Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 30 | |
From: Nov 23, 1998 |
To: Dec 5, 1998 |
Page: 3 Of: 5 |
Jim -:- The Sokal hoax -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:07:52 (EST) __Nigel -:- The Sokal hoax... -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:13:04 (EST) ____bill -:- The other hoax... -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 00:37:33 (EST) ______Mickey the Pharisee -:- Boys, boys, boys.... -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:02:14 (EST) ________bill -:- Boys, toys, joys.... -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:26:09 (EST) ______Sir D -:- The other hoax... -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:45:01 (EST) ________seymour -:- What is Round and Cruel? -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:59:18 (EST) ______Jim -:- The other hoax... -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 17:18:57 (EST) ________bill -:- The other one -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 19:38:57 (EST) __________Jim -:- The other one -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 19:55:27 (EST) ____________Sir David -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 20:23:16 (EST) ______________Helen -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 22:24:59 (EST) ______________Jerry -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:34:35 (EST) ______________Mike -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 13:13:33 (EST) ______________hamzen -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:02:32 (EST) ________________Sir David -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:09:48 (EST) __________________Mike -:- Actually...it was done -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:41:36 (EST) ____________________Sir David -:- We're pretty dumb cats -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:54:41 (EST) ______________________Mike -:- No we're not... -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 18:35:28 (EST) ______________Jerry -:- Open to all possibilities -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:57:47 (EST) ________________Mike -:- Good Questions, Jerry -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:41:35 (EST) __________________Helen -:- Good Questions, Jerry -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:24:21 (EST) __________________Jim -:- Good Questions, Jerry -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:29:19 (EST) ________________Sir David -:- But not creationist -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 22:26:27 (EST) __________________Jerry -:- But not creationist -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:45:06 (EST) __________________Helen -:- LSD made me what I am today -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:09:08 (EST) __________________Mike -:- But not creationist -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 14:03:14 (EST) ____________bill -:- The other two -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:39:49 (EST) ______________Jim -:- You've got it backwards, Bill -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 00:45:49 (EST) ________________bill -:- You've got it ward -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 22:26:12 (EST) ________________Sir D -:- What are you; a lawyer? -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 23:00:34 (EST) __________________Helen -:- Back in your cage -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:35:57 (EST) __________________Jim -:- Sometimes I feel like one -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 21:15:09 (EST) ____________________Sir David -:- Not nonsense to me -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 10:08:45 (EST) ______________________Helen -:- Not nonsense to me -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:14:42 (EST) ________________________gerry -:- I still believe... -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:17:12 (EST) ______________________bill -:- Not nonsense to me -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 01:46:55 (EST) ________________________Jerry -:- Not nonsense to me -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:54:41 (EST) __________________________bill -:- good ole Jerry -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:14:10 (EST) shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:54:29 (EST) __Mike -:- Mine is simple -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:11:50 (EST) ____jethro -:- Mine is simple -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:36:27 (EST) ______Mike -:- Let me spillane...he he -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:38:00 (EST) ____Helen -:- Mine is simple -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:26:13 (EST) ______Orlando -:- shp=SHP? -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:41:01 (EST) ________Helen -:- shp=SHP? -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:09:32 (EST) ______shp -:- Mine is simple -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:57:51 (EST) ______shp -:- Mine is simple -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:23:05 (EST) ________Helen -:- Mine is simple -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:56:17 (EST) __________shp -:- Mine is simple -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:46:42 (EST) ____________Helen -:- Bodies ruined for GM -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:03:45 (EST) ______________shp -:- Bodies ruined for GM -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:22:36 (EST) ________________RT -:- Bodies by GM -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 11:50:09 (EST) __________________shp -:- please answer these ???'s -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 15:29:51 (EST) ____________________JW -:- please answer these ???'s -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 18:59:55 (EST) ________Mike -:- Mine is simple -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:50:09 (EST) __________shp -:- Mine is simple -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:32:28 (EST) ____________Jerry -:- Mine is simple -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:57:26 (EST) ____Scott T. -:- Mine is simple -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 08:53:37 (EST) ______Mike -:- Mine is simple -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 13:21:46 (EST) __gerry -:- oh the humanity -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:10:11 (EST) ____shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:01:13 (EST) __Jim -:- oh the humanity -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:21:23 (EST) ____gerry -:- stupid question, Jim -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:38:23 (EST) ______Jim -:- Good but medium stupid Q -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:48:12 (EST) ________shp -:- Good but medium stupid Q -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:15:19 (EST) __________Jerry -:- Good but medium stupid Q -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 20:17:10 (EST) __________Jim -:- You're all over the place -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 21:01:22 (EST) ____________shp -:- response to 'all over...' -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:26:18 (EST) ______________Jim -:- shallow -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:03:19 (EST) ______________Helen -:- I am still waiting -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:24:16 (EST) ________________shp -:- I am still waiting -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:30:47 (EST) __________________Helen -:- I am still waiting -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:43:50 (EST) __ex-mug -:- oh the humanity -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:32:43 (EST) __VP -:- why should I answer you? -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 22:27:57 (EST) ____shp -:- why should I answer you? -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:27:58 (EST) ______VP -:- I'll repeat the question -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 16:12:02 (EST) ________shp -:- I'll repeat the question -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:32:02 (EST) __________gerry -:- I'll repeat my questions -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:43:39 (EST) ____________shp -:- I'll repeat my questions -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:51:34 (EST) ______________gerry -:- that's no answer -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 09:38:02 (EST) ______________Jean-Michel -:- USE YOUR BRAINS!! -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:28:44 (EST) __________VP -:- I'll repeat the question -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:41:12 (EST) ____________shp -:- I'll repeat the question -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:55:09 (EST) ______________Jim -:- Wrong,, shp, wrong. -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 12:30:30 (EST) ________________shp -:- read, jim, read -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:08:07 (EST) __________Mike -:- What misconceptions? -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:56:25 (EST) ____________shp -:- What misconceptions? -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:12:17 (EST) __Katie -:- Jesus and Moses vs. M -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:13:03 (EST) ____GErry -:- Katie, you M too much credit -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:50:01 (EST) ______Katie -:- Katie, you M too much credit -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:52:40 (EST) __nigel -:- oh the humanity -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:26:45 (EST) ____Saul -:- oh the humanity -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:11:36 (EST) ______shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:41:29 (EST) ________hamzen -:- oh the humanity -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:52:43 (EST) __________shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 08:00:45 (EST) ____________hamzen -:- oh the humanity -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 18:46:14 (EST) ________Saul -:- oh the humanity -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:29:56 (EST) __________shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 08:07:32 (EST) ____________Saul -:- oh the humanity -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:02:35 (EST) ______________shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:20:39 (EST) ____shp -:- oh the humanity -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:36:29 (EST) ______nigel -:- mckenna's full of crap, too! -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:39:41 (EST) ________Jim -:- mckenna's full of crap, too! -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:28:08 (EST) __________shp -:- mckenna's full of crap, too! -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:34:34 (EST) ____________Jim -:- mckenna's full of crap, too! -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 21:20:33 (EST) ______________shp -:- phil ochs was cool -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 22:26:14 (EST) ________________Jim -:- phil ochs was cool -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:09:20 (EST) __________________shp -:- phil ochs was cool -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:15:05 (EST) ____________________Jim -:- well, was this? -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:27:44 (EST) ______________________Runamok -:- Phil Ochs, King of Jews -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:57:41 (EST) ______________________shp -:- leave no room... -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 15:44:57 (EST) ________________________Saul -:- leave no room... -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 16:16:27 (EST) ________________________Katie -:- leave no room... -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 17:41:45 (EST) __________________________Helen -:- Well said Katie -:- Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:29:46 (EST) ____________________________shp -:- thank you for your input -:- Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 00:27:26 (EST) Jean-Michel -:- New article on my site -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:13:09 (EST) __Jerry -:- New article on my site -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 22:58:26 (EST) ____Jean-Michel -:- Shri Gary Olsen -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 03:35:19 (EST) ____Jean-Michel -:- About M's revisionnism -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 06:07:06 (EST) Jim -:- Okay, Hamzen, I tried -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 01:01:55 (EST) __hamzen -:- Big hug -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 03:50:21 (EST) ____Helen -:- Big hug -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 10:07:15 (EST) ____Robyn -:- Big hug -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:53:22 (EST) __Jerry -:- Okay, Hamzen, I tried -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 10:54:59 (EST) ____Scott T. -:- breathing sawdust -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 17:24:35 (EST) ______Jerry -:- breathing sawdust -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 17:45:42 (EST) ________Scott T. -:- breathing sawdust -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:02:03 (EST) __________ham -:- breathing sawdust -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 20:08:02 (EST) ______hamzen -:- breathing sawdust -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:46:46 (EST) __hamzen -:- Maturana/Varela-1(a) -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:53:34 (EST) ____Jim -:- Maturana/Varela-1(a) -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:15:19 (EST) ____Scott T. -:- Am I tracking? -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:45:22 (EST) ______hamzen -:- Am I tracking? -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:31:34 (EST) ________Jim -:- I feel like Robyn -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 21:00:21 (EST) __________hammy schammy -:- I feel like Robyn -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:15:56 (EST) ____________Jim -:- I feel like Robyn -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:57:11 (EST) ________Scott T. -:- Am I tracking? -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:27:06 (EST) __________ham -:- Am I tracking? -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 02:04:44 (EST) ____________Scott T. -:- Am I tracking? -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 08:47:18 (EST) ____hammy -:- M/V-1(b)/Jim/Scott/Peers -:- Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:01:17 (EST) ______ham -:- MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FOR JIM-PART1 -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 00:32:24 (EST) ________bill -:- MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FOR JIM-PART1 -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:05:35 (EST) __________hamzen -:- To Bill -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 17:05:26 (EST) ____________gerry -:- To hamzen -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:56:08 (EST) ______________ham -:- To hamzen -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:35:05 (EST) ____________bill -:- Thanks Hamzen.....Scott -:- Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 00:55:42 (EST) ________ham -:- MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FORJIM-PART2 -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 04:44:10 (EST) __________ham -:- MV(2)NATURAL DRIFT-PART3 -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:44:01 (EST) ____________Jim -:- MV(2)NATURAL DRIFT-PART3 -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 17:30:40 (EST) ______________Jerry -:- Good guides -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:32:36 (EST) ________________Jim -:- Dennett? -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 00:51:09 (EST) ________________hamzen -:- Good guides -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:20:53 (EST) __________________Jerry -:- Good guides -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:43:01 (EST) ______________ham -:- Out of order -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:41:00 (EST) ____________Jim -:- humble answer (3) -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 21:03:35 (EST) __________Jim -:- humble reply (2) -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:50:27 (EST) ________VP -:- ham, a question about color -:- Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:24:33 (EST) __________hamzen -:- ham, a question about color -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 17:27:58 (EST) ____________VP -:- Perception -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:43:46 (EST) ______________hamzen -:- Perception -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:08:39 (EST) ________________VP -:- Perception -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 21:14:39 (EST) ________Jim -:- my humble response (1) -:- Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:30:13 (EST) Jim -:- Maybe there is a God after all -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 00:43:42 (EST) __hamzen -:- Alzheimers(ot) -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 04:04:05 (EST) |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:07:52 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The Sokal hoax Message: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ Above is the address for a site put up by Alan Sokal, a physicist who sent a fake, gobbledygook paper to a small philosophy journal to see if they'd publish it, notithstanding the fact that it was nonsense and rife with bad science. They did publish it and Sokal's site has all sorts of commentary on the prank. What a contrast to our situation with the guys over at ELK. Could you imagine them acknowledging, let alone trying to justify their deceitful censorship? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:13:04 (EST)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Jim Subject: The Sokal hoax... Message: Alan Sokal's hoax was just about the funniest thing that ever happened in so-called academic life. Showing the experts in literary criticism, French philosophy, social commentary - or whatever you want to call it - that once people start blabbing big scientific words, everybody starts believing it, with hilarious effect in this case. Thanks for reminding us, Jim. Enjoy, everybody... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 00:37:33 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Nigel Subject: The other hoax... Message: I was just reading Science magazine and when I came upon an article about 'Is the rotation real?' -referring to the earths core rotation- I thought of your last post to me about DNA, or dna. Big letters if it is the source of conciousness, small letters is it is a lifeform development system and not the source of conciousness. Anyway, the difference between this guy makeing his points and dawkins makeing his is that this guy is not trying to bullshit his readers. He has no axe to grind with a long establlished and kooky --rotating core religious empire--. Look at what reading dawkins does, good ole Jerry said 'while it doesn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt-' Fact is, there is no proof in the slightest. Nothing to date has pieced any evidence together that conciousness is an emergent quality of matter. Systems of evolution are not proof of that. I understand people being disgusted with religions and humans in general. But there is no science to back up dawkins idea that conciousness being a nonemergent quality of matter is 'very very improbable indeed' Most people can read books,take tests, and get a degree. And get a job in that field. It doesn't make them any less vulnerable to delusional thinking and excess necessarily. What is the benefit of him doing this? Give aid and comfort to the buddhists? On one hand sure, is there anything wrong with thinning the ranks of the religions? Depends, It might help shp. I cant imagine dawkins getting published in Science mag. Why would they do that? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:02:14 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: bill, Nigel, and Jim Subject: Boys, boys, boys.... Message: the only hoax that counts is A Cruel Hoax. :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:26:09 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Boys, toys, joys.... Message: Well, beloved friend, I would imagine you could classify dawkins and co. as cruel in that they dismiss your career as a fantasy employment by a invisible imaginary mental- projection. And cruel in that they have ensnared poor Jimi into thier vile wickedness. Although being heartless helps in his career, the best spin that can be put on his trangressions here at the family forum is that -the devil knows not for whom he works- and actually little Jimi Heller is doing god's work on this web site and that's the only reason he has hope. When he dies, won't he be surprised to see he is still concious and without a body! Hopefully the temp. will be moderate. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:45:01 (EST)
From: Sir D Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: bill Subject: The other hoax... Message: The one thing you have to use your discrimination for is to work out who is a scientist and who is a science publicist. There is a whole world of difference between these two. Did you know that the Moon is slowly spiralling into the Earth and will crash into the Earth, destroying it completely in about twenty years time? Only kidding. The opposite is true and the Moon is actually spiralling AWAY from the Earth. Lucky for us that that's the case because if it was spiralling inwards, there wouldn't be much we could do about it. It's moving away at a rate of a couple of feet a year so we won't be missing it for a while yet. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:59:18 (EST)
From: seymour Email: None To: Sir D Subject: What is Round and Cruel? Message: A vicious circle. Which is what you get into when you become a premie! Not been around much lately but have just been enjoying the enjoyinglife site enjoying themselves by censoring those rather enjoyable posts. Hope all are well. Seymour. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 17:18:57 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: bill Subject: The other hoax... Message: I cant imagine dawkins getting published in Science mag. Why would they do that? Maybe because of the work he did with von Frisch which helped him win a nobel prize for his findings of the dance-language of bees. Bill, I've asked you this before. What Dawkins have you read? I know you've read The Blind Watchmaker or at least you say you have. Did you actually read it cover to cover? What else? And tell me, how much do you think Dawkins is alone in his thoughts on the origin of consciousness? I mean that's key isn't it? Is he singularly out on a limb or what? Where's the rest of the scientific community on this? Do you have even the slightest idea, Bill? Come now, let's get real. You know, in osme ways there's a sueprficial parallel between your view of Dakwins and mine of Maturana, let's say. I personally doubt that Maturana's got anything much to say that I'd find interesting if I could understand it. I have no idea what all this systems stuff is, though. Maybe it's wonderful stuff that I have to get acclimatized to. Maybe I, too, will end up talking like Scott or Ham. Maybe. But, my prejudicies notwithstanding, I'm still leaving the door open to learn something. I don't see you doing that at all. Am I missing something? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 19:38:57 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: The other one Message: Well Jim, close to a billion people think that jesus died for our sins. Some are VERY smart. I disagree. Millions can cheer a concept but that ain't proof. We aren't very far apart in this. I like the actual evolution info. I read -river out of eden-blind watchmaker-and the article you linked us to at the er, um, stoic? no, whatever website. But evolutionary evidence does not make any case yet for dawkins 'very very improbable' fantasy. I read in smithsonian or scientific american about the bee dance. What EXACTLY did dawkins do? He might have helped in writeing the paper, but I seriously doubt that he came up with the thinking and research that the bee dance guy did. Lets see, I can almost remember the smart way they marked the bee and tracked it so he could confirm his dance idea. Oh yeah, one part was somehow covering the bee's eyes I cant get it back this fast and time is up. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 19:55:27 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: bill Subject: The other one Message: Well Jim, close to a billion people think that jesus died for our sins. Some are VERY smart. I disagree. Millions can cheer a concept but that ain't proof. So let me get this right. You actually compare the quality of consensus in the scientific community with religious belief? Yes, THAT's a common thought in some quarters. Doesn't make it the slightest more appealing to me. I guess it comes down to what you think science is. Dawkins contribution to the bee studies? I'll look into it further and get back to you. Now, a little substance. (Just a little). If you doubt that consciousness ORIGINATED via natural selection, do you accept that it EVOLVED that way at all? And what about consciousness in other species? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 20:23:16 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim, Bill and all Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: Would it be possible to create a conscious machine such as Data in Star Trek? Much of the questions about consciousness or our present understanding of it would hinge upon such a question. I don't personally believe we could ever create a conscious machine. We could create a machine which appears to be conscious but it would only be that and wouldn't have a mind of its own. We can, at present, create a neural network with the intellegence of a fly but is it conscious? Could a neural net ever be conscious? I think not. There are several glaring questions which have never been answered by either camp. Firstly, if you believe that consciousness is independent of matter then presumably, life continues after the death of a body. If that is the case then where do all the souls of the billions of insects and smaller creatures go? Is there a grasshopper heaven? A paradise for single celled amoeba or a resting place for ants? If we are to speculate that there is life after physical death then it is not daft to speculate on what happens to ALL living creatures. And for those who believe in reincarnation; just when does a soul reincarnate into a body? When the sperm fertilises the egg? In which case, the reincarnated soul would be the sperm??? The hypothosis of reincarnation doesn't make sense to me. But then there isn't much here that does make sense. If we take the Dawkins view; and it's only a view and not proven fact, then it's equally implausable that from inert matter, life and consciousness could appear when there had never been any in existence before. And then there are all the wierd paranormal phenomena which have yet to be explained to my satisfaction. I have a close friend who swears she saw a ghost as real as a person, standing there. Only it wasn't there in any normal sense because it smiled at her and then vanished into thin air. This could be seen as an hallucination but the trouble is that after she saw it she mentioned it to other people in the place and they said that they had seen the exact same ghost too, fitting her description of it to a T. Then there's the case of the dead boy who materialised in front of his parents here in England and witnessed by other people including a scientist. This boy is supposed to have materialised in this way many times and has been witnessed doing this, nearly one hundred times. I wouldn't discount this as a fairy story because the scientist has written a book on these materialisations of this boy and other dead people and the information given in the book is utterly astounding and if true would shatter all our preconceived notions about what life actually is. I intend to get a copy of this book and will quote from it in the future. There is much here that doesn't make sense to me. It sometimes seems inconceivable that there is a God and life after death and yet the other view is equally inconceivable to me. I am left understanding that I know precious little about what all this is about. Who here has all the answers? I'm not prepared to accept that anyone here does have the answers, any more than Maharaji had the answers. Sorry, I'm not about to follow Dawkins or anybody who claims to have found the truth. Some people may have found parts of the jigsaw but the whole picture is a long, long way from being completed. But it doesn't matter. Mysteries are fun! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 22:24:59 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: Well said Sir D!! On the subject of the paranormal, Scott Peck, who I respect very much, sure had some interesting experiences when he was present at some exorcisms (In the book 'Children of the Lie'). I'm not that knowledgable about paranormal stuff, the book is really about the psychology of evil people, but there's a short chapter at the end re: exorcisms. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:34:35 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: Would it be possible to create a conscious machine such as Data in Star Trek? As long as belief in God is part of a person's belief system, it's doubtful that the possibility of a 'Data' can be acceptable to that person. If you're an atheist or agnostic, the possibility is very real, although I doubt we or our grandchildren or even great grandchildren are ever going to see it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 13:13:33 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: Sid D: Good post! Concerning animal 'awareness,' I have a few observations. It appears that we (humans) and great apes are the only 'animals' that are self-aware. As a proof of this, place a mirror in front of a human baby or a great ape and they soon discover that the reflection belongs to themselves. Place that same mirror in front of other primates and they NEVER get the idea that the relection is their own. The question that comes out of this little experiment is, 'what is consciousness, exactly?' Does it evolve? If it evolves, then the 'knows all' concept of 'pure self' goes right out the window (e.g. all animals should know the reflection is their own). If consciousness 'evolves' at all, then why couldn't it have evolved in the beginning (e.g. consciousness was naturally selected over unconscious). Good mystery, all right! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:02:32 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: 'then it's equally implausable that from inert matter, life and consciousness could appear when there had never been any in existence before'. See Miller, 1953. 'In a discussion of the origin of organic molecules comparable to those found in living beings (such as nucleotidic bases, amino acids, or protein chains), there is often the temptation to think that there is little likelihood of their spontaneous appearance and that some guiding force is required in the entire process.......The history we have been outlining is one of sequences that invariably follow one after the other, and a result would be surprizing only to a person unfamiliar with the complete historical sequence. A classic piece of evidence that there is no discontinuity in this transformation by stages was given in an experiment that S.L.Miller did in 1953.' Matuana/Varela-'Tree of Knowledge'. Miller applied 'an electical charge to a mixture of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor,' similar to primitive atmospheric conditions and produced 'abundant molecules typical of modern cellular organisms' such as amino acids and other organic molecules. Quotes from above Chaos theory also shows how systems in disequilibrium can increase in complexity before they reach their next steady state. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:09:48 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: hamzen Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: Yes, I know about the Miller experiments in the fifties. They didn't fully show how life originated but did show how organic proteins, needed for life could have begun. Since then many scientists have tried to create life in test tubes and enclosed chambers using primal soup and electic lightening flashes but no life has yet been created. How life began remains a mystery. There is no plausable theory as yet that shows beyond all doubt how life began. But it did start somewhere and probably in many places in the universe. Perhaps it is the inevitable occurence of what happens when a universe exists. I think that life is probably a naturally occuring thing throughout the universe and in a similar way, so is consciousness. Even though nobody fully understands how they came into being here. My theory is that the universe itself is conscious, only in a different way to us. It is alive and that's observed in its movement and expansion. It's a living thing only in a different way to us. The life forms which evolve in the universe are an extension of the life of the universe itself. This is my theory, anyway. Mike; I'd have to take you to task over your mirror theory. My first daughter used to love being picked up and held in front of a mirror when she was a baby. She thought it was another baby. Place a mirror in front of a cat and it will look round the back to see if there's another cat behind it. It will be pussled (ged it!) about there being no cat behind the mirror but this just shows its inability to conceptualise what a mirror is. I personally believe that all creatures that are living are conscious. That fits with my theory of a conscious universe. The universe is spilling over with life and consciousness and it's natural for it to be here in abundance. But this is just my theory. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:41:36 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Actually...it was done Message: Sir: Actually, major primate researchers have done these experiments. Yes, a baby will think it's another baby for a while, BUT it will learn without being specifically taught by older humans. The same goes for the great apes; they learn that they are looking at their own bodies and will 'use' the mirror as a tool to 'groom' themselves therafter. But 'lesser' animals don't learn and NEVER do. This is one of my points: If there is an all-knowing consciousness, then it should already KNOW EVERYTHING. In fact, if what we were told about babies 'being in touch' with that consciousness were true, they would know, too. But, they don't. This isn't anything to do with understanding the concept of a 'mirror,' but a real recognition of what they are looking at in the mirror. That all-knowing, eternal, causal consciousness SHOULD KNOW, but it doesn't appear to know ANYTHING at all, even though it supposedly created EVERYTHING(?). What's up with that? The second point is this: Based upon the first paragraph, if the particular consciousness must learn these things (and is capable of it), then it is evolving before our very eyes. In other words, logic dictates that consciousness starts off at ground-zero and builds. If this is true, then the thought of consciousness-out-of-nothing is certainly a possibility that can't be glossed over just because we're not sure 'how' it happened. This goes back to a statement that I made a long time ago, to wit: God's domain shrinks everytime we 'discover' anything new. If we say, 'consciousness always existed' just because we're not sure where it came from, then we are falling into the same trap that our fur-bearing ancestors did when something 'supernatural' would happen.... Ug, lighting strike top of cave... must mean mountain god pissed at us. See what I mean? BTW Sir, I'm definitely not an expert of any type when it comes to the subject of consciousness and its origin. I just used some knowledge that I gained from public television concerning the behavior of great apes and used it to come to a plausible explanation of consciousness and its characteristics. I'm sure that there are others here that could put forth a really strong argument in favor of evolving consciousness. I was just stating some simple deductions that I came to after being exposed to the aforementioned research. THIS is definitely a key topic when it comes to the discussion of 'god' and humans. In fact, I think that it's probably the last stronghold when it comes to the concept of 'god.' To me, the key questions are, 'What am I, really?' 'Who/what is it that is looking out of these eyeballs?' 'Did I always exist?' Sir, to get the answers to these simple questions REQUIRES that we look at ALL of the possibilities, including the possibility that it's all an 'accident.' (IMHO, of course) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:54:41 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: None To: Mike Subject: We're pretty dumb cats Message: Could be; who knows? I also have a theory that a 'soul' is born here in the physical plane and then after death it lives on in another plane. But what the heck, we'll find out (or not) one day. The mirror thing is interesting but it's only a learned phenomenon. The fact that apes can learn it too is very interesting. But don't you remember about our seafairing ancestors who met (so called) primative peoples in the Pacific islands and gave them mirrors as gifts. Those South Sea islanders nearly died laughing at the faces looking back at them in the mirrors. They had a hard time believing that those grinning faces looking at them in the mirrors were themselves. It's a learned thing, for sure, this mirrors stuff. But I don't think it has anything profound to say about consciousness other than some animals understand mirrors and some don't. A cat doesn't know it's a mirror but then a cat also thinks that you're another cat which is why it will leave you dead mice - you see it's trying to teach you how to hunt and probably thinks you're a pretty dumb cat because you keep throwing the dead mice in the dustbin. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 18:35:28 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Sir David Subject: No we're not... Message: Sir: I 'think' that I'm trying to convey something that I can't quite get across. The 'mirror' thing isn't the issue; self-awareness IS the issue. When an ape learns that it's his/her image in the mirror, that's self-awareness. They don't have the foggiest idea how a mirror is made or what makes a good mirror or where mirrors come from. They are just aware that the image in the mirror is them. The 'lower' animals NEVER figure that concept out... NEVER. 'Learned or not' is immaterial to this discussion. Soooooo, the real point is this: Higher brain function, higher intelligence, higher 'consciousness' level. Following this line of reasoning through, it would appear that consciousness evolves. This would appear to be in direct conflict with the doctrine that consciousness never changes, is immutable and everlasting. Now, as to our own brain capacity: We may not be very good at any 'particular' conscious activity, but we absolutely EXCEL at 'multi-tasking.' Just think of the number of things that the brain has to process in any given second of time. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, AND THINKING... ALL with incredible resolution and ALL AT THE SAME TIME! BTW, you said that we are 'dumb cats.' I don't agree! We are aware/intelligent/conscious enough to 'realize' that the cat is giving us a mouse to eat (and why, probably). Do you think a bird would understand that concept? (I'm not picking on birds, by the way). When an intelligence can analyze the characteristics of another intelligence (and act upon it), I would say that the concept of self versus 'other' is well demonstrated and at least marginally understood. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:57:47 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Open to all possibilities Message: If we take the Dawkins view; and it's only a view and not proven fact, then it's equally implausable that from inert matter, life and consciousness could appear when there had never been any in existence before. David, I picked up this great little easy to understand book called 'Instant Biology'. It just gives the facts, nobody's philosophical ideas about them. Here are some interesting facts. 1) The earth is approximately 4 billion years old. 2) The first life forms to show up on the planet did so about a billion years later. That means for the first billion years of Mother Earth's life, she bred no life. These first life forms were single celled with no nucleus. They were bacteria. 3) Bacteria were the only living organisms on this planet for 2 billion years. After them came protozoa, one celled life forms possessing a nucleus. From this point on, one celled organisms combined to evolve into life as we know it today. My question is this. Why did God, in his infinite wisdom and almighty power wait a billion years before creating life on earth? And how come for 2 billion years, did this almighty creator create nothing but bacteria, instead of conscious beings? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:41:35 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Good Questions, Jerry Message: Jerry: But a point could be made that protozoa are conscious. My reasoning? They react to stimuli. That's not an absolute proof of consciousness, but it may be. God, I love this thread. If we look at this rationally, it's probably one of the (if not the most) important reasons for involvement with M: 'Discovering our true selves.' This time, however, we are actually using our collective intellects to try to discover/explain/learn the nature of consciousness vice accepting the guru/hindu explanation at face value. Additionally, our willingness to delve into the subject and accept 'other' possibilities, including the possibility that consciousness was an 'accident,' demonstrates some major 'growth' on our part, don't you think? The nature/origin of consciousness, as a subject, is one that I have VERY LITTLE real knowledge of because I always thought the hindu/M concept was correct and, therefore, never paid any attention to the research that was going on. This is great stuff, even if we all are 'amateurs!' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:24:21 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Mike/Jerry/Sir D Subject: Good Questions, Jerry Message: Yeah, and I actually can follow this thread! Thanks guys for making it so clear! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:29:19 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mike Subject: Good Questions, Jerry Message: I enjoyed reading both your comments here, Mike and Jerry. I agaree that this is, in essence, the most important question a premie (or anyone who beleives in a 'creator') can and should face: where did consciousness come from? Maharaji's already placed his bets. He says two things. One, it comes from God. Two, don't try to understand it with your mind. I'd like to ask any believer to consider the advances in neuroscience over the last twenty years alone. Is it safe to think that we won't know so much more about the origin of consciousness , oh say, twenty THOUSAND years from now? Aha! It's a trick question if you accept Maharaji's advice (part 2). Banking on ignorance and mystery, vagueness and poetry. Thank God for science! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 22:26:27 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jerry Subject: But not creationist Message: I don't go with this idea that God created beings and plonked them on the earth. Does anybody these days? In the desert it might not rain for for months and then suddenlt it rains for a while and all these little plants strt to grow where there appeared just dead wasteland before. My view is that the seeds of life are already there in the universe. It just takes the right conditions for them to grow. The right planet, the right circumstances and the right time for life to appear. OK, ny desert analogy is not a bad one because obviously the plants didn't grow from nothing. And in universe terms I don't believe that life grows from nothing any more than I think that consciousness grows from nothing. The universe itself could be seen as a giant organism, still growing. But from where did it spring? There is already evidence that shows that the universe does not exist in one dimension only. What we perceive as the outer reaches of it are disappearing into another dimension, even as we speak. Stephen Hawking's work on black holes has shown that matter is disappearing into other dimensions and can also appear from other dimensions. ANother dimension is not measurable by our present physical theory. Our perceptions are limited by our three dimensional concepts. Yet Hawking's maths has shown that other dimensions must exist, even if we can't see them. We cannot imagine, see or measure dimensions beyond our own. But here's a question. How big is your awarness? Could you measure it? Is it as big as your brain or your body or as big as you can perceive? As big as the known universe? Or smaller than the tiniest sub atomic particle? My guess is that your awarness has no such dimensions and cannot be measured by instruments of this dimension. ONce I had an acid trip. On this trip I got very, very high. A bit too high actually and I was standing on my own in a room and I temporarily forgot what I was. Instead of being a person on an acid trip I became everthing that I looked at. The spectacular, breathing, writhing patterned walls were me; the magificent temple of flame across the road (just another house) was me and when a friend came in and played a song on his guitar, he was me. Kind of wierd but I was so spaced out that I forgot that I was a person and just identified with what I perceived. Thanks for putting down the history of the Earth in a brief form which I can copy and refer to in the future, by the way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:45:06 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Sir David Subject: But not creationist Message: I don't go with this idea that God created beings and plonked them on the earth. Does anybody these days? These days, no, thanks to the discoveries of science. But there was a time that people did. Before the mid 1800s, in fact, everybody did, scientists included. With the discovery of the cell and evolution, that's all changed. My view is that the seeds of life are already there in the universe. It just takes the right conditions for them to grow. The right planet, the right circumstances and the right time for life to appear. This isn't just your view, David. This is standard understanding in scientifc communities on how life began on our own planet. The question is, how does God fit into this, if at all? How big is your awarness? Could you measure it? Is it as big as your brain or your body or as big as you can perceive? As big as the known universe? Or smaller than the tiniest sub atomic particle? My guess is that your awarness has no such dimensions and cannot be measured by instruments of this dimension. What awareness is, at this point, is anybody's guess. But science is hard at work searching for an answer. I think, in our lifetime, they will find that answer. I also believe that when they do, it will be proven that awareness is a product of evolution that arises from complex neural nets such as the human brain. It just seems that they're so close and sooner than later, they're going to prove this. ONce I had an acid trip. On this trip I got very, very high. A bit too high actually and I was standing on my own in a room and I temporarily forgot what I was. Instead of being a person on an acid trip I became everthing that I looked at. The spectacular, breathing, writhing patterned walls were me; the magificent temple of flame across the road (just another house) was me and when a friend came in and played a song on his guitar, he was me. Kind of wierd but I was so spaced out that I forgot that I was a person and just identified with what I perceived. I once had a trip that took me straight to hell. Whose trip was real, mine or your's? Remember, these experiences were the result of a powerful hallucinogen. In our normal, sober frames of mind, we have no such experiences. It only goes to show you, states of consciousness ARE dependent upon brain chemistry. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:09:08 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: LSD made me what I am today Message: As I was reading this post I thought to myself 'I'll bet Sir D has done acid' and sure enough you went in to describe your acid trip where surely the portals of perceptions just busted right open. Seriously now, Sir D, I do enjoy your posts, you know I do. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 14:03:14 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Sir David Subject: But not creationist Message: Sir: From my point of view, either you were 'just high enough' or maybe 'not high enough'..... he he he. Good story, though! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:39:49 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: The other two Message: Heck, as long as it is not tied to an undercurrent of materialist philosophy, I think it is interesting to see how conciousness is affected by conditions. Just because conditions effect conciousness is by no means proof or even reason to say with authority that line 'very very improbable'. In case you are trying to lead to that idea. Im not compareing shared religious views with shared views by a group in any other catagory. Just the point that it doesn't matter what people think, speculation is speculation. When you have Jesus, then the father, then angels,saints, and his mom! I can't handle the crowd. But too much about life says to me that there is a self-concious intelligence. Half the religions say no, half say yes but then give thier statements about it's supposed qualities, attributes, and want's. And what a vast variety of splintered views you get from them. I tried completeing buddist theology by asking 'who was the first human that created the various wheel planes that the dead buddhists go to?' But no buddhist will answer because there is no answer. They say there is no self concious intelligence but living humans or dead buddhists. Dawkins says there is no self concious intelligence outside of a human body but offers no science to prove it. I can BELIEVE him, or the buddhists, but why? The guru's and hindu's think krishna was right in that all you have to do is 'IDENTIFY' with the divine and assume you are realized and embrace some concept of your realization and call it a day. You are god. Thanks a lot for nothing rag heads and caste creators. The large group of folks that think there is a self concious thingee with some powers is a different discussion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 00:45:49 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: bill Subject: You've got it backwards, Bill Message: Dawkins says there is no self concious intelligence outside of a human body but offers no science to prove it. Bill, You've got this all mixed up. There's no evidence of any consciousness outside of brains, is there? The question, then, is why should you believe there is? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 22:26:12 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: You've got it ward Message: Good one Jimmy, I've got an idea on that but give me few days to mull it over. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 23:00:34 (EST)
From: Sir D Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim Subject: What are you; a lawyer? Message: No evidence, no evidence of consciousness outside of a brain? Well if a ghost came up and tapped you on the shoulder and said, 'Hi Jim, I'm dead!' then I guess that would be evidence enough, eh. Hey but don't you think it would be fun to speculate on what if there were consciousness outside the brain. Yes I know, it's practically impossible to prove a non physical thing with physical science isn't it. Ok, ok, I'll get back into my padded cell now... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:35:57 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir D Subject: Back in your cage Message: Get back in your cage, now, Sir D. Here's your cheesehat and your lance... that's it, back in the cage, there's a good boy now. (; Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 21:15:09 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir D Subject: Sometimes I feel like one Message: No evidence, no evidence of consciousness outside of a brain? Well if a ghost came up and tapped you on the shoulder and said, 'Hi Jim, I'm dead!' then I guess that would be evidence enough, eh. Exceptional claims need exceptional proof. If I THOUGHT a ghost had done that I'd be extremely open to alternative explanations (e.g. hallucination). Even without one I'd be very wary of simply accepting the 'experience' at face value. If SOMEONE ELSE told me they'd had that experience, same thing. Where's the proof that's proportional to the claim? Hey but don't you think it would be fun to speculate on what if there were consciousness outside the brain. Yes I know, it's practically impossible to prove a non physical thing with physical science isn't it. Ok, ok, I'll get back into my padded cell now... David, Sure it'd be kind of fun to speculate like that. But are we talking 'speculate' like 'I really think this is a possibility worthy of consideration' or speculate like 'I know this is nonsense but I'm just having a little fun'? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 10:08:45 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim Subject: Not nonsense to me Message: But if it's nonsense to other's I'm not going to worry about it. And where's Bill got to? Here I am, standing alone, with only my cheese hat and lance to support me, jumping in at the defence of Bill and he disappears up to the top of the forum and leaves me to fend for myself with all the atheists snapping at my heels. But really, the God/Atheist debate continues as a sideline here. I don't think anyone here has changed their mind either way nor will they. I certainly don't want to force my opinions on anyone here. Especially since I don't claim to have all the answers. If there is a God then He/She doesn't need me to prove His/Her existence. I'd prefer that God would prove its existence to me. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:14:42 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Not nonsense to me Message: I still believe! I still believe! Praise God almighty the big world pulsating with life and the strange ghosty coincidences and the heart of Jesus Buddah and the Goddess, I believe , I believe. (Guess I took too much acid and listened to too much rock and roll too but I still believe)! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:17:12 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: Helen Subject: I still believe... Message: In sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll, that is. Gerry- who still refuses to grow up. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 01:46:55 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Not nonsense to me Message: Hi Sir David I quite often catch up in the inactive files because of the prolific posters here. I am working on Jim's question. I am not ready to post yet but there is no evidence that there isn't a self concious intelligence independent of a body but there is evidence that there is. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:54:41 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: bill Subject: Not nonsense to me Message: Bill, the only consciousness that is obvious is our own. If we truly wish to understand who we are, the next logical step would to be to unravel the mystery of THAT consciousness, not daydream about a consciousness independent of our mortal frames which may or may not exist. THAT pursuit, IMHO, is insanity, the life I lived as a premie. I never found such a consciousness and I have no good reason to suppose that one exists. Think of this. To hear, we need ears. To see, we need eyes. Have you ever heard of an occasion where somebody who was deaf that had an OBE where they HEARD what was going on around them, or a blind person who SAW? Now, that would be REALLY interesting. The point I'm trying to make is that we have all these complex, intricate organs that make up our senses, sight, hearing, feeling, tasting. How come when people have an OBE, they don't need these organs or the centers in the brain that they're connected to? How do you explain that? Why even bother having these physical bodies if we can do everything without them? What the hell could God have been thinking about, eh? First he creates nothing but bacteria for 2 billion years (I'd say he was a bit of a moron, myself, that being the case), then he gives us bodies that we don't even need that are only going to get old and die on us. And let's not even talk about all the viruses he created that can completely fuck up our genetic code and cause us lives of misery. What a merry prankster our loving creator must be, eh? How do you explain all this, Bill? What possible logical explanation could there be? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:14:10 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Jerry Subject: good ole Jerry Message: Hi Jerry, I printed out your post and i will need time, as usual, to fully get it and respond. So you will find it in another dna post up top to you and Jimmy. Not right away. But in partial response, It's fun to cover the subject and we sure run into people and organisations that promote it one way or another so I guess that's why we wrestle with it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:54:29 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Everyone Subject: oh the humanity Message: OK, I tried to present my perspective in a humourous way in the cosmic cafe (see whatever you do ENJOY thread) and nobody responded. So now I ask you all the question directly: If Moses and Jesus are both accepted as messengers of truth in the world (religons aside), that they brought into being the ten commandments and the concept of forgiveness which elevated the consciousness of the human race, should what they taught be abandoned or ridiculed because one was technically a 'whore-loving unemployed carpenter', and the other one had a very bad speech impediment and was a known murderer and therefore could not have been a bonafide representative of the Almighty? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:11:50 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: Mine is simple Message: SHP: I'll do something that I don't normally like to do: I'll answer it with a question. 'What if Moses and Jesus were both frauds, too?' If they were frauds, then M's behavior may fall right in line. Let's assume they were for real for a moment. To do a comparison, nowhere does it say that Jesus boinked the 'whore.' It said that he 'forgave' her for the transgression and told her to 'not do that' anymore. There's a bit of a difference here. Additionally, Jesus said that 'when you do these things to the least of men, you are doing them to me.' That sentence conveys an idea that is exactly opposite from what M said. M says/said that service to ANYONE else wasn't service. Only service to M was service. Jesus said 'service' to humanity was service to him. See the diff? Moses is a bit harder to explain, but he wasn't supposed to be god-incarnate anyway; just a messenger, if you will. Moses NEVER made the claim, nor did he let anyone else make the claim, that he was god-incarnate. So, once again, there's a diff (a BIGGIE!). Forgive me Faddah Mickey, I'm sure that my quotes are not exact. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 13:36:27 (EST)
From: jethro Email: None To: Mike Subject: Mine is simple Message: ..and don't forget that Moses was into hitting rocks and pouring molten lead down peoples throats....wonder what he was on Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:38:00 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: jethro Subject: Let me spillane...he he Message: Jethro: I'm not a Bible/Torah scholar, so my knowledge of Moses is rather limited. That's why I didn't really comment on him. One thing that I do remember from my EARLY premie days was that the Mahatmas used to equate Jesus with Moses. This is something that I'm sure the average Jew and Christian would find rather distasteful.... he he. I used the Jesus quotes because they so obviously disagree with a couple of points that premies make here in terms of equating Jesus' teachings and those of M. M's teachings are almost always diametrically opposed to Jesus teachings, especially when talking about humanitarian endeavors and such. I think you are absolutely correct concerning the origins of 'forgiveness.' As an example: I know that it is a slap-in-the-face to every native american when 'christians' say that the US Constitution is based upon biblical teachings.... WRONG - it's based (directly) upon the principles of government presented to the founding fathers by members of the Iriquois nation. But....let us not be confused by the facts.... let's go ahead and equate things that are not equal.... like Jesus 'talking' to a 'whore' is the same as M's adultery. Well.... maybe shp is right: After all, 'talking' is another definition for 'social intercourse,' now isn't it? snicker..snicker :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:26:13 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: shp Subject: Mine is simple Message: Hi shp, I see that you have made another comeback here again. Can you answer this one point that Mike gave re: Jesus' saying that 'when you do these things to the least of men you are doing them to me'? If we all have God within us, then when we help anyone, we are helping or serving God. And when we hurt anyone, we are hurting God (I'm being metaphorical and metaphysical here a little). This is one area (the service question) where GM splits off from religious sanity, in my opinion. Because God is so much more than one narrow little fat rich man. This narrow little idea of 'service' leads away from values that most people hold dear (even if they are not religious). This concept of service also has contributed to splintering families because moms and dads didn't feel that their 'service' taking care of their little ones was 'enough' in GM's eyes. What do you think of dads and moms leaving their families to work on the plane project? How much saner it would have been if GM had said 'raising your children to be good people is the most important service for those of you who are parents'. GM's concept of 'service' shows me that he never had a full understanding of God in the first place. As a spiritual leader he is so lacking in a universal, intellectual grasp of religions and ethics, it is laughable. But then again, if he opened things up to more diverse interpretations he would lose the single-minded focus on him, him, him. The more I think of it, the more I see GM as being a most un-humble, most egotistical leader. You said yourself that you served food to the homeless yesterday. Well, you realize don't you, that that attitude of service is in contradiction to your Guru. shp, please address these points. Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:41:01 (EST)
From: Orlando Email: None To: Helen Subject: shp=SHP? Message: can it be confirmed that these 2 are the same person? the styles seem a bit different... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:09:32 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Orlando Subject: shp=SHP? Message: He conveyed to us that he was now humbled, thus the new lower case psuedonym Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:57:51 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen Subject: Mine is simple Message: Hi Helen, Thanks for your input and please convey my thanks to all other inputters on this thread. I don't have alot of time right now to go at it - more turkey at the folks with the fam coming up real soon - but I will get back to ya. Later Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:23:05 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen Subject: Mine is simple Message: hi helen - hope you had a nice weekend - You/Mike: I see that you have made another comeback here again. Can you answer this one point that Mike gave re: Jesus' saying that 'when you do these things to the least of men you are doing them to me'? Me: I agree with the above statement allegedly made by Jesus. You: Because God is so much more than one narrow little fat rich man. Me: God was also more than an unemployed carpenter with an attitude and a definite problem with the dominant social order. I know this may sound egotistical, but if I have learned one thing in my life, it's humility! (True, but amusing to see in writing!) by that i mean that i accept the fact that there are things going on around me that i will never understand with my 'mind/brain'...kinda like the invisible bridge in indiana jones last crusade that only appears when he sprinkles some pebbles on it. when jim reads this it will enforce his idea that i live in fantasy - so there's no such thing as a living allegory? or art imitating life? i believe serving humanity is a lofty goal, right livlihood, and something i have been striving to achieve in my career in my own way. the fact that someone i believe is the living embodiment of truth - the bringer, the front man - as he said (and you don't mention this as much as the other stuff) : I am not God, just a humble servant of God.', that is the gravy and the extra neat side of living in such a dark time on the earth. i know i may sound like a premie sound track in the last few lines, but maybe, just maybe there is a reason for this similar expression coming out of so many folks that may not be a negative one... You: What do you think of dads and moms leaving their families to work on the plane project? Me: None of my business. Totally in the parents' ballpark who are living it. You: How much saner it would have been if GM had said 'raising your children to be good people is the most important service for those of you who are parents'. Me: I am not going to quote him, but Maharaji has spoken recently about doing right by our respective kids. it was inspiring. You: Well, you realize don't you, that that attitude of service is in contradiction to your Guru. Me: I beg to differ. That was not direct service to my physical master, but it was service to humanity ('to the least as to me'). and i believe that my work on thanksgiving both fascinated and pleased God, whatever you concieve him/her to be. been busy - regards to all - will get back as able Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:56:17 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: shp Subject: Mine is simple Message: I'm too busy to formulate a real brainy answer (gotta play Barbies and such with my daughter), but I'll definitely say this to you shp, you are rationalizing like crazy inside your own mind. But I have hope for you because you are 'supplementing' GM's teaching w/other stuff which is keeping you grounded. I did that myself even though he was still the 'main man' in my mind, but after awhile the other stuff started to crowd GM right outa town. The longer you hang around here the more your rationalizations will start to go POOF. My mom had the same experience, she was raised Catholic in a very strict girl's parachial boarding school--once she went away to college and started meeting lots of other folks it was drip! drip! drip! and before she knew it she was a Unitarian. Seriously I don't want to sound condescending. You probably mix with all kinds of people, becuase you have a loving and sincere heart. I do see you rationalizing a lot of GM's behavior and using the Jesus thing over and over (the fact that Jesus was misunderstood in his own time). Forget Jesus, and look at WHAT IS. As Katie said we didn't know Jesus but we know GM, and I know what he's doing is not right--that's all I need to know. I like ya though, shp and I don't want any harm to come to you. I'm laughing 'cause my husband is talking in an Irish accent to my daughter saying 'calm down, child, ye have the demon in you!' and she's giggling like crazy. Catch you later Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:46:42 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen Subject: Mine is simple Message: thanks for the reply and for the glimpse into your warm and loving homelife...my wife is Irish so I can relate some also, thanks for your good and warm wishes for me. i will take everything you have said into my heart as i hope you will you with my words, plant them and see what blooms. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:03:45 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: shp Subject: Bodies ruined for GM Message: Please read the thread above entitled 'A question', shp. Tell me what you think of premies getting chronic health conditions, liver damage, and dying because of the unhealthy practices working w/ terrible chemicals so that GM could have a nice, shiny plane. How do you think you would feel if you were chronically ill and your liver was unable to function properly because you had devoted yourself to that plane project? Or if your beautiful Irish wife had to get a new liver because of this disregard for human suffering/life?. Extend yourself out into that situation and tell me how you can devote yourself to this guy...and you know GM knew what was going on and didn't care. Believe me, all these fancy abstract words about devtion go out the window when your body is RUINED forever...you can't get another body. GM doesn't care about premies, honey, that's the bottom line. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:22:36 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen Subject: Bodies ruined for GM Message: with all due respect, i'd have to have proof that people were damaged with his knowledge doing something for him as you described. i happen to have a condition that makes my body very vulnerable to particulate (dust and particles in the air), fumes and unclean air of any sort. i am very sensitive to these issues because i have to be for my survival. from my present perspective, i find it hard to believe that Maharaji would knowingly allow this to happen on one of his projects. i'll read 'a question'... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 11:50:09 (EST)
From: RT Email: mmmmmmmmm To: shp Subject: Bodies by GM Message: shp wrote: with all due respect, i'd have to have proof that people were damaged with his knowledge doing something for him as you described. DECA, Miami 1979-1982. Ask anyone in the Paint room about the premie who died working, no, slaving away in the booth. RT who was there. Proof. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 15:29:51 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: RT Subject: please answer these ???'s Message: please, answer: was gm always aware of the time schedules everyone was keeping at deca? and of the substance dangers and lack of safety precautions? could it be that that guy wanted to work/slave for him? were the risks and dangers of the substances he used known at the time? who was directly responsible to make sure that health/safety osha regulations were followed at deca for the health and safety of those working there? greatly appreciated. thank you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 18:59:55 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: shp Subject: please answer these ???'s Message: was gm always aware of the time schedules everyone was keeping at deca? and of the substance dangers and lack of safety precautions I think it's pretty clear he was aware of these things. After all, he was often the one making the intense demands that things be done by such and such a time. And he came to deca and the hanger a lot. He saw personally what was going on. And even if for some outrageous reason, which I can't fathom, he didn't know, I think it's just as bad that he just didn't care enough to find out what was happening to the premies. Isn't that troubling to you? who was directly responsible to make sure that health/safety osha regulations were followed at deca for the health and safety of those working there? Maharaji was clearly ultimately responsible. After all, these people had dedicated their lives to him. Unfortunately, he couldn't care less about their welfare, only that he get what he wanted. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:50:09 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: Mine is simple Message: SHP: The fact that you agree that 'service to humanity' is service to the guru is in DIRECT CONFLICT with M's own statements to premies (ashram premies, in particular). Service to anyone except the guru is NOT service. drip...drip...drip... You are in conflict with your guru, shp, ther is absolutely NO DENYING this fact. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:32:28 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: Mine is simple Message: words words words. remember the old story about Narad i think his name was? he was on his last piece of bread, sitting by his campfire, and a dog comes along and grabs it and runs? and Narad runs after the dog with his last piece of bread asking the dog if he wants some butter? recognizing the lord in the life breath of the dog? remember? why do you think that story was told to us? did somebody tell you to forget everything you ever learned when you received knowledge? haven't you heard of the term paradox used in conversations about approaching the infinite? how paradoxes pop up and we have to see beyond them to get to where we want to go? conflict is in the mental realm. you are in conflict. i am not. use the common sense you were born with. this is not a court of law or a grand jury hearing...it is some folks trying to communicate...some are disillusioned with someone and some not disillusioned with that same someone. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 19:57:26 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: shp Subject: Mine is simple Message: remember the old story about Narad i think his name was? he was on his last piece of bread, sitting by his campfire, and a dog comes along and grabs it and runs? and Narad runs after the dog with his last piece of bread asking the dog if he wants some butter? recognizing the lord in the life breath of the dog? remember? shp, I have one question. Do you really believe this happenned? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 08:53:37 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Mike Subject: Mine is simple Message: Mike: You are messing with my theory that engineers are congenitally bad writers. Very well said. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 13:21:46 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Mine is simple Message: Thanks Scott, I had 'jean' therapy after I left the service... he he he ;-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:10:11 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: Oh the presuppositions. First, you have to accept there is a god. Then you have to accept that there are god's little helpers on earth. Then you have to accept there was no concept of forgiveness before Jesus (an utter absurdity, btw, and an arrogant slap in the face to the ancient civilizations, esp Greece.) Any others? Can't play those games. Your post is just dumb. What's the point? No, don't answer that--I will. Your point is Goober is the living manifestation of god's little helper for our time. zzzzzzzzz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:01:13 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: gerry Subject: oh the humanity Message: As per my teacher's advice, paraphrased: Tell people about me. Invite them to hear and see me. If they don't want to, if they have peace in their lives and they are happy, congratulate them and leave them alone about this aspect of their lives. So congratulations! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:21:23 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: shp, That's a great question. Seriously, it is. I believe that religions have historically been necessary casings and enforcement mechanisms for some very positive moral directives but that now that we can see through the illusion of design (i.e. that there's a 'creator' out there making all this shit happen) we don't need them anymore. I believe that there are evolutionary advantages to all of the broadly accepted moral standards we're familiar with. The religions were just the vehicles men used to sell them. I strongly suggest you read a great introduction to evolutionary psychology which deals with this issue called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. You might be able to track down a chapter or so on the net. Good question, though. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:38:23 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: stupid question, Jim Message: I believe the question was should we abandon the moral teachings of Jesus and Moses because of what some may consider their human frailities? (Fair enough re-phrase?) OK, the logical answer is no, we should not. Then next step is, then we should not reject BM's teachings because of his 'human frailities.' You think this is a good question? It is a simplistic and leading question. Fine if you want to turn it into a promotional opportunity for your favorite theories. Let's see it for what it is, though. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:48:12 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Good but medium stupid Q Message: Gerry, The question's a good one for anyone so nested in religion that they have to start with those precepts. Know what I mean? I agree with everything you said about the layers upon layers of assumptions embedded therein. In fact, I almost posted an answer along the lines of yours. But then I thought, 'hey, here's a really good promotional opportunity for one of my favorite theories' and took it from there. My whoel rpblem with shp is that he can't see how thickly he's wrapped in all those assumptions. On the other hand, I think his question invites an answer that just might help him unravel a bit of all that coating. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 16:15:19 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: Good but medium stupid Q Message: You said: My whole problem with shp is that he can't see how thickly he's wrapped in all those assumptions. On the other hand, I think his question invites an answer that just might help him unravel a bit of all that coating. >Hey Jim, I was born Jewish, spent 1 year on a legitimate communal farm, 3 years in an esoteric Christian monestary, 1-2 years wandering around the countryside of America hitchiking with nothing but a occasional bag of raisins/nuts - no camping gear, no tent, no nothing - I was testing the Universe and the promise of being taken care of like the 'lilies of the filed and a sparrow doesn't fall without his awareness', etc. I could tell you some doozies of adventures, man! (No time right now) But the fact is, here I am and the promise is valid. The river of religion in my bloodline met the ocean of everything long before I received Knowledge (I wandered 4 years between hearing about Maharaji, leaving the order - and actually receiving Knowledge). I am not wrapped in anything but skin, bones, blood, nerves, etc, and a little too much fat right now. Sometimes I have noticed that deep fatih in something looks like naivte to an observer, regardless of my life experience and accumulated wisdom from those experiences. Gotta go now. Catch ya later. I just happen to be able to use references from my experiences to interpolate into contemporary events, but I am not attached to those experiences. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 20:17:10 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: shp Subject: Good but medium stupid Q Message: ... 1-2 years wandering around the countryside of America hitchiking with nothing but a occasional bag of raisins/nuts - no camping gear, no tent, no nothing - I was testing the Universe and the promise of being taken care of like the 'lilies of the filed and a sparrow doesn't fall without his awareness', etc. I could tell you some doozies of adventures, man! (No time right now) But the fact is, here I am and the promise is valid. SHP, are you sure you weren't just testing your ability to survive, unbeknownst to you? Others have been in more dire situations and pulled through. Some of them, I'm sure, would attribute that to the grace of God, but I suspect they survived solely by their own wits and perhaps a little bit of luck. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 21:01:22 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: You're all over the place Message: shp, You're not making any sense. Unless you're willing to look closely and carefully at these issues there's no point talking with one another. The fact is, you rely an incredible amount on a lot of spiritual just-so stories. You do, you do, there's absoltuely no point denying it. What you should do instead is ask yourself if that's a safe way to think about the world if you're really trying to understand things the best way possible. Your four-year experiment, if that's what it was, means what? Whatever you want it to mean? That's ridiculous. If you're so reckles with your beliefs it will be impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you and we really might as well just call it a day. On the other hand, as I said, below, if you honestly want to discuss these things clearly and carefully, I'll try to keep my patience and carry on. I'm sure that's the same response you'd get from a lot of people here. But listen, shp, we've all been here before. Premie after premie has dropped in and proven that they're really not up to discussion. The stilted drivel of ELK is more their speed. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:26:18 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: response to 'all over...' Message: good morning, jim. i have learned that besides staying on my side of the road when i drive, not hurting other people or stealing from them, and a few other social agreements, i am free to pursue my inner/outer search for truth, peace, god, etc. and live my life with no cultural or social restrictions, other than the ones i myself place upon myself. i busted loose of organized religions and their mental boxes over 25 years ago, but didn't throw out the 'baby with the bath water', so to speak, and went looking for what we were all, i guess, looking for: that ultimate experience or at least being shown the threshhold to that world. my loyalty to maharaji is due to the inner experience of knowledge that i tangibly have, and his fulfillment of what i feel are ancient prophecies from many diverse cultures that mention the following: a child being the vessel, coming from the east to the west, the knowledge of god being borught to the whole world, and more. i know that many early tracts about maharaji used to speak of these things and now they don't, that he has taken another approach. so be it. if one accepts the first premise of Maharaji being who he has said that he is, i ask you, how much room is there for doubt? none. and i am at peace with that. regarding his alleged marital indescretions and 'unmasterlike' personality traits, i have heard nothing said here or anywhere that has been proven or documented that would make me blink. rumor and fact are the difference between night and day. as for the money, i think everyone on the earth has a bent-out-of-shape view of the stuff due to the nature of this world and its systems, and Maharaji comes along and plays and it freaks us out because we have all been indoctrinated to the 'work ethic' and all its trappings. if we knew the 'way' already and had a program of the players on the path it would be really easy, man. but that is not the case. we each have to go on our own intincts, reason and feelings. i don't think you are shallow because we disagree and it would help us communicate if you didn't think that of me, etiher. but hey! do what you want. i am here for now. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:03:19 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: shallow Message: i don't think you are shallow because we disagree and it would help us communicate if you didn't think that of me, etiher. Yes, shp, it would help alright. But do you think I can get there by wishful thinking alone? As if I could DECIDE to not see you that way? How shallow, I'm afraid. shp, I'm afraid I think of you as VERY shallow. Here's why. In the interest of brevity I'll assume that if I were to ask you if it were POSSIBLE that Maharaji's a fraud YOUR OPINION NOTWITHSTANDING, I think that if you had just a minimal amount of integrity would ahve to admit that, yes, it's POSSIBLE. No more, just possible. If I then asked you to consider how it might be, in that case, that Maharaji was a fraud AND you thought he wasn't, you'd have no choice but to speculate on how indeed you might be fooling yourself. If you took up that exercise in good faith you'd have to really put your mind to all sorts of POSSIBLE explanations you've ignored so far, theories having to do with all sorts of psychological blind spots and or sleight-of-hand. Once you ask the question 'IF Maharaji's fake, why have I thought otherwise for so long?', you start a whole different level of self-examination than what you seem to have ever undertaken. You seem absolutely oblivious to this entire realm. You're like someone talking about his 'past life experience' completely overlooking the many ways he could merely be fooling himself. You WANT to believe it's true so you intentionally avoid contemplating all the ways you could be fooling yourself. Yes, that's extremely shallow. See, I'm not even asking you to put any particular WEIGHT on those 'debunking' possibilities yet, just to acknowlege them. That's the first step. Then you have to try to explore them logically. No cut corners, no flinching. Only then can you get some sense of how hefty those theories are. Only then can you start to weigh them against your first, preferred theory, namely that you're NOT fooling yourself. If you're not willing to go through that process, fully, openly and in good faith, yeah, I'd say you were keeping youseelf particularly shallow. It's really all up to you and how you want to play it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:24:16 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: shp Subject: I am still waiting Message: I am ready and willing to get into a religious discussion with you. I am waiting for a response to my post about service. Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 13:30:47 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen Subject: I am still waiting Message: hi helen, please repeat your post about service. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:43:50 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: shp Subject: I am still waiting Message: It is the post that says 'Mine is simple' above in this thread. You said you'd answer it when you ahd time Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 15:32:43 (EST)
From: ex-mug Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: new evidence has been found to suggest that Jesus was in fact the son of an architect, and actually lived quite a middleclass lifestyle. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 22:27:57 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: shp Subject: why should I answer you? Message: You never answered any of my questions to you. I thought you were leaving. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:27:58 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: VP Subject: why should I answer you? Message: sorry vp, really. please restate the questions or point me to them in the threads, and i will address them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 16:12:02 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: shp Subject: I'll repeat the question Message: shp, That's okay, there are a lot of posts. I have probably missed posts addressed to me before. I hope you had a good holiday. Here's what I wrote to you below: In a thread below (now in the archives--drat!) you told me that you read here for a long time before posting. In that same post, you accused me of calling a good friend of yours a lot of nasty names on the forum. I don't recall calling anyone on this forum bad names. Care to refresh my memory? I'll apologize if I did indeed call someone nasty names. Honestly, I don't remember doing that. Maybe when you said 'you' what you meant was not me personally, but the collective body of ex-premies here. Lumping everyone into the same category? Heavy sigh. Care to comment? VP Uses restraint with name calling most of the time Here's a new post for you: Okay, since you answered me, I have to say that I think comparing Jesus to Maharaji is like comparing apples to oranges. One tradition is Judeo-Christian and the other is Hindu. They are both based on different ideas. I know for me it's disturbing that Maharaji doesn't talk about some of the things Jesus said that I thought had value (loving others, doing for others, etc.) That is why I don't think it makes sense for premies to compare Maharaji to Jesus. They are different, in my mind. This is my opinion only and I realize that you probably don't see it the same way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:32:02 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: VP Subject: I'll repeat the question Message: i thought it was you - like you said, there are so many threads, i may have gotten confused - but yes, i was referring to Maharaji. as for the judeo-christian thing and comparing it to M... i don't think he wants to be linked to any other historical or religious figures, probably due to all the associated misconceptions, so he wants to make a fresh approach without preconceptions, as i guess we all would in our own lives. based on my studies and personal experiences, i have this educated hunch that the most all of the progenitors of all the world's major religions were 'satgurus' to be brief - revealers of the same Knowledge, with different audiences and historical backgrounds, but the same essential mission, to enlighten individuals who wanted it - not to start a new religion, God forbid! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:43:39 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: shp Subject: I'll repeat my questions Message: based on my studies and personal experiences, i have this educated hunch that the most all of the progenitors of all the world's major religions were 'satgurus' to be brief - revealers of the same Knowledge, with different audiences and historical backgrounds, but the same essential mission, to enlighten individuals who wanted it - not to start a new religion, God forbid! Are you enlightened? Do you know anyone who is? If so, how can you tell? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:51:34 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: gerry Subject: I'll repeat my questions Message: how do you know when you are in love (and i don't mean lust)? is it rational? can you verify it with a spectrometer or some other tool? gerry, my friend, you've got to trust the force, in the words of George Lucas/Obi Wan Kenobie (all-be-one-can-all-be). (more fuel for my fantasy existence, or art imitating life?) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 09:38:02 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: shp Subject: that's no answer Message: baaaaaah, humbug sheep You're evading the question because you know you are bullshitting yourself. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:28:44 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: shp Subject: USE YOUR BRAINS!! Message: What you feel is what you feel. Now it's up to you to try to understand where the feeling you have is coming from. Please don't tell me it's coming from your heart. Of course you can say you feel it in your heart. BUT: a lot of things can cause you feel this 'feeling' of love, like drugs, group feelings, a person, friendhip, being with your family, in places you love, etc Now you can try to use your brains to understand where it's coming from. 'Trust your feelings' is a very stupid thing IMHO. Your feelings is one thing, and it doesn't mean anything if you don't use your brain. My love feelings are still there since I've sent the BM fuck himself. Nothing has changed, I would say everything's improved! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:41:12 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: shp Subject: I'll repeat the question Message: I think you must have gotten me confused with someone else. I've confused people here myself. I don't usually call Maharaji BM. I have called him 'goomradji' before, but that is because a friend of mine used to pronounce his name this way. Also, I likened him to the Great Pumpkin once. Nasty names I don't remember. Thanks for answering me. Your response to the Jesus/Maharaji question sounds very different from the SHP who came on here talking about kings and carpenters a week ago. Are you sure you are the same person, shp? I'm bored with the whole subject, for now anyway. For what it's worth, I used to believe the same thing you just posted, so I know where you are coming from. Right now I am going through the phenomenon known as 'spiritual rip-off'. (Katie and JW coined this phrase!) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 07:55:09 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: VP Subject: I'll repeat the question Message: if you use words accurately by meaning, then it's a ripoff it cannot be spiritual. (picky picky) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 12:30:30 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: Wrong,, shp, wrong. Message: if you use words accurately by meaning, then it's a ripoff it cannot be spiritual. (picky picky) Actually, shp, if it's 'spiritual' it's automatically a ripoff as far as I'm concerned. shp, I want to ask you something. You've posted here now for a few weeks. Let's take stock a bit. What kind of impression do you think you've made? Do you think you've gotten anyone here to respect your mind, your thought process or even just the way you communicate? Have you made any friends here? Persuaded anyone of anything? But my main question's the first: what kind of impression do you think you've made here? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:08:07 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: read, jim, read Message: i came on to communicate, not 'impress' as you put it. my life is not a popularity contest to be judged by the likes of you, premies, or anyone. if anything i said made sense to you, you know it. whether you admit it or not is your business. if anything i said made no sense to you, i am sure you have logged it on the threads whenever. the things that bother me i have heard so far on this site are the documented illnesses and deaths that resulted from unsafe working conditions at places like DECA. why weren't there safety precautions instituted by the foremen and supervisors who were entrusted to do the work? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:56:25 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: What misconceptions? Message: SHP: You say that M doesn't want to be associated with past-masters because of the 'associated misconceptions.' What associated misconceptions are you referring to? To be a misconception, there has to be an original concept that was somehow perverted. Which concept was perverted and in exactly what way? Name several, please (since you made it plural). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:12:17 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: What misconceptions? Message: imagine Knowledge in its purest form. now imagine some religious holiday dripping with trappings of some religious institution, completely devoid of the essential experience. that's what i mean. you fill in the blanks for each religion. knowledge has always been turned into something it isn't by the followers who come after a master leaves...namely a religion. i think that is what he is trying to avoid. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:13:03 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: Jesus and Moses vs. M Message: dear shp - I put that as the title of my post because I think that is the argument that you are trying to construct. The problem with the argument, in my opinion, is that none of us have had any direct experience with Jesus or Moses. We just know the historical record, plus what is taught in the religions based on their teachings. In other words, we weren't around back then. We have a running argument on here about Buddhism, and it basically comes down to everybody's present-day experiences of Buddhism - how can it not. We all have had direct experience of Maharaji and Knowledge, so I feel that we need to discuss those experiences directly without making parables about them. Having said that, I do want to add one thing. One thing that strikes me about Jesus (and I am not a Christian) is his commandments. As I'm recall they were (paraphrased from King James Version): Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Love one another as I have loved you. I think you can say that Maharaji teaches the first commandment (if you stretch it a bit), but he really doesn't EVER talk about loving each other, and that's where I think his teachings fall down flat. Regards, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:50:01 (EST)
From: GErry Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katie, you M too much credit Message: I don't think he has ANY teachings other than the old recycled med techniques. A business plan, maybe, but certainly no moral teachings. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 12:52:40 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: GErry Subject: Katie, you M too much credit Message: Well, I said it was a stretch. He did used to talk a lot about devotion, and that's what I meant. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:26:45 (EST)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: If Moses and Jesus are both accepted as messengers of truth in the world (religons aside), that they brought into being the ten commandments and the concept of forgiveness which elevated the consciousness of the human race, shp (I thought you were leaving forever. I've been absent most of this week, so maybe I missed something, besides which, I keep getting you mixed up with 'srp'. Why can't people use their real names?), Do you seriously believe that forgiveness didn't exist before Jesus, or that other variants of the ten commandments didn't precede Moses? How do you imagine human beings organised their societies from around 400,000 BC up until the bullrush incident. Broaden your reading a little. Chimpanzees have moral codes, too, you know. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:11:36 (EST)
From: Saul Email: None To: nigel Subject: oh the humanity Message: Hi shp and everyone. I think that it's a bit misdirecting to weigh the pros and cons of M vs Jesus at this stage. shp: I wonder if you agree with this: It seems to me that it's been documented here that there are quite a few groups like M's based more or less on the Hindu tradition and, in each of these groups, there are many people who report profound satisfying experiences and who show a great deal of devotion, etc similar to M's group. Would you agree that this is so and that M has no particular claim to be unique among these groups? If you think that M is unique, can you explain why? regards, Saul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:41:29 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Saul Subject: oh the humanity Message: he's unique to me i seek no other person to do what he has done because it only had to happen once now it's a matter of practicing what i was shown no matter how it looks on the outside i maintain as a friend once said that bodily positions are not the techniques without the proper attitude all the digits and all the points will not produce anything more than fatigue Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:52:43 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: Do you believe it's possible to have the experience without him, or possible if you think he's full of shit, a full time deceiver? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 08:00:45 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: hamzen Subject: oh the humanity Message: You said: Do you believe it's possible to have the experience without him, or possible if you think he's full of shit, a full time deceiver? I say: I had glimpses and moments of the experience I now recognize as Knowledge before I met him. As for the other part of your question, if I thought someone was a deceiver I would't trust anything they gave me or told me because it could be adulterated just a little but enough to mess me up. if i thought i had been hooked up with a deceiver, i'd take a good shower and start fresh, with common sense. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 18:46:14 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: Did you ever see the post about the Nigerian Guru Maharaji. One of his followers landed here and was astonished, I think I'm remembeering this properly, the part I really remember was how the experience of his knowledge (everything was set up identically, including the techniques) described his feelings about practicing. He sounded identical in his experience and devotion to someone who'd had a 'good' experience around the scamster. How do you explain that pre-experience to yourself? Do you have no doubts around him, ever, on any level, way, shape or form? Have you ever? Re all the prophecies, where did you get these prophecies from, what texts? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 19:29:56 (EST)
From: Saul Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: shp: I'm glad that you're having a nice experience, but what I'm trying to get at is to what extent you believe that your experience is different from the experience of people in the other groups (who also report profound meditation experiences) and to what extent you think that you are now dependent upon the 'grace of the master.' I am curious whether it is acceptable to you that M is one among many who do this kind of thing, or whether you think that he is THE unique 'living master of the time' etc. Suppose that someone else showed you the techniques (Sai Baba, for example). Do you think that you would also have good experiences? regards, Saul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 08:07:32 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Saul Subject: oh the humanity Message: you can tell the tree by the fruits... i think that Maharaji is unique because he came from east to west as a child, fulfilling many prophecies from many diverse sources, and has pretty much been travelling around the world ever since. he is doing the work, he is doing the travelling, he is revealing the Knowledge...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. there are i am sure many saints and wise people all over the planet who have certain powers and gifts, as there have always been....but i believe that for whatever reason, Prem Pal Singh Rawat got the nod to take it 'public' to the general population of the planet. it's a gut feeling i have had for a long long time. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 15:02:35 (EST)
From: Saul Email: None To: shp Subject: oh the humanity Message: hi shp: = =you can tell the tree by the fruits... = But there are many 'trees' with exactly the same fruits, no? Even though you are happy now, don't forget that the many Ex-premies are also the fruit of this particular tree and that many of them were just like you at one time. = =i think that Maharaji is unique because he came from east to =west as a child, fulfilling many prophecies from many diverse =sources, and has pretty much been travelling around the world =ever since. he is doing the work, he is doing the travelling, he =is revealing the Knowledge...if it walks like a duck, quacks =like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. = shp, really, there are many people who fall into this category, have stories around them of fulfilling prophecies and so on. It's completely standard. A good (and quite smart) friend of mine has gotten interested in 'Sai Baba' because not only has Sai Baba fulfilled many amazing prophecies, he has also appeared in my friend's dreams. How could this happen if he's not really the savior of mankind? = =there are i am sure many saints and wise people all over the =planet who have certain powers and gifts, as there have always =been....but i believe that for whatever reason, Prem Pal Singh =Rawat got the nod to take it 'public' to the general population =of the planet. it's a gut feeling i have had for a long long =time. = I'm sure you'll believe me that there are many people who are just as convinced that their guy is the real thing. Maybe they are all wrong and you're right, but I suspect that something else has happened here. I think that the idea that M is the unique true living master of the time is heavily suggested to you via M's messages. This is confirmed and you are convinced of this because of your profound experiences with K. I happen to think that your experience of knowledge probably really IS a truly profound thing, but you have been lead into associating this with M personally so strongly that you are now dependent upon him for this basic experience and ready to be exploited in whatever way M finds convenient. I'm not the one to comment, really, but it seems that in the long run, this kind of relationship can be very harmful. best wishes, Saul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:20:39 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Saul Subject: oh the humanity Message: saul, thanks for the thoughtful words. can't respond right now. but thanks. i am not into convincing anyone on this site that Maharaji is who i think he is, but i get the distinct feeling that ex-premies want to prove something to me, that M's a fraud. i never worked on any big projects or at any residences or in his personal entourage...i always thought those folks were so lucky and blessed. now i am hearing some stories that sound very wierd, like at DECA where folks died and got very sick from working with toxic stuff and no protection. facts are helpful at a time like this, not just hearsay and circumstantial stuff. why didn't folks use safety precautions? gotta go now. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:36:29 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: nigel Subject: oh the humanity Message: i agree with you that 40,000 years ago there was probably a cool social order without any formal code, and yeah, chimps are moral sometimes. and if you read the archaic revival buy terrence mckenna you might get a kick out of it.. i believe that cetain individuals had the mission of 'taking it public' to the general population of the planet...world teachers, world servers, saviors, whatever you want to call them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 13:39:41 (EST)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: shp Subject: mckenna's full of crap, too! Message: When I said 'broaden your reading' I didn't mean just any old reading... Busy right now. I'll get back on satgurus and gifts etc. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:28:08 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: nigel Subject: mckenna's full of crap, too! Message: Nigel, I'm with you there. Boy I used to like that guy! He was a regular on Something's Happening, the long-standing graveyard shitf radio show on KPFK, L.A.'s Pacifica station. His weird, high-pitched sing-song modulation was pretty entrancing once you got used to it. A brilliant if somewhat forced wordsmith. One couldn't help but figure he'd plunder the OED (unabridged) before speaking engagements. (Some friends of mine hung out with him a bit but that's really neither here nor there. I just mention it lest anyone think I'm a nobody.) Anyway, McKenna's line is pure poetry. He's a complete mindfucker and he knows it. Reality is a very narrow bandwidth in the McKenna spectrum. Interesting how he's fashioned a bit of a cult following for himself. Ah, if only the answer to everything WAS in DMT. But it isn't, he's not and thanks for the show. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 20:34:34 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: mckenna's full of crap, too! Message: just about everybody's full of crap according to you and a 'small circle of friends' (remember phil ochs?) you are probably right about some of them... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 21:20:33 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: mckenna's full of crap, too! Message: Phil Ochs was cool! Look outside your window There's a woman being grabbed They've dragged her through the bushes And now she's being stabbed Maybe we shoudl call someone And try to ease the pain But monoploy is so much fun And I'd hate to ruin the game Besides I don't think it would interest Anybody Outside of a small circle of friends or Sit by my side Come as close as the air Share in a memory of ___ And da da da da And da da bout the pictures da da da of changes Yeah, Ochs was cool. Too bad he hung himself. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 22:26:14 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: phil ochs was cool Message: we heartily agree on something, jim! we both dug phil ochs. gee, i feel all warm and fuzzy. (well, a little) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:09:20 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: phil ochs was cool Message: shp, What do you think Phil would have thought about Maharaji? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:15:05 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: phil ochs was cool Message: What do you think Phil would have thought about Maharaji? it wouldn't really interest anybody outside a small circle of friends.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:27:44 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: well, was this? Message: shp, You talk about Maharaji's care -- sorry, I'm changing the subject. You don't seem too interested in Ochs on Maharaji, so I'm changing it to your earlier comments expressing surprise that Maharaji would let people get hurt unnecessarily in his service. If you've lurked here for a while you'll know that my friend who turned me on to Maharaji, Dave Weiner, started doubting Maharaji's divinity in the spring of '74, just after the marriage, and thought he was going to some sort of spiritual hell. He took all Maharaji's warnings about 'letting doubt in' and succumbing to the 'poison' of the mind to heart and really spiralled in despair. There was no talking him out of it. Sure, you'd give him satsang a bit and he'd sit there completely drinking it in but a short while later and he'd be thinking again, 'What if Maharaji's not who he says he is? What if he IS and I'm turning away from him?' One day he hung himself. That was in Vancouver in '74. I know at least four other premies from that relatively small community who killed themselves then. Elaine, Greg, Nigel and the guy in Victoria, here, who jumped out of a window. Elaine and Nigel were, like Dave, really sincere, gentle folk. At least that's how they became as premies. My guess is that some people just don't take too well to being told that their mind's are poison which must be surrendered. I dont' know, that's my guess anyway. So do you think Maharaji ever once contacted either Dave's family of sent a message to our community or anything like that? As if! And don't go telling me these guys were fragile to begin with. It's exactly the same as your toxic chemical question. Not everyone exposed to toxic stuff will get sick or worse. But, on average, enough will to warrant major prevention, protection and warnings. Get the point? Do I have to go on? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 23:57:41 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Jim Subject: Phil Ochs, King of Jews Message: So that was 4 people in what, a year of two? Three? How big was the community when this took place. I dunno Vancouver (right?) but sounds like alot of people to me. You were in the ashram. What was the total head count? I hate to even say it, but it sounds to me like they just said this trip is a bunch of bullshit and offed themselves instead of even trying to deal with it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 15:44:57 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: leave no room... Message: jim, i am a very realistic person. some of the things said on this site have given me reason to pause and look at myself and my life. the commandment says: 'leave no room for doubt in your mind.' ok, fine. i say to you this: i have no doubt in my mind that some of the things said in this site trouble me. i have no doubt in my mind that some things said in this site make me wonder. i have no doubt in my mind that some things said in this site need documentation and clarification to be believed. i have no doubt in my mind that i now have doubt in my mind. and in my heart, i am still being loyal to 'having no room for doubt in my mind'. i am being true to myself, as shakespeare said, so i cannot be false to anyone. this is who i am. i am just a man and a lover of truth. don't leave me hangin', man... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 16:16:27 (EST)
From: Saul Email: None To: shp Subject: leave no room... Message: Hi shp; If Jim is not around, I'd suggest that the best place to go for documentation is the 'Nuts and Bolts' page on this site, especially the 'Interview with an Ex-Instructor' and the interview with Bob Mishler. Saul Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 17:41:45 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: leave no room... Message: Dear shp - I have no doubt that there are people who are still following Maharaji who know almost all the sad and angry stories that have been told on this site. They just put a different spin on it, that's all. Unfortunately, that 'spin' tends to blame each and every individual premie who did something unwise because of something that they thought Maharaji wanted. I just can't buy that explanation any more. If it were one, two, a dozen people, then maybe they could be brushed off, but there are a lot more people than that who were damaged by following Maharaji. Many faithful premies also tend to blame the people who were in positions of power in Maharaji's organization - like Maharaji had no control. The chain of command from Maharaji to his underlings was always kept very secret, so it's difficult to trace it (although it may be possible). We've argued this point quite a bit in the past on the forum, but I believe that there is a time when a man, even Maharaji, needs to take responsibility for what's being done in his name. The time when Maharaji could be considered old enough, or worldly enough, to do this passed long ago, and he didn't do anything to stop these things. As far as documentation, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. For me, it came down to who I was going to believe. Maharaji implies that everything is all right, but after a while one begins to hear all these premies and former premies in the background saying NO, it is NOT all right. When people I cared about started saying NO it's not all right, I finally listened. I know it's probably got to be quite a struggle for you. You do seem to care about other people quite a bit, whether they are premies, ex-premies, or not premies, and I appreciate that - maybe that can help. Regards, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 23:29:46 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Katie Subject: Well said Katie Message: Great post Katie. What can be better documentation (IMO) that eyewitness accounts?? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Dec 03, 1998 at 00:27:26 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Helen, Katie, Jim, et al Subject: thank you for your input Message: thanks for your input. i have things to deal with. like deniro say: 'i heard things'...now i have to deal with them. will be in touch. take care. if you don't hear from me, doesn't mean i'm gone forever, got some sorting to do... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:13:09 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: New article on my site Message: I've just finished this new one. Nothing new, this article has been for years on D Lane's website, lost in the middle of hundreds of other stuff. It's been now indexed, and easy to read. It's about : Shabdism in North America The BM is not the only one of his kind ..... (Originally published by David Rife) Introduction : There are now several popular religious movements in North America which owe their existence, either partially or wholly, to the Radhasoami tradition of India. The spectrum ranges from immediate connections, as in Eckankar and the Divine Light Mission whose founders have taken initiation from one of the Satgurus, to associative influences where sects have borrowed (and, in some cases, plagiarized) writings and spiritual lineages from Radhasoami. All of these new panths, though, have one thing in common: they give significant emphasis to the Shabd, the transcendent power which is believed to be the creative and sustaining force of the universe (it is also known as the 'Audible Life Stream' or the 'Music of the Spheres'). And though there are groups which speak of this 'Sound Current' which are both anterior and exterior to the Radhasoami tradition, all of the new movements under discussion have based their knowledge and writings on Radhasoami's own particular interpretation of Surat Shabd Yoga, the practice of uniting the soul with the internal sound energy. In this article, I will describe the relationship of these American religious movements to the Radhasoami tradition and then will examine the reasons why there is such a strong tendency in these new panths to deny their living religious heritage. Index of the Article The Radhasoami Tradition of India The more prominent North American groups affiliated to Radhasoami - Dr. Bhagat Singh Thind - Paul Twitchell and Eckankar - John-Roger Hinkins and M.S.I.A. - Divine Light Mission - Walter Baptiste, Dr. Ramamurti Mishra, and Ray Stanford Genealogical Dissociation: Emergence and Repression in the New Panths Very intersting stuff Notes Read the article Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 22:58:26 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: New article on my site Message: Thanks again, JM. This education you've been giving us on M's roots in the Radhasoami tradition is a must for anyone interested in knowing the truth about the 'Perfect Master Of The Age'. There seems to be lot of them, eh? heh heh heh... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 03:35:19 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Shri Gary Olsen Message: is also a new American satguru! There are quite some of them.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 06:07:06 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jerry Subject: About M's revisionnism Message: Exploring all this stuff about the Indian roots has been extremely helpful for me - and some of my exes friends - who have been clearly attracted by the 'Indian magic' surrounding the BM's show. The BM is nothing very special, and if you read that paragraph about Genealogical Dissociation: Emergence and Repression in the New Panths you'll finally discover the best explanation for m's and EV's revisionnism. Most of the westernized radhasoami cults did the same in the past, and you can easily see what the BM is trying to achieve: becoming some sort of new Hero for his premies to adore ... But alas for him, he won't go away with his past, thanks to the Internet. The very technology he likes so much sort of betrayed him, isn't it funny? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 01:01:55 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Okay, Hamzen, I tried Message: Yes, I tried to read some Maturana. In particular I tried to read his new essay entitled 'Metadesign' which can be found on his web site at: http://www.inteco.cl/articulos/metadesign_parte1.htm I can't do it. Not unless you pay me, will I finish this piece. Why? Here's the first paragraph: Living systems are structure determined systems, that is, they are systems such that all that happens to them at any instant depends on their structure (which is how they are made at that instant). Structure determined systems are systems such that any agent impinging on them only triggers in them structural changes determined in them. This we know from daily life. Furthermore, structural determinism is an abstraction that we make from the regularities and coherences of our daily living as we explain our daily living with the regularities and coherences of our daily living. So, the notion of structural determinism reflects the regularities and coherences of our living as we explain our living with the regularities and coherences of our living, and not any transcendental aspect of an independent reality. Here's the fourth: Living systems have a plastic structure, and the course that their structural changes follows while they stay alive is contingent to their own internal dynamics of structural change modulated by the structural changes triggered in them by their interactions in the medium they exist as such. What I have just said means that a living system remains alive only as long as it slides in the medium following a path of interactions in which the structural changes triggered in it are structural changes that conserve its autopoiesis ( its living). Furthermore, what I have said also means that while a living system lives both the living system and the circumstances in which it operates appear to an observer as changing together congruently. In fact, this is a general condition for structure determined systems, namely: the conservation of the operational congruence between a particular structure determined system and the medium in which it exists in recursive interactions, as well as the conservation of the system's identity (its defining organization), are both at the same time conditions for the spontaneous arising and spontaneous conservation of a structure determined system, and the systemic result of its actual existing in recursive interactions in the medium while its defining organization is conserved. Forget it! I'm willing to slog through anything. As a lawyer I have to do cut through some fairly thick underbrush at times. (Although one of the benefits of criminal law is that it's relatively free of opaque, roccocco gobbledygook compared to contractual law, say.) But here, I'm not the least bit convinced that this guy's really got anything to say. If communication's a two-way street he's leaving me feeling a little uninvited. I like Hamzen and, on his reccomendation was hoping to actually find some value in this guy. Yes, that's true, in spite of any impression I've given to the contrary. But, unless Hamzen or someone else can tell me in plain language why I should bother, I won't. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 03:50:21 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Big hug Message: Jim,big apologies for not being here to respond, or put in Maturana (2). By way of explanation since it's not the first time I've been tardy in responding I was just starting Maturana(2), phone call, emergency at work, twenty hour shift, because the 1/1 support workers 26 year old daughter just had a heart attack. Also off topic, did anyone here (uk), see the story of the mother and 9 year old daaughter both raped; in the week the rapist was jailed hears her other daughter, in whose flat the rapes happened has been found drowned! How many premies would respond to that by talking about karma and god's will, meant to be, or would even they be embarrassed to talk in such a way? Ain't life shit sometimes. Soon as I've had some brekky I'm in there responding to all yours and Jerry's posts, very excited. And Jim, much appreciated that you've put some time in on this one. Don't just think that autopoiesis is spot on, but just as importantly think it has a lot of relevance for this site. Talking of which, without getting too luvvy about it, ain't this site wonderful. If anyone knows a better and more interesting bunch of people than exist here, I think they're bloody lucky. BIG UP TO EVERYONE HERE. Me an that ole hippy raver Jethro are certain THIS is the real premie site.(Company of truth/heart etc etc....) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 10:07:15 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Big hug Message: I've got to agree with you about this site, hammie. I visited the Magical Mystery Tour site and it was like eating wonder bread after having had a complex Dagwood sandwich. just didn't have the let-it-rip-and-roll, humorous, challenging, interactive/sometimes ascerbic (sp) zip of this site. I'm spoiled now, this site was my introduction to the internet and boy, was I lucky to stumble on this. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:53:22 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: hamzen Subject: Big hug Message: Dear Hamzen, Scott, Helen, I know there are lots of great people here, hope I get a faster computer so I can read you all more often. I know there are lots of interesting, caring, LOVING people here. Somehow someone here thinks I am the only one here who love people. Somehow I think he is mistaken. I am glad to be associated with love even as it is said in a tounge and cheek manner because it is a goal I strive for and mostly that it isn't connected to BM at all! :) Love you guys, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 10:54:59 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, Hamzen, I tried Message: All I can say, Jim, is from what little I've read of 'The Tree Of Knowledge', this kind of 'gobbledygook' does not exist. Maybe, that's because it's co-authored by another scientist, Francisco J. Varela, a professor of cognitive science and epistemology, and he helped to keep the text more easy to understand, I don't know. But because of the interest that's been sparked, I'm going to read the whole book diligently, if I can 'slog' through it. I'll keep you and Ham posted on what I think when I'm done. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 17:24:35 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: breathing sawdust Message: Jerry: Reading that stuff is like breathing sawdust. It exemplifies the concept that if you use terms that have wildcard meanings, you have a system that drowns in it's own flexibility: the philosophical viewpoint of a joker. If you want something that's dense, but also meaningful, may I suggest either Jurgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action (2 vols.), or on the other side of the spectrum, Robert Nozick's The Lived Life. BTW, hope everyone had a happy T-day. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 17:45:42 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: breathing sawdust Message: It exemplifies the concept that if you use terms that have wildcard meanings, you have a system that drowns in it's own flexibility: the philosophical viewpoint of a joker. Well stated, Scott. I feel that way to a degree, myself. Still, Maturana & Varela are clear enough where there's a lot to be learned about awareness and it's biological roots. I'm determined to finish this book. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:02:03 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: breathing sawdust Message: Jerry: Well stated, Scott. I feel that way to a degree, myself. Still, Maturana & Varela are clear enough where there's a lot to be learned about awareness and it's biological roots. I'm determined to finish this book. Don't let me dissuade you then. Perhaps there is something in it, although it appears he could have used an editor in the passages Jim quoted. Is he an engineer by any chance? I have a theory that most engineers can't write because their work interferes with the centers in the brain that govern verbal coherence. It's like they need sentence contractions or something. A big apostrophe in the middle of the sentence, and then a single completing word. Anxious to hear what you think when you've completed your task. To tell the truth, I still haven't finished Habermas' tome. I may never finish it. I have a friend who makes sense of Habermas, but he can't get a job. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 20:08:02 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: breathing sawdust Message: Both Maturana and Varela are Chilean, second language .... 'He has been working on the anatomy and neuro-physiology of vision, especially on colour vision,.....The problems and puzzles which emerged in his research and teaching led Maturana to develop a distinctively alternative theoretical framework in order to answer the questions, 'what is a living system?' and 'what is cognition?'' From intro to Autopoiesis and Cognition. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:46:46 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: breathing sawdust Message: Scott, are you referring to Tree of Knowledge or other stuff that's been posted here. If you could be bothered I would love you to breathe out some communicative competence with a few illustrations of Maturana's wildcard meanings and why you see them that way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 12:53:34 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Maturana/Varela-1(a) Message: Out of context I'd agree with you on those quotes. The Tree of Knowledge is miles more accessible. This stuff is the academic end of things, philosophical justification etc, crossing the t's, dotting the i's...Have you read much philosophy, it's all as fucking dense as this. To get back to earlier posts. Never heard him speak, read one speech he gave in Britain last year, I found it pretty straightforward, but can't comment on him as a person. Suspect Varela's english is better. As I said before, self-referencing systems can't be anything but circular, they're self referencing. Quote about Maturana. Didn't think for one moment the quote was yours. Why the guy wrote that, without reading background, original source etc, don't know. A lot of people are threatened and unsettled by his ideas and constructivists ideas in general, without being able to fault the logic, which he also avoided. Suspect some of this comes from threatened careers...You know how much jobs for the boys runs through a lot of scientific communities. The only scientific community I've spent any time time around was riddled with that stuff, much to my disgust. Before then I'd seen scientists rather like the priesthood should be. Naive or what. Human nature I guess. The constructivist position in general also threatens our view of reality as a given, you've already shown this response yourself, but it is very easy to show reality is like that. The problem is that people become terrified that statements that question A fixed physical reality will lead us back to god, etc when so many people are still there. For me that is the weakness of premies logic AND paradoxically a lot of evolutionaries. Keep a stiff front and we'll win, this is what I suspect SRB was trying to say about Dawkins. I think we should have more faith in logic rather than beliefs. We all need to educate ourselves more. His (Maturanas) position is an extension and bringing together into a coherent whole of the main multi-disciplinary cybernetic/systems science approach going back to the post-war years. Within AI it lost fashion for about twenty years, partially I suspect because they wanted to keep it simpler for programming reasons. Also that the main AI traditions were rooted in linear logic. But modelling cognitive systems in this way has been disappointing. Now everyones getting into, firstly parallel processing, problems there too, then neural nets and self-referencing systems. The ghost in the machine problem has not gone away. Systems science is NOT sociology or a social science even though there is inter-disciplinary awareness. Maths/computing/artificial intelligence from a cybernetic angle was the root although the constructivist position is well known in philosophy & elsewhere. Also it was the r&d of organizational change, called operational research which was also used to model and implement automatic systems that you find in factories, queing...... But it doesn't work with modelling organizational change from the human end which is now fully locked into a constructivist approach.See Soft Systems Methodology/Peter Checkland. Systems ideas are standard in ecology and I don't mean new-age green ecology. They have also been used by small parts of the psychology community for radical family therapy which worked well but was never mainstream. Having said that, M & V's ideas are being raided by a lot of different disciplines in the last ten years, at an exponential rate. It's the only approach that is able to deal with the homunculus/ghost in the machine problem if your are trying to model meta-level cognitive functions because it deals with the'reality' problem. Re Autopoeisis and Spirituality site. Have been through the page twice. Like a lot of new-agers, of which the scamster lard is a prime example, they borrow a small idea from somewhere, take it off somewhere else, no smoke without fire becomes the cry from those who see the new age sloppiness.As soon as I post this I will go there agin and do a small analysis, but really to help you deal with your itch and scratch. Apart from that it's a waste of my time going there, but you know how much you're worth! Jim, there is no absolutely fixed, agreed by everyone position in this or any scientific territory, the dialogue evolves into general positions arguing about the details, you can't just hide behind the priesthood, that's just as irrational as following the lard, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUSH EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE MAIN DEBATES, OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST DOING ANOTHER PREMIE NUMBER, especially since you've been pretty intense/strong about this one on this site to a number of people. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 14:15:19 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Maturana/Varela-1(a) Message: Hamzen, Most interesting. And CLEAR. Thanks very much. I've only a moment here (pit-stopping home between music store and office [bought the most wicked pedal for tomorrow night - a univibe. Like tremolo but pitch variation rather than volume. Hendrix's baby. I figure we'll give them sounds. They want sounds? We'll give them sounds.) I will read your post more thoroughly later. Just a few fast, cursory comments in reply right now, (Watch, I'll NEVER get back to you and, with a little luck, get away with it!) 1) Why can't the philosophers teach their children how to speak? The Spanish learn their Spanish And the Greeks all leanr their Greek 2) Why do you think Dawkins et al. (or Dawkins alone, if you prefer) flinch in the face of any particular logical argument? I've not seen this anywhere. Am I missing something? Bill's accusation against Dawkins isn't that. It's that he purposely overlooks the big wholes in evolutionary theory that would, if admitted, bring the entire artifice crashing. 3) Why do you think THIS stuff is central to the 'main debate' on evolutionary theory? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 18:45:22 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Am I tracking? Message: hamzen: RE: Systems science is NOT sociology or a social science even though there is inter-disciplinary awareness. I admit that I know very little about the AI people, and what they are doing, but as far as I know, system theory is directly attributable to Talcott Parsons, who was a sociologist. Furthermore, Maturana seems derivative of Parsons, right down to the bad copy of Parson's notoriously dense writing style. I think Operations Research is a methodology (Hoetelling), not unlike statistical regression. The basic idea of OR is that a decision is a number. It is therefore one of the methodologies important to the 'system world.' Mixing up methodologies with philosophies is a source of confusion, though it is easy to avoid. I fail to see why some people feel there is benefit from NOT avoiding this pitfall. It may be overly simplistic, but constructivism could be best understood as the viewpoint that deconstructionism is against. All one would have to do to deconstruct some of the arguments of Maturana (in my admittedly limited experience) is to blow hard on them. They almost denconstruct themselves: 'autodeconstructivist.' If one hopes to make any sort of meaningful contribution in the late twentieth century you have to abandon the idea that either viewpoint (basically, interpretivist and objectivist) is a complete and comprehensive package. To me, they seem more like odd and even numbers, although that is only an analogy. Bringing them together seems daunting, but perhaps all we really need to do is to tell them apart, for now. Jurgen Habermas is the only philosopher that seems to have made any serious progress in his project to rescue the Enlightenment from the radical end of the interpretivist-hermeneutic-deconstructionist perspective, with the concept of 'communicative action.' However, all he may have actually accomplished is to provide an example of just how near-impossible the task really is, even for someone who appears to have thoroughly read every philosopher, social scientist, and natural scientist since Aristotle (no joke). If Habermas can't do it, my guess is that it probably can't be done by mortals. This is oddly encouraging and reassuring--I mean, the fact that the universe doesn't fall apart simply because we don't understand it. It's like having to spend two years in the second grade, instead of one, and finding that all of your friends have the same problem. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 19:31:34 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Am I tracking? Message: Scott, I've been involved with Systems Theory and surrounding subjects for about 15 years, read all the key texts, did a degree in Systems Modelling and Talcott Parsons I've never heard of. Operations Research came out of the use of cybernetics in the war(WW2) and as you say, attempted to model all decision making mathematically. Within the Systems community it is practically dead and buried, as well as in the business community, where it was pushed very hard, except for automated factory systems, queing etc. It is really an adjunct of statistics with a certain slant. The systems descriptions were to show Jim that systems theory was never a part of sociology etc. Please Scott, waste some of your time, blow hard and show us some of your conclusions. 'If one hopes to make any sort of meaningful contribution in the late twentieth century you have to abandon the idea that either viewpoint(basically, interpretivist and objectivist) is a complete and comprehensive package. To me, they seem more like odd and even numbers, although that is only an analogy. Bringing them together seems daunting, but perhaps all we really needto do is to tell them apart, for now.' Scott, have you actually read any Maturana, your quote describes exactly what he is doing, within a logical framework, built up from basics, with biological examples all the way through. Have you seen any of Peter Checklands texts. His Soft Systems Methodology was heavily influenced by Habermas, if my memory serves me right. This is nothing to do with Maturana, used purely for dealing with the messy/fuzzy end of systems, 'human activity systems'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 21:00:21 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: hamzen Subject: I feel like Robyn Message: I haven't a clue what you guys are talking about but I love you anyway. No, seriously, I want to ask the obvious question, if you don't mind. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?? What is the point of all this stuff? I have no idea. Yes, I can understand your prose, both of you (although, as usual Scott's just begs for voluminous footnotes). And I bet I could get in there too if I wanted. But where the hell is 'there'? What ARE you guys doing? What are any of the guys you're interested in doing? I have to laugh. Can you imagine some dreamy-eyed premie stumbling upon your posts? They finally take a peak at the ex-premie page to see what unbridled mind looks like. And they find you two? Ha ha ha ... can't help laughing... can't STOP laughing. Really! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:15:56 (EST)
From: hammy schammy Email: None To: Jim Subject: I feel like Robyn Message: Jim, IF I don't get another bleeding phonecall desperately asking me to bail out the 1/1 support for someone with challenging behaviour, which has happened twice in the last two days and I don't fall aslleep at the keyboard, four hours sleep since Wednesday night, within two hours, promise. simple clear AND showing the MAJOR relevance for anyone interested in life and science and evolution. Well I'm gonna try. By the way, YOU still haven't answered MY question about how do you fit your hunches and intuitions and feelings into your rational approach to living. PS Maybe, like me, and I suspect Scott, there are one or two pseudo-intellectual premies out there who...blah,blah Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:57:11 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: hammy schammy Subject: I feel like Robyn Message: By the way, YOU still haven't answered MY question about how do you fit your hunches and intuitions and feelings into your rational approach to living. I either don't or don't know or don't understand your question. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:27:06 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Am I tracking? Message: Ham: Well, the first thing I realized was that OR is more than a methodology. It is a collection of methodologies, techniques, etc. I think the appropriate term is 'method.' It continues to be useful, though mostly for solving relatively mundane problems. Scott, I've been involved with Systems Theory and surrounding subjects for about 15 years, read all the key texts, did a degree in Systems Modelling and Talcott Parsons I've never heard of. That is very interesting. Parsons was definitely a seminal figure here (though it may be mistaken to say he was THE central figure). His absence from systems theory discussions speaks to this concept of specialization within the natural sciences, which is part and parcel of the 'method' problem as it relates to organizations, etc. I gather that Parsons is not part of the lore of systems theory, but suspect his role was conveniently 'forgotten' by the institutions involved. As you said once, jobs are frequently on the line. That is part of what's going on. One of the hermeneutic arguments is that method is not objective, but is set up to achieve the illusion of objectivity. It was a powerful argument put forth by Hans Gadamer. Habermas wrote this lengthy counter-argument to Gadamer's 'Truth and Method,' the gist of which was that specialized languages in the sciences are fundamentally different from natural language. As I recall, it basically had to do with the fact that specialized languages have an inward focus and have a tendency to isolate meanings. Well, they're specialized, after all. Natural languages have an outward compulsion (I know that's imprecise, but haven't read the piece in a long time) and knowing one makes it easier to know others. It makes it possible to bridge the gap between 'speechless unity and speechless separation.' It also makes generalization possible. Stephen Klein, at Stanford, has a project that seeks to articulate concepts and theories within specializations that can be valuable to other specializations. According to him, it is not unusual to find a certain discipline laboring to prove a pet theory that was disproved in another specialization 30 years before. Because the principles are expressed in different language the discovery is completely overlooked. I am very interested in the concept of self-referencing systems, so let me see if I can articulate what the constructivist position might be. The deconstructionists use linguistics to demonstrate that if you look closely enough at language you find that all words are either meaningless, or have meanings that are in direct opposition or are incompatible. Derrida, for instance, says all language is 'logo-centric.' So, what they are saying is that because language is self-referencing it is meaningless or at least incoherent. One term for this is the 'hermeneutic circle,' in which language acquires meaning by agreement within a closed sphere. The contructivist, on the other hand, acknowledges that language is self referencing, but argues that this is what gives it meaning. That is, systems that are alive are constructed out of a sort of basic unit of self-reference. That's what they mean by the term 'structure.' It is possible that these two perspectives are not entirely incompatible. I probably need to pay more attention to the authors you mentioned. It's just that the passages Jim quoted were so atrocious, and it's hard for me to imagine someone bridging that great divide through a specialization. It is inaccurate to say those passages are typical of all philosophers. They are typical only of the bad ones. If those passages are part of an attempt to cross the t's and dot the i's then they ought to use some sort of symbolic or graphical language that is designed for that purpose. Habermas is difficult, but he's not silly. As for your invitation to 'blow hard' on the constructivists, why would I? I'm basically sympathetic. But, don't you think a deconstructionist would have fun with the frequent use of the term 'structure' with different and even opposing meanings? Just for the sake of discussion I have a simple meaning for the word structure that would probably be incompatible with theirs (though I need to read more to see if this is true): anything that is triangulated. A system, on the other hand, is anything that encloses space, whether it has structure or not. Anyhow..., what were we talking about? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 02:04:44 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Am I tracking? Message: Scott, thanks for the reply. Will check out the Talcott Parsons line. Although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had been edited out, because of my suspicions about all scientific cultures, people full stop, I have my doubts though. Mostly my reading and interest was stimulated outside of institutions, by people such as Stafford Beer, C.West-Churchman, Heinz Von Foerster, Checkland, Maturana and Varela who were all isolated, so called mavericks in the Systems community, for a long time, especially back in the day when OR and stats were the only 'rational' route, that they tended to be more honest and generous in their references. Re Habermas v Gadamer, I'm no philosopher but for myself within the systems community I thought both positions were taken by individuals, sometimes within even short discussions, like a polarity spectrum that enabled some progression but also kept the'elite' groupings, thought that the oscillation between the two approaches also extended the cover of jobs for the boys. Certainly most women seemed to have difficulties with that now you see it, now you don't take, not unlike the approach the scamster uses. Put in a couple of relevant/resonant quotes, then lather it with bollocks, who's going to spend time de-constructing, especially when they're trying so hard not to think.Remember being at a Green Party symposium on science, female atomic physicist there was describing how she was having a particular problem. Went round speaking to colleagues to clarify, after speaking to each one became even more confused. At about person number 12 she found someone who explained it for her. She realized they'd all been bullshitting, mostly because they didn't have a clue but couldn't lose face by admitting they didn't know! Apologies about the philosopher's comment, I know you're right, displaying my own bias here. Having said that, I found Habermas unbelievably difficult, although even he wasn't as headache splittingly awful as the Frenchies. God, they're diabolical. Have you followed the debunking of Derrida, Lacan etc going on in France at the moment? Re Maturana and structure. In his texts he is very explicit at defining what he means by structure v organization. ORGANIZATION denotes those relations that must exist among the components of a system for it to be be a member of a specific class.STRUCTURE denotes the components and relations that actually constitute a particular unity and make it's organization real.' I'd be astonished if he isn't consistent in this in the interview Jim posted. Will have another look. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 08:47:18 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: freewheeling@bigfoot.com To: ham Subject: Am I tracking? Message: Ham: One of the ideas that's floating around is that philosophy is no longer relevant, precisely because of what we're doing here in this 'virtual' world. I think the guy's name is Cassells, another 'reformed Marxist.' (That old grouch really got around.) As for women not understanding the Gadamer/Habermas debate, Thelma Lavine would get a kick out of that. Her take on it is that Habermas destroyed Gadamer's new-agey position in the first exchange, but Gadamer would not relent. I don't think there is anyone other that Jurgen Habermas who has a project to get the Enlightenment onto another footing, but it's hard to keep up. I've read a number of Derrida debunks, but not the ones you mentioned. Basically, he is an extraordinarily skilled deconstructionist, who is also quite entertaining. But, what's the point? Are we supposed to deconstruct everything? He won't reveal what his real agenda is, whether he's adopting a metaphysical or religious orientation, etc. He refuses to stand for anything. That's very revealing. In general, deconstructionism appeals to the left and to feminists. RE: ORGANIZATION denotes those relations that must exist among the components of a system for it to be be a member of a specific class.STRUCTURE denotes the components and relations that actually constitute a particular unity and make it's organization real.' I just don't understand this, so it's difficult to argue with it. The issue is whether I've an incentive to want to understand it. I thought structure makes things sound, not real. 'Compared to what?' I'd be tempted to ask. Real? It also seems as though the term 'class' is lurking back there, ready to pounce. Unless something is organized it can't be classified? What if it can't be classified? Can it be categorized, ala Kant? What's the difference? But, the bottom line is that I just don't understand the statements, becaues I don't know the meaning of the terms he's using to define other terms. And if the whole thing is circular, why bother? BTW, I recently got an invitation to Noam Chomsky's 70th (virtual) birthday party on the web. If you or anyone would like an invitation I can forward it to you via email. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 22:01:17 (EST)
From: hammy Email: None To: Jim/Scott Subject: M/V-1(b)/Jim/Scott/Peers Message: (1)'We are very pleased to introduce this major theoretical work in the 'Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science'. The integration of biological theory, formal construction, epistemology (and further, Maturana's suggestions of the nature of biological sociology and his sketch of the ethical implications of such a construction)-all mark these two studies as among the most original attempts at a systemmatic biology in decades, and as a profoundly philosophical work.' Robert Cohen/Marx Wartofsky Centre for Philosophy and History of Science Boston UNiversity 7/79 Intro to Autopoiesis and Cognition (2)'This small book is very large: it contains the living universe. It is a priveilege to be asked to write this preface, and a delight to do so. That is because I recognize here a really important book, both in general and specifically. Before talking about the specific contents at all, I would like to explain to explain why this is in general so. First paragraph from the preface to the second part of Autopoiesis & Cognition by Sir Stafford Beer, arguably one of the top half dozen most important system's people who has been there since the mid-forties cybernetic community. (3)'This book will start readers thinking in new ways about both science and philosophy. The authors have been most ingenious in finding means to explain at the same our human processes of thought and thew facts of biology.There are fresh insights on every page, presented very clearly. Dr Maturana and Dr Varela, well known for finding new approaches in nerve physiology, have produced a truly original book, which will be a revelation and inspiration to many people. Professor J.Z.Young, Oxford University Foreword to 'Tree of Knowledge' (4)And to show the company they keep.... 'This book is about mechanisms of control in it's broadest sense, especially the ability of systems to maintain identity and autonomy and to keep their relevant variables within 'physiological' limits. The authors try to answer questions such as what orderedness of a system is based on, how this orderedness has arisen, how it can be maintained and altered and further developed. Self-organization is a main phenomenon in systems maintaining their identity and autonomy. Research results and epistemilogical consequences of these results are presented and discussed. Heinz Von Forster, a pioneer of of cybernetic research and bio-engineering, FRANCISCO VARELA, A BIOLOGIST AND FOUNDER OF AUTOPOIESIS AND SELF-REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS, Herman Haken, physicist, the 'father' of laser theory and synergetics, Rupert Riedl, zoologist and marine biologist and one of the main representatives of an evolutionary epistemology, ....... From preface to an attempt to see the possible relevance of self-organization research to management of social systems 'Self Organization and Management of Social Systems 1984 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 00:32:24 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FOR JIM-PART1 Message: (1) Certainty 'We tend to live in a world of certainty, of undoubted, rock-ribbed perceptions: our convictions prove that things are the way we see them and there is no alternative to what we hold as true. This is our daily situation, our cultural condition, our common way of being human.' (2)Blind spots We have perceptual blind spots that we are unaware of. Within our visual field we have an ACTUAL blind spot where the optic nerves fold back through the middle of the retina yet how come we don't go around seeing that blind spot? 'Our visual experience is of a continual space.' 'We do not see that we do not see.' We think that 'color is a quality of objects and the light they reflect'. The book gives examples to prove this is not true. There are MANY different ways to show that the colours we see do not correspond to wavelengths. eg 'If I take an orange from my room to the patio, the orange still seems to be the same colour,' Yet flourescent light has blue (short) wavelengths, whereas the sun has red (long) wavelengths. There are examples that could be given for all our 'physical' perceptions to prove the same point. Our perceptual realities are thus constructs inside, not outside. (3) 'Magic, for instance, is as explanatory for those who accept it as science is for those that accept it. The specific difference between a magical explanation and a scientific one lies in the way a system of scientific explanations is made, what constitutes it's criteria of validation.' (4) Before life started there were organic chemicals of great complexity. Fossil records show bacteria like forms, characteristic of living forms today, more than three million years old. (5) How to define living beings? To say living beings presupposes all living beings share some similar characteristics, or organization. Maturana proposes that molecular organic forms differ only from non-organic in that they produce molecules that make a membraneous boundary and also produce molecules that slot into the process that produced them. Miller(1953) showed how easy it is to produce molecules typical of modern cellular organisms, by applying electrical discharges to methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour (atmosphere back then). (6) Thus reproducing separate organic forms is not the primary definition of life, cells that produce components of their own unity are, because you can't have reproduction without first having a unity that produces its own components. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 01:05:35 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: ham Subject: MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FOR JIM-PART1 Message: In part two would you include constructionist and deconstructionist. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 17:05:26 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: bill Subject: To Bill Message: Constructivism is an attempt to show that there is no reality 'out there', only an 'internal' and incomplete model, that any scientific model is just a socially 'agreed' reality model and that it would also be logically impossible to see 'reality' in any complete way. This does not imply an anything goes, all knowledge is pointless, de-bunking of science. Merely acknowledging that we are not just sitting here 'receiving' what is. 'The deconstructionists use linguistics to demonstrate that if you look closely enough at language you find that all words are either meaningless, or have meanings that are in direct opposition or are incompatible.'-Scott from an earlier post. I tend to use it to mean showing the lies or distortions, hidden inside or behind texts. For example, I found analysing minutely, while looking at the implied reality model in slimeball's speeches, always reveals a hidden agenda that is never made explicit, you always get leakage. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:56:08 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: hamzen Subject: To hamzen Message: I tend to use it to mean showing the lies or distortions, hidden inside or behind texts. For example, I found analysing minutely, while looking at the implied reality model in slimeball's speeches, always reveals a hidden agenda that is never made explicit, you always get leakage. ham, how is this done? By leakage, you mean the hidden agenda can be discerned by deconstructionist analysis? What the heck is it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:35:05 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: gerry Subject: To hamzen Message: The way I do it is by a form of logical accounting. If you go through his speeches you can build up a model of what he wants you to hear, the reality model he's selling, then just look for the logical inconsistencies, add those up and you find an alternate reality model, compare the two. Very similar to the process used in the editing expose of enjoying life that happened here recently It was doing this that got me interested in n.l.p. Talking of which.... Isn't what I do similar to the way nlp looks at the language of interactions? 'What is actually being said here, what do you mean by that etc etc'? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Dec 01, 1998 at 00:55:42 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Thanks Hamzen.....Scott Message: Thanks hamzen. I have printouts of some of everyones posts. You certainly earned your stack. Now to digest. By the way, Scott mentioned in a post that he sometimes felt lonely at the forum. Look Scott, I read and like your posts. I would respond to your posts if I could quickly They are meaty and take me time. Perhaps others feel this way sometimes. I hear you and will provide feedback more. Having said that, I am going away for acouple weeks and will be dropping in to read the inactive archives to keep up. I have some of your posts printed and I was going to quote you in the dna thread but I put them in the wrong pile and on short notice I didn't find them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 04:44:10 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: jim Subject: MV(2)-SIMPLIFIED FORJIM-PART2 Message: (7) Reproduction 'We speak of reproduction when a unity undergoes a fracture that results in two unities of the same class.' 'In order for a fracture to result in reproduction, the structure of the unity must be organized in a distributed and non-compartmentalized way.' 'Many systems in nature satisfy these requisites;hence, reproduction is a frequent phenomenon.Examples are mirrors, sticks, communities and roads. On the other hand, a radio and a coin do not reproduce, because their defining relations are not repeated in their respective extensions.......such as cups, persons, fountain pens, and a declaration of human rights. This incapacity to reproduce is a frequent pattern in the universe.' 'Further, although the unities resulting from the reproductive fracture have the same organization as the original unity and therefore have structural aspects similar to it, they have structural aspects also different from it and from one another.This is so not only because they are smaller but also because their structures derive directly from the structure of the original at the time of reproduction; and when forming, they receive different components of the original unity which are not uniformly distributed and which are a function of it's individual history of structural chsnge. Because of these characteristics, reproduction necessarily gives origin to historically connected unities. If these unities suffer reproductive fractures, they form together a historical system.' (8) Cell reproduction 'If we take any cell in it's interphase stage-that is not during it's reproductive process -and we fracture it, we do not get two cells.' 'During mitosis or cell division, all the occurring processes consist of cell decompartmentalization.' 'In other words, precisely because reproduction occurs when there is a plane of fracture in a unity of distributed structure, there will necessarily be a certain permanence of structural configurations from one generation to the next.' 'And in the same way , since reproductive fracture results in the separation of two unities with the same organization but with different structures of the original unity , it conserves organization and gives rise to structural variation.' 'Those aspects of the initial structure of the new unity which we evaluate as identical to the original unity are called HEREDITY,, those aspects of the initial structure of the new unity which we evaluate as different from the original unity are called reproductive VARIATION.' 'In cell reproduction there are many instances where it is possible to detect with precision the structural circumstances that bring about both variation and conservation of similarities.' Some components such as DNA, admit few variations but admit many ways of participating in the cellular dynamics. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 06:44:01 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: JIM/JERRY/JW Subject: MV(2)NATURAL DRIFT-PART3 Message: (9) Sorry the last page was still pretty dense. They then go on to describe how the coupling of two or more cellular unities can drift into two directions, either keeping their boundaries or with merged boundaries. When keeping their identities you have a second-order, higher level of autopoietic system. (10) Natural Drift In the interactions between the living being and the environment, the effects of the environment(perturbations) do not determine what happens to the living being, the structure of the living being determines what changes occur, although the environment triggers the changes. This relationship between a structurally determined unity and it's environment occurs whether it is living or not. If we step on the gas pedal of our car and it doesn't move, it will never occur to us that there is something wrong with our foot, we assume the problem lies in the structure of the car. Thus breakdowns in man-made machines reveal more about their effective operation than our descriptions of them when they operate normally. In the absence of failure, we sum up our description by saying that we 'instruct' the computer to give us the balance of our bank account. This works for all systems. 'Constancy and variations of lineages will depend therefore onthe interplay between the historical conditions under which the organisms live and on their intrinsic properties as individuals. For this reason, in the natural drift of living beings there will be many extinctions, many surprizing forms, and all sorts of forms imaginable that we shall never see appear.' 'We have often heard it said that ,however, that there are beings more or less adapted, or found to be adapted as a result of their evolutive history......Can we say that those organisms that consume less oxygen are more efficient and better adapted? Certainly not, because as long as they are alive....Comparisons about efficiency belong to the realm of the observer's descriptions; they are not directly related to what happens in the individual histories of conservation of adaptation' Evolution is somewhat like a sculptor with wanderlust: a hunk of tin there, a piece of wood here, and he combines them in a way that their structure and circumstances allow, with no reason other than what is able to combine them. And so, as he wanders about, intricate forms are being produced; they are composed of harmoniously interconnected parts that are a product not of design but natural drift.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 17:30:40 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: MV(2)NATURAL DRIFT-PART3 Message: Ham, I'm sorry and a little disappointed that Maturana says all this stuff you've so kindly presented me wityh. It looks like he's full of shit on the points I do understand and who can say about the others? Look, I can only reiterate, I'm no scientist. I can't tell when my commons sense is a trap door or false ceiling. I'd want a better guide here. (My heart? -- ha ha ha). I have to ask you what the pros think of Maturana. If the relevant scientific community(ies) respect him, I'm obviously missing something. If they don't, quite frankly, I'm not interested. Tyhat's not to say he might not have all the answers, but life's short. I'll bet on the herd this time. So? Mainstream recption? What is it? Do you know? Does it matter to you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:32:36 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Good guides Message: I'd want a better guide here. I think this is your strongest argument against Maturana and Varela, and mine against Dennett. These guys have a tendency to lose me where I get the sinking feeling that something important they've got to offer is beyond me. It's not really. It's just their presentation that is. I'm up to page 51 of 'Tree Of Knowledge' and I am considering scrapping it and finding other guides who I can more readily understand, like Dawkins or Steven Pinker. Sorry Ham, I don't think Maturana and Varela are quacks. I think they're very knowledgeble. There's just too much 'slogging' through their words to grasp their meaning that makes learning from them too unpleasant an experience. I'm not giving up on the book just yet, but I'm not going to re-read passages 20 times over like I have so far to grasp what they're saying. I'll take what's readily accessible and later for the rest. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 00:51:09 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Dennett? Message: Jerry, Dennett's a good, clear writer trying to describe some complex concepts, I find. I'm about a third of the way through Consciousness Explained and do, at times, find it difficult. But I'm quite sure that's because of the subject matter. As for Maturana, I'm still trying to find out what his subject matter is in the first place. I'm sorry, Ham, your posts earlier today didn't do it for me. That's why I'd like to know before we go any further what the scientific community thinks about the guy, if there is such a consensus or anything close to one. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:20:53 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Good guides Message: Jerry, if it's that heavy going don't blame you, although if you follow the boxes and leave the main text out you'll get the argumeents. I'm going to check out Capra's-Web Of Life, and see if it's more accessible. Well that's two recommendations of mine that you've followed up, that were way off the mark, apologies! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 16:43:01 (EST)
From: Jerry Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Good guides Message: Please Ham, no apologies. Maturana and Varela have a lot to offer, if only I could understand them. I just got frustrated, cruising along, enjoying the learning, and then boom, wah? huh? What does that mean? Still, if it's true what's claimed on the back cover of Tree Of Knowledge, Maturana and Varela are pioneers in the field of consciousness as pertains to its biological roots and they should be commended for that. It still beats M's baloney about consciousness. One of these days, I'll get back to them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:41:00 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: Out of order Message: He's top dog in the scientific communities he's part of, that's why I posted the peers post to show you direct quotes. Held in great esteem, no arguing with his visual cortex research by any community that I'm aware of. Have seen no major negative attack yet of the implications. The constructivist position as an overview, in general used to be attacked by some biologists but that was before the physical evidence was available to back it up. Most of the attacks I've come across were pretty superficial and irrational, in fact not unlike yours so far. If you can be bothered, could you say what are the specific quotes that you say are full of shit. A pretty damning phrase without back-up logic. Irrational even. If you can't be bothered to back up a phrase like that, you're out of order, premie'ish even Mainstream reception? Mmmmmmmm, hello Jim, are your ears clear , done any flossing recently? How the hell do you think I came across Maturana/Varela, think I'm so confident, nay arrogant to try to take up someone with no credibility AND recommend it here knowing the time it would take up, and the hits I'd be likely to take? I don't get pleasure from ploughing through the systems stuff I do, if it didn't leave me with an expanded reality model and logic base. You've made a number of damning general hunch phrases around Maturana without a single backup quote. If you were to say you didn't fancy it I'd be quite happy with that, life is short and we don't always have the time to rationally justify why we're not following any routes up. Same with the difficulty, nay turgidity of the writing. Not making any complaints about that. Did you read the peers post? You tell me where I can find the science league tables around defining consciousness, and I'll tell you where he stands. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 21:03:35 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: humble answer (3) Message: (9) Sorry the last page was still pretty dense. No, not at all. Please, sir, may I have some more? They then go on to describe how the coupling of two or more cellular unities can drift into two directions, either keeping their boundaries or with merged boundaries. When keeping their identities you have a second-order, higher level of autopoietic system. Well it's a damned good thing they coined that word 'autopoietic'. Okay, maybe I'm just being ignorant again. What's the point of this distinction? Some real-life examples? Something that just cried out for this lavish, new label? Otherwise, I'm at a loss to understand. (10) Natural Drift In the interactions between the living being and the environment, the effects of the environment(perturbations) do not determine what happens to the living being, the structure of the living being determines what changes occur, although the environment triggers the changes. Is he not blatantly contradicting himself in one 'simple' sentence here? Is he saying that the environment chages the living being or not? This relationship between a structurally determined unity and it's environment occurs whether it is living or not. If we step on the gas pedal of our car and it doesn't move, it will never occur to us that there is something wrong with our foot, we assume the problem lies in the structure of the car. Thus breakdowns in man-made machines reveal more about their effective operation than our descriptions of them when they operate normally. In the absence of failure, we sum up our description by saying that we 'instruct' the computer to give us the balance of our bank account. This works for all systems. I think this is wrong. His analogy doesn't ring true for me at all. I'd say that people learn a lot from fixing problems, yes, but they also learn a lot from designing and copying mechanisms. This is an arbitrary call on his part as far as I can tell. 'Constancy and variations of lineages will depend therefore onthe interplay between the historical conditions under which the organisms live and on their intrinsic properties as individuals. For this reason, in the natural drift of living beings there will be many extinctions, many surprizing forms, and all sorts of forms imaginable that we shall never see appear.' The first sentence seems fancy but realtively trite. The second is vague and confusing to me. Again, what the hell is this guy talking about? 'We have often heard it said that ,however, that there are beings more or less adapted, or found to be adapted as a result of their evolutive history......Can we say that those organisms that consume less oxygen are more efficient and better adapted? Certainly not, because as long as they are alive....Comparisons about efficiency belong to the realm of the observer's descriptions; they are not directly related to what happens in the individual histories of conservation of adaptation' Who said anything about oxygen consumption as a measure of fitness? Sorry to bore you but again, what's the point here? Evolution is somewhat like a sculptor with wanderlust: a hunk of tin there, a piece of wood here, and he combines them in a way that their structure and circumstances allow, with no reason other than what is able to combine them. And so, as he wanders about, intricate forms are being produced; they are composed of harmoniously interconnected parts that are a product not of design but natural drift.' Yes. So? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:50:27 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: humble reply (2) Message: (7) Reproduction 'We speak of reproduction when a unity undergoes a fracture that results in two unities of the same class.' 'In order for a fracture to result in reproduction, the structure of the unity must be organized in a distributed and non-compartmentalized way.' 'Many systems in nature satisfy these requisites;hence, reproduction is a frequent phenomenon.Examples are mirrors, sticks, communities and roads. On the other hand, a radio and a coin do not reproduce, because their defining relations are not repeated in their respective extensions.......such as cups, persons, fountain pens, and a declaration of human rights. This incapacity to reproduce is a frequent pattern in the universe.' 'Further, although the unities resulting from the reproductive fracture have the same organization as the original unity and therefore have structural aspects similar to it, they have structural aspects also different from it and from one another.This is so not only because they are smaller but also because their structures derive directly from the structure of the original at the time of reproduction; and when forming, they receive different components of the original unity which are not uniformly distributed and which are a function of it's individual history of structural chsnge. Because of these characteristics, reproduction necessarily gives origin to historically connected unities. If these unities suffer reproductive fractures, they form together a historical system.' What is this crap? Sorry, Ham, I find this kind of lazy writing insulting. Was he dictating in his sleep or something? No, I think I'll take a look at the next one. 8) Cell reproduction 'If we take any cell in it's interphase stage-that is not during it's reproductive process -and we fracture it, we do not get two cells.' 'During mitosis or cell division, all the occurring processes consist of cell decompartmentalization.' 'In other words, precisely because reproduction occurs when there is a plane of fracture in a unity of distributed structure, there will necessarily be a certain permanence of structural configurations from one generation to the next.' 'And in the same way , since reproductive fracture results in the separation of two unities with the same organization but with different structures of the original unity , it conserves organization and gives rise to structural variation.' 'Those aspects of the initial structure of the new unity which we evaluate as identical to the original unity are called HEREDITY,, those aspects of the initial structure of the new unity which we evaluate as different from the original unity are called reproductive VARIATION.' 'In cell reproduction there are many instances where it is possible to detect with precision the structural circumstances that bring about both variation and conservation of similarities.' Some components such as DNA, admit few variations but admit many ways of participating in the cellular dynamics. Same complaint only this time I think he's actually arguing something about causation in reproduction. Something about .. no, what I'd really like to see is some regular biologist comment on this. I think it's a combination of unnecessary word-play, triteness and, perhaps, funny ideas about causation. But, again, I'm no expert. So I'm left just asking for a simpler translation. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 23:24:33 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: ham Subject: ham, a question about color Message: We think that 'color is a quality of objects and the light they reflect'. The book gives examples to prove this is not true. There are MANY different ways to show that the colours we see do not correspond to wavelengths. eg 'If I take an orange from my room to the patio, the orange still seems to be the same colour,' Yet flourescent light has blue (short) wavelengths, whereas the sun has red (long) wavelengths. There are examples that could be given for all our 'physical' perceptions to prove the same point. I'm completely lost on this point-- I don't understand why he disagrees that the color of an object has to do with the light reflection/absorption of the object. If we take an orange from the room with the florescent light out into the sun, the color of the orange WILL change. Maybe we aren't perceptive enough to see it or maybe we aren't paying attention, but the orange is not the same color once we change the light source. The orange will be reflecting/absorbing different light rays as the object moves from light source to light source, or as the light source changes (time of day, turning off the light, etc.) What am I missing? Can you fill me in or do I have to wade through this book? VP Interested in Color (Colour) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 17:27:58 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: VP Subject: ham, a question about color Message: Yes the wavelength changes, but our brains do not see that, because we are 'constructing' our perceptual reality, not reflecting it. We do this in our brains, it's not just innattention. In the same way, we have a blind spot in our visual field where the optic nerve goes through the retina yet we perceive a continuos visual field with no gap, so how come we do not see that we do not see, if we are experiencing reality, not constructing it? This applies to all our perceptual realities. Sound does not exist. Sound is just air pressure. We supply the 'the experience' of sound within our own brains. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 18:43:46 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Perception Message: hamzen, Thanks for answering. So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. The age old question answered at last. So what this guy is saying is that color doesn't not exist unless someone is around to perceive it? We 'construct all of our perceptual realities, not reflect them'. Does this construction have to do with pure physiology, or would that be simple reflection? What else enters into construction if it is not purely phisiological? Bias? Opinion? I'm confused about that. Maybe I should read the book afterall. I have often wondered if people didn't have completely different perceptual experiences with respect to the same objects (I'm sure this isn't my original idea. You'll have to excuse me, I haven't read as many theorists as you have.) For instance, you may taste an orange and like it, but I may think the same orange is a little too sour. So then it's not just a matter of 'liking or not liking oranges', we are actually having two seperate physiological experiences with an orange. (We construct it differently?) Or maybe I look at the color 'pink' and see what I perceive to be pink. Then you look at the same color, but what you see in your head is what I perceive to be 'peach'--or maybe your pink is lighter or darker than what I have perceived. This would be due to construction differences? Maybe this is explains, in part, why some folks CAN perceive subtle changes in color, sound, touch or taste. Or why a dog can hear a dog whistle and we can't. We used to find the optic blind spot in junior high, but I've forgotten how to do it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:08:39 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: VP Subject: Perception Message: No, thank you. At last someone has got the bottom line here! 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. The age old question answered at last.' Yes indeed. So what this guy is saying is that color doesn't not exist unless someone is around to perceive it? We 'construct all of our perceptual realities, not reflect them' Yes to both points. Light can be either waves or particles yet we perceive a unified visual field, a construction in our brains. Our brain only experiences 'perturbations' from the environment, each organism is a closed system. This does not mean that there aren't agreements that can be made about 'out there', just limitations to those agreements. 'Does this construction have to do with pure physiology, or would that be simplereflection? What else enters into construction if it is not purely phisiological? Bias? Opinion? I'm confused about that.' It's all physiological, even the bias and opinion, but there are a number of different processes and brain functions that build this perceptual 'reality'. Also our brains do not respond to perturbations from anything more than a limited part of the visual spectrum, for example we don't experience infra-red, same goes for sound, we have evolved with limitations across the whole perceptual field. 'Maybe I should read the book after all' It's not really a book about perception but how the evolutionary process developed. He developed his general ideas because of the results of his research on the visual cortex. .It is also pretty dense. Fritjof Capra has written what is likely to be a much clearer read for the general public, called 'The Web Of Life'. If my experience of his books are anything to go by it will be much more accessible than the Maturana/Varela one. ham Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 21:14:39 (EST)
From: VP Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Perception Message: It's all physiological, even the bias and opinion, but there are a number of different processes and brain functions that build this perceptual 'reality'. Also our brains do not respond to perturbations from anything more than a limited part of the visual spectrum, for example we don't experience infra-red, same goes for sound, we have evolved with limitations across the whole perceptual field. I'd like to read about those physiological processes and brain functions as well as how they evolved. He developed his general ideas because of the results of his research on the visual cortex. .It is also pretty dense. I'm no scientist, but the research sounds fascinating. I'll bet I could follow it. I will check out The Web of Life. Thanks for the recommendation, ham. If you come across anything good on perception, I'm always interested. VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 20:30:13 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: my humble response (1) Message: (1) Certainty 'We tend to live in a world of certainty, of undoubted, rock-ribbed perceptions: our convictions prove that things are the way we see them and there is no alternative to what we hold as true. This is our daily situation, our cultural condition, our common way of being human.' No one but new-age types have ever tried to sell me on second-guessing plain, old reality like this. So here's another one, just like the other ones. Ham, though, says he's different. Higher quality thought process, more credible somehow. Okay, I'm waiting. So far, though, I'm highly suspicious that this is, in the end, just another brand of bullshit. (2)Blind spots We have perceptual blind spots that we are unaware of. Within our visual field we have an ACTUAL blind spot where the optic nerves fold back through the middle of the retina yet how come we don't go around seeing that blind spot? 'Our visual experience is of a continual space.' 'We do not see that we do not see.' We think that 'color is a quality of objects and the light they reflect'. The book gives examples to prove this is not true. There are MANY different ways to show that the colours we see do not correspond to wavelengths. eg 'If I take an orange from my room to the patio, the orange still seems to be the same colour,' Yet flourescent light has blue (short) wavelengths, whereas the sun has red (long) wavelengths. There are examples that could be given for all our 'physical' perceptions to prove the same point. Our perceptual realities are thus constructs inside, not outside. Hey, this is cool! Even little ol' unscientific I think I can see through this trick. (Yes, that's how it strikes me). First, the different colours thing. I begin by taking issue with his claim that the orange looks alike under the two kinds of light. Untrue. Second, while different people might see slightly different hues in different circumstances, there are, I'm sure, biological reasons for these discrepancies, none of which, ultimately, are that great in any event. (Barring colour-blindness -- a physiological disorder -- we're all going to see roughly the same colours, I figure.) What I don't like is how he tries to take that GIANT leap over all our perceptual realities with this small example of some variant and, like I say physiologically explained, perceptions. Looks fishy to me. (3) 'Magic, for instance, is as explanatory for those who accept it as science is for those that accept it. The specific difference between a magical explanation and a scientific one lies in the way a system of scientific explanations is made, what constitutes it's criteria of validation.' Bull-fucking-shit! I have no time for this kind of cultural relativism. Just finished a good book called The Problem with Science which well addresses this kind of thinking. The author argues, quite effectively I thought, that all cultures do science in some for or other, that is, at least science of the 'cookbook' variety (trying to figure out how to do things and do them better). Trial and error, observation, experimentation... it's everywhere. Shit, even animals do it to some extent. Magic is divorced from that kind of interaction with the world. The way I see it, the 'specific difference between a magical explanation and a scientific one' is that the scientific one is a million times better IF you're trying to really learn how the world works and how to work in it. The moment magic starts learning from its mistakes it stops being magic and starts to become science. Congratulations, people! (4) Before life started there were organic chemicals of great complexity. Fossil records show bacteria like forms, characteristic of living forms today, more than three million years old. So? Before those there were organic matierls of less complexity. What's the point? 5) How to define living beings? To say living beings presupposes all living beings share some similar characteristics, or organization. Maturana proposes that molecular organic forms differ only from non-organic in that they produce molecules that make a membraneous boundary and also produce molecules that slot into the process that produced them. Miller(1953) showed how easy it is to produce molecules typical of modern cellular organisms, by applying electrical discharges to methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour (atmosphere back then). What's the point of this above? 6) Thus reproducing separate organic forms is not the primary definition of life, cells that produce components of their own unity are, because you can't have reproduction without first having a unity that produces its own components. ?? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 00:43:42 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Maybe there is a God after all Message: 'By The Associated Press CORWIN SPRINGS, Mont. (AP) -- The co-founder of an apocalyptic religious sect who warned followers of imminent nuclear holocaust in the early 1990s has Alzheimer's disease. Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the spiritual leader of the Church Universal and Triumphant, told followers in a letter released Wednesday that an ``undiagnosed neurological disorder'' announced earlier is Alzheimer's disease, which gradually robs its victims of their mental capacities. ``Even though my illness now has a name, I have not wavered in my determination to continue in my mission to the utmost of my ability,'' she said. Mrs. Prophet stepped down last year as president of the sect she founded with her former husband. She retained duties as the ``messenger'' of spiritual entities the church refers to as Ascended Masters. Mrs. Prophet has been a controversial figure throughout her three decades as a leader of the church, most notably in 1989 and 1990 when she warned of the imminent danger of nuclear holocaust. Following those warnings, high-ranking church members assembled a cache of arms, ammunition and armored personnel carriers, and the church built a huge fallout shelter on its ranch near Yellowstone National Park. Many devotees sold their belongings to buy and equip their own shelters for the holocaust. When the catastrophe failed to materialize, many became disillusioned and moved away, forcing church leaders to restructure because of the loss of followers' money.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 04:04:05 (EST)
From: hamzen Email: None To: Jim Subject: Alzheimers(ot) Message: It looks likely, that you're chances of getting Alzheimers, are two/three times greater for 4 day a week meat eaters than vegetarians, that a number of diagnosed Alzheimers are actually CJD, it aint just British beef/meatindustry that's obsessed with risking peoples health for dosh! Cest la vie, we just have to keep THAT MONEY FLOWING WHATEVER THE COST. What a species. The wonders of civilization. At least we get some info now. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |