---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote (to salyavin808):
1. Remember Gould's phrase, nonoverlapping magisteria?
2. What do you mean by real? Define it, please.
Perhaps you should also define 'real' and see if the definitions match up
first. In science, real is
Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but real was Salyavin's term, not mine, so
obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition will just be a
restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only what's measurable is real
(the fundamental premise of scientism). IOW, he can't object if my
On 4/17/2014 9:49 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
*Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but real was Salyavin's term, not
mine, so obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition
will just be a restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only
what's measurable is real (the fundamental
On 4/16/2014 9:56 AM, Share Long wrote:
Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think
neuroscience has added greatly to our understanding of consciousness
since then.
Maybe so, Share I mentioned Wilber because in his books there is an
affinity with the POV of some TMers,
Richard, maybe the eye can't see itself but only consciousness can know
consciousness (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:06 AM, pundits...@gmail.com
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
In Eye to Eye, Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
Who is this Bawwy?
Good question. I can't figure it out, can you?
Yeah, straight away actually.
And why would you care?
On some level I don't and on another level I care in the same way I care
that some
. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you
have no argument
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say ...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable? Did they only become real when we became able to measure
them? Of course these are rhetorical questions meant to make the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say ...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable?
No, they were always measurable, we just didn't have
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
Flattery will get you everywhere. Tea and cakes on me!
It's a deal.
...if it isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms?
There are to my knowledge no scientists on this discussion group, so what you
are reading Share is about metaphysics, not about science. In Indian
metaphysics, if some proposition or statement is found to be
self-contradictory, it
Try to imagine someone so desperate for attention that they settle for made-up
claims about witnessing their guru levitate hundreds of times. And, instead of
conversation, making even bolder claims about their guru being able to generate
golden light to fill a lecture hall filled with thousands
Actually Richard, I think you are speaking about 2 kinds of mistakes. The
phrase son of a barren woman represents a logical impossibility, a self
contradiction.
But mistaking the fence post for a thief is a mistake of perception. About this
you are correct in that the person truly perceived a
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for which we
don't yet have the instruments for measuring?
On Wednesday,
Ajax:
To find out if this is real or not, there is no evidence except the
experience.
One of the most thorough account of the spiritual approach may be Ken Wilber's
book The Spectrum of Consciousness, a comparison of western and eastern ways of
thinking about the mind, Ken Wilber described
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated with an empty
aseptic package (Rice milk or something like that). Its whole
I was just about positive you wouldn't admit your assertion was metaphysical,
because if it is, according to the statement itself, it's not real. You can't
measure it, you can't use it to make predictions, you can't prove it, and
there's no evidence for it. It's fine to believe it if it pleases
Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think neuroscience has
added greatly to our understanding of consciousness since then.
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:50 AM, pundits...@gmail.com
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
Ajax:
To find out if this is real or not, there is no
Knowledge is power, Share. It's like the analogy of the snake in the garden. At
night we see what appears to be a snake in the garden; in the daylight we see
that it was only a coiled up rope. The snake was real because it was
presented to our consciousness, but in reality it wasn't a real
In Eye to Eye, Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the science of what can be known - knowledge, and
how we get it. Attempting to investigate the realm of spirit, for example, with
the eye of flesh, that is, the eye that perceives only
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what
But, can she levitate like Rama?
I won't comment on the deeper aspects of your post, just pass along a wonderful
moment having to do with children.
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
On Wed, 4/16/14, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014, 3:09
:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for
Hey Judy, I've been getting kinda worried that your mighty brain isn't get
used enough amongst us incurious dullards. So I found a new place for you to
hang out and discuss theoretic improbabilities:
salyavin, you read my mind! That's exactly what I was thinking of! Go figure (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:26 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been
On 4/16/2014 12:37 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
But I'd leave the junkyard dog act here, they seem like a civilised
bunch and I didn't notice any sneering, badmouthing or withering insults.
It looks like this is about the time for this thread to turn to crap. It
looks like somebody is having
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has really
discombobulated you, has it not? You haven't the foggiest idea how to wiggle
out of that one, have you?
I see now that you've been deliberately misspelling Feser all along. Don't
you think that's a little immature?
Oh, stop saying that. Of course I have an argument, and you know it. You just
don't want to even try to take it in. Heaven forfend you allow yourself to be
challenged. Scary! Maybe one god less isn't quite the knockdown blow that you
imagined it was.
You know, you're such a smart guy; you
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention
to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as
though he's ready to
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
I was impressed, it was a damn good way of getting out of answering the
question. Again. And laden with your
On 4/16/2014 1:37 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
But boy, you freak out when you're challenged.
He was speechless when I reminded him that TM was based on thinking, and
he couldn't provide an example of a thought causing a physical change.
Maybe he believes Barry saw Rama levitate hundreds
On 4/16/2014 1:24 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has
really discombobulated you, has it not?
It won't be the first time somebody on this list used metaphysics when
they were trying to talk about science. Barry writes science
Which question? You asked a bunch of them. All of them were irrelevant, though.
You seem to believe that classical theism and science are in competition--but
they aren't, couldn't be. Classical theism doesn't pretend to improve on
science. That would be silly. Remember Gould's phrase,
On 4/16/2014 11:05 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
Thank you.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
Nice post, tax
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please note. We all have honesty glitches, part of the human
believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate
on principle, not
because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
Sober up and stop talking gibberish.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Either tell us
. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism
or shut the fuck up.
We're waiting.
Tell you what, I'll take a stab at it after you've made a post here giving a
complete explanation of quantum mechanics.
As I pointed out to Barry just now, I've already given you the core principle
of the argument--many times, in fact: Classical theists hold that what they
call God is not a
...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Yo, Oopsie Boy, starting out on the blooper trail pretty early this
morning, ain'cha? Remember, the lurking reporters are watching.
You dimwit, you can't
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
Sober up and stop talking gibberish.
Bawwy brings out the big and
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
On 4/15/2014 8:42 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is happening? Is Bawwy catching? Sal, you need to take your
temperature and get into bed. I think you've caught something vicious
- you sound just like Bawwy.
You are not the first person on this discussion group to point out that
Yup and pitiable they don't have the experiential reference neither that they
have to ask for some mental argument that 'absolutely shows' the divinity. With
no spiritual chops in this mentation round and round of these guys is like they
can't see the forest for the trees or the forest for the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is replying to
Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing me. It seems that
*someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
It all changes
: awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws
On 4/15/2014 10:38 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is
replying to Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing
me. It seems that *someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
Drunk, or just nerdy, to try
On 4/15/2014 7:31 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
But thanks for admitting that you can't even make an argument for
Being Itself, much less any other form of the dumbfuck God idea. :-)
Just speaking for myself, I'd be more inclined to believe a dumbfuck God
idea than to believe Fredy Lenz could
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
What tricks?? That was your trick, buster, not mine. Came straight out of
left field. You have a deeply dishonest habit of putting words in my mouth and
then berating me for things I never said.
What you attributed to me makes no sense. It would be like saying meteorology
is inadequate
Just a reminder; here's what he said:
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or
shut the fuck up.
Jeez, talk about a pointless exercise!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
What tricks?? That was your trick, buster, not
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please note. We all have honesty glitches, part of the human
condition.
Generally I am not interested in Theism. I'm a post-Theist, the
beautiful, deep clarity, thank you, Xeno
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:33 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com
anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please
Just keep it up, whatever you say is true. The world waits with baited breath.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Just a reminder; here's what he said:
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or
shut the fuck up.
Jeez, talk
P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt
to make me look stupid, or your thinking has been going off in the wrong
direction, at least where classical theism is concerned. There is no conflict
whatsoever between classical theism and science, including the
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word
Xeno's fine in this post. I'll just respond to Barry, because what he says
requires correction. (What else is new?)
This reply is also specifically for Anartaxius, and is *not* to be used as a
springboard for Judy Stein to use it as an opportunity to reply to him while
still pretending to
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt
to make me look stupid,
Yup, malicious that's me. You made yourself look stupid - not to mention
exceptionally irritating - with your refusal to
(snip all kinds of nonsense)
You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statement, do you not?
So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't
measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real.
BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not
really such a difficult name to spell.
And I notice from the Ed Fess blog
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is
the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
I do believe you've quoted this from the FFL home page approvingly a number of
times here. Doesn't really seem to describe your attitude toward theism, I'm
afraid.
I
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
Is that it? No argument whatsoever? But then you didn't have one going in to
the discussion so why would you have one at the end. Business as usual.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
(snip all kinds of nonsense)
You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a
I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you
have no argument.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not
really such a difficult name to spell.
And I notice from
This bit made me laugh:
In my experience, those who make the most theatrical display of demanding
“proof” of God are also those least willing to undertake the specific kinds of
mental and spiritual discipline that all the great religious traditions say are
required to find God.
The
Reading the article by Douthat reminded me of this in that Denys truly does
justice to the point that yes, there is more to mystical consciousness than
meets the eye. Yes, I am reading it very slowly and I often flip back and
realize that the way it read the first time I read it is not the way
I *loved* that sentence also.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
This bit made me laugh:
In my experience, those who make the most theatrical display of demanding
“proof” of God are also those least willing to undertake the specific kinds of
mental
For different reasons than you, I'm sure though. Ha. Time for bed over here.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
I *loved* that sentence also.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
This bit made me laugh:
In my
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
For different reasons than you, I'm sure though. Ha. Time for bed over here.
Yes, I suspected as much.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
I *loved* that sentence also.
---In
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
I don't think you know what you're talking about, Buck, if you're saying
philosophy is sophistry. And the idea of Curtis helping us sort this out is
laughable. Might as well appeal to Richard Dawkins for assistance.
I think
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
The experience she [Barbara Ehrenreich] had is quite interesting though, and
proof that we have an inner world that can go
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
I *loved* that sentence also.
The below, is the random brain activity theory first espoused by Curtis, if I
am not mistaken. But what I've found, is that the refining of perception is a
gradual process, and may be accompanied by
progress, not process
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
I *loved* that sentence also.
The below, is the random brain activity theory first espoused by Curtis, if I
am not mistaken. But what I've
You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a
lot of sense as you've written it.
Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be
missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who
would use the I just
Looks like those two pieces pushed a few buttons around here...
At least Salyavin bothered to read them. But he has no more acquaintance with
philosophical theology or philosophy of consciousness than the Dawkins crowd.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote :
For
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a
lot of sense as you've written it.
Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be
missing a whole chunk of
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it stayed
with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it now?
Hormonal changes as you say?
Also I find it interesting that the continuum you suggest has mental illness at
one end and mystical experience
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it
stayed with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it
now? Hormonal changes as you say?
I don't access it now, it happened when I
I'm guessing she meant assess, not access.
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it
stayed with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it
now? Hormonal changes as you say?
I don't access it now, it happened when I was young but the
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt
your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea
(any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's
just common sense. Now, if you don't
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt
your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against
oneself about that which does not exist? :-)
From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your
salyavin, yes, I like your last paragraph about depth recognition getting
crossed with reward center for pleasure. Now here's the next important step I
think: does that have lasting value for life? Because if it does, then for me
it doesn't matter how it came about, as long as it didn't involve
: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea
(any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, yes, I like your last paragraph about depth recognition getting
crossed with reward center for pleasure. Now here's the next important step I
think: does that have lasting value for life? Because if it does, then for me
Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for that idea.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible
Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it?
Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense
of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see
one...?
I believe I've already explained why one god less is incoherent, in the
process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that
are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I
recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you
P.S.: Here's a good place to start:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22
Note: Feser does not use the male pronoun to refer to God because he believes
God has a gender; he does not. IMHO, his arguments
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic
spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our
On 4/14/2014 10:58 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
How can one inform oneself about that which does not exist? :-)
There are several ways a person can inform oneself about that which
does not exist. First, you need to understand the basic laws of gravity.
Then, you need to understand the effects of
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses
On 4/14/2014 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads
but our senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the
electromagnetic spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
Translation: Everyone thinks, therefore
Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his
blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about physics and Steven Hawking but
most of it seems based on other things you have to read, like there's some vast
esoteric store of knowledge that you have to adopt. Why
I explained that as well. Pay attention at the back!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
