krimel, i don't want to have an argument krimel, that really just bores me. i am trying to help you understand new ideas. this is a difficult process, especially when you react *against* my explanations, rather than seeking a dialectical engagement that may well lead to a mutually clarified understanding.
if you have any genuine questions i will do my best to answer them. gav gav, I suppose it is true as you and Marsha have pointed out that I am being a bit grumpy and harsh. Still I doubt that there is much room for mutual understanding here. What you seem to be saying is neither new to me nor very hard to understand. I recently watched a documentary on LSD. Among the things it touched on was how the drug affects a small part of the brain that filters and adds emotional content to experience. In the absence of the filtering colors seem brighter, emotions more intense, ideas more profound. The documentary notes that one of the appeals of psychedelics is their sure fire ability to produce a religious experience. They teach the imbiber that reality is built on our perceptions and that when those perceptions are altered so is our reality. There is no single, best way to perceive reality but perceive it we must. To me at least the Value of an experience like that is to show us that reality is illusive. Not in the sense of unreal or mirage-like but changeable, plastic. You don't get to know it better by locking into so more fanciful version of it but by seeing that all versions are more or less fanciful. Bohr's comments that science is what we can say "about" nature come to mind. Having said this I must qualify it by adding that as we stroll through the museum of reality as art, some versions are rendered with Pixar and some with fingerpaints. Krimel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
