John,

I maintain that we all, whether we admit it or not, are doing more
than simply building our life history in a "constructive" way (in the
mathematical sense, sorry), bit by bit, from one observer moment to
the next based only one a logical progression from remembered observer
moments.  This constructive, step-by-step, progression is what I would
call "from the inside out".  I maintain that we also invoke a "from
the outside in" type of process in our living, in the acquiring of
life for our consciousness.  Again, this "outside" is not from other
remembered observer moments (that would be still from "inside" the set
of remembered observer moments).  I think that if it were really true
that "from the inside out" is the only way (as it seems some,
including Russell, maintain), that would be akin to what you call
"abiding 'firmly' on our present mindset".  But in fact we don't do
that for very long before we feel that we are stagnating, and then
hopefully we look to the horizon of the spirit for more life from the
true eternal essence/Person.  To correct my previous quote of Yoda,
"Luminous beings we are."

Tom

On Apr 22, 6:42 am, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom (and Russell and others in the discussion):
> (Remark: I did not read Russell's book, it is above my head to follow his
> (math-related?) logic. So I rely on remarks I read on the list. Sorry, if it
> is unfounded or erroneous).
> "our there"
> The ominous MIR assumption (Mind Independent Rreality) I've debated on the
> Karl Jaspers Forum and other lists, on the grounds that our mind is PART of
> that "MIR" and cannot look at it as the "legendary scientist in his armchair
> who visualizes the rolling little fireball he calls the BigBang Universe".
> After Colin Hayes (maybe I misunderstood him?) I use our 'in'-  vision(s) as
> "mini-solipsism" containing a figment of a perceived reality on a basis I do
> not identify. I MAY have impacts into my consciousness (whatever that may
> be) but no way to understand them "as is", only as my intellect can
> translate 'them?'  for "me" (the ominous "I").
> With similar 'built' in all aspects of our mentalty it can include very
> similar facets, -not identical ones- we all have differencies in all the
> similarities. So we have a basis for discussion.
> The ideas in this debate are all applying circumstances, facts?, concepts
> and conclusions as understandable(?) by the human mind - ours. I am missing
> Bruno's humility (IF comp is valid...).
>
> Of course the entire list is positioned into a rather physicalistic logical
> domain.
>  Russell once (~decade ago?) objected to my terming it as 'some scientific
> religion' - meaning: a belief system (of any kind).
>
> I want to press the much wider conditional possibilities than the ones WE
> can imagine or just even speak about in human logic-  language. The
> acquisition of epistemic enrichment - allowed for even fantasy-tools as in
> Gedanklen-experiments - is IMO not limited. Abiding 'firmly' on our present
> mindset is a negation of further future expansions unlimited.
>
> Just expressing my thoughts - not in a constructive way.
>
> John M
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to