Ongoing conversation with Edmond Wollmann Pt 1
Edwollmann
From: edwol...@aol.com (Edwollmann)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Date: 25 Jan 1998 19:03:34 GMT
Lines: 505
Message-ID: <19980125190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <6adt5n$msm$1...@brokaw.wa.com>
>From: "Darrell Plank" <darr...@suckerpunch.com>
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>> >> >>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>> >> >>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the
>group
>>> >> >>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the
>internet
>>> >> >>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>> >> >>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of
>the
>>> >> >>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>> >> >>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept
>alone
>>> >> >>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>>
>>> >This was primarily an argument for the wholeness of the universe-which
>>> >to me is self evident.
>>> I guess I haven't quite figured out the definition of "wholeness" here.
>>Unbroken wholeness-all one thing-manifesting in all the ways it can
>>within that wholeness. Where's the confusion?
>The confusion lies in the definition of whole/wholeness. Are all individual
>things a "whole" or just the universe?
"All That Is" is all that is-it is all one thing manifesting in all the ways it
can.
> Does my left shoe, the planet
>neptune and a single hydrogen atom near alpha centauri represent a whole?
Do they NOT represent PARTS of a whole?
>Is whole just a synonym for existence? Is an apple a whole? Is a unicorn a
>whole? Is a half an apple a whole? Is pi a whole? Is everything in the
>universe except my left shoe a whole?
>>> Does this mean that the universe can be thought of as one entity?
>>Not only can it be "thought of" as that it is that.
>
>That seems to discount the mental definition of "whole" above.
How?:-)
>>> In that
>>> case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards the
>>> validation of astrology seems non-evident.
>>The ocean being all one thing then has no effect on or relevence to the
>>fish it spawns? Even the astronomer is aware of the fact that we are
>>from "star stuff"-basic elements etc. No big giant difference from life
>>here as opposed to light years away in my opinion. Simply differeing
>>locals and there is most likely a billion earthlike planets with evolved
>>life on them-simple stats.
>Since I don't yet understand your definition of "one thing"/"whole"
Lets ask Webster; 1. not broken or injured; 2 Entire complete. the complete
thing-the total, an organic unity.
Now what part of whole thing don't you understand? You are trying rather
disingenuously to twist EFFECTs of one thing upon another, as an argument for
or against wholeness-wholeness is wholeness period. Whether the configuration
of any SYSTEM has equal interaction is another question. Coefficient correlates
are how we measure that in science-how we measure the CONNECTEDNESS or linear
relationship between two variables. The strength and direction-amount to the
Strength of the premise of an inductive argument. When we say there is a .5
correlation that means that only .5 of it can be explained by the
relationship-there is another .5 WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. This doesn't PROVE it
is NOT connected. Correlation does NOT mean causation-but it does reflect
CONNECTION. Any true scientist knows this.
>I'm certainly willing to admit that we are made from the same basic elements
>as the stars.
Then you agree that "All That Is" is all one thing manifesting in all the
different ways it can-unless of course you will now contradict your self.
>>> Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought of
>that
>>> way or not?
>>Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level or we could
>>not concieve it that way to begin with.
>The primary question is whether it's true only on a mental level or on a
>physical level.
Why? They are STILL the effect of the "star stuff" manifesting in different
ways.
>I can imagine unicorns. Are they real? No - only the idea
>of them is real.
The question is are they physical? No. Is the physical the only "real"? No.
Therefore they are real-just not physical.
>>"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
>>thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
>>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
>>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
>>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
>>Einstein
>>"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
>These are deep philosophical statements that I don't accept just on
>Paremenides or Einstein's say so.
I am not asking you to, I am referring to those who believe as I do-as you have
said you are free to believe whatever you wish.
> Locke and Socrates would have stated the
>opposite.
Which would be just two more ways the "All That Is" could have of expressing
itself within the creation that it is. WE are all those different ways, and all
the ways it has are infinite.
> In general, it's not difficult to find quotes on either side of a
>philosophical issue like this - we have to rely on our own thoughts/beliefs
>to guide us, however imperfectly, to some sort of conclusion.
>Actually, I think you'd be hard put to argue that Mickey Mouse is "on this
>planet":-).
Where else is he?
>This view is called idealism. Some philosophers/scientists have this view,
>others
>have the opposite. Like I said, there are plenty of quotations to back up
>either
>side when speaking on philosophical matters such as this.
Then you do what I always say-you choose preference and act on that just like
the rest of us.
> I only look at
>the facts
>and try to formulate my own beliefs on such matters.
Contradiction-if there are plenty of views on both sides which shall we deem
are the "facts"? And who shall decide on them-you?
>>> Does it mean that all things affect all other things?
>>
>>The observer affects the perception of all things to be sure.
>Quantum physics states this only at the subatomic level. Everything else is
>a philosophical stance that has plenty of proponents on both sides.
Psychology calls it projection, reaction formation, defense etc. Do you deny
the whole of psychology? If it occurs at the subatomic level, why would it not
derivate to other levels? Where do you think your body and brain to percieve
that comes from? A non-subatomic level?
>>But what about space/time being a 4 dimensional continuum? In this view
>>there is no cause or effect really, simply all one thing- a tensor field
>>of some sort all "happening" at once. Time and space are illusions of
>>focus, when that focus is distorted (as in the hypothesised b event
>>horizon of a black hole) so is the "cause/effect" scenario.
>The 4 dimensional continuum doesn't have much to say about cause and effect
>(except that certain events outside of each other's cone of light can't have
>an effect on each other). The fact that space is best viewed this way for
>measurement purposes doesn't imply that you can freely move in all four
>directions. It just says that the norm for distance, for relativistic
>purposes, is best measured by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2). Note the minus.
>Time is a very special dimension, even in relativity. It's not "just like"
>space and attempts to characterize it as such are mistaken.
So you are saying E=MC^2 is NOT a space/time formula? And that they have no
relevence to each other?
>>> You may disagree with science,
>>I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCIENCE. I do experiments at school-I understand
>>the validity of the scientific method, I study and practice it- I
>>understand the need to separate percieved illusion from material world
>>mechanics, I just do not elevate science above psychic material which is
>>just as valid however unmeasurable it may be.
>That's fine. I didn't claim you did disagree. Just said you may if you
>like.
My how big of you!:-)
>>No one can prove anything to begin with. NOTHING is ever proven. The
>>null hypothesis is disproven or changes in the null hypothesis are
>>weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
>>whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
>>null hypothesis. We can only measure the truth premise of inductive
>>logical assertions through confidence intervals and tests of
>>significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
>>Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
>>some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
>>it is not flat (in relative terms).
>>People can only prove things to their satisfaction and choose to believe
>>or not believe based on how the subject serves them. Therefore all is a
>>matter of belief in the end.
>Couldn't agree more. My point was that if you were arguing the "wholeness"
>concept
>as implying that "everything affects everything else"
Snip! We already know and have discussed correlation coefficients OK? Lets
agree that everything does not affect everything equally at least in PHYSICAL
terms-which I never said but you seem to be dragging a long forever here.
>Without
>more to back
>this up, it is, as you state, all a matter of belief in the end.
Everything is a matter of belief REGARDLESS of "facts".
>>All one thing in the end, is not necessarily the same as "all is
>>affected or reflected equally by all other things in the end".
>I would definitely agree here. So why is it put forth as an argument for
>the probable validity of the assumption that our lives are affected in any
>significant way by the stars?
Because if something is all one system it is impossible that components within
the system have NO relevence to each other. "Parts" within a SYSTEM as I have
said several times now, are SPAWNED by the system within which they arise.
>So "contains" means "affected by"? And not all things are affected by all
>other things? It sounds like the statement "It's all one thing in the end"
>is
>boiling down to something like "Some things affect other things". Am I
>wrong?
Yes, you are-all things are connected-all things are not necessarily INTIMATELY
connected-this is WHY statistics work-because we are measuring that DEGREE of
connectivity.
>Even my mental conception of the physical world works this way. Even if the
>universe is solely an idea within my head, that's the way that idea works so
>how
>can it be unsound to make assumptions like this regardless of whether
>there is a "real world" out there or whether it's all an idea within my
>mind?
You cannot change your mind? Is that what you are saying?
>>> Again, this seems to imply the "contains" relation which is still a
>little
>>> fuzzy in my mind and which I have a difficult time relating to astrology.
>>See my "spawning" definition. Does not the solar system have a direct
>>relationship to life spawned on Earth? Therefore it is not that big of a
>>stretch to see that if you removed Mars from the solar system the whole
>>configuration would change and life may not exist AT ALL on earth-which
>>would definitely determine the fate of the lice. The fact that this
>>specific solar system configuration spawned life on earth, it is not a
>>big leap to recognize that that life would be "imprinted" with
>>archetypal images of the "format" that was responsible for the
>>'spawning".
>If you're arguing that it's not that big a leap from the realization that
>removing
>Mars from the universe entirely
I did not say Universe, I said solar system.
> would have drastic effects on the universe
>as
>a whole to believing that the position of Mars at my birth affects my choice
>of
>occupation, I would just have to disagree. I find this a huge leap.
So would I, I have never said that Mars affects anyones choice of anything. It
reflects if anything. In the same way a mirror reflects your appearance but has
no effect over your choices in appearing any certain way you should choose.
> You
>are welcome
>to make that leap but its certainly not illogical in my mind to look at the
>same evidence
>and reach a different conclusion.
Of course-its called preference-you choose to believe that the universe is
disconnected from you and I don't.
>>Then you disagree with logic and Venn diagrams?
>Logic and Venn diagrams deal with the mathematical set definition of
>containment.
>You have proposed a new definition of "containment" which means something
>more
>like "affected by".
You seem to be confused and hanging up on this-.9 correlation means about 90%
of A is in relationship with B's-correlation IS NOT CAUSATION.
>I'm not sure what "disagreeing" with logic and Venn diagrams would mean, but
One "circle" contains another to a certain DEGREE.
>Your argument seems to be as follows:
>"The universe is one thing"
True.
>"Some things affect other things within a whole"
False. All things are connected-AFFECT is a matter of perception, degree,
correlation, circumstance, containment of system....etc. etc. In my view effect
is an illusion, only real while you are in certain places or states. It is all
there "happening" at once and nothing is "really" going anywhere.
>therefore
>"It's likely that the positions of the stars affect our lives in intimate
>ways"
Slippery slope.
>If, instead of the containment statement that "Some things affect other
>things within a whole"
>you had stated that "All things affect all other things within a whole" then
>I could see some slight
>correlation between the hypotheses and the conclusion.
Sigh. I am going to have to let go of this thread, it is too long and I have
much work.
>I would hate to be lacking in "psychological awareness" but I think that
>some
>would describe this trait as unquestioning faith, which I don't mind lacking
>at all.
You need to study some psychology is the point. First you say there are
arguments on both sides so it is irrelevent to quote-and then assert one is
"right" and one "wrong"-contradiction-if it boils down to preference why is
your preference "correct" and others belief "unquestioning faith"? Because they
don't believe the same "evidence" as you?
>Seriously, if you are claiming that not accepting astrology represents some
>sort
>of "lack" on my part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You are free to believe as you wish-as you have said. I could really care less
whether you "believe" in astrology or not-it affects me not. You are asking me
questions as to why *I* believe the way I do-not me asking you-you can be as
miserable or limited as you choose-I will not try to change you.
>>No more and no less than that science is somehow THE truth.
>I'm not sure what "THE truth" is, as distinguished from "the truth".
There is no ONE TRUTH if there were there would only be one view-one person-you
yourself have stated we could amass quotes on both sides to support whatever.
Therefore as I have ALWAYS STATED it is a matter of preference-not "TRUTH".
Physicality does not = TRUTH-it is ONE WAY the Multiverse expresses itself in
my view-and my dreaming every night is sufficient evidence to me as "proof" of
that assertion.
>"the truth" I believe science has done a pretty good job of getting at it
And what is that "truth"?
>The question is why did you decide to investigate astrology and not the time
>machine?
Because I want to understand my psyche as I believe THIS is what creates my
reality and experiences here on Earth-not "machines" Machines are created by
the psyche- I believe when I fully understand IT I will be able to travel
through time AND space without a machine.
>I'm in the same boat wrt astrology. Maybe it works. Currently it seems
>unlikely to me
What scientific investigation have you done to come to that conclusion? Orany
investigation? What part do you disagree with? Dispositor dynamics?
>I'm interested in purpose of living, etc.. I'm just not convinced that a
>detailed study of astrology
>would give that to me.
Then that is the reality you will get. Because it is believing is seeing, not
seeing is believing.
>>I know it, not feel it. So do those who have sought me for assistance
>>with it-therefore because of this service, I believe I can be of
>>assistance in a positive way to improve the lives of those who find
>>increased awareness as a direct result of astrological knowledge or
>>foresight. Since it is what it inspires me to do and I do it from not
>>the need to prove or make money but to be of assistance and as an
>>inspiration from bliss-I know it cannot be "wrong" to continue doing so.
>Meaning no disrespect for you, a lot of people claim to "know" a lot of
>contradictory
>things. Some of them are right, most of them are wrong.
Define wrong? I thought I was free to believe whatever, now I am subject to
being "wrong" if persons interacting with me and the use of astrology find
their life quality and understanding of self enhanced?
>In fact, I agree
>with Plato that
>the wisest man is the man who realizes that he doesn't know anything. As
>you yourself
>stated, everything is just belief.
Then choose what you believe to be true for you and act on it. As I do. Don't
contradict yourself with "right and wrongs". See my integrity post-there is no
right and wrong, these are subjective value judgments and tell us little of the
type of energy be utilized in any endeavor.
> If I stated that I knew something (which I don't believe
>I have yet), I don't expect you to automatically accept it. I'll have to
>ask the same from you.
I know astrology works. I cannot prove it does to you-as I have stated people
can only prove things to themselves not others whether it comes from science or
anything else.
>I'm afraid that at present, I don't feel sufficiently secure in my
>understanding of your terms
>to agree to your argument yet. As to "environmental beliefs", etc., I'm
>interested but
>they don't affect the argument which I keep trying to put the focus on.
You are not astrologically qualified to direct what the focus "should be" on
with reference to it-I am telling you what it is we (at least I) do. Early
environment (attachments schemas etc.) is tremendously important in
understanding ones view-this HAS been clinically demonstrated, and is a
critical part of understading astrology/psycholigical applications in the way I
use them.
> I believe that the questions that can't be answered by science
>can't be answered,
Then you believe that the physical is the only and real world-and I do not.
Perhaps you can explain why you need to sleep every night? It has already been
shown in experiments that there is not really a "resting" going on when one
sleeps, but that it is a very energetic state-why then do we feel rested? From
not moving too much or from ACCESSING and balancing ourselves WITH another
level that is NOT physical?
On science;
>But, as I say, I believe it's the way with the most spectacular record of
>successes to date.
Spectacular in what way?
>>of course thats the "real" or only world-I would never be so arrogant as
>>to make such a silly assumption-nor would many great minds that have
>>served on this planet.
>As I've pointed out above, many great minds have had precisely this "silly
>assumption". The
>assumption that there's more than the physical world is nothing but another
>assumption.
Then explain in logical terms why it is "better" to be alive than dead?
> Neither
>assumption is silly in my view. Noone can know either to be true.
You can know if you wish. I have faith that you can no matter how miserable and
cynical you insist on being.
The rest was cut off by AOL, no matter, as I have said it always boils down to
preference.
If indeed I only have one life to live and there is no "other world" or
spiritual purpose, then it boils down to preference on how one lives this one
physically purposeless life before they die and totally disappear from
consciousness (not possible in my view). In that sense it makes no difference
anyway and this is how I prefer to live mine-your discounting it as an illusion
or not.
If there is another world and spiritual purpose as I assert, you are in greater
danger than I of wasting your existence in cynicism instead of spiritual
growth-if not you will die and dissapear toitally from consciousness and
existence as well-and nothing either of us thought or "wished" will matter
anyway.
If my posts serve you use them, if they don't don't.
Meanwhile, many persons of high credentials and low will find solace and
understanding through the service and view I offer-in that sense I say again. I
cannot be 'wrong" which is simply a subjective value judgment by those who are
fearful and unaware, as long as I am in integrity and seek to break up
pointlessness and offer purpose and support-a thing it appears to me is more
"in line with" what I observe as the "All That Is" "Universe" "Multiverse"
"Alla" whatever you wish to term it, in action as opposed to "detraction and
denial" which I see as purely a physical phenomenon as the effect of focusing
on a "part" of it, as opposed to the "whole" of it.
--
"It is a miserable state of mind to have few things to desire, and many things
to fear." Francis Bacon, Essays "Of Empire"
"Cold hearted orb, that rules the night. Removes the colors from our sight. Red
is grey and yellow white. But WE decide which is right-which is an illusion."
The Moody Blues "Nights In White Satin"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Astrological Consulting
Altair Publications
Darrell Plank
I don't know. As soon as I understand the definition of whole I'll tell
you.
Part of your definition was "unbroken wholeness". That's circular and
doesn't
do much good.
You claim that a "whole" is defined as "all one thing". This might be
better. but then the universe is
not a whole. I'm made of flesh which is something entirely different that
what the
moon is made of. Or maybe it is. After all, we're all made of subatomic
particles.
But wait! Different subatomic particles - not the same thing - not a whole.
And what
about the vacuum between those subatomic particles - nothing at all. Not a
whole.
"Manifesting in all the ways it can within that wholeness" - circular again
- not much
help.
But on the other hand, I can talk about a whole apple. Is this a different
type of
"whole"? But it's made of different things - the skin, the seeds, etc..
What's right,
what's wrong? I have no idea. As I asked last time, what about a pair of
apples?
Is that pair a whole? Half an apple? The set of all ideas? The color
red?
<snip>
> >That seems to discount the mental definition of "whole" above.
>
> How?:-)
Because you claim that apart from our mental thoughts on it, it remains a
"whole" regardless.
>
> >>> In that
> >>> case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards
the
> >>> validation of astrology seems non-evident.
>
> >>The ocean being all one thing then has no effect on or relevence to the
> >>fish it spawns? Even the astronomer is aware of the fact that we are
> >>from "star stuff"-basic elements etc. No big giant difference from life
> >>here as opposed to light years away in my opinion. Simply differeing
> >>locals and there is most likely a billion earthlike planets with
evolved
> >>life on them-simple stats.
>
> >Since I don't yet understand your definition of "one thing"/"whole"
>
> Lets ask Webster; 1. not broken or injured; 2 Entire complete. the
complete
> thing-the total, an organic unity.
Edmond, this concept of unity/whole is a philosophic question that goes
back to
the greeks and is still being discussed today and there is still no answer.
Your
suggestion that looking to the dictionary to solve such a complex problem
will
not suffice. If you are under the impression that this is a simple issue
then you
are missing the difficulties and subtleties that are involved.
You make simple definitions of "whole", refuse to answer questions about
what
is/isn't a whole and then make claims about the behavior of components
within
that whole. Since you can only claim that a whole is "unbroken wholeness"
or
"all one thing" which is just as nebulous as "whole", I don't think you're
in a
position to make assertions about the behavior of a whole which will be
very
convincing.
>
> Now what part of whole thing don't you understand? You are trying rather
> disingenuously to twist EFFECTs of one thing upon another, as an argument
for
> or against wholeness-wholeness is wholeness period.
The many philosophers who continue to debate this question will be glad to
know
that you've found the answer.
> Whether the configuration
> of any SYSTEM has equal interaction is another question. Coefficient
correlates
> are how we measure that in science-how we measure the CONNECTEDNESS or
linear
> relationship between two variables. The strength and direction-amount to
the
> Strength of the premise of an inductive argument. When we say there is a
5
> correlation that means that only .5 of it can be explained by the
> relationship-there is another .5 WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. This doesn't
PROVE it
> is NOT connected. Correlation does NOT mean causation-but it does reflect
> CONNECTION. Any true scientist knows this.
I thought we were discussing "whole" here. I'm not sure why you're
suddenly inserting
a discussion of causation/correlation. 0.5 correlation does not mean that
"0.5 of it can be
explained by the relationship". Correlation is a statistical measure that
runs from -1 to +1.
It is just a metric. At 1.0 the variables are related in a perfect
positive linear relationship. At
-1.0 they're represented in a perfectly negative linear relationship.
Correlation is just a
mathematical value. Don't try to associate too much with it.
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. Agreed. Nothing to do
with the
definition of wholeness, however.
>
> >I'm certainly willing to admit that we are made from the same basic
elements
> >as the stars.
>
> Then you agree that "All That Is" is all one thing manifesting in all the
> different ways it can-unless of course you will now contradict your self.
Since you can't give anything more sophisticated than the dictionary
definition of whole, I still don't know what your sentence means.
>
> >>> Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought
of
> >that
> >>> way or not?
>
> >>Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level or we
could
> >>not concieve it that way to begin with.
>
> >The primary question is whether it's true only on a mental level or on a
> >physical level.
>
> Why? They are STILL the effect of the "star stuff" manifesting in
different
> ways.
Even idealist philosophers still understand what is meant by the
distinction between
physical and mental. You haven't proven your idealist position so you
can't
automatically assume it's true. If you are under the impression that
appealing to
"star stuff" will solve the whole idealism/realism debate you're mistaken.
>
> >I can imagine unicorns. Are they real? No - only the idea
> >of them is real.
>
> The question is are they physical? No. Is the physical the only "real"?
No.
> Therefore they are real-just not physical.
This is a much more complex subject than you imply here. Books have been
written about this and philosophers have debated across the centuries. If
you
expect me to accept your statement as the final answer, I'm afraid that's
asking too much.
>
> >>"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
> >>thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
>
> >>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
> >>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
> >>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
> >>Einstein
>
> >>"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
>
> >These are deep philosophical statements that I don't accept just on
> >Paremenides or Einstein's say so.
>
> I am not asking you to, I am referring to those who believe as I do-as
you have
> said you are free to believe whatever you wish.
Albert Einstein didn't believe in astrology so regardless of any quotes you
may
take from him, you're drawing conclusions from them that Einstein would
never
have agreed with.
>
> > Locke and Socrates would have stated the
> >opposite.
>
> Which would be just two more ways the "All That Is" could have of
expressing
> itself within the creation that it is. WE are all those different ways,
and all
> the ways it has are infinite.
Yes. Of course.
>
> > In general, it's not difficult to find quotes on either side of a
> >philosophical issue like this - we have to rely on our own
thoughts/beliefs
> >to guide us, however imperfectly, to some sort of conclusion.
>
> >Actually, I think you'd be hard put to argue that Mickey Mouse is "on
this
> >planet":-).
>
> Where else is he?
Does he have to exist at a location? Where is the color red? Neither of
them have
any location whatsoever. They're ideas.
>
> >This view is called idealism. Some philosophers/scientists have this
view,
> >others
> >have the opposite. Like I said, there are plenty of quotations to back
up
> >either
> >side when speaking on philosophical matters such as this.
>
> Then you do what I always say-you choose preference and act on that just
like
> the rest of us.
Agreed.
>
> > I only look at
> >the facts
> >and try to formulate my own beliefs on such matters.
>
> Contradiction-if there are plenty of views on both sides which shall we
deem
> are the "facts"? And who shall decide on them-you?
Not a contradiction, Edmond. You are confusing "facts" and "views". There
are
views on both sides. We shall deem none of the "views" as "facts". I will
be the one
to make the decisions where my own beliefs are involved. I assume you will
do
likewise for your beliefs.
>
> >>> Does it mean that all things affect all other things?
> >>
> >>The observer affects the perception of all things to be sure.
>
> >Quantum physics states this only at the subatomic level. Everything
else is
> >a philosophical stance that has plenty of proponents on both sides.
>
> Psychology calls it projection, reaction formation, defense etc. Do you
deny
> the whole of psychology? If it occurs at the subatomic level, why would
it not
> derivate to other levels? Where do you think your body and brain to
percieve
> that comes from? A non-subatomic level?
This is the whole of psychology? A very limited subject matter, to be
sure.
Yes - my neurons are not subatomic. I percieve from a non-subatomic level.
>
> >>But what about space/time being a 4 dimensional continuum? In this view
> >>there is no cause or effect really, simply all one thing- a tensor
field
> >>of some sort all "happening" at once. Time and space are illusions of
> >>focus, when that focus is distorted (as in the hypothesised b event
> >>horizon of a black hole) so is the "cause/effect" scenario.
>
> >The 4 dimensional continuum doesn't have much to say about cause and
effect
> >(except that certain events outside of each other's cone of light can't
have
> >an effect on each other). The fact that space is best viewed this way
for
> >measurement purposes doesn't imply that you can freely move in all four
> >directions. It just says that the norm for distance, for relativistic
> >purposes, is best measured by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2). Note the
minus.
> >Time is a very special dimension, even in relativity. It's not "just
like"
> >space and attempts to characterize it as such are mistaken.
>
> So you are saying E=MC^2 is NOT a space/time formula? And that they have
no
> relevence to each other?
Throwing out the ubiqutous E=MC^2 formula has no bearing on whether you can
move
backward in time. If you think it does, offer up an argument. Otherwise,
there's nothing
to answer here.
<snip>
> >Without
> >more to back
> >this up, it is, as you state, all a matter of belief in the end.
>
> Everything is a matter of belief REGARDLESS of "facts".
>
> >>All one thing in the end, is not necessarily the same as "all is
> >>affected or reflected equally by all other things in the end".
>
> >I would definitely agree here. So why is it put forth as an argument
for
> >the probable validity of the assumption that our lives are affected in
any
> >significant way by the stars?
>
> Because if something is all one system it is impossible that components
within
> the system have NO relevence to each other. "Parts" within a SYSTEM as I
have
> said several times now, are SPAWNED by the system within which they
arise.
Parts, system, relevance, spawned are all hopelessly inaccurate, undefined
terms
which are impossible to argue philosophically about until you give some
more
sophisticated definitions and answer a few questions about your
understanding of them.
>
> >So "contains" means "affected by"? And not all things are affected by
all
> >other things? It sounds like the statement "It's all one thing in the
end"
> >is
> >boiling down to something like "Some things affect other things". Am I
> >wrong?
>
> Yes, you are-all things are connected-all things are not necessarily
INTIMATELY
> connected-this is WHY statistics work-because we are measuring that
DEGREE of
> connectivity.
Okay, some things are intimately connected, others are not. Why is it
probable that
the stars are intimately connected with my life?
>
> >Even my mental conception of the physical world works this way. Even if
the
> >universe is solely an idea within my head, that's the way that idea
works so
> >how
> >can it be unsound to make assumptions like this regardless of whether
> >there is a "real world" out there or whether it's all an idea within my
> >mind?
>
> You cannot change your mind? Is that what you are saying?
If the universe is not physical, but entirely mental, then no - I can't
change my mind. The
universe/my mind is going to act however it likes regardless of what I
think. In any event,
my mental conception of the world is not a decision I can change my mind
on. I can
change my mind with respect to decisions, not in terms of my mental
conception of the
world.
Okay, I'll recouch in your terms:
If you reach the conclusion that the position of mars at my birth reflects
my
choice of occupation from the fact that removing mars from the solar system
would "reflect" the fact that we'd all be dead, then I still find it a huge
leap.
>
> > You
> >are welcome
> >to make that leap but its certainly not illogical in my mind to look at
the
> >same evidence
> >and reach a different conclusion.
>
> Of course-its called preference-you choose to believe that the universe
is
> disconnected from you and I don't.
Good! Starting to get back on track.
>
> >>Then you disagree with logic and Venn diagrams?
>
> >Logic and Venn diagrams deal with the mathematical set definition of
> >containment.
> >You have proposed a new definition of "containment" which means
something
> >more
> >like "affected by".
>
> You seem to be confused and hanging up on this-.9 correlation means about
90%
> of A is in relationship with B's-correlation IS NOT CAUSATION.
Fine - neither correlation nor causation have anything to do with venn
diagrams.
>
> >I'm not sure what "disagreeing" with logic and Venn diagrams would mean,
but
>
> One "circle" contains another to a certain DEGREE.
Venn diagrams are tools used in arguments. If you'd like to propose an
argument
using Venn diagrams then I can tell you whether I agree or disagree with
the
argument. I can't tell you whether I can agree or disagree with Venn
diagrams.
>
> >Your argument seems to be as follows:
>
> >"The universe is one thing"
>
> True.
>
> >"Some things affect other things within a whole"
>
> False. All things are connected-AFFECT is a matter of perception, degree,
> correlation, circumstance, containment of system....etc. etc. In my view
effect
> is an illusion, only real while you are in certain places or states. It
is all
> there "happening" at once and nothing is "really" going anywhere.
First you claimed that it was all one big thing and this implied the
probable
validity of astrology.
I asked why that didn't point to lice reflecting similarly on my life.
You claimed that some things reflected other things to a greater or
lesser degree, implying that the lice didn't reflect my life to any
appreciable
degree.
Rather than saying "to any appreciable degree" I rounded off to none since
elephant lice really do have essentially zero reflection on my life.
If you still wish to maintain the argument's probable validity, you need to
show that it's "probable" that stars reflect my life to an intimate degree
while elephant lice don't. If you can't explain this, your claim doesn't
hold up. So far I've only seen you argue that there "might be" some
such connection. I don't disagree. I have yet to see the reason that
such a connection "probably" exists.
>
> >therefore
> >"It's likely that the positions of the stars affect our lives in
intimate
> >ways"
>
> Slippery slope.
It's your argument, Edmond - not mine. I'm only stating what I see as your
argument. Explain where you believe the slippery slope lies.
>
> >If, instead of the containment statement that "Some things affect other
> >things within a whole"
> >you had stated that "All things affect all other things within a whole"
then
> >I could see some slight
> >correlation between the hypotheses and the conclusion.
>
> Sigh. I am going to have to let go of this thread, it is too long and I
have
> much work.
Edmond, I've been a perfect gentleman on this thread. I was hoping that
this
would avoid such disparaging comments from you.
>
> >I would hate to be lacking in "psychological awareness" but I think that
> >some
> >would describe this trait as unquestioning faith, which I don't mind
lacking
> >at all.
>
> You need to study some psychology is the point. First you say there are
> arguments on both sides so it is irrelevent to quote-and then assert one
is
> "right" and one "wrong"-contradiction-if it boils down to preference why
is
> your preference "correct" and others belief "unquestioning faith"?
Because they
> don't believe the same "evidence" as you?
You have snipped your original comments which impled that I would believe
astrology
if only I didn't lack some essential "psychological awareness". You stated
your
opinion. My opinion is that I would believe it if I had an unquestioning
faith. In other
words, your implication that this is some sort of weakness is not
necessarily the truth.
I have never said one is "right" and one is "wrong" regarding idealism. My
only
claim is that neither you nor I know the answer - completely consistent
with my statement
that there are claims on both sides and we have to draw our own
conclusions.
Since I don't claim to be correct, the last two questions don't apply.
>
> >Seriously, if you are claiming that not accepting astrology represents
some
> >sort
> >of "lack" on my part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
> You are free to believe as you wish-as you have said. I could really care
less
> whether you "believe" in astrology or not-it affects me not. You are
asking me
> questions as to why *I* believe the way I do-not me asking you-you can be
as
> miserable or limited as you choose-I will not try to change you.
No, that is not at all what I'm asking. I've left the original statements
at the top
of the message. I'm trying to discuss a single argument which you claim
represents an
argument for the "probably validity" of astrology.
Here again, Edmond, it is you who are claiming that not believing in
astrology
represents a "miserable or limited" outlook. You are the one making the
assertions about what is correct and what is not. I will paraphrase your
question for you: Why is your preference "unlimiting" and others belief
making
them "miserable"? Because they don't believe the same "evidence" as you?
When you stated your beliefs I said "good for you". When I state mine you
claim
I am "limited" and "miserable". This is incredible and misplaced arrogance
on
your part.
With such reactions, Edmond, it's plain that you can't maintain a civilized
discussion for long despite your protestations to the contrary.
>
> >>No more and no less than that science is somehow THE truth.
>
> >I'm not sure what "THE truth" is, as distinguished from "the truth".
>
> There is no ONE TRUTH if there were there would only be one view-one
person-you
> yourself have stated we could amass quotes on both sides to support
whatever.
> Therefore as I have ALWAYS STATED it is a matter of preference-not
"TRUTH".
> Physicality does not = TRUTH-it is ONE WAY the Multiverse expresses
itself in
> my view-and my dreaming every night is sufficient evidence to me as
"proof" of
> that assertion.
You're welcome to your opinion but it doesn't speak to the original subject
of how
the argument you made argues for the probably validity of astrology.
>
> >"the truth" I believe science has done a pretty good job of getting at
it
>
> And what is that "truth"?
How the universe behaves, approximately, in my view. This is much too long
a
discussion to get into.
>
> >The question is why did you decide to investigate astrology and not the
time
> >machine?
>
> Because I want to understand my psyche as I believe THIS is what creates
my
> reality and experiences here on Earth-not "machines" Machines are created
by
> the psyche- I believe when I fully understand IT I will be able to travel
> through time AND space without a machine.
Why have you not carefully investigated the possibility of learning of your
psyche
through elephant lice? A truly scientific mind would have taken up this
challenge.
>
> >I'm in the same boat wrt astrology. Maybe it works. Currently it seems
> >unlikely to me
>
> What scientific investigation have you done to come to that conclusion?
Orany
> investigation? What part do you disagree with? Dispositor dynamics?
I've done much more investigation on astrology than you've done on elephant
lice.
I've told you - I'm not going to make a scientific investigation of
astrology and I make
no apology for it. You seem to be under the impression that everybody in
the world
should drop what they're doing and make a scientific investigation of
astrology.
I claim you should drop what you're doing and make a scientific
investigation of
elephant lice. And until you have and can list the "scientific
investigation" you have
done to accept or reject it, you must count yourself as unscientific and
illogical
by your own standards.
>
> >I'm interested in purpose of living, etc.. I'm just not convinced that
a
> >detailed study of astrology
> >would give that to me.
>
> Then that is the reality you will get. Because it is believing is seeing,
not
> seeing is believing.
Unfounded assumption.
>
> >>I know it, not feel it. So do those who have sought me for assistance
> >>with it-therefore because of this service, I believe I can be of
> >>assistance in a positive way to improve the lives of those who find
> >>increased awareness as a direct result of astrological knowledge or
> >>foresight. Since it is what it inspires me to do and I do it from not
> >>the need to prove or make money but to be of assistance and as an
> >>inspiration from bliss-I know it cannot be "wrong" to continue doing
so.
>
> >Meaning no disrespect for you, a lot of people claim to "know" a lot of
> >contradictory
> >things. Some of them are right, most of them are wrong.
>
> Define wrong? I thought I was free to believe whatever, now I am subject
to
> being "wrong" if persons interacting with me and the use of astrology
find
> their life quality and understanding of self enhanced?
Two contradictory ideas can't be both right. One of them must be wrong.
Therefore
if an atheist tells me he "knows there is no God" and a christian tells me
he "knows
there is a God" then one of them is wrong. No way to tell who except by
forming my own
opinions by looking at facts around me. Nonetheless, one of them doesn't
"know" what he
claims because he can only know a truth and two contradictory statements
can't
both be true.
You are confusing "knowing" and "believing". You are free to believe
whatever you
want. No change in position there. You are not free to "know" whatever
you want
and I never claimed you were. Sorry, you can't "know" that 2+2=5.
I didn't claim you were wrong, I only claimed I couldn't know that you were
right.
And yes, we're all (myself included) subject to being wrong. Are you
claiming infallibility?
>
> >In fact, I agree
> >with Plato that
> >the wisest man is the man who realizes that he doesn't know anything.
As
> >you yourself
> >stated, everything is just belief.
>
> Then choose what you believe to be true for you and act on it. As I do.
Don't
> contradict yourself with "right and wrongs". See my integrity post-there
is no
> right and wrong, these are subjective value judgments and tell us little
of the
> type of energy be utilized in any endeavor.
You're the one who has made the claims about my views. I've only wished
you
the best in yours.
>
> > If I stated that I knew something (which I don't believe
> >I have yet), I don't expect you to automatically accept it. I'll have
to
> >ask the same from you.
>
> I know astrology works. I cannot prove it does to you-as I have stated
people
> can only prove things to themselves not others whether it comes from
science or
> anything else.
All that I was saying above where you took such offence.
>
> >I'm afraid that at present, I don't feel sufficiently secure in my
> >understanding of your terms
> >to agree to your argument yet. As to "environmental beliefs", etc., I'm
> >interested but
> >they don't affect the argument which I keep trying to put the focus on.
>
> You are not astrologically qualified to direct what the focus "should be"
on
> with reference to it-I am telling you what it is we (at least I) do.
Early
> environment (attachments schemas etc.) is tremendously important in
> understanding ones view-this HAS been clinically demonstrated, and is a
> critical part of understading astrology/psycholigical applications in the
way I
> use them.
Your argument was a purely logical one and the logic involved had nothing
to
do with astrology. I don't have to be "astrologically qualified" to
discuss a flawed
logical argument. I didn't ask to find out what you did. I asked for a
discussion
on this argument. If you volunteered information on what you did, that's
okay,
but that's not what the original discussion was about.
>
> > I believe that the questions that can't be answered by science
> >can't be answered,
>
> Then you believe that the physical is the only and real world-and I do
not.
No, that doesn't follow. I believe that it's an unsolved and unsolvable
problem which
philosophers have been discussing for 3000 years. You believe that you
know the answer.
> Perhaps you can explain why you need to sleep every night? It has already
been
> shown in experiments that there is not really a "resting" going on when
one
> sleeps, but that it is a very energetic state-why then do we feel rested?
From
> not moving too much or from ACCESSING and balancing ourselves WITH
another
> level that is NOT physical?
I haven't done (and don't have time to do) a huge amount of investigation
of sleeping.
From what I have done I know that there's lots of mental activity but not
much
physical (unless you call REM a physically taxing exercise). I think most
of the
restful feeling comes from the physical inactivity. In any event, I don't
see scientists
throwing up their hands and saying that they've come to a spot where the
physically
inexplicable takes over and they can't make any more progress so I believe
that,
as with all other science, there are still unanswered questions but they
have no
particular reason to believe that they won't be solved through science.
>
> On science;
> >But, as I say, I believe it's the way with the most spectacular record
of
> >successes to date.
>
> Spectacular in what way?
In the way that it predicts the behavior of the universe.
>
> >>of course thats the "real" or only world-I would never be so arrogant
as
> >>to make such a silly assumption-nor would many great minds that have
> >>served on this planet.
>
> >As I've pointed out above, many great minds have had precisely this
"silly
> >assumption". The
> >assumption that there's more than the physical world is nothing but
another
> >assumption.
>
> Then explain in logical terms why it is "better" to be alive than dead?
Never claimed that it was. I have a preference due to the way humans
evolved but
that doesn't mean it's "better" in some ethical sense.
>
> > Neither
> >assumption is silly in my view. Noone can know either to be true.
>
> You can know if you wish. I have faith that you can no matter how
miserable and
> cynical you insist on being.
Everything is belief. Noone knows anything. My miserable state is only an
opinion of yours and doesn't necessarily represent reality.
>
> The rest was cut off by AOL, no matter, as I have said it always boils
down to
> preference.
> If indeed I only have one life to live and there is no "other world" or
> spiritual purpose, then it boils down to preference on how one lives this
one
> physically purposeless life before they die and totally disappear from
> consciousness (not possible in my view). In that sense it makes no
difference
> anyway and this is how I prefer to live mine-your discounting it as an
illusion
> or not.
Never claimed you were wrong.
> If there is another world and spiritual purpose as I assert, you are in
greater
> danger than I of wasting your existence in cynicism instead of spiritual
> growth-if not you will die and dissapear toitally from consciousness and
> existence as well-and nothing either of us thought or "wished" will
matter
> anyway.
Descartes' argument. If you don't believe in God and are mistaken you'll
go
to hell. If you are correct, the believer is no worse off than you.
Trouble is, it
applies to pretty much any religion you'd care to name. So which do I
choose?
Also, it fails to take into account this life which, if the nonbeliever is
correct, is
the only thing that counts. This is a long discounted and beat down
argument.
> If my posts serve you use them, if they don't don't.
Conversely.
> Meanwhile, many persons of high credentials and low will find solace and
> understanding through the service and view I offer-in that sense I say
again. I
> cannot be 'wrong" which is simply a subjective value judgment by those
who are
> fearful and unaware, as long as I am in integrity and seek to break up
> pointlessness and offer purpose and support-a thing it appears to me is
more
> "in line with" what I observe as the "All That Is" "Universe"
"Multiverse"
> "Alla" whatever you wish to term it, in action as opposed to "detraction
and
> denial" which I see as purely a physical phenomenon as the effect of
focusing
> on a "part" of it, as opposed to the "whole" of it.
Edmond, I'm glad you're enjoying what you do and wish you the best at it.
Darrell Plank
Earlier, Ed Wollmann put forth the following argument:
>>>>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>>>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>>>>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>>>>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>>>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>>>>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>>>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>>>>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
I attempted recently to engage in a sane conversation regarding the validity
of this statement with Ed. In the end, I think there is enough vitriol on
both sides of the debate so I didn't really mean to single Ed out. I just
found this particular argument to be so logically lacking that I thought it
would be interesting to see if Ed (or anybody else) really did have any
arguments to back it up. I was hoping we could have a civil conversation
and, for the most part, we did. I wish Ed would have realized how complex
the monism-dualism-pluralism question is and stayed and talked about it a
while. Unfortunately, he seems to have broken the conversation off. It
appears that Ed does have arguments to back up his reasoning, but they boil
down to accepting the premise of astrology before you can logically reach
his conclusion.
These are my thoughts on the results:
First off, Ed didn't appear to be a kook from our conversation. This may be
due to the small sample or it may be due to my attempts to keep the
conversation civilized. Actually, I think that Ed likes to fancy himself a
teacher/guru and as long as you take on the tone of a subservient student Ed
is happy. If you seriously question his thoughts he grows angry and
eventually leaves in a huff.
When questioned about the above argument it turned out there were some extra
assumptions Ed was making in order to arrive at his conclusion...
First and foremost, I asked Ed about what he meant by "whole". He made a
couple of stabs at a definition:
"Unbroken wholeness-all one thing-manifesting in all the ways it can
within that wholeness. Where's the confusion?"
and the dictionary definition which is hardly worth quoting.
This philosophy - that the universe is all one thing - called monism has
been argued for a couple thousand years. William James called it the
principal problem in metaphysics and wrote extensively on it. This is way
too complicated a notion to be swept aside by a nebulous, circular
definition and a peek in the dictionary. Ed appears to think differently.
He considers it self evident and considers the matter essentially closed
after these simplistic definitions and gets testy when I insist that I still
don't understand his definition. I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm
just as sure that Ed isn't privy to it either.
So the first unstated assumption Ed makes in his argument is monism. This
by itself is enough to negate any such argument as serving as the "probable"
basis for any conclusion.
I also asked Ed why elephant lice weren't studied with the same zeal that
astrology was since they seemed to also be part of this universal whole he
referred to.
His answer was to ask whether the elephant "contains" the lice or the lice
"contain" the elephant. This was his first use of this rather novel
definition of "contain" and the fact that he never stopped to explain it
caused some confusion which he somehow placed on my shoulders. At this
point in the argument, it would appear that he's asking if the elephant
affects the lice or vice verce. Later, Ed would claim that "contains" meant
something more like "correlated with", although correlation is a symmetric
relation and since he was asking here if A "contains" B or B "contains" A,
it's clear that his definition has shifted (i.e., it doesn't make sense to
ask if the elephant correlates with the lice or, alternatively, if the lice
correlates with the elephant). In the end, I think Ed has, at best, a fuzzy
idea of what he means here. Otherwise, I would have expected a cogent
definition early on and no shifting in that definition in the course of the
conversation.
In any event, his obvious point was that some things
"correlate/affect/contain" other things to an intimate degree and other
things "correlate/affect/contain" to an almost negligible degree. Hence, no
study of lice since they don't "contain" our lives to any appreciable
degree.
So in addition to monism, Ed makes the unstated assumption that all things
are "correlated" in the universe. Apparently some are correlated to a
negligible degree others are correlated to a greater degree. Ed gives very
little evidence for this. About the only thing I could dig out was his
statement that "Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level
or we could
not concieve it that way to begin with". This argument was pretty
decisively argued down by Bertrand Russell. Essentially, Russell argued
that "Unicorns exist" is equivalent to stating that "There exist horses with
natural horns growing from their muzzles". If you don't find such things,
then the statement is false. We don't find such things, so unicorns don't
exist. What you are "imaging" is a meaning, not an entity. If that meaning
fits nothing in the universe then "unicorns don't exist".
The final unstated assumption in Ed's argument is that our relative position
to the universe at birth has a correlation with our lives to an intimate
degree (as opposed to, for instance, elephant lice). This is essentially
the assumption that astrology works so in the end, the only way Ed's
argument really stands as an argument for the "probably validity" of
astrology is if you believe in astrology in the first place - i.e., it's
circular and really doesn't end up saying much of anything.
A couple of final points -
Ed has a tendancy to argue outside his realm of expertise. This was plain
when he claimed that a correlation of 0.5 "explained" half of a relationship
leaving the other half "unexplained", when he claimed that e=mc^2 was a
refutation to the fact that relativity still treats time as a special
dimension and doesn't allow for reversed time and claimed that Venn diagrams
modelled his containment relationship.
In spite of this, Ed is always willing to play the "astrological
qualifications" card. Despite the fact that I had originated this question
and it was plainly and specifically over the flawed logic in the original
argument, Ed claimed later that I didn't have the important "astrological
qualifications" to even determine what the conversation was about. Of
course, flawed logic doesn't require any "astrological qualifications" to
point it out so this particular card had no relevance to the discussion and
fell flat.
Finally, he has a sneaky way of trying to use the "did you stop beating your
wife?" type of logic wherein he casually implies an opinion of his in a
sentence where it doesn't form the main subject so is seemingly difficult to
rebuke. He told me a couple of times that he would "allow" me to remain
"miserable" if I so chose. Of course, the misery is only Ed's
unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion, but he speaks it as though it is the
truth.
It was an interesting, rewarding experience and I wish Ed the best in the
future.
Brant Watson
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:29:00 -0800, "Darrell Plank"
<darr...@suckerpunch.com> wrote:
Thanks for the inquiry and the summary. It was a lot of work, I
know.