Thank You, That's why I post, to reach others who may follow up on what's written. The sillies, having dogmatic minds auto project everybody else has. I have had mystical experiences, have noumenal access, not phenomenal as do many. I like John Curtis Gowan, his Book. "Operations of Increasing Order", is a freebie on internet. He had two degrees, one in math one in psychology. JohnCG used a Sigma curve of Trance, art and Psychedelic or transcendent. In Trance we get insights unrelated to anything else. For Art we play'project them in various forms until something fits together, The Psychedelic amounts to full, conscious access of how it works. jr writes> There are some accomplished physicists alive today that foolishly regard the psychedelic experience as invalid, with respect to the context you refer to. They have the idea that the mind cannot benefit from chemically altered consciousness. It's a pity. Alduous Huxley was an influence on me during my youth and I have benefitted from it.
It's fascinating that John who says he never had any transcendental experiences worked that out. I took his creativity test and, apparently, scored highest, funny that. The mystical state is funny as it blows the mind out of all sensory data crunching. It serves as a gateway to henceforth self paced further development. jr writes> One can recognize possibilities of an extra-sensory nature without going there. Like those who die and are brought back, who speak of a tunnel of light. At the far end of which a voice offers "Are you ready?" Where you have a choice in cases. The psychedelic experience however, must be directly sensed. It allows you to "work it" but you still don't know how and the attempt to articulate that experience results in descriptive words that stretch the envelope like: electroskeletoidenal and psycho-amplitudinous, where nonetheless you can purge illness from your body. I have a similar interpretation for Time. Taking our rather varied experiences as products of harmonic resonances then the left over, unused access levels blend together in a bland background noise as time, not to include the lot that produced the now falsified Big Bang, but very like it. Ditto Gravity by that correlates to an energy push of fields way outside the materially obvious. Then it is that the noise a mystical experience senses and we can peel it apart in so called other dimensional access. By that this noise equates to the random, which ain't random but very polyphonic. jr writes> Time results from our sense of duration. Our sense of being. Consciousness. A direction exists for time beginning at our birth and ending at our projected death. Outside of this, with respect to the observed universe, time manifests as a regular and necessary, least action cyclic property of stable physical systems. We seek to describe the universe after our own image. Lightning works that way. At 2 billion Volts difference between sky and earth they found out, once we could fly in the stratosphere, that Lightning coming from clouds is fed far higher up in the sky and, it seems, ultimately from para solar fields. jr writes> I have projected a notion that the vortex manifestation of hurricane motion is connected to the dynamo that is the core of the Earth. Also lightning. However I have not taken these notions any further, altho' I have developed a basis for their cause, that is rational but not uniquely specific wrt cause, CHaitin, on Foundations of math, on his website has: Four provably equivalent definitions of mathematics: 1: Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone. I do not know the author of this elegant definition put on the web by Dave Rusin. jr writes> This is equivalent to saying that we can build imaginary objects from dimensionless stationary or moving over time and space points, lines and angles solely within our mind and discover relationship after relationship that are properties of so constructed objects with some regular proportion. The problem with the universe being gone (outside the fact that we too would be gone) however, is that we could never connect this regularity to a universe. 2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in things. Albert Einstein. jr writes> This may be correct but due to the fact that the universe is a least action universe and given enough time, we would have to make a connection sooner or later. Which comes first, the observance of regularity in the universe, or the mathematical discovery of regularity, is open. 3: In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. John von Neumann. jr writes> This has been true. Changed once we recognize that stable systems are least action systems and the math represents least action well. 4: Mathematicians are mad tailors: they are making "all the possible clothes" hoping to make also something suitable for dressing... Stanislaw Lem, "Summa Technologiae" (translated) ie, it's axiomatic and abstract, can produce actual and fictional patterns. So it's no guarantee its recipes of patterns are actually valid. Beyond this though math intimates how our brain works, after mind had set up the parameters. That's much the same as psychiatry for that social consensus reality's 'hallucination', Where on earth and in heaven does it come from? It surely does not come from outside the cosmic reality. So if so, it is a narrowly conceived 'reality' trying.... jr writes> The math reflects the least action characteristics of the stable universe. The quantities that operate within this least action universe are considered fundamental if they are conserved. The property of being conserved within a least action universe means that they operate within the least action parameters without effect (except as we might sense (quantify) their existence. This does not make them causal outside of our interaction with them.) I apologize for responding to you even slower than others but I must have available time to extract addressable ideas from your posts. Have a good time. johnreed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
