I was not goiong to answer you RP,, Going though a spiritual experience does not make a person a psycic it makes them a person that has had a spiritual experience. Nothing more. In my opinion to many people want to make more out of it than it really is. Allan
On 26 jul. 2011, at 10:13, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ยป- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
