Wow, there's some star power there backing up Roy. I saw Bruce Springstein, Tom Waits and Elvis Costello in the band as well. Some show that was I bet. Thank you, Molly.
dj On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM, 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 >> > > > > > > > not new either. In fact, I would subscribe to it, along with a >> > > > > > > > few >> > > > > > > > others. However, whenever I see the term ‘everything’ >> > > > > > > > associated with >> > > > > > > > what weknow, I cringe. No, I do not think that we willeverknow >> > > > > > > > ‘everythingabouteverything’. . . at least not in the context >> > > > > > > > you >> > > > > > > > appear to be asking the question. >> >> > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> >> >> ... >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
