Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,talk.religion.newage
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!cs.uoregon.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!fastrac.llnl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uop!pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!slfink
From: slfink@netcom.com (Steven Finkelman)
Subject: Re: Time is a human concept (was Re: Reality as a Hologram (Was Re: Discriminative Wisdom))
Message-ID: <slfinkCxAJqL.J4v@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,talk.religion.newage
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <367dn4$ls@euskadi.idbsu.edu> <Harmon.150.00083A48@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu> <369cvm$p3h@news1.hh.ab.com> <1994Sep29.100819.14118@unix.brighton.ac.uk> <Harmon.187.000D454F@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu> <36p8va$9h3@post-office.nevada.edu> <Harmon.408.000 <Harmon.659.0009DDE7@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 07:06:21 GMT
Lines: 82

In reference to the following thread, I offer a story to really muddy the
waters.

This is a story about two monks on a bridge overlooking a pond. In the pond
are some fish.  One monk says,"I wish I were a fish, fish are so peaceful
and serene" the second monk says to the first monk, "how do you know what
is is like to be a fish, you are not a fish, you don;t know how fish think."
The first monk says, "you do not know that I don't know how fish think, You
are not me and you do not know what I know."  


Michael G. Harmon (Harmon@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <36t8s7$mvn@panix3.panix.com> stimpson@panix.com (S. Joel Katz) writes:
: >From: stimpson@panix.com (S. Joel Katz)
: >Subject: Re: Time is a human concept (was Re: Reality as a Hologram (Was Re: Discriminative Wisdom))
: >Date: 5 Oct 1994 00:08:39 -0400


: >>I contend that there are realms that lie outside the scope of rational 
: >>thought.  Areas that will NEVER be rationally understood no matter how evolved 
: >>the thought process.  Where cause and effect are not involved.  Where 
: >>time and space are immaterial.  

: >>     Since there is so much that is rational that we cannot yet fathom we have 
: >>no method by which to determine what may lie outside of the realm of reason.  
: >>Thus, you have no way of refuting my argument and must at least say that it is 
: >>possible that there are realms in our world that lie outside of reason, just 
: >>like I say that it may be possible that I am in error when I say there are 
: >>a-rational aspects of reality.

: >>    Such admissions in no way change our respective beliefs, but they 
: >>encourage critical thinking about the nature of our view of the world.  No 
: >>matter how much we know, we have to know that our views are, in some major 
: >>way, flawed. It has always been so and will always be so, while we are alive.

: >>    -Mike  

: >        Mike:

: >        You make a very fundamental argument and defend it in a very 
: >pedestrian way. Your claim is that there are areas that will _always_ be 
: >beyond rational analysis. Your defense is that there are more areas 
: >beyond rational analysis _now_ than can probably be cleared up in our 
: >life time. This is a serious non-sequiter.

: >        By what method do you know of these areas that are beyond 
: >rational inquiry? I mean, you must know something about them (at least 
: >potentially) to know that they even exist. How?

: >S. Joel Katz            Information on Objectivism, Linux, 8031s, and more

: I am not posting to argue.  Really.  ( heh heh. heh heh heh.)  My defense that 
: there will allways be things beyond the present state of scientific analysis 
: is not to prove that there are things that will always be beyond it.  It is to 
: indicate that you 'science is everything' types won't ever KNOW for sure 
: that there is  not be something that lies beyond the realm of scientific 
: reasoning.  
:         It is only through subjective experiences that I have come to the 
: notion that dreams are real and that our waking world is a very hard and 
: specific dream of our own collective creation and that your perceptions can 
: travel anywhere you want them to and that we are all of one massive single 
: etherial unit in our souls, etc, etc.  
:        I don't try to prove anything.  I post my feelings on these 
: subjective phenomenon and people try to refute my experiences chiding me that 
: there is no pratical application for my notions and that I have failed to 
: prove my thesis.  I then argue (enthusiastically, I must admit) that they 
: cannot disprove, scientifically, a damned thing with respect to the subject of 
: these newsgroups and are poopy heads to try.  
:         It is in the very nature of these groups to eschew the hard points of 
: science and logic and search for what is behind the puppet show of our lives.  
: God? Spirit?  Dreams?  Reality?  Consciousness?  Very intangible subjects.  
: But subjects of great moment for those with sufficient personal power to 
: attempt to shed all preconceptions and face the inexplicable with and open 
: mind and bullshit detectors on high gain.

:      -Mike


-- 
Steven Finkelman
DATA/Massage                                             
slfink@netcom.com
