Yikes, does sound risky! What an experience, steeped in the flavor of the sixties.
On Jul 12, 3:10 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
