free kabbalah course
Dennes De Mennes
starts september 7, register at http://edu.kabbalah.info
Tom
> starts september 7, register athttp://edu.kabbalah.info
From the article on Baruch Ashlag in Wikipedia:
"In 1991 Dr Michael Laitman established Bnei Baruch, a group of
Kabbalah students that implements the legacy of Rabash (Rav Baruch
Shalom Ashlag) on a day-to-day basis. Today, the members of Bnei
Baruch research, study, and circulate the wisdom of Kabbalah. Dr
Laitman has always maintained that he is an ordained rabbi and
Kabbalist, but to date there does not appear to be any proof. In spite
of repeated requests, Dr Laitman has yet to provide documentary
evidence of his ordination (Smicha) from his teacher Rav Baruch Shalom
Ashlag, either as a rabbi or as a Kabbalist."
Hmm. If his religious credentials are unsubstantiated, what about his
academic credentials? Are they similarly unsubstantiated? According
to the article on Baruch Ashlag, Laitman served as his driver and
student for over a decade, until Ashlag's death in 1991. So, was this
PhD from a prestigious Russian science school employed as a driver for
all those years? Of course, the claim that Laitman was Ashlag's
driver is itself unsubstantiated. One wonders what the facts are.
Like you, Dennes, Laitman states that Kabbalah is a science. Yet, his
definition of science in relation the Kabbalah is more like that of
"Christian Science" than like that of the "Russian Academy of
Sciences" from which he claims to have received his doctorate in
Kabbalah (?).
"Kabbalah is the science that explores man's origins, his purpose in
life and the method of achieving a perception of reality beyond the
five senses of the body. While dealing with elements currently beyond
our perception, it is actually a very practical methodology that can
be implemented here and now."
So apparently Kabbalah science studies perception by means that are
beyond perception. That eliminates the one thing that separates real
science from pseudoscience, the independent verification of empirical
evidence.
Religious philosophy usually isn't very fussy about that, but modern
science is. Kabbalah is *not* science in the sense that modern
physics is science.
On the up-side, The Bnai Baruch Kabbalah Center does not charge any
fees for its courses and does not appear to be a scam. While its
coursework does not necessarily reflect "traditional" Jewish Kabbalah,
it may well be that it contains useful insights to students
approaching the subject as hermetic philosophy.
{:-])))
> Dennes wrote:
>
>> starts september 7, register athttp://edu.kabbalah.info
>
>From the article on Baruch Ashlag in Wikipedia:
>
>
>Hmm. If his religious credentials are unsubstantiated, what about his
>academic credentials? Are they similarly unsubstantiated?
If Siddhartha had unsubstantiated credentials,
would it make a difference? He claimed something.
His friends accepted his claim. Jesus was different,
as was Moses. Why Laitman makes a claim might be
for those who like to have lineage as authority
prior to accepting some teaching or other.
Watts used to say that each individual is, ultimately,
the authority. This is due to the fact that each one
determines, ultimately, which other authority to accept
or reject as being an authority. Tis a twisty biscuit.
What resonates, resonates.
That may or may not be clear.
> According
>to the article on Baruch Ashlag, Laitman served as his driver and
>student for over a decade, until Ashlag's death in 1991. So, was this
>PhD from a prestigious Russian science school employed as a driver for
>all those years? Of course, the claim that Laitman was Ashlag's
>driver is itself unsubstantiated. One wonders what the facts are.
I knew a guy who posted to a group
who claimed to be a black belt. When asked where he got it,
he said he made it himself. What a fact might mean
might be subject to disputation. Why folks may choose
to dispute meanings can be fun.
>Like you, Dennes, Laitman states that Kabbalah is a science. Yet, his
>definition of science in relation the Kabbalah is more like that of
>"Christian Science" than like that of the "Russian Academy of
>Sciences" from which he claims to have received his doctorate in
>Kabbalah (?).
>
>"Kabbalah is the science that explores man's origins, his purpose in
>life and the method of achieving a perception of reality beyond the
>five senses of the body. While dealing with elements currently beyond
>our perception, it is actually a very practical methodology that can
>be implemented here and now."
>
>So apparently Kabbalah science studies perception by means that are
>beyond perception.
If perception is limited to the five senses of the body, yes.
If, as in other systems, there are other senses, then no.
I often perceive with my mind-sigh. Cud be a sixth.
Personal experience can be vast.
To verify a state of consciousness, particularly
enlightenment, self-realization, cosmic unity, etc.,
might not be subject to repeatable independent
experiments done by those who have not
had similar experiences.
Tao that are tao
are not always Tao.
Such a science can be
a trip, in more ways than
simply one and only one One.
Theories that seek to explain phenomena
tend to be theories. Facts based on perceptions
might turn out to be contextually dependent.
Thinking there is an objective world
tends to be compulsive thought
when it excludes subject
matters that matter.
> That eliminates the one thing that separates real
>science from pseudoscience, the independent verification of empirical
>evidence.
Real, in this case, suggests physical or material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Other systems, other TOEs,
e.g. Tom Campbell's, Chris Langan's,
might dispute that material science is all there is.
>Religious philosophy usually isn't very fussy about that, but modern
>science is. Kabbalah is *not* science in the sense that modern
>physics is science.
True. Occult science tends to be
m'ore in the metaphysical rather than being
hemmed in by only the physical.
>On the up-side, The Bnai Baruch Kabbalah Center does not charge any
>fees for its courses and does not appear to be a scam. While its
>coursework does not necessarily reflect "traditional" Jewish Kabbalah,
>it may well be that it contains useful insights to students
>approaching the subject as hermetic philosophy.
I'm not sure if the church of the FSM
http://www.venganza.org/
is scientific in its system of thought.
Be that as it may, I find its particular brand
of science, if it could be called that, to be
very delightful, insightful, and spiritually
thirst quenching.
- cheers!
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>
> >Hmm. If his religious credentials are unsubstantiated, what about his
> >academic credentials? Are they similarly unsubstantiated?
>
> If Siddhartha had unsubstantiated credentials,
> would it make a difference?
If he claimed some academic honorifics as an indicator of his
credibility, I think that whether or not he was lying would indeed
make a difference to his credibility.
However, Siddhartha made no such claim.
> Watts used to say that each individual is, ultimately,
> the authority.
I heartily agree. That's why I don't think it's at all helpful for
religious or mystical evangelists to bandy about academic credentials
as if it made them seem more intellectually exalted than others.
Their philosophy should stand or fall on its own, not by virtue of
some alleged educational achievement.
> I knew a guy who posted to a group
> who claimed to be a black belt. When asked where he got it,
> he said he made it himself. What a fact might mean
> might be subject to disputation. Why folks may choose
> to dispute meanings can be fun.
The purpose of such claims is to bolster some credibility for one's
claims without having to support them by direct evidence. It's a
short cut often exploited by con artists.
> >So apparently Kabbalah science studies perception by means that are
> >beyond perception.
>
> If perception is limited to the five senses of the body, yes.
> If, as in other systems, there are other senses, then no.
> I often perceive with my mind-sigh. Cud be a sixth.
There are indeed more than five senses. For example, there is a
kinesthetic sense that tells us the position of our body. There is an
emotional sense that lets us be aware of the hormonal changes in our
body. These senses detect real changes in our environment that can be
checked to demonstrate their accuracy or inaccuracy. But an alleged
sense that allows us to perceive "God" has no means to be checked and
therefore cannot be distinguished in any way from a delusion. As
such, an alleged sense which cannot be verified by other sensory
modalities to determine its accuracy cannot be credibly asserted to
exist. One might speculate about such senses, but science is not
unsupported speculation.
> Personal experience can be vast.
There's no way to check for the accuracy of any interpretation of a
private experience without having some physically observeable
phenomena against which one can test it. That's why some particular
interpretation of some particular personal experience is not
considered "science".
> To verify a state of consciousness, particularly
> enlightenment, self-realization, cosmic unity, etc.,
> might not be subject to repeatable independent
> experiments done by those who have not
> had similar experiences.
That's because we don't really know what those particular labels
actually mean. They are vague and fuzzy concepts that have no set
meaning and don't correlate strongly to any physical phenomena.
> Theories that seek to explain phenomena
> tend to be theories.
Yes indeed. Theories are theories. Some theories are reliably
testable and some are not. Those that are reliably testable and for
which the tests are strongly supportive are called "scientific
theories". Those theories for which there is no way to test them are
not scientific.
> Facts based on perceptions
> might turn out to be contextually dependent.
Then they are not truly facts. They are merely appearances. Optical
illusions, for example. That's why one cannot base science on single
personal experiences in only one given modality, without reference to
any others.
> Thinking there is an objective world
> tends to be compulsive thought
> when it excludes subject
> matters that matter.
I have no idea what that sentence actually means. Any thought that
persists, rightly or wrongly, might be called a "compulsive thought".
A thought of "cosmic unity" is as much a "compulsive thought" as the
assertion of an objective world. What are "matters that matter", as
opposed to "matters that don't matter"?
> > That eliminates the one thing that separates real
> >science from pseudoscience, the independent verification of empirical
> >evidence.
>
> Real, in this case, suggests physical or material.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Yes, it does suggest that. It also suggests a consistency of meaning
rather than a complete deconstruction of the term such that the term
becomes nothing but window dressing.
> Other systems, other TOEs,
> e.g. Tom Campbell's, Chris Langan's,
> might dispute that material science is all there is.
As I said, "Christian Science" is quite a different thing from the
"Russian Academy of Sciences". When you use the term "science" it is
very helpful if you define very exactly what one means by it, so as to
reduce, rather than encourage, misunderstanding.
> >Religious philosophy usually isn't very fussy about that, but modern
> >science is. Kabbalah is *not* science in the sense that modern
> >physics is science.
>
> True. Occult science tends to be
> m'ore in the metaphysical rather than being
> hemmed in by only the physical.
Yes, I agree. Occultists never let a little thing like a
disconfirming physical fact get in the way of their theorizing.
> I'm not sure if the church of the FSMhttp://www.venganza.org/
> is scientific in its system of thought.
The message the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster is that
religious assertion is *not* the equivalent of science and that any
attempt to draw such an equivalency is absurd.
> Be that as it may, I find its particular brand
> of science, if it could be called that, to be
> very delightful, insightful, and spiritually
> thirst quenching.
I'm particularly fond of the "theory of intelligent falling". After
all gravity is only a theory and therfore is equivalent to any other
theory. So it is just as likely that the reason we don't just float
off the earth is that the Flying Spagetti Monster is pushing us down.
Dennes De Mennes
14g2000prv.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
>
> On Aug 28, 4:08 am, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > starts september 7, register athttp://edu.kabbalah.info
>
> From the article on Baruch Ashlag in Wikipedia:
>
> "In 1991 Dr Michael Laitman established Bnei Baruch, a group of
> Kabbalah students that implements the legacy of Rabash (Rav Baruch
> Shalom Ashlag) on a day-to-day basis. Today, the members of Bnei
> Baruch research, study, and circulate the wisdom of Kabbalah. Dr
> Laitman has always maintained that he is an ordained rabbi and
from what I understand, he is not a rabbi...nor does he claim to be one.
kabbalah is strongly opposed to religion unless it is seen in a cultural
context, where one is just attemtping to belong to society. the
cohesiveness of a society is a natural occurrence and kabbalah deals
with the laws of nature, which they call 'the Creator'. For example
let's say someone drives like a maniac, they're likely to get in an
accident, but if one respects the laws of their society, drives
respecting other drivers and so on, then he will see an immediate
benefit and reciprocity from that.
> Kabbalist, but to date there does not appear to be any proof. In spite
> of repeated requests, Dr Laitman has yet to provide documentary
> evidence of his ordination (Smicha) from his teacher Rav Baruch Shalom
> Ashlag, either as a rabbi or as a Kabbalist."
>
> Hmm. If his religious credentials are unsubstantiated, what about his
> academic credentials? Are they similarly unsubstantiated? According
> to the article on Baruch Ashlag, Laitman served as his driver and
> student for over a decade, until Ashlag's death in 1991. So, was this
> PhD from a prestigious Russian science school employed as a driver for
> all those years? Of course, the claim that Laitman was Ashlag's
> driver is itself unsubstantiated. One wonders what the facts are.
there will always be some logical argument to try to prevent one from
engaging in the wisdom of kabbalah--no one likes to hear they need
correction adn the jews have the cure for the ills of the world.
>
> Like you, Dennes, Laitman states that Kabbalah is a science. Yet, his
> definition of science in relation the Kabbalah is more like that of
> "Christian Science" than like that of the "Russian Academy of
> Sciences" from which he claims to have received his doctorate in
> Kabbalah (?).
anyone can edit wikipedia, you're aware of that, right?
>
> "Kabbalah is the science that explores man's origins, his purpose in
> life and the method of achieving a perception of reality beyond the
> five senses of the body. While dealing with elements currently beyond
> our perception, it is actually a very practical methodology that can
> be implemented here and now."
>
> So apparently Kabbalah science studies perception by means that are
> beyond perception. That eliminates the one thing that separates real
> science from pseudoscience, the independent verification of empirical
> evidence.
>
> Religious philosophy usually isn't very fussy about that, but modern
> science is. Kabbalah is *not* science in the sense that modern
> physics is science.
>
> On the up-side, The Bnai Baruch Kabbalah Center does not charge any
> fees for its courses and does not appear to be a scam. While its
> coursework does not necessarily reflect "traditional" Jewish Kabbalah,
> it may well be that it contains useful insights to students
> approaching the subject as hermetic philosophy.
since we're all inside egoism, including me... (i'm merely in
preparatory stage of kabbalah), we don't really have enough evidence to
judge for ourselves, but everything is merely hearsay and why should we
trust that hearsay any more than what laitman may be saying...
Tom
> In article <0a349749-fa61-4659-bca3-66ef8f182203@
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 4:08 am, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > starts september 7, register athttp://edu.kabbalah.info
>
> > From the article on Baruch Ashlag in Wikipedia:
>
> > "In 1991 Dr Michael Laitman established Bnei Baruch, a group of
> > Kabbalah students that implements the legacy of Rabash (Rav Baruch
> > Shalom Ashlag) on a day-to-day basis. Today, the members of Bnei
> > Baruch research, study, and circulate the wisdom of Kabbalah. Dr
> > Laitman has always maintained that he is an ordained rabbi and
>
> from what I understand, he is not a rabbi...nor does he claim to be one.
This seems to be the case, from what I've been able to glean.
Strictly speaking, the accusation that he claims to be a rabbi is
false. He does use the title of "Rav", which is a Hebrew synonym for
rabbi, although it is often translated simply as "spiritual teacher".
He clearly does not perform the duties of an orthodox rabbi and
doesn't pretend to.
> kabbalah is strongly opposed to religion unless it is seen in a cultural
> context, where one is just attemtping to belong to society.
Since the kabbalah is inextricably bound to the Torah, the most
essential and most sacred text of all Judaism, it cannot ever be said
to be opposed to religion.
> there will always be some logical argument to try to prevent one from
> engaging in the wisdom of kabbalah--no one likes to hear they need
> correction adn the jews have the cure for the ills of the world.
Every religious person, no matter what the particular religion is,
thinks theirs has the cure for the ills of the world. If they didn't,
they wouldn't be a believer. Usually that cure involves everybody
acting as the believer feels they should act.
> anyone can edit wikipedia, you're aware of that, right?
Quite so. That hadn't escaped my attention.
> since we're all inside egoism, including me... (i'm merely in
> preparatory stage of kabbalah), we don't really have enough evidence to
> judge for ourselves, but everything is merely hearsay and why should we
> trust that hearsay any more than what laitman may be saying...
I agree. We may reasonably regard anything we hear and have not
checked out for ourselves to be hearsay. I don't think the guy is a
con artist, but that doesn't necessarily make him a fountain of truth,
either. I think his course is worth a look, especially since it costs
nothing. The risk-benefit ratio is definitely in our favor. He does
seem a little over-eager to throw around his connections to physical
scientists, though, even if they are somewhat oblique.
Bassos
> anyone can edit wikipedia, you're aware of that, right?
Wikipedia can also be quite interesting;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Shem_Tov
(re; kabbalah and all)
Dennes De Mennes
says...
> They don't. That's why there are so many religions to meet the needs
> of different beings.
>
>
religions were intended to keep a moral structure and give people a
sense of direction during the last spiritual exile of the nation of
Israel, which is known as the destruction of the 2nd temple, but now
that the true wisdom of Kabbalah is being revealed, they have become
obsolete, and they have never had the true method of advancing
spiritually but were concerned with actions which can never affect
spirituality. they can be kept if they're understood to be merely a kind
of social club--meaning, they're not entirely useless...
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>
>There's no way to check for the accuracy of any interpretation of a
>private experience without having some physically observeable
>phenomena against which one can test it. That's why some particular
>interpretation of some particular personal experience is not
>considered "science".
As noted, it's more akin to a different form,
if it's even called a science. Call it a system instead,
if that makes a difference.
>> To verify a state of consciousness, particularly
>> enlightenment, self-realization, cosmic unity, etc.,
>> might not be subject to repeatable independent
>> experiments done by those who have not
>> had similar experiences.
>
>That's because we don't really know what those particular labels
>actually mean. They are vague and fuzzy concepts that have no set
>meaning and don't correlate strongly to any physical phenomena.
Love might be another fuzzy term.
To say it doesn't exist might be interesting.
>> Theories that seek to explain phenomena
>> tend to be theories.
>
>Yes indeed. Theories are theories. Some theories are reliably
>testable and some are not. Those that are reliably testable and for
>which the tests are strongly supportive are called "scientific
>theories". Those theories for which there is no way to test them are
>not scientific.
Call them, systems of thought,
if that sits better.
>> Facts based on perceptions
>> might turn out to be contextually dependent.
>
>Then they are not truly facts. They are merely appearances.
All so-called facts are merely appearances.
They are "observed" by someone making a claim.
> Optical
>illusions, for example. That's why one cannot base science on single
>personal experiences in only one given modality, without reference to
>any others.
You seem to be invested in terminology here.
As if science is a sacred word.
>> Thinking there is an objective world
>> tends to be compulsive thought
>> when it excludes subject
>> matters that matter.
>
>I have no idea what that sentence actually means.
Meaning might mean something.
Theories could be developed around it.
Does it really exist? Could a theory of meaning
ever be called anything more than a system of thought?
Does meaning exist, "out there"?
> Any thought that
>persists, rightly or wrongly, might be called a "compulsive thought".
It is tempting to see through a lens.
Cause and effect might be such a filter.
It can magnify and distort paradigms.
To suppose it exists, "out there" and,
since it is tested in a lab it -really- exists,
could be called a grand supposition.
>A thought of "cosmic unity" is as much a "compulsive thought" as the
>assertion of an objective world.
Perhaps for those who are stuck in such a head-space.
> What are "matters that matter", as
>opposed to "matters that don't matter"?
Subject matters can matter.
The subject of a sentence, the subject
as opposed to the predicate, can matter
in terms of how language shapes thought
and how thoughts are formulated into language.
If, to a -real- scientist, anything that can't be tested,
or repeated, e.g. love, doesn't really exist, then it
might not matter very much, to a scientist.
I don't know much about kabbalah.
Maybe it's more akin to poetry or art.
Those subjects might matter to some folks.
Not so much to others.
>
>> Other systems, other TOEs,
>> e.g. Tom Campbell's, Chris Langan's,
>> might dispute that material science is all there is.
>
>As I said, "Christian Science" is quite a different thing from the
>"Russian Academy of Sciences". When you use the term "science" it is
>very helpful if you define very exactly what one means by it, so as to
>reduce, rather than encourage, misunderstanding.
In this context, since, iirc, you used it in terms
of a supposed claim by Dennes, previously snipped,
I took it to mean a system of thought. More akin to
the Christian than how you are using it.
To me it didn't much matter.
To you, apparently, it did.
Either way, interesting thought to me.
Thanks. Happy to think in such terms.
>
>The message the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster is that
>religious assertion is *not* the equivalent of science and that any
>attempt to draw such an equivalency is absurd.
In the theater of the absurd
the audience might be royalty.
>> Be that as it may, I find its particular brand
>> of science, if it could be called that, to be
>> very delightful, insightful, and spiritually
>> thirst quenching.
>
>I'm particularly fond of the "theory of intelligent falling". After
>all gravity is only a theory and therfore is equivalent to any other
>theory. So it is just as likely that the reason we don't just float
>off the earth is that the Flying Spagetti Monster is pushing us down.
- using noodle
Dennes De Mennes
f6f961...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
>
> On Aug 28, 9:24 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > from what I understand, he is not a rabbi...nor does he claim to be
one.
>
> This seems to be the case, from what I've been able to glean.
> Strictly speaking, the accusation that he claims to be a rabbi is
> false. He does use the title of "Rav", which is a Hebrew synonym for
> rabbi, although it is often translated simply as "spiritual teacher".
> He clearly does not perform the duties of an orthodox rabbi and
> doesn't pretend to.
>
> > kabbalah is strongly opposed to religion unless it is seen in a cultural
> > context, where one is just attemtping to belong to society.
>
> Since the kabbalah is inextricably bound to the Torah, the most
> essential and most sacred text of all Judaism, it cannot ever be said
> to be opposed to religion.
they're opposed to the idea that a person can perform certain acts and
affect the spiritual realm. this can never be. anything happening in the
corporeal realm is a result of something that happened first in the
spiritual, not vice versa.
>
> > there will always be some logical argument to try to prevent one from
> > engaging in the wisdom of kabbalah--no one likes to hear they need
> > correction adn the jews have the cure for the ills of the world.
>
> Every religious person, no matter what the particular religion is,
> thinks theirs has the cure for the ills of the world. If they didn't,
> they wouldn't be a believer. Usually that cure involves everybody
> acting as the believer feels they should act.
and kabbalah totally opposes the idea of 'acting' in any way shape or
form whatsoever. when you study kabbalah, you keep acting the way you
always did, and there is no outward appearance or change that anyone can
detect. what gets changed is how one perceives reality. the main idea is
that anything that appears as external is actually a part of you, but
the creator is presenting it as external in order that you may analyze
it and it creates a lack or need, which then gets filled. the light is
what does all the work, after a true need is acquired. this can only
happen in our connection with others, not in isolation--the group is the
place where the creator (the force of love) is revealed.
>
> > anyone can edit wikipedia, you're aware of that, right?
>
> Quite so. That hadn't escaped my attention.
>
> > since we're all inside egoism, including me... (i'm merely in
> > preparatory stage of kabbalah), we don't really have enough evidence to
> > judge for ourselves, but everything is merely hearsay and why should we
> > trust that hearsay any more than what laitman may be saying...
>
> I agree. We may reasonably regard anything we hear and have not
> checked out for ourselves to be hearsay. I don't think the guy is a
> con artist, but that doesn't necessarily make him a fountain of truth,
> either. I think his course is worth a look, especially since it costs
> nothing. The risk-benefit ratio is definitely in our favor. He does
> seem a little over-eager to throw around his connections to physical
> scientists, though, even if they are somewhat oblique.
>
i appreciate your responses very much. i wish i had more info but i'm
just a beginner. i'm taking a lot on faith at this point, but if i had
felt nothing, i would not be continuing with the intermediate course
which follows the beginner course. what one feels is next to impossible
to describe to others because it is beyond words; it's from another
dimension--one beyond time and space. but as kurt angle would say: it's
real.... it's damn real...
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
>
> >There's no way to check for the accuracy of any interpretation of a
> >private experience without having some physically observeable
> >phenomena against which one can test it. That's why some particular
> >interpretation of some particular personal experience is not
> >considered "science".
>
> As noted, it's more akin to a different form,
> if it's even called a science. Call it a system instead,
> if that makes a difference.
Yes, I think it does make a difference in terms of clarity. The
methods and symbology of kabbalah are unequivocally a system while it
is fair to say that calling it a science is highly equivocal.
> >> To verify a state of consciousness, particularly
> >> enlightenment, self-realization, cosmic unity, etc.,
> >> might not be subject to repeatable independent
> >> experiments done by those who have not
> >> had similar experiences.
>
> >That's because we don't really know what those particular labels
> >actually mean. They are vague and fuzzy concepts that have no set
> >meaning and don't correlate strongly to any physical phenomena.
>
> Love might be another fuzzy term.
> To say it doesn't exist might be interesting.
One cannot reasonably argue the existence or nonexistence of something
that has no specific definition.
> >> Facts based on perceptions
> >> might turn out to be contextually dependent.
>
> >Then they are not truly facts. They are merely appearances.
>
> All so-called facts are merely appearances.
Now we are going to have to agree in a specific definition of "fact".
I'll begin the negotiations. I like the definition of "fact' as "self-
evident phenomenon". Now, what a fact means is not the fact itself.
A description of a fact is not the fact itself. Facts are not based
on perception. They are essential things. Facts are not contextual.
Descriptions and meanings are contextual.
> > Optical
> >illusions, for example. That's why one cannot base science on single
> >personal experiences in only one given modality, without reference to
> >any others.
>
> You seem to be invested in terminology here.
> As if science is a sacred word.
The sacredness of words is integral to kabbalah. Can you point out to
me some things that are *not* sacred?
> >> Thinking there is an objective world
> >> tends to be compulsive thought
> >> when it excludes subject
> >> matters that matter.
>
> >I have no idea what that sentence actually means.
>
> Meaning might mean something.
If it doesn't, it isn't meaning. Don't talk in circles.
> Theories could be developed around it.
> Does it really exist? Could a theory of meaning
> ever be called anything more than a system of thought?
> Does meaning exist, "out there"?
You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. What does "exist" mean?
What is "out there"? What does "meaning" mean?
Keep going that way and you'll end up in a fog of ambiguity in which
nothing can possibly mean anything and all words are irrelevant. You
will have painted yourself into a corner in which your only reasonable
course of action is to give up trying to understand anything, let
alone talk about anything meaningfully.
> >A thought of "cosmic unity" is as much a "compulsive thought" as the
> >assertion of an objective world.
>
> Perhaps for those who are stuck in such a head-space.
Are you stuck in a head space in which you see others as stuck in a
head space?
> > What are "matters that matter", as
> >opposed to "matters that don't matter"?
>
> Subject matters can matter.
If we like. Subject matters can also not matter. Round and round we
go...
> The subject of a sentence, the subject
> as opposed to the predicate, can matter
> in terms of how language shapes thought
> and how thoughts are formulated into language.
Or not. As we choose. What's your point?
> If, to a -real- scientist, anything that can't be tested,
> or repeated, e.g. love, doesn't really exist, then it
> might not matter very much, to a scientist.
Who claims that things that can't be tested don't exist? Name some
names. Quote some quotes. I think your impression is distorted.
Now, what a scientist will say about untestable claims is that they
cannot be determined to be true or false by any scientific means.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the elements of
the claim exist or not.
> I don't know much about kabbalah.
> Maybe it's more akin to poetry or art.
> Those subjects might matter to some folks.
> Not so much to others.
http://www.digital-brilliance.com/index.php
> >As I said, "Christian Science" is quite a different thing from the
> >"Russian Academy of Sciences". When you use the term "science" it is
> >very helpful if you define very exactly what one means by it, so as to
> >reduce, rather than encourage, misunderstanding.
>
> In this context, since, iirc, you used it in terms
> of a supposed claim by Dennes, previously snipped,
> I took it to mean a system of thought. More akin to
> the Christian than how you are using it.
The term is too fraught with opposing meanings to use it
indiscriminately without specifying a particular meaning in a
particular context. The way Dennes and Michael Laitman are using the
term is equivocation.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
Tom
>
> There are many religions that produce Saints and have very clear
> spiritual paths. Their advanced practitioners are evidence of their
> efficacy. The religion you are advocating doesn't have the sole view
> of Truth.
Many religions assert that they have the sole view of Truth. You
clearly don't belong to one of them. How sure are you that they
cannot be correct?
Tom
wrote:
>
> they're opposed to the idea that a person can perform certain acts and
> affect the spiritual realm. this can never be. anything happening in the
> corporeal realm is a result of something that happened first in the
> spiritual, not vice versa.
That would suggest that there is no point in trying to follow kabbalah
as a spiritual path, then. After all, when you start, you are acting
corporeally and trying to develop spiritually, but if no corporeal act
has any spiritual consequences, then there is nothing you can do to
develop spiritually. Prayer would be useless. Meditation would be
useless. All you can do is wait for God to act on you.
> > Every religious person, no matter what the particular religion is,
> > thinks theirs has the cure for the ills of the world. If they didn't,
> > they wouldn't be a believer. Usually that cure involves everybody
> > acting as the believer feels they should act.
>
> and kabbalah totally opposes the idea of 'acting' in any way shape or
> form whatsoever. when you study kabbalah, you keep acting the way you
> always did, and there is no outward appearance or change that anyone can
> detect.
This idea is new to me. In all the years I've studied kabbalah, I
have never heard that kabbalists are entirely passive and that they
believe that their actions cannot have any positive effects. If this
were so, then there would be no point in studying kabbalah at all,
since studying is itself an action.
Dennes De Mennes
@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
> > and kabbalah totally opposes the idea of 'acting' in any way shape or
> > form whatsoever. when you study kabbalah, you keep acting the way you
> > always did, and there is no outward appearance or change that anyone can
> > detect.
>
> This idea is new to me. In all the years I've studied kabbalah, I
> have never heard that kabbalists are entirely passive and that they
> believe that their actions cannot have any positive effects. If this
> were so, then there would be no point in studying kabbalah at all,
> since studying is itself an action.
>
>
Tom
> In article <2e7f9906-e03c-493a-a13d-a1da4664ef29
>
> > > and kabbalah totally opposes the idea of 'acting' in any way shape or
> > > form whatsoever. when you study kabbalah, you keep acting the way you
> > > always did, and there is no outward appearance or change that anyone can
> > > detect.
>
> > This idea is new to me. In all the years I've studied kabbalah, I
> > have never heard that kabbalists are entirely passive and that they
> > believe that their actions cannot have any positive effects. If this
> > were so, then there would be no point in studying kabbalah at all,
> > since studying is itself an action.
>
> http://www.laitman.com/2010/12/staying-forever-young/
I don't interpret this as not acting, but rather as not contending.
Action is clearly indicated. One should focus on one's studies. What
one should not do is allow desires to distract you by trying to fight
them. By acting in the right way, by keeping to one's studies, one
will achieve positive results. By acting in the wrong way, by
forgetting one's studies in a futile effort to fight one's natural
desires (which is really only a perverse way of indulging them), one
achieves no positive results.
This is not functionally different than a Buddhist approach, in which
one does not attach importance to either the expression or the
repression of desires but simply accepts that things are the way they
are and thereby doesn't confuse oneself with futile struggles.
Dennes De Mennes
1566ac...@w22g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
>
> On Aug 29, 3:17ï¿œpm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > In article <2e7f9906-e03c-493a-a13d-a1da4664ef29
> > @u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, danto...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > > > and kabbalah totally opposes the idea of 'acting' in any way shape or
> > > > form whatsoever. when you study kabbalah, you keep acting the way you
> > > > always did, and there is no outward appearance or change that anyone can
> > > > detect.
> >
> > > have never heard that kabbalists are entirely passive and that they
> > > were so, then there would be no point in studying kabbalah at all,
> > > since studying is itself an action.
> >
> > http://www.laitman.com/2010/12/staying-forever-young/
>
> I don't interpret this as not acting, but rather as not contending.
> Action is clearly indicated. One should focus on one's studies. What
> one should not do is allow desires to distract you by trying to fight
> them. By acting in the right way, by keeping to one's studies, one
> will achieve positive results. By acting in the wrong way, by
> forgetting one's studies in a futile effort to fight one's natural
> desires (which is really only a perverse way of indulging them), one
> achieves no positive results.
>
> This is not functionally different than a Buddhist approach, in which
> one does not attach importance to either the expression or the
> repression of desires but simply accepts that things are the way they
> are and thereby doesn't confuse oneself with futile struggles.
good point, that's why you're the man, and the only real tom here...
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > {:-]))) wrote:
>> >> Tom wrote:
>>
>> >There's no way to check for the accuracy of any interpretation of a
>> >private experience without having some physically observeable
>> >phenomena against which one can test it. That's why some particular
>> >interpretation of some particular personal experience is not
>> >considered "science".
>>
>> As noted, it's more akin to a different form,
>> if it's even called a science. Call it a system instead,
>> if that makes a difference.
>
>Yes, I think it does make a difference in terms of clarity. The
>methods and symbology of kabbalah are unequivocally a system while it
>is fair to say that calling it a science is highly equivocal.
Trying make a playing field level or equal
can be a fun thing to do. Not sure who would want to.
Maybe some pursuits and those who pursue them
are in want of respect-ability.
>> >> To verify a state of consciousness, particularly
>> >> enlightenment, self-realization, cosmic unity, etc.,
>> >> might not be subject to repeatable independent
>> >> experiments done by those who have not
>> >> had similar experiences.
>>
>> >That's because we don't really know what those particular labels
>> >actually mean. They are vague and fuzzy concepts that have no set
>> >meaning and don't correlate strongly to any physical phenomena.
>>
>> Love might be another fuzzy term.
>> To say it doesn't exist might be interesting.
>
>One cannot reasonably argue the existence or nonexistence of something
>that has no specific definition.
To say that it is unreasonable
to argue the existence of love
because it has not specific definition
might be reasonable, or not.
A guy says to a gal, "I love you"
and she says that's unreasonable.
Probably she is right. Love is blind.
Love is irrational. It may well exist
without fitting into the reasonable box.
>> >> Facts based on perceptions
>> >> might turn out to be contextually dependent.
>>
>> >Then they are not truly facts. They are merely appearances.
>>
>> All so-called facts are merely appearances.
>
>Now we are going to have to agree in a specific definition of "fact".
If we want to.
>I'll begin the negotiations. I like the definition of "fact' as "self-
>evident phenomenon". Now, what a fact means is not the fact itself.
>A description of a fact is not the fact itself. Facts are not based
>on perception. They are essential things. Facts are not contextual.
>Descriptions and meanings are contextual.
Now we are going to have to agree upon "things"
and what "things" are, by definition. This may preclude "facts"
in terms of definitions, since the "facts" hinge on "things" and
particularly "essential" things.
I'll begin this round as we square off.
Suppose I say to someone, I know something
and it is scientific. But before you can experience this knowing,
this thing, this fact, as science, you first must study, you must
practice seeing patterns and know what those patterns mean.
It will probably take more than four years, more like six or eight.
You may hold a philosophical degree in the subject matter.
Eventually, if you stay the course, study hard, or happen to
be particularly gifted, you are then qualified to enter the inner
sanctum and see the patterns others see in the chamber.
The high energy interpretations of particulars.
The chamber may be clouded, or computerized.
Outside your special field, others will simply
need to take your word for what goes on, since
the terminology is arcane. To perform the experiment
you might wear a white coat, a lab coat, as if that
is a special form of garment for the priesthood.
The quanta, the collapsed wave-forms, the patterns
on the screen of the mind, observed interpretations of
the "facts" of the "essential things" are unequivocal
once one has had the special training and experience.
Those who have a desire to experience and experiment,
study and learn the ropes. They practice their science
and share their knowledge and observations, similar to
if not exactly the same as in other labs.
To say paranormal experiences are unequal to those
performed by "physical" scientists because of some bias
or some definition that precludes equality is a saying.
What a saying means can vary.
If those who study kabbalah, or OOBEs, or other
statistical-based or probabalistic fields, e.g. QED,
share a common denominator, then perhaps math
can be used to work with fractions thereof.
Just a hunch
back in sum of notre worlds.
>> > Optical
>> >illusions, for example. That's why one cannot base science on single
>> >personal experiences in only one given modality, without reference to
>> >any others.
>>
>> You seem to be invested in terminology here.
>> As if science is a sacred word.
>
>The sacredness of words is integral to kabbalah. Can you point out to
>me some things that are *not* sacred?
Whatever is defined as such.
Whatever we agree upon.
Whatever we share as being.
Those would be our consensus reality.
>> >> Thinking there is an objective world
>> >> tends to be compulsive thought
>> >> when it excludes subject
>> >> matters that matter.
>>
>> >I have no idea what that sentence actually means.
>>
>> Meaning might mean something.
>
>If it doesn't, it isn't meaning. Don't talk in circles.
Rounds tend to form themselves as such
when extended eventually to form a ring
of truth, in particle physics or meta.
>> Theories could be developed around it.
>> Does it really exist? Could a theory of meaning
>> ever be called anything more than a system of thought?
>> Does meaning exist, "out there"?
>
>You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. What does "exist" mean?
>What is "out there"? What does "meaning" mean?
Exactly.
>Keep going that way and you'll end up in a fog of ambiguity in which
>nothing can possibly mean anything and all words are irrelevant.
Or, perhaps, where the fog lifts
and a great light is seen. It may be
refracted or reflected as thru a prism
and all words are relevant, sacred and
everything means everything.
> You
>will have painted yourself into a corner in which your only reasonable
>course of action is to give up trying to understand anything, let
>alone talk about anything meaningfully.
When the left brain gives up
there may be room for the right
brain to get a message into a field
of consciousness clouded by reason.
>> >A thought of "cosmic unity" is as much a "compulsive thought" as the
>> >assertion of an objective world.
>>
>> Perhaps for those who are stuck in such a head-space.
>
>Are you stuck in a head space in which you see others as stuck in a
>head space?
Not at the moment.
Space and time might impose
a grid. The fog you mentioned.
Speaking of space.
Between all our words,
between the letters of our words,
between the lines, can be seen space.
The background is taken for granted
as attention is paid to what is being said.
What goes unsaid may be profound
when one finds the common ground,
that which is taken for granted.
>> > What are "matters that matter", as
>> >opposed to "matters that don't matter"?
>>
>> Subject matters can matter.
>
>If we like. Subject matters can also not matter. Round and round we
>go...
Exactly.
>> The subject of a sentence, the subject
>> as opposed to the predicate, can matter
>> in terms of how language shapes thought
>> and how thoughts are formulated into language.
>
>Or not. As we choose. What's your point?
I don't have one in particular.
There can be many, or none.
We can explore, or forget about it.
We began with an exchange.
I have no idea where it will end.
>> If, to a -real- scientist, anything that can't be tested,
>> or repeated, e.g. love, doesn't really exist, then it
>> might not matter very much, to a scientist.
>
>Who claims that things that can't be tested don't exist?
I don't know.
Why did you appear to me to quibble
over whether kabbalah can be called a science?
> Name some
>names. Quote some quotes. I think your impression is distorted.
That's entirely possible.
I tend to think all impressions, all observations,
all powers of magnification are distorted.
One may see, as if things are clear, and so they are
from that particular level of a power.
Take a singular drop of pond water.
Clearly it is a drop of muddy water.
Zoom in a bit and there is nothing, muddy water.
Zoom in a bit more and it is clearly full of cool bits
of matter, organisms, plant and animal life.
Zoom in a bit more and it's fuzzy again, unclear.
Zoom in a bit more and it's molecular.
Zoom in a bit more and it's fuzzy again.
Zoom in a bit more and it's clearly atomic.
Zoom in more still and it's quantitative,
wave-like, not so clear, yet probable
in terms of terminology and prediction
and theoretical implications.
Zoom in still more and the fuzzy
may appear to be something else,
something as yet undiscovered by those
who wear the white coats, yet known
by those who study a different field,
a different science, if you get my drift.
>Now, what a scientist will say about untestable claims is that they
>cannot be determined to be true or false by any scientific means.
>That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the elements of
>the claim exist or not.
A physical scientist encounters limits
in terms of what can be tested.
Other scientists, or shall we say, other folks
who practice in their own specialized fields
of particular systems of thought
may also encounter limits
in terms of what can be explained to those
who have not experienced what they have
in their own fields of expertise.
>> I don't know much about kabbalah.
>> Maybe it's more akin to poetry or art.
>> Those subjects might matter to some folks.
>> Not so much to others.
>
>http://www.digital-brilliance.com/index.php
Looks good. I bookmarked it. Thanks.
>> >As I said, "Christian Science" is quite a different thing from the
>> >"Russian Academy of Sciences". When you use the term "science" it is
>> >very helpful if you define very exactly what one means by it, so as to
>> >reduce, rather than encourage, misunderstanding.
>>
>> In this context, since, iirc, you used it in terms
>> of a supposed claim by Dennes, previously snipped,
>> I took it to mean a system of thought. More akin to
>> the Christian than how you are using it.
>
>The term is too fraught with opposing meanings to use it
>indiscriminately without specifying a particular meaning in a
>particular context. The way Dennes and Michael Laitman are using the
>term is equivocation.
>
>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
Why does this matter to you?
Since that appears to be the subject.
Dennes De Mennes
> <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >kabbalah is strongly opposed to religion unless it is seen in a
cultural
> >context, where one is just attemtping to belong to society. the
> >cohesiveness of a society is a natural occurrence and kabbalah deals
> >with the laws of nature, which they call 'the Creator'. For example
> >let's say someone drives like a maniac, they're likely to get in an
> >accident, but if one respects the laws of their society, drives
> >respecting other drivers and so on, then he will see an immediate
> >benefit and reciprocity from that.
>
not really karma but just doing your part to make society work as a
unit, like a cell in a body doing its individual function but with the
same goal as other cells of benefitting the whole, and thus the system
supports that cell, as opposed to a cancerous cell which has stopped
working to benefit the whole and is in opposition and thus is not
supported.
nature does not operate in the tit for tat way that karma suggests.
someone may still give you the finger or cut you off, but you'll be less
affected by it because your attitude has changed, and you'll just
understand that most people are acting animalistically (ie: have not
developed a soul and basically are slaves of their ego), so how can you
judge them really...
{:-])))
>justbcause says...
>>
>> Karma.
>
>not really karma but just doing your part to make society work as a
>unit, like a cell in a body doing its individual function but with the
>same goal as other cells of benefitting the whole, and thus the system
>supports that cell, as opposed to a cancerous cell which has stopped
>working to benefit the whole and is in opposition and thus is not
>supported.
>
>nature does not operate in the tit for tat way that karma suggests.
>someone may still give you the finger or cut you off, but you'll be less
>affected by it because your attitude has changed, and you'll just
>understand that most people are acting animalistically (ie: have not
>developed a soul and basically are slaves of their ego), so how can you
>judge them really...
A lowest way is advised
by more than one metaphysical system.
From an excerpted link of Tom's, <an experiment>
" [...] takes the view that [...] is the manifestation of a [...]
reality. The actions of [...] are the phenomena, the outward
appearance of an [...] realm of the [...]. The [...] realm of the
[...] is described and accessed via a complex interplay of symbols,
and new kinds of narrative emerge, narratives of symbols. [...]
contains many overlapping and entangled symbolic narratives. The best
known is the [...], but there are others as important.
Just as we view the actions of a human being as the coherent
manifestations of a personality, so [...] views the actions of [...]
as the integrated and coherent manifestations ... of [...]. There is a
sense in which the [...] represents the internal psychodynamics of the
[...].
[...] does not stop with its symbols and often startling metaphors.
It attempts, using language and symbol, to go beyond language and
symbol. It repeatedly transcends itself. It provides us with a new
vocabulary of symbols, and then we discover how slippery and fluid and
limited they are. Each new conception of [...], broader and deeper
than the one before, presents a cognitive challenge that is resolved,
not only by [...], but by living in the world. There are no [...]
monasteries. Most of the best-known [...]s had families and
businesses. In [...] (and [...]) the material world, where we have our
families and businesses, is not an antithesis of [...] - it is a
manifestation of the [...]. If there is a single idea that pervades
[...], it is an unnegotiable insistence on the fundamental unity of
all being.
The importance of [...] is that it richens and deepens our
understanding of [...], and so transforms the kind of relationship
that is possible."
<end of experiement>
I was thinking perhaps in the [...]
might be substituted other terms, e.g. science,
or perhaps, since I'm in a bamboo grove, Tao\Taoism
plus whatever other corollaries or jaron which would apply.
A common denominator, let [...] be variable.
It is not nothing, for to divide by zero is undefined
and may yield confusing results. [...] might have use.
It could bridge a gap within Usenet.
Or it could be the utility of the useless.
When Brahma dreams, reality happens.
When Mother Nature imagines, reality happens.
Lotsa stuff could be said to happen. Why
tends to to evoke a duality.
It is uncertain at this point
why these posts are crossposted
into this particular bamboo grove.
Recently here there
has been silence,
however,
within my own experience
also has been a reading of TOEs.
It is interesting to me as well,
kabbalah has, call it, magically, appeared.
Skeptics can reason away many things.
Reason, as a paradigm, invokes cause\effect,
which then colors everything in its domain.
The range of Being is beyond reason.
Reason is a subset which may tend to appear
as if it is a superset of Being. Maybe play-dough
got into the mix. Or was it Plato. Perhaps the left
brain thought highly of its'elf and took it to be not
something that was other than right and
which insists it is not wrong.
At any rate,
food for thought is to one's taste.
Spiritual thirst is quenched at times
by various means, on average.
[...]
Dennes De Mennes
says...
> Seeing beings acting out of ignorance should increase our love and
> compassion for them because they are creating their own future pain
> and suffering.
>
>
i care for them because all humanity is one family. if suffering is how
they advance, then it's good in the end so i don't bat an eyelash over
that. there is only one force that controls all and it's the creator.
it's hard for us to grasp sometimes how suffering is really the love of
the creator, because we're judging one frame and not the entire movie.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
>
> >> Love might be another fuzzy term.
> >> To say it doesn't exist might be interesting.
>
> >One cannot reasonably argue the existence or nonexistence of something
> >that has no specific definition.
>
> To say that it is unreasonable
> to argue the existence of love
> because it has not specific definition
> might be reasonable, or not.
>
> A guy says to a gal, "I love you"
> and she says that's unreasonable.
When a guy says "I love you" to a gal, she reasonably asks herself
what he means by it. Perhaps he means, "I would like to have sex with
you." Perhaps he means, "I would like to possess and control you."
Perhaps he means, "I am so helpless that I would say anything to get
you to take care of me." Perhaps he means, "I am trying to manipulate
you in order to prove to my friends what a great seducer I am." Or
maybe, just maybe, he's trying to say that "I really have a lot of
respect and regard for you along with my romantic feelings." Maybe he
means something totally different. How does she find out which of
these possibilities is closer to the feeling he has when he says "I
love you"? She starts collecting evidence about what he really means
before she decides whether or not love exists at all.
It would be unreasonable of her to say "Since I don't know what you
mean, you can't possibly love me."
As I say, it is not reasonable to presume that any idea which doesn't
have a single, specific meaning held in common by everyone cannot
exist.
You have tried to misrepresent scientists as making this unreasonable
presumption. You're completely wrong about that.
> >Now we are going to have to agree in a specific definition of "fact".
>
> If we want to.
We do if we want to continue this conversation.
> >I'll begin the negotiations. I like the definition of "fact' as "self-
> >evident phenomenon". Now, what a fact means is not the fact itself.
> >A description of a fact is not the fact itself. Facts are not based
> >on perception. They are essential things. Facts are not contextual.
> >Descriptions and meanings are contextual.
>
> Now we are going to have to agree upon "things"
> and what "things" are, by definition. This may preclude "facts"
> in terms of definitions, since the "facts" hinge on "things" and
> particularly "essential" things.
Stop. Go no further until you have directly addressed what I just
wrote. Do you or do you not agree with my definition of fact? If you
do, say so. If you do not, offer your own definition. Wandering off
into some other discussion topic just confuses the issue.
Dennes De Mennes
says...
> Is it ok to be cruel to a dog but not ok to be cruel to a human?
only humans have the ability to hate and therefore need a cure for it.
animals are the manifestation of our will to receive at a coarser level
and are already acting out of love and need no correction. everything
outside exists inside of us in reality, so why would you hurt it...
>
> I don't think enduring suffering is the way beings advance. Just
> living in a war zone and experiencing terror should result in those
> beings becoming spiritually advanced. It does not.
war unites everyone and the creator is only revealed in our connection
with others. it's a step in the right direction.
>
> Suffering can be used to help advancement by recognizing the cause of
> that suffering, the wrong view of reality or the Truth, and then
> training the mind in the correct view. Suffering can be viewed as
> positive if one recognizes that it is the result of negative karma
> and, once experienced, those negative karmic seeds are eliminated.
> Apart from that, suffering hurts.
we cannot alter how we behave. only the light can reform us and it's a
slow process of study and groupwork. when we don't take the inititative
and instead nature pushes us from behind with blows, it's even slower,
but both paths eventually arrive at the same destination.
>
> Giving control of our lives to something else, like a creator, takes
> away any motivation for us to practice gaining control over our mind -
> the true source of our suffering.
our mind is slave to our egoism, so any calculation is for self-benefit
and not to benefit others. that's why we need correction.
Bassos
> only humans have the ability to hate.
Nonsense.
Growing up i got one cat for my own, and adopted the ones of my sister
and brother.
Mine interacted just fine with both of the other two, but those two
together had a real hate thing going on.
(ofcourse set aside when the three of them would scare away a dog or
rival cat or so)
Re; herding cats.
{:-])))
She puts him to the test.
She experiments.
She observes.
Results are analyzed,
weighed, interpreted.
A scientific test, more or less.
Perhaps more akin to Christian or Kabbalah
than to "real" science, since it can't be
exactly the same, by some definition.
>It would be unreasonable of her to say "Since I don't know what you
>mean, you can't possibly love me."
To call it a pseudo-science might be okay.
That strikes me as a pejorative. That could
simply be how I take the term to heart.
To say it isn't "real"
kinda puts a spin off the top.
She might influence others to perform similar tests
if she has any success with her methodology.
If she and others agree,
then they may agree to call it a science.
They have their art perfected.
>As I say, it is not reasonable to presume that any idea which doesn't
>have a single, specific meaning held in common by everyone cannot
>exist.
Take, science, for example.
>You have tried to misrepresent scientists as making this unreasonable
>presumption. You're completely wrong about that.
I thought that was what you were doing.
That since some particular scientist does not fit
into the basket you call science, then it isn't "real"
and is therefore pseudo.
Maybe it's a mirror thing.
Possibly a mirror neuron thing.
Not sure at this point.
I was trying to say that words have many meanings.
When Laitman or Dennes uses a word, e.g. science,
just because you say it isn't "real" science does not entail
that for them that makes any difference.
The subject matter may matter to you
if you have some vested interest in Kabbalah
or in science or feel words must have one
and only one meaning.
As a subject of one's own experiments,
one's own personal or occult science,
the material upon which one experiments
matters a great deal. Perhaps the deck
is stacked. Maybe one is not playing
with a full One. Subject to change.
>> >Now we are going to have to agree in a specific definition of "fact".
>>
>> If we want to.
>
>We do if we want to continue this conversation.
Okay.
Then, presumably, agree we must.
>> >I'll begin the negotiations. �I like the definition of "fact' as "self-
>> >evident phenomenon". �Now, what a fact means is not the fact itself.
>> >A description of a fact is not the fact itself. �Facts are not based
>> >on perception. �They are essential things. �Facts are not contextual.
>> >Descriptions and meanings are contextual.
>>
>> Now we are going to have to agree upon "things"
>> and what "things" are, by definition. This may preclude "facts"
>> in terms of definitions, since the "facts" hinge on "things" and
>> particularly "essential" things.
>
>Stop. Go no further until you have directly addressed what I just
>wrote. Do you or do you not agree with my definition of fact? If you
>do, say so. If you do not, offer your own definition. Wandering off
>into some other discussion topic just confuses the issue.
I do not agree with, "Facts are not based on perception."
Facts are, necessarily, based on perception, on observation.
We may agree that it is a fact that you can see these words.
That fact is a seeing. These words are your perception.
I can't imagine a fact that can be perceived
without there being any perception of it.
Facts are based upon agreed perception.
They are taken to exist "objectively"
beyond anyone's own perception.
That is a myth. Compelling,
given our culture.
Here's my definition:
A fact is an agreed upon perception
which is taken to be "objective"
in the sense that there is assumed to be
an "object" which is independent of any
particular "observer."
A fact is an assumption taken for granted.
Facts are axiomatic, unproven at some level.
They are given weight, for some reason.
If practitioners of Kabbalah can
share a reality, can see the same "facts"
of light and whatever it is that is perceived,
and can perform experiments and justify
whatever system of thought is held,
I might want to call it a science.
It's the same, or similar, situation
as the gals who perform tests of and for love.
But I wouldn't want to get hung up
on the definition of a term.
That's more or less of a fact.
For whatever it may be worth.
Robert Scott Martin
Dennes De Mennes <dlon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>not really karma but just doing your part to make society work as a
>unit, like a cell in a body doing its individual function but with the
>same goal as other cells of benefitting the whole, and thus the system
>supports that cell, as opposed to a cancerous cell which has stopped
>working to benefit the whole and is in opposition and thus is not
>supported.
Where does this synarchist thread in your thought come from? It's not the
first time you've invoked this kind of organic functional viewpoint.
Dennes De Mennes
Dennes De Mennes
root@wan says...
it's not hatred the way humans hate, it's just territoriality (natural
self-love having to do with basic needs: shelter, food, sex)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090111130105AAKHkCK
hatred is a human feature which has to do with controlling others which
occurs the second stage of the development of the desire at the human
level, after the basic desire level in which we're like any other
animal...
i saw a program one time where this guy had like 600 cats all living in
this one big house all living in perfect harmony (but they had a lot of
outdoor space)
what they hate is the lack of freedom...that's why you have to
compensate them with a lot of food and attention...
Robert Scott Martin
>> first time you've invoked this kind of organic functional viewpoint.
In article <MPG.28c80bfde...@news.sysmatrix.net>,
Dennes De Mennes <dlon...@nyx.net> wrote:
>from nature.
Just checking. A lot of synarchism lurking around old Denver, so I see the
nyx address and wonder.
Bassos
> In article<4e5e1551$0$19141$e4fe...@dreader25.news.xs4all.nl>,
> root@wan says...
>>
>> Op 31-8-2011 12:56, Dennes De Mennes schreef:
>>
>>> only humans have the ability to hate.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Growing up i got one cat for my own, and adopted the ones of my sister
>> and brother.
>>
>> Mine interacted just fine with both of the other two, but those two
>> together had a real hate thing going on.
>> (ofcourse set aside when the three of them would scare away a dog or
>> rival cat or so)
>>
>> Re; herding cats.
>
> it's not hatred the way humans hate, it's just territoriality (natural
> self-love having to do with basic needs: shelter, food, sex)
I could make the same case about humans.
So, how far are you projecting?
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090111130105AAKHkCK
That is nonsense.
Cat's are solitary, but play and hunt together if need be.
And then the content;
Some cats play well with some other cats.
Very few cats play well with all.
> hatred is a human feature which has to do with controlling others
You think hate is about control ?
Control is about fear of the unknown.
Hate is a continuous need to inflict pain to a specific part of reality.
(usually a revenge type thingy)
eg; stupid.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> A guy says to a gal, "I love you"
> >> and she says that's unreasonable.
>
> >When a guy says "I love you" to a gal, she reasonably asks herself
> >what he means by it. Perhaps he means, "I would like to have sex with
> >you." Perhaps he means, "I would like to possess and control you."
> >Perhaps he means, "I am so helpless that I would say anything to get
> >you to take care of me." Perhaps he means, "I am trying to manipulate
> >you in order to prove to my friends what a great seducer I am." Or
> >maybe, just maybe, he's trying to say that "I really have a lot of
> >respect and regard for you along with my romantic feelings." Maybe he
> >means something totally different. How does she find out which of
> >these possibilities is closer to the feeling he has when he says "I
> >love you"? She starts collecting evidence about what he really means
> >before she decides whether or not love exists at all.
>
> She puts him to the test.
> She experiments.
> She observes.
> Results are analyzed,
> weighed, interpreted.
>
> A scientific test, more or less.
No, simply a test of linguistic meaning. Such tests are almost
impossible to conduct scientifically, although they can be conducted
reasonably. It seems likely you don;t know the difference.
> >It would be unreasonable of her to say "Since I don't know what you
> >mean, you can't possibly love me."
>
> To call it a pseudo-science might be okay.
No again. Pseudoscience is a pretense of science. A woman trying to
figure out what a man means by "I love you" is highly unlikely to be
pretending to be a scientist nor is she likely to be claiming that
she's conducting a scientific experiment, unless she's a complete
nitwit and dishonest as well.
> >As I say, it is not reasonable to presume that any idea which doesn't
> >have a single, specific meaning held in common by everyone cannot
> >exist.
>
> Take, science, for example.
Were you under the impression that anyone was claiming that science
cannot exist because not everyone agrees on what the word means? Try
harder to pay attention and remain on topic.
> >You have tried to misrepresent scientists as making this unreasonable
> >presumption. You're completely wrong about that.
>
> I thought that was what you were doing.
Once again, try to pay attention. That's not even remotely like
anything I wrote.
> That since some particular scientist does not fit
> into the basket you call science, then it isn't "real"
> and is therefore pseudo.
A scientist is a person who is trained in science and does scientific
work. A person trained in science also does lots of things that
aren't science as well as some things that are science. So it is
possible for a person to be "a scientist" and not be doing science at
any given point. If you're ever going to understand what I'm saying,
you're going to have to sharpen your focus. As it is, your thinking
is far too fuzzy.
> I was trying to say that words have many meanings.
When we attempt to communicate it becomes essential that we agree on
which meaning we're using at the moment and not to change to some
different meaning capriciously. Equivocation confounds communication;
it doesn't improve it.
> When Laitman or Dennes uses a word, e.g. science,
> just because you say it isn't "real" science does not entail
> that for them that makes any difference.
Clearly it doesn't or they wouldn't be using the term the way they
do. However, it does make a difference to me, so I comment.
> The subject matter may matter to you
> if you have some vested interest in Kabbalah
> or in science or feel words must have one
> and only one meaning.
What do you mean by "a vested interest"?
> As a subject of one's own experiments,
> one's own personal or occult science,
"Personal science" and "occult science" are nonsense phrases.
> >Do you or do you not agree with my definition of fact? If you
> >do, say so. If you do not, offer your own definition. Wandering off
> >into some other discussion topic just confuses the issue.
>
> I do not agree with, "Facts are not based on perception."
You did not answer my question directly. Either you can't or you
won't. That leaves us with nothing further to discuss. We have no
common ground for it.
Dennes De Mennes
don't reply to that address, i don't monitor it...
Dennes De Mennes
i may not have worded it perfectly, but it enters the picture at the
human level... animals don't hate.
believe what you want...
{:-])))
You said, she starts collecting evidence.
Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
based upon experimentation
which can be verified independently.
The proof is in the pudding.
> Such tests are almost
>impossible to conduct scientifically, although they can be conducted
>reasonably.
Criteria are set up.
The lab rat is put thru the maze.
Results are conclusive. Proof is obtained.
The guy comes up with a ring
or he fails to deliver the goods.
He proves his love is what she calls love.
Pure diamond set in gold.
> It seems likely you don;t know the difference.
I'd call it, semantics.
As I understand the modern scientific method
there is involved experimentation. It's more
than simply linguistic meaning.
With what's known as occult science,
the method is the same, except that the verifiability
of an observation or result cannot be accomplished
in quite the same independent fashion.
However, this does not preclude independent experimenters
arriving at a same or similar conclusion based upon their
own "subjective" experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult_science
If you don't want to call it science, that's cool.
That's your lexicon. If you want to call it pseudo
or not "real" for whatever reasons you have,
that's okay too. No big deal to me.
>> >It would be unreasonable of her to say "Since I don't know what you
>> >mean, you can't possibly love me."
>>
>> To call it a pseudo-science might be okay.
>
>No again. Pseudoscience is a pretense of science.
Based on what you consider to be pretense.
And what you define as being science.
You seem to be pretty rigid in your word salad.
For the lady in question, she's simply using a word.
She has no vested interest in the term.
She has no pretense. She is sincere.
Maybe Laitman is pretentious. I don't know.
Maybe he really considers Kabbalah to be science.
I rather imagine he does. But I have an active One.
With Tom Campbell, his TOE has in it what he calls science.
It isn't "physical" science. But he qualifies it none the less.
If you call it pretense or pretentious, that's your call.
> A woman trying to
>figure out what a man means by "I love you" is highly unlikely to be
>pretending to be a scientist nor is she likely to be claiming that
>she's conducting a scientific experiment, unless she's a complete
>nitwit and dishonest as well.
Well, since this is all very hypothetical,
and she actually (in this hypothetical) is a scientist
conducting her experiments on suitors. By your standard
she is then a complete dishonest nitwit.
She formulates a hypothesis.
She puts him thru various tests.
She experiments. Gathers results.
Develops a theory. Etcetera.
Maybe it has happened to you
and you thought she was an idiot
for running you through that mill.
I have no idea.
Why make a big deal out of a word?
Are you a scientist? Why restrict the term?
This wiki site doesn't. Why do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
>> >As I say, it is not reasonable to presume that any idea which doesn't
>> >have a single, specific meaning held in common by everyone cannot
>> >exist.
>>
>> Take, science, for example.
>
>Were you under the impression that anyone was claiming that science
>cannot exist because not everyone agrees on what the word means? Try
>harder to pay attention and remain on topic.
My impression was that you objected to Kabbalah
being called scientific, as found in Laitman's website.
No big deal really. Just something I responded to.
You seem adamant about your definition of the term.
I just kinda wonder why about now.
Iirc, you said it is not "real" science and is at best
pseudo science or maybe can be science as in
Christian Science. I might lean toward occult science
as a fair enough name to give it.
To say it isn't "real" science is a funny thing to me,
as if it doesn't "really" exist. Does Kabbalah mean anything?
Is any of its material valid? Or is it all immaterial? Does it matter?
>> >You have tried to misrepresent scientists as making this unreasonable
>> >presumption. You're completely wrong about that.
>>
>> I thought that was what you were doing.
>
>Once again, try to pay attention. That's not even remotely like
>anything I wrote.
So, is what Kabbalah does or what Kabbalists do science?
If it isn't "real" science, what is it "really"?
I'm just curious here. Doesn't make any difference to me.
It seems to be a big deal to you.
>> That since some particular scientist does not fit
>> into the basket you call science, then it isn't "real"
>> and is therefore pseudo.
>
>A scientist is a person who is trained in science and does scientific
>work. A person trained in science also does lots of things that
>aren't science as well as some things that are science. So it is
>possible for a person to be "a scientist" and not be doing science at
>any given point. If you're ever going to understand what I'm saying,
>you're going to have to sharpen your focus. As it is, your thinking
>is far too fuzzy.
Are you saying Kabbalistic science is not science?
It's not "real" science because it isn't "physical" or "material"
in the sense that you stipulate it must be
for it to fall into what you consider to be "real" science?
Seems logical to me that if "real' science
means "physical" science then if it isn't "physical"
then it isn't "real" in some sense of how you use words,
at least when applied to science if nothing else.
>> I was trying to say that words have many meanings.
>
>When we attempt to communicate it becomes essential that we agree on
>which meaning we're using at the moment and not to change to some
>different meaning capriciously. Equivocation confounds communication;
>it doesn't improve it.
>
>> When Laitman or Dennes uses a word, e.g. science,
>> just because you say it isn't "real" science does not entail
>> that for them that makes any difference.
>
>Clearly it doesn't or they wouldn't be using the term the way they
>do. However, it does make a difference to me, so I comment.
And I responded to your comment.
I'm wondering, why does it make a difference to you?
>> The subject matter may matter to you
>> if you have some vested interest in Kabbalah
>> or in science or feel words must have one
>> and only one meaning.
>
>What do you mean by "a vested interest"?
I don't know exactly. Just fishing.
Why does it matter to you if someone else
says Kabbalah is science? Why discount it as
being pseudo or not "real"?
What's to gain or lose?
Why are you intent on disqualifying it
from the "real" scientific realm?
Are you afraid that if this cabal-camel
gets its nose under the tent, next thing
will be Intelligent Design taught as science?
>> As a subject of one's own experiments,
>> one's own personal or occult science,
>
>"Personal science" and "occult science" are nonsense phrases.
To you.
But if to others they are not,
then what does it matter to you?
What makes perfect sense to one empiricist
based on senses other than the big five
and which can be verified independently
experimentally, might appear as nonsense
to one not versed in the field.
I think a valid quibble can be
that if everybody can't do an experiment
then it can be disqualified by default.
If results are not consistent up to a standard
then it can be disqualified by default.
However, if results, no matter how anomalous,
are obtained on occasion, and if "real" science
is unable to account for those results, then
there is an obvious incompleteness in the mix.
The science then could be said to be, in that sense,
on par with any other science, pseudo or otherwise.
One's experience is one's experience.
If a Kabbalist wants to call it science
that's okay with me. If you want to insist
that only the five senses are allowed in order
to separate real science from pseudo science
then that is simply how you use your words.
Tom Campbell shares a story
in which, in a lab, he and another voyager
shared a "non-physical" reality. It was verified,
tape-recorded. Interesting experiment.
To call it nonsense might make sense to you.
Perhaps you've never had such an experience
of senses beyond the so-called physical.
>> >Do you or do you not agree with my definition of fact? If you
>> >do, say so. If you do not, offer your own definition.
I thought I did offer my definition. Pretty sure I did.
You appear to have snipped it for some reason or other.
>> >Wandering off
>> >into some other discussion topic just confuses the issue.
>>
>> I do not agree with, "Facts are not based on perception."
>
>You did not answer my question directly. Either you can't or you
>won't. That leaves us with nothing further to discuss. We have no
>common ground for it.
I guess I must have missed what you meant by the question.
I don't recall seeing your definition. So I assumed it to be:
"Facts are based on perception."
Please clarify
if you wish to continue
our discussion along those lines.
What is your definition of a fact?
- thanks
Bassos
> In article<4e5e746f$0$1127$e4fe...@dreader27.news.xs4all.nl>, root@wan
Your meaning was wrong, your worfing was irrelevant.
Stronger even;
I do not hate;
Hate is stupid.
> but it enters the picture at the human level...
Nonsense statement.
> animals don't hate.
Define hate.
> believe what you want...
Repetition will get you scorn.
(broken record syndrome)
Oh and btw;
I do not believe;
Beliefs are stupid.
Bassos
> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>
> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
> based upon experimentation
> which can be verified independently.
>
> The proof is in the pudding.
Where in the pudding ?
The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
(and incorrect)
The proof of the pudding is in the experience from the tasting.
And that is a personal proof and not independant at all.
Stupid is as stupid does.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) schreef:
>
>> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>>
>> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
>> based upon experimentation
>> which can be verified independently.
>>
>> The proof is in the pudding.
>
>Where in the pudding ?
She's wearing it on her finger.
>The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
>(and incorrect)
It was a metaphor.
>The proof of the pudding is in the experience from the tasting.
The proof of his love is manifest at the chapel.
>And that is a personal proof and not independant at all.
There were 10,000 people in attendance.
>Stupid is as stupid does.
Yeah. Marriage. Go figure.
Dennes De Mennes
root@wan says...
> Hate is stupid.
>
>
as crowley once said: hate is just love inflamed to the point of
passion.
there's nothing stupid about it. fake love is stupid. hate is honest.
Bassos
> In article<4e5edaf3$0$31886$e4fe...@dreader24.news.xs4all.nl>,
> root@wan says...
>> Hate is stupid.
>>
>>
>
> as crowley once said: hate is just love inflamed to the point of
> passion.
Pure and unadulterated bullshit.
Love may perhaps be a way to produce hate.
(if indifferent or detached there is no way for hate)
But passion is not hate.
Hate is about destruction, passion is the emergent feeling from the
desire of union.
> there's nothing stupid about it.
Yes there is.
Hate destroys the hater.
So to hate is to destroy yourself from the inside out.
Kinda how cancer comes to be.
(there are more ways for cancer, but hate is a sure fire way)
Thus hate is stupid, cos it's goal would be to hurt someone else, but
the effect is hurting the hater.
> fake love is stupid.
What would be fake love ?
Define love and hate.
> hate is honest.
No.
Hate is deception of yourself, due to not seeing the bigger viewpoint.
Who or what do you hate so much that it turned you into defending that
hate ?
(some things are too obvious to not mention)
Bassos
> Bassos wrote:
>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>
>>> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>>>
>>> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
>>> based upon experimentation
>>> which can be verified independently.
>>>
>>> The proof is in the pudding.
>>
>> Where in the pudding ?
>
> She's wearing it on her finger.
Ah, giving up the argument, cos you start to realize that i was right
and you where not ?
>> The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
>> (and incorrect)
>
> It was a metaphor.
Yes, but a stupid rendering of that metaphor, as in ;
if you use a metaphor, use an appropriate one, sid/ren.
>> The proof of the pudding is in the experience from the tasting.
>
> The proof of his love is manifest at the chapel.
Nonsense and bullshit.
Outward appearences are no proof of inward experiences.
>> And that is a personal proof and not independant at all.
>
> There were 10,000 people in attendance.
More irrelevance.
>> Stupid is as stupid does.
>
> Yeah. Marriage. Go figure.
I did.
And i call you sid/ren wanting to interact cos you know that you are
missing out.
(no magick involved in this call, just a feeling)
Dennes De Mennes
|Op 1-9-2011 4:18, Dennes De Mennes schreef:
|> In article<4e5edaf3$0$31886$e4fe...@dreader24.news.xs4all.nl>,
|> root@wan says...
|>> Hate is stupid.
|>>
|>>
|>
|> as crowley once said: hate is just love inflamed to the point of
|> passion.
|
|Pure and unadulterated bullshit.
yo , man, waddap wit dat? don't be uncool and stuff?
|
|Love may perhaps be a way to produce hate.
|(if indifferent or detached there is no way for hate)
emotions are emotions man. everybody looks at the same situation
differently. somebody's loving or hating. It's all the same in the end.
They produced an emotion. They exercised their imagination, and what
not. You can't put it in words.
|
|But passion is not hate.
|Hate is about destruction, passion is the emergent feeling from the
|desire of union.
Destruction is just the phase before rebirth. Matter may alter but not
the essence. Form of matter, I'm still having a trouble with. I'm
starting to understand it tho.
|
|> there's nothing stupid about it.
|
|Yes there is.
To you, perhaps.
|
|Hate destroys the hater.
|So to hate is to destroy yourself from the inside out.
When you engage hate, then eventually it dies out, because it's not from
above, correct? So just wear it out, so to speak, so you can move on,
rather than indulge the hate, in whatever psychological exercise of
self-restraint, or whatever. That's as bad as the initital.
|Kinda how cancer comes to be.
|(there are more ways for cancer, but hate is a sure fire way)
Try elecgtromagnetism.
|
|Thus hate is stupid, cos it's goal would be to hurt someone else, but
|the effect is hurting the hater.
Thinking it doesn't mean doing it. You hate something, next second
you're loving it. Just let whatever the feeling is take over and don't
try to predict how you're gonna feel next moment. Hate and love are just
how we perceive an event or situation. It's like the tiger eating the
deer analogy. To the tiger, he's just hungry. The deer is like, "hey,
that hurts?"
|
|> fake love is stupid.
|
|What would be fake love ?
Trying to act all nice, but being all full of disgust inside.
|
|Define love and hate.
Love: you want it
Hate: you don't want it
|
|> hate is honest.
|
|No.
|Hate is deception of yourself, due to not seeing the bigger viewpoint.
Stuff on our plane doesn't have to make sense. We're like marionettes.
We're zombies.
|
|Who or what do you hate so much that it turned you into defending that
|hate ?
|(some things are too obvious to not mention)
Human emotion. I like humans. I happen to be one.
Bassos
> Bassos<root@wan> wrote:
> |Op 1-9-2011 4:18, Dennes De Mennes schreef:
> |> In article<4e5edaf3$0$31886$e4fe...@dreader24.news.xs4all.nl>,
> |> root@wan says...
> |>> Hate is stupid.
> |>>
> |>>
> |>
> |> as crowley once said: hate is just love inflamed to the point of
> |> passion.
> |
> |Pure and unadulterated bullshit.
>
> yo , man, waddap wit dat? don't be uncool and stuff?
I thought that was pretty cool.
I did not even go into the futility of quoting crowely when you clearly
do not understand what he meant.
> |Love may perhaps be a way to produce hate.
> |(if indifferent or detached there is no way for hate)
>
> emotions are emotions man.
Do you reference the impression of reality on your nervous system or
more the conclusion from your brain about how to e-mote those impressions ?
> everybody looks at the same situation differently.
Irrelevant and untrue.
> somebody's loving or hating. It's all the same in the end.
Fatalism.
> They produced an emotion.
Oh, so movement is movement, very informative.
> They exercised their imagination, and what
> not.
So ?
You still have not explained what you mean by hate or love or emotions.
It appears you are just sinking in the pit of because.
> You can't put it in words.
Well, YOU can't.
> |But passion is not hate.
> |Hate is about destruction, passion is the emergent feeling from the
> |desire of union.
>
> Destruction is just the phase before rebirth.
Irrelevant.
It is about the motivation for destruction and that one in the case of
hate is to inflict pain.
> Matter may alter but not the essence.
You are getting really deep in the pit now, with your gratuitous platitudes.
> Form of matter, I'm still having a trouble with.
Work work work.
> I'm starting to understand it tho.
Heh.
> |
> |> there's nothing stupid about it.
> |
> |Yes there is.
>
> To you, perhaps.
To thinking people that have at least a flimsy grasp on logic.
> |Hate destroys the hater.
> |So to hate is to destroy yourself from the inside out.
>
> When you engage hate, then eventually it dies out
No, it becomes stronger the more you engage hate.
> because it's not from above, correct?
No, wrong.
> So just wear it out, so to speak, so you can move on,
> rather than indulge the hate, in whatever psychological exercise of
> self-restraint, or whatever.
So now you turn to pop-pussycology ?
Feel hate but let it go is much different from feel hate and engage it.
Experiencing hate itself is not really possible.
It is a building up of anger over a longer period of time.
> That's as bad as the initital.
The initial is hurt, pain.
> |Kinda how cancer comes to be.
> |(there are more ways for cancer, but hate is a sure fire way)
>
> Try electromagnetism.
For what ?
> |Thus hate is stupid, cos it's goal would be to hurt someone else, but
> |the effect is hurting the hater.
>
> Thinking it doesn't mean doing it.
It really does mean that in the case of hate/anger/fear/love/peace/any
other emotion.
An emotion is an act.
> You hate something, next second you're loving it.
You are really not talking about hate, are you ?
More something superficial and flimsy.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) schreef:
>> Bassos wrote:
>>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>>
>>>> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
>>>> based upon experimentation
>>>> which can be verified independently.
>>>>
>>>> The proof is in the pudding.
>>>
>>> Where in the pudding ?
>>
>> She's wearing it on her finger.
>
>Ah, giving up the argument,
Not at all. There is no argument.
The pudding is on her finger.
It's a ring that rings true.
To her, at any rate.
And to him.
The results are in.
Tabulations are conclusive.
It's quantum electro dynamical.
It sparkles, in just the right light.
Without the light, there is no sparkle.
> cos you start to realize that i was right
>and you where not ?
If you want to be right
that is fine. You are certainly right.
My explanations do not suffice.
Forgive me if I am unable to communicate
in a fashion with which you are famaliar.
I am uncertain as to what you are trying to say.
The fault of that is within me. No problem.
If you are equally uncertain of what I am saying
or are convinced that you know but that I am wrong
then that's perfectly fine with me.
I have no interest, vested or unvested,
in being right in a conversation or discussion.
The sharing of words is, for me, more akin to
ching-tan if that means anything to you.
Words, for me, are often stepping stones.
If you want to stone me, that's like, far out man!
Some folks trip over them. They, both words
and people, at times, trip me out
as they transport me within
not to mention beyond.
>>> The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
>>> (and incorrect)
>>
>> It was a metaphor.
>
>Yes, but a stupid rendering of that metaphor, as in ;
>if you use a metaphor, use an appropriate one, sid/ren.
If you know what it is I am attempting to say
then feel free to use your own metaphor.
The ring was a metaphor too.
To say pudding tastes good
or that pudding even tastes
might or might not be considered
to be in any "scientific" realm.
Be that as it may, pudding makers
conduct experiments to determine taste
and market in a rather scientific way
in order to sell their product.
Reminds me of the bumble-bee, who,
according to real science, can't fly.
The bumble-bee, being ignorant of
real science, goes on and flies anyhow.
Statistics, probabilities, uncertainties,
these are not modern unscientific methods.
Quite the contrary. They're basic quantum
denominations used by "real" scientists.
>>> The proof of the pudding is in the experience from the tasting.
>>
>> The proof of his love is manifest at the chapel.
>
>Nonsense and bullshit.
>Outward appearences are no proof of inward experiences.
Perhaps, by that definition,
the young lady will never be able to "know"
if the young man "really" loves her.
And, along the same lines of definition and demarcation,
perhaps the "real" (as in physical\material) scientists
will never be able to "prove" anything occult,
particularly since occult is hidden,
eclipsed, as it were.
And, along the same lines,
many so-called social sciences will fall
short of being taken as "really doing science"
because, while the uncertainties and probabilities
of the very small are okay with "real scientists"
in the macro world, there can be no proof, ever,
of inward experiences. An impossible gap,
by your definition, to bridge.
Interesting.
Even if the statistical correlations are one-to-one,
this can be no proof of the pudding, by definitions
of stupidity and outward\inward lines drawn as
being axiomatic to your framework.
Going beyond,
if one were to mention it, and go, one
may need to leave such notions on the shelf,
as does the bumble-bee.
If the gal wants to be married,
after doing her left-brain science,
she will need to take a leap, a dive,
and plunge into the water.
Experiencing what it is to swim
can differ from trying to prove it can't be done.
One swimmer might call swimming a science.
One who can't swim might insist iit isn't "real"
science for whatever reasons are given
as proof that it can't be.
There may be those who can and do swim, as One,
and yet insist there is no "real" science to it.
By definition, as an axiom of their paradigm,
for why-ever they make such a map
or model of swimming pools
of thought.
>>> And that is a personal proof and not independant at all.
>>
>> There were 10,000 people in attendance.
>
>More irrelevance.
Even if someone were to
rise from the dead, it was said,
there would still be those who would
say something along those lines.
>>> Stupid is as stupid does.
>>
>> Yeah. Marriage. Go figure.
>
>I did.
Do you think it was and is irrelevant
to your life? To the pudding, so to speak?
>And i call you sid/ren
I am unfamiliar with sid/ren.
No idea what that means.
>wanting to interact cos you know that you are
>missing out.
Missing out on what?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>(no magick involved in this call, just a feeling)
It could be that my paranormal experiences
cannot be duplicated in Randi's lab. Perhaps
there is some "law of nature" which, as it is,
makes demonstrations impossible for those
who refuse to accept them as "real" science.
Tom Campbell, in his TOE, which he claims
as being science, suggests there is a principle,
which he calls the psi uncertainty principle,
and a law or rule that is involved so as to
not upset the apple cart, so to speak.
In his view (which he calls scientific, since
he is, or was a physicist, for real) this world,
this realm in which we have our lives is a sort
of school. Maybe if you hear a bell or have a
feeling, perhaps there can be found a ring,
of truth or some other term of boxing
on the playground during recess.
I don't know anything about magick
but since this is being filtered thru a Taoist
newsgroup, from that frame of reference,
for me, what is uncarved is always so.
Calling something real or stupid or
science or unscientific can be yang
and might make for a nice half story.
In fact, it does.
Thanks!
- in a bamboo grove
Bassos
> Bassos wrote:
>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>> Bassos wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
>>>>> based upon experimentation
>>>>> which can be verified independently.
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof is in the pudding.
>>>>
>>>> Where in the pudding ?
>>>
>>> She's wearing it on her finger.
>>
>> Ah, giving up the argument,
>
> Not at all. There is no argument.
Not contending is fine, but then at least pretend to.
> The pudding is on her finger.
Stick IT right in.
> It's a ring that rings true.
Marriage is like quicksand ?
> To her, at any rate.
> And to him.
Ni fucking poetry.
> Forgive me if I am unable to communicate
> in a fashion with which you are famaliar.
Nonsense.
> I am uncertain as to what you are trying to say.
Then ask questions instead of speculations.
> The fault of that is within me. No problem.
Too easy withdrawal.
> If you are equally uncertain of what I am saying
> or are convinced that you know but that I am wrong
> then that's perfectly fine with me.
Confibulations are no way for a King to express.
> I have no interest, vested or unvested,
> in being right in a conversation or discussion.
You just float along.
> The sharing of words is, for me, more akin to
> ching-tan if that means anything to you.
Do confibulate.
> Words, for me, are often stepping stones.
Or are the stones you stepped ion the words ?
> If you want to stone me, that's like, far out man!
Hail to the saint MJ, baby.
> Some folks trip over them. They, both words
> and people, at times, trip me out
> as they transport me within
> not to mention beyond.
Beyond what ?
The circular ?
>>>> The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
>>>> (and incorrect)
>>>
>>> It was a metaphor.
>>
>> Yes, but a stupid rendering of that metaphor, as in ;
>> if you use a metaphor, use an appropriate one, sid/ren.
>
> If you know what it is I am attempting to say
> then feel free to use your own metaphor.
Ok.
I will use a reference by proxy;
Many complain that [posts to alt.magick] are always merely parables and
of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have.
When the sage says: "Go over,"
He does not mean that we should cross over to some actual place, which
we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it;
He means some fabulous yonder, something [beyond the virtual], something
too that he cannot designate more precisely [in ASCII], and therefore
cannot help us here in the very least.
All these parables really set out to say merely that the
incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already.
But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different
matter.
Concerning this a man once said:
Why such reluctance?
If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become [virtual]
and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.
Another said: I bet that is also a parable.
The first said: You have won.
The second said: But unfortunately only on alt.magick.
The first said: No, IRL: on alt.magick you have lost.
{:-])))
>
>Another said: I bet that is also a parable.
>
>The first said: You have won.
>
>The second said: But unfortunately only on alt.magick.
>
>The first said: No, IRL: on alt.magick you have lost.
What's IRL?
Dennes De Mennes
turtlec...@apolka.net says...
in real life, apparently. like saying ' i have a life besides this
lunacy...but i can't control myself so i have to post, regardless'
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wondered:
>> Bassos wrote:
>> >
>> >Another said: I bet that is also a parable.
>> >
>> >The first said: You have won.
>> >
>> >The second said: But unfortunately only on alt.magick.
>> >
>> >The first said: No, IRL: on alt.magick you have lost.
>>
>> What's IRL?
>
>in real life, apparently. like saying ' i have a life besides this
>lunacy...but i can't control myself so i have to post, regardless'
Thanks.
I guess Tom couldn't define
what he means by a fact
and our conversation has ended.
Or maybe he's had enough of me
and my bullshit science, sew two speak.
Thanks for getting a b'all rolling
in this here bamboo grove.
Twas mighty silent for quite a spell.
- cheers!
Dennes De Mennes
turtlec...@apolka.net says...
>
> Dennes explained:
> > {:-]))) wondered:
> >
> >in real life, apparently. like saying ' i have a life besides this
> >lunacy...but i can't control myself so i have to post, regardless'
>
> Thanks.
>
> I guess Tom couldn't define
> what he means by a fact
> and our conversation has ended.
you can never convince someone's whose mind is made up. to some, earthly
sciences are like their religion and you can't blaspheme by trying to go
beyond the physical and into the spiritual. we know what we're talking
about, it's a method that if you follow the steps, you get to where you
need to go. it's not like religion that you believe some fact or recite
a magic formula and suddenly you become one of the chosen. here you have
to earn it--but you don't do a thing other than let the light alter you.
you do not yourself say 'i'm gonna do this' or 'i'm not gonna do
that'..the light will tell you.
>
> Or maybe he's had enough of me
> and my bullshit science, sew two speak.
>
> Thanks for getting a b'all rolling
> in this here bamboo grove.
it just has its up and down cycles like anything else, but is circular
in the overall lameness.
>
> Twas mighty silent for quite a spell.
>
> - cheers!
i doubt if he just gave up...probably come back with something 10 times
as hard for you to decipher...
keep up the Great Work!
octinomos
Tom
> I guess Tom couldn't define what he means by a fact and our
> conversation has ended.
>
> Or maybe he's had enough of me and my bullshit science, sew two speak.
And you have yet to say what fact is. Only what you think it's not. You
do not describe any means by which this non-physical mind can interact
with a physical body or where and how it originates. All you have is a
feeling of quiet bliss. All the rest is blue-sky speculation, mundane
nothingness in course of human tokenism.
In short, you're a fucktard.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> I guess Tom couldn't define what he means by a fact and our
>> conversation has ended.
>>
>> Or maybe he's had enough of me and my bullshit science, sew two speak.
>
>And you have yet to say what fact is.
I thought I did say what it is.
Pretty sure I did. Hang on. I'll see if I can
dredge it up from the trash heap.
Okay. Here it is. Again.
<begin previously written stuff>
I do not agree with, "Facts are not based on perception."
Facts are, necessarily, based on perception, on observation.
We may agree that it is a fact that you can see these words.
That fact is a seeing. These words are your perception.
I can't imagine a fact that can be perceived
without there being any perception of it.
Facts are based upon agreed perception.
They are taken to exist "objectively"
beyond anyone's own perception.
That is a myth. Compelling,
given our culture.
Here's my definition:
A fact is an agreed upon perception
which is taken to be "objective"
in the sense that there is assumed to be
an "object" which is independent of any
particular "observer."
< end previously written stuff>
> Only what you think it's not.
Uh, I think you said what it is not.
I don't recall you ever saying what it is.
In between times, I looked at math facts.
Fact tables, of addition, etc.. Interesting.
Is the number one a fact? Can the number 1
be somehow not based on perception?
Two plus two equals four is a fact.
Facts can be fun in ways.
Words. Go figure.
The assumption that a fact is
something that exists even when not perceived
is what I would call an assumption.
Mostly semantical stuff.
Worldviews can be tied to assumptions.
To think there is an objective world
can be a fantastic thought, especially
to think it exists without a subjective
involvement involved.
>You
>do not describe any means by which this non-physical mind
I don't recall any mention of a non-physical mind
but, since you now introduce it, I assume you think
that there is such a thing. Or maybe not. It's unclear.
>can interact
>with a physical body or where and how it originates.
You're pretty far down a road.
Maybe we need to go back to the facts
if we're going to explore the same territory,
if in fact there is such a thing as the same territory.
Among my many views,
there are views which are able to include
how minds are brain-phenomena. Epiphenomena.
A system of thought can be constructed
along those lines. Very cool. I like it.
Another system is the inside-out apposite.
Along those lines can be how consciousness,
or spirit, energy, some thing\non/thing vibrates
and from it arises what is sensed as physical.
Digital theories can fall into this camp.
Also way cool, imo. Great stuff.
> All you have is a feeling of quiet bliss.
I have no idea where you got that impression.
Could be you're projecting stuff onto me.
That's been known to happen.
At times, when I put aside the models,
fold up all the maps, and stop using my left
brain, there may be a bliss for a spell.
That's way cool too. I like it.
But it doesn't usually last forever,
as if that is all I have.
> All the rest is blue-sky speculation, mundane
>nothingness in course of human tokenism.
I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Speculation tends to be at the heart of science.
Hypotheses are formulated, theories constructed,
world views emerge, and great things done.
In the end, sure, it might all amount to nothing.
As Chuang Tzu asked of the baby birds and their
peeps. He spoke of words. Perhaps you are
familiar with his writing, seeing as this is
a Taoist group you're posting into.
>In short, you're a fucktard.
That's a fine how do you do.
My impression was simply that you had made a
statement about science, real and pseudo.
We agreed on another term, system of thought,
in terms of Kabbalah, et al.
Those might be facts.
I'm not sure where you want to go from there.
I was wondering why you didn't like calling Kabbalah
"real" science. That was about it. No big deal.
You seemed to have a lot at stake in the verbiage.
Like it was a vampire or something.
I kinda thought you appreciated Kaballah.
Struck me as odd that you were put off by it
being called a science.
In any case, I'm up for a beer.
- future cheers!
Dennes De Mennes
turtlec...@apolka.net says...
> I kinda thought you appreciated Kaballah.
> Struck me as odd that you were put off by it
> being called a science.
he's saying it's not science per se but there's still shit to be gleaned
from it.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>> I guess Tom couldn't define what he means by a fact and our
>>> conversation has ended.
>>>
>>> Or maybe he's had enough of me and my bullshit science, sew two speak.
>>
>>And you have yet to say what fact is.
>
> I
Don't clip my posts. I now disdain you without further recognizable
displeasures.
Tom
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:30:11 -0400, Tom <dant...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>And you have yet to say what fact is. Only what you think it's not. You
>>do not describe any means by which this non-physical mind can interact
>>with a physical body or where and how it originates.
>
> Just butting in..
Now butt out.
{:-])))
> Tom wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>>And you have yet to say what fact is. Only what you think it's not. You
>>>>do not describe any means by which this non-physical mind can interact
>>>>with a physical body or where and how it originates.
>>>
>>> Just butting in..
>>
>>Now butt out.
>
Tom is displeased.
He also seems a bit confused.
He kinda sounds like a materialist\physicalist
but also sounds as if he appreciates Kabbalah.
Maybe there's an internal conflict
which he has yet to resolve.
What I was trying to get at
in defining what a fact is or is not
could revolve around what the material is.
If everything is "really" made of energy,
call it light cuz light is not so heavy,
then what appears to us or is sensed by us
as being physical-material is a kind of compact
form of this light-energy, which gets really heavy.
If everything is probabalistic collapsed wave forms
at the micro level, with what is perceived as material
or physical at our mid-range level, that's a strange
stand to be standing on. Standing waves
swim in the waters of my mind
in particulars.
Digital\virtual simulation models or paradigms
might be able to explain how electricity\energy
can appear to be really real at various levels.
I forget how the Kabbalistic view spreads light.
In what might be a "really" basic Taoist view,
one begins with One, from which emerge two.
From the two arise three and from there, 10k-things.
Another verse speaks of how all things
arise from Being, and Being emerges from Nonbeing.
How everything might arise from nothing can be a quest-
ion to charge after, tilting at windmills.
To say some material matters
as in, the physical, but some other material
somehow is immaterial or doesn't matter
can be to play with words.
It's been said that at the speed of light
time stops and distance shrinks to zero.
What is detected as a photon at our level,
from the photon itself is another view.
The photon is everywhere at once.
Pass light through a prism
and to us it appears to be many colors
but from the light itself they are not separate.
If one could only see through the eyes of light.
To take a point-particle or wave-form
and think it is other than the field or grid
or measurement device, is a strange thought.
I think Tom might be thinking along those lines.
To see flowers flowering in a field is a pov.
To see how it is the field itself that flowers
can be a flip-side or another pov. To think
one or the other side is absolute
might be a curious thought.
Oceans wave.
Oceans of light wave
at us, as us, and we
in return.
A fact?
Well cud be.
Tom
>
> Here's my definition:
> A fact is an agreed upon perception
> which is taken to be "objective"
> in the sense that there is assumed to be
> an "object" which is independent of any
> particular "observer."
Finally you're talking straight enough to have a conversation.
Your definition would describe a "statement of fact" or an "assertion
of fact". It's not the fact itself, but a statement about it. As
such, it is only an approximation of a fact. The fact is what
happens, not our description of what happens. It is not a belief, nor
a perception, nor a statement, nor an interpretation. All of those
are our reactions to facts, our attempts to represent them as part of
a conceptual model.
That's why I said that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon. It
doesn't have to be observed or commented upon at all. It's simply
what happens.
> In between times, I looked at math facts.
There are no "math facts". Math is entirely a system of symbolic
logic, a set of stated relationships defined by a set of untestable
assumptions, called "axioms".
For example, there is an arithmetical axiom that states a+b = b+a. If
you take 4 apples and add three apples to it, you get 7 apples. If
you take 3 apples and add 4 apples to them, you get 7 apples too. No
matter how many times you do these operations, you get 7 apples.
However, you can only demonstrate this a finite amount of times and
therefore you can establish the *plausibility* of the axiom by
inference, but you haven't *proved* the general axiom mathematically.
The general statement remains an untestable assumption.
Math is filled with statements of relation, but not facts. The
statements are consistent with one another but they are general
statements tied to no specific occurrence. Math has no phenomena. It
is abstract logic.
An example of this would be from Euclidian geometry. The "Parallel
Axiom" of Euclidian geometry states "Given a line l and a point not on
l, there is one and only one line which contains the point, and is
parallel to l." Without this axiom plane geometry cannot be
consistent throughout. However, it is possible to negate the Parallel
Axiom and still get consistent results, but it involves something
other than plane geometry. In spherical geometry, the comparable axiom
is "Given a line l and a point not on l, no lines exist that contain
the point, and are parallel to l." In hyperbolic geometry, it's
"Given a line l and a point not on l, there are at least two distinct
lines which contains the point, and are parallel to l." Not only can
the Euclidian parallel axiom not be proved, it can be shown to be
untrue in certain circumstances. The axioms and relational statements
of mathematics are not facts.
> The assumption that a fact is
> something that exists even when not perceived
> is what I would call an assumption.
Sure, an assumption is an assumption, but is a definition an
assumption? Is there any difference in your mind between a definition
and an assumption?
> To think there is an objective world
> can be a fantastic thought, especially
> to think it exists without a subjective
> involvement involved.
Would thinking that there is no objective world be any less a
fantastic thought? Are there any thoughts which are *not* fantastic?
> Among my many views,
> there are views which are able to include
> how minds are brain-phenomena. Epiphenomena.
> A system of thought can be constructed
> along those lines. Very cool. I like it.
It presumes an objective world, though. In that view, mind arises
from a physical brain which is not dependent on that mind for its
existence.
> Another system is the inside-out apposite.
> Along those lines can be how consciousness,
> or spirit, energy, some thing\non/thing vibrates
> and from it arises what is sensed as physical.
> Digital theories can fall into this camp.
> Also way cool, imo. Great stuff.
Also presuming an objective world. Something that is not perceived is
"vibrating".
> At times, when I put aside the models,
> fold up all the maps, and stop using my left
> brain, there may be a bliss for a spell.
> That's way cool too. I like it.
>
> But it doesn't usually last forever,
> as if that is all I have.
Why is that bliss only temporary?
> >In short, you're a fucktard.
>
> That's a fine how do you do.
>
> My impression was simply that you had made a
> statement about science, real and pseudo.
You're the victim of a prank here. The person identifying himself as
"Tom" who made that "fucktard" comment is not the person identified as
"Tom" who made the original comment about real science and
pseudoscience. This is called "spoofing". It's done by trolls in
order to confuse and upset people about who is saying what. To
determine whether a particular message is being "spoofed", you have to
go to the trouble of checking the full headers and noting that the
origin on a given post is different from the origin of another post
attributed to the same name and e-mail address.
For example, here are the headers for my original comment:
Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!
14g2000prv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Tom <danto...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.magick,alt.theosophy,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.philosophy.taoism
Subject: Re: free kabbalah course
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <0a349749-fa61-4659-
bca3-66e...@14g2000prv.googlegroups.com>
References: <MPG.28c3c177b...@news.sysmatrix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.115.222.18
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1314549256 19809 127.0.0.1 (28 Aug 2011
16:34:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:34:16 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 14g2000prv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=76.115.222.18; posting-account=tr1yMgoAAABqZGWvz4QuB2tjVnhO_ZXS
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/
20100101 Firefox/6.0,gzip(gfe)
Here are the headers for the "fucktard" comment:
From: Tom <danto...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: free kabbalah course
Newsgroups:
alt.magick,alt.theosophy,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.philosophy.taoism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3d1b6409-0592-42bd-9cff-
f9b535...@x21g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<sflt575671eh3684h...@4ax.com> <4e5edb9f
$0$31886$e4fe...@dreader24.news.xs4all.nl>
<nint5756j810ncqn2...@4ax.com>
<4e5ef5d0$0$1194$e4fe...@dreader29.news.xs4all.nl>
<750v57dton3ljiagm...@4ax.com>
<4e615100$0$3673$e4fe...@dreader33.news.xs4all.nl>
<g43467t1kg0us0p5p...@4ax.com> <MPG.
28cbb3d03c1...@news.sysmatrix.net>
<1ls467928cdhcu3h2...@4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:30:11 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: $$5lonjgdxpj7l67.news.x-privat.org
Message-ID: <4e628e5e$1...@news.x-privat.org>
Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
Lines: 14
X-Authenticated-User: $$wt1y3zp5t5mirrfvc1ihhbxcskobhf4$$
X-Complaints-To: ab...@x-privat.org
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!
feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.101.MISMATCH!
newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!
newsfeed.x-privat.org!x-privat.org!not-for-mail
Note that the message ID for the first is "<0a349749-fa61-4659-
bca3-66e...@14g2000prv.googlegroups.com>" whereas the message ID
for the second is "<4e628e5e$1...@news.x-privat.org>". The first
originates from Google Groups and the second originates from an
anonymous remailing service called "X-privat.org".
> I was wondering why you didn't like calling Kabbalah
> "real" science. That was about it. No big deal.
> You seemed to have a lot at stake in the verbiage.
> Like it was a vampire or something.
It's merely a question of clarity. Words have meanings and
connotations that sometimes breed misunderstandings, especially about
unfamiliar subjects. The point of conversations is to reduce
misunderstandings and promote clarity. This is not a crusade against
evil predators but a conversation clarifying what the study of
Kabbalah is and is not.
> I kinda thought you appreciated Kaballah.
> Struck me as odd that you were put off by it
> being called a science.
I consider the use of the term "science" in this context to be
equivocal and that it deserved a bit of clarification. I also
commented that the study course in question did not appear to me to be
a scam and would probably benefit anyone who chose to understand
Kabbalah in ways that Orthodox Jews might not, but that they meant the
word "science" more in the sense of "Christian Science" than in the
sense of "the Russian Academy of Sciences".
Tom
> You're the victim of a prank here. The person identifying himself as
> "Tom" who made that "fucktard" comment is not the person identified as
> "Tom" who made the original comment about real science and
> pseudoscience. This is called "spoofing". It's done by trolls in
> order to confuse and upset people about who is saying what. To
> determine whether a particular message is being "spoofed", you have to
> go to the trouble of checking the full headers and noting that the
> origin on a given post is different from the origin of another post
> attributed to the same name and e-mail address.
*FORGERY*
The troll uses dantomel*L*@comcast.net; my email address is in my
headers (dant...@comcast.net)
Dennes De Mennes
@g19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
> but that they meant the
> word "science" more in the sense of "Christian Science" than in the
> sense of "the Russian Academy of Sciences".
yeah, i don't think that's right either. it's a science because they
tell you : do step one, do step two, do step three, etc, and you WILL
get result. it's not a you might or you might not... it's scientifically
proven to work by following the instructions. you can do it, i can do
it. obama can do it if he wants. probably won't but whatever... we don't
need to worry what others do, just what we do. if we study, and love our
neighbor as ourselvers, whatever that means, we'll advance spiritually.
if we don't study, and just engage in a lot of mind games and
philosophizing rather than loving our neighbor as ourselves, we won't
advance. but even then, nature will force us to advance, but just at a
slower pace and a painful one. all we see, what we call objective
reality is just a distorted image. call it what you will but if enough
people alter their perception, reality will also get altered as a
result. it's not witchcraft, it's the laws of nature. first something
has to happen spiritually and then we see the result in the material. we
cannot affect the spiritual. we need something not from this world and
come in and alter our internality. that only happens by connecting with
others. we're all one soul in actuality, even the vegetative and animal
and still levels are all different expressions of the same will to
receive we can never change. we can only change the intention above the
will to receive from 'for our own sake' to 'for the sake of others' and
it's done in a scientific manner, through rigorous experminentation and
so on. the group is like a lab, before we start operating on everybody.
this is the science of the soul, not of the imaginary physical world.
octinomos
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>> Here's my definition:
>> A fact is an agreed upon perception
>> which is taken to be "objective"
>> in the sense that there is assumed to be
>> an "object" which is independent of any
>> particular "observer."
>
>Finally you're talking straight enough to have a conversation.
I wrote it some time ago,
several posts back.
>Your definition would describe a "statement of fact" or an "assertion
>of fact". It's not the fact itself, but a statement about it.
I'm not sure a fact can be said to exist
without a statement or assertion.
To assume it does is
might be a kind of fact.
Language can get a bit twisted.
Lots of semantics at root.
> As
>such, it is only an approximation of a fact. The fact is what
>happens, not our description of what happens.
Sounds as if you're describing an event.
What is perceived as happening is still a perception.
What "actually" happens is presumed or assumed
or agreed upon given various perceptions.
I'm not sure I can think of a fact, a happening,
without some description or perception.
Interesting situation.
> It is not a belief, nor
>a perception, nor a statement, nor an interpretation. All of those
>are our reactions to facts, our attempts to represent them as part of
>a conceptual model.
A conceptual model, yes.
There is an experience, a perception,
something desired to be described or shared.
Nailing it down, putting it in a box, for good measure.
Thinking of it in a way, after a fashion.
>That's why I said that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon.
If it is evident, then it is observed.
If it is observed, it is perceived.
To assume there is a fact that exists
without a reaction to it is a funny assumption.
How would one know about it?
Somebody punched me in the face. Fact.
I felt it. Definitely. Blood. Fact. I can see it.
Self-evident. But without perception,
where's the evidence?
> It
>doesn't have to be observed or commented upon at all.
If there is no observation of it,
how can it be known?
> It's simply what happens.
Maybe if you give an example
that would help me understand what you mean.
>> In between times, I looked at math facts.
>
>There are no "math facts".
Wiki says, for instance, an addition fact
is also called a number bond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition_fact
There are what's known as number facts.
Or fact families.
http://www.numbernut.com/glossary/f.shtml
Words can have many meanings.
And they very often do.
> Math is entirely a system of symbolic
>logic, a set of stated relationships defined by a set of untestable
>assumptions, called "axioms".
>
>For example, there is an arithmetical axiom that states a+b = b+a.
I'd call that a commutative property of addition.
Using variables tends to raise it beyond the facts
in some terminological schemes. Axiom, yes.
> If
>you take 4 apples and add three apples to it, you get 7 apples.
That'd be a fact.
> If
>you take 3 apples and add 4 apples to them, you get 7 apples too.
Yes. Could be the same, or a different fact,
depending on the set up and semantics.
> No
>matter how many times you do these operations, you get 7 apples.
>However, you can only demonstrate this a finite amount of times and
>therefore you can establish the *plausibility* of the axiom by
>inference, but you haven't *proved* the general axiom mathematically.
>The general statement remains an untestable assumption.
>
>Math is filled with statements of relation, but not facts.
Are the apples themselves facts?
If so, how does one determine that?
By taste, color, texture, etc., no?
> The
>statements are consistent with one another but they are general
>statements tied to no specific occurrence. Math has no phenomena. It
>is abstract logic.
The idea of a fact, in and of itself, is abstract.
To reason from abstract to concrete, to reify notions,
might be something done without notice.
>An example of this would be from Euclidian geometry. The "Parallel
>Axiom" of Euclidian geometry states "Given a line l and a point not on
>l, there is one and only one line which contains the point, and is
>parallel to l." Without this axiom plane geometry cannot be
>consistent throughout. However, it is possible to negate the Parallel
>Axiom and still get consistent results, but it involves something
>other than plane geometry. In spherical geometry, the comparable axiom
>is "Given a line l and a point not on l, no lines exist that contain
>the point, and are parallel to l." In hyperbolic geometry, it's
>"Given a line l and a point not on l, there are at least two distinct
>lines which contains the point, and are parallel to l." Not only can
>the Euclidian parallel axiom not be proved, it can be shown to be
>untrue in certain circumstances. The axioms and relational statements
>of mathematics are not facts.
So, when people speak of a mathematical fact
they don't mean what you mean by the term.
Same goes for other terms.
>> The assumption that a fact is
>> something that exists even when not perceived
>> is what I would call an assumption.
>
>Sure, an assumption is an assumption, but is a definition an
>assumption? Is there any difference in your mind between a definition
>and an assumption?
A definition probably has assumptions
or presumptions within it. Often the assumptions
are taken for granted or as given or as a place
to begin a discussion or model, map, etc..
We could, for instance, define "real"
as being physical. And "real science" means
physical science in this paradigm. Not sure why,
but we could do that.
We might agree something exists
and take "existence" as having some meaning.
Apples exist. Earth and Mars exist.
But what are they "really"?
Is Earth really spherical, or is it a pale blue dot?
To think there is an absolute, entirely objective,
frame of reference, without an observer or subject,
tends to be taken for granted. It's presumptuous.
>> To think there is an objective world
>> can be a fantastic thought, especially
>> to think it exists without a subjective
>> involvement involved.
>
>Would thinking that there is no objective world be any less a
>fantastic thought? Are there any thoughts which are *not* fantastic?
From a Taoist pov, imo, if there is fantastic
then there is also not-fantastic. This would apply
to thoughts as well as anything else.
What is mundane can be profound
when seen from another angle.
Thinking there is no shared reality,
no consensus, no objectivity at all,
might probably be solipsistic.
Otoh, it might be true that there is
no objective world but, rather, that
there are a great many subjective worlds
which intersect in what we call reality.
>> Among my many views,
>> there are views which are able to include
>> how minds are brain-phenomena. Epiphenomena.
>> A system of thought can be constructed
>> along those lines. Very cool. I like it.
>
>It presumes an objective world, though. In that view, mind arises
>from a physical brain which is not dependent on that mind for its
>existence.
Hmm. Maybe yes. Maybe no.
I think a subtle point may have slid off the table.
A model in which there is an objective world is fine
but to suppose there is one without any subjective
perceiver is a supposition.
Be that as it may,
a physical brain without a mind is probably dead.
The brain needs the mind to survive.
Without consciousness a brain is sorta comatose.
It might last for some time before it expires.
If the mind is the electrical or electro-chemical
processes that occur with the brain, software in a way,
then there would be required a physical component,
a brain, for the mind to operate or make any sense.
To suppose there can be discarnate consciousness
is for sure a fantastic thought. If one experiences
such forms of mind or consciousness, that's cool.
Lots of anecdotes float around.
>> Another system is the inside-out apposite.
>> Along those lines can be how consciousness,
>> or spirit, energy, some thing\non/thing vibrates
>> and from it arises what is sensed as physical.
>> Digital theories can fall into this camp.
>> Also way cool, imo. Great stuff.
>
>Also presuming an objective world. Something that is not perceived is
>"vibrating".
Yes. That's a sense that is sensed.
Things appear to be external to one's body.
Lines are drawn between self and not-self
just as between brain and mind, as if
such distinctions makes sense.
And they do, of course.
They have use. Tools for trades.
If all there is
could be said to be energy
which morphs and metamorphs
into brains and minds, objective and
subjective, then that energy itself
is neither. It's a cut above.
In an undifferentiated realm (wu, wuji)
there are no distinctions to be made.
>> At times, when I put aside the models,
>> fold up all the maps, and stop using my left
>> brain, there may be a bliss for a spell.
>> That's way cool too. I like it.
>>
>> But it doesn't usually last forever,
>> as if that is all I have.
>
>Why is that bliss only temporary?
For me, that's a good question.
Maybe I'm just not evolved enough
or perhaps never went down far enough
to rebound high enough to stay in orbit.
Or perhaps eternity is eclipsed temporarily.
My bliss could be as an ocean, or a notion,
which is deep yet, on the surface, waves break
and a light is broken into a zillion pieces.
When the surf is up, all is great.
After a ride, it's time to paddle back out.
Falling off the board is known to happen.
Happens quite often, to me. I call it
being human.
Some folks, e.g. Tolle, might always be blissed out.
There's a guy who posts here, ZN, who seems
to have a permanent lock on the Moment
and appears always blissed.
Best I can determine is that my moods cycle.
Maybe everyone is different. I don't know.
At times I wonder about highs and lows.
To jump up, one may need to bend the knees.
If I want to be high, maybe I need to be low
in order to experience the contrast.
Or maybe that's all just crap
as I try to figure out and explain stuff
to myself or other people.
Conceptual models and maps.
Might be good for something, at times.
>> >In short, you're a fucktard.
>>
>> That's a fine how do you do.
>>
>> My impression was simply that you had made a
>> statement about science, real and pseudo.
>
>You're the victim of a prank here. ... snip ...
Thanks for that.
I'll look for the googlegroups tom
and try not to confuse you with the troll.
>> I was wondering why you didn't like calling Kabbalah
>> "real" science. That was about it. No big deal.
>> You seemed to have a lot at stake in the verbiage.
>> Like it was a vampire or something.
>
>It's merely a question of clarity. Words have meanings and
>connotations that sometimes breed misunderstandings, especially about
>unfamiliar subjects. The point of conversations is to reduce
>misunderstandings and promote clarity. This is not a crusade against
>evil predators but a conversation clarifying what the study of
>Kabbalah is and is not.
>
>> I kinda thought you appreciated Kaballah.
>> Struck me as odd that you were put off by it
>> being called a science.
>
>I consider the use of the term "science" in this context to be
>equivocal and that it deserved a bit of clarification. I also
>commented that the study course in question did not appear to me to be
>a scam and would probably benefit anyone who chose to understand
>Kabbalah in ways that Orthodox Jews might not, but that they meant the
>word "science" more in the sense of "Christian Science" than in the
>sense of "the Russian Academy of Sciences".
Right. I got that.
Still, suggesting "real" science is real
and other systems of thought are
somehow less than real
caught my eye.
Again, no big deal.
Grist for the mill.
Nice chatting with you.
Absorbed
You're way too smart for /that/ forger, Master Tom!!
--
I am absorbed with Tom and I am proudly Tom's sockpuppet. Tom-Christ
is within me.
Absorbed
> Thanks for that.
> I'll look for the googlegroups tom
> and try not to confuse you with the troll.
About time! There is one and only one Tom-Christ!
Dennes De Mennes
says...
>
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 14:04:25 -0700, {:-]))) wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that.
> > I'll look for the googlegroups tom
> > and try not to confuse you with the troll.
>
> About time! There is one and only one Tom-Christ!
has he expressed interest in christ, i mean?
where do you get this...
Tom
> In article <43f9af5e-c602-4fbf-a173-5b803f3ca0b6
>
> > but that they meant the
> > word "science" more in the sense of "Christian Science" than in the
> > sense of "the Russian Academy of Sciences".
>
> yeah, i don't think that's right either. it's a science because they
> tell you : do step one, do step two, do step three, etc, and you WILL
> get result. it's not a you might or you might not... it's scientifically
> proven to work by following the instructions.
You might say the same thing about dancing. If you move your body in
this sequence, it's going to look this particular way. But nobody in
their right mind is going to say that dance is a science simply
because you do a similar dance if you follow a similar set of
instructions. The method of science is not only about observing
patterns but in hypothesizing the rules governing those patterns and
testing those hypotheses in ways that will either confirm or
disconfirm them in a logical and demonstrable way.
However, I wonder if you are correct in the assertion that instruction
to do this or that kabbalistic exercise always produces the same
result for everyone. Can you give me an example of such an exercise,
what it's supposed to produce, and how this has been repeatedly tested
and confirmed across independent observers?
> if we study, and love our
> neighbor as ourselvers, whatever that means, we'll advance spiritually.
> if we don't study, and just engage in a lot of mind games and
> philosophizing rather than loving our neighbor as ourselves, we won't
> advance.
(I hope this isn't an example of what you were just describing,
because there is no way to apply science to any of it. As you
indicate, you don't know what it means to "love our neighbor as
ourselves" nor can you describe any means of testing spiritual
advancement in any independent way. There's nothing about this that
is in any way "scientific" as the term is used in physics. However,
it is precisely the sort of "science" that is referred to as
"Christian Science". It fits in totally with what you describe. The
Christian Scientist says, "If you really believe that Christ will heal
you, and you sincerely open your heart to Him, you will be healed. It
works every time." The only cases where it doesn't work is when you
don't follow the instructions, like not truly believing or not truly
opening your heart to Christ, and so on. Of course, there is no way
to measure whether or not one has sufficiently "opened their heart" or
"truly believed", so the whole thing comes down to merely taking
credit or assigning blame after the fact.
> this is the science of the soul, not of the imaginary physical world.
What is the logical and scientific process by which you conclude that
the soul is real and the physical world is imaginary?
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>
> >Your definition would describe a "statement of fact" or an "assertion
> >of fact". It's not the fact itself, but a statement about it.
>
> I'm not sure a fact can be said to exist
> without a statement or assertion.
It doesn't matter if a fact "can be said to exist". It's not the
saying that makes a fact. Fact is what happens, not what is said
about what happens.
> > As
> >such, it is only an approximation of a fact. The fact is what
> >happens, not our description of what happens.
>
> Sounds as if you're describing an event.
Whenever we use words we are describing something. What are we doing
when we don't use words?
> What is perceived as happening is still a perception.
> What "actually" happens is presumed or assumed
> or agreed upon given various perceptions.
What actually happens can be entirely unknown. How do we know this?
Because we discover. If nothing exists that is unknown, there cannot
be discovery.
> I'm not sure I can think of a fact, a happening,
> without some description or perception.
Facts do not have to be thought to be facts.
> >That's why I said that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon.
>
> If it is evident, then it is observed.
Only if it is evident to an observer. To be self-evident requires no
observer.
> To assume there is a fact that exists
> without a reaction to it is a funny assumption.
> How would one know about it?
Unless you claim omniscience, you are accepting the existence of that
which you do not know. Since the unknown exists, then there are facts
you do not know and do not perceive. Are you claiming omniscience?
> Somebody punched me in the face. Fact.
Nope. It may not be a fact. It's your interpretation of some sort of
experience which seems similar to a concept you have of being punched
in the face. You experienced something that you describe to yourself
as pain in your face that is consistent with the explanation that
someone punched you. Might you have vividly imagined it instead?
Could you perhaps have dreamed of being punched in the face and then
awoke to discover that your experience was not a physical punch after
all?
I remember a time when I was asleep in my bed and felt a strange
lurching sensation and awoke. Nothing in the room seemed to account
for the sensation and I wondered if it was just a dream. I walked
into the bathroom and saw that a small piece of crystal hanging in a
closed window was swinging back and forth quite rapidly, as if it had
been pushed. So I formed a conclusion that the house had been shaken.
What could explain that? I looked out the windows and could find no
object that might have struck the house. I then hypothesized that it
might be an earthquake. While listening to a news program on the
radio at breakfast, reports of a local earthquake confirmed my
hypothesis. First comes the fact, then the experience, and only much
later come the plausible explanations.
> If there is no observation of it,
> how can it be known?
A fact does not have to be know to be a fact. A statement of fact is
an expression of something believed to be a fact, but it is not the
fact itself, and that statement could very well be wrong.
> >> In between times, I looked at math facts.
>
> >There are no "math facts".
>
> Wiki says, for instance, an addition fact
> is also called a number bond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition_fact
Another example of how words are used equivocally. We often label our
opinions as "facts" but, upon closer examination, we find that they
only appear to be facts but may not be true at all. Once you start
drilling down to find out exactly what is meant by this word or that
one, all sorts of odd ambiguities start showing up.
> Words can have many meanings.
> And they very often do.
But a fact is a fact. It is not dependent upon language. It's simply
what happens. A statement about a thing is not the thing. That's why
we cannot be nourished simply by saying "food, food, food".
> > If
> >you take 4 apples and add three apples to it, you get 7 apples.
>
> That'd be a fact.
Unless someone stole one of the apples while you weren't looking...
> > No
> >matter how many times you do these operations, you get 7 apples.
> >However, you can only demonstrate this a finite amount of times and
> >therefore you can establish the *plausibility* of the axiom by
> >inference, but you haven't *proved* the general axiom mathematically.
> >The general statement remains an untestable assumption.
>
> >Math is filled with statements of relation, but not facts.
>
> Are the apples themselves facts?
If a fact is a self-evident phenomenon and you regard the apples as
self-evident phenomena, then they are facts. What you say about
apples or think about apples or feel about apples are not the apples
themselves.
> If so, how does one determine that?
> By taste, color, texture, etc., no?
That's how we decide what labels to put on the phenomena and therefore
what conceptual categories we assign those labels to, but those labels
do not create the phenomena.
> > The
> >statements are consistent with one another but they are general
> >statements tied to no specific occurrence. Math has no phenomena. It
> >is abstract logic.
>
> The idea of a fact, in and of itself, is abstract.
Is the idea of a fact a fact? Is the idea of an apple an apple? Are
our bodies nourished by simply saying "food, food, food"?
> So, when people speak of a mathematical fact
> they don't mean what you mean by the term.
> Same goes for other terms.
In most cases, people rarely mean precisely what others mean even when
they use the same words. The process of coming to a clear
understanding of what someone else means by their words is a long,
painstaking one. Quite often people don't have much of a conception
of the meanings of their own words, let alone those of others. Have
you ever asked a person the definition of a word they just used and
watched them struggle to figure it out?
Another interesting thing to do is ask someone to point to something
blue. They can usually do this easily. Now ask them to decide which
of several shades, all referred to as blue, are "bluer" that the
others and why. The more exact you try to be, the more of a struggle
it is to define the meaning.
> >Sure, an assumption is an assumption, but is a definition an
> >assumption? Is there any difference in your mind between a definition
> >and an assumption?
>
> A definition probably has assumptions
> or presumptions within it. Often the assumptions
> are taken for granted or as given or as a place
> to begin a discussion or model, map, etc..
Could we say that definitions are about borders between this and that
whereas assumptions are about the area within the borders of this or
that?
> We could, for instance, define "real"
> as being physical.
Then we're left with the difficulty of deciding what is "physical" and
what is not. Are thoughts physical? They are produced by the
physical brain, so are they not physical themselves? So what, then
would *not* be physical? If a thought is real, what about the idea of
a thought? Is the content of an idea different from the process of an
idea? (Richard Feynman would have kicked my ass for talking like
this.)
> We might agree something exists
> and take "existence" as having some meaning.
>
> Apples exist. Earth and Mars exist.
> But what are they "really"?
Right on the nosie!
> To think there is an absolute, entirely objective,
> frame of reference, without an observer or subject,
> tends to be taken for granted. It's presumptuous.
Granted. But a frame of reference is not necessarily a complete
representation of reality. What exists is not confined to any
particular frame of reference.
> >> To think there is an objective world
> >> can be a fantastic thought, especially
> >> to think it exists without a subjective
> >> involvement involved.
>
> >Would thinking that there is no objective world be any less a
> >fantastic thought? Are there any thoughts which are *not* fantastic?
>
> From a Taoist pov, imo, if there is fantastic
> then there is also not-fantastic. This would apply
> to thoughts as well as anything else.
If something is "fantastic", that would mean it's the product of
fantasy, wouldn't it? All hypotheses about the universe arise out of
the creative imagination, don't they? What would be "not fantastic"
would be that which could not be imagined, conceived, or put into
words. "The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."
> Otoh, it might be true that there is
> no objective world but, rather, that
> there are a great many subjective worlds
> which intersect in what we call reality.
Then we could ask in what world do all these different, interacting
subjective worlds exist. And *that* would be the objective world.
> I think a subtle point may have slid off the table.
> A model in which there is an objective world is fine
> but to suppose there is one without any subjective
> perceiver is a supposition.
The existence of a subjective perceiver is irrelevant. Whether one
perceives an event or not has nothing to do with whether an event
occurs or not. It is as much a supposition to say that no event
occurs unless it is perceived as it is to say that any event may occur
without being perceived. It also seems arrogantly self-centered to
assert that nothing can exist without your personal participation.
> Be that as it may,
> a physical brain without a mind is probably dead.
> The brain needs the mind to survive.
A brain can survive without a mind. This is evidenced in cases of
vegetative comas or absence seizures, but can a mind survive without a
brain? What kind of evidence do we have for that?
> Without consciousness a brain is sorta comatose.
> It might last for some time before it expires.
Actually, the part of our brain that is consciously aware is a
relatively small portion.
From "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", by neurologist David
Eagleman.
"The first thing we learn from studying our own circuitry is a simple
lesson: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our
conscious control. The vast jungles of neurons operate their own
programs. The conscious you -- the *I* that flickers to life when you
wake up in the morning -- is the smallest bit of what's transpiring in
your brain. Although we are dependent on the functioning of our brain
for our inner life, it runs its own show. Most of its operations are
above the security clearance of the conscious mind. The *I* simply
has no right of entry."
Dennes De Mennes
@g32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
>
> On Sep 4, 1:30 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > In article <43f9af5e-c602-4fbf-a173-5b803f3ca0b6
> > @g19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, danto...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > > but that they meant the
> > > word "science" more in the sense of "Christian Science" than in the
> > > sense of "the Russian Academy of Sciences".
> >
> > yeah, i don't think that's right either. it's a science because they
> > tell you : do step one, do step two, do step three, etc, and you WILL
> > get result. it's not a you might or you might not... it's scientifically
> > proven to work by following the instructions.
>
> You might say the same thing about dancing. If you move your body in
> this sequence, it's going to look this particular way. But nobody in
> their right mind is going to say that dance is a science simply
> because you do a similar dance if you follow a similar set of
> instructions.
Why not. It would simply be the science of dancing.
> The method of science is not only about observing
> patterns but in hypothesizing the rules governing those patterns and
> testing those hypotheses in ways that will either confirm or
> disconfirm them in a logical and demonstrable way.
Every science exists already within kabbalah. Kabbalah is the
fundamental level of philosophy, before it went to Greece or anywhere
else.
>
> However, I wonder if you are correct in the assertion that instruction
> to do this or that kabbalistic exercise always produces the same
> result for everyone. Can you give me an example of such an exercise,
> what it's supposed to produce, and how this has been repeatedly tested
> and confirmed across independent observers?
You attain the spiritual realm. You start perceiving a new higher
reality. This world is illusory and its pleasures are fleeting. In the
spiritual you transcend time and space and see things from the causal
level, not the effects level.
>
> > if we study, and love our
> > neighbor as ourselvers, whatever that means, we'll advance spiritually.
> > if we don't study, and just engage in a lot of mind games and
> > philosophizing rather than loving our neighbor as ourselves, we won't
> > advance.
>
> (I hope this isn't an example of what you were just describing,
> because there is no way to apply science to any of it. As you
> indicate, you don't know what it means to "love our neighbor as
> ourselves" nor can you describe any means of testing spiritual
> advancement in any independent way.
Because I'm just starting out. I'm in preparation not even into
spiritual yet. But I can see how every law they mention I can test for
myself, so why would they lie about the other, if they're telling the
truth about the first. Love is the law. What it means, who knows but
that's the damn law. You don't have to believe in it in a rational way.
It just encompasses everything, period.
> There's nothing about this that
> is in any way "scientific" as the term is used in physics. However,
> it is precisely the sort of "science" that is referred to as
> "Christian Science".
Christian science is bullshit. This is real. That's the difference.
>It fits in totally with what you describe. The
> Christian Scientist says, "If you really believe that Christ will heal
> you, and you sincerely open your heart to Him, you will be healed. It
> works every time." The only cases where it doesn't work is when you
> don't follow the instructions, like not truly believing or not truly
> opening your heart to Christ, and so on.
That's just garbage. The corporeal is the result of the spiritual.
Change the spiritual, and you will see alterations in the corporeal.
Belief is a physical activity. Some outer force has to come in from a
higher dimension and alter us. Here it's not believing some myth, but
actually applying the method and seeing result, in a scientific manner.
> Of course, there is no way
> to measure whether or not one has sufficiently "opened their heart" or
> "truly believed", so the whole thing comes down to merely taking
> credit or assigning blame after the fact.
I don't know who anyone tries to fool. You can't fool the creator.
>
> > this is the science of the soul, not of the imaginary physical world.
>
> What is the logical and scientific process by which you conclude that
> the soul is real and the physical world is imaginary?
You can see what's true or not. Unless you're blind.
octinomos
Tom
> In article <fdeb3c21-8cde-4a52-a92d-c2c38aaa0552
> @g32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, danto...@comcast.net says...
>
> > You might say the same thing about dancing. If you move your body in
> > this sequence, it's going to look this particular way. But nobody in
> > their right mind is going to say that dance is a science simply
> > because you do a similar dance if you follow a similar set of
> > instructions.
>
> Why not. It would simply be the science of dancing.
That would be a "Christian Science" kind of science. Not a "Russian
Academy of Science" kind of science. They are two very separate and
distinct concepts. Conflating them might be desirable as a sales
tactic, but not as a means to discover what's really going on.
> > The method of science is not only about observing
> > patterns but in hypothesizing the rules governing those patterns and
> > testing those hypotheses in ways that will either confirm or
> > disconfirm them in a logical and demonstrable way.
>
> Every science exists already within kabbalah.
Every kind of science is within the dictionary, too. Are you
suggesting that reading the dictionary is a science, too?
> Kabbalah is the
> fundamental level of philosophy, before it went to Greece or anywhere
> else.
The myth of origins... There is no concrete evidence that Kabbalah is
any older than the writings of Moses De Leon in 13th Century Spain.
This is not to say that Jews did not have a concept of received
knowledge prior to that, but none of those systems were called
"kabbalah" nor did any of them seem to be essentially the same system
that is called "Kabbalah" today. There are some similarities to other
systems but there is no reason to believe that De Leon invented his
Kabbalah out of whole cloth. Of course he borrowed from earlier work.
> > However, I wonder if you are correct in the assertion that instruction
> > to do this or that kabbalistic exercise always produces the same
> > result for everyone. Can you give me an example of such an exercise,
> > what it's supposed to produce, and how this has been repeatedly tested
> > and confirmed across independent observers?
>
> You attain the spiritual realm.
You cannot confirm such a thing in any objective way. You cannot
define "spiritual realm" operationally.
> > (I hope this isn't an example of what you were just describing,
> > because there is no way to apply science to any of it. As you
> > indicate, you don't know what it means to "love our neighbor as
> > ourselves" nor can you describe any means of testing spiritual
> > advancement in any independent way.
>
> Because I'm just starting out.
The first thing you should do if you really want to approach Kabbalah
scientifically is to obtain clear operational definitions of what
you're studying. Next you will want to learn how to conduct
experiments that minimize experimenter bias and produce consistent,
independently observable results. However, if you're only interested
in convincing yourself that Kabbalah is true, then forget all that and
just look for evidence that supports your preconceived beliefs about
Kabbalah. Call it "science" if you find that convincing and pretend
that any definition of science is the same as any other definitions of
science.
> I'm in preparation not even into
> spiritual yet. But I can see how every law they mention I can test for
> myself, so why would they lie about the other, if they're telling the
> truth about the first.
A few fallacies you should avoid: A person who is wrong is not
necessarily lying. They may not understand that they are wrong. Just
because a person seems sincere does not mean they are correct in what
they say. Just because a person is right about one thing, or even a
few things, does not mean they are right about everything. Just
because what a person says appears close to what you already believe
does not make them any more correct than someone who says something
different from what you already believe.
> > There's nothing about this that
> > is in any way "scientific" as the term is used in physics. However,
> > it is precisely the sort of "science" that is referred to as
> > "Christian Science".
>
> Christian science is bullshit. This is real. That's the difference.
How do you determine that if the methods used to confirm both of them
are precisely the same?
> >It fits in totally with what you describe. The
> > Christian Scientist says, "If you really believe that Christ will heal
> > you, and you sincerely open your heart to Him, you will be healed. It
> > works every time." The only cases where it doesn't work is when you
> > don't follow the instructions, like not truly believing or not truly
> > opening your heart to Christ, and so on.
>
> That's just garbage. The corporeal is the result of the spiritual.
> Change the spiritual, and you will see alterations in the corporeal.
That is exactly what the Christian Scientists say.
> Belief is a physical activity.
I don't think so. Here's why. Running is a physical activity. A
body moves at a particular rate of speed and displaces itself a
certain distance over time by means of an observable movement of their
legs. Every part of that can be measured and compared to the running
activity of someone else to determine which of them ran further or
faster. How do you measure exactly how much belief a person has as
compared to another person? What physical phenomena is observable in
the action of believing?
> > > this is the science of the soul, not of the imaginary physical world.
>
> > What is the logical and scientific process by which you conclude that
> > the soul is real and the physical world is imaginary?
>
> You can see what's true or not. Unless you're blind.
That makes no sense to me at all. Seeing is the method you use to
conclude that the soul is real? Can we all see souls? Do we not see
the physical world? Or is it that we only see what's not true, such
that, if we don't see it, it must be true?
Dennes De Mennes
@j4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
> That makes no sense to me at all. Seeing is the method you use to
> conclude that the soul is real? Can we all see souls? Do we not see
> the physical world? Or is it that we only see what's not true, such
> that, if we don't see it, it must be true?
>
>
you have to figure it out on your own. i can only tell you what's what
and then you take it and discard it or put it to use.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that.
>> I'll look for the googlegroups tom
>> and try not to confuse you with the troll.
>
>About time! There is one and only one Tom-Christ!
I forgot this was Usenet
and there could be trolls about.
You had me wondering.
Fun, fun, fun!
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>> >Your definition would describe a "statement of fact" or an "assertion
>> >of fact". It's not the fact itself, but a statement about it.
>>
>> I'm not sure a fact can be said to exist
>> without a statement or assertion.
>
>It doesn't matter if a fact "can be said to exist". It's not the
>saying that makes a fact. Fact is what happens, not what is said
>about what happens.
>
>> > As
>> >such, it is only an approximation of a fact. The fact is what
>> >happens, not our description of what happens.
>>
>> Sounds as if you're describing an event.
>
>Whenever we use words we are describing something. What are we doing
>when we don't use words?
Possibly dancing.
There is what's called dance science,
akin to sports science. Between scientific method
and doing a dance or going for a walk, etc.,
might be a difference of some sorts.
Sorting out all the various sorts
can be a task worth undertaking.
Especially if it is enjoyable.
A journey of sorts.
>> What is perceived as happening is still a perception.
>> What "actually" happens is presumed or assumed
>> or agreed upon given various perceptions.
>
>What actually happens can be entirely unknown. How do we know this?
>Because we discover. If nothing exists that is unknown, there cannot
>be discovery.
"What happens" might be partially known.
Each known part is necessarily perceptual in some fashion.
>> I'm not sure I can think of a fact, a happening,
>> without some description or perception.
>
>Facts do not have to be thought to be facts.
Sounds speculative.
>> >That's why I said that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon.
>>
>> If it is evident, then it is observed.
>
>Only if it is evident to an observer. To be self-evident requires no
>observer.
A self, I would think, is an observer.
A hypothetical self is hypothetical.
Self-evident includes a self of some sort.
>> To assume there is a fact that exists
>> without a reaction to it is a funny assumption.
>> How would one know about it?
>
>Unless you claim omniscience, you are accepting the existence of that
>which you do not know. Since the unknown exists, then there are facts
>you do not know and do not perceive. Are you claiming omniscience?
I am not claiming omniscience.
My line of reasoning is pointing toward how
all knowledge is perceptual in various ways.
Your claim, if I understood it, your definition
was that a fact does not rely on perception.
And I disagreed. I called that an assumption
which could be taken axiomatically, as given,
but I did not agree with it for purposes of
this discussion.
>> Somebody punched me in the face. Fact.
>
>Nope. It may not be a fact. It's your interpretation of some sort of
>experience which seems similar to a concept you have of being punched
>in the face. You experienced something that you describe to yourself
>as pain in your face that is consistent with the explanation that
>someone punched you. Might you have vividly imagined it instead?
I might have, but I saw the guy take a swing.
Others saw it too. And there was evidence.
Plus the self-evidence of myself bleeding.
>Could you perhaps have dreamed of being punched in the face and then
>awoke to discover that your experience was not a physical punch after
>all?
I could have. But that wasn't what happened.
Fact is, or was, I got punched in the face.
Quite an experience. Lesson learned.
>I remember a time when I was asleep in my bed and felt a strange
>lurching sensation and awoke. Nothing in the room seemed to account
>for the sensation and I wondered if it was just a dream. I walked
>into the bathroom and saw that a small piece of crystal hanging in a
>closed window was swinging back and forth quite rapidly, as if it had
>been pushed. So I formed a conclusion that the house had been shaken.
>What could explain that? I looked out the windows and could find no
>object that might have struck the house. I then hypothesized that it
>might be an earthquake. While listening to a news program on the
>radio at breakfast, reports of a local earthquake confirmed my
>hypothesis. First comes the fact, then the experience, and only much
>later come the plausible explanations.
Good example. Earthquake was a fact you say.
How did anybody know? Perception. You felt something.
The fact is not separate from the perception.
What are called facts are not separate from all else.
Without perception there are no "facts"
and exactly what those so-called facts are
is subject to a world-view.
Other people felt the shaking. That was first.
Some people looked at instruments, they looked.
They triangulated and determined there was a quake.
They concluded, after their perceptions, that there
was a cause-effect relationship.
There are taken various perceptions
woven together by a paradigm (cause-effect)
used to explain, map or model to some degree.
To stop at the earthquake is to stop.
To say the earthquake came first is to say.
Why stop there? Why start there?
I'd start with your perception, and end there.
You could, about as easily, go further than the
conclusion that it was the quake that shook you up.
You could find reasons for the quake
and say any of those butterfly effects
caused the shake to occur. A butterfly
wing was the actual first flap mover.
My point is that picking and choosing and
agreement on terminology can be useful
but to think it is written in stone can be
a stumbling block at times.
>> If there is no observation of it,
>> how can it be known?
>
>A fact does not have to be know to be a fact. A statement of fact is
>an expression of something believed to be a fact, but it is not the
>fact itself, and that statement could very well be wrong.
The fact itself is assumed.
What is currently thought to be a quake
and seen as being tectonic shifting of plates
might someday be seen in some other fashion.
World-views change.
To think, "we now know" what "really" happens
is a funny sort of compulsive way of thinking.
People used to know the world was flat
until other observations were made. Another view
came into focus. Same with Newtonian views.
What we now call Earth and earthquakes
might someday be seen in entirely a different light.
What we take as physical might turn out to be virtual
when seen through a different prism of sorts.
>> >> In between times, I looked at math facts.
>>
>> >There are no "math facts".
>>
>> Wiki says, for instance, an addition fact
>> is also called a number bond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition_fact
>
>Another example of how words are used equivocally. We often label our
>opinions as "facts" but, upon closer examination, we find that they
>only appear to be facts but may not be true at all. Once you start
>drilling down to find out exactly what is meant by this word or that
>one, all sorts of odd ambiguities start showing up.
Definitely.
>> Words can have many meanings.
>> And they very often do.
>
>But a fact is a fact.
That is an assertion.
> It is not dependent upon language.
Presumably.
> It's simply
>what happens. A statement about a thing is not the thing. That's why
>we cannot be nourished simply by saying "food, food, food".
To say something simply happens
is to assume a great deal of perception.
From any of a great many views
the happening in question appears different.
Since that is the case, there is no "simply"
nor "really" happening.
We might agree upon what "actually" happened
and agree upon why, etc.. That can be useful.
>> > If
>> >you take 4 apples and add three apples to it, you get 7 apples.
>>
>> That'd be a fact.
>
>Unless someone stole one of the apples while you weren't looking...
>
>> > No
>> >matter how many times you do these operations, you get 7 apples.
>> >However, you can only demonstrate this a finite amount of times and
>> >therefore you can establish the *plausibility* of the axiom by
>> >inference, but you haven't *proved* the general axiom mathematically.
>> >The general statement remains an untestable assumption.
>>
>> >Math is filled with statements of relation, but not facts.
>>
>> Are the apples themselves facts?
>
>If a fact is a self-evident phenomenon and you regard the apples as
>self-evident phenomena, then they are facts. What you say about
>apples or think about apples or feel about apples are not the apples
>themselves.
To think apples exist
in some way shape or form
without some perception of them
is a great thought. To think an apple
really really is something, is a thought.
>> If so, how does one determine that?
>> By taste, color, texture, etc., no?
>
>That's how we decide what labels to put on the phenomena and therefore
>what conceptual categories we assign those labels to, but those labels
>do not create the phenomena.
Phenomena are perceptually dependent.
Without any labels, without perception,
without observation, without evidence,
or self-evidence, the so-called fact is
something less than a fact. It would be
more akin to a mystery.
>> > The
>> >statements are consistent with one another but they are general
>> >statements tied to no specific occurrence. Math has no phenomena. It
>> >is abstract logic.
>>
>> The idea of a fact, in and of itself, is abstract.
>
>Is the idea of a fact a fact? Is the idea of an apple an apple? Are
>our bodies nourished by simply saying "food, food, food"?
Food depends upon a body.
Without an organism to eat it, food isn't food.
To call an apple an apple is to say something.
Apple is a word, an idea, a concept.
It could be said "apples" don't exist.
This apple or that apple could be said to exist
and it could be said they are food. Saying stuff
tends to occur for various reasons whenever
reasons are sought. "To occur" involves a
world-view.
The idea of a fact could be called a fact.
It could be said that it is a fact that people
do in fact have ideas. Stretching words too far,
as reflected above, can rip them apart.
>> So, when people speak of a mathematical fact
>> they don't mean what you mean by the term.
>> Same goes for other terms.
>
>In most cases, people rarely mean precisely what others mean even when
>they use the same words. The process of coming to a clear
>understanding of what someone else means by their words is a long,
>painstaking one. Quite often people don't have much of a conception
>of the meanings of their own words, let alone those of others. Have
>you ever asked a person the definition of a word they just used and
>watched them struggle to figure it out?
Hey, I've been doing exactly that with "fact"
in terms of just what the hell is meant by it.
>Another interesting thing to do is ask someone to point to something
>blue. They can usually do this easily. Now ask them to decide which
>of several shades, all referred to as blue, are "bluer" that the
>others and why. The more exact you try to be, the more of a struggle
>it is to define the meaning.
Perhaps many shades of grey, or gray,
are to be found in between all the blues.
>> >Sure, an assumption is an assumption, but is a definition an
>> >assumption? Is there any difference in your mind between a definition
>> >and an assumption?
>>
>> A definition probably has assumptions
>> or presumptions within it. Often the assumptions
>> are taken for granted or as given or as a place
>> to begin a discussion or model, map, etc..
>
>Could we say that definitions are about borders between this and that
>whereas assumptions are about the area within the borders of this or
>that?
I suppose we could.
>> We could, for instance, define "real"
>> as being physical.
>
>Then we're left with the difficulty of deciding what is "physical" and
>what is not. Are thoughts physical? They are produced by the
>physical brain, so are they not physical themselves? So what, then
>would *not* be physical? If a thought is real, what about the idea of
>a thought? Is the content of an idea different from the process of an
>idea? (Richard Feynman would have kicked my ass for talking like
>this.)
I think the story might go
along the lines of quantification or measurement.
To what you have called a "real" scientist, if a
phenomenon cannot be measured then it might be
construed or defined as not being in the physical realm.
When instruments are developed to ascertain a
quantifiable or measurable description, then, presto,
what didn't exist materially or physically suddenly,
or gradually, comes into focus.
Down at the point-particle or probability-wave level
the physicality turns into pure math. Sew mulch fur facts.
Way up at the universal level, beyond our light-sphere,
it might be impossible to say much about whether
the universe is physical or what exactly it is.
Be all that as it may, lines are drawn.
If we care to say that occult stuff or mental activity,
the imagination, OOBEs, etc., are non-physical
and that there is or is not "science" involved,
then for some reason, we care.
Invoking cause-effect, for some reason, a why,
and a be-cause, I asked about the "real"
in your particular world-view.
I'm not at all sure I got an answer
why you chose that particular word (real).
You mentioned for the sake of clarity.
But I sense there is something else.
As if occult stuff isn't really real
in a really scientific fashion, for you.
I took it as a put-down of sorts.
As if it is less-than. When, for some,
mystical experiences are much more than.
I sense that's what Dennes is saying.
>> We might agree something exists
>> and take "existence" as having some meaning.
>>
>> Apples exist. Earth and Mars exist.
>> But what are they "really"?
>
>Right on the nosie!
>
>> To think there is an absolute, entirely objective,
>> frame of reference, without an observer or subject,
>> tends to be taken for granted. It's presumptuous.
>
>Granted. But a frame of reference is not necessarily a complete
>representation of reality.
It necessarily can't be.
> What exists is not confined to any
>particular frame of reference.
It is confined by every particular frame of reference.
Without any frame of reference it's a mystery.
There is nothing to be said of it. No perception of it.
To assume it exists without a reference frame
is a funny thing to me.
>> >> To think there is an objective world
>> >> can be a fantastic thought, especially
>> >> to think it exists without a subjective
>> >> involvement involved.
>>
>> >Would thinking that there is no objective world be any less a
>> >fantastic thought? Are there any thoughts which are *not* fantastic?
>>
>> From a Taoist pov, imo, if there is fantastic
>> then there is also not-fantastic. This would apply
>> to thoughts as well as anything else.
>
>If something is "fantastic", that would mean it's the product of
>fantasy, wouldn't it?
I wasn't thinking like that.
To me it meant more akin to awesome.
Great. Wonderful. Most excellent.
But it might be fantasy when seen
through a particular lens. True.
> All hypotheses about the universe arise out of
>the creative imagination, don't they?
I tend to agree.
I'd hesitate to use the "all" word
because there might be an exception.
> What would be "not fantastic"
>would be that which could not be imagined, conceived, or put into
>words. "The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."
Words definitely have limits.
Some are more indefinite than others.
>> Otoh, it might be true that there is
>> no objective world but, rather, that
>> there are a great many subjective worlds
>> which intersect in what we call reality.
>
>Then we could ask in what world do all these different, interacting
>subjective worlds exist. And *that* would be the objective world.
Yes. Totally dependent upon "all" the subjective
viewpoints and experiences of those involved.
No single so-called individual could be removed
without making a difference. Very intertwined.
>> I think a subtle point may have slid off the table.
>> A model in which there is an objective world is fine
>> but to suppose there is one without any subjective
>> perceiver is a supposition.
>
>The existence of a subjective perceiver is irrelevant.
That's an assertion. An assumption.
That's the gambit. The first carving
of what is of a whole cloth, so to speak.
> Whether one
>perceives an event or not has nothing to do with whether an event
>occurs or not.
Presumably.
> It is as much a supposition to say that no event
>occurs unless it is perceived as it is to say that any event may occur
>without being perceived.
True.
But that isn't what I'm saying.
What I was saying is that what are called facts
depend upon perceptions.
> It also seems arrogantly self-centered to
>assert that nothing can exist without your personal participation.
The fact could be said to be, you exist.
To try and take yourself out of the equation
can be an interesting experiment.
Performing those types of experiments,
to assume that we don't exist when we do,
can lead to strange conclusions.
You make the sky blue.
You make the desk solid.
Without eyes and hands
what "really" is said to be
turns out to be something
of a different color or
texture.
To see events in terms of our not being
is to invoke a world-view of sorts.
This world-view has use.
It also has limits.
>> Be that as it may,
>> a physical brain without a mind is probably dead.
>> The brain needs the mind to survive.
>
>A brain can survive without a mind.
It gets by with a little help from its friends
who happen to have minds.
> This is evidenced in cases of
>vegetative comas or absence seizures, but can a mind survive without a
>brain? What kind of evidence do we have for that?
Those who claim to have evidence, to have experienced
psi, discarnate entities, etc., have anecdotes.
Just as in the physics lab, you'd need to be there.
If Jesus suddenly appeared to you inside a locked room,
after freaking out, you could ask him if he has a mind.
Yogananda claimed to have experienced, physically,
his guru long after his guru's body had been cremated.
Such "evidence" is evidently inconclusive for many.
But for those having had the experience it is
more than enough.
>> Without consciousness a brain is sorta comatose.
>> It might last for some time before it expires.
>
>Actually, the part of our brain that is consciously aware is a
>relatively small portion.
>
>From "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain", by neurologist David
>Eagleman.
>
>"The first thing we learn from studying our own circuitry is a simple
>lesson: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our
>conscious control. The vast jungles of neurons operate their own
>programs. The conscious you -- the *I* that flickers to life when you
>wake up in the morning -- is the smallest bit of what's transpiring in
>your brain. Although we are dependent on the functioning of our brain
>for our inner life, it runs its own show. Most of its operations are
>above the security clearance of the conscious mind. The *I* simply
>has no right of entry."
Interesting situation.
All those functions could be called
the unconscious mind. It is almost as if the
environment itself was or has an unconscious mind.
If you don't mind using terminology
in whatever mode is useful, it may or
may not much matter.
- really!
Dennes De Mennes
@netscape.net says...
i should have added that apparently he did get an actual PhD at moscow
institute of philosophy at the russian academy of sciences. for
philosophy and kabbalah, not just kabbalah. so i guess it's a science.
Tom
> >Because we discover. If nothing exists that is unknown, there cannot
> >be discovery.
>
> "What happens" might be partially known.
> Each known part is necessarily perceptual in some fashion.
If what happens is partially known, then some of what happens is
unknown.
> >Facts do not have to be thought to be facts.
>
> Sounds speculative.
If we can deduce that unknown things exist, as we have, then it's not
speculative at all. It's a logical conclusion.
> >Only if it is evident to an observer. To be self-evident requires no
> >observer.
>
> A self, I would think, is an observer.
> A hypothetical self is hypothetical.
> Self-evident includes a self of some sort.
"Self-evident" does not mean "evident to some being that has a self".
If something is described as "self-contained", it means that all that
it requires is already present within its structure. It does not mean
it is being observed by some self-aware being. So a "self-evident"
phenomenon means that all evidence required to determine that
phenomenon's existence is already present within its structure.
Whether or not that evidence is ever examined by some observer is
irrelevant to that.
> >Unless you claim omniscience, you are accepting the existence of that
> >which you do not know. Since the unknown exists, then there are facts
> >you do not know and do not perceive. Are you claiming omniscience?
>
> I am not claiming omniscience.
> My line of reasoning is pointing toward how
> all knowledge is perceptual in various ways.
>
> Your claim, if I understood it, your definition
> was that a fact does not rely on perception.
My definition is that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon. One of its
qualities of a fact in general would be that they don't necessarily
rely on perception. Some facts may indeed rely on perception, such as
illusions, because perception is part of the phenomenon of an
illusion, but some other facts do not.
> And I disagreed. I called that an assumption
> which could be taken axiomatically, as given,
> but I did not agree with it for purposes of
> this discussion.
That which is unknown is that for which we have no knowledge. If you
are not omniscient, then there are things that exist of which you know
nothing. There are facts of which you are not aware. Therefore, by
admitting you are not omniscient, the only logical conclusion you can
reach is that a fact may exist which is not known. Now, clearly, a
statement of fact must be known before it can be made but a statement
about a fact is not the fact itself. If a statement and a fact were
identical, then saying "food" should be actual food and we should be
able to feed ourselves simply by saying the word "food". In which
case, no one in the world would ever starve to death. That is
demonstrably untrue.
Since a fact may exist which is not known, then a fact would not rely
on perception, although a statement of fact (which is not identical to
a fact) would.
> >> Somebody punched me in the face. Fact.
>
> >Nope. It may not be a fact. It's your interpretation of some sort of
> >experience which seems similar to a concept you have of being punched
> >in the face. You experienced something that you describe to yourself
> >as pain in your face that is consistent with the explanation that
> >someone punched you. Might you have vividly imagined it instead?
>
> I might have, but I saw the guy take a swing.
Or you dreamed he did.
> Others saw it too.
Possibly, but you'd have to ask them first. And you'd find that many
details of the event differed from witness to witness.
> Plus the self-evidence of myself bleeding.
A fact is a self-evident phenomenon? ;>
> >Could you perhaps have dreamed of being punched in the face and then
> >awoke to discover that your experience was not a physical punch after
> >all?
>
> I could have. But that wasn't what happened.
> Fact is, or was, I got punched in the face.
> Quite an experience. Lesson learned.
Your statement of fact is that you were punched in the face. You
recall an experience that you interpreted as having been punched in
the face. It may be that you were. It may also be that you are
mistaken. It is plausible that a person could be punched in the face,
so I see no good reason to challenge your claim, however we should
acknowledge that not all claims of having been punched in the face are
necessarily true.
> >I remember a time when I was asleep in my bed and felt a strange
> >lurching sensation and awoke. Nothing in the room seemed to account
> >for the sensation and I wondered if it was just a dream. I walked
> >into the bathroom and saw that a small piece of crystal hanging in a
> >closed window was swinging back and forth quite rapidly, as if it had
> >been pushed. So I formed a conclusion that the house had been shaken.
> >What could explain that? I looked out the windows and could find no
> >object that might have struck the house. I then hypothesized that it
> >might be an earthquake. While listening to a news program on the
> >radio at breakfast, reports of a local earthquake confirmed my
> >hypothesis. First comes the fact, then the experience, and only much
> >later come the plausible explanations.
>
> Good example. Earthquake was a fact you say.
> How did anybody know? Perception. You felt something.
> The fact is not separate from the perception.
But I felt it only after it happened. The stimulus to the nerves took
a little while to reach my brain and awaken me. By the time I became
aware that something happened, the quake was over. So my experience
of the earthquake was a little bit after the fact of the quake. My
understanding that what had occurred was a earthquake was quite a bit
later than my experience of it. The knowledge of the event was not
the fact of the event.
> What are called facts are not separate from all else.
Not separate but not dependent, either. The earthquake happened
whether I was aware of it or not.
> Without perception there are no "facts"
> and exactly what those so-called facts are
> is subject to a world-view.
You are still confusing a statement of fact with the fact itself.
> Other people felt the shaking. That was first.
No, the shaking was first. The perception followed.
> To stop at the earthquake is to stop.
> To say the earthquake came first is to say.
> Why stop there? Why start there?
We don't stop there. The world goes on. It's only our stories that
have beginnings and endings.
> I'd start with your perception, and end there.
This may be why your bliss experiences are only temporary. You may be
regarding them only as stories you tell yourself and stories have
beginnings and endings.
> My point is that picking and choosing and
> agreement on terminology can be useful
> but to think it is written in stone can be
> a stumbling block at times.
Reality is not written. It's only written about. It's not just a
narration, a story we tell. It is this confusion of reality with our
stories that is the source of many of our follies.
> >A fact does not have to be know to be a fact. A statement of fact is
> >an expression of something believed to be a fact, but it is not the
> >fact itself, and that statement could very well be wrong.
>
> The fact itself is assumed.
A fact exists whether we assume it or not. It has nothing to do with
our stories. Our stories have to do with it.
> To think, "we now know" what "really" happens
> is a funny sort of compulsive way of thinking.
To claim that there are no facts unless they are known seems much more
compulsive, in that one asserts that nothing can exist except what is
known. However, that claim contains an implicit claim of omniscience,
which you have already denied.
> People used to know the world was flat
People used to believe that the world was flat. They confused belief
with knowledge. They were wrong.
"Knowledge" is another term that is often used vaguely and which
changes once you start trying to figure out what it means precisely.
> To think apples exist
> in some way shape or form
> without some perception of them
> is a great thought.
Indeed. People used to believe the Earth was the center of the
universe and everything else moved around it in concentric spheres.
People used to believe that the universe was created for human beings
and when human being were no more the universe would collapse into
nothingness. Slowly, over thousands of years, as we have been able to
perceive more and more of what is actually going on, we have been
moving away from these egocentric ideas and having the great thought
that maybe we're not the most important things in the universe after
all. Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of resistance to
this great thought. People like to think they are essential. It
makes them feel safer.
> >That's how we decide what labels to put on the phenomena and therefore
> >what conceptual categories we assign those labels to, but those labels
> >do not create the phenomena.
>
> Phenomena are perceptually dependent.
I'd say it's the other way around. Perception depends on phenomena.
Perception *is* a phenomenon, just one of many.
> Without any labels, without perception,
> without observation, without evidence,
> or self-evidence, the so-called fact is
> something less than a fact. It would be
> more akin to a mystery.
This is yet another confusion of reality with the stories we tell.
When we stop talking, the stories stop, but the world goes on.
However, when we start talking again, the world still doesn't stop.
Mysteries are simply our admission that we lack knowledge. But we
always lack knowledge, even though we tell ourselves that we have it.
And still the world goes on.
> >Is the idea of a fact a fact? Is the idea of an apple an apple? Are
> >our bodies nourished by simply saying "food, food, food"?
>
> Food depends upon a body.
A body depends on food. Why do you always run backwards?
Dennes De Mennes
@c6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, dant...@comcast.net says...
> Not separate but not dependent, either. The earthquake happened
> whether I was aware of it or not.
>
>
>
it takes one person to fuck up all levels below, so with as many fuckups
as there are, yeah you're gonna have earthquakes...
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>> >What actually happens can be entirely unknown. �How do we know this?
>> >Because we discover. �If nothing exists that is unknown, there cannot
>> >be discovery.
>>
>> "What happens" might be partially known.
>> Each known part is necessarily perceptual in some fashion.
>
>If what happens is partially known, then some of what happens is
>unknown.
Yes.
>> >Facts do not have to be thought to be facts.
>>
>> Sounds speculative.
>
>If we can deduce that unknown things exist, as we have, then it's not
>speculative at all. It's a logical conclusion.
Maybe like, Neptune?
>> >Only if it is evident to an observer. �To be self-evident requires no
>> >observer.
>>
>> A self, I would think, is an observer.
>> A hypothetical self is hypothetical.
>> Self-evident includes a self of some sort.
>
>"Self-evident" does not mean "evident to some being that has a self".
>If something is described as "self-contained", it means that all that
>it requires is already present within its structure. It does not mean
>it is being observed by some self-aware being. So a "self-evident"
>phenomenon means that all evidence required to determine that
>phenomenon's existence is already present within its structure.
>Whether or not that evidence is ever examined by some observer is
>irrelevant to that.
Sounds like a presumption to me.
>> >Unless you claim omniscience, you are accepting the existence of that
>> >which you do not know. �Since the unknown exists, then there are facts
>> >you do not know and do not perceive. �Are you claiming omniscience?
>>
>> I am not claiming omniscience.
>> My line of reasoning is pointing toward how
>> all knowledge is perceptual in various ways.
>>
>> Your claim, if I understood it, your definition
>> was that a fact does not rely on perception.
>
>My definition is that a fact is a self-evident phenomenon. One of its
>qualities of a fact in general would be that they don't necessarily
>rely on perception. Some facts may indeed rely on perception, such as
>illusions, because perception is part of the phenomenon of an
>illusion, but some other facts do not.
Seems to me, take Neptune for example,
there needed to be an observation, of, oh,
I don't know exactly, Saturn maybe. And,
even thought Neptune was unknown, it was
evident as a result of the observations that
something was pulling Saturn's orbit off kilter.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean by
a self-evident phenomenon.
>> And I disagreed. I called that an assumption
>> which could be taken axiomatically, as given,
>> but I did not agree with it for purposes of
>> this discussion.
>
>That which is unknown is that for which we have no knowledge.
If something is entirely unknown
and for which we have no knowledge
then to say it is a fact would be strange.
Might be meaningless.
> If you
>are not omniscient, then there are things that exist of which you know
>nothing. There are facts of which you are not aware.
Okay. Sounds possible so far.
It's a presumption at this point, but that's okay.
> Therefore, by
>admitting you are not omniscient, the only logical conclusion you can
>reach is that a fact may exist which is not known.
Sure. God might be a fact
for all some folks know. As an unknown,
in terms of physical science the fact may be
discovered somehow, eventually.
> Now, clearly, a
>statement of fact must be known before it can be made but a statement
>about a fact is not the fact itself. If a statement and a fact were
>identical, then saying "food" should be actual food and we should be
>able to feed ourselves simply by saying the word "food". In which
>case, no one in the world would ever starve to death. That is
>demonstrably untrue.
Food for thought might be something.
I'm not sure about it being a fact tho.
>Since a fact may exist which is not known, then a fact would not rely
>on perception, although a statement of fact (which is not identical to
>a fact) would.
The assertion that a fact might exist,
but it is unknown, is an assertion. A fact
becomes a fact after it is known.
To say a dinosaur bone existed as a fact
prior to its being unearthed is a way of speaking.
It invokes a paradigm. The fact is, the bone -appears-
to have existed prior to its being observed. "Proof"
of its existence is observed by counting atoms
or some other type of method, which also
depends upon observations.
It's compelling to think in terms
which are taken for granted
but cannot themselves be proven.
Other theories exist which offer other
explanations for how things can appear.
In a digital-virtual-computational-informational
type of system appearances are not taken
as having been written in stone in the
fashion as what's in vogue today.
>> >> Somebody punched me in the face. Fact.
>>
>> >Nope. �It may not be a fact. �It's your interpretation of some sort of
>> >experience which seems similar to a concept you have of being punched
>> >in the face. �You experienced something that you describe to yourself
>> >as pain in your face that is consistent with the explanation that
>> >someone punched you. �Might you have vividly imagined it instead?
>>
>> I might have, but I saw the guy take a swing.
>
>Or you dreamed he did.
>
>> Others saw it too.
>
>Possibly, but you'd have to ask them first. And you'd find that many
>details of the event differed from witness to witness.
There was no need to ask,
the guy's daughter was astonished
and said he (her father) split my lip open.
>> Plus the self-evidence of myself bleeding.
>
>A fact is a self-evident phenomenon? ;>
Sure.
It was observed that she was correct.
It didn't happen without me being there.
I was the self it happened to, evidently.
>> >Could you perhaps have dreamed of being punched in the face and then
>> >awoke to discover that your experience was not a physical punch after
>> >all?
>>
>> I could have. But that wasn't what happened.
>> Fact is, or was, I got punched in the face.
>> Quite an experience. Lesson learned.
>
>Your statement of fact is that you were punched in the face. You
>recall an experience that you interpreted as having been punched in
>the face. It may be that you were. It may also be that you are
>mistaken. It is plausible that a person could be punched in the face,
>so I see no good reason to challenge your claim, however we should
>acknowledge that not all claims of having been punched in the face are
>necessarily true.
I agree.
>> >I remember a time when I was asleep in my bed and felt a strange
>> >lurching sensation and awoke. �Nothing in the room seemed to account
>> >for the sensation and I wondered if it was just a dream. �I walked
>> >into the bathroom and saw that a small piece of crystal hanging in a
>> >closed window was swinging back and forth quite rapidly, as if it had
>> >been pushed. So I formed a conclusion that the house had been shaken.
>> >What could explain that? I looked out the windows and could find no
>> >object that might have struck the house. �I then hypothesized that it
>> >might be an earthquake. �While listening to a news program on the
>> >radio at breakfast, reports of a local earthquake confirmed my
>> >hypothesis. �First comes the fact, then the experience, and only much
>> >later come the plausible explanations.
>>
>> Good example. Earthquake was a fact you say.
>> How did anybody know? Perception. You felt something.
>> The fact is not separate from the perception.
>
>But I felt it only after it happened.
Presumably. Maybe.
> The stimulus to the nerves took
>a little while to reach my brain and awaken me. By the time I became
>aware that something happened, the quake was over. So my experience
>of the earthquake was a little bit after the fact of the quake.
Apparently.
> My
>understanding that what had occurred was a earthquake was quite a bit
>later than my experience of it. The knowledge of the event was not
>the fact of the event.
The fact was, you had a feeling.
Other people observed their meters.
A conclusion, an earthquake, was determined
by having perceived any number of things
upon which there was agreement.
>> What are called facts are not separate from all else.
>
>Not separate but not dependent, either. The earthquake happened
>whether I was aware of it or not.
And that can be determined by observation.
>> Without perception there are no "facts"
>> and exactly what those so-called facts are
>> is subject to a world-view.
>
>You are still confusing a statement of fact with the fact itself.
That's entirely possible.
>> Other people felt the shaking. That was first.
>
>No, the shaking was first. The perception followed.
That's a presumption.
To try to separate the perception of shaking
from the shaking being perceived is odd.
But I think you mean something else.
There was a perception of a shake,
and people are convinced there are faults.
It can be determined how far away it was
to the epicenter of the quake.
All of which is based on observation.
>> To stop at the earthquake is to stop.
>> To say the earthquake came first is to say.
>> Why stop there? Why start there?
>
>We don't stop there. The world goes on. It's only our stories that
>have beginnings and endings.
True.
>> I'd start with your perception, and end there.
>
>This may be why your bliss experiences are only temporary. You may be
>regarding them only as stories you tell yourself and stories have
>beginnings and endings.
Could be. That's entirely possible.
My thoughts often influence my feelings.
If I could control all my thoughts and reactions
then perhaps I could be in eternal bliss.
Question arises in my mind however,
how would one know one was in that state
without any contrasts? Wouldn't it become
one's normal state? Taken for granted?
No big deal? Mundane? Another day
in paradise. Ho hum.
Do you live in perpetual bliss?
>> My point is that picking and choosing and
>> agreement on terminology can be useful
>> but to think it is written in stone can be
>> a stumbling block at times.
>
>Reality is not written. It's only written about. It's not just a
>narration, a story we tell. It is this confusion of reality with our
>stories that is the source of many of our follies.
>
>> >A fact does not have to be know to be a fact. �A statement of fact is
>> >an expression of something believed to be a fact, but it is not the
>> >fact itself, and that statement could very well be wrong.
>>
>> The fact itself is assumed.
>
>A fact exists whether we assume it or not. It has nothing to do with
>our stories. Our stories have to do with it.
>
>> To think, "we now know" what "really" happens
>> is a funny sort of compulsive way of thinking.
>
>To claim that there are no facts unless they are known seems much more
>compulsive, in that one asserts that nothing can exist except what is
>known. However, that claim contains an implicit claim of omniscience,
>which you have already denied.
To claim something is a fact
is a result of some perception.
Working backward from perception
a conclusion is reached of the fact being
in existence prior to its being observed.
But this is, in fact, counter-factual.
All sorts of things might exist
without there being any factual claims
made about them, particularly since
a great number of things are unknown.
It may be that I am unable to separate
a so-called fact from a claim made about the fact.
That would explain some of what you're pointing out.
To separate the two
would involve what I call an assumption.
>> People used to know the world was flat
Yes. It was self-evident.
>People used to believe that the world was flat.
Now they believe it's round.
> They confused belief
>with knowledge. They were wrong.
They perceived flatness.
Their knowledge was limited.
What was self-evident to them
became only part of the story.
We perceive roundness.
Our knowledge is relative.
We might think a spherical Earth
is an absolute frame of reference.
In the future, perception may change
and what is then "known" will be different.
>"Knowledge" is another term that is often used vaguely and which
>changes once you start trying to figure out what it means precisely.
True.
Earth is actually a pale blue dot.
This is a known known.
It is entirely self-evident
as seen from Mars.
>> To think apples exist
>> in some way shape or form
>> without some perception of them
>> is a great thought.
>
>Indeed. People used to believe the Earth was the center of the
>universe and everything else moved around it in concentric spheres.
>People used to believe that the universe was created for human beings
>and when human being were no more the universe would collapse into
>nothingness. Slowly, over thousands of years, as we have been able to
>perceive more and more of what is actually going on, we have been
>moving away from these egocentric ideas and having the great thought
>that maybe we're not the most important things in the universe after
>all. Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of resistance to
>this great thought. People like to think they are essential. It
>makes them feel safer.
>
>
>> >That's how we decide what labels to put on the phenomena and therefore
>> >what conceptual categories we assign those labels to, but those labels
>> >do not create the phenomena.
>>
>> Phenomena are perceptually dependent.
>
>I'd say it's the other way around. Perception depends on phenomena.
They kinda go hand in hand,
like front and back or left and right.
>Perception *is* a phenomenon, just one of many.
I agree with that.
Perception of perception might be
how unconsciousness becomes conscious.
The unconscious is far superior to consciousness
as you aptly demonstrated in your quote.
How the unconscious is able to fold proteins
such that life crawls out of stardust is amazing.
>> Without any labels, without perception,
>> without observation, without evidence,
>> or self-evidence, the so-called fact is
>> something less than a fact. It would be
>> more akin to a mystery.
>
>This is yet another confusion of reality with the stories we tell.
>When we stop talking, the stories stop, but the world goes on.
>However, when we start talking again, the world still doesn't stop.
>
>Mysteries are simply our admission that we lack knowledge. But we
>always lack knowledge, even though we tell ourselves that we have it.
>And still the world goes on.
>
>> >Is the idea of a fact a fact? �Is the idea of an apple an apple? �Are
>> >our bodies nourished by simply saying "food, food, food"?
>>
>> Food depends upon a body.
>
>A body depends on food. Why do you always run backwards?
Without bodies,
the term, food, ceases to have meaning.
A body depends on food, that is true.
But that wasn't what I was pointing at.
Hitching the cart in various positions
can end one up being in a ditch.
Kaballah might be a white horse,
from a Taoist perspective of sorts.
Absorbed
> "Self-evident" does not mean "evident to some being that has a self".
Exquisite logic, Tom-Christ!
Absorbed
> Without perception there are no "facts"
> and exactly what those so-called facts are
> is subject to a world-view.
There are two different views here to consider. There is our subjective
universe and the objective universe.
We are trapped within our own subjective universe. We cannot step out of
it. We might believe that an objective universe exists and that it will
continue to exist after we die, but we don't know for certain.
From the POV of your own subjective universe, when you die everything
ends. From the POV of the objective universe, when you die the universe
still continues on.
It is true that without perception there is nobody to apply labels to
the universe, to say something is a fact. But that doesn't mean that
what we call facts now will cease to be facts if we are no longer there
to apply that label.
Absorbed
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:17:57 -0700 (PDT), Tom wrote:
>
>> "Self-evident" does not mean "evident to some being that has a self".
>
> Exquisite logic, Tom-Christ!
That's not logic, but definition.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> Without perception there are no "facts"
>> and exactly what those so-called facts are
>> is subject to a world-view.
>
>There are two different views here to consider. There is our subjective
>universe and the objective universe.
Views being the operative term.
Conveniently swept aside, as if
they were not to begin with.
>We are trapped within our own subjective universe. We cannot step out of
>it. We might believe that an objective universe exists and that it will
>continue to exist after we die, but we don't know for certain.
I agree.
It is compelling to assume it does
and that there is an absolute frame of reference
in which it does. That's what I'd call a myth.
> From the POV of your own subjective universe,
>when you die everything ends.
Presumably.
It may or it may not.
Could be an unknown fact.
If it turns out that awareness persists
then things change. Things end, true,
as change kinda tends to do that.
But everything might not end.
You might ascend in ways.
> From the POV of the objective universe, when you die the universe
>still continues on.
From the POV of those (subjective folk) who remain
in the so-called objective universe, life goes on.
To say the objective universe has a POV
reminds me of saying something about the unconscious.
From the POV of the unconscious, which includes
everything in the universe, what was called you,
prior to your demise, still exists.
You have changed form, morphed, metamorphed.
To think you are your DNA, such that you existed
at the time of a conception, and that your DNA,
once it no longer replicates, spells the end of you,
that thought is a modern fashion. Cool fabric.
A mighty fine fabrication.
From another POV,
you are not other than your unconscious,
not other than -the- unconscious, except that a
small portion of what does not appear to be conscious
reflects upon itself after having become conscious
as it sees thru the vortex of your eyes.
Awakening can happen on many levels.
With our limited sensations and knowing as "normal" people,
we might assume that the universe doesn't know
what it's doing. That the unconscious processes
by which our consciousness functions
is just a stupid process.
Such an assumption is strange
when seen through various lights
and POVs of how incredible things are.
The facts of protein synthesis, the speed
at which sunlight is turned into carbohydrates,
the complexity kneaded between environments
and organisms as a singularity is, bascially,
practically, unfathomable, to name
just a portion of what you are in
another frame of reference.
>It is true that without perception there is nobody to apply labels to
>the universe, to say something is a fact. But that doesn't mean that
>what we call facts now will cease to be facts if we are no longer there
>to apply that label.
That's what I'd call a presumption.
Whatever there may be, say, on Mars
cannot be determined to be factual
unless and until it is observed as such.
These supposed unknown pseudo-facts,
to borrow a term, might be considered "real"
in some strange "scientific" fashion or ideal world.
What is taken to be real
really depends upon who takes what,
not to mention how.
- really!
Absorbed
Sorrow, Tom-Christ, I should allow only you to correct me!
Absorbed
> Absorbed wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>> Without perception there are no "facts" and exactly what those
>>> so-called facts are is subject to a world-view.
>>
>> There are two different views here to consider. There is our
>> subjective universe and the objective universe.
>
> Views being the operative term. Conveniently swept aside, as if they
> were not to begin with.
The subjective universe is a reality we all live with. The objective
universe is a presumption we make, but nevertheless a presumption that
is essential for day-to-day living. Even the people who deny its
existence will go to a toilet to take a piss.
>> We are trapped within our own subjective universe. We cannot step
>> out of it. We might believe that an objective universe exists and
>> that it will continue to exist after we die, but we don't know for
>> certain.
>
> I agree. It is compelling to assume it does and that there is an
> absolute frame of reference in which it does. That's what I'd call a
> myth.
>
>> From the POV of your own subjective universe, when you die
>> everything ends.
>
> Presumably. It may or it may not. Could be an unknown fact.
>
> If it turns out that awareness persists then things change. Things
> end, true, as change kinda tends to do that. But everything might
> not end. You might ascend in ways.
>
>> From the POV of the objective universe, when you die the universe
>> still continues on.
>
> From the POV of those (subjective folk) who remain in the so-called
> objective universe, life goes on.
Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
> To say the objective universe has a POV reminds me of saying
> something about the unconscious.
The POV of the objective universe is an imaginary idea. That doesn't
stop it from being useful, even if nobody can actually perceive from it.
It is with this objective POV that people have the capacity both to make
the lofty scientific breakthroughs that allow this exchange to happen
and to take the mundane day-to-day actions necessary to travel to the
supermarket, buy food, and satiate their hunger.
{:-])))
I'd call that an assertion.
We might actually be omniscient
but clouds have obscured this fact.
Our intuition may be in touch with everything
but our objectivity objects as it turns everything
into objects, as if they were separate and distinct
things in themselves.
From the POV of omniscience
there is little point in playing games,
playing roles in plays, in drama, in tragedy,
in comedy. There could be no surprise,
no happy endings ever after.
From the POV of the Omni,
in order to establish order
there must be disorder. From there
little bits of hell break loose. Akin to attempts
at picking up mercury with one's fingers,
cloud-people grope after truth.
All along, if the mercury were to be
scooped up, it could be held in an open palm.
Just like that. As a matter of fact.
Or, it could be called speculation.
Or poetry. Fantasy. Etcetera.
Some may opt for science
as a term for a spell.
>> To say the objective universe has a POV reminds me of saying
>> something about the unconscious.
>
>The POV of the objective universe is an imaginary idea. That doesn't
>stop it from being useful, even if nobody can actually perceive from it.
>
>It is with this objective POV that people have the capacity both to make
>the lofty scientific breakthroughs that allow this exchange to happen
>and to take the mundane day-to-day actions necessary to travel to the
>supermarket, buy food, and satiate their hunger.
I agree completely.
Absorbed
From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
universe that is presented by my senses.
While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
contents of the fridge like a God? I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
Tom
>
> >Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
> >trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
>
> I'd call that an assertion.
>
> We might actually be omniscient
> but clouds have obscured this fact.
I'd call that asinine. If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
not omniscient.
{:-])))
I don't know if you do
but you might.
> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
Presumably, sure.
There are plenty of anecdotes
suggesting such clear visions are possible,
e.g., a mother knows her son has died
in a far away land.
Keeping in mind
how the unconscious is way smarter
and more knowing in terms of a great deal
of operating principles than our conscious is
normally, the paranormal might be only natural.
For reasons at present
beyond our normal conscious knowing
most of us most of the time have little or no
access to entire batches of possibility and reality.
Why there are breakthroughs of
what could be called meta-consciousness
into everyday consciousness can be of interest.
Intuition, telepathy, etc., has been known
by many people, beyond any doubt, to occur.
Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
To be skeptical might also be to keep an open mind
and by such a means experience such phenomena
outside the current physical science domain.
Not knowing
has been said to be a way.
Letting go, relaxing the focus,
what is far off may eventually be evident
as the powers of magnification shift.
- perhaps
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>> >Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
>> >trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
>>
>> I'd call that an assertion.
>>
>> We might actually be omniscient
>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>
>I'd call that asinine.
A good a word as any.
> If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
>not omniscient.
There is some truth in that.
I could rephrase, if you'd like.
It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
I gotta go for now.
Nice conversinging with y'all.
Maybe be back in the future,
as if there is such a thing.
- peace
Dennes De Mennes
turtlec...@apolka.net says...
there's no peace when trolls abound...
Absorbed
> Absorbed wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>>> We might actually be omniscient
>>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>
>> From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
>> an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
>> universe that is presented by my senses.
>>
>> While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
>> the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
>> saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
>> contents of the fridge like a God?
>
> I don't know if you do
> but you might.
It seems you believe that at least some people have this ability, and
I'd guess that that would include yourself.
>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>
> Presumably, sure.
>
> There are plenty of anecdotes
> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
> e.g., a mother knows her son has died
> in a far away land.
Maybe many mothers thought their sons were safe when they were actually
dead, but those anecdotes aren't as notable. As Francis Bacon said, "The
root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not
when it misses."
To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
> Intuition, telepathy, etc., has been known
> by many people, beyond any doubt, to occur.
I could equally say that about lots of things: UFOs have been known by
many people, beyond any doubt, to exist. Just because some people are
convinced that what they believe is true doesn't actually make it true.
> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
determine their validity. It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
> Not knowing
> has been said to be a way.
It's certainly a way to protect your treasured beliefs from questioning.
You could just hint that what you believe might be true, and then leave
it at that.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
>
> >> >Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
> >> >trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
>
> >> I'd call that an assertion.
>
> >> We might actually be omniscient
> >> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>
> >I'd call that asinine.
>
> A good a word as any.
>
> > If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
> >not omniscient.
>
> There is some truth in that.
Which is why saying that you "might actually be omniscient" is
asinine.
> It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
> I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
> We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
Again, that's asinine. You might as well claim you can "potentially"
count to infinity.
Tom
When trolla abound, trolls are around, when they are round, they are
like the Earth,
Absorbed
Whoa, I'm writing that one down, Tom-Christ!
Bassos
> Op 1-9-2011 15:01, {:-]))) schreef:
>> Bassos wrote:
>>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>>> Bassos wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You said, she starts collecting evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her and his linguistic meaning is sought
>>>>>> based upon experimentation
>>>>>> which can be verified independently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof is in the pudding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in the pudding ?
>>>>
>>>> She's wearing it on her finger.
>>>
>>> Ah, giving up the argument,
>>
>> Not at all. There is no argument.
>
> Not contending is fine, but then at least pretend to.
>
>> The pudding is on her finger.
>
> Stick IT right in.
>
>> It's a ring that rings true.
>
> Marriage is like quicksand ?
>
>> To her, at any rate.
>> And to him.
>
> Ni fucking poetry.
>
>> Forgive me if I am unable to communicate
>> in a fashion with which you are famaliar.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> I am uncertain as to what you are trying to say.
>
> Then ask questions instead of speculations.
>
>> The fault of that is within me. No problem.
>
> Too easy withdrawal.
>
>> If you are equally uncertain of what I am saying
>> or are convinced that you know but that I am wrong
>> then that's perfectly fine with me.
>
> Confibulations are no way for a King to express.
>
>> I have no interest, vested or unvested,
>> in being right in a conversation or discussion.
>
> You just float along.
>
>> The sharing of words is, for me, more akin to
>> ching-tan if that means anything to you.
>
> Do confibulate.
>
>> Words, for me, are often stepping stones.
>
> Or are the stones you stepped ion the words ?
>
>> If you want to stone me, that's like, far out man!
>
> Hail to the saint MJ, baby.
>
>> Some folks trip over them. They, both words
>> and people, at times, trip me out
>> as they transport me within
>> not to mention beyond.
>
> Beyond what ?
>
> The circular ?
>
>>>>> The belief that proof is in a pudding is silly.
>>>>> (and incorrect)
>>>>
>>>> It was a metaphor.
>>>
>>> Yes, but a stupid rendering of that metaphor, as in ;
>>> if you use a metaphor, use an appropriate one, sid/ren.
>>
>> If you know what it is I am attempting to say
>> then feel free to use your own metaphor.
>
> Ok.
> I will use a reference by proxy;
>
> Many complain that [posts to alt.magick] are always merely parables and
> of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have.
>
> When the sage says: "Go over,"
>
> He does not mean that we should cross over to some actual place, which
> we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it;
> He means some fabulous yonder, something [beyond the virtual], something
> too that he cannot designate more precisely [in ASCII], and therefore
> cannot help us here in the very least.
>
> All these parables really set out to say merely that the
> incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already.
>
> But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different
> matter.
>
> Concerning this a man once said:
>
> Why such reluctance?
>
> If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become [virtual]
> and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.
>
> Another said: I bet that is also a parable.
>
> The first said: You have won.
>
> The second said: But unfortunately only on alt.magick.
>
> The first said: No, IRL: on alt.magick you have lost.
PS:
I hope you see why the loss in alt.magick had to do with not following
the parable, but going meta, which was why the win irl.
Then again, you can also win in real life and keep playing.
(kinda a repetition of the same message)
Bassos
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Absorbed wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>>> We might actually be omniscient
>>>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>>
>>> From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
>>> an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
>>> universe that is presented by my senses.
>>>
>>> While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
>>> the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
>>> saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
>>> contents of the fridge like a God?
>>
>> I don't know if you do
>> but you might.
>
>It seems you believe that at least some people have this ability,
I like to believe in possibilities.
> and I'd guess that that would include yourself.
My personal experience with remote viewing
has amounted to nothing. None. Thus, while I,
being an open minded skeptic, can't say the ability
is potentially one of mine, neither can I discount it.
Empiricism can take a body only so far.
>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>
>> Presumably, sure.
>>
>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>
>There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
Personal experience might be a way.
>> e.g., a mother knows her son has died
>> in a far away land.
>
>Maybe many mothers thought their sons were safe when they were actually
>dead, but those anecdotes aren't as notable. As Francis Bacon said, "The
>root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not
>when it misses."
False positive abound. Definitely.
Closed minded skeptics will use this approach
in an attempt to disprove what doesn't fit
their own particular paradigms.
>To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
To have had an experience beyond all doubt
does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
There is a report of a controlled experiment
wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
from a position in which it could not be read
except from an OOBE.
Nobody else in the experiment could do it
even though others were experienced in the practice.
And the one who did manage to read it struggled
over a period of several trials prior to success.
Once a four minute mile has been run
it might only take time before others can do it,
if that makes any sense to you.
Belief can be an interesting thing.
Experience is another.
>> Intuition, telepathy, etc., has been known
>> by many people, beyond any doubt, to occur.
>
>I could equally say that about lots of things: UFOs have been known by
>many people, beyond any doubt, to exist. Just because some people are
>convinced that what they believe is true doesn't actually make it true.
Likewise the other way round.
Each and every experience is once in a lifetime.
Repeating something to some degree is possible
at times. Repeating it exactly is a matter of degree.
>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>
>To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>determine their validity.
If that is your definition.
I always thought that to be skeptical
simply meant to entertain an open mind.
But I guess that would be called
open-minded skepticism.
To have doubt
does not entail having no doubt
that something is possible or impossible.
> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
While I have not experienced
many things, e.g. remote viewing,
I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
To convince you I have is beyond my ability.
If you open your mind, perhaps it would be
possible for you to experience things.
Could be a prerequisite.
Call it a hunch.
>> Not knowing
>> has been said to be a way.
>
>It's certainly a way to protect your treasured beliefs from questioning.
>You could just hint that what you believe might be true, and then leave
>it at that.
I believe I have experienced
an ability to move a piece of wood
which was balanced in a fire. A thought
occurred to me, as if out of nowhere,
that I could do such a thing. I moved it up
and down. It was as natural and easy as
moving my own arm or hand or finger.
Nothing to it really.
It was very strange.
That was all there was to it.
So I shrugged my shoulders
and went to bed.
- go figure
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
>> >> >trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
>>
>> >> I'd call that an assertion.
>>
>> >> We might actually be omniscient
>> >> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>
>> >I'd call that asinine.
>>
>> A good a word as any.
>>
>> > If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
>> >not omniscient.
>>
>> There is some truth in that.
>
>Which is why saying that you "might actually be omniscient" is
>asinine.
is obscured, occulted, by a cloud, to think
it does not continue to shine is a funny thought.
>> It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
>> I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
>> We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
>
>Again, that's asinine. You might as well claim you can "potentially"
>count to infinity.
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion,
that there is a library, a record of sorts,
in which all of what has ever happened,
every single dinosaur bone, all of reality,
is buried in the books, so to speak.
Suppose you could access that library,
a sort of Universe Wide Web. Suppose you
were hooked up to it, such that in an instant
you could know anything you chose.
I'd call that a form of omniscience.
It's beginning to unfold.
But wait!
There's more!
- operators are standing