Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register

Thread: psychobabbling

  1. #591
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey swede! My thoughts are that 'choice' is an option that we only have as far as the 'chips' that are presently turned on. I do not believe that we are capable of simply choosing to open that which is presently closed to us. I believe that many, if not all of us have the ability to reach some level of the 'enlightenment' presently experienced by the very few, but haven't chosen to do so for whatever outside stimulous. Again, this is NOT to say that we can simply "will" ourselves to the next level. We need to catch up to the level currently available.

    As for doomday via nukes, very doubtful at this stage. Only the US and Russian are capable of wiping out mankind, and there are too many checks and balances in place to let that happen. Sure, China is a bit of a wild card, but I also think they are seeking equality rather than world domination through extermination.

    India v Pakistan would be a global mess, but not a global killer. South Korea or a terror organization is the most likely to use nukes, but again, not enough to be a global killer. Generally, we could wipe out all life on earth, but after October 1962, too much has been done to prevent it.

    As for the honey bees, yes, I'm very aware of the situation, thus my reference to the problems of symbiosis, stating insects in general and plant life relying on each other for survival. This to me, is a far more catastrophic problem than nukes.

    You guys must have different clover than we have in the US.

  2. #592
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Cit PeopleS:

    "The answer is chaos!!!"
    Happy to be of service, and this is the point, where theological and scientic cosmogonies agree, and together form a sensible and understandable theory. It actually answers a few more question, than you have taken up here.
    The periodic cycles of the universe (contracting and expanding), may and may not be the correct answer. It's one competing theory amongst others, and answers to this depends on various unknown factors, as f.ex. the symmetry/asymmetry of original energies/principles in the starting singularity. Gravity is mentioned as a possible candidate for asymmetry.
    I did understand your equation of 2/3 +2/3 etc, and I gave you, what I believed was an equally uncomplicated answer. Sorry if I failed in this, but never mind. I'm not out to start my own sect, so unsolved disputes doesn't topple my world.
    Cit:

    " Sensory excitement can go a long way."
    It's sometimes described as alchemical psychological transmutation. It can create a perception-shift.

    You certainly seemed to get worked up, while considering the technical aspects of mts. My own experience shows me, that anything getting you heated up sexually, only helps the final aim. That's one of my reasons not to ascribe completely to the sometimes more ritualistic, traditional forms of tantra. It has become institutionalised.


  3. #593
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey swede! Something I forgot to mention in the expasion/ contraction theory, which can actually help it fit into religious lines... It has a beginning and an end. Alpha and Omega! It just happens to begin again and continue the same process while expanding just a bit more each time, which could make the scientist content?

    I AM NOW TRULY ENLIGHTENED AND KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE UNIVERSE!!!!!

    To quote swede:

    "I did understand your equation of 2/3 +2/3 etc, and I gave you, what I believed was an equally uncomplicated answer. Sorry if I failed in this, but never mind. I'm not out to start my own sect, so unsolved disputes doesn't topple my world."

    I'll have to reread your previous posts to try to better understand what you meant. Sorry if I missed it.

    To quote swede:

    "You certainly seemed to get worked up, while considering the technical aspects of mts."

    Hey, with three Olgas scurring about all day, dressed as Olgas do, what do you expect from me? Actually, it's of my opinion that such sensory intimacy shouldn't be an everyday thing. Like anything it would become familiar and commonplace. A good ole fashioned boning can be a good uses of that extremely localized high blood pressure condition too.[:0][)][8D]

  4. #594
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    It is hereby certified that:

    Brother 'Sometimes Lubricated PeopleSmoks'

    is now an initiate of Theoretical Non-transcendent Cosmic Consciousness

    entitling him to function as a Tantric.


    Father Superiour 'Past-Last-Sales-Date'

    The Order of Approximative Truths

  5. #595
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    347

    Default

    quote:Originally posted by swede
    [br]It is hereby certified that:

    Brother 'Sometimes Lubricated PeopleSmoks'

    is now an initiate of Theoretical Non-transcendent Cosmic Consciousness

    entitling him to function as a Tantric.


    Father Superiour 'Past-Last-Sales-Date'

    The Order of Approximative Truths
    I bought mine on Craigslist months ago Swede, but good try. LOL.

  6. #596
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Prometheus,

    I'm not so high in the hierachy of the brotherhood, but it's my impression, that Craigslist is just a front for the Order of Approximative Truths.

    Being religious and all, you probably didn't need a period as an acolyte, so you could get your certificate immediately.

    The Order of Approximate Truths is approximately everywhere and have ways to find out approximately everything. They would with approximately certainty have a dossier on you.

  7. #597
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey guys! "Approximate Truth". Isn't that all that exisits when dealing in theory of any kind? Whether scientific or religious, all that anyone can do is try to come up with an answer to fill in the hole. Sometimes, the hole doesn't quite get completely filled in, but the answer was "approximately" able to fill the hole... Also know as, "It's close enough until someone else can do better theorization".

    swede, thanks for the certification. I've often been told that I am certifiable! Usually by a judge!!![:0][)][8D]

    A brief side note. Not sure if you've noticed the presence of ham2, but it IS our old comrade in babbling returned from the netherworld in a slightly new incarnation. Not sure why he hasn't rejoined our little semi-cerebral fray though?

    As to my theory of "Infinite limitation", now all I need to do is find a mathematical formula to present to Stephen Hawking! Actually, I'm waiting to see my theory claimed by some other theoretic science hack on a Science Channel special. Well, gotta go. I have a thirty pack of liquid brain (beer) and a calculator waiting for me!

  8. #598
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hi PeopleS,

    it's all that and more.

    As human beings evolve into greater social and information complexity, we rely more and more on models based on assumptions, from where we evaluate what's up and down in existence and how to relate to it. E.g. religion, 'scientism', political/economical ideology, social co-census etc.

    These models can be useful, if they are used with the reservation, that all of them after all are based on assumptions, and therefore contains elements of some uncertainty. Some assumptions are supported by control systems (experimentation, pragmatism etc), others are exclusively based on faith or personal inclination.

    But NONE of our present assumption-based models of existence are so well supported, that they have any real claim to 'ultimate' truth or reality (and that reservation also includes the METHODOLOGY implied by various models).

    Ofcourse this doesn't prevent the sheepwalking individual to defend his personal favourite model as THE truth, or for the power- and moneygrabbers to manipulate humanity through fanatic belief in one model or another. Hence (often unnecessary) religious, ideological, territorial or economical conflicts, enthusiastically accepted by the sheepwalking cannon-fodder.

    'Approximative truth(s)' acknowledges the limitations of assumption-based models, and try to find 'mega'-answers. (This is possibly through creating new epistemological methods).

    At the individual level this means new, and most likely better, ways for individual truth-seeking. Socially it means more tolerance (you can never be completely sure, that the model you fight for IS 100% correct. This takes some of the fun out of the fighting).

    I must add, that it probably means, that we never arrive at ultimate truth (at least not as we are now), but we can get closer and closer to it. And that my above suggestions in NO way indicates a wimpy attitude, where everything is equally wrong or equally right, "So what the 'beeb'......nothing matters". There will still be values.

    These thoughts are inspired by the american genius R.A. Wilson.

  9. #599
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey swede!

    To quote swede:

    "I must add, that it probably means, that we never arrive at ultimate truth (at least not as we are now), but we can get closer and closer to it."

    Once again, "...as we are now..." This touches on my thoughts of human evolution pertaining to the parts of the brain in which our full potential hasn't yet been realized. Thus, the reason I see it as a necessity that someday it must occur. Please understand that this belief comes in part from a scientic point of view as well as my person spiritual beliefs.

    Science has always measure physical evolution and assumed that any mental advancement of man is because of developing brain SIZE and aquired knowledge. By this standard, mankind is all it can ever be without our heads growing! My thinking is as previously stated regarding unused parts of the brain coming into use over time, without a need for larger skulls.

    To give the religious ultra rightwing bible thumpers some mediocre sense of satisfaction and self rightousness, as well as my own beliefs along those lines, this train of thought also allows for the biblical passages stating, "God created man in his own image".

    Scientifically, it's very correct to say that there must be some level of assumptions made, since as you say, and I agree, it's really impossible to prove a lot of what any of us may theorize at this stage of human knowledge and/ or evolutionary development.

    Look at cosmology as a prime example. Many assumptions are made regarding things like 'curved space', dark matter etc, as a way to fill the gaps in other provable facts, in order to create a theory about space, time and light.

    What sometimes twists my shorts is that science and religion always criticize each other for doing the same things... What is an unproven scientific theory but a belief? And religious beliefs are nothing more than theory based on little proven and widely disputed, sometimes exaggerated facts? For all my spiritual beliefs, it's hard for me to buy into Noah having lived for 600 years???

    And to further compare science to religion, I again look at myself. I needed your thoughts pertaining to chaos to help make my theory of "Infinite limitation" work. Thanks swede! Although, I am thinking of changing it to "Limited Infinitum". I think that actually describes my thoughts better? And as I said, this theory even allows for an "end of days" scenario to appease the bible belt!

    I need a slide rule and an abacus!!! Also, access to the NASA computer would be nice.

    One more item I wish to touch on is what you said about the methodology behind all the various theories about whatever... You're absolutely right. It can be said that to the extreme, a theory can spawn a new belief system, but I prefer to see it as merely opening a new possibility, and something to ponder.

  10. #600
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Most commonly, we structure our lives and the universe around us, by starting from a point we know. A belief-system, tunnel-reality or assumption-based model (different names, same meaning). From there we consider the many manifest phenomena in existence and try to find a common pattern in all the observations.

    From one point, we observe the many aspects of existence. This method is functional, when we relate to 'local', specific situations. When repairing a car, learning the intricacies of traffic-regulations or driving or book-keeping, a 'narrow' outlook is sufficient. While sometimes containing a certain amount of complexity and need of skill, these activities are verifiable in an easy way, the inner logic is simple. The results are predictable (with the necessary skill).

    An alternative method for structuring existence is:

    From many points (belief-systems etc) we observe one aspect of existence. In normal language this means, that we look at one specific phenomena from as many angles as possible. E.g. specific questions on cosmos, in theoretical physics, in religion. To each question, we will get somewhat different 'answers' from the different belief-systems we used as observation-points. We then try to find some common pattern between these different answers.

    Practically this can be done by asking a competent priest (or equalent religious person), scientist, psychologist, linguist, historian, philosopher, idealist etc etc the same question, and then compare the answers.

    This method is useful, when considering abstract, complex or hard-conceptualised phenomena. Like quantum physics, the nature of human perception, cosmogony etc. Tentative conclusions can be reached by starting with finding the above mentioned common pattern between the 'answers', and this tentative conclusions can then be turned into workable theories for testing of different types.

    Sounds complicated? Summary: a/Through one 'window' we look at many things. b/Through many 'windows' we look at one thing.

    These two methods are excellent for supplementing each other, and personally I have often found problems solved in quantum physics, by approaching the problem from the transcendental mystic's angle. Or found theological problems solved by using scientific cosmogonies or cosmologies. On occasion social sciences can be of help. The communication-systems used by various belief-systems can differ, and perceptual or conceptual definitions vary, so social sciences (psychology, semantic linguistics, history, knowledge of ideology) can help by 'translating' to a 'common language' (or common symbols) for all. A 'dictionary' from science to mysticism to religion.

    After a period with many and far-out digressions from 'scamming', I can now return to this subject. First by mentioning, that we over the history of this thread have used both methods mentioned above.

    Sometimes we have looked through one window, our individual experiences and individual outlook on scamming.

    More often we have used the many-angled approach, by observing scamming from a psychological, biological, social, political, economical, existential and even humouristic angle.

    Maybe this has been a long journey for many readers, sometimes appearing errant, but personally I feel, that signs of a pattern slowly is beginning to emerge.

    This isn't finished yet, at least not for me.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com