Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are
(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9431/dividera.gif)
Alan Watts put forward a worldview, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Lila), hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as an "ego in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole. You're IT.
Some kind of Eastern thing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg)
(http://alanwatts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Alan-Watts_1971_Conversation_with_Myself2-300x285.jpg)
Alan Watts - Seeing Through the Game (Carl Jung Tribute) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xtLLtV-xI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xtLLtV-xI)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 14, 2013, 04:26:28 AM
Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are
(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9431/dividera.gif)
Alan Watts put forward a worldview, drawing on Hinduism, Chinese philosophy, pantheism, and modern science, in which he maintains that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Lila), hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise. In this worldview, Watts asserts that our conception of ourselves as an "ego in a bag of skin" is a myth; the entities we call the separate "things" are merely processes of the whole. You're IT.
Some kind of Eastern thing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hVc2hWYxg)
(http://alanwatts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Alan-Watts_1971_Conversation_with_Myself2-300x285.jpg)
I think we are fractals of the IS.
A great vid.
I dig the "one with all things" vibe. I see it as an outlook that opens doors of perception.
A window into the powers of perception. The "being in it's self".
But on a side note IMHO when taken to extremes (Deepak Choppra for instance) it gets a bit silly.
Deepak would have it that for instance there is no actual Moon absent the perception of it.
That gets a bit silly.
At around 12:30 of this vid for instance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2IC6e5DUY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2IC6e5DUY)
Here's a vid about the "double slit experiment" mentioned in relation to "Nonlocality"
Deepak tries to use this concept in some mumbo jumbo no moon without the perception. Pure nonsense.
Unfortunately this sort of "mix and match" science is pretty common in the area of new age philosophy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc)
Not the case with the original vid.
Just opening up discussion really.
I dig Watt's style. He's got that whole English, Zen, California Dude thing going on. I'm glad he left behind such a large catalog of books and lectures to glean from. I think what he taught me most of all is just how inefficient and inadequate language is for expressing the bigger ideas. Often times, I find myself wishing to express an insight or thought that I've arrived at with other people, only to find that the idea weakens, seems paltry and egocentric when it is squeezed into language. In my experience, once one burns away all the symbolism, dogma and the "yourself as the center of the story" from reality, you find there is nothing you can say to succinctly express that reality. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu; all failed at accurate transmission. (Though IMO, some seem closer to me than others.) At best, all you have to work with are parables, metaphors, koans and riddles. Hence, the multitude of different religions and ideas of what all those mean.
I've read a few of his books and listened to dozens of snippets of his lectures, and I gotta say, I think anyone interested should do both. The ideas in his books are a little easier to comprehend because you can read it slow and reread pages if you need to, which I often do in some sections because he does get scholarly. But, I feel hearing him give a lecture really drives the point home in a way that paper words could never match. His tone, humor and wit are just as fresh today as ever. Every time I listen to him, I feel he is letting me in on some big joke I would have overlooked otherwise. Which of course, he is.
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
I fucking love that so many of the Dudes on this forum are equally at ease with lowball humor as they are with deep questions about subatomic physics and arcane philosophy. This may be the only place on the 'Net in which one can discuss genitalia and a skeptical approach to metaphysics in nearly the same breath.
Vagina.
No no... it's:
VAGINA!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.
I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."
Quote from: BikerDude on January 14, 2013, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.
I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."
It's apparently worth studying based on current evidence:
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/DH_Intention.pdf (http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/DH_Intention.pdf)
Studies mentioned, but not referenced (by a PH.D)
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml (http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml)
The Energizer Bunny will never be the same:
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml (http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml)
And, good ol' Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab)
Quote from: BikerDude on January 14, 2013, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.
I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."
Put me in your boat, man. This just sounds like a ringer getting tossed for a ringer, which proves nuttin'. I love the experiment though, some cool shit right there. To me, it just means we're made of the same stuff. That one group of atoms can influence the behavior of another group of atoms, more or less. Far fucking out man.
Quote from: forumdude on January 14, 2013, 03:02:02 PM
I fucking love that so many of the Dudes on this forum are equally at ease with lowball humor as they are with deep questions about subatomic physics and arcane philosophy. This may be the only place on the 'Net in which one can discuss genitalia and a skeptical approach to metaphysics in nearly the same breath.
Vagina.
Talking of which.Can we take a straw poll on hairy preference.I prefer smooth.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 14, 2013, 05:13:27 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 14, 2013, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.
I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."
Put me in your boat, man. This just sounds like a ringer getting tossed for a ringer, which proves nuttin'. I love the experiment though, some cool shit right there. To me, it just means we're made of the same stuff. That one group of atoms can influence the behavior of another group of atoms, more or less. Far fucking out man.
There is a theory that there is only one particle.It just happens to be everywhere at the same time. But if time is an illusion caused by apparent entropy and that motion is an illusion caused by the apparent passage of time I have only one question.Whose round is it?
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
It's a GUT thing. ;D
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: forumdude on January 14, 2013, 03:02:02 PM
I fucking love that so many of the Dudes on this forum are equally at ease with lowball humor as they are with deep questions about subatomic physics and arcane philosophy. This may be the only place on the 'Net in which one can discuss genitalia and a skeptical approach to metaphysics in nearly the same breath.
Vagina.
Talking of which.Can we take a straw poll on hairy preference.I prefer smooth.
I like'em au natural on her. Shorn on me ;)
Watt's Autobiography was a kick to read; totally dig the way he did business. "In My Own Way: An Autobiography"
Papers, just autobiography papers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyeIRQ_xVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyeIRQ_xVU)
Notes:
Alan Watts Autobiography -
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Alan_Watts.jpg/220px-Alan_Watts.jpg) (http://cb.pbsstatic.com/l/19/9119/9780394469119.jpg)
While many in the 60's played the stock market and paid their mortgages, Alan Watts lived aboard a colorful houseboat, writing, speaking, and inspiring a generation to re-assess their values. For more than forty years, Alan Watts earned a reputation as a foremost interpreter of Eastern philosophies for the West. Beginning at age sixteen, when he wrote essay for the journal of the Buddhist Lodge in London, he developed an audience of millions who were enriched through his books, tape recordings, radio, television, and public lectures.
In all, Watts wrote more than twenty-five books and recorded hundreds of lectures and seminars, all building toward a personal philosophy that he shared in complete candor and joy with his readers and listeners throughout the world. His overall works have presented a model of individuality and self-expression that can be matched by few philosophers. His life and work reflects an astonishing adventure: he was an editor, Anglican priest, graduate dean, broadcaster, author, lecturer, and entertainer.
He had fascinations for archery, calligraphy, cooking, chanting, and dancing, and still was completely comfortable hiking alone in the wilderness. He held a Master's Degree in Theology from Sudbury-Western Theological Seminary and an Honorary DD from the University of Vermont in recognition of his work in the field of comparative religions. He held fellowships from Harvard University and the Bollingen Foundation, and was Episcopal Chaplain at Northwestern University during the Second World War.
He became professor and dean of the American Academy of Asian Studies in San Francisco, made the television series "Eastern Wisdom and Modern Life" for National Educational Television, and served as a visiting consultant for psychiatric institutions and hospitals, and for the United States Air Force. In the mid-sixties he traveled widely with his students in Japan, and visited Burma, Ceylon, and India.
I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 14, 2013, 07:59:49 PM
I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?
I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women. ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 14, 2013, 08:10:25 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 14, 2013, 07:59:49 PM
I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?
I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women. ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.
I see what you did there! Very clever! I'm just thinking that if a douche like Eckhart Tolle, or any other of these Watt-abees can get well known, I feel like Watts material could use some more promotion. Put his mug on a bottle of sake or something.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 14, 2013, 09:07:41 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 14, 2013, 08:10:25 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 14, 2013, 07:59:49 PM
I'm really surprised he isn't more popular. I mean, he is everywhere on the internet, but rarely do I meet someone in person who has heard of him. Maybe its just NE Tennessee? I guess I didn't hear of him till a couple of years ago, but still, dude was a for real Dude. I know he had quite a few struggles with alcohol and women, but who here honestly hasn't?
I try as hard as I can to struggle with alcohol and women. ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Watts seems to be somewhat "underground." Radio stations KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in Berkley really promoted him.
I see what you did there! Very clever! I'm just thinking that if a douche like Eckhart Tolle, or any other of these Watt-abees can get well known, I feel like Watts material could use some more promotion. Put his mug on a bottle of sake or something.
True, Watts doesn't get the credit and the exposure he deserves. Too bad, because his material; books and lectures, are far more down to earth and practical in understanding Eastern thinking and how it compares to Western thinking. Watts saw himself as a "bridge" between the East and West previously considered to be all but at odds with each other. Later in his life he was thrown into a position as another bridge; that of one between the 60's counter culture and more conservative square community having dropped acid a few times when it was legal.
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 15, 2013, 05:32:31 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.
42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 07:08:01 AM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 15, 2013, 05:32:31 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.
42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?
;D I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?
All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum. 8)
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 14, 2013, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 02:50:06 PM
The double slit animation is a good presentation. And you're right: making non-locality (or non-local coherence) the basis to explain conciousness/spiritual/mystic experiences is a stretch, but it *is* the best explanation I have heard of so far. Because it is fact, that repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention have no other explanation than non-local coherence. Maybe it's something else, but these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously. Granted, there's a lot of "wu wu" factor in how people have interpreted these findings, but no matter the languaging used, it suits me to have science explain other-wise "religious" experiences. It debunks the god part, and reduces ALL experience to explainable physical phenomena.
Well the point is that nothing in what is actually called Non Locality, that is to say the concept that is observable and repeatable by experiment and named by an actual people (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen) who had intentions for these ideas actually has anything whatsoever to do with any of that.
I find that Deepak and a lot of "new agey" types set the bar incredibly low and feel perfectly fine just harvesting any actual scientific jargen that sounds like it could be an explaination for something in an episode of star trek and simply state it with zero empirical evidence or much of anything. The reality is that there is an actual scientific concept of non locality and it has nothing to do with consciousness. It makes no pretext whatsoever of anything like that and none of the scientists who found it ever in any way even hinted that it had any application whatsoever to do with consciousness.
I'd like to know about "repeatable scientific experiments in mental telepathy and concious intention".
I admit that I'm skeptical out of the gate on any of that.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that "these experiences do happen repeatedly, and across oceans, simultaneously."
It's apparently worth studying based on current evidence:
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/DH_Intention.pdf (http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/DH_Intention.pdf)
Studies mentioned, but not referenced (by a PH.D)
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml (http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml)
The Energizer Bunny will never be the same:
http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml (http://www.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/index-new-age/targ.shtml)
And, good ol' Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab)
Sorry I don't find any of this convincing.
I'm confident that if there was any quantifiable evidence of telepathy it would likely be widely known.
It's not.
Quakwatch list "noetic bla bla.
Quote
Stephen Barrett, organizer of the nonprofit organization Quackwatch, whose website describes itself as a "Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions," lists the Institute of Noetic Sciences as one of the 729 organizations that he views "with considerable distrust."[19]
Founded by a former astronaut who "had an epiphany"?!
Quote
The institute was co-founded in 1973 by Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut who was part of the Apollo 14 mission, investor Paul N. Temple and some others.[6] During the three-day journey back to Earth aboard Apollo 14, Mitchell had an epiphany while looking down on the earth from space. "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly," Mitchell said of that experience. Following his spaceflight, Mitchell and others founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.[7] Willis Harman served as its president from 1975 until his death in 1997.[8][9][10]
I mean CMON!!!
The others I didn't look into very carefully but I see that the "Trans4mind" site has a lot of stuff about "Astrology". I stopped there.
As far as "conscious intention" (which seems to be a de-religousized synonym for prayer) I'll go with any of the numerous studies that have found no effect. For instance one featured by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 15, 2013, 07:52:10 AM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 07:08:01 AM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 15, 2013, 05:32:31 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.
42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?
;D I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?
All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum. 8)
Yeah, that's what I think. Answers are boring and temporary anyway. Our scientific way of thinking always involves an isolation of an idea or thing, so we can establish a control and measure differences. To me, this seems like the worst way to approach philosophical questions. To separate any idea or thing from the whole, you negate the whole context and the off phase of that particular things existence, and therefore any answer you get will be incomplete answer at best. It's like taking a handful of water and trying to explain the ocean. The better and deeper our microscopes and telescopes can look, the deeper and fuzzier the universe will get. Who knows though, maybe one day a scientist will look into the most powerful microscope or telescope man could ever make, crank it all the way up, and see his own eye looking back at him.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 08:41:44 AM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 15, 2013, 07:52:10 AM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 07:08:01 AM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 15, 2013, 05:32:31 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 14, 2013, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: RighteousDude on January 14, 2013, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 14, 2013, 05:24:06 PM
Whose round is it?
Everyones! There's only one round, but it's everywhere at the same time because there's only one time anyway. Or something like that. These big questions give me trouble. Hell, the small ones give me trouble, too.
"Too many strands for the ol' duder's head." I wonder if he meant string theory... or a toe. (Theory of everything). One never knows...
I think here that we may be closer to the answer to the ultimate question.
42. Now does anyone got the ultimate question? Or is this the ultimate question?
;D I'm wondering if the ultimate question can be found after a night of drinking Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters (which was invented by Zaphod Beeblebrox)?
All kidding aside; could it be that there are no ultimate answers, just deeper and deeper questions? Sort of like more and more quotes inside of more and more quotes, ad infinitum. 8)
Yeah, that's what I think. Answers are boring and temporary anyway. Our scientific way of thinking always involves an isolation of an idea or thing, so we can establish a control and measure differences. To me, this seems like the worst way to approach philosophical questions. To separate any idea or thing from the whole, you negate the whole context and the off phase of that particular things existence, and therefore any answer you get will be incomplete answer at best. It's like taking a handful of water and trying to explain the ocean. The better and deeper our microscopes and telescopes can look, the deeper and fuzzier the universe will get. Who knows though, maybe one day a scientist will look into the most powerful microscope or telescope man could ever make, crank it all the way up, and see his own eye looking back at him.
I find this another way that we give a pass to anything that smacks of religion or philosophy etc..
While the Alan Watts vid does not, these disciplines make concrete claims that IMHO should not get a pass.
For instance the current state of "Eastern Philosophy" insists that there is a "NonLocal" conscience. That is a concrete claim and it is not unreasonable to require some evidence. I'm sorry but an epiphany or intuition just does not cut it.
The whole discipline is full of crackpot nonsense. I have seen the videos and read the papers and it's really amazing how transparent the intentions are. Typically near the beginning there is a wildly all encompassing claim offered with absolutely zero evidence. It is usually "semi poetic" (ocean of existance) and then backed by extemely vague usage of actual scientific concepts in ways that have nothing to do with the actual science.
Take for instance.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0HCgMTDEg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs0HCgMTDEg)
Bold all encompassing claim after claim just stated like fact and bound together with mumbo jumbo woo woo.
"Psytoskelital Consciousness"? Gimme a Break!
This is so clearly just pulled out the ass that it is amazing.
It's the eastern version of Intelligent Design. Create a dialog that begins with the clear intention of proping up some woo woo religious concepts and use a bunch of pseudo science in support.
I give no free passes, but I also realize I'm growing and prone to making mistakes, as is everyone else out there. I do strongly dislike when people use half-truths of science to support their opinions as facts. What better way to make yourself feel more confident of your ideas than to convince someone else they're true? I mean, damn, it's been proven many times that "prayer" or whatever they're calling it does absolutely nothing to other people. Yet people are still wishing it to be true. I guess the best we can do is say our piece and understand that all of this is a part of our human story.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 09:46:40 AM
I give no free passes, but I also realize I'm growing and prone to making mistakes, as is everyone else out there. I do strongly dislike when people use half-truths of science to support their opinions as facts. What better way to make yourself feel more confident of your ideas than to convince someone else they're true? I mean, damn, it's been proven many times that "prayer" or whatever they're calling it does absolutely nothing to other people. Yet people are still wishing it to be true. I guess the best we can do is say our piece and understand that all of this is a part of our human story.
Yes everyone does make mistakes. That's the point. That's why we use discipline.
Peer review. That's why it's not enough to just make a claim. That's why we put our trust in institutions that have expertise rather than just cherry picking a bunch of mumbo jumbo from videos on Youtube.
When I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.
There is no inherent prejudice against this sort of thing on the part of science except that it has been found to be nonsense. If not scientists would flock to it. That's the nature of science. And for that matter philosophy. (love of knowledge)
The move afoot to criticize science when it doesn't support the ridiculous superstitions and mumbo jumbo really pisses me off. It's not a plot on the part of universities together with the NY times that is keeping "the truth" from coming out. And I don't buy that it's a limitation of science.
IMO People need to grow up.
Peace.
QuoteWhen I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.
What's wrong with the studies that have already found that there's something to telepathy? The famous CIA and Russian research in the 60's found some interesting things that were worth looking into. How do you know if these Ivy League schools aren't going to seriously research this at some point? Just because it's not on your timetable and to your liking, doesn't mean it is to be wholly dismissed.
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 01:13:21 PM
QuoteWhen I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.
What's wrong with the studies that have already found that there's something to telepathy? The famous CIA and Russian research in the 60's found some interesting things that were worth looking into. How do you know if these Ivy League schools aren't going to seriously research this at some point? Just because it's not on your timetable and to your liking, doesn't mean it is to be wholly dismissed.
I included Princeton on purpose.
Princeton had a self funded group that spent 28 years.
They claimed to have found modest results but were debunked by peers.
http://skepdic.com/pear.html (http://skepdic.com/pear.html)
Quote
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.
CIA and Russian studies amounted to zero.
In fact the Russian studies are a laughing stock.
I mean IF there was anything to it that would be the biggest discovery since Newton.
Trust me scientists would be working on it.
James Randi has debunked over and over this nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTXmo4_LR4w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTXmo4_LR4w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acfHRGxwV_E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acfHRGxwV_E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrQAl5Vp24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrQAl5Vp24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrQAl5Vp24 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrQAl5Vp24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWt1vxnYX1w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWt1vxnYX1w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoUmuSNS3E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQoUmuSNS3E)
It's all a bunch of non sense. And it's laughable the way they gravitate toward things like quantum non locality.
The idea that observing a quantum phenomena changes it is enlisted by every type of charlatan in defense of their nonsense even when the actual science has nothing to do with what they are claiming. It's like a one size fits all excuse. "Well of course the psychic can't make a prediction when everyone is watching" Too many unbelievers in the room?
Ha!
Laughable!
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 01:13:21 PM
QuoteWhen I see a groundswell from Princeton and Harvard that says they've found evidence of the efficacy of prayer or quantifiable evidence of telepathy I will listen. If there was something to this it would be studied.
What's wrong with the studies that have already found that there's something to telepathy? The famous CIA and Russian research in the 60's found some interesting things that were worth looking into. How do you know if these Ivy League schools aren't going to seriously research this at some point? Just because it's not on your timetable and to your liking, doesn't mean it is to be wholly dismissed.
Without supporting evidence why believe it?
This is my point. The default position for this non sense is belief.
It's clearly a desire to believe from the start.
The default position on something should start with disbelief and evidence should overcome that.
If you provide some supporting evidence I'll look at it.
But I'm sorry I just don't find the links provided earlier to be of any substance at all.
If I need to explain why belief in Astrology simply disqualifies someone then we need to agree to disagree.
The point is that IF it was true it wouldn't be ignored. They absolutely would have gotten around to it.
It would be common knowledge. Core science.
It's like Bigfoot.
I'm easy to convince. Just show me a body.
Without that existing I am righteously skeptical.
Vagina?
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
Vagina?
Well sorry but I gotta say "Johnson".
Peace out.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2013, 02:08:48 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
Vagina?
Well sorry but I gotta say "Johnson".
Peace out.
I respect your opinion dude... I also hold strong conviction about using the scientific method, and being sceptical. I guess I come from a slightly different angle due to past experience that has me personally convinced that some of these "woo woo" things have validity, though the evidence is mostly either anecdotal (as in my case), or from others who I trust and love. My original point was that if there seems to be a rational explanation for mystical experiences, then I'll listen, because me, and too many other people, have had things happen that defy "normal" science and go beyond the 5 senses.
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2013, 02:08:48 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
Vagina?
Well sorry but I gotta say "Johnson".
Peace out.
I respect your opinion dude... I also hold strong conviction about using the scientific method, and being sceptical. I guess I come from a slightly different angle due to past experience that has me personally convinced that some of these "woo woo" things have validity, though the evidence is mostly either anecdotal (as in my case), or from others who I trust and love. My original point was that if there seems to be a rational explanation for mystical experiences, then I'll listen, because me, and too many other people, have had things happen that defy "normal" science and go beyond the 5 senses.
I used to hang out with people like that also.
One day I sobered up and said "you know I'm sick of this bullshit".
It inevitably hinged on a romance for spooky nonsense.
A desire to believe.
And the sad thing is that looking back it was understood to be BS in an unspoken way.
A love for tripy non sense.
That's no way to approach life IMHO.
I find it a tragic waste of time and attention span.
And essentially a wellspring of misinformation.
I do in fact dig certain things about eastern philosophy but I find that lately I'm seeing a lot of stuff that goes right off the deck into the water.
I really enjoy the whole Siddahartha sound of the water, one with all thing.
Because for me it's completely compatible with rational science. I don't buy that we are literally one with everything but I do believe that we (as in our brains, bodies, emotions, beliefs fears, 'ie' everything) are not separate. That is we are the product of the influence of absolutely innumerable factors over the course of millions of generations. As such creation or nature or whatever you want to use has made an exact fingerprint upon our state and the state of every other creature in existence. And in that relation there is a lot of information that we can get in touch with. I think it's the core of what would be called intuition.
For instance.
I have found over the years that if I go away into the woods hunting for a number of day. Get away from everyone else. Totally reset the hard drive. And if I undertake the activity of hunting I actually get into a very different frame of mind. I mean I tap into a part of my existence that is very real and the product of millions of generations spent as a hunter. It makes perfect sense that our natures would have this sort of a "remnant psychology". I find the idea of it perfectly rational. I think that we have moved farther and farther away from our natures and our minds and psychology is left with all of this untapped information that once we simply knew like a reflex. Wordless understanding. I think much of that is the wellspring that we derive our fascination for spirituality.
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
The operable word being real.
I'm not trying to be difficult but when we determine that something is real we require more than intuition or anecdotal evidence.
If science discovers it then I'll believe it.
But again you starting with belief rather than skepticism about things like telekinesis?
You really want to do that?
Amazing
Doesn't the mean that Unicorns, fairy's leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster are real as long as some people believe strongly enough?
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
The operable word being real.
I'm not trying to be difficult but when we determine that something is real we require more than intuition or anecdotal evidence.
If science discovers it then I'll believe it.
But again you starting with belief rather than skepticism about things like telekinesis?
You really want to do that?
Amazing
Doesn't the mean that Unicorns, fairy's leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster are real as long as some people believe strongly enough?
Now you're being demeaning and facetious; no need to be - I'm not some new age air head trying to convince you that I rode a unicorn. I didn't say I started out with belief; I started out with personal experience. Anecdotal as it may be, it's 100% real in the same way your experience today eating lunch was real. You don't need a science experiment to confirm that experience any more than I need one to confirm mine.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 15, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
The operable word being real.
I'm not trying to be difficult but when we determine that something is real we require more than intuition or anecdotal evidence.
If science discovers it then I'll believe it.
But again you starting with belief rather than skepticism about things like telekinesis?
You really want to do that?
Amazing
Doesn't the mean that Unicorns, fairy's leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster are real as long as some people believe strongly enough?
I'm with you dude, all the way up to one point, where my experience stops. I can say any sort of rational things, but of course they're only considered rational by people who have shared similar parts of the same experience I have. We understand the concept "car" because you and I have shared the same experience of "car." We know what a "car" is comprised of. To someone who hasn't experienced a "car" it could seem to be nothing more than a multitude of separate parts stuck together, or maybe a pile of refined organic and inorganic compounds. All of which are correct, but "car" is meaningless without the experience of "car." So, I guess what I'm saying is, we don't all share the same experiences. We are each looking through our own unique prism of experience to the light of the now reality. So, while I too generally begin with disbelief, I also can't claim any certain "truths" or "lies" of the universe. I rely and trust the experiences of others in so many different ways in my life. Do I know if the math checks out in the engineering of the brakes on my truck? No. But, I trust them anyway. Of course, we all draw a line somewhere in the sand of what we will or won't take on face value, but I wouldn't want to slam the door shut on the potential of other new shit to come to light. So much shit everywhere, just doesn't fucking matter to me anymore, man.
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 07:32:46 PM
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
Now that is some profound shit. My mind is fucking blown. Well done!
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 15, 2013, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 07:32:46 PM
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
Now that is some profound shit. My mind is fucking blown. Well done!
;D
Man I hate words sometimes. They're so vague. Sometimes I wonder if I have a bit of the aspergers, but then I see people arguing over words like this and I think that maybe we could all benefit from more aspergers. A word like "real" can mean a lot of different things and lead to misunderstandings and arguments.
Another ambiguity is when we chide each other. Are the chidings meant to sound as rough as they do? Biker Dude sounds mean, but that just might be his style.
Use smiley faces when being snarky, fellas. I know they're sort of teenagegirly but they go a long way towards proffering the proper respect, even if it's to someone who you think has got it all wrong. Sort of like how the British always say "sorry" all the time. Some yanks think it's annoying and silly but I think it's a nice form of social lubricant. Same with these stupid smiley winky faces. Too easy to take things the wrong way.
Biker Dude is right about a lot of this, if not all, IMDO. Any time someone invokes subatomic physics to explain "unexplainable" phenomena on the macro level you can be pretty sure it's wrong. To go in the other direction (macrophysics to human experience) one might as well say that the relativistic nature of human cultures is due to the theory of relativity.
The observer effect, the uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement - these have all been used to aggrandize the importance of human psychology in relation to physics but always requires a massive leap and some sort of X-factor to connect them. And that X factor is so enormously large that it's no less deus ex machina than deus himself. For instance, there's this idea that human creativity begins on the subatomic level and sort of "percolates" up. This is a nice idea, linking our egos to the fabric of the universe. But it's just an idea. Same with the idea that we can influence subatomic actions with our minds - it's a total misreading of what the observer effect is all about. And reams and reams of lousy books from the Tao of Physics to the Dancing Wu Li Masters have run roughshod over the fucking rules of discourse in order to sell their books.
The only series of books that seemed to pay proper respect to physics when trying to be spiritual about it were the ones by Dana Zohar. But to be honest I read them years and years ago and probably they were full of shit too. I don't know.
Anyway, I think the baton has been taken up by the conspiritualist movement, mostly in really terrible movies. Zeitgeist? Thrive? I don't know for sure.
What's most interesting about this is the dogged need for humans to believe in this so-called "magic". I wonder where it comes from. As a kid I used to read super hero comics and desperately wish I could have a super power. I think maybe it's the same thing. Our will to power. But I think we can develop super powers of creativity and insight just by reading and writing. That's pretty fucking miraculous if you ask me.
Not to discount the experiences anyone has had. Sometimes incredible stuff happens and we can't explain it. And it's awesome when it does. It's just a shame that very often there's a reasonable explanation. In the tiny percentage of cases where there isn't, it can lead to a massive new discovery, but so far telekenisis has never been shown to be scientifically "true." Which is probably just as well. Otherwise we'd all be dead in a week.
Thanks, forumdude, for saying that. I tried to explain how science does not prove all this Secret/Wallace stuff. Instead of listening, my self-proclaimed "open-minded" friend said I was being negative, outlandish, and that being realistic was bad being the universe was going to hear my negativity and I was destroying my life. Glad to see that others also see it the way I do.
Fuck!!
I have been trying to avoid this, but you dudes are making it too damn hard!
Dudes....there are no answers...there are only choices.
You need to rid your minds of Realism/Materialism...it's a dead end.
You need to embrace Idealism dudes.
My video: There are no answer. There are only Choices
http://youtu.be/lkm1e5EYa5Q (http://youtu.be/lkm1e5EYa5Q)
(Note: You must first be an Idealist to really comprehend this completely.)
There are no answers. There are only choices.
We are The Singularity.
We believe what we perceive, but we only perceive what we believe.
The Final Summation:
There is but One Consciousness, of which every mind is entangled, and from which every mind draws the Information to manifest its own Reality.
Consciousness is Information. The mind is the Observer of Information. We all share the very same Consciousness but perceive from our own unique perspective. Since every mind has its own unique perspective it will perceive in its own unique way. No two minds will ever completely agree on everything.
Information is Thought. The Observer/Mind both perceives and creates the information the One Consciousness contains.
The essence of Reality is Thought. Thought is the "emptiness" at the heart of all matter.
The stone does not exist outside the mind, or inside the mind. The stone does not exist at all. Only the information contained in consciousness of thought about a stone exists.
The stone is an illusion.
We do not exist in Reality. Reality exists in our minds.
Every mind will choose its own answers and create its own illusions of Reality.
Any one illusion is just as true, and just as good as any other.
When one surrenders the ego and recognizes its own solipsism, then it will recognize its own Reality for what it is; an illusion. Only then will it realize there are no answers. There are only choices.
The more we learn...the less we know.
The more we know...the less we learn.
Van Morrison wrote a song about or based on Alan Watts' book "Cloud Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown," (I think it was called that), any dude know about it? Was based on.......
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/581525.Cloud_hidden_Whereabouts_Unknown (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/581525.Cloud_hidden_Whereabouts_Unknown)
(http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320413448l/581525.jpg)
Ah cool, found it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCGUwRo5Ork (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCGUwRo5Ork)
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 11:14:23 PM
Fuck!!
I have been trying to avoid this, but you dudes are making it too damn hard!
Dudes....there are no answers...there are only choices.
You need to rid your minds of Realism/Materialism...it's a dead end.
You need to embrace Idealism dudes.
Well said, C dude!
actually it was called "alan watts blues." first time i'd heard about alan watts was from that song. i love van the man.
QuoteWe believe what we perceive, but we only perceive what we believe.
This always challenges me. In a good way.. I've moved and grown through various theories, philosophies, and beliefs for the very reason that when there's adequate evidence that what I currently believe is bullshit and doesn't serve me any more as a seeker of truth, then I move on. As soon as I suspect my belief(s) is based on my own filters; based on a preconception because new evidence says so, then so be it.
Quote from: forumdude on January 16, 2013, 01:00:46 AM
actually it was called "alan watts blues." first time i'd heard about alan watts was from that song. i love van the man.
Ahhh, yes, "alan watts blues," yup, I remember now. It reminds me of the tune by the Moody Blues about Timothy Leary for some reason.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLC-y3r66Ys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLC-y3r66Ys)
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 11:14:23 PM
Fuck!!
I have been trying to avoid this, but you dudes are making it too damn hard!
Dudes....there are no answers...there are only choices.
You need to rid your minds of Realism/Materialism...it's a dead end.
You need to embrace Idealism dudes.
My video: There are no answer. There are only Choices
http://youtu.be/lkm1e5EYa5Q (http://youtu.be/lkm1e5EYa5Q)
(Note: You must first be an Idealist to really comprehend this completely.)
There are no answers. There are only choices.
We are The Singularity.
We believe what we perceive, but we only perceive what we believe.
The Final Summation:
There is but One Consciousness, of which every mind is entangled, and from which every mind draws the Information to manifest its own Reality.
Consciousness is Information. The mind is the Observer of Information. We all share the very same Consciousness but perceive from our own unique perspective. Since every mind has its own unique perspective it will perceive in its own unique way. No two minds will ever completely agree on everything.
Information is Thought. The Observer/Mind both perceives and creates the information the One Consciousness contains.
The essence of Reality is Thought. Thought is the "emptiness" at the heart of all matter.
The stone does not exist outside the mind, or inside the mind. The stone does not exist at all. Only the information contained in consciousness of thought about a stone exists.
The stone is an illusion.
We do not exist in Reality. Reality exists in our minds.
Every mind will choose its own answers and create its own illusions of Reality.
Any one illusion is just as true, and just as good as any other.
When one surrenders the ego and recognizes its own solipsism, then it will recognize its own Reality for what it is; an illusion. Only then will it realize there are no answers. There are only choices.
The more we learn...the less we know.
The more we know...the less we learn.
We are fractals of the IS. Without limitations nothing can be measured, nothing can be learned. Nothing gained. We create our own classroom dudes. 'Life' is learning. 'Reality' is where we come to do it.
Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'
THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?
It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE)
I'm going to go with Ed Abbey on this one: To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is to take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks, he's a liar. His logic may be airtight, but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 16, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'
THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?
It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE)
"Scientists"? Which scientists?
I can watch a wildly successful show about bigfoot on the same channel.
And ancient astronauts and ghosts and on and on...
The aim of any of this is one thing. Ratings and advertising.
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 07:32:46 PM
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
That's because it's a human concept.
The universe is made of what, where and hows.
The "why's" are an invention of humans.
And only have meaning to humans.
In the end it's what we make it.
But in that type of large sense it's not in any way "true".
Things can be said about it in general terms. I'd suggest that the actual question that being asked in most of these type of questions is actually "how can I feel good". That is the fundamental imperative IMHO to most "quests" of the spiritual kind. The answer does vary by individual but will likely not vary all that much in the same culture.
But when a claim is made about something like telekinesis or telepathy, that is a concrete scientific claim.
If it's true it can, with almost complete certainty, be quantified and shown through experiment.
If it can't be proven then it's pretty clearly untrue. (Or yes not yet proven but Princeton allowed 28 years to a bunch of yoyo's determined to prove it in a formalized prestigious lab setting who came up with squat and even got the squat through sloppy science according to peer review)
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 07:32:46 PM
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
That's because it's a human concept.
The universe is made of what, where and hows.
The why's are an invention of humans.
And only have meaning to humans.
In the end it's what we make it.
But in that type of large sense it's not in any way "true".
I remains personal opinion.
But when a claim is made about something like telekinesis or telepathy that is a concrete scientific claim.
If it's true it can be quantified and shown through experiment.
If it can't be proven then it's pretty clearly untrue. (Or yes not yet proven but Princeton allowed 28 years to a bunch of yoyo's determined to prove it in a formalized prestigious lab setting who came up with squat and even got the squat through sloppy science according to peer review)
I don't know man. Are we not the universe? Did humanity come from a different place than the rest of the universe? If not, does that not mean that the universe is also made of why's, and that the universe also makes it's own "meaning"? In the exact same way that the apple tree apples, the universe peoples. It's turtles all the way down, man.
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
I didn't mean to sound demeaning. I used an extreme example to illustrate the point which I believe is valid.
If I was in my kitchen and for some reason I decided to "use the force" and make a pencil move across the table and it did, I'd have a "HOLY SHIT" moment. And I would suspect that I was onto something.
If I couldn't do it again it would quickly be a lot less "HOLY SHIT". And if I could not find any reliable evidence of others who could move it then I would simply have to assume that I did not in fact move the pencil and it moved for some other reason.
Experience does mean something but only when it's supported by some type of corroborating evidence.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: cckeiser on January 15, 2013, 07:32:46 PM
The answer to the question..."What is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything?" is not 42.
They just heard it wrong.
The answer is "Fortitude"....as in "to Abide". 8)
That's because it's a human concept.
The universe is made of what, where and hows.
The why's are an invention of humans.
And only have meaning to humans.
In the end it's what we make it.
But in that type of large sense it's not in any way "true".
I remains personal opinion.
But when a claim is made about something like telekinesis or telepathy that is a concrete scientific claim.
If it's true it can be quantified and shown through experiment.
If it can't be proven then it's pretty clearly untrue. (Or yes not yet proven but Princeton allowed 28 years to a bunch of yoyo's determined to prove it in a formalized prestigious lab setting who came up with squat and even got the squat through sloppy science according to peer review)
I don't know man. Are we not the universe? Did humanity come from a different place than the rest of the universe? If not, does that not mean that the universe is also made of why's, and that the universe also makes it's own "meaning"? In the exact same way that the apple tree apples, the universe peoples. It's turtles all the way down, man.
We are a part of the universe.
Some things are uniquely human.
Does the planet Jupiter like the taste of stawberries?
Whether strawberries taste good is a human concept and beyond that a personal concept. (and also of birds, bugs etc)
As a general rule we can say "Human's like strawberries" as supporting evidence I'd point to the fresh fruit (no pun intended) section.
Do birds and bugs ponder the meaning of life?
Maybe. I doubt it.
What brings meaning to our life ('ie' makes us feel good about ourselves) is likewise an invention of our species.
And in the sense that we come from the universe it is "connected" to the entire universe.
Certainly discovering clearly what is "inside" us leads to understandings of what is "outside".
It's probably fascinating to study. I'm sure we'd find a lot of things like a recent article I read that showed that receiving awards publicly leads to a longer life span. In a statistically demonstrable way. And the worst scenario is to be nominated for awards and lose BTW. I'm sure that one could make the case that the importance of honor in the "tribe" has been a very useful concept to the species because the criteria for assigning honor generally benefits the tribe overall. As in "great hunter" , "great warrior", "great doctor" whatever. So the tribes that had a strong affinity for this did better than the tribes that didn't and their genes likewise did better in the grand lottery of existence. The affinity for honor led to more members achieving things that benefit the tribe and as such the entire tribe thrived. I'm sure that for those honorees, a life led in such a way as to receive such awards would probably be what they would say gave them meaning. I'd posit that in this way the quest for meaning is it's self indelibly linked to us as a species and it is so because it "works". It is successful to the species.
So here we are. The universe has chosen. And the choice has become a part of who and what we are.
But as far as "Life's meaning" I think it's a human concept and that there are certain generalities that can be made but there is still no "true" meaning. It depends on the individual and upon the tribe. In larger sense as in the meaning to the species I'm sure it inevitably and finally results in success or failure. That's where the rubber meets the road and we see that the "why's" mean very little to the universe. Only the outcome matters. It has it's rules.
You can't cheat the mountain Pilgrim. Mountain has it's rules.
I don't know man. Are we not the universe? Did humanity come from a different place than the rest of the universe? If not, does that not mean that the universe is also made of why's, and that the universe also makes it's own "meaning"? In the exact same way that the apple tree apples, the universe peoples. It's turtles all the way down, man.
[/quote]
We are a part of the universe.
Some things are uniquely human.
Does the planet Jupiter like the taste of stawberries?
Whether strawberries taste good is a human concept and beyond that a personal concept. (and also of birds, bugs etc)
As a general rule we can say "Human's like strawberries" as supporting evidence I'd point to the fresh fruit (no pun intended) section.
Do birds and bugs ponder the meaning of life?
Maybe. I doubt it.
What brings meaning to our life ('ie' makes us feel good about ourselves) is likewise an invention of our species.
And in the sense that we come from the universe it is "connected" to the entire universe.
Certainly discovering clearly what is "inside" us leads to understandings of what is "outside".
It's probably fascinating to study. I'm sure we'd find a lot of things like a recent article I read that showed that receiving awards publicly leads to a longer life span. And the worst scenario is to be nominated for awards and lose BTW. I'm sure that one could make the case that the importance of honor in the "tribe" has been a very useful concept to the species because the criteria for assigning honor generally benefits the tribe overall. As in "great hunter" , "great warrior", "great doctor" whatever. So the tribes that had a strong affinity for this did better than the tribes that didn't and their genes likewise did better in the grand lottery of existence.
So here we are. The universe has chosen. And the choice has become a part of who and what we are.
[/quote]
Again and again, I marvel at what a difference in perspectives make. Because really, I find myself not disagreeing with any of what you said. I just see it from a different angle. Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way. Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know. But the birds that eat them out of my garden don't eat just anything. They seem very particular to my strawberries instead of my grass. I'm thinking there may be a blurry difference between the world outside our heads and the one inside where we stage the play "Me". Much of what you've said rings a lot of truth to the inner drama mind. But, I feel less certain about the outer "mind." Yes, in many ways, ideas like awards and accomplishments are figments of the human imagination for sole purpose of giving us rank or meaning within ourselves and to others. This "meaning" is a complete construct of human minds and there are countless others. But is the "meaning" of warmth and light from the sun a figment of my imagination? What about other plants and animals that exhibit the same behavior I do? Are they my imagination too? Life is a strong force of nature and the mystery is interesting. A quote from Watts (though I believe he may have been quoting someone else) to wrap this up. "The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Later on.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: Hominid on January 15, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.
I didn't mean to sound demeaning. I used an extreme example to illustrate the point which I believe is valid.
If I was in my kitchen and for some reason I decided to "use the force" and make a pencil move across the table and it did, I'd have a "HOLY SHIT" moment. And I would suspect that I was onto something.
If I couldn't do it again it would quickly be a lot less "HOLY SHIT". And if I could not find any reliable evidence of others who could move it then I would simply have to assume that I did not in fact move the pencil and it moved for some other reason.
Experience does mean something but only when it's supported by some type of corroborating evidence.
Okay, thanks for that.
Yes, corroborating evidence is vital to confirm the truth of a claim. But not having it doesn't discredit a past experience, in the same way a memory of having lunch a week ago doesn't have confirming corroborating evidence.
I'm not sure where the telekinesis thing came from; I'm not purporting that me (or anyone) can move things with their mind. That's for Star Wars fans. I'm thinking more of the telepathy/distance viewing phenomena where lots of people have seemingly been able to "see" images of things in another room, or in another country. I agree the evidence is inconsistent, but it happens often enough to pique lots of interest.
Additionally, science is always learning new things - each step up we take, the horizon expands. Who knows what we'll discover next!
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 16, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'
THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?
It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE)
An interesting postulate... that the universe is a living biological entity. Interesting video. A lota strands for the old duder's head...
Quote from: forumdude on January 15, 2013, 10:10:21 PM
Biker Dude is right about a lot of this, if not all, IMDO. Any time someone invokes subatomic physics to explain "unexplainable" phenomena on the macro level you can be pretty sure it's wrong. To go in the other direction (macrophysics to human experience) one might as well say that the relativistic nature of human cultures is due to the theory of relativity.
The observer effect, the uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement - these have all been used to aggrandize the importance of human psychology in relation to physics but always requires a massive leap and some sort of X-factor to connect them. And that X factor is so enormously large that it's no less deus ex machina than deus himself. For instance, there's this idea that human creativity begins on the subatomic level and sort of "percolates" up. This is a nice idea, linking our egos to the fabric of the universe. But it's just an idea. Same with the idea that we can influence subatomic actions with our minds - it's a total misreading of what the observer effect is all about. And reams and reams of lousy books from the Tao of Physics to the Dancing Wu Li Masters have run roughshod over the fucking rules of discourse in order to sell their books.
Thanks for that ForumDude.
I find it amazing how this has taken over the discussions from people like "Deep Pack" et al.
The interesting thing is how consistently the style is.
Without exception they make the leap without even attempting to build at least a couple stairs.
They lead up to it with poetic claims that leave the listener eager to believe and then once properly fluffed they plunge headlong over the falls. They then spend the rest of the time piling on scientific sounding arguments.
The consistency of the approach makes it difficult to treat any of them as less than con artists.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 16, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'
THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?
It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE)
Well I hope He's a dude.
Quote from: Zen Dog on January 16, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 16, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'
THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?
It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE)
Well I hope He's a dude.
...takin' er easy for all us sinners...
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.
The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.
The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.
To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 01:44:59 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.
The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.
To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.
I don't care. I can work on a proof of infinity here.
But the concept of a flying machine is a amalgamation of completely rational ideas.
We can look at birds and see that they can fly. We can wonder if a contraption could be created that would likewise fly.
The idea of a flying machine is not in any way irrational or absurd. Once you know about microbes it's not irrational to suppose that there may be something that kills them. Not absurd.
However for instance the idea of "cognitive intention" (I'm gonna call it prayer from now on)
It is surrounded by evidence to the contrary. I guarantee that most people here if honest would admit that they do not get everything that they pray for. So immediately the experiential evidence as well as anecdotal evidence is cloudy at best. (and that's being generous). And in fact we have many studies that have found in fact consistently that it has no effect. So taking all that into account, as a rational person I'd have to place the concept of the effect of prayer as being highly unlikely, very nearly absurd. (well ok fully absurd to the n'th degree for me) THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPINION. It is reason.
There is a real difference. This is how we live in a world where certain ideas have merit and others don't.
I makes any meaningful discussion and progress possible.
The degree of likelyhood is open to opinion but if people are really honest it won't vary by a whole lot.
Additional information can change things. For instance if someone insists "All my prayers come true". If I had developed a reasonably high regard for someone's reliability and intellect that might give me half a second of pause.
But I haven't even tackled the brass tacks basic question of "What precisely are we talking about?" I assume that we mean that our wishes are somehow transferred to a god. This is never explained exactly. So now I'm required to believe that my thoughts are somehow bla bla you can see where this is going to go.
In the end when it comes to any meaningful dialog about things like this it becomes abundently evident that it always comes down to the same thing. SOMEONE WANTING TO BELIEVE AND DENYING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT BELIEF. Crawling around the internet latching onto whatever crackpot nonsense they can enlist.
I would always do whatever is in my power to crucify that. With extreme prejudice.
Belief in prayer is not a harmless thing that may or may not provide comfort to some.
It is akin to burning ants with a magnifying glass (that IS opinion). And beyond that it's pathetic.
I don't care if that makes me sound mean.
The idea that an ill defined (IMHO make believe God) has a plan for us, and when bad things happen they have a reason. It is a sick and torturous agenda that makes misfortune all the more horrible and offers as a salve self delusion. It at best damns people to be the walking dead.
That is opinion.
Don't like it? Fuck off.
Death to mind pollution!
We are legion.!We are coming for your deities!
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 02:19:21 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 01:44:59 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: A Stoned Buddha on January 16, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on January 16, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote
Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.
Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.
Quote
Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.
I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.
Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.
And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.
All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.
The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.
To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.
I don't care. I can work on a proof of infinity here.
But the concept of a flying machine is a amalgamation of completely rational ideas.
We can look at birds and see that they can fly. We can wonder if a contraption could be created that would likewise fly.
The idea of a flying machine is not in any way irrational or absurd. Once you know about microbes it's not irrational to suppose that there may be something that kills them. Not absurd.
However for instance the idea of "cognitive intention" (I'm gonna call it prayer from now on)
It is surrounded by evidence to the contrary. I guarantee that most people here if honest would admit that they do not get everything that they pray for. So immediately the experiential evidence as well as anecdotal evidence is cloudy at best. (and that's being generous). And in fact we have many studies that have found in fact consistently that it has no effect. So taking all that into account, as a rational person I'd have to place the concept of the effect of prayer as being highly unlikely, very nearly absurd. (well ok fully absurd to the n'th degree for me) THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPINION. It is reason.
There is a real difference. This is how we live in a world where certain ideas have merit and others don't.
I makes any meaningful discussion and progress possible.
The degree of likelyhood is open to opinion but if people are really honest it won't vary by a whole lot.
Additional information can change things. For instance if someone insists "All my prayers come true". If I had developed a reasonably high regard for someone's reliability and intellect that might give me half a second of pause.
But I haven't even tackled the brass tacks basic question of "What precisely are we talking about?" I assume that we mean that our wishes are somehow transferred to a god. This is never explained exactly. So now I'm required to believe that my thoughts are somehow bla bla you can see where this is going to go.
In the end when it comes to any meaningful dialog about things like this it becomes abundently evident that it always comes down to the same thing. SOMEONE WANTING TO BELIEVE AND DENYING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT BELIEF. Crawling around the internet latching onto whatever crackpot nonsense they can enlist.
I would always do whatever is in my power to crucify that. With extreme prejudice.
Belief in prayer is not a harmless thing that may or may not provide comfort to some.
It is akin to burning ants with a magnifying glass (that IS opinion). And beyond that it's pathetic.
I don't care if that makes me sound mean.
The idea that an ill defined (IMHO make believe God) has a plan for us, and when bad things happen they have a reason. It is a sick and torturous agenda that makes misfortune all the more horrible and offers as a salve self delusion. It at best damns people to be the walking dead.
That is opinion.
Don't like it? Fuck off.
Death to mind pollution!
We are legion.!We are coming for your deities!
Yeah. That sounds really exhausting. I'm not a believer in the big sky daddy either, I just humbly believe in giving others some space and compassion. You are certainly entitled to your aggression though, if that is what you feel you need. T'would be a boring rock we're on if we all felt the same way.
QuoteDon't like it? Fuck off
Put away the piece man, they're callin' the cops!
Your all aware of ocums razor (apologies for the spelling) and I subscribe to that philosophy. But abstract thought opens up doors to new realities. We went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon in 60 years dudes. Let the dreamers dream
I think one of the problems is that we don't have the vocabulary to talk about abstract concepts like emergent phenomena and mystical experiences and the like so we too often end up resorting to the parlance of science and rhetoric that applies to the realm of objects and things you can point to or touch or record. This ends up causing a lot of miscommunication and people stepping over the line when it comes to applying the appropriate jargon. And even the stuff that is agreed upon I sometimes find a bit off putting. Every mystical tradition seems to support the idea of non-dualism, for instance, the idea that "all is one." I have no idea what that sentence means. It seems like the ultimate cop out. Of course we're all interconnected, but in complex ways and not in a mushy lovey dovey sense. We're also interconnected in parasitic and opportunistic ways. I don't think mysticism should be all about positive vibes and personal power, but more about taking the good with the bad and expanding our frame of reference.
What the fuck am I blathering about? I need more coffee.
I'm on my second glass of Shiraz/Melbec, so...
Jargon, beliefs, interpretation... I sometimes even chuckle at my own value system, which I *think* is based on purely rational thought, based on evidence, truth, and experience. But there's good argument to even challenge the efficacy of the the scientific method when it comes to consciousness, thought... think ontology. Yet dammit, I want to have a belief system that I can depend on to help me interpret this world of ours, but they all fall short. I think we're all shit outa luck actually; cherry picking from this and that, we create a life philosophy that we think suits us - till the next revelation. IOW, there's no ONE absolute way to interpret the universe. From nihilism to zen, WE choose what WE think is right.
When I take a big step back, I raise my hands and go - "I dunno". I abide, and that helps me survive. I can truly argue all sides somewhat adequately, and I always examine my motives and reasons for gravitating to any one "slant" or approach (scientific/philosopical/spiritual) based on - you guessed it - the evidence, truth, and experience I have at the time. No single interpretation is the "truth"; truth itself is what's sacred. How do we know what is true? There are as many answers as there are people. *Sigh*.
We've all had a good go in this thread at expressing ourselves, and I treasure this forum for how much fun we can have, and how serious we can get discussing all this shit... it goes deep.
It's all, like, our opinion man.
Be cool.
I think that's a good way of putting it, Hominid. There's an old saying "beware of a man of one book." There are lots of models out there, and the more we familiarize ourselves with them the more tools we'll have in our belt and the more adaptable we'll be.
Saying "I dunno" is one of the best all purpose tools there is, and one which hardly anyone ever uses these days. "I don't know, Sir." is one of the most underrated lines in TBL. Not as sexy as the others but maybe one of the deepest. When do movie characters every say they don't know something? That's the antithesis of what most screenwriting courses tell you - the characters have to be constantly driving the plot forward and so there's no room for wafflers. I think that's probably had an adverse effect on people over the years. Then again, I dunno.
QuoteThat's the antithesis of what most screenwriting courses tell you - I think that's probably had an adverse effect on people over the years.
Didn't think of it that way... but ya, it's like we're all supposed to have this big life purpose; driving the plot forward. But fuck it. Let's go bowling - or flight simming. (Good insight FD)
Quote from: Hominid on January 16, 2013, 11:23:36 PM
When I take a big step back, I raise my hands and go - "I dunno". I abide, and that helps me survive.
Same gig here, Dude. Sometimes ya just gotta live Spicoli's Theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_oBVV1l86A). I do, anyway. The questions are big and some believe the answers are important and must be got right. Fuck! People have been trying to figger this shit out for a long, long time and coming up with different answers every time, and now it's on my head to derive the one true answer? It's just not gonna happen. I'm going to take the easy way out: I don't know. It might not be satisfactory, but it's the most correct answer I've come up with. It's not a concrete foundation for a philosophy, but it leaves a Dude with plenty of options -- and might just be a concrete foundation for a reality.
Ya think?
Quote from: Hominid on January 16, 2013, 05:18:32 PM
QuoteDon't like it? Fuck off
Put away the piece man, they're callin' the cops!
Mark it Zero Smokey!
Quote from: forumdude on January 16, 2013, 10:13:59 PM
I think one of the problems is that we don't have the vocabulary to talk about abstract concepts like emergent phenomena and mystical experiences and the like so we too often end up resorting to the parlance of science and rhetoric that applies to the realm of objects and things you can point to or touch or record. This ends up causing a lot of miscommunication and people stepping over the line when it comes to applying the appropriate jargon. And even the stuff that is agreed upon I sometimes find a bit off putting. Every mystical tradition seems to support the idea of non-dualism, for instance, the idea that "all is one." I have no idea what that sentence means. It seems like the ultimate cop out. Of course we're all interconnected, but in complex ways and not in a mushy lovey dovey sense. We're also interconnected in parasitic and opportunistic ways. I don't think mysticism should be all about positive vibes and personal power, but more about taking the good with the bad and expanding our frame of reference.
What the fuck am I blathering about? I need more coffee.
We can absolutely experience "all is one".
The experience is real. Interpretation is open. Personally I prefer to stay grounded in ideas that are pretty accepted in the area of psychology and similar philosophical concepts when interpreting personal experiences.
The interesting thing about it is how you get to it.
It's a journey inward.
Once you use that personal experience (no matter how universal it is to other humans) to insist that you are a teapot orbiting Jupiter you have slid off the path IMHO.
I believe that it happens when, through quiet meditation and a strict drug regiment we reach the "old stuff".
The Id in the parlance of our times or the "being in it's self".
When the "ego/being for it's self" truly meets and feels the "id/being for it's self" the conscious mind experiences it as "one with all things". It makes intuitive sense to me. The mentality that does not experience with self awareness is, in a sense, "one with all things". Or more specifically experiences the universe that way.
Becoming aware of that, as in consciously experiencing the "unconscious", it's a real mind blower.
I believe it is our animal selves that we are finding. It has no concept of the "me" or ego in the way that it operates. We are not the teapot.
Strip away the ego and you EXPERIENCE a feeling of being one with all things. To say that based on that feeling we are literally one with all things is like the people who insist that they were Mary Antoinette in a past life because they enjoy dressing up in frilly dresses. Nut jobs.
Quote from: forumdude on January 16, 2013, 11:52:18 PM
I think that's a good way of putting it, Hominid. There's an old saying "beware of a man of one book." There are lots of models out there, and the more we familiarize ourselves with them the more tools we'll have in our belt and the more adaptable we'll be.
Saying "I dunno" is one of the best all purpose tools there is, and one which hardly anyone ever uses these days. "I don't know, Sir." is one of the most underrated lines in TBL. Not as sexy as the others but maybe one of the deepest. When do movie characters every say they don't know something? That's the antithesis of what most screenwriting courses tell you - the characters have to be constantly driving the plot forward and so there's no room for wafflers. I think that's probably had an adverse effect on people over the years. Then again, I dunno.
HERE HERE!!!!
The greatest sin is the persistent and obstinant replacement of "I don't know" with something we just make up (God for instance).
Don't take the leap.
It is pure evil.
There you (go) dudes. Can't be worried about that shit...life is for living...and bowling! ;D
edit: listening to Let It Be...guess we could say that's pretty much like abiding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEogJacjLTE&feature=share&list=AL94UKMTqg-9Ah4rhz9fT8xFvCPT-Bv0fI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEogJacjLTE&feature=share&list=AL94UKMTqg-9Ah4rhz9fT8xFvCPT-Bv0fI)
New here, first post.
Just wanted to bring this alive again because I didn't see to many Watts convos recently on this forum.
I noticed a lot of reference to new age stuff which is just a way for someone else to pay the mortgage, like Christianity.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is the central tenet of Watts' philosophy. His metaphysics, let me be perfectly clear are that" there is the central Self, you could call it God you could call it anything you like. And its all of us. Its playing all the parts of all beings whatsoever everywhere and anywhere.
And its playing the game of hide and seek with itself. It gets lost, it gets involved in the farthest out adventures but in the end it always wakes up, and comes back to itself. And when you're ready to wake up, you're gonna wake up. And if you're not ready your gonna stay pretending that you're poor little me."
Once you realize that, there is nothing left to do but laugh yourself silly.
All the ideas of heaven and hell, karma and reincarnation, particles and waves to black holes and the Multiverse. These are not answers, they are just further games we are playing with ourselves. We keep inventing bigger telescopes and find more universe just the same way we keep slicing subatomic particles with more powerful microscopes and finding something else smaller. Were never, in this reality, going to finally find the answer-that there is nothing there. That would ruin the game! Were creating it because we are It! So dont take it too seriously, its just a ride ;-)
I actually thought something similar: we look farther and closer but we don't look inside or next to us.
Quote from: sugarbeargrizzly on January 13, 2014, 09:31:05 PM
New here, first post.
Just wanted to bring this alive again because I didn't see to many Watts convos recently on this forum.
I noticed a lot of reference to new age stuff which is just a way for someone else to pay the mortgage, like Christianity.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is the central tenet of Watts' philosophy. His metaphysics, let me be perfectly clear are that" there is the central Self, you could call it God you could call it anything you like. And its all of us. Its playing all the parts of all beings whatsoever everywhere and anywhere.
And its playing the game of hide and seek with itself. It gets lost, it gets involved in the farthest out adventures but in the end it always wakes up, and comes back to itself. And when you're ready to wake up, you're gonna wake up. And if you're not ready your gonna stay pretending that you're poor little me."
Once you realize that, there is nothing left to do but laugh yourself silly.
All the ideas of heaven and hell, karma and reincarnation, particles and waves to black holes and the Multiverse. These are not answers, they are just further games we are playing with ourselves. We keep inventing bigger telescopes and find more universe just the same way we keep slicing subatomic particles with more powerful microscopes and finding something else smaller. Were never, in this reality, going to finally find the answer-that there is nothing there. That would ruin the game! Were creating it because we are It! So dont take it too seriously, its just a ride ;-)
Big Alan Watts fan here, dude! I dig the way he did business. Good to have you here, sugarbeargrizzly. Nice first post. Grab yourself a place on the rug and abide, mang! Bar's over there, feel free to help yourself!
Thanks man, good to be here. The dude definitely abides. Watts introduced me to so much, but as I go off and research the stuff hes talking about, I realize that for me personally, hes the best teacher. I guess thats because he seems so real, if there ever were such a thing.
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 13, 2014, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: sugarbeargrizzly on January 13, 2014, 09:31:05 PM
New here, first post.
Just wanted to bring this alive again because I didn't see to many Watts convos recently on this forum.
I noticed a lot of reference to new age stuff which is just a way for someone else to pay the mortgage, like Christianity.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is the central tenet of Watts' philosophy. His metaphysics, let me be perfectly clear are that" there is the central Self, you could call it God you could call it anything you like. And its all of us. Its playing all the parts of all beings whatsoever everywhere and anywhere.
And its playing the game of hide and seek with itself. It gets lost, it gets involved in the farthest out adventures but in the end it always wakes up, and comes back to itself. And when you're ready to wake up, you're gonna wake up. And if you're not ready your gonna stay pretending that you're poor little me."
Once you realize that, there is nothing left to do but laugh yourself silly.
All the ideas of heaven and hell, karma and reincarnation, particles and waves to black holes and the Multiverse. These are not answers, they are just further games we are playing with ourselves. We keep inventing bigger telescopes and find more universe just the same way we keep slicing subatomic particles with more powerful microscopes and finding something else smaller. Were never, in this reality, going to finally find the answer-that there is nothing there. That would ruin the game! Were creating it because we are It! So dont take it too seriously, its just a ride ;-)
Big Alan Watts fan here, dude! I dig the way he did business. Good to have you here, sugarbeargrizzly. Nice first post. Grab yourself a place on the rug and abide, mang! Bar's over there, feel free to help yourself!
I like to see it that this whole good times resort that we call the universe is The Dude taking er easy. We're all the dude in these bodies, and after this body, we'll keep on takin er easy as the dude before we take er easy again in a new form to keep on takin er easy. The Dude how I see it is the awareness in each of us that is everywhere, we are either the Dude chilling everywhere or temporarily localised as form. Anyone got any thoughts on that?