The Winding Path – 028

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

21 August 2013 08:12 AM

Lausten – “What you have been doing is putting down the method that most people here use and making very broad and general claims about an as yet undescribed method of yours. By being so broad, you hoped to avoid criticism and say you are just using your imagination. That’s’ fine, except you are implying that our method lacks imagination. So you only “avoid religiosity” by avoiding any one particular religion. You are still sticking to your dogmatic guns.

If you want to be an alchemist, fine, but don’t tell me that I should be, or that I am not open to some spirit because I think alchemy is a waste of time.”

Maybe, just try and give me credit for knowing about Metaphor.

I do not disrespect the method here. I’m not as practiced at it, and require a more relaxed rigor than yours, to achieve the ends that seem of most “value” to me.

All of my comments are an effort to demonstrate and refine my method. The side by side juxtaposition should be an obvious and interesting demonstration. There is a certain amount of “Self discovery” going on as well.

For the most part it is has been made clear to me that what I value is not what is valued here. I’m fine with that and will leave having learned a thing or two and also seen the limits of my ambition, etc.

As for Alchemy, that was me using metaphor to shed light on my previous flight of “imaginative” speculation. I am not an Alchemist, and certainly don’t think that you should become one. What I was saying, and you are not practiced enough in my “method” to have perceived, is the “possibility” of a shift in paradigm opening up new and unexpected areas of inquiry. Just like what happened as Alchemy opened the door to real Chemistry. The instinctive, intuitive, fuzzy reasoning of certain proto-scientifically inclined research driven individuals doing what their times and understanding allowed, blazed a trail that turned out to have great value.

The questions of pseudo scientific nature, that I have earnestly presented here, are of the same nature. Other than the apriori of the Entirety, the rest is open for exploration. If there is any value in what I suggest by this and you still want to try keep beating the drum about proof of the existence of Existence, thats ok. But, I must say, I think you have placed many obstacles in the way of other possibilities.

20 August 2013 02:09 PM

DarronS – brmckay, the argument of yours I quoted is nothing more than wishful thinking and logical fallacies. I will also note that alchemists never succeeded in transforming lead into gold.

As for your comments to Lausten, I see no emotional baggage in his/her quote. Methinks you are the one projecting. And yes, you are free to hypothesize, but this is a site dedicated to critical and skeptical thinking, so be prepared for us to call you out on your logical fallacies. If you want to get anywhere with this group you’ll need to raise your game quite a bit.

And I will point out that your statement “I see no emotional baggage in his/her quote”, is dishonest and aggressive. I suggest you raise your own game.

Since I’ve been participating on this site I’ve received a lot of suggestions about improving my critical thinking, while getting very few responses to valid and reasonable points. The responses I do get routinely address distorted and self serving revisions of my intended point.

What am I supposed to make of this?

20 August 2013 01:31 PM

brmckay – However,if the laws of physics get expanded to address conciousness/self/mind etc.

Lausten – Darron covered it more technically, and I already addressed this sort of garbage yesterday.

If there is evidence found for the existence of something, then there is evidence for it. That’s all you said. Meanwhile, there is no evidence for it, so you are speculating, you are wondering, you are hypothesizing. Go ahead, do that all you want, scientists do it all the time. What they don’t do is teach little children that their speculations are real and they should sing songs about their speculations or thank their speculations for the bounty they receive.

I forgot to mention that you routinely project your emotional baggage about religion onto me.

Am I’m free to hypothesize, or not?

I would like some credit for trying to avoid religiosity. I do it for myself as well as for you.

I would also like some credit for at least wanting to make the point that “proving the existence of something” is not equivalent to “contemplating existence”. The former is science the latter is theology. Take it a step further and it is Yoga/Zen/Gnosis.

If you all have to get on my case, get on it about that.

20 August 2013 12:53 PM

PLaClair – …we have no reason to believe in a separate entity, often called the soul, that survives our death.

brmckay – However,if the laws of physics get expanded to address conciousness/self/mind etc.

DarronS – This is known as special pleading.

brmckay – Then, conceiving of (and possibly proving) “soul” or better “self awareness” as energy wave/particle phenomena affected by the laws of physics, leaves room for a new understanding.

DarronS – Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy (see above).

brmckay – Does an instance of the class “light” die? No, it gets transformed. It changes.

Substitute an instance of the class “self”.

DarronS –  This is known as a non sequitur. You cannot derive the conclusion from the premise. Just because light is transformed into another form of energy does not mean animals (including humans) survive their bodies. If you want to convince anyone we have souls you must first explain the mind/body duality’s physical connection. What part of the brain connects with the soul? Next, you will have to explain how the soul can exist separate from the body without resorting to waving your hands and saying “if the laws of physics get expanded.” As we say in Texas, “If my feet would fit a railroad track I’d a probably been a train.”

I’m using my imagination.

Your, concluding paragraph indicates you aren’t.

Remember before Chemistry; there were Alchemists.

Don’t mind if you use that analogy; I’m not trying to prove anything.

Just trying to make gold out of lead.

20 August 2013 12:15 PM

brmckay – The second part “—that the true reality is a non-dualistic state of consciousness.” doesn’t synch with my interpretation of the strictly “materialistic” paradigm. I have been told that “mind”, “thought”, “self” etc. are processes emanating from the physical. The sense I get from that is that all things “subjective” are adjuncts of the “material”. I suppose you could call this “non-dual”. But that causes me problems, since I have often used “monism” as my own reference point. Or, “non-dual” as the Vedantists might use it.

For me, the dualistic paradigm is the adjunct of the essential singularity. But the Objective/Subjective aspects are in balance and co-emergent. Not one derived from the other. They express the nature of the primal “Self awareness”. This Self awareness self replicates as the Universe. As Life.

The above paragraph would represent the mechanics of creation, however the real juice is in the relationship of relative “self” to absolute “Self”. The possibility of “Enlightenment”.

LilySmith – The second part, as you call it, was me describing what I perceive as your beliefs. I will change my understanding as I learn more from you. I understand Enlightenment as the relationship of relative self to absolute Self—the Universe as a whole. I’ll work on all things subjective as adjuncts of the material.

Sorry, I misinterpreted. Thank you for working it out.

20 August 2013 11:51 AM

PLaClair – 19 August 2013 01:23 PM
…we have no reason to believe in a separate entity, often called the soul, that survives our death.

However,if the laws of physics get expanded to address consciousness/self/mind etc.

Then, conceiving of (and possibly proving) “soul” or better “self awareness” as energy wave/particle phenomena affected by the laws of physics, leaves room for a new understanding.

Does an instance of the class “light” die? No, it gets transformed. It changes.

Substitute an instance of the class “self”.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.