My ~Most~ Cherished ~Resource~

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

Hello everyone,

 

I find myself at a ~bit~ of a loss as to how to offer this ~well~.  I'm not familiar with any of you.  So... after some deliberation, I've decided to just jump to it, fingers crossed: ~W~.

 

I do this in the spirit of that inextinguishable spirit of hope: perhaps (at least) a one will Value... my reaching out, - as "into the dark", yes; but more, this treasured resource to which I presently point.  To be sure, I myself feel great confidence in my perspective on such matters.  And on my, I might even say "eminent", capacity to judge.  This is not a resource I suggest of mere curiosity.  Far from that!  It is my (even in my "eminent" qualification [{?}])... can I call it "my flagpole"?

 

I share because I find myself ~fulfilled~.

 

This is certainly not to go so far as to say, either, that I have exhausted myself with wisdom, nor even that I find such fulfillment "satisfactory", in and of itself: it is a far more lonely perspective than I'd care to have merely for the sake of "fulfillment", and, to be sure, far more lonely than it need be --- at least as far as decent imaination permits me.

 

This is all to say, I share of my inextingusihable spirit of hope, that perhaps (at least) a one will be thankful for the introduction I offer, as "raising a flag in the dark".

 

Let me say one more thing by way of introducing it. When I say it is "my ~most~ cherished ~resource~", (passing over the reasons for my "~'s"), I suggest (at least) these to things: 1) it was (at least a) longish searche before I found it (and I'll not detail why I so much preferred to find *_it_* rather than to create it's likeness for my own name, before finding *_it_*); and 2) my F-i-n-d-i-n-g *_it_* (where my scripting there is merely to suggest that I Found it the very first time I found it, but that, yes, some more finding - if *_it_* - trickled in thereafter as well)... my F-i-n-d-i-n-g of it was quite arguable the highpoint of my life-to-date.  (Though I sure hope that will not remain uncontested  ;-)  .)

 

So, to a one who would be interested in sharing with my, for herself, a sense of this (mere) "fulfillment", who would Value putting in the Work required to digest it, perhaps you will be able at least to save yourself all the long process of searching for "the flag pole", and directly get to task of "erecting" your own.  I suggest the magnum opus of George Holmes Howison: "the limits of evolution, and other essays, illustrating the metaphysical theory of personal i[']dealism"!  It was originally published in 1901, but I suggest the 1905 version for the additions of a second preface and a set of Valuable appendices.  This means that it is past any such pertinence of copyright restriction.  And, to be sure, it is free (for download or reading off the web) from google books, here:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

As shot in the dark, I will suggest this passage, at p.297:

 

"

Our real experiences, day by day and moment by moment, are so intrinsically organised and definite, it does not at first occur to us that the principles which organise and define them, rendering them intelligible, and consciously apprehensible, are and must be the spontaneous products of the mind's own action. We do not at first see, as careful reflection later brings us to see, with Kant, that the mental elements without which the apprehensible presence of the items of experience would be inconceivable and inexistent cannot possibly be derived from these, and thence applied to the mind. But this later penetrating reflection convinces us that what our experienced objects must have in order to be objects — to be perceived at all — must be brought by the mind itself to the very act of experience. What must be presupposed, if the objects are to be perceived at all, can by no conceivable means be explained as first coming to the mind from the objects,

and must therefore, as the only alternative, be acknowledged to be contributions from the mind's pure self-activity.

 

But when we have reached this conclusive conviction that the roots of our experience and our experimental knowledge are parts of our own spontaneous life, we then readily come to see, further, that the system of our several elements of consciousness _a priori_ is precisely what we must really understand by our unifying or enwholing self, — is exactly what we try to express when we say we have a soul, and that this soul possesses real knowledge; that is, a hold upon eternal things. The realm of the eternal, in short, then becomes for us just the realm of our self-active intelligence; and this it is which, if we can show its reality in detail, will prove to be the clue to our immortal being. So the critical question is, How can the real existence of such _a priori_ consciousness, such genuinely self-active intelligence, be conclusively made out? I have already in a few sentences indicated the general line of this proof, as we inherit it from Kant; but there is now required some fuller account of it, made intelligible and convincing by clear particulars.

"

 

Best,

  ~T

[CDFree]

Whit??????????????

[CDFree]

Has someone spiked my drink???????

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

If "Whit" is a girl you know, and if you are asking if I am identical to her: no!!!  But, yes, "this 'girl' is on fire"!!!!!!

[Astreja]

If I had to choose between enlightenment and the ability to communicate in clear language, I'd choose the latter and enlightenment be damned.

 

On a related note, in My earlier woo-woo days I did a lot of stream-of-consciousness journal-writing and am currently transcribing a journal from 2001-2002.  Here's one thing that jumped off the page at Me as I was typing it the other day:

 

 

The human mind is the gateway to the gods.  When knowledge -- True knowledge, tested and dependable, not custom and conjecture -- When knowledge is valued, the gods are knowledgeable.  When mercy is respected, the gods are merciful.  When tribe loyalties and brute strength are paramount, we have good reason to fear the wrath of the gods.

 

We make new gods in the image of our highest paradigm.  We view old gods, rightly or wrongly, in existing light.  I speak thus:  If you would know the true intentions of That which currently rules the spirit, observe how It describes its antecedents.

 

(end quote)

 

Short, sweet and comprehensible.  Over to you, Gcode -- Explain your particular revelation in 100 words or less, please, and mind the punctuation or I shall Speak To You Sternly Ex Officio in that regard.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:

His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise, I think it sounds like the theory of forms.

[RipVanWinkle]

Gcode Tramplee: You are obviously very smart. But in order for us mere humans to understand you, you are going to have to break your subject down into its smallest pieces and then build it back.   bill

[mymistake]

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:

His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

I also found it to be full of innuendo but for some reason the original part reminds me of Smeagol and his Precious.

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

Astreja,

I wonder what you'd hope to communicate, even if by way of "clear language", if in choosing "clear language" over "enlightenment" you forsook the having of anything worth communicating?  (I don't know if your comment was a dig at my "highly parenthetic" presentation or not, but if so, perhaps you reread it once by way of collapsing out the parenthesis on your own; and then, maybe reread it a second time, reinserting the parenthetic remarks, in order to perhaps see why I Valued including them.?)  But, you ask for "100 word restricted" divulging of my understanding.  (Is there any reason why you think an understanding worth having should be able to meet such a constraint?)  I'll give it a go:

 

(100) I~am. (99) Got it?  (97)

 

I'll try to be a little more forthcoming though, if you'll permit me perchance to use a few more than 100 words in the process ;-)

 

"Experience" is something which tends to be both overwhelming (in particular), and take-it-for-granted (in the general sense).  It turns out that a penetrating investigation of what it takes for such a "thing" as "experience", in the overriding general sense, to amount to *_Real_*, reveals the whole "ground" of what is necessary and sufficient for that quality "Real".  One might survey the answered proffered as "real", from the myriad sources, and in the process come to find a short list.  What comes to mind as a casual stating of that zoo here is: philosophic materialism (the belief that some inanimate matterenergy is all that is real), empiricism (the belief that "experience" need not be questioned as a "thing", but is itself, never-the-less, the limit of, and only real), agnosticism (the belief that an arrested development at "I don't know" is a good-enough summit for mere-man), or, what I offer, i'dealism.  My offering to you is that the sense you have that there is "something" answering to the hope of the name "Real", might be fullfilled (for You).  My offering to You is that that ancient maxim, "know thyself", is sufficient.  And not only that!: but nothing answering to the name "Real" can lie forever removed from your (very own) conscience!!!  This is to say, you might come to realize that faith/e for any "Real" purported to lie beyond your own (superphenomenal) capacity of apprehension, is foolishness.  I~am, when thoroughly sounded, turns out to be the only real... I say I'dea.

 

That is, though someone faith/e\ing philosophical materialism, for instance, might charge "that's mere idea", a thoroughgoing investigation of the pillars of their faith/e leaves one astounded at their insufficiencies (as compared to the faith/e of the i'dealist).  No one can avoid faith/e.  Even God, $/he walks by faith/e.  (And we are created "in the image".)  I might hint this i'dea to you a little more substantially.  I merely hint, suggesting you attend to Howison if you'd like more of the meat that is proof.

 

"nothing" is a nonsensical abstraction, pointing to "nothing".  There is no content on "the other side" of a boundary to Real.  Real need must be a self-bounding content.  For this to be so, one must get past any such notion of Real as simple, and start to investigate it's _a priori_ complexity.  Thankfully, at roc bottom, the minimal complexity needed to amount to Real is limit of Real.  I~am is a self-bounding i'dea, _a priori_ complex.  I won't go into a fuller picture, but you might have already seen from the information I provided in the sidebar, that my "location" is "noumenal/spiritual\phenomenal.  The infinite potential of the noumenon (eternal Mind / soul) is bounded by the finitude of particular phenomenal representations of chosen temporal self-restriction.  And the concomitance of the _vice versa_.  This self-marriage (in minimal complexity) is made one in the spiritual aspect.

 

Now, to be sure, a bit more must be said about the _a priori_ nature of this "the spiritual aspect".  For the i'dea I~am to be Real, it must be self-existently so.  That is, incorruptible / indestructible.  Which is to say, concomitantly, no I~am can annihilate the roc bottom of another (thus "hell" is a suffering rather than an annihilation outright).  I state this all "dogmatically", again, leaving you to the more thorough analysis as "homework".  The point I am making here, is merely that that i'dea I~am is _a priori_ pregnant as a pluralistic relationship.  While I choose to focus, and rightly so, the brunt of the potency of that relational pluralism on the spiritual aspect, I must of course restate that the i'dea itself is one, fundamentally complex, such that a complete segregation of the aspects into simple separates is neither warrantable nor maintainable.  But as the vitality of the self is best highlighted by focussing on the spiritual union that is the spiritual aspect, so I focus there to begin.  (Besides, the thought that your "solo" mental activities are not without plural repercussions is a fearful one to embrace!)

 

The (far too?) long of this is, then, that there is but one fully Real i'dea, and it is a living one.  I~am is _a priori_ complex, and _a priori_ plural at that.  All phenomena are a (very necessary but) "derivative" representation of the superphenomenal relations between these plural, eternal, and relationally potent i'deas!  Relationshipping (between necessarily separate-co-connected I~am) is the name of the game.

 

thanks for your time,

I very much liked your sampled writing!  :-)  Thanks for sharing,

~T

[Astreja]

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:

His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

Sounds like he's masturbating with a copy of Critique of Pure Reason instead of Playboy.

[Astreja]

GCode, things like "I am" and "Know thyself" are fine.  It gives us something to discuss, and by that I mean not just the two of us but all of us.

 

I think we might come to loggerheads (but an interesting discussion nonetheless) on whether one can theorize at all about The Real, or if it can only be experienced (similar to Mahākāśyapa smiling when Shakyamuni held up that flower).

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

MultifariousBirdLady,

 

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:
His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.






Otherwise, I think it sounds like the theory of forms.

 

Yes, "my ~most~ cherished ~resource~" you can rightly conclude is my "flagpole".  But I originally warned you that I had good reason to surround "most" and "resource" with "~'s": I've already seemingly gotten complaints about being too particular...  reminds me of the part in the bible Jesus is all "John came neither eating nor drinking (off with his head)", "but I come eating and drinking and you call me a glutton and a drunkard".  <<< shall I find those verses impertinent here?

 

Secondly, when I said "reaching out in the dark", I was clearly referring to my posting here.

 

Invitation stand.  And while it is akin to "the theory of forms", it is highly unakin to "the theory of forms" at the same (damn) time.  There is but the one Real form: I~am.  _a priori_ complex.  _a priori_ plural.

 

If you care to besmirch me, I'd only ask that you attempt to do so substantively.  Consider reading Howison?

 

 ~T

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

Bill,

 

Gcode Tramplee: You are obviously very smart. But in order for us mere humans to understand you, you are going to have to break your subject down into its smallest pieces and then build it back.   bill

 

If you'd genuinely appreciate any assistance I might offer, I'll try; but I've tried to "sell" people who wouldn't read Howison into considering Howison before, and I've come away thinking that I won't much try that again.  If you will display a genuine interest by reading Howison, and coming back with something you'd have my focus on...  else, maybe we leave it at "you're not interested (yet)"?

 

thanks,

 ~T

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

mymistake,

 

 

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:
His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

I also found it to be full of innuendo but for some reason the original part reminds me of Smeagol and his Precious.

 

 

It's the anticipation of B.S. like this that had me at such reservation merely to offer up my (mere) suggestion.  Someone might very well come to appreciate my hooking them up with an introduction to Howison.  But for me to merely offer it up, I felt (it turns out rightly) that I'd have to be prepared to at least weather such ...  B.S.  Why couldn't you have just bridled your tongue here, let me either meet no one, or meet someone?

 

~W~,

 ~T

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

Astreja,

 

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:
His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

Sounds like he's masturbating with a copy of Critique of Pure Reason instead of Playboy.

 

If you'd read Howison, you Might see that neither he nor I "erect" for Kant's "arrested development".  You followed up:

 

"

GCode, things like "I am" and "Know thyself" are fine.  It gives us something to discuss, and by that I mean not just the two of us but all of us.

 

I think we might come to loggerheads (but an interesting discussion nonetheless) on whether one can theorize at all about The Real, or if it can only be experienced (similar to Mahākāśyapa smiling when Shakyamuni held up that flower).

"

 

well, I'm confident we would come to loggerheads if we endeavored to discuss.  For better and worse, I'm not really in the mood to defend myself.  I came upon this site out of a mix of boredom and curiosity, but I'm not so bored at the moment that I want to argue merely to furnish myself a timesink.  Only, I didn't want to let my attitude get in the way of offering up "my precious" for that (perhaps long-shot) hope that it might find a one who would Value it somewhat like I have.  If you ain't interested (yet), you ain't interested.  I appreciate your "giving me the time of day", if you thought that I was merely affecting an false attitude of I don't care if y'all ignore me.

 

But, just to drive you a bit, perhaps a question: do you mean to suggest that you cannot experience what it is to "theorize"?  If not, on what ground to hypothesize such a beast as "theorize"?  Or what are you pointing at with the term?  And if I can't trust you in that term, I wonder why I should trust you with the term "experience": have you ever experienced "experience", or is it something you are "theorizing"?

 

 ~T

[mymistake]

mymistake,

 

 

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:

His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

I also found it to be full of innuendo but for some reason the original part reminds me of Smeagol and his Precious.

 

 

It's the anticipation of B.S. like this that had me at such reservation merely to offer up my (mere) suggestion.  Someone might very well come to appreciate my hooking them up with an introduction to Howison.  But for me to merely offer it up, I felt (it turns out rightly) that I'd have to be prepared to at least weather such ...  B.S.  Why couldn't you have just bridled your tongue here, let me either meet no one, or meet someone?

 

~W~,

 ~T

 

 

You have every right to value my opinion as being worthless as bull shit but I assure you that the opinion I offered was genuine.  My comment doesn't stop you from meeting people.

 

So tell me which region are you from?  I don't want to pry into specifics but I am curious about the general origin of your writing style.

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

mymistake,

 

mymistake,

 

 

 

Whit??????????????

If I understand correctly:
His ~most~ cherished ~resource~ is his "flagpole." He "reached out in the dark" and f-o-u-n-d it, and behold, it is ~fulfilling~. He invites us to "erect" our own.

 

I also found it to be full of innuendo but for some reason the original part reminds me of Smeagol and his Precious.

 

 

It's the anticipation of B.S. like this that had me at such reservation merely to offer up my (mere) suggestion.  Someone might very well come to appreciate my hooking them up with an introduction to Howison.  But for me to merely offer it up, I felt (it turns out rightly) that I'd have to be prepared to at least weather such ...  B.S.  Why couldn't you have just bridled your tongue here, let me either meet no one, or meet someone?

 

~W~,

 ~T

 

 

You have every right to value my opinion as being worthless as bull shit but I assure you that the opinion I offered was genuine.  My comment doesn't stop you from meeting people.

 

So tell me which region are you from?  I don't want to pry into specifics but I am curious about the general origin of your writing style.

 

I never meant to suggest that your opinion was not-genuine.  On the contrary!, even!  What I did mean to suggest was that your expressing it was an act of creating B.S.  I wonder why you would choose to express such a thing, rather than leave it unexpressed?  The lyric(s) of a song come)s( to mind, "Do-do-do your dirty words ' come out to play when you are heard.  Certain things should be left unsaid."-La Roux, "bulletproof".  You say "My comment doesn't stop you from meeting people.", which is fair-enough: but it might very well put "a stumbling block" between me and *_A_* someone.  That is, even if I meet a one who Values "my" Howison; or even if I meet many; what confidence can you have that your creating your B.S. didn't stand in the way of my meeting a one whom I might have "meet"?  Why would you want to affect that dynamic?  Why would you Care to risk it?

 

What do you mean by which "region" I am from?  What do you think that will tell you about "the general origin of [my] writing style"?  Do you mean: what other authors/speakers I particularly Value?  Either way, I might just suggest that Howison has something to say about self-creativity  ;-)  at p.47:

 

"Thus creatively to think and be a world is what it means to be a man."

 

I am "from" such "region" that fulfills for me _that_ "and be a world".

 

 ~T

[mymistake]

I wonder why you would choose to express such a thing, rather than leave it unexpressed?  The lyric(s) of a song come)s( to mind, "Do-do-do your dirty words ' come out to play when you are heard.  Certain things should be left unsaid."-La Roux, "bulletproof".  You say "My comment doesn't stop you from meeting people.", which is fair-enough: but it might very well put "a stumbling block" between me and *_A_* someone.

 

I don't think so.  I think that would be on you.

 

That is, even if I meet a one who Values "my" Howison; or even if I meet many; what confidence can you have that your creating your B.S. didn't stand in the way of my meeting a one whom I might have "meet"?  Why would you want to affect that dynamic?  Why would you Care to risk it?

 

I'm sorry.  I was under the impression that I was someone.  I didn't mean to mess up your plan.

 

What do you mean by which "region" I am from?  What do you think that will tell you about "the general origin of [my] writing style"?  Do you mean: what other authors/speakers I particularly Value?  Either way, I might just suggest that Howison has something to say about self-creativity  ;-)  at p.47:

 

"Thus creatively to think and be a world is what it means to be a man."

 

I am "from" such "region" that fulfills for me _that_ "and be a world".

 

 ~T

 

 

Did I spell it wrong?  You must bear with me for don't have the memory to keep track of the exact number of consonants in over a million words.  By region I mean "what part of Earth are you from?".  I'm from the West Coast of the United States.  I was driving at "what is your accent?".

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

mymistake,

 

I wonder why you would choose to express such a thing, rather than leave it unexpressed?  The lyric(s) of a song come)s( to mind, "Do-do-do your dirty words ' come out to play when you are heard.  Certain things should be left unsaid."-La Roux, "bulletproof".  You say "My comment doesn't stop you from meeting people.", which is fair-enough: but it might very well put "a stumbling block" between me and *_A_* someone.

 

I don't think so.  I think that would be on you.

 

well, clearly you've not getton my drift that we are (all) in this together, interconnected, and that your behavior is repercussive.  That is, relationshipping is not something you can pin "[just] on [me {alone}]".  But I get that you imagine your "interference" petty, and I imagine that is probably fair-enough.  Still I might prod you to say a little more on your comparison.  I'm not sure that I saw the whole movie through, nor that I read the book, but my understanding is that the character you refer to was greedy for solitary possession of "his precious".  When I come out overtly and explicitly trying to _share_ mine, I wonder how you settled at such a comparison?

 

 

That is, even if I meet a one who Values "my" Howison; or even if I meet many; what confidence can you have that your creating your B.S. didn't stand in the way of my meeting a one whom I might have "meet"?  Why would you want to affect that dynamic?  Why would you Care to risk it?

 

I'm sorry.  I was under the impression that I was someone.  I didn't mean to mess up your plan.

 

I'm glad to hear that you at least have the impression that you are a someone.  I certainly didn't mean any +damage+ to *_that_*.  But I was distinctly under the impression that you had little interest in "meeting" me.  And, further, that you intended to suggest that a one who would would be quite a fool.  Perhaps you will offer some further explanation as to how that interpretation got you wrong?

 

 

What do you mean by which "region" I am from?  What do you think that will tell you about "the general origin of [my] writing style"?  Do you mean: what other authors/speakers I particularly Value?  Either way, I might just suggest that Howison has something to say about self-creativity  ;-)  at p.47:

 

"Thus creatively to think and be a world is what it means to be a man."

 

I am "from" such "region" that fulfills for me _that_ "and be a world".

 

 ~T

 

 

Did I spell it wrong?

 

If I am being quite precise of my language, I do make a distinction between (the verbs) "spell" and "script".  In this light I suggest that "region" is a scripting I've encountered before, but also that I'm far from ready to interpret the "spell" you concomitantly cast with your "script".  Thus I was seeking further elucidation.

 

  You must bear with me for don't have the memory to keep track of the exact number of consonants in over a million words.  By region I mean "what part of Earth are you from?".

 

again, your scripting (predominantly qua "Earth") leaves me wanting for an understanding of the intentions of your spelling.  Though I might submit to casual profanity with you, I'll ask you to bear with me at least this one more back(-and-forth?).

 

  I'm from the West Coast of the United States.  I was driving at "what is your accent?".

 

hehe, I can say that I like to call my language germanizedamericaparisianizedballercursive  ;-)

 

 ~T

[mymistake]

well, clearly you've not getton my drift that we are (all) in this together, interconnected, and that your behavior is repercussive.

 

Well, you joined here.  How is that for repercussive?

 

That is, relationshipping is not something you can pin "[just] on [me {alone}]".  But I get that you imagine your "interference" petty, and I imagine that is probably fair-enough.  Still I might prod you to say a little more on your comparison.  I'm not sure that I saw the whole movie through, nor that I read the book, but my understanding is that the character you refer to was greedy for solitary possession of "his precious".  When I come out overtly and explicitly trying to _share_ mine, I wonder how you settled at such a comparison?

 

That would be the writing style.  Your opening post revolves around yourself and something you call "it".  What kind of response were you expecting?

 

And, further, that you intended to suggest that a one who would would be quite a fool.  Perhaps you will offer some further explanation as to how that interpretation got you wrong?

 

Certainly that was not my suggestion.  I have no idea why you would presume that.  I did not realize that J.R.R. Tolken is considered an insult in some circles.

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

 

 

That would be the writing style.  Your opening post revolves around yourself and something you call "it".  What kind of response were you expecting?

 

to make it as clear as I can find to do: the "it" I referred to in my opening post was the book authored by George Holmes Howison, entitled "the limits of evolution, and other essays, illustrating the metaphysical theory of personal idealism".  I invite you to read "my" "it".

[CDFree]

Can someone point me to the discussions in English, ta.

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

CDFree, reader,

 

Can someone point me to the discussions in English, ta.

 

perhaps the words of a metaphysician... perhaps you'd rather start with a physicist?  I can suggest the physicist Evan Harris Walker, his book "the physics of consciousness: the quantum mind and the meaning of life."

 

And, if you should need more "grit" to help you make your "bridge", there is also the physicist Henry P. Stapp, "mindful universe: quantum mechanics and the participatory observer"

 

 ~T

[Galien]

Just something in plain english that doesn't hurt my brain would be good

[Guest GcodeTramplee]

Galien,

 

Just something in plain english that doesn't hurt my brain would be good

 

 

"come harder; this won't be easy."-Beyonce`, "Upgrade U"  ;-)