A third person is better able to judge about someone's experience as he is not biased , provided he has a working knowledge of psychology.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM, 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 »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
