Actually an education can include studying many ways of viewing the
> world, including the one you just mentioned.
>
> ### - yes it 'could' include that but generally speaking it doesn't...
Most elementary college philosophy courses cover a variety of
different approaches.
### - 'covers' being the appropriate term in the sense that a whole series of ideas are
only 'touched' on lightly as in someone said this, another proposed that etc etc... much
in the same way certain travellers 'do' europe in 10 days visiting maybe12 countries in
that same period... which will certainly leave one with some sort of an 'impression' of
europe for sure... a strange rather quaint place with funny little buildings and stuff,
but as to really understanding how it actually is to be 'living' in some of those places
for say 6 months at a time, would be a very different experience + understanding indeed...
fact is 'some' people doing philosophy do actually pick-up on some of it and follow it
up... some even going so far as to make a much more in-depth comparitive study and even
come-up with their 'own' philosophy (plenty examples of that for instance) - but then how
many people even 'do' philosophy at college as their main subject? - come to that: how
many people even 'go' to college!
my point being that of the tiny 'minority' that even so much as 'look' at philosophy
before they're suddenly up to their necks in working for a living, only very few ever take
it much further... the vast-vast majority doing other things altogether anyway & that are
often totally diametrically opposed to searching enquiries of that nature
> >>now someone's probably going to say: - but yeah, 'science' IS the study OF that real +
> >>physical world in what looks like humanity's honest attempt to actually understand
real things and advance themselves... and i'll agree with them because that's exactly what
it is... only what people *don't* understand is that in taking everything to pieces
inorder
> to see what makes everything tick, and then say writing it all down and teaching it to
> >the kids in school; is actually just another form of pollution of the mind's ability to
> >>deal directly with the real world in 'meaning-LESS' terms...
> >
> >Maybe rather than not "understanding" that viewpoint, people just
> >don't agree with it. I sure don't.
> >
> >### - fair enough: why the hell 'should' we attempt to experience the world 'as it is'
> >rather than via all our clever ideas & dreams... i.e. screw 'actual' reality... i
prefer my own version?:)
We don't have to try to experience the world as it is. We simply DO,
because we were made to do that.
### - correct! we were made to do exactly that... and as humans we do it well, perhaps
even better than the lower animals in some ways - what we 'weren't' made to do was to
relate to that basic perception of the world via a complicated + conceptualised idea... or
if we 'were' (i.e. because that's one of the things we're just 'able' to do for example,
one of our strange 'human' abilities) then who's to say which is the best one, and/or if
any of them are!
i mean what if after being a member of maybe several different schools of thought (the
equivilent of spending a good deal of time in each & every place one visited) one comes to
the conclusion that they're ALL a crock; that ALL conceptualised ideas + the exclusive
relating to them + via them in order to obtain some sort of crafted 'view' of the world,
no matter how clever or elegant that view happens to be, and/or whatever 'spin-offs' they
might produce that could be handy etc etc; is all just a terrible waste of time... and
because really... in the end... there IS no philosophy other than what we made up and
'pretended' was real in order to 'make' it real... (see? humans have this weird ability to
'project' ourselves in things)
To me, you are the one with all the "clever ideas and dreams" which
are merely that. Zen and Taoism are basically a lot of clever ideas
about how it's best to just experience, without a lot of clever ideas.
### - i've already told you i don't believe in buddhism... there's just a bunch of things
i cherry-picked from their culture on my way 'through' (kept some of the nicer bits is
all) - but you'll have to admit that 'koans' are pretty clever though, don't you think? :)
And in the end, that trick isn't terribly clever :-), and it doesn't
lead to any approach to living that I find very powerful or
interesting.
### - precisely... the experiential pov is nothing to do with 'power' but rather the
opposite? - i.e. going with the flow etc isn't really something that bespeaks of 'power'
as such, well not unless you're talking about the power of the river, but then there's
nothing anyone can really do about that other than to fight it or to go with it... (i.e.
fighting it only creates the destructive 'illusion' of power)
> e.g. what happens if we 'reverse' the order and put the experiential first? (it turns
>the world upside down?:)
The real punchline to the joke of Zen and Taoism (for Castaneda as
well) is that the experiential DOES come first, for everyone, and
there's actually nothing you could do about that even if you wanted
to. That's how we're hardwired.
### - yes that's how humanity's hardwired... exactly... so then how come they've managed
to turn it all around into some sort of intellectual pastime? could that be the
work-around humanity invented to create the illusion that makes 'experiential' life seem
to come second while we all ponder the 'meaning' of everything?
> And all kinds of fascinating new *experiences* can come out of the
> intellectual analysis (such as flying up into that sky and seeing the
> clouds close up, in a plane).
>
> ### - 'fascinating' - or rather: 'fascinated' is the apt word for it for sure... as in
> kinda 'stuck' now in doing absolutely everything that way? what happened to all our
> options? - i mean what if we were to say get stuck in lucid dreaming, or stuck here
neverbeing able to it, or even stuck at that midway point i mentioned - and i know it's a
> crappy analogy; but isn't it better, really, to keep as many of our options open as
> possible?
Not usually. Usually, in most any situation, there are a few options
that lead to beneficial results, and a virtually infinite number of
options that merely lead to things that are absurd, impractical or
undesirable.
### - in other words we tend to judge/gauge a tree by its fruit... if it makes ya sick
it's bad... simple as that, no matter how nice it looked or even tasted, sick is still
sick... on the other hand maybe it tastes so sweet that we start inventing 'antidotes' to
the sickness and then we can have it anyway, even if we 'know' it's bad! - and now of
course we're addicted, not only to the poison but also to the antidote (2 for the price of
one see? it's a bargain!:)
> >> - plus the next thing ya
> >>know we're sending rockets up there to measure it or something and screwing around
with it! - not to mention that we've 'done' that now to virtually everything we could get
our greedy mitts on! (i.e. we've screwed around with everything see? + nearly fucked
> >>everything up in the process)
> >
> >To me, your whole schpiel just sounds like eccentric "whining". :-)
> >
> >### - heh, it's just an observation that humanity goes too-far in all its great ideas
> >about everything... often + increasingly to the direct detriment of the world and
> >ourselves living in it... (so how clever is that?:)
I think that's exactly what Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, Castaneda, etc.
ARE: going too far with "great ideas" about everything, and never
actually accomplishing jack shit.
### - maybe so in western terms... but at least they didn't start destroying the goddamn
world, and/or advocating that kind of widescale destructive behaviour
> It's a direct side-effect of the power of knowledge. And like I said,
> it's going to keep advancing.
>
> ### - all it seems to be demonstrating so far is the incredible 'destructive' power of
> (that type of) knowledge... plus if it keeps 'advancing' as you say, well then hmmm,
there probably wont be much left before long... and because what's being 'called'
>advancement is really then only a 'retrograde' movement towards destruction...
You can't be that dense. :-) Every cheesy ass Hollywood film uses the
plot line: with great power comes great responsibility. In other
words, it's obvious that real knowledge potentially yields great power
for 'good' as well as for 'evil'.
### - yeah well maybe humanity's just not able to 'handle' all that responsibility or
something then... i mean, we might have even survived if we'd just gone with the flow +
tried to fit-in with the way things actually ARE instead of trying to change everything
around to intellectual ideas of what it's all supposed to be about
Suppose RBB was right and all your
weird little awareness states DID lead to amplified telepathic
abilities (which I doubt). Do you think that such abilities would
have no potential power for "evil" as well as for "good"? C'mon,
think about it... And do you think that if out-of-body states were
real and could be cultivated to a level of expertise by practicing
some "exercises" that THAT would have no potential power for "evil" as
well as for "good"?? C'mon, think about it...
### - i 'have' thought about it and don't want no part of it, which is why RBB &
intraphase (art) & myself sometimes clash about what i call the 'formularisation' of life
(book-type recipes) that imho are just another (albeit alternative) semi-intellectual
'science' (e.g. something like metaphysics and rational science all rolled into one to
create only yet another 'distorted' view on life that works in & to a fashion)
I saw a funny cartoon the other day. Adam is standing in the garden
of Eden taking a bite out of the apple Eve handed him and Adam says
something like "hey, these suckers are GOOD!" and the caption reads
something like "The beginnning of knowledge of good and evil". :-)
### - heh, and then after that he just couldn't shut her up i suppose and had to invent
'reason' to tie her up & gag her with? nah (grin:)
> ### - well you're certainly in that club/world alright... plus i agree that science
> probably isn't going to be stopping anytime soon - running wild or running amuck it's
hard to tell sometimes:) - plus i really don't think anyone could have an effect on it in
that sense... it's only that some of the individuals contained therein maybe stand a
chance
of escaping (being liberated) 'from' it... (plus god, it's sounds like something from the
> matrix now doesn't it hehe, but then maybe that's exactly what the author (and others
>like him) have been hinting at all-along ;-)
I think the real message of the Matrix was about not getting trapped
in some "Virtual world" that isn't REAL. And unfortunately that's
exactly what all the dreaming and meditating and stuff may be, imo,
just another personal virtual world to get lost in. And it's not even
as good a "virtual world" as the one they had in the Matrix, because
no else is "in there" but you. LOL.
### - smile, and i think it's about trying to tell people that we're 'already' trapped in
a carefully constructed 'conceptualisation' of the world that we're all in it, and we 'do'
share as the general consensus :)
In the end, that's one thing I strongly objected to about Castaneda.
He led everyone to be ABSOLUTELY concerned with their own little world
(dreaming and all that), to the EXCLUSION of most aspects of the real
world going on around them (friendships, love affairs, family,
careers, politics, ecology, etc. etc.). The only thing you were
supposed to care about were your own dreams. Dude was practically
selling "The Matrix." :-)
### - well that might be 'one' (plus rather flambouant) way of 'breaking-out' of the
general consensus 'view' of the world in order to explore it for oneself on more unbiased
terms i suppose:)
> You're the one who always acts like there's something terrible wrong
> with the world that would be fixed if everyone would only listen to
> you. Well, I've listened. And I don't think you've got the big
> solution to anything.
>
> And I don't see any necessary separation between an intellectual and
> an experiential approach to life. I do both all the time.
>
> ### - right... now just reverse the order in which they come for a topsy-turvy view of
>the world (i.e. if nothing else it might be quite illuminating :)
Naw. You're talking out of your ass. :-) The order IS reversed
already, for everyone alive.
### - true... yet that's not what they're actively doing or thinking they're doing...
they're all caught up instead in intellectual ideas & stuff... so much so that the
'experiential' pov has taken a kinda intellectual back-seat so to speak... which if you
think about it, is exactly what it's designed to do!
> Or are you all talk, while you live in some urban hell hole and do
> nothing at all about the environmental issues of the world or your own
> living environment?
>
> ### - lol oh it's an urban hell-hole alright, and the chances are nothing can ever be
done about it by now... too-late to turn back the clock it's a hell-hole that goes all the
way(it's called london by the way:) - problem is you took me a bit literally there about
> 'going back to the garden' etc - i.e. i was thinking more of the song and about a
minority of individuals in every generation who somehow manage get out of the
workhouse & go back to a nicer, kinder + more fundamental/basic reality (the
>story of oliver twist if you think about it;)
The song was written by Joni Mitchell, and it wasn't so much about a
few elite individuals escaping, it was about Woodstock, a rock
festival attended by half a million people (that also tore the hell
out of the countryside where it took place :-)). It was about a
youthful dream of peace and collaboration and getting "back to the
land" for a whole generation, not for a few special people who might
"escape". If you want a 60's anthem like that, try "Wooden Ships".
:-)
### - we are stardust, we are glowing, and we gotta get ourselves back to the garden:) -
and yes it 'was' supposed to be for a whole generation, and beyond... but it got killed
again just like it has so many times before... the man with the weedkiller always comes
along and douses it every time... but it'll come back again, and again, always in
different but similar forms... maybe until it just can't come back no more ever again
because science will finally work out a way get rid of the pesky problem altogether... ah
fuck-it, who needs Art anyway :)
> Discovering more about the world in no way creates anything it is
> necessary to "escape" from. Not for me. This is your trip.
>
> ### - discovering new things about the world is okay... it's the 'meanings' we give to
> those discoveries and the new discoveries those meaning themselves give further rise
to... in that if one is not careful the next thing ya know is we're lost in a 'world' of
> 'meanings' that we don't really understand other than everything bar-none 'has' to have
> one! (which seems pretty rigid + worthy of escape to me anyway:)
Perhaps if you gave a specific example of "a discovery that is 'okay'
yet has a 'meaning' that 'we' get 'lost' in", you could convince me
that your comments above are more than babbling? (sly grin)
### - well on the basis that reason is just 'one' aspect of our psyche; just one of our
(known) abilities: how about exploring 'other' aspects of it as potential 'alternate'
routes instead of insisting that reason always comes first? what happened to our
experiential pov after it's been through the mill of reason?:)
> >### - as far as i can tell there's nothing to 'achieve' other than to be dealing
directly with that most basic of realities...
>
> Maybe there isn't anything for YOU to achieve... :-)
>
> The rest of us have lots to do. The world isn't quite the way we want
> it yet. And there's a whole universe out there to explore.
>
> ### - we? (just kidding:) plus is there really a 'we' - or are we ultimately just all on
> our own? (a seeming contradiction i know, but then this is what happens with ideas,
> concepts & words:)
It is an observable fact that most people have things they want to
achieve. So again, I am not taking liberties with the word "we". You
were.
The point is that people decide what they need for themselves. No
philosopher gets to sit on a hill and say what they all "should" need
or want. I don't get to. You don't get to. So if you actually care,
then you have to find some way of *influencing* what people do and
what people are aware of.
### - there is such a thing as 'conditioning' though isn't there... conditioned to
'expect' certain things and/or ways, conditioned to 'react' to certain things in certain
ways... socially conditioned to 'behave' in certain ways (keep off the grass signs
everywhere? ;-)
You seem to think that what people most need to be aware of is some
"potentially interesting" states of mind. I think that's both an
unrealistic and ineffective approach, hence I have a totally different
vision of how I want to influence the world. I think the vision I
have of the world has a real chance of existing. I don't think your
vision has a snowball's chance in hell. :-)
### - some kat called the buddha 'did' actually affect the world with ideas about states
of mind as it goes... perhaps today even more so than ever:)
> i.e. it's not really dissing if someone you happen to like is say working down a
coal-mine with only the prospect in front of them of another 40 years down there,
to be telling them stories of other people's perhaps more-varied lives, travels
and experiences in the hope that they'll maybe decide to do something about it
(for themselves) and/or at least try something else... i wouldn't call that dissing...
>
> mind you, if you had to 'slag-off' their coalmine a bit in order to show them what a
crock it all is, then i can see how that someone might possibly misinterpret it (and
>the love of their life) as being dissed :)
That whole bit makes no sense, because the more-varied lives, travels
and experiences of which you speak in your analogy happen to BE
important products OF the empires and edifices of knowledge you are
dissing.
### - well alright then it's like someone always having lived in the same village and
thinking that the whole world must be just like that when of course it isn't, and then
along comes a traveller with strange tales about other very different places & things and
who seems worldly-wise to the person who's never been anywhere else and who doesn't know
anything else but the life he was introduced to + always been used to, and/or was lined-up
for because of where he just so happened to be born...
And there are 'shit jobs' and lesser positions in almost any human
society, no matter how primitive.
### - either incredibly humble people, or just the perfect slaves :)
> >now honestly, who wants to spend they one-time ever only existance... 'damaging'
things?
>
> Who wants to spend it talking about "states of awareness" that never
> come to anything? You, I guess. But not me. Most people don't WANT
> to damage things. That isn't their intent.
>
> ### - it might not be their 'intention' to damage things... it's just that when (for
> example) you take an animal and dissect it to see how it all works etc... it tends to
> 'destroy' that animal in the process!
Not if it was already dead.
### - yeah well they don't exactly hang-around waiting for things to die do they? i mean
they give rats cancer and stuff and then cut them open to see what it did + how (and all
the rest of it, poor things)
> - and for people who claim that they don't 'want' to
> destroy things then perhaps they could start right there and STOP dissecting everything!
> (smile:)
You keep attempting to dissect my arguments (yet fail). You keep
using technology and science the whole time you criticise it. And you
keep using reason and analysis the whole time you are dissing it.
(BIG evil grin)
### - because we're able to that is all... i.e. to invite reason to examine + critisise
itself is no small thing if it does it in earnest and/or to any real depth, as the
insights about itself and its own workings it might gain might just possibly undermine
reason per-se in its role as the ruling factor/class, and then what's it gonna do, go mad
perhaps?
You want to live without technology, then go for it. You want to live
without science and reason, then go for it. You'll probably wind up
in some weird commune somewhere, where some other loon might actually
listen to you decrying the horrors of the modern world.
### - as you said before: we can have 'both' actually... it's the balance 'between' them
that's all-cock-eyed i reckon:)
> whereas if one switches to the experiential pov "states of awareness" is what it becomes
> all about for us humans... mind/psyche, whatever it really is, our mirror, one's
> 'perception' then: released from all that rational clutter and the obsessive dissection
of
> everything because its informative & fun, leaves only the reaching-out of that
uncluttered
> perception into its own element & relatively unexplored range...
Um, so you're not rational when you experiment with awareness? C'mon.
Think about it... And so experimenting with "awareness" is okay, but
not experimenting with everything else too? C'mon... You have assumed
an untenable and unrealistic position.
### - well jazz musicians have to play on the available scales/keys do they not? but then
they fuck about with it see? they don't stay within the rules and start bending 'em a bit!
and before ya know it ya don't really know 'where' the fucker's gonna go next 'coz he's
all-over the place! and it all starts gettin' a bit weird see... and then people in the
audiance start smokin' all these fuckin' big reefers and stuff (lol:) and are all startin'
to actually feel their 'aliveness' and the vibes flyin' around & things... plus everyone
gradually becomes aware there's some incredible dude up there on the stage just 'doin' it
to them and 'knows' he's doin' it to 'em and doin' his best to do it to 'em even more! -
and then just as the magic 'really' begins to flow; the place probably gets raided &
closed down because all that 'weirdness' just isn't allowed in 'decent' society, ya' know?
heh;)
> >>I have been here all along, you see, and I know. :-) Nothing in the
> >>monumental amount of formal education I had changed my fundamental
> >>*perception* of the world. I remember how I perceived the world as a
> >>child before I ever went to school. It hasn't changed.
> >>
> >>### - it hasn't changed for me neither...
> >
> >Let's merely note that you agree your perception has not really been
> >changed by all this "evil" social world.
> >
> >### - i thought religion and its conception of 'evil' is surely one of the things
we're tryin' to get-away from isn't it? - no it's not 'evil' to be screwing up the world,
it's just dumb - plus we don't really have to know about an apple's atoms to enjoy the
> >'experience' of apple :)
>
> Sorry I disagree here too. A lot of the time it is more than dumb, it
> is actually evil. By that I don't mean that the prince of darkness is
> responsible or anything, I just mean that the *intent* is
> unnecessarily and maliciously destructive. That is what I call evil.
>
> ### ....and before ya know it you got all these dopey, jaded people who're only
> too willing to press that goddamn button if & when they're ordered to:)
Hmmm. Somehow the person with no power wound up being the one to
"press the button" in your fantasy. Let me ask you something. Do you
think that in ancient times before science and technology that no one
had a hard life, a subsistence existence, or the threat of war? If
so, you are indeed living in a dream world Neo. :-)
### - depends on how far you want to go back, and because in terms of obtaining the
experiential pov over any other, still required the escaping from the consensus of the
day... religion being just another prison-house of ideas as any other school of thought
ultimately is...
i.e. the experiential pov came first (especially if we came from the animals:) the ideas
and conceptualisations afterwards... only now the ideas have taken the front-running, and
we who are born into it today know nothing else than other the proposed + proffered
order...
Also, there are a lot of people who live an existence of drudgery for
many years, without becoming malicious.
### - the same perfect worker-slaves who learned to do what they're told and get-by that
way (if you're a bum... it's a hustle :)
> >> what changed was that my head got gradually
> >>filled up with a bunch of ideas 'about' that world until i was eventually dealing with
> >>everything IN that world at some kind of intellectual arms-length that basically
'ruins' (occludes) the real + more direct experience the pre-educated child used to
deal with!
> >
> >It doesn't for me. It doesn't seem to for most of the other people
> >I know. So ... what's up with YOU? LOL. (??)
> >
> >### - so you were 'born' with all this inherent knowledge about atoms and things eh? -
i
> >mean i don't remember thinking about all 'that' when i was hopping down the road for a
> >lollipop;)
>
> You evaded what I said. I didn't say I was born knowing everything.
> I said that all the knowledge I've learned has not ruined anything for
> me. Not at all. It has been another series of wonders in a
> continuous world of wonder.
>
> ### - i just thought you were saying that the world and the way you look at it, *hasn't*
> changed in 'meaning' (and thus the way one views it) since you were an uneducated kid as
> it did for me...
My *understanding* of the world has changed a lot since I was a kid.
And that's a good thing, or I certainly wouldn't be a very successful
adult.
### - successful at what though? at being a good human being perhaps? do we even 'know'
what a good human being actually is apart from all our rationalised + industrialised ideas
about it? have we as a species become so poverty-stricken (nature-wise) that we now
meagerly measure our totally unique life in terms of how much we've earned, or are going
to earn? - is that really what life, our life, is all about??don't think so...
> whereas above that i was suggesting that one's education obviously alters a child's
> innocence and pov by streaming all its thinking & its expectations into and along very
> certain + particular lines only... in other words: we're 'groomed' to become and to
adopt a certain way whether we want it, like it, or not (called it brainwashing before
>heh, although that's exactly what it is: a form of brainwashing :)
If my education did all that to me like you say (and hey -- I had LOTS
of education), then how did I ever wind up in all the very strange
places I've been, hmmmm? :-)
### - lots of people end up going to strange places... it just depends on what they saw to
see going on there? - e.g. a dedicated mechanic would necessarily experience a very
different view of it all compared to say a priest... it depends on the 'education' one
obtains and/or has obtained...
You know, there was a time, again, before most of this science and
technology existed, when most of the common people didn't GET an
education. Do you think they were better off for it, hmmmm?? Do you
really think the world was a better place then? If so, you are indeed
living in a dream world...
### - 'religion' was a kind of education don't you see? everyone was brought up to believe
in it if nothing else... it became the reason why people did things the way they did... it
dictated how they lived, who they married, what was good & what was bad society-wise +
law-wise... culture-wise... and because 10,000 years of don't kill, don't steal, don't get
greedy, don't get jealous, don't get angry, don't get 'all' these things on-pain of dire
punishment, over & over until you've eventually got these bunches of monkeys all hanging
around going: yeah i think i can work 9 to 5 several days a week if i have to... we 'want'
to :)
slider
rbb wrote
"Jeremy Donovan" >
Slider BE aware:
( snik)
Ahahahahahaha........
### - heh heh heh... i liked the 'naked' part anyway ;-)
rbb
>
> If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance
> you can buffle them with your bullshit.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that Slider is Adam and I am Eve feeding him
> apples and next thing we know is that we are naked and evil is wrapping
> around us like a phyton because we had the wish to experiment with
> telepathy?
>
> ( snik)
> Ahahahahahaha........
>
> ### - heh heh heh... i liked the 'naked' part anyway ;-)
They didn't call it paradise for nothing. :)
rbb
"Jeremy Donovan" <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message >
> Fortunately that kind of telepathic ability is nothing but a fantasy.
> :-)
Mainly your fantasy not mine. :)
slider
rbb wrote
> Are you suggesting that Slider is Adam and I am Eve feeding him
> apples and next thing we know is that we are naked and evil is wrapping
> around us like a phyton because we had the wish to experiment with
> telepathy?
>
> ( snik)
> Ahahahahahaha........
>
> ### - heh heh heh... i liked the 'naked' part anyway ;-)
They didn't call it paradise for nothing. :)
### - lol + oh-boy... i mean, as a bachelor of god-knows how many years now
i gotta get me back to the garden damn 'quick' then before i end up pushing my balls
around in a goddamned wheelbarrow! ahahaha :)
rbb
You know the reason why paradise was lost:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/search.aspx=a&keyword=paradise&Category=Religion
&Boolean=Phrase&Artist=Jorodo&submit=Search
cr...@sbcglobal.net
rbb
<cr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dYWPc.29$Vk2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Is this fucker working or not damnit?
>
copy and paste
rbb
> here's one for the ears on the same subject by Bill Hicks (see attached
.mp3)
>
> smile...
Just when my soundcard is down... But i have saved it for later....