RP, how does one have an impartial view of the quality and content of a singularly partial view?
On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes hallucinatory and delusional experiences are taken by the > beholder to be spiritual in nature , but it takes a knowledgeable > outsider to understand such experiences to be what they are.It is for > this reason it is better to describe personal experience to others in > the hope to get an impartial view , but sadly the affected person > doesn't accept an impartial view and considers himself to be psychic. > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > LOL. Yeah I am still here, > > Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an > > experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article > > and books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get > > discussing enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that > > of others. > > Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on > > their own .. > > Allan > > > On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your > >> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :) > > >> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) > > >> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one > >> "heretic" here already...alan? :) > > >> Thanks for the insights. > > >> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per > >>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially > >>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect > >>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're > >>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be depressing > >>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to > >>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better > >>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as > >>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing > >>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and > >>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed > >>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture > >>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like > >>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others > >>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative > >>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice at > >>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton > >>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard > >>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more > >>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with > >>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are. > > >>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) > > >>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to > >>>> get out more :) > > >>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i > >>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a > >>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality; > >>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and > >>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the > >>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite > >>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not > >>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be > >>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts > >>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which > >>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. > > >>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very > >>>> optimistic, archytas :) > > >>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it > >>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by > >>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with > >>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make > >>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as > >>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as > >>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of > >>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work. > >>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much > >>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in > >>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old > >>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have > >>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes > >>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side > >>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal > >>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that > >>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved > >>>>> that does. > >>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we > >>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we > >>>>> come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology > >>>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve > >>>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know > >>>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured > >>>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell > >>>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is > >>>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history > >>>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but > >>>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither > >>>>> matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the > >>>>> obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into > >>>>> the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case > >>>>> because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a > >>>>> rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds > >>>>> and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not > >>>>> under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each > >>>>> other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'. > > >>>>> Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through > >>>>> asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the > >>>>> holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of > >>>>> "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same > >>>>> way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly > >>>>> becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are > >>>>> thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to > >>>>> argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be > >>>>> demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks > >>>>> work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy > >>>>> there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but > >>>>> rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from > >>>>> pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that > >>>>> doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant > >>>>> speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely > >>>>> stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow > >>>>> governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just > >>>>> come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could > >>>>> put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all. > >>>>> For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who > >>>>> reports the 'secrets' under the bandages. > > >>>>> On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > >>>>>> By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > >>>>>> "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > >>>>>> time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > >>>>>> autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > >>>>>> neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > >>>>>> contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > >>>>>> isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > >>>>>> some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > >>>>>> view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > >>>>>> "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > >>>>>> the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > >>>>>> see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > >>>>>> the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > >>>>>> comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > >>>>>> On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > >>>>>>> Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > >>>>>>> On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > >>>>>>>> "more" comes from? > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> paradox, thanks again for your attempt at > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
