Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Galien, Just something in plain english that doesn't hurt my brain would be good to be sure, I've "been on my grind" for a while now. I get that it takes time and effort to digest this kinda stuff. Baby steps... not only will "they do", but I can't imagine there's any other way. I've already developed what I consider to be a high degree of fine balance. I hope you won't begrudge me too much if I hold myself to my own standards; such that not only will I not have letter to beg forgiveness in order to correct myself, but so that I don't casually mislead anyone in the process. If you find a morsel worth some time and effort, take it as it comes; give the rest the space and time you need; hopefully the archive ain't goin' nowher'. cool? ~W~, T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annier Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I'm afraid I'm with Galien. I believe that what you are trying to say is worth saying, and fascinating stuff, but I find that to understand it I first need to translate your 'language' , making comprehension much more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Annier, I'm afraid I'm with Galien. I believe that what you are trying to say is worth saying, and fascinating stuff, but I find that to understand it I first need to translate your 'language' , making comprehension much more difficult. I'm grateful for the complementary part. But to the extent that I am, merely, "trying to say", what more can anyone actually say? (That question is not merely a rhetorical one.) Simple things might be denounced simply. But to speak of Real in the complexity which is, requires a capacity to speak complexly. In this, then, I would encourage you, even as you "translate" ("interpret" I might suggest as a more apt), to try to focus yourself on learning to be literate in "my" language. If the "mystery" were simple, and simple to express, don't you think it would have been wide-spread by now? That you'd have understood it already? again, though, Beyonce`, "Don't doubt yourself." Here's the link I might have provided earlier: "baby steps", ~T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I cannot stand Beyonce, and things don't need to be complicated to be of value 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 GCode: In One Paragraph Please. What is it and why do you think we need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annier Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Gcome Tramplee. It is you that has come here to 'share' your 'fulfillment' with us. I do not see that it is then up to us to 'interpret' your 'style'. That's just common courtesy. Ever heard of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It's like a hall of mirrors. The mental image I get (being visual) is of consciousness and the universe infinitely reflected in each other. Then again, maybe that's just me. However, and I brought this up in another thread... communication is the obstacle between us. eg: The current backlash against say, science, is all about being able to take complicated concepts and communicating them to others, or failing to do so. Through concise and succinct language, metaphor, allegory, or some other literary construct concepts should be able to be made clear to others, or they really have no value. It's like Charlie Brown's teacher, otherwise. Florduh is a master of re-framing concisely, for example. So, please dumb it down for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 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 Yeah well I can certainly understand a physics text easier than I'm understanding you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denyoz Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 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 share because I find myself ~fulfilled~. here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Best, ~T Hey GcodeTramplee, Welcome on board! Very interesting stuff, thank you. I enjoy hearing what fulfills people, so thanks for sharing with us (me) the link to: 'The limits of evolution'. For one, I like the title. Evolution does have its limits. So, so far I agree Language also have its limits. I like the way you write, because it drags me deeper than the limits of language. I feel I can almost touch Reality as I read you. A pleasant experience for my soul. Awesome! The Lion's Den is a dangerous place, I don't usually come here, but I was attracted by the title of your post. I'm glad I came. But now I'm getting the fuck out. Bye! Good luck, man 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I cannot stand Beyonce, and things don't need to be complicated to be of value Mu'F'n YIKES! I mean, I've heard people say they prefer the mountains to the beach, but... And some guys prefer brunettes to blondes, but... How 'bout Dar Williams, "as cool as I am": To be sure, my presentation of the nature of (thee) complex is as uncomplicated as I've found - after much practice - to be able to present. That is, there is a significant difference between the meaning of (fundamental) complexity and needless complication. Something like a Rube Goldberg contraption would be an example of (arguably needless) complication. Again, I could stop my presentation with the mere utterance "I~am", but to repeat merely *_that_*, endlessly, I fear would meet less success than attempting to put it's complex nature into more words for you. Perhaps one day a genius mathematician will be able to formalize "things" more... formally: should I take it you are on the verge of offering us your work in that? at a loss wondering how you prioritize your values to "cannot stand...", ~T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 GCode: In One Paragraph Please. What is it and why do you think we need it? call it success at metaphysics. And call it something of a degree of spiritual maturity. Ultimately you "need" it because it is precisely that which is the "final cause" which you, - and everyone, individually, - can't forever evade. In the meantime though, I impose myself upon you to work for it because I am just so darned selfish; I want a better world (plural society of I~am) as my context; and the fact that contemporary humanity is not up to my standards feels like an imposition upon me I'd rather "fight" to remedy, than take passively - few genuine openings to do so though I find. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Gcome Tramplee. It is you that has come here to 'share' your 'fulfillment' with us. I do not see that it is then up to us to 'interpret' your 'style'. That's just common courtesy. Ever heard of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. I came here merely to suggest the book I most recommend. If you won't read it... I mean, do you want me to cut and paste the whole darned thing into one of these posts? Will you not read it unless I do that? If you don't like my "compressions", and you don't like the prospect of reading the full version written by Howison, what really is it you think you are asking me to do? Present something totally different? relationshipping is more than a mere one way street. I present what I have to present as best as I know to present it. I can't recall yet getting a question about any particular, though a few about something of a more general sense. Howison's book is some 4-500 pages; if you have a look at it and want me to focus on something in particular, perhaps my sharing will feel more to you what you are looking for. Until then, read the book, read the book, read the book, read the book, read the book, read the book. But here's another try. There is but one "thing" answering to the call Real. That is the living i'dea: I~am. It is inherently complex: for example, self-existent, self-creative, self-bounding. It is also inherently pluralistic, meaning that while each I~am is indeed individual, we are all inextricable involved in an entangled repercussively relational dynamic ... orgiastic (Mind/spirit\phenomenally-representational) clusterfck. besides "Keep it simple, stupid", I've also heard, "It's the economy, stupid", and, "It's the pressure, stupid." Will you explain either "the economy" or "pressure" to me simply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It's like a hall of mirrors. The mental image I get (being visual) is of consciousness and the universe infinitely reflected in each other. Then again, maybe that's just me. ahhhhh.... but this term "the universe", afterall, requires some further investigation. (as will "consciousness") Howison, as I recall, calls the phenomenal and the noumenal aspects the "obverse and reverse", two sides of one coin. The arguments he presents leads to the thorough conclusion that there is nothing "other" fundamentally underlying any such "material universe". Phenomena are a (quite necessary but) derivative representation of what is ultimately created as Real by the only fundamentally self-existents answering the call of Real, "superphenomenal" I~am. Being acquainted with your antipathy toward the teaching of Jesus, I still offer "the natural man" is the one bewitched into a faith/e that "the flesh" that is phenomena is all there is. Nothing behind the veil. somehow the vast array of phenomena is responsible for itself, in itself. (Which leads to the logic that Mind itself is the derivative; but that position falls under the weight it's own dialectical presumption, if followed through thoroughly. That is, the faith/e that is purely phenomenal, - of whatever sort Howison or I have found to investigate, - falls each time into materialism, whether through the front door or through a "back" door, and such philosophic materialism, in fact, turns out to be always of the "promisory" variety. Take about a Pascalian wager! ;-) Nod to the infinite of self-potential.) However, and I brought this up in another thread... communication is the obstacle between us. eg: The current backlash against say, science, is all about being able to take complicated concepts and communicating them to others, or failing to do so. In fact, there is good fundamental reason why communication proves to be an obstacle. Each I~am is, individually, not only of the infinite noumenal potential, but at the same time self-bounded in temporally particulars. And, furthermore, these are all manifested not in some pure isolation, but in the _a priori_ complexity of the pluralistic relations. There need must be, decidedly, an ineffibility about each of us, even to our own self; and when that is taken to interrelations, ... I'm not sure so precisely what you are getting at with "the current backlash against [science]". It seems to me there is a backlash, sure, but it is far from monolithic. I've something of a background in science myself. And even much fondness for it. The cause of my backlash is that it seems that, not only is the value accorded science a misprioritization, but that so many scientists, and lay apologists thereof, so ardently peddle their promisory materialism. So many of them are as dogmatically "religious" about their faith/e as you'll find in christianity or islam, for example. But what's worse, their position has been thoroughly debunked by the best of philosophy for ... Well there's Jesus and Howison at least! Many "science" minded people discard i'deality, and even metaphysics in general, merely "out of hand": "give me something 'scientifically concrete' to go with your idea, or I ain't interested in even giving it consideration." (That's a real trap they layin' for themselves, I tell ya.) Through concise and succinct language, metaphor, allegory, or some other literary construct concepts should be able to be made clear to others, or they really have no value. It's like Charlie Brown's teacher, otherwise. I do see "clear" expressions all over the place. Only, it seems one has already to "be in the know" to get the message. For but one example, I see tons of it from the likes of Beyonce` and hubbie Jay-z, but that too was met with "I can't stand". For but one example, if I am claiming that there is but the one Real i'dea, what are we to make of the difference between the sexes? Any consideration of Jay playing the androgyne for us? Of the neat poesy of Bey saying early in the song " ran by the men but the women keep the tempo", - which, to be sure, I do find a very concise explanation of the nature of, respectively, the noumenal and the spiritual faculties, - and then, latter, "you already is a star, but, unless you flawless, your dynasty ain't complete without a CHIEF like me."? Again, I see them not only adhering to, but gloriously displaying deep wisdom. And not only do they do so in an eminently "digestible" way, but what beauteous flourish! But we don't see the leaders of the world, or gaggles of scientists, flocking to them for their deep wisdom, do we? Florduh is a master of re-framing concisely, for example. "Florduh"? Perhaps I'll look it up. A link would have been nice. So, please dumb it down for us. I'll give it a little more, but my hopes are not great. Seems like your asking me to fill up the gas tank for your car, but to do so teaspoon by teaspoon, 100 teaspoon limit. Seriously, it really is a logically offensive thing to suggest: I've spent years thinking toward my capacities here. I ain't offering myself like this on a crusade for some mere triviality. If you're unwilling to put in the work, it simply won't work. You have to get it for yourself. Or not. And if it's "not", then there just ain't any good way for it to play out. I mean, if there were a whole bunch of people elsewhere all eagerly workin towards it for themselves, it might be decent enough for you to leave yourself out. But my understanding of God is that $/he can be a real bitch if pressed to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CDFree, reader, Yeah well I can certainly understand a physics text easier than I'm understanding you!!! by all means then!!! (maybe just keep the name Howison, and perhaps even the title of his book, "the limits of evolution", somewhere safe in your memory there, for later. 's all I ask; if you ain't interested now. I ain't tryn'a rush anybody; this is just my speed. Perhaps you need to let things brew. Again, I've been brewing myself for years. And I still spend my time brewing all the more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Denyoz, 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 share because I find myself ~fulfilled~. here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Best, ~T Hey GcodeTramplee, Welcome on board! Very interesting stuff, thank you. I enjoy hearing what fulfills people, so thanks for sharing with us (me) the link to: 'The limits of evolution'. For one, I like the title. Evolution does have its limits. So, so far I agree Language also have its limits. I like the way you write, because it drags me deeper than the limits of language. I feel I can almost touch Reality as I read you. A pleasant experience for my soul. Awesome! The Lion's Den is a dangerous place, I don't usually come here, but I was attracted by the title of your post. I'm glad I came. But now I'm getting the fuck out. Bye! Good luck, man well hell yeah!!!!! perhaps a one will have valued my offering afterall! Thanks for the "welcome" and the warning about "the lion's den" ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CDFree, to be sure, a physicist might very well argue that the two books I offered by physicists weren't _per se_ physics texts. But they certainly do address physics, and in no wish-washy manner either, so... maybe they are best likened to platypuses. ~T CDFree, reader, Yeah well I can certainly understand a physics text easier than I'm understanding you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 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 Yeah. And get rid of the little ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ crawling all over the place. Looks like the OP is infected with maggots, or something else of a squirmy nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I studied philosophy at University. And I prefer Sartre to Kant. I also find Kant's grasp of language and communication just as infuriating and confusing as this guy. Gcode - ever thought of communicating your ideas like a study guide to Kant rather than like Kant's Critique itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CDFree, reader, Yeah well I can certainly understand a physics text easier than I'm understanding you!!! by all means then!!! (maybe just keep the name Howison, and perhaps even the title of his book, "the limits of evolution", somewhere safe in your memory there, for later. 's all I ask; if you ain't interested now. I ain't tryn'a rush anybody; this is just my speed. Perhaps you need to let things brew. Again, I've been brewing myself for years. And I still spend my time brewing all the more.) I think with regard to evolution I'll stick to biology text books, but thanks all the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CDFree, reader, Yeah well I can certainly understand a physics text easier than I'm understanding you!!! by all means then!!! (maybe just keep the name Howison, and perhaps even the title of his book, "the limits of evolution", somewhere safe in your memory there, for later. 's all I ask; if you ain't interested now. I ain't tryn'a rush anybody; this is just my speed. Perhaps you need to let things brew. Again, I've been brewing myself for years. And I still spend my time brewing all the more.) I think with regard to evolution I'll stick to biology text books, but thanks all the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CDFree, I think with regard to evolution I'll stick to biology text books, but thanks all the same! something of that ken is what Howison himself would suggest. That is, for the evolution part _per se_. It's those pesky "limits" to evolution that science isn't equipped to handle, and thus the dire need for a one like Howison to do so for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Hmm listen to your wisdom or that of my university lecturers, difficult choice!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Evolution_beyond, perhaps a (re?-)reading/closer-examination is in order? I'm suggesting a philosopher named George Holmes Howison. I know that in the passage I presented Howison gave a shout out to Kant, but that is out of his sense of respect and fairness: because on the main point, he trounces Kant. (I did mention, in a follow up post, ~"that neither I nor Howison 'erect' for Kant's 'arrested development'". Either way, I didn't come here to write. Or to argue. If someone want's to discuss Howison's presentation, perhaps I'll stick around. Perhaps I should have taken this tack, hard, from the go, rather than risk turning people off of Howison by trying to compress him into "100 words". I studied philosophy at University. And I prefer Sartre to Kant. I also find Kant's grasp of language and communication just as infuriating and confusing as this guy. Gcode - ever thought of communicating your ideas like a study guide to Kant rather than like Kant's Critique itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Hmm listen to your wisdom or that of my university lecturers, difficult choice!!! would that you weren't being totally sarcastic. Either way, Howison was the founder of the philosophy department of U.C.Berkeley, so have at it. And I'm sure the authors of the two books on "QM" should meet your standards as well. If you ain't appreciative for my being able to suggest these "needles in the haystack" to you though, \_|_/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Dualism and the subjective/objective ... ya I get it. Illusion.. maya ... we are all perceiving facets of the one reality - projections, if you will. Which, of course makes the individual personality invariable invalid - it is a means of perception only, a way to experience events in spacetime and dissolves into Brahman at source. what Jesus has to do with it though.... ? You should talk to Antlerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts