Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy You're forgiven. You're too smart to lose. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 09:33:22 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads "Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this" and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by "attacking the previous generation" on an internet list? The answer is easier than "attack": laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/11/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: "Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad." This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : "How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads?" This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called "weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on". But because Craig is a nice guy and could "sense", in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future. He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: "If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay?" Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen > to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic > labyrinths any day. I do not even try to learn comedy. Yet I learn from mystics more than any credible scientist. Of course mystics have posed any number of contradictory realities. Because of this I rather intuitively rank each posed reality by the number and dignity of the mystics associated with a particular hypothetical reality. I lend more dignity to a mystic if he or she happens to be a scientist, or a mathematician, or a philosopher, including those associated with religion. I also look for underlying principles that make seemingly contradictory realities consistent, something Moses advised for his contradictory laws. So Plato was both philosopher and mystic. Leibniz, both mathematician and mystic. One might add Godel, Wheeler, even Witten, but not Newton. I certainly add Buddha, Jesus, even Swedenborg and the early schools of Hinduism, but not any Pope. For me what distinguishes a mystic is their possession of what I call "insight", a property of advanced humans that allows them to see or sense a unique reality that is beyond scientific measurement in space and in time. The fact that Buddhists have "sensed" a lattice of seemingly entangled particles and that Leibniz seemingly arrived at the same conclusion logically (however I suspect he "sensed" that reality as well), and now that supersymmetric string theory SST has at least deduced the same reality, gives that reality IMO overwhelming credibility. I say SST deduced rather than derived because what happened to the extra dimensions are not (yet) derived from the theory. That no such mystic has "sensed" an MWI-type multiverse is also IMO meaningful. Yet it is clear that particles in the so-called particle/wave duality exist mostly as waves having numerous quantum states even in constrained systems like electrons in an atom. So what is the underlying principle that makes these contradictory realities, MWI quantum waves versus SWI physical particles, consistent?? (to be continued) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads "Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this" and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by "attacking the previous generation" on an internet list? The answer is easier than "attack": laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy > > Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. > Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/11/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > > Hi Roger, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> >> Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not >> an opinion of God. >> > > And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation > in Leibniz: "Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme > gonad." > > This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking > himself: : "How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... > monads?" > > This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the > future in a time machine called "weak comp, yes I get it, but will never > admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the > number I II III and so on". But because Craig is a nice guy and could > "sense", in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean > senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to > use and dressed as a doctor from the future.� > > He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just > chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for > lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat > hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant > time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution > level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie > company in Hanover: "If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with > precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating > goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking > you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay?" > > Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. > > Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into > most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. > > They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious > moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the > family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. > > If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my > proof: > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookies&hl=en
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/11/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: "Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad." This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : "How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads?" This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called "weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on". But because Craig is a nice guy and could "sense", in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future.? He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: "If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay?" Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookies&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=IVQ&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_fPFUOvxF4mShge_nYHYDg&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1034 Good winter/holiday season to everyone who is not a monadahole. Shitakefunshrooms, Cowboy ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/9/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > > Roger, > > Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not > need a god outside of themselves. > Richard > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was >> not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is >> who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. >> L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence >> or the One. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/8/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 >> Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not > an opinion of God. > And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: "Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad." This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : "How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads?" This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called "weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on". But because Craig is a nice guy and could "sense", in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future. He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: "If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay?" Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookies&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=IVQ&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_fPFUOvxF4mShge_nYHYDg&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1034 Good winter/holiday season to everyone who is not a monadahole. Shitakefunshrooms, Cowboy > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/10/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > > Roger, > The monads are collectively god > That's is likely what Newton would believe > and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in > but was afraid to express. > Richard > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough > > > wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > > > Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net <+rclo...@verizon.net>] > > 12/9/2012 > > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > > > > - Receiving the following content - > > From: Richard Ruquist > > Receiver: everything-list > > Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 > > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > > > > Roger, > > > > Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not > > need a god outside of themselves. > > Richard > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough > > > > wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist > >> > >> Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was > >> not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is > >> who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. > >> L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence > >> or the One. > >> > >> > >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net <+rclo...@verizon.net>] > >> 12/8/2012 > >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > >> > >> > >> - Receiving the following content - > >> From: Richard Ruquist > >> Receiver: everything-list > >> Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 > >> Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > >> > >> Roger, > >> > >> In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is > >> required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore > >> isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore > >> cannot be god. > >> Richard > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough > >> > > wrote: > >>> Hi Richard Ruquist > >>> > >>> > >>> You say, "God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is > >>> expressed on and in all of them. " > >>> > >>> God is the agent that carries out this expression, > >>> for only He knows what they all are. > >>> > >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net <+rclo...@v
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Richard Ruquist No, the supreme monad is what God sees through and does through, but God is behind or above the supreme monad. Newton's God was something like that in that the universe was, in Newton's words, God's "sensorium". But Newton had no systematic view of the universe-- no supreme monad or monads of any kind. Newton believed simply that things happened as if God's hand caused them to move. Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/9/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God > > Roger, > > Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not > need a god outside of themselves. > Richard > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was >> not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is >> who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. >> L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence >> or the One. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/8/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 >> Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God >> >> Roger, >> >> In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is >> required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore >> isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore >> cannot be god. >> Richard >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> >>> You say, "God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is >>> expressed on and in all of them. " >>> >>> God is the agent that carries out this expression, >>> for only He knows what they all are. >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/8/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Richard Ruquist >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 >>> Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King >>> wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a "one God" was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. >>> >>> Hear, Hear >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everyt
