Subj : Re: Back again To : Richard M. Meic From : John Wilson Date : Fri Jul 13 2001 08:17 pm -=> RICHARD M. MEIC wrote to JOHN WILSON <=- -> -> ...but the point here is we must agree upon definitions else -> -> communication is mere static... -> -> RMM> I do not mean self in any metaphysical sense. My self is my -> RMM> biological being (which includes my thoughts, feeling etc). -> -> That Is pretty metaphysical. And VERY vague. Especially when roles are -> assigned to 'em :-) RMM> Perhaps it seems vague to you because you attribute too much to RMM> the concept of self... as do psychologists. I am not a psychologist, but I am a student of psychology. `attribute too much' ? Do you mean attribute to much importance to self? And here we run into another difficulty: You use the word as if you mean something by it. But it is utter nonsense to refer to the broad range of scientific disciplines the efforts of distinguished sciences, working in various manner and modes to discover what can be known of the human mind...and you lofitly refer to these ALL with the word `psychologists' and with a wave consider them all as a huge group to act in this `Attributing too much'. It is nonsensical to so speak. It is at this point that I weary of the topic. And, to be a bit unkind, I have the feeling that you attempt to teach what you have not really learned. Not rare, I've found, but basicly uninteresting. Frank has things to teach...even if I have to shake it out of him! :-) (And slow him down; he wants to teach me seven things at once :-) RMM> My self is simply my physical being. Do not read more than that RMM> in it, or you will miss the point. I say: read a LOT more into that or you will miss more than whatever you think the point is, you will miss a good deal of what life is really about. Your self has constituent elements! They can be recognized, understood, controled. Your self is so much more than a one dimensioal physical entity --- holy cow! So MUCH more: Widen your horizons: use that imagination of yours! To enjoy life more! To control and thus enjoy your emotions when thou doth pursue thine truth! ===================================================================== Or not. It really dosn't matter. Just a friendly post from your friendly neighborhood septuagenarian :-) -------------------------- -> I have come to realize that the words "I", self, ego, and those RMM> consonant -> are vastly misunderstod, following misdirections by psychaitry, -> assumptions, lack of directed inquiry, and in a cosmic sense -> being unawake. RMM> "Being unawake"? What does it mean to be unawake? The level of wakefulness is greater that just waking up in the morning, sleeping at night. Actually we `awake' to a different *form* of wakefull ness: there are higher forms: this is clearly taught by: Buddhists Taoists Tantra Hatha-yoga Karma-yoga Backti-yoga...et cetera. And many more. -> -> awe is the result of -> -> RMM> beauty/ugliness percieved by the individual. -> -> That bounces the inquiry one step back but dosn't come close to the -> source of the inquiry. RMM> How can it do so? The statement is direct and to the point. `Perceived by the individual'. If we are going to search for truth we must try to find the *exactibg* truth. How is perception judged beautiful and by what *part* of the individual. Do you understand my point? We *must* have agreed upon starting off points if we are ever to get anywhere at all. I'm not trying to be picky; I'm trying to explain why being picky is *essential* :-) -> *Innate* perception? RMM> perception: that which has been brought to the attention of, and RMM> is understood a certain way by the individual. In my quick semantic gaze, I see a gauze through which a fogged mirrer reflects a distant star on a rainy night! Holy cow! Maybe we should call it quits. I am easily misunderstood, and I don't understand you at all. -> ...My experience differs, evidently -> mightily from yours :-) RMM> This is obvious. :o) RMM> Bacon's essay is lost to me. I would prefer to read YOUR words RMM> on the matter. If I wanted Bacon's words I would look up RMM> Bacon... but I am talking to you now, so it is YOUR words that I RMM> am interested in. Well thank you for the compliment. (Look back on this moment sometime later in your life when you have read that short classic of thought and expression...and realize with a smile the comparasion :-) The thought that one would for a moment consider MY ideas :-) RMM> ...The point is that we have more time on our RMM> hands... that time is spend being curious. At last! Agreement! :-) (At least partial) There is a LOT of time spent in drunkeness argumentativeness, war and other Bad Things...but one the whole I accept (gladly!) you point here. -> In your view, how objective is *your* `truth'? RMM> Very objective, because it has been arrived at logically. :-) Ohhhhh kaaaaayeeee....... ------------------------------------------------------------------- RMM> You have loaded the question. My claim was not that I/we know RMM> more of what reality is, but that I/we undertand better how RMM> reality works. ok. I accept there is a difference, and confess, I have now idea what is meant by "hoe reality works" What do you mean "Works"? The ontological agrument: what is being, is hardly answered by `knowing how reality works', unless of course you have a highly unique personal explaination of what you mean by the working of being. I await with anticipation hoping that you indeed have a clear picture of what you are talking about. RMM> Acquinas had no idea that: RMM> - Atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons and that RMM> these subatomic particles are made up of small packets of energy RMM> called quanta. Holy cow! I spend the better part of a _year_ reading no other non-fiction than the Summa Theologica. I will not stoop to defend that mind and his comprehension of reality. Do YOU know the math involved with M-theory? Type 1, Hetrotic, (so 32), Type II, strings. Not the theory, but the MATH? You think you are closer to reality by taking into account speculations of modern cosmology? Fine. RMM> Need I go on? There is no arrogance involved here. It is a RMM> simple fact that we humans today understand more about reality RMM> than the humans a century or more ago. Not a whit more than Plato did. There is a vast difference between how things work and what things are. And there's plenty for all of us to learn...:-) .... "If we offend, it is with our goodwill." -- Shakespeare ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715) .