My, but you do go on. It's almost as though you've discovered the
absolute truth!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:36
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's
the mind?
Calling the "Pete Entity",
We can't seem to re-programme the wrap, using Outlook
Express. If you
can enlighten us, great. I doubt that
using less characters per line will have
an effect, but perhaps it will be easier
for you to read. Is it?
You seem so upset about my use of language and the
words chosen,
not to mention everything else. May I ask if you were
actually following
any of the emails around this topic? Or any others, for that
matter. Most
have little to do with science in its purest definition as
you wish to view
it. A large chunk of the correspondence is political, and
many are simply
expressing their feelings or educated guesses on what comes
in.
The very notion that you think scientists, let alone
science in its elitist
world has exclusive rights to such common words as
energy or force is
indicative of the state of the profession with respect to
whom it professes
to serve. I was not working under the presumption that
I was only trying
to communicate with scientists, yet I was aware that there
may be a few
on the list. What I was suggesting was that scientific
definition is restric-
tive because everything must be defined using physical
terminology.
Should you care to visit with a dictionary you will learn
that, not only has
science usurped the common usage of these words, but has
also chosen
to narrow its scope on physic's exclusive view
points.
I realize that metaphysically speaking, love cannot
be defined in these
terms alone, or even in part. The words were chosen to best
approximate
meaning. Essence of being is close enough for me, but the
scientific mind
insists upon a breakdown of that which
will account for physical existence.
Subjective conscience is not accurate enough, conscience not
being the
essence of being, only an illusion. Atman--soul, as brahman,
is way off
if you are trying to re-explain what I said, because of the
exclusion within
caste system concept, for starters, and
because the "great void" is not my
idea of our ultimate path. Though I
find many meaningful concepts in
eastern philosophy, the end for which is strived does not
feel like truth for
me. I like the "best of every philosophy"approach, which
does not exclude,
and allows me to reason out what feels right for me.
I can't just say, "Only love is real,
everything else is illusion"
to people who have no background in metaphysics, and though
it is
obvious that some do, I do not wish to alienate anyone.
We were dis-
cussing a work called "A Course In Miracles", first printed
in 1975,
whose very premise is the same as Carole King's statement in
1976--
not to say that she borrowed it, nor am I saying that the
Course was
its originator. Should science ever arrive at the
source of these words,
we won't be interested in justifying our positions. This
"Course" is a
fine blend of philosophies, quite unique in its metaphysical
and
psychological approach. Some will call it tailor-made for
people who
don't fit in to the various religions, yet want to belong to
a group.
New Age does not hope to define it, and moreover much of
what is
New Age has borrowed heavily from it. Every path that leads to progress
is valid. Inner peace is the goal, not validation to
science. In this case we
were originally talking with Selma about thoughts being able
to physically
change neural pathways related to behaviour, and the new
book about
research done with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder patients. I
mentioned
another great book to check out, it
being one of the most
important in the metaphysical field to come out in
centuries. If you had
absorbed it, you wouldn't try to reduce it to scientific
terms, let alone
terminology of other metaphysical works. It stands alone and
needs no
"special" use of language to be understood.
Stealing
legitimacy from science? Borrowing its language? Did
science
come before words or did science borrow
from common usage? Again,
my words and definitions are not meant to appeal to
your scientific-
definition-seeking mind, rather another side,and I urge you
to check
your dictionary on all definitions. I
have at least allowed for the fact that
there are legitimate scientists, as opposed to the majority
who are
doing questionable work in such fields as applied research.
I am acutely
aware that politics and greed are what ultimately
determine the fate of
scientific advancement, and I greave that some scientists
who exhibit
wisdom are not running governments.
Sorry, just because a scientist knows the language of science
does not mean they can better
understand the concepts in metaphysics.
Metaphysics is the study of being
itself, which is mostly foggy to those
who insist on reducing everything
to an objective reality. Language is
symbolic at best, and usually far
removed from reality.
I will maintain that little of
significance or benefit to those whom it
should be serving has emerged from
science in the last several decades.
Extension of lifespan was not primarily
due to the discovery of anti-
biotics & vaccines, as scientists
like to claim, but to the discovery of
cleanliness as a lifestyle just prior to
the new drugs. If you review history,
the rich prominent figures lived lives
almost comparable to today's expec-
tancy. Cancer research is appalling,
criminal should you look at both doctors'
and scientists' statistics on efficacy of supposedly
scientifically, allegedly
proven to be effective treatments. The National Cancer
Institute stats are
a shocking read, and one learns that science is mostly
guessing at their
research that is costing billions and mostly using patients
as guinea pigs.
The most significant research for cancer has been target
radiation and gentler
chemo. Duh! Lung cancer victims have at most a 10% chance of
lasting
two years after an operation, chemotherapy or radiation
treatment. Those
who live the longest--maxed out at 5 years, almost never
have any allo-
pathic "help".
Should we review the integrity of other
disciplines of science,
like those that fall under the guise of defense such as
bio-weaponry,
atomic/nuclear weaponry. Money is the chief motivator
in these
professions, much like most others. To say I have most science all
wrong should be proven to me in any terms
possible.
You really have to look at a dictionary. Biochemistry
is under the broad
definition of science; it is any branch of knowledge,
characterized by close
observation, experimentation, classification of data, and
the establishment of
verifiable principles; also the body of systemized knowledge
based on such
methods. Hey, even the "science" of cooking is in
there.!
All this invective from the suggestion that
science might consider anecdotal
evidence or start from the unproven P.O.V.-- in other words
try something
that is outside of their edicts to make progress. Isn't this
what the great
ones in the field did, then often worked backwards in order
to systematically
hypothesize? They weren't obviously
harbouring the fears normally associated
with venturing outside of the status quo.
May a person from outside the scientific
community make an observa-
tion without having to present a thesis for scrutiny?
IMHO
Natalia
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
First of all, I would greatly appreciate if you would set your
text
to wrap at about 70 characters. That is standard for viewing
in
terminal windows, and would make your text much easier to read,
thankyou.
(Quoted text reformatted for legibility.)
>
When I said, leave it to the scientific mind to ask & then try to prove
>the obvious, I simply meant that I'm amazed that the scientific mind
>demands proof of existence of what is obvious, and will waste valuable
>time pursuing what cannot be realized in terms of a physical or
objective
>validation. Scientists are primarily focusing on finding the
mind within
>the brain, and I'm saying that it is mind that controls
brain, so the
>work would have to somehow overcome the limitations of
linear thought,
>which the foundation of science does not allow
for.
First of all, you are conflating "scientist" with "reductionist".
This is the sort of error of superficial analysis which
immediately
alerts serious students of the philosophy of science that
sloppy
thinking is coming.
You cannot measure or
>seek
out an energy whose force is eternal. It requires no physical
>confirmation from science; it simply is.
You completely
undermine your argument with this sort of sad abuse
of terminology.
"Energy" and "force" are two completely distinct
and well defined terms in
physics which have no business being
hijacked to serve as synonyms in a
fuzzy sentence that breezily
ignores their proper meaning. There is a huge
gulf between those
who actually know science (and incidentally, scientists
can be
as metaphysical and philosophical as anyone; moreso, as they
are
trained to use language with the requisite precision) and
the
scientifically illiterate commentators whose discussions are
replete
with these foggy terms, which appear all the more pathetic
as they are
clearly borrowed from science in order to attempt
to claim a little of the
legitimacy that science enjoys. You
would do far better, and avoid
alienating those literate in
science with whom you wish to communicate,
were you to take the
time to learn a vocabulary more appropriate to your
topic. To
this end, I would advise reading some philosophy in
metaphysics,
phenomenology, philosophy of mind; even the eastern
traditions
whose terms are at least recognized by those who study the
mind
body problem as having been developed to achieve a certain
degree
of precision, ie the Upanishads, the Dhammapada
etc.
> Further to that part, I'm saying that mind is
behind creativity. Brain
>is the machine which carries out the needs of
actual physical operations
>and physical communication Music, art,
design, literature, dance,
>laughter, love and compassion are not
measurable and your capacity for
>these will never be found in a
physical mechanism.
Stated without proof. That is not at all clear. Nor
is such an association
necessarily incompatible with a transcendent nature
of mind.
>Your brain is incapable of becoming one with creativity,
as was suggested
>by Ray in talking about art and the artist becoming
indistinguishable
>once involved in a piece.
> The
soul is what is alive, the brain is but a puppet. You just have to
>look at the face of a loved one who has just died to know that that's
>just not who you knew.
> I knew a kitten called
Stuey, who stayed at the side of his ailing dog
>companion day and
night, until the moment his buddy died. He got up and
>left the dog's
side at once, recognizing, it seemed that what was his
>companion was
no longer there. He never returned to the body. I'm not
>certain
whether the kitten was raised in a religious household, or
>whether or
not his "genes" had the programming or capacity for sensing
>soul
energy.
> Love energy is that which is the sole force
of what is real. What is
>real is eternal. Nothing exists that can
overcome its extensions. Love is
>the only force that creates, and is
at peace forever in this knowledge.
Not energy, not force. What you
are trying to express here is
essence of being, subjective consciousness,
atman as brahman;
"Only love is real, everything else is illusion" - Carole
King, 1976.
Lucid, economical, and to the point.
>Love is the
condition for true creativity. Power-over is not genuine
>power, and its
self-serving directions always stray into the avenues of
>destruction--of self-esteem, society, or environment. Arriving at the
>"end game" of the industrial era, we can see the price. The mind that
has
>been taught badly can mis-create, but miscreations do not last,
their
>basis being founded on illusions of fear. Fear and its
derivatives appear
>to be real, but are always overcome by love, just
as peace is the only
>answer to war. Peace is recognized as truth once
it is experienced. Mind
>weighs love against fear throughout our
physical existence, but only
>experiences a fruitful life by the laws
of love. Again, love cannot be
>measured; your capacity is eternal.
> I realize that what I'm saying is not being expressed
in scientific
>language and that it is in opposition to it.
You
realize wrong. What you are talking about does not intersect
with science
whatsoever. It is philosophy.
>Science's inability to consider what
they cannot see or measure accounts
>for its inability to make
requisite progress. It has to open up to
>evolve.
Sciences are
progressing just fine thankyou. They are certainly making
much better
headway than "new age" pop metaphysics, which seems to be
permanently
mired in such fuzzy linguistic imprecision and medieval
folk notions that
it wallows about making no headway whatsoever,
and drawing the contempt of
pragmatic mainstream culture as being
the domain of ineffectual
"flakes".
> Unfortunately, where money is involved, creativity is
stifled by
>the need to produce publishable work--which depends on
supportable data
>that other scientists deem to be traditionally
acceptable. This does not
>mean that science is generating an accurate
representation of all data,
>and I will use the pharmaceutical industry
as a relevant example.
> In an interview about her
controversial book, "The Medical Mafia: How
>to Get out of it Alive and
Take Back Our Health and Wealth" Guylaine
>Lanctot, M.D., discusses her
experiences with the medical system.
[...]snip discussion of
pharmaceutical industry
> From the above, you can deduce that
scientists and researchers are at
>best nothing more than human; some
responsible and innovative, others
>once employed mostly not--just like
most other professions...
Your quoted discussion was not about science,
but biochemical engineering,
and corporate funding.
> I
never said that there were separate pathways for the different types
>of memories. I was merely trying to account for the activity you
>described prior to response in the experiment cited. Why are you
>surprised that the response seems to be almost immediate? Thought is
the
>fastest energy possible, but being magnetically attracted (for lack
of a
>better analogy) to the brain's electrical energy, it gets a bit
filtered
>in time by our memory data.
I trust you realize that
last sentence is just painfully content
free.
-Pete Vincent
> As to, How do you know you are free to "take"
decisions?--barring mind
>control, you are free to think what ever
thoughts you wish, just as you
>are free to absorb and process new
information in order to reformulate
>what you once believed or
hypothesized. Freedom will, I must say, be a
>condition that may be
difficult to arrive at under certain economic and
>social restrictions.
A child born to a war-torn starving country may
>never have the
opportunities of middle-class America, yet within its
>sphere of
existence, will still have the ability to feel one way or
>another
about its own experiences. I'm free to change my mind about all
>of the
above, but reason and logic have led me to this place, and it had
>nothing to do with publishable science.
_______________________________________________
Futurework
mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
DJB
