I doubt I would ever consider replying to you Adrian.
On 28 Oct, 09:07, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EH???????????
> 1: Right from the ground up, plants and animals both have defense systems to
> prevail over the
> competition. That's where our antibiotics come from and their overuse now
> makes us sick, killing
> both good and bad bugs while weakening our immune system. The harmless frog,
> has a poisonous skin
> which if your metabolism cannot cope will make you sick. Try frog soup and
> see what happens. A
> recent division of prokaryotes, called archeobacteria, are endemic throughout
> all existence. They
> are flexibly adaptive in many ways. In our case they hang around inside our
> body until we die and
> then get busy. Man has an immune system such that when its metabolism is
> destabilised the archeos on
> board get the upper hand. Our colon in fact needs them or our wastes would
> not work as manure. Part
> of our very complex immune system uses them as active scavengers. Cancer has
> been recently diagnosed
> as produced by the presence of a fungus, candida albicans being no. one
> suspect. Don't expect to
> find any of this in your school text book or agreed by conventional minded
> folk.
> 2: Genes is another one of those ready made fictions without proof I won't
> bother to discuss.
> 3; WHAT history, the silly fibs passing for history or the real one hardly
> written up?
> 4: We cannot overcome systemic pathology as no such thing exists, That one
> reeks of St George and
> dragon killing, playing goodies and baddies.
> 5: Kindly explain what your remarks have to do with mine below?
> Do your homework before you open your mouth.
>
> adrian.
>
>
>
> archytas wrote:
> > Our genes are influenced by such 'knowledges' as the common cold virus
> > (which is how it makes us feel lousy). Science does generally allow
> > repetition and allows us to recognise mistakes. Our history is
> > apparently one of mistakes and the repetition of them in ignorance or
> > cunning. My idea of unity would be one of a non-hierarchical state in
> > which ideas were not attributal to subjects but mind, yet I sense
> > there is subjectivity to overcome without loss of individuality - a
> > lifeworld needs to overcome systemic pathology to achieve enough of
> > this for us to move on.
>
> > On 23 Oct, 21:53, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Now it gets tougher and more complex in understanding. We project our
> >> ideas into reality. How
> >> that works out shows up at the end of our actions where it has effects and
> >> consequences.
> >> Reality is a continuum, ie, a genuine whole in which everything is the
> >> case. So it depends on
> >> how good is our judgment. We are part and parcel of that continuum but
> >> there the quality and
> >> calibre of our sentience varies, and worse than so called socially formal
> >> IQ tests, haha. Mind
> >> is distinct from matter and prior to the aether or sea of energy which is
> >> changed into form by
> >> interaction of mind with aether. Matter is a more or less stable form of
> >> energy, just a form.
>
> >> The order of real biz is mind, aether as energy flows, hopefully chaotic,
> >> plasma as in the
> >> process of formation or affected by mind, ours, or maybe just IT, matter
> >> as stabilised for the
> >> duration. If mind were truly separate it could not affect matter, so it
> >> begins to be the case
> >> that mind affects matter, but to what degree and so on varies with
> >> people's ability and
> >> potential. A Lama, able to affect matter, takes some 30 years of training
> >> or discipline. Baby
> >> "knows" but does not understand, that's what takes time. Baby can think
> >> but how well? It has no
> >> self sense, but soon enough acquires one. Babies have been dug out live
> >> from disasters, like
> >> being buried alive for several days when material common sense tells us
> >> that cannot happen. So
> >> will that happen for all babies any time? Science, silly enough, insists
> >> knowledge is
> >> repeatable and predictable which is nonsense. Why do we have a hieratic
> >> setup for science that
> >> ends up with Nobel prize winners? This last is realistic, the first is not.
>
> >> """“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no
> >> matter if I have said it,
> >> unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” -
> >> Gautama Buddha
> >> ""Man is arrogant in proportion of his ignorance," Bulwer-Lytton. Zanoni
> >> """http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm &go new
> >> scientist
> >> What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and
> >> variations in the
> >> structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... ##
> >> ok if we think of
> >> space as vacuum or aether.
> >> """" The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one
> >> perceived. Subject and object
> >> are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down
> >> as a result of recent
> >> experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ...
> >> Erwin schrodinger
> >> ME> We've changed our minds about the schaumkommen as Einsteinian space
> >> curvature since
> >> Schrodinger died, but otherwise it still stands.
> >> """"“We are all crazy, but those that analyze their craziness are called
> >> philosophers”
> >> I dunno what are called those who can synergise or synthesise their
> >> insight? But that's the
> >> next hurdle to come.
>
> >> adrian.
>
> >> Mynsie wrote:
> >>> Hmm - very interesting.
> >>> Is it possible reality doesn't listen to us because we create it with
> >>> our
> >>> thoughts, moment by moment, and so can not listen, but simply occurs
> >>> and by occurring as it does, represents harmony with our thoughts. Now,
> >>> whether our thoughts are in harmony with all other aspects that exist
> >>> within this Cosmos is perhaps a different story.
> >>> Is mind and body truly separate within the premise of creating our
> >>> reality
> >>> by thought, or is one the extension of the other, or rather totally
> >>> inclusive of each other? If so the baby would know and understands it's
> >>> environment very well I would think. It can not speak, but it can think..
> >>> Merrie
> >>> ----------------------
> >>> A closed mouth gathers no feet.
> >>> On 23-Oct-08, at 1:18 AM, adrian wrote:
> >>>> Yes, no?? It could be perhaps that matter, ie brain, etc is the
> >>>> memory of an experience, ie
> >>>> its form, model, mapping and the brain, as a whole a composite of
> >>>> the lot. Not the tissue but
> >>>> the neural traces. At least that's how I think of it, matter being
> >>>> those memory traces that
> >>>> work and fantasy ones that don't quite make it or have not made it
> >>>> yet. After all a baby, when
> >>>> born is a not yet finished form and both body and brain are
> >>>> added'extended by what intrigues,
> >>>> turns on and off that baby. I recently planted some nettles [ I use
> >>>> them for gout ] and the
> >>>> plant retracted down to the roots to re-emerge again. I think of
> >>>> that as it having to get used
> >>>> to a new soil condition from the transplant. Carl Jung with his
> >>>> patients made them draw
> >>>> mandalas of their psyche. The same thing, when it changed it went
> >>>> into a null state to
> >>>> re-emerge with a new, another mandala.
> >>>> However since reality does not listen to us, we have to conform with
> >>>> it, you can only tell by
> >>>> whether it works in harmony with the rest. That is a sort of
> >>>> ecological view of it. It sort of
> >>>> makes me feel OK about it. Not a clue what it does for others. And I
> >>>> don't imagine IT is much
> >>>> concerned with how the material aspect of our being thinks of it by
> >>>> way of what individuals do.
> >>>> ""Pooh knew what he meant, but, being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
> >>>> couldn't think of the
> >>>> words. --The House At Pooh Corner
> >>>> """The sun was so delightfully warm, and the stone, which had been
> >>>> sitting in it for a long
> >>>> time, was so warm, too, that Pooh had almost decided to go on being
> >>>> Pooh in the middle of the
> >>>> stream for the rest of the morning... --The House At Pooh Corner
> >>>> """There is nothing lacking in you, and you yourself are no
> >>>> different from the Buddha. Be
> >>>> boundless and absolutely free from all conditions. Be free to go in
> >>>> any direction you like. Do
> >>>> not act to do good, nor to pursue evil. Whether you walk or stay,
> >>>> sit or lie down, all are the
> >>>> wonderful activity of the Great Enlightened One. It is all joy, free
> >>>> from anxiety - it is
> >>>> called Buddha. --Tao-hsin
> >>>> """As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed
> >>>> science, to the study of
> >>>> matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this
> >>>> much: There is no matter as
> >>>> such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force
> >>>> which brings the particle of
> >>>> an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the
> >>>> atom together. We must
> >>>> assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and
> >>>> intelligent mind. This mind is the
> >>>> matrix of all matter. * “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Nature of
> >>>> Matter), speech at Florence,
> >>>> Italy, 1944 (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,
> >>>> Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck,
> >>>> Nr. 1797)
> >>>> 'Wesen" in German means most what Heidegger called Dasein, ie being
> >>>> IN "ITness".
> >>>> adrian
> >>>> Mynsie wrote:
> >>>>> Is it perhaps, rather than "intelligence" the memory of experience at
> >>>>> play here,
> >>>>> not necessarily our own, but a "collective memory?
> >>>>> Merrie
> >>>>> ----------------------
> >>>>> A closed mouth gathers no feet.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
