|
Hi Pete,
I'm going to break from my usual letter format to
respond to your
disappointments.
----- Original Message -----
From: pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's the mind? >
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Calling the "Pete Entity", > > If you are talking to me, you can refer to me by my name, it's > really quite painless. > Lighten up. You take yourself too seriously. You weren't offering your personal email address before, so I
sent out to the ether.
> > We can't seem to re-programme the wrap, using Outlook Express. If you > >can enlighten us, great. > > Sorry, I'm generally somewhat allergic to mu$oft products, so I > am blissfully ignorant of their deficiencies. > Lucky. > >I doubt that using less characters per line will > >have an effect, but perhaps it will be easier for you to read. Is it? > > This is a considerable improvement, thankyou. About four or five > characters fewer would be even better. > Will do. > > You seem so upset about my use of language and the words chosen, > >not to mention everything else. > > Not upset, but disappointed, and generally disapproving. > Your responses were quite anticipated, and also predictable for the
hard-nosed scientist. You are in denial, however, to say you
were not upset.
> > 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. > > I occasionally let a few posts slip away during extended vacations > in midsummer or around christmas, otherwise, everything gets read, > if sometimes a few days late. > > > 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 restrictive 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. > > True to an extent, however, my sense of the use of these words > in common speech is that certainly for energy, and for force > in the manner you used it, these are words reentrant into the > language from their usage in physics. In particular, pop metaphysics > has latched onto "energy" due to its nature in physics being > something which is real and measurable, yet not material, and > described as "never created nor destroyed". Similarly for force, > from the attractiveness of the concept of "fundamental forces". > This is really about me needing to conform to your play arena of word meaning, and has nothing to do
with common acceptance
of meaning. I'm familiar with the fact
that 'energy' and 'force' are
inacurately and over-used words that can
become meaningless
in a lot of New Age material, but again, I
have to employ them
too in order to express myself, even given
their limitations. They
are but symbols, and just because they are
used in a statement
that you consider insupportable by
science, does not mean that
you don't know in what sense I am using
said words.
energy: 1. Vigor or intensity of action or _expression_
power: 1. Power or energy; strength.
3.
Power or influence; ability to produce an effect
(Funk & Wagnalls Standard)
> However much such usage has currency in the pop m.p. circles, > it has already reached the stage of self parody when regarded > from the culture at large. I'm inclined to agree with this from the p.o.v. that many so-called spiritual types are spewing out B.S..
Phoney shamans and gurus
cashing in on energies and forces of their
own devise. Once aliens
come in on the scene to substantiate the
claims, it's highly suspect.
Religions' teachers have a great deal
to be ashamed of too, twisting
what was at one time pure into doctrine of
ego and control. Abusing
positions of authority for self
gratification, no matter what the form.
Yet New Age is selling, and still on the rise in spite of the
magical presen-
tations and in spite of the well-known
knowledge of greedy intent.
Entire blocks of book store space is
stuffed with New Age work.
> > 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, > > Not a word I have used. Check again. > Your words were essence of being, subjective consciousness--which I was actually referring to rather than
conscience--honest mistake--and
atman as brahman. Check again.
> > 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. > > Your comment demonstrates your utter lack of familiarity with the terms. > I highly recommend a trip to Banyen Books, and a reading of at least > three different translations of the Upanishads. You will, I expect, > be surprised at how old your new ideas are. > Hey, if you had used the word brahman with a capital B then I wouldn't have mentioned the caste system, yet I
maintain that the "great void", or
"nothingness" of Brahman, all light and
dark, all existence and non-exis-
tence, life and death combined, does not
represent my idea of our ulti-
mate path. To me, existence renders
non-existence untrue. Emptying
the mind of knowledge to allow truth to
come in is one goal in meditation,
but the nirvanic goal negates what is, in
my opinion. I did not present
at any time ideas inspired by "A Course In
Miracles" as new, and below
had said something to that effect. The
Course is a blend of Eastern,
Judean and Christian philosophies, old as
the hills, yet new because
of its presentation and psychological
approach.
Three translations of The Upanishads? I
think by this statement you are
overstating your lack of confidence in
me, or are demonstrating a
rabid
obsession with accumulating knowledge for
precision's sake--a demand
of ego (Greek sense), whose sole purpose
is to fill your thoughts with
everything but that which really matters in life. Ego's sole purpose is to
destroy you. Collecting knowledge without
understanding it is also a great
problem, and I can see that for all of
your indulgence in various
works
that the most basic concepts of kindness,
forgiveness, and patience have
utterly escaped you. These are moment
to moment experiential acts,
hard work that's really not so hard, but a choice you have to make
if
you wish to advance spiritual
awareness. Intellectual knowledge is
helpful, but if you can't apply it to
experience, you will be miserable
and forever seeking another great book to
collect and add to the endless
number.
> >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-- > > It wasn't a statement, it was a lyric. > Big picky flippin' deal. It was a communication. I wasn't a devoted fan, and for all I knew it could have been a
statement to the press.
> >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. > > That is your opinion, and judging from your apparent lack of familiarity > with some basic metaphysical thought (have you even read Berkeley?) > a somewhat uninformed one. > Not just my opinion. The sales of the actual Course are over 1.5 million, translated into about thirty languages,
and books related to the Course
sell in the tens of millions. It is
studied in countless universities, and
its concepts have been the inspiration for
such popular figures as
Marianne Williamson, who has possibly
overlooked most of the meta-
physical concepts in the Course, but has
at least not completely done
it injustice either. The author of "The
Dancing Wu Li (SP??) Masters",
a Quantum Physics read, and also
author of "The Seat of The Soul"
was greatly influenced. I'm sure you're
groaning over these examples,
yet these authors can relate to millions
of people who are
asking questions about who they are and
how to connect with that,
and can provide direction to some extent
regarding inner peace.
Berkeley? And Phenomenalism at its
infancy. I would be indulging
you, but mostly wasting valuable time. I
go along with some of his
stuff which I gleaned from text
books. He was pretty advanced
for the era and I understand his
significance to you and others.
>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. > Rethinking the "no special use of language" bit, the Course does use some commonly accepted words differently,
and tells you so. Had I
not read into the book some twenty pages
or so, I would have tossed
it for its God words, or its Christ
words--used in this book to symbo-
lize all of us, not just one, for example.
Yet upon establishing meaning
of a few symbols, all communication is as
clear as you could expect from
a divine source.
(Yes, Ed, I found the meaning of life,
holding out on you, and the answer
is "42". Check" HICH-HIKERS GUIDE TO
THE GALAXY" series,
by Douglas Adams.)
As to the path to spiritual
awareness, I know full well that it took
dedication to unlearning forty years
of being taught badly, and moment
to moment application of the only laws
that are real, IMHO. Not to say
I have completed my lessons. The end of
the Course is just the beginning.
I'm still here, on schoolroom earth, and I
don't feel special nor do I feel
that I have special knowledge for the
experience. Just something very
practical and a firm focal point from
which to act and forage. More at
peace than had I not chosen to overlook what I had criticized
harshly.
This is not Born Again religious ecstacy.
The book clearly states that
religion and spirituality are mutually
exclusive.
> > 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. > > Yipes. Scientists neither should nor would want to run governments, > they have completely the wrong temperment. Government should be > run public citizens, and economic systems should be designed by > systems engineers. Leave the scientists to explore and play with the > nature of the world, which is what they do best. > I disagree with you. We need scientists with an ability to relate to their fellow humans on collective
councils of leaders who represent
the best in their field. Science led us to
the very destructive forces
currently being employed by war. I realize
that scientists involved in
atomic energy, just as one example, but a
very crucial one, were almost
collectively opposed to any large scale
harnessing of a force mostly
unstudied and unpredictable. I believe
that they should be the ones to
undo the deed because of
their specific knowledge. Public citizens
are so misled by media today that their
exclusive right to governance
would result in little change from present
day global policies. Total
inclusion, is
the answer, and that means that scientists should come out
of their often
strictly academic shells to partake.
> > 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 am by training a hardnosed scientist, who demands integrity and > precision in analysis of the world. I am also by nature a hardnosed > mystic and metaphysician, who understands that the practice of > spiritual development is an experimental science which demands > every bit the same degree of rigour as the practise of material > science, and is not at all well served by a lot of nebulous mushy goo. > Neither for the dispenser thereof, nor the mainstream audience > rightly dismissive of its fuzzy-mindedness. Metaphysics is not > all sunshine and flowers, it is full of hard problems, which > require precision and intellectual acuity to navigate. It is > a field which could use a lot more good minds, ones which are > not likely to find their way to it if they percieve it as populated > by people who without conscious irony actually use terms like > "love-energy" in all seriousness. > I agree that the study of being is not all lolly pops and rainbows. Yet if we only continue along the path of
those in the field that
you seem to relate to most, who intend to
develop it into an exact
universal science, serving as a model or
matrix for all theoretical
knowledge, then we will be ignoring
explanations of human behavior
based on the individual and further to
that, victimizing the individual
with perspective as "truth" that is
inhuman, reducing the individual
to a passive
receptacle for the symbolic version of others.
The term love-energy, again, will not hold
sway with your
elitist sect, but it means a great deal to
people who understand love
and its power to overcome all things. It
cannot be taught, it must be
experienced. This is the crux of our
entire discourse: I believe it is
an energy or force; you can't believe it
in spite of all your alleged
reading on metaphysics. Love is the
integral part you have trouble
with, and I don't think you would have
taken such time with me
had you not been going through a
phenomenon known as
"criticizing what you
like".
Music is a
common language, no special words needed for its
appreciation, nor ability to understand
the physics involved in
producing a note. If you were a jazz fan,
and said to the classical
orchestra player that they had no
appreciation for music because
they didn't wish to pursue the style that
had the most meaning for
you, you would be trying to negate what is
a meaningful experience
to them.
> > 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 expectancy. 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 allopathic "help". > > So, whenever you say "science" what you actually mean is "medicine". > No. Science is behind the pharmaceutical giants that influence and control medicine. I know full well it is
not a much respected field
within the profession, but nonetheless
depends on science to proliferate.
Further, it is the field that most
directly effects and affects us. The
doctor gods, with the power of life and
death over us, not to mention
the utter wealth of the giant beast
industry itself.
> > 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. > > Or "military technology". > Call it what you want, but science developed this hand-in-glove with technology and is continuing to
develop this type of weaponry
that requires specific knowledge from
science in order to develop
more effective weaponry. Denial
denied!
> > 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.! > > But you were complaining about biochemical _engineering_. > Your terminology, in denial again. > > 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? > > Not observations, but a collection of uninformed anti-scientific > prejudice and stereotyping. > Pete, I'm sorry if you took it so personally. I tried to soften the statements made by saying that science is
like most other professions.
The good work is obscured by that which we
do not need, and greed
is the motivator. I hope you come up with
something great for the
world. We certainly need it, and may you
"have a nice anomaly" one
day--to quote Douglas Adams again--to help
you find it!
Natalia
> -Pete Vincent > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > DJB
|
