Oh, I do love Roy...a lot! And, I've played on the same stage as Tom...back in the 60s in Hogville (Gainesville/Dreamville). I even visited his high school there. In fact, during one concert out in Archer we both participated in, during the set my group was onstage, the county sheriff's came over the hills in their cars, shooting their revolvers. It was a massive 'drug bust' (deep south type). I quit music for a while after that.
On Jul 12, 11:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe you would appreciate him more if he was playing with friends: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6lhdkGu6d0 > > On Jul 11, 2:13 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ...sure wish I could appreciate old Tom.... > > > On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stop Dragon my heart around Molly! > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeMx6LQxPk > > > > On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, and consubstantially produce the luck dragon in the never ending > > > > story...I'm ready for MY ride... > > > > > On Jul 10, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "...Conversation between those two views may create dragons. " - MB > > > > > > All too true! Mind's Eye is an excellent example, no? > > > > > > I hope you were using the indefinite 'you' in your admonition to 'see' > > > > > stuff because I presented 'dragons' knowing that many here would > > > > > debate against either a relative or an absolute ontological view. In > > > > > fact, both consubstantially are the case. > > > > > > On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically and > > > > > > even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with > > > > > > difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-) > > > > > > > Dragons only for those who have not ascertained universal laws and > > > > > > thus, cannot understand. This may be the leap from rational to > > > > > > transnational, relative to absolute. Very difficult to discuss with > > > > > > those who have not seen the leap possible or made it themselves. Of > > > > > > course, once you see it as possible, and get the one taste (Ken > > > > > > Wilber) you will be continually called to make the leap until you > > > > > > until you can hear the call and make the leap. Perception is the > > > > > > key. If we view the universe with set laws, our universe will > > > > > > operate > > > > > > in this way for us. If we see the universe as creative, responsive, > > > > > > specific and absolute, it will operate in this way for us. > > > > > > Conversation between those two views may create dragons. > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 3:27 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > “But this is only a manifestation of our expanding understanding, > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > it not?” – rj > > > > > > > > Not quite Jim. I would say that our understanding has changed, > > > > > > > true. > > > > > > > Also, from many perspectives, it can be seen as ‘expanded’. Of > > > > > > > course, > > > > > > > I can’t know for sure because as much as I’ve studied the > > > > > > > cosmological > > > > > > > views of ancient cultures, few if anyone today knows what their > > > > > > > full > > > > > > > thinking on the topic was. > > > > > > > > Also, built into your question is the base assumption that we know > > > > > > > more, as in a more accurate view, than those in the past did. > > > > > > > Again, > > > > > > > while it can be viewed this way, personally, I don’t know the full > > > > > > > story here. I am sure that some used to use superstition, a form > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > ignorance, to fill in their views. On the other hand, many today > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > the same. I would have to assume that you are referring > > > > > > > specifically > > > > > > > to generally accepted cosmological views of today. Of course, this > > > > > > > doesn’t exist. There is argumentation among the ‘professionals’ > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > much of reality and I’m not talking about simple philosophical > > > > > > > argumentation alone here either. > > > > > > > Overall, I do agree that what we ‘see’ today is different. > > > > > > > > “You do not mean that the physical universe is adding matter, > > > > > > > evolving > > > > > > > laws relating to matter, or even > > > > > > > tweaking those laws now operative, do you?” – rj > > > > > > > > No, this wasn’t my intention Jim. First, the notion of ‘adding > > > > > > > matter’ > > > > > > > would/could be an entire paper in itself. Secondly, the universe > > > > > > > doesn’t ‘evolve laws’, does it? Oh, I guess some find a changing > > > > > > > universe and some personify this universe. However, I’ll guess > > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > not meaning ‘laws’ in the sense of an analysis and conclusion for > > > > > > > prediction that humans use here. If I’m wrong, please clarify. > > > > > > > And as > > > > > > > to ‘tweaking…laws now operative’, you would have to provide a > > > > > > > list for > > > > > > > me to know for sure what you are asking. Please understand I’m not > > > > > > > attempting to be oblique. I merely wish to be sure what you are > > > > > > > assuming with your questions so that my responses can address that > > > > > > > directly rather than merely projecting upon your words. > > > > > > > > “If the physical universe (whether expanding, contracting or > > > > > > > static) > > > > > > > is set, it seems to me that the laws applicable to it, and > > > > > > > operative > > > > > > > in it, are set too.” – rj > > > > > > > > This is a very large assumption Jim. And, I do appreciate you > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > up front with it. > > > > > > > My insights about appearances are not quite of the magnitude to be > > > > > > > able to make such a blanket statement. I do guess that there are > > > > > > > specific ‘laws’. What they are and how they apply to non-humans is > > > > > > > another story. Delving a little deeper, I find that what we > > > > > > > observe, > > > > > > > whether static or changing, has been understood by humans in > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > realms and at different levels. Again, assuming the current > > > > > > > ‘scientific’ analysis, even this seems to change in jumps. Most > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > adhere to the tenets of science are proud that how things are > > > > > > > understood/seen changes all the time. > > > > > > > > “Thus, as we come to understand more and more, we increase our > > > > > > > knowledge of the set universe until, at some point, we understand > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > those laws. Right?” – rj > > > > > > > > Jim, for argumentation only, since you ask, no, not right. Not > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > at all. First, an increase in quantity has nothing to do with an > > > > > > > increase in quality, some theories aside. Secondly, you appear to > > > > > > > conflate understand and knowledge so I will waffle until I grasp > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > use of terms better. While some arguments against it have been > > > > > > > found, > > > > > > > an analogy to what you suggest can be found in one of Zeno’s more > > > > > > > famous paradoxes. You know, the one that says that if an arrow is > > > > > > > shot > > > > > > > towards a specific target, at a given point in time, it can be > > > > > > > measured as having gone half way there. Then half again. Then half > > > > > > > again etc. Thus always having at least half of the remaining > > > > > > > distance > > > > > > > to travel and never arriving. Yes, I know, not a concrete and > > > > > > > lucid > > > > > > > example, but one for fodder. > > > > > > > > Not wishing to end on such a weak argument, I’ll just add that > > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > talking about humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with > > > > > > > difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-) > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 9:01 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > OM - you said - what has been included in the ‘physical > > > > > > > > universe’ has > > > > > > > > changed > > > > > > > > over time. Yes, I agree. But this is only a manifestation of our > > > > > > > > expanding understanding, is it not? You do not mean that the > > > > > > > > physical > > > > > > > > universe is adding matter, evolving laws relating to matter, or > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > tweaking those laws now operative, do you? If the physical > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > (whether expanding, contracting or static) is set, it seems to > > > > > > > > me that > > > > > > > > the laws applicable to it, and operative in it, are set too. > > > > > > > > Thus, as > > > > > > > > we come to understand more and more, we increase our knowledge > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > set universe until, at some point, we understand all those laws. > > > > > > > > Right? Jim > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 4:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > “OM - no, I do not take any of your comments as personal. I > > > > > > > > > see them > > > > > > > > > as challenging what I proposed, which is the hope I had when > > > > > > > > > I posted > > > > > > > > > them. Thanks. “ – RJ > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Jim…beliefs can be tenacious. > > > > > > > > > > “ … the beleif that there is an ultimate theory > > > > > > > > > ofeverythingis not > > > > > > > > > mine.” – RJ > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I understood that Jim. > > > > > > > > > When I responded earlier “… And, yes, this has been pursued > > > > > > > > > ‘forever’. > > > > > > > > > However, what has been included in the ‘physical universe’ > > > > > > > > > has changed > > > > > > > > > over time. So, this notion can be applied to numerous > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > levels.” I was including Albert and many other human beings. > > > > > > > > > I wished > > > > > > > > > to add the less provincial view that what we ‘know’ about the > > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > today is not only different from the past, but different from > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > future too. In this way, Einstein can be seen within the > > > > > > > > > context of > > > > > > > > > his pursuit of equations that would ‘explain’ the universe. > > > > > > > > > While > > > > > > > > > equations can be seen as analogies, they are not that which > > > > > > > > > is being > > > > > > > > > directly apprehended. So, when you now add that “…It must > > > > > > > > > have been > > > > > > > > > and be the belief of all those, like Einstein, who chose to > > > > > > > > > devote a > > > > > > > > > major part of their life to pursuing it….”, what I believe is > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > Albert was only talking about a description of how ‘matter’ > > > > > > > > > is…nothing > > > > > > > > > more. I also believe that his pursuit was along a spiritual > > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > As to your ‘WHAM’ theory, the notion of change happening in > > > > > > > > > jumps is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
