Symbols and Referents II
ho...@lightlink.com
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't
have.
For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection,
looking at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map
labeled with the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are
the referent.
The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themslves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.
However let's take a subtler example.
Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like
the ones kids like to play with in pools.
First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into
it, blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the
table and sit down facing it.
Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a
red plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent.
The two have been smushed together into one object.
So let's notice something.
If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.
The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in
our consciousness, much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit, and the "plastic ball"
that remains even after the 'red ball' is gone is a whole nother
object out there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is
different from the 'plastic ball' out on the table,
which exists whether we see it or not.
TWO different objects, both actual.
The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic
ball on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by
opening and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball
remains unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same
object. We have two different objects, one used to represent the
other.
Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but
clearly there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.
Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude
and frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.
So we have two different objects, red color form, and light,
which have very different qualities from each other, almost none of
which overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very
effectively as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all
that similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as
symbols. Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY
different than a ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the
other.
Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to
refer to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitarily. For example
the word 'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long
as we all agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary
assignment between symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement
between people to use symbols and referents the way they do.
As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about
light of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or
blue where we now see red, and we would never know the difference.
In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.
As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the
same frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we
talk to each other about it, it doens't matter if you or I see the
same color when looking at the same frequency!
There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that
we do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than
their own.
OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball
on the floor next to a small coffee table.
Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure
tastes like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
Then we sit down and we look at it.
Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball
on the table for any differences between what we see now and what we
saw when we were awake.
And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to
the last detail.
But what of the plastic ball?
In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol
for a plastic ball acting as the referent.
But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic
ball would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of
energy and momentum.
You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of
the conscious unit, but plastic can't.
Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.
The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.
So the non lucid dreamer doens't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his
conscious picture.
The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the
dream.
The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious
pictures are more important than the implied referents because the
implied referents don't exist at all! They never did.
Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the
dream with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together
and share a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panopy of symbols
with non existent referents.
For them the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used to
symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!
Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent
referents like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say
"Well what difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I
still have to go to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
Why?
Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he
is worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't
ask for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he
thinks he is a body!
Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the
symbol thinks it is the referent! That's like the pilot looking at
the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.
Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand can casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it
rearranging him.
Pretty soon illegally pretty naked girls are popping out of the
walls and falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch
me! touch me!"
You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
So this material is important.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Mon Nov 17 22:41:03 EST 2003
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBP7mUzz4RxM7qO/z1AQFuQgH/Wxy65Ou/Ott7W1Twzi0elT5x5Hd4No4s
jzH+uXq5K2o5DIGQqkL1NbrJHhHKPE9DWe0LBW7NBFP5Vq0ko6FgEw==
=tHFT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
KONCHOK PENDAY
DATE: 17 Nov 2003 22:42:34 -0500
MESSAGE ID: <2003111803...@adore.lightlink.com>
NEWSGROUP: alt.clearing.technology
THREAD: Symbols and Referents II
POSTER: ho...@lightlink.com
DISTRIBUTION:
[newsgroups: alt.ucp,alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology
=================================================
Homer Wanker Smith:
> SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
>
> One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
>objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't
>have.
Any two objects are obviously not the same one.
> For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection,
>looking at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map
>labeled with the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In the frame of reference of the map.
> In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are
>the referent.
Yes.
> The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
>roadways, the referent roads themslves are made of tar and asphalt.
>Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
>territory, or the symbol for the referent.
>
> However let's take a subtler example.
>
> Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like
>the ones kids like to play with in pools.
>
> First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into
>it, blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the
>table and sit down facing it.
>
> Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a
>red plastic ball.
Yes! One might think that.
Just as one might think one
had been biting a red plastic
ball, especially if one had
actually been doing that.
>But that's a confusion between symbol and referent.
>The two have been smushed together into one object.
What TWO?
> So let's notice something.
>
> If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
>of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
Gosh!
According to your argument,
the red plastic ball is gone too.
After all, how do I know it's still there?
Anyway, there is only one ball.
Aside from the fact that you
argue there is no ball at all.
> "If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
>not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
But this is ALL just YOUR IMAGINATION about
what might happen *IF* I had a red plastic ball.
According to you, the entire universe is
merely a projection or hallucination, and
none of this is *ACTUALLY* happening.
Of course, you can't stop it either.
Is an inverted inversion
actually a projection, of
rejection detection in the
perfect wrong direction?
> So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
>'plastic ball' are two different objects.
I have concluded you are deluded.
You can conclude anything you like.
That doesn't remotely make it true.
Even in your hypnOThetical imagination,
there is only one red plastic ball. Your
images and imagination won't make two.
> The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in
>our consciousness, much like the picture of the Empire State Building
>projected on the plasma display of the cockpit,
In other words, it's not a ball at all.
It's just an image of a ball.
I'm a four-way amputee with no
tongue, and the plastic I touched
and tasted was just images fed to
my brain by the electrical shunt in
the back of my skull, which is itself
merely another unactual projection
from the land of the great beyond.
Homer's Unified Field Theory!
LEFT FIELD!
>and the "plastic ball" that remains even after the 'red ball' is gone
WHAT plastic ball?
The entire universe is made of ronsense,
. . . which is made real only by belief!
You believe that, but you still can't
control your bad dreams universe
You disprove your own theory.
>is a whole nother object out there on the
>table which exists whether we see it or not.
WHAT table?
WHAT object?
Your entire universe is
entirely made of wank!
At least according
to your idiOT wank!
One sees how that works.
> So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
>consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is
In spite of the fact that no
such things as objects exist,
at least according to homer,
plus this is all imagination.
>different from the 'plastic ball' out on the table,
WHAT plastic ball?
This is all just your WHAT-IF hallucination.
>which exists whether we see it or not.
Oooops!
You forgot you were arguing
that no objects exist, even if
we *DO* see them. Gosh!
> TWO different objects, both actual.
Sorry.
One object.
One image of that object.
. . . in your imagination!
> The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic
>ball on the table.
You mean an image is substituting for the actual,
which if course is not actually even there, even if
this was not just a hypnOThetical example of wank.
>We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by
>opening and closing our eyes, or looking away,
You change an image by turning it on and off.
That's not hard to figure out.
>but the plastic ball remains unchanged.
HOW do you know that?
According to you, there is
no such thing as plastic.
It's just a projection from the
zero dimensional substrate
into the dimensions which
do not actually exist at all.
If you are not looking
at it, it does not exist.
You aren't really here.
You just think you are.
It's all a dream,
from which there
is no waking up.
At least not so
far, for homer!
>Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object.
No. One is not an object, even in your hypnOThetical imagination.
>We have two different objects, one used to represent the other.
You have an image representing an object, in your imagination,
although you may imagine that your imaginary image is an object!
One sees how that works.
> Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
>redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but
>clearly there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
>
> Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
>light of a particular frequency.
>
> Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude
>and frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
But Homer says all of the universe, including
light, is merely conscious color form, in the
zero dimensional substrate of the nothing.
So light has whatever qualities it appears to have
and they may drastically change at any time . . .
at least according to homer. And soon water
will boil at 32 degrees, and freeze at 212 degrees,
because we took a lot of acid and are having some
really weird dreams today. Of course, taking the
acid was just a dream too, but that sure is good shit!
> Conscious color forms have qualities like redness
>and an implied viewpoint which do not apply to light.
WHO says so?
In my dreams, anything can relate to anything.
I dreamed I said that.
That makes it true.
I say so, in my dream.
>An implied viewpoint means the symbol
>includes in it where it is being viewed from.
OK.
You imply the symbol is being viewed.
All symbols have some implied viewpoint
of relating two somethings to each other.
Of course, it would take a live
viewpoint to see that implication.
> So we have two different objects, red color form, and light,
No.
You have an object and an image, and
a conscious relationship between them
. . . IN YOUR IMAGINATION!
>which have very different qualities from each other, almost none of
>which overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very
>effectively as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
Symbols and objects can be very different!
Sometimes there is only a little similarity.
That might be enough!
Although in this case, you have two imagations,
and you imagine that one is actually an object.
> So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all
>that similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as
>symbols.
True, they don't HAVE to be, but it is often extremely
useful to have them as similar as practically possible..
>Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY
>different than a ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the
>other.
Agreed.
> Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to
>refer to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitarily.
Especially if you want to have chaos.
That is NOT how symbols typically evolve.
Look at language, in which symbols are
NOT chosen arbitrarily, but are carefully
and narrowly defined by existing symbols
of similar meanings. New meanings are
not arbitrary, but based on existing ones.
>For example
>the word 'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long
>as we all agree to the relationship.
We could all do that,
but NOT just as easily!
It would be a lot of bother,
and create lots of confusions
and misunderstoods. I don't
think you will get people to agree.
>Since its an arbitrary assignment
>between symbol and referent,
Ooops!
WHO said that?
In YOUR universe,
all assignments are arbitrary,
based only upon dreams!
YOU SAID SO!
Or at least I dreamed that.
Or did you dream me dreaming that?
THANKS FOR PLAYING!
>its just a matter of agreement between people
>to use symbols and referents the way they do.
It's a lot more than that.
There are all the books
and records which will
be meaningless if the
words all change.
> As another example of this, there is clearly
>nothing RED about light of any frequency.
But our perception "red" clearly identifies a
narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum,
and is a very useful symbol in conversation
between people . . . who are just projections.
And we have managed to do this,
in spite of some color blind people.
>Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
>now see red, and we would never know the difference.
Are you saying that no one is color blind,
and even if they were, we would not be
able to tell that about them, if they exist?
> In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
>call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
>call it red by agreement.
WHAT ball?
All I see is lots of WHAT-IF talk about MIGHT BE,
addressed AS IF something was actually happening.
. . . purporting to prove that nothing is happening,
because nothing actually exists at all to start with!
Glob! I love a good laugh!
> As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the
>same frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we
>talk to each other about it, it doens't matter if you or I see the
>same color when looking at the same frequency!
As long as you and I are dreaming the same dream,
I'll always wonder if I'm just dreaming you, as well
as your dream, or if you are actually dreaming it too,
if you actually exist. Of course, if you don't actually
exist, I can make you do anthing I want to. Gosh!
I could never write anything as psychOTic as you do!
That proves it! . . . You must exist!
> There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that
>we do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than
>their own.
Homer can't even see into
his own "consciousness!"
WHAT consciousness?
There is no way homer can know anything.
Homer is lost in unknowable, and desperately
attempting to prove to himself that nothing can
be known at all, because nothing actually exists,
. . . so he can believe whatever wank he wants!
One sees how that works.
He believes that if he could
just get himself to believe,
that would make it true, so
he keeps desperately trying,
but he just can't quite believe it.
So he's all wound up in wank.
> OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
WHAT experiment?
You haven't done any experiments!
You just IMAGINED you did!
That's a HALLUCINATION.
You are dreaming you are asleep having a dream,
while at the same time you dream you are awake!
You have astonishing abilities. Dream on!
> We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball
>on the floor next to a small coffee table.
I'm not sound asleep.
I'm typing on my keyboard.
> Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure
>tastes like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
>
> Then we sit down and we look at it.
Wow!
It just turned into a fighter plane
and flew right thru my neighbor!
Man Alive! . . . He's dead!
. . . in my imagination.
> Now having done this experiment while wake,
Sorry!
You just DREAMED you were awake!
>we study the red ball on the table for any differences
WHAT ball on WHAT table?
>between what we see now and what we
>saw when we were awake.
I see you are dreaming that
I am as asleep as you now.
> And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to
>the last detail.
WHAT other red ball?
> But what of the plastic ball?
Alas . . . it was made of 100% pure imagination!
> In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol
>for a plastic ball acting as the referent.
You are dreaming about being awake.
> But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
In the dream, is there a universe?
I guess you have plastic dreams!
Or at least you imagine
that you have dreams.
> No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic
>ball would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of
>energy and momentum.
WHAT laws?
WHAT energy?
Remember, the physical universe is just a projection.
In a projection, an airplane can fly through a building
and there aren't any people there to die, just images.
You dream that this is all a dream,
and you keep trying to prove that, by
referring to something you made up!
You forgot to prove to us that we
are not actually laughing at you!
You merely prove to others that your bizarre
hallucinations are realer to you than they are.
> You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of
>the conscious unit, but plastic can't.
You are only dreaming that!
There is no plastic.
You told us that.
Your dreams are evidence
only of your hallucinations.
> Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
>ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
>pretending that there is.
Yes, that's true, even when you pretend otherwise.
But it does not follow that nothing at all exists,
just because some things are merely images.
> The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
>aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
>display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
>below.
But you keep arguing that it doesn't make any difference.
> So the non lucid dreamer doens't realize he is dreaming and he
>worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his
>conscious picture.
or about the virtual universe implied by his psychOTIc dreams,
which he simply can't seem to control by hysterical not-ising,
even though he hasn't given up desperately trying, like HellRH.
> The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
>picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the
>dream.
Maybe it's a symbol for something not in the dream which actually exists.
When I dream about my car, does that prove it doesn't exist? Since this
is all hysterical wank anyway, I say the image symbolizes the red ball he
actually had when he was an actual child, not merely homer's hallucination.
When the actual child became homer's imagination, I'm not quite sure.
I hope the process was not too painful for him.
> The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious
>pictures are more important than the implied referents because the
>implied referents don't exist at all! They never did.
WHO is the lucid dreamer?
Certainly not you!
Perhaps you meant the imaginary lucid
dreamer that you are dreaming about,
in your non-lucid dream, who keeps
dreaming that you are awake and
making sense to the dream people
. . . who aren't really there after all.
When are you going to dream that
we are impressed by your wank?
I'm ready for a change.
Oh! Sorry about that.
Keep dreaming.
> Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the
>dream with him.
With WHO?
You can dream any number of dreamers are dreaming in your dream.
>Any number of conscious dream units can get together
>and share a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panopy of symbols
>with non existent referents.
You are now dreaming you are conscious!
> For them the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used to
>symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
That's your dream
about the dreamers
you dreamed up!
THEY are merely
your imagination!
THANKS FOR PLAYING!
> The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
>territory for real as there IS no other territory!
THERE YOU ARE! PRECISELY
LOCATED ON YOUR OWN MAP!
Arguing that the road does not exist!
It's just a projection of the map itself!
Which doesn't actually exist itself either!
> Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated
>on non existent referents like the plastic ball,
LIKE YOU!
>could come along in the dream and say
You are dreaming you are awake now, but
in that "dream", you were actually awake!
People ACTUALLY DID SAY that to you!
You are just dreaming they were dreams.
>"Well what difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I
>still have to go to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
An excellent point!
Since this is merely a dream,
I'll just live forever, thank you.
> Why?
>
> Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
>believes in the referents that don't exist.
Homer THINKS "he" exists . . .
although "he" is merely a referent,
for more of homer's hallucinations.
>The kind of referents he
>is worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't
>ask for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
But he certainly might alter his relationship
to, through his own thoughts and actions!
> They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he
>thinks he is a body!
But then, of course, he also controls them, through HIS body.
> Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the
>symbol thinks it is the referent!
Talk about inverted!
Homer uses his imagination
to prove to himself that his
body does not actually exist!
It's just part of the virtual universe!
>That's like the pilot looking at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
What city?
According to you, everything
is merely virtual plasma.
The city that does not exist is just as real
as the plasma display that does not exist.
It's all your imagination . . .
imagining whatever it likes!
> So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
>dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
>symbols with non existing referents.
You are dreaming you are having a dream,
and there is no one there to wake up but you.
WAKE UP!
> Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
>perhaps try his hand can casting some symbols around by force of will
>alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it
>rearranging him.
Yes.
Just fly from one building to another
by force of will, just like in a dream!
And if you survive the fall,
make the pretty nurse love
you . . . in your dreams.
You can always dream you
have plenty of insurance!
That helps the pain!
> Pretty soon illegally pretty naked girls are popping out of the
>walls and falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch
>me! touch me!"
They are?
WOW!
No Wonder you stay locked up
in your own private dream world.
You have been kidnapped by
your own idiOT hallucinations!
They are holding you for ransom
. . . but no one is willing to pay!
> You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
Your world would be, if it were.
So far, you have discovered
only virtual consciousness.
You don't really know anything,
you just hysterically think you do,
and lecture at length on your wank.
> So this material is important.
At least in your hallucinations.
> Homer
>
>- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
>
>======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
>Mon Nov 17 22:41:03 EST 2003
>ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.memo
>Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
FIFTY YEARS OF *LIES*,
CRIME AND CORPSES!
NOT ONE "CLEAR"!
NOT ONE "OT"!
JUST IDI*OTS, MO*RONS AND
D*RON*E ROB*OTS LIKE YOU!
THANKS FOR PLAYING!
Best Wishes for a
Speedy Recovery
from $pyontology!
O
--- )
\
Konchok Penday
<K...@net-prophet.net>
Research & Technical W'RIghT'ER:
Integrator: Universal Conscious Plot:
http://net-prophet.net/ucp/nuchart15.htm
Formulator: Universal Conscious Practice:
http://net-prophet.net/ucp/
rEvolutionary Architectural System:
http://net-prophet.net/subs/
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
N-LIGHTENMENT! . . . RIGHT! . . . NOW!
TOTALLY FREE! http://net-prophet.net/ucp/
*DO* THE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUS PRACTICE!
*COMPARE* PAST AND FUTURE TO PRESENT!
UCP IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS
OF *RATIONAL THOUGHT* ITSELF!
YOU CAN RAISE YOUR OWN AWARENESS NOW!
USE THE FREE VIRTUAL WITNESS ONLINE NOW!
ONE SIZE FITS ALL SELF TAUGHT GOD LESSON!
UCP: EXPANDING CONSCIOUSNESS BY
BUILDING BETTER BODHISATTVAS
SINCE THE SECOND MILLENNIUM
ONE BODHISATTVA AT A TIME!
*DO* UCP AND *SEE!*
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Join the public usenet discussion of UCP at: alt.ucp
Your KosmiK KicKbacK to K...@net-prophet.net via
paypal.com helps others Find, Learn and DO UCP!
ab...@ftc.gov, sp...@ftc.gov, u...@ftc.gov
Richard Platek (Lion)
Homer > List
> However let's take a subtler example.
>
> Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like
> the ones kids like to play with in pools.
>
> First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into
> it, blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the
> table and sit down facing it.
>
> Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a
> red plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent.
> The two have been smushed together into one object.
>
> So let's notice something.
>
> If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
> of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
Lion > Homer
Yes, the red plastic ball could be there. And if you close your eyes you
have no idea if it's still on the table. At the moment you closed your eyes
the ball could have been removed. I have no idea what you are getting at
here.
Homer:
> "If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
> not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
Lion:
Your setup had
A: Observer
B: Red Plastic Ball
C: Table
D: Space in which the exercise is done
You lost me..
Homer:
> So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
> 'plastic ball' are two different objects.
Lion:
I can't conclude that with what I have to go on so far.
Homer:
>
> The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in
> our consciousness, much like the picture of the Empire State Building
> projected on the plasma display of the cockpit, and the "plastic ball"
> that remains even after the 'red ball' is gone is a whole nother
> object out there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
Lion:
Well we tested the plastic ball by tasting and touching it. If the coloring
agent itself were tasted, would that make a difference? Why is the visionary
aspect of see/feeling it any different than testing the plastic ball with
touch/feeling and taste/feeling?
Homer:
> So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
> consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is
> different from the 'plastic ball' out on the table,
> which exists whether we see it or not.
>
> TWO different objects, both actual.
Lion: I know you must be making a point. I simply don't get it.
I think I have a sense of what you trying to say. But I might be really off.
If you are addressing an angry being, and close your eyes, the being is
still there.
And in this case the being and the angry being are two things. Does this
have anything to do with what you wanted to point out?
Lion
Ted Crammer
ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Pretty soon illegally pretty naked girls are popping out of the
> walls and falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch
> me! touch me!"
Okay. Now you have my attention. LOL
Good, lucid writing, Homer.
--
Ted