Conference hydra::dejavu

     re: .0

>    There have been enough documented cases of stigmata (including
>    photographs) so that it's hard to put all of them down to some sinister
>    plot.
    
    Where are these photographs?  This is news to me: that there is such
    a thing.   Yes, I'm a skeptic.   But you make it sound as though it's
    a generally accepted thing.  By who?   Where's the evidence for this?
    We just went through holy week; there ought to be some fresh evidence?

    Mardy

    RE:  .1
    
    I have seen photos, but it was a couple-three years back.  They
    reminded me of home snapshots reproduced in a third-rate backwater
    paper.  In other words, if they were fakes, they were crudely done,
    and they didn't use glamorous models.  (Now, with VAXimage, we ought
    to be able to .... ;^} )
    
    By the way, I'm a believer in stigmata, but it doesn't change my
    behavior much; I don't think I'd go to the next town to see someone
    who exhibited stigmata.
    
    DR

    re .3
    
    Given your almost mocking tone when talking about stigmata, your
    last paragraph really threw me.  
    
    What makes you believe?
    
    Curiously,
    Keith
    

    Re. .4 re .3
    
    I didn't mean to come over as mocking.  I was reflecting my reaction
    at the time; they were really crummy pictures.  I also like to joke
    a lot.  
    
    Basically I believe because I've participated in enough off-the-wall
    things to believe in the possibility of all sorts of things, including
    stigmata.  That's my primary reason:  I have a predilection to believe
    in the possibility of miraculous things, and some personal experience
    in minor miracles. I also believe that such effects, while interesting
    in themselves, are not something I should seek for their own sake. 
    
    In addition (this is really an afterthought) I occasionally feel a
    radiation from that portion of my palms, and to a much lesser extent on
    my feet, that corresponds to drawings of stigmata I've seen.  (It's not
    a fever, but a pleasant sensation that makes me want to bless people.
    Sorry to come over sappy, but that's how it is with me.) I don't claim
    anything like stigmata, but I can imagine that if (1) I'm not crazy,
    (2) there's some correlation between the feeling I get and genuine
    energy of some kind, and (3) this warmth were continuous and at a high
    intensity, such as one might find in a highly-spiritual person, it
    might cause sores that one could take for stigmata. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Donald Reinke

    re: .5

>                                          I have a predilection to believe
>    in the possibility of miraculous things, and some personal experience
>    in minor miracles. I also believe that such effects, while interesting
>    in themselves, are not something I should seek for their own sake. 
    
    I would love to agree with that.  I too have such a predilection.
    But, my problem is: I can't shake that feeling of self-deception.
    So, back to the photographs.   Steve. in 0., stated there were 
    photos, and now you're saying they are fake.  What's the story?
    Are there any authenticated photos, and if so are they available?
    Does anybody know?   Sorry to be such a skeptic, but if stigmata
    exists, well, is there "hard" evidence?

    Mardy

    re: .5
    
         You reminded me of a way of stimulating the so-called "hand
    chakras" that I once read about.  Put your arms out straight in
    front of you with one palm turned up and the other down.  Now open
    and close your hands twenty times.  Then turn the down palm up and
    the up palm down.  Open and close twenty times.  Now put your open
    your hands, turn them to face each other and hold them 4-6 inches
    apart.  Experiment with the distance between them until you can
    feel a ball of energy vibrating in the space between them.  I'm
    sure someone who knows more about the subtle body could give a more
    precise name than "hand chakras", but hey, I mean well.
    
    Guy
    
    

    Re:  .6
    
    I don't know what pictures Steve was referring to; they're probably
    different ones. 
    
    I didn't mean they _were_ fakes.  Just crummy pictures, of the kind I'd
    probably take in my living room.  Though I'm willing to believe that
    they might have been fakes, that doesn't shake my belief in the
    possibility of stigmata.  It's just that I also believe in the
    possibility of intentional and unintended deception.  My joke about
    VAXimage in .3 was only half in fun, I guess.  I mean prior to a couple
    of decades ago, you had to work at faking pictures, and an expert could
    detect most such tampering.  Nowadays, you can move the great pyramid,
    as National Geographic did on one of their covers, and one would have
    to travel to Gizah to figure out the truth. 
    
    As I've said before, believing is seeing.  According to Don Juan, every
    adult is a teacher of every child, showing them how to see in this
    world.  Anyway, I continue to maintain that external signs are not the
    essence one should be seeking. They are traps that ensnare anyone who
    thinks the external is where it's at -- both the gullible and the
    skeptics. 
    
    Regards,
    
    DR

    The point of this topic was not really meant to be the existence or
    lack thereof of the phenomenon of stigmata.  But here's my two cents
    worth.
    
    First off we are really speaking of two distinct phenomena.  The
    first is the spontaneous appearance of open, bleeding wounds often
    with odd characteristics, such as being surrounded by completely
    healthy appearing tissue.  This phenomenon is generally associated
    with Catholic mystics, usually showing other signs of hysterical
    (technical sense) behavior.  The wounds appear at the positions
    of the classical five wounds of Christ, or more accurately where the
    stigmaticist believes those positions to appear (there has been
    correlations noted with the positions on favored artwork of the
    stigmaticist).  The first known stigmaticist was St. Francis of Assisi.
    
    This phenomenon is quite rare but is a more or less permanant or
    repeating (generally periodic, e.g., every Easter) condition and so
    the wounds have been well studied.  There is definitely some very odd
    about the wounds and their changes of state.  Although they show a
    level of mental control far beyond what is normally considered possible
    from my limited knowledge of the evidence I am unconvinced that the
    wounds were not initially self-inflicted (very likely unconsciously)
    and that it is a degree of control over the state of healing of these
    pre-existing wounds which is being demonstrated -- sometimes
    spectacularly.
    
    The other kind of stigmata involves the oozing of blood through
    unbroken skin.  This also has occured spontaneously in Catholic
    mystics, but there is also at least one case (quite contemporary
    I might add) in a Protestant (a black Southern Baptist girl, I
    believe).  While less spectacular than unhealing yet healthy wounds
    which open up and bleed copiously at appropriate occasions, there
    seems no opportunity for any "fakery" (conscious or unconscious) at
    all if the phenomenon is observed under good conditions -- it cannot
    be explained by pre-existing self-inflicted wounds.  Whole skin just
    does not normally ooze blood.
    
    Furthermore this phenomenon has been reportedly produced reliably in
    some hypnotic subjects.
    
    I have no personal knowledge of this but I have witnessed (actually,
    induced) purely psychogenic locallized reddening, swelling and
    blistering; which is in some ways a similar phenomenon.  This is
    a not uncommon hypnotic "demonstration", and many hypnotic subjects
    seem capable of it.  Decreasing the amount of bleeding from wounds
    (e.g., in minor surgery) is also quite a common hypnotic capability.
    Production of blood seepage from unbroken skin is apparently fairly
    unusual.
    
    The book "Miracles: A Parascientific Inquiry into Wondrous Phenomena"
    by D. Scott Rogo, has a chapter on stigmata, with special emphasis
    on the more extreme form specifically in religious contexts, and on
    even odder, ostensibly paranormal phenomena associated with them
    (e.g., the blood from the wounds flowing up, or forming clear pictures
    when blotted into cloth).  There are some relatively poorly reproduced
    black-and-white photographs.
    
    "Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers" by John Fairhey and Simon
    Welfare, contains a number of quite well reproduced, color photographs
    of stigmata.  These look exactly how you might expect the genuine
    phenomenon to appear -- in other words, exactly the same as fakes:
    either self inflicted wounds or blood from another source poured
    around.  The photos are interesting as illustrations of the phenomenon
    but are useless as evidence -- evidence must rest in reports of careful
    examinations.
    
    I would say that there is little question that the appearance of
    psychogenic stigmata is a real phenomenon.
    
    					Topher

    Back to the original topic of faith vs. reason (perhaps stigmata
    belongs in a new basenote).

    A quote from Martin Luther, quoted in C. Beard _The Reformation of
    the 16th Century_, Williams and Norgate, London 1903, p. 163.

    "It is a quality of faith that it rings the neck of reason... But
    how?  It holds to God's Word: Let it be right and true, no matter
    how foolish and impossible it sounds.  So did Abraham take his
    reason captive and slay it, inasmuch as he believed God's Word,
    wherein was promised him that from his unfruitful and as it were
    dead wife, Sarah, God would give him seed... There is no doubt
    faith and reason mightily fell out in Abraham's heart about this
    matter, yet at last did faith get the better, and overcame and
    strangled reason, that all-cruelest and most fatal enemy of God. 
    So, too, do all other faithful men who enter with Abraham the
    gloom and hidden darkness of faith: they strangle reason... and
    thereby offer to God the all-acceptable last sacrifice and service
    that can ever be brought to Him."

    
			Keith

    "Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason
    to believe.  It is not enough that a thing be possible for it to
    be believed."
    -- Voltaire, _Questions sur l'Encyclopedie_


    An incentive (bribe?) to strangle reason:

    "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life."
    -- First book of Timothy 12


    Other incentives to have faith in something for the non-religious
    include the need to believe in *something* other than Man as an
    insignificant organism on a small spinning sphere in a remote
    corner of a remote galaxy in a vast, intimidating universe.  A
    reason for claiming mystical powers (and even truly believing you
    have such power) could include the need to be something more
    important, more significant than one truly is. 

    Keith

    re:  .11
    
    Martin seems to imply that reason has no place in a faithful person,
    that it's all or nothing, faith or reason. I disagree.  I say rather
    that the mind is junior to the spirit. It will build an environment
    that is consistent with what the spirit requires.  Because it is the
    builder, it is tempted to assume that it is God, wherein comes the
    warfare to which Martin alludes.   Mind as God is a taskmaster indeed.
    
    Regards,
    
    Donald Reinke
    

    Re .11 (Keith):
    
    >Back to the original topic of faith vs. reason (perhaps stigmata
    >belongs in a new basenote).
     
    The phenomenon as a phenomenon may.  The reason it was brought up
    belongs here, in my opinion.
    
    The stigmata phenomenon (the pictures I saw were in books some 20
    years ago; however Topher cited more recent books) is fairly well
    established, but the explanation -- the mechanism -- however it's
    produced -- is outside conventional explanation.  The near-blisters
    produced by hypnosis are another aspect of this.
    
    My comment: if we know these items "work"; i.e., can be objectively
    recorded, then they're evidence of one or more mechanisms beyond
    current medico/physiological knowledge.  Whether the stigmata are
    caused by some invisible and independent entity or through some
    significant but untapped power of mind, nothing currently known
    can explain the phenomenon in current terms (saying it's "mind induced"
    merely sidesteps the question, as the retort is, "how _can_ the
    mind induce such an action?").
    
    If we're open-minded enough to admit that we don't know everything
    (i.e., that there are things that _currently_ are outside our
    knowledge), then we can begin to make progress.  More than one person
    in this Conference has experienced phenomena that might best be
    called "paranormal."  Some of these have been shared in the
    Conference; some have been discussed via mail.  In some cases, people
    might be fooling themselves --- but in _all_ cases?
    
    If we admit that there may be some paranormal events, while we need
    not accept every report of a paranormal event as genuine ("Keep
    an open mind, but ..."), it behooves us not to throw out the baby
    with the bath water nor the wheat with the chaff. 
    
    >Other incentives to have faith in something for the non-religious
    >include the need to believe in *something* other than Man as an
    >insignificant organism on a small spinning sphere in a remote
    >corner of a remote galaxy in a vast, intimidating universe.
     
    Such an incentive would work best for the insecure.  It assumes,
    among other things, that the Universe intimidates.  In your
    observation, Keith, is the "*something*" a technosuperior culture
    or species?  I.e., has this narrowed to an "Are the UFOs alien
    spacecraft?" with all that implies -type discussion?
    
    >A reason for claiming mystical powers (and even truly believing you
    >have such power) could include the need to be something more
    >important, more significant than one truly is. 
     
    Kallis' law on paranormal claims: as a rule, those most readily
    claiming paranormal abilities are those generally least likely to have
    them.   There may be exceptions; however someone with a genuine
    ability in these commercial times may be humble, and in any case
    would tend to be publicity-shy.
    
    Perhaps those so dead set against unbiased investigation of _any_
    reports of paranormal activity are equally insecure in that they
    may feel afraid less self-assured if they admit that there are things
    they can't understand.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I find little gain in believing/disbelieving anything until I have
    to gamble on it.  That is if something incredible is said to me,
    and no action or reply is absolutly required immediatly, I need
    to be neither skeptic or believer, opponent or apologist, unless
    i MUST act on it.
    
    Example:  Someone rushes into the house and says:
    "I just saw a UFO!"
    My somewhat dimwitted internal verbalization is:
    "You SAW something you cannot IDENTIFY?"
    "I see no reason to argue with that!"
    
    Example: Someone rushes into the house and says:
    "I just saw a UFO and it is about to crash into the house!"
    My emotional adrenalin rises, and in a frenzy of arousal I think:
    "Weelllll, maybe I should go check this out for myself, man......?"
    
    PROPOSITION:  In the absence of PROOF or DISPROOF, any OPINION adds
    little value UNLESS something might be gained or lost by a correct
    (VALID) opinion.
    
    It's nice to discuss the world(s) beyond our ken.  It is a pleasurable
    and enlightening, even educational experience.  It only becomes
    a matter of FAITH when we MUST take some action to avoid a loss
    or realize a gain, spiritually or materially.  Skepticism, then,
    without DISPROOF, is just another act of faith.....MWR
    

    Re .16
    
    I'll second that. As I said elsewhere in Dejavu, to have a 'point
    of view' on something fixes you in time and space (and...) and is
    therefore (IMHO, etc etc) undesirable Except when necessary, and
    that's surprisingly seldom. Society pressures people to have an
    opinion on issues; "Do you believe X" Only Yes or No is acceptable
    (Digital world!) It seems to be considered cheating to paint as
    complete a picture of the situation as you can Without Painting
    Yourself In the Picture. Interesting. I guess if you ain't in the
    picture you can't be attacked, and that's threatening. (!*?"@)
    
    I love it!  Brian

re: .12

Remember that reason is built up from many small acts of faith that have
not yet been contradicted.
								paul

    "Reality is alright in small doses, but as a lifestyle I find it
    much too confining."
    
    	- Lilly Tomlin (sp)
    
    :-)
    Keith
    

    Re:  .-1
    
    That reminds me of what people used to say about my college --
    
    "It's a nice place to have been, but you wouldn't want to live there."
    
    DR

In the "Bermuda Triangle" note (59.8?), there's the beginning of a parallel
discussion, so let's bring it here.

An athiest isn't the opposite of a deeply religious person: the conventional
deeply religious person believes in the existence of one or more gods; the
athiest holds a deep _faith_ that no god or gods exist.  The opposite of both
of them is the agnostic, who says, "I dunno."

Likewise, the "professional skeptic," as opposed to one who may be skeptical
of specific things without necessarily saying the equivalent of, "It's all
a bunch of hogwash," is one who will try valiantly to debunk anything that
smacks of the unconventional.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .21  (Steve)
    
    Well what do you call the folks like me who say, in effect: I'll
    believe in God if and when someone can demonstrate the truth
    of the claim.  Til then, I'm not required to believe.  (?)
    
    As for professional skeptics, those who simply say that everything
    is hogwash, a priori, they give skepticism a bad name.  Even as
    those who believe in everything, no questions asked, give 
    paranormal belief a bad name.
    
    But of course some things *are* hogwash, in every area, including
    the paranormal.  Like Uri Geller or the Bermuda Triangle.  Personally,
    I would like to see the paranormalists steal a march on the
    skeptics and lead the way on the needed de-bunkings.  If this
    happened on a regular basis you might find less of an audience
    for the Randis of the world.
    
    Frankly, if you or Topher (say) opine that something is bogus,
    I give such an observation very high credence, possibly more than
    the criticisms of a professional skeptic.
    
    For myself, I hope very much that at least some paranormal phenomena
    turn out to be real, and practical, and replicable.  
    
    Selling the case to the skeptics - well, the pro-paranormalists
    do about as poor a job (IMO) of selling their case to the 
    skeptics as the skeptics do of selling their case to their
    erstwhile adversaries.  Each side delights in pointing our the
    errors of their opponents while downplaying or ignoring the
    errors of "their own."
    
    Joel
    

    Steve,
    
    Not sure what you were trying to say in the previous reply, but I
    contend that skeptics, whether "professional" or specific to one
    subject should not fall into the same trap they ascribe to their
    "subjects", mainly to extract facts from stories they are trying to
    "debunk" without making themselves familiar with the whole of the data.
    
    Thus, my point about whether the fact that the squadron found was not
    the one Jamie was referring to. It neither increases the likelihood of
    there being a "real" mystery in the BT, nor decreases it. In fact, even
    if the squadron had been the one referred to, it would not have proved
    the theory false.
    
    FWIW, I don't believe there is anything to the BT theory. I only use
    this example to illustrate that so-called skeptics are often as
    culpable of taking things out of context as the subjects of their
    derision.
    

re:   <<< Note 1016.22 by RIPPLE::GRANT_JO "dimply Cedar Rapids sub-deb legs" >>>

>    Well what do you call the folks like me who say, in effect: I'll
>    believe in God if and when someone can demonstrate the truth
>    of the claim.  Til then, I'm not required to believe.  (?)

Why believe or not believe based on what others think?  It's what *you* think
that's important.

		Dave

    re: .24  (Dave)
    
    Quite right.  And what *I* think is that no definitive proof
    has been offered.  If someone offers this proof what I "think"
    will change.
    
    Joel
    

Re .22 (Joel):

    >Well what do you call the folks like me who say, in effect: I'll
    >believe in God if and when someone can demonstrate the truth
    >of the claim.  Til then, I'm not required to believe.  (?)

Kinda a militant agnostic, I guess . :-)  If you  add that you're not 
"required" to disbelieve, either.

    >I would like to see the paranormalists steal a march on the
    >skeptics and lead the way on the needed de-bunkings.  If this
    >happened on a regular basis you might find less of an audience
    >for the Randis of the world.

_Fate_ magazine has done this on more than one occasion (_Fate_ is pro-
paranormal, if that designation doesn't sound strange).

Re .23 (MM):

    >Not sure what you were trying to say in the previous reply, but I
    >contend that skeptics, whether "professional" or specific to one
    >subject should not fall into the same trap they ascribe to their
    >"subjects", mainly to extract facts from stories they are trying to
    >"debunk" without making themselves familiar with the whole of the data.
 
What I was attempting to point out related both to the subject of this note
_and_ to the BT discussion.  Point is that going to the extreme side of the
spectrum may make it difficult to engage in discourse approaching rationality.
With heat instead of light, opportunities are sometimes missed.

Stewve Kallis, Jr,

    
    Re.22
    
    Joel,
    
    In "The Autobiography Of A Yogi" by Yogananda, his guru, Sri Yukteswar
    tells Yogananda that we 'find' God, not by the outer expression of
    psychic powers, but by the depth of peace we experience in meditation
    and in daily life.
    
    Perhaps, on this particular issue, you have been looking in the wrong
    place.  There are simply some things in life where Direct Experience is
    proof enough.  
    
    Cindy

    
    PS.  Meditation is not what you *think*.
    
    Cindy

    	   
    Joel - regarding your earlier note:
    
    "Quite right.  And what *I* think is that no definitive proof
    has been offered.  If someone offers this proof what I 'think'
    will change."
    
    
    As someone who spent a great deal of time using rational discourse to
    'prove' the existence of a supernal, pervasive Something that defies
    the boundaries of rational definition, I can only say that no one can
    offer you definitive proof, and yet definitive proof exists all around
    and within you. You are the source of the proof, and the fulcrum point 
    between skepticism and (dare I say it) faith.
    
    I gently suggest that as long as you look for someone else to offer
    proof, you will remain unconvinced. I also suggest that it's each
    one's responsibility to choose (or not to choose) the leap of faith, 
    and thus to see "it" when they believe it, and not the obverse.
    No one can or should persuade you - the choice is totally yours.
    
    Having said that, and having noted Cindy's very valuable replies,
    I return you to our regularly scheduled discussion - 
    
    gloria
    

    re: (Cindy & Gloria)
    
    Quite interesting and valuable perspectives.
    
    I happen to believe, though, that God either exists or does not
    exist irrespective of anyone's belief one way or the other. 
    
    Now if this is true, God's existence should be verifiable
    in some objective manner.  Verification should not depend
    (though it would not necessarily exclude) solely upon each
    individual's interpretation of their subjective experience.
    
    Would you grant it possible for someone to mis-interpret 
    one's own experiences and feelings?  If it is possible to be
    wrong about what we believe on the basis of our own *subjective*
    experiences, it follows that such experiences cannot constitute
    altogether valid evidence.
    
    It's the oldest of the old saws, you either have faith or
    you do not have faith.  And I regard faith, in this context,
    as belief without, or even in spite of, the evidence.  If
    you start with no faith, unreliable measures like personal
    experience/feelings will not supply that faith.
    
    re: (Steve)
    
    Well, I'm not sure.  I tend to believe, like Occam, that 
    entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.  God seems
    to me to be an unnecessary entity.  Belief in God, in my view,
    violates, at the very least, my sense of aesthetics.
    
    Does that constitute a requirement?
    
    re: (general)
    
    I may not agree with a whole lot I see in this file, but I
    definitely enjoy and learn from these exchanges.  You are all
    *thinkers* in here and I enjoy hearing everyone's views.
    
    Too bad you're all wrong!   [;^) - now take a little kidding
    for what it is, OK?]
    
    Joel
    

Re: .22, Joel

>    Well what do you call the folks like me who say, in effect: I'll
>    believe in God if and when someone can demonstrate the truth
>    of the claim.  Til then, I'm not required to believe.  (?)

I would say this. Nobody can 'demonstrate' the truth or falsity
of the claim 'God exists' (see better philosophers than me, for
example Kant or Nagarjuna). However, there is a possibility that
you can experience God (whatever that means) by transcending
your personal self. Usually this requires some contemplative
activity - meditation of some kind.
    
John D.

Cindy - okay, I should have read the rest of the 
notes first. :-)

Okay, okay. Gloria too. *And* a reply from Joel. Sheesh.

>    I happen to believe, though, that God either exists or does not
>    exist irrespective of anyone's belief one way or the other. 

Okay so far.
    
>    Now if this is true, God's existence should be verifiable
>    in some objective manner.  Verification should not depend
>    (though it would not necessarily exclude) solely upon each
>    individual's interpretation of their subjective experience.

Well, that's where I think you go too far. What you really
wish to do is to reduce proof of God to either: the 
physical-empirical realm; or, to a mental-logical realm.
But God is more than that. To give you an analogy: if you
project a sphere onto two dimensions then you end up with
a circle. You've lost something. It's the same with God -
if you try to reduce it - you've lost it.

To 'know' God you need to be on the right level.
That level transcends the physical and mental levels.
(I speak in simple terms of three levels, most
transcendant philosophies have more but they all
map into each other quite well).
    
As to whether inner 'god' experiences can be verifiable and
consensual etc I think we don't know yet. But lets try
and develop ways of reporting them. There doesn't seem
to be a problem with other inner experiences. For example there is
no problem about coming to an agreement about what one's
inner experience of Macbeth is. Macbeth is experienced on
a mental level - if you reduce it to brain activity you
loose the essence again.

As I said before you need to be on the right level.
And to get there needs (usually) some form of 
contemplation. (For example Zen).

John D.

PS. Ken Wilbur says all this much better than
I do. Try "Eye to Eye".

    I suppose that if you insist on giving me a label then "Lapsed Atheist"
    would be the most accurate.

    I have noticed as I wander through this life that there are a vast
    number of almost unbelievably gullible people out there. If you find
    this hard to accept consider this point. How do publications like The
    National Enquirer, in the USA and The Sunday Sport, in the UK stay in
    business.

    The trouble is some people actually believe all that is printed in
    them. An example. Someone asked a question in a perfectly serious
    notefile. It appeared that his wife had heard this story in the
    prenatal clinic and the whole waiting room had been a buzz with it. It
    appears that there had been a newspaper report of a woman giving birth
    to a litter of puppies. Some of the mothers to be had been quite upset
    about the news. 

    Now those at the back who are snickering stop it. I am really trying to
    make a serious point here.

    After assuring the guy that it was impossible for humans and dogs to
    interbreed, different numbers of gene pairs is just part of the reason,
    we pursued it to its source. Yes it was the Sunday Sport. Someone had
    actually believed something that was written in it! This joke had
    caused genuine distress to pregnant women.

    Now I have really no problem with the gullible, but I do have a great
    dislike for those who take advantage of them for a profit.

    A few years ago I was in America when the lid was blown off
    Tele-evangelists and I was amazed to see the sheer size of the amounts
    of money that these con man had managed to line their pockets with.

    Having, as I said, worked all my adult life seeking logical answers to
    why something does not work, I tend to be skeptical. One of the prime
    rules that we were taught for fault finding is - "A theory must fit the
    facts, *ALL* of them". If the theory fails to fit the facts then it
    must be discarded and a new one created that does.

    However I used to watch engineers try to bend the facts to fit their
    theory of what a fault was. 

    I also found in practice that Occam's razor usually is correct.

    One last thing that I find strange. A lot of people seem to think that
    if a thing is believed in by a lot of people then this must make it
    true. Alas this is not the case. Not so long ago almost everyone
    thought that the world was flat and it was the centre of the universe.
    Neither of these were true. 

    Jamie.
                                                          

    "Words strain, crack, crumble under the burden.
     Under the tension, they slip, slide, decay with imprecision...
     Will not stay still, will not stay in place."
    
    				T.S. Eliot
    
    I find it personally interesting that when we describe perceptions from
    an operationalist/instrumentalist perspective, we can seemingly often 
    avoid the metaphysical assumptions that seem unavoidable when we use
    either materialist or mystical philosophies as starting places for
    discussion.  

    I think this makes it possible to communicate observations meaningfully 
    without a lot of the semantic noise that results from different views of 
    certainty of what underlies 'deep reality,' about which the best 
    information available apparently reveals some problematic observations in 
    the QM lab, not to mention the problems of inherent unverifiability of 
    metaphysical assumptions, either of the materialist or mystical bent.

    I think it's one reason why some researchers working on 'consciousness'
    and Quantum Mechanics sometimes seem to rely on operational languages,
    like David Bourland's E-Prime, which might be described as English without 
    'is', thus to a large extent avoiding confusion of words with the personal 
    perceptions they represent.

    Describing perceptions (evidence, data, ...) in terms of the
    instruments and operations used to evaluate, rather than in terms of
    verbal definitions and analytic truths (about which 'is' provides a
    clue) probably makes for less pleasant language, but also provides
    a conduit for meaning to be transferred systematically between people 
    making different metaphysical assumptions.  

    I think operationalism permits us to go farther in certain areas than 
    Dialectical Materialism, Hegel's propensity for argument, etc., 
    especially when we deal with phenomena that have a large
    subjective component, words being even more clearly distinct from the
    experience they are used to describe than is the everyday case of
    identifying everyday objects, for example.

    How many conservatives-nay-skeptics really appreciate that radical 
    materialism *provides a distinct metaphysical thesis*, as surely as Deism 
    does ?   It requires exactly the same kind of leap of faith.  They 
    preserve the status quo of anti-Deism established between the 17th and
    19th centuries.  It appears to me that to be truly 'skeptical' requires 
    recognizing that metaphysical speculation of any kind can be replaced by 
    simply describing what happens, until such time, if ever, that a final
    metaphysical statement can be made about 'deep reality' and its 
    structure.
    
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table, describes
    the 'hydrostatic paradox of controversy' ...
    
    "You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the
    size of a pipestem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water
    would stand at the same height in one as in the other.  Controversy 
    equalizes fools and wise men in the same way  --  and the fools know
    it."
    
    			:-)  
    
    								todd

    Re .31
    
    I agree with you that God either does or does not exist, but you then
    go on to say that, if He exists, that fact should be demonstrable 
    "in some objective manner."
    
    Are you laying down a rule that all truths should be objectively
    demonstrable?  Or do you think it is a universal rule that all truths
    *are* objectively demonstrable?  It might be nice if they were, but
    I doubt that things are so convenient.  I see no necessary connection
    between truth and demonstrability, and I think I could use Goedel's
    Theorem to show that at least some mathematical truths are always
    undemonstrable.
    
    None of which has much to do with the paranormal or God, but then I had
    the feeling you brought up God's existence mostly as an example.  If
    you really are interested in theology, there's a fair bit of it in the
    ATSE::Philosophy conference.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    This may sound deceptively naive and simolified, but... and this is
    IMHO, if you believe in a higher or more then one higher
    God/Goddess/All That Is, then you need no objective proof, because it
    is all around you. It's in the LOVE you feel everyday from friends and
    family, it's in nature with the beauty you find there, it's in the
    spirituallity you feel and the oneness with all creation. The knowledge
    that there is a spirit force in the universe is so real to you that you
    need no proof, because you have.
    
    Conversly, if you do not believe in a higher God/Goddess/All That Is,
    no amount of explaining from believers will convince you. It is really
    something you have to experience for yourself. 
    
    I can only say for myself, that I "am on the fence" as it were. I see
    this "spirit" in others. Close friends, not all of them Christians,
    have it. I have felt just enough to know that there is something.
    Everytime I'm about ready to chuck it and go the full hardcore Athiest
    route, something happens to convince me that this is not so. Some call
    it a psychic experience, others say it could be a vision from God.
    Whatever the case, I just know there is something. Call me a searcher.
    I'm not a seeker. To me, a seeker is looking for something, they know
    what it is and are trying to confirm it. For me a searcher is looking
    for something and isn't sure what it is, but they know it's out there.
    
    As stated above, this sounds incredibly naive and is, as always IMHO
    
    PJ

    I wonder if Russians would have an easier time with the language
    mentioned in .36 (no verb "to be") - the russian language has no form
    of the verb "to be".  Instead of saying "I am <something>", you say "I
    <something>" (literal translation - an intrepretation might be more like
    "I do as <something>".  This may not be totally accurate as I have not
    gone beyond 2 semesters of Russian in college almost 10 years ago).
    
    Given my limited experience, Russian seems to already have gone beyond
    the "is".
    
    Beth

    re: (John D. & Earl)
    
    Godel's Theorem?  Next thing you know you'll be trying to
    find connections between Godel, artists who draw hands
    drawing hands, and organists!  ;^)
    
    No, I don't mean to suggest that *all* truths must or can be
    objectively demonstrated.  And I am using `objective' here
    as an antonym for subjective.
    
    I am specifically talking about God.  
    
    A few observations:
    
    1. It has always struck me as rather odd that we can, at once,
    say that God is essentially a mystery, beyond natural law
    and so forth, and yet have so much to say about Him/Her/It.
    No wise-guy tone here, either.   We "know" God is this, or
    that, and that we know God through this, that, or the other
    form of prayer, meditation, personal revelation, whatever.
    
    We know that God requires certain prayers at certain times.
    To "be right" with God we must go the right church, or do the
    right things in the right way.  God is on a "...level that 
    transcends the physical and mental levels."  And so on.
    
    But, having transcended these levels, and being in all ways
    above and beyond mortal experience and understanding, we are
    perfectly comfortable going into great detail as to God's
    nature.
    
    2. Macbeth - A good analogy, John D.!  But I'm not so sure
    that coming to an agreement about the experience of Macbeth
    is altogether an easy task.  
    
    I believe in a strict sense, *all* experience of Macbeth must
    be on a "mental" level, though I don't consciously feel that
    during my ordinary, day-to-day experiences.  In that respect,
    my own inner experience of Macbeth has shown a quality of
    change.
    
    Very much "mental" the first three or four times through.  Going
    back and forth from the text to the footnotes, getting all
    those exotic and archaic words defined.  And slowly, getting
    past that and experiencing it emotionally, and, I hope, picking
    up some of the wisdom and value of this great masterpiece.
    
    In short, Macbeth, Hamlet, ["The Terminator"? ;^) ] and all
    great art has, for me, a "transcendent" quality that, once
    past the technicalities, exists on that Fabled Higher Plane.
    
    Now this is how I relate to "higher realities" and it is
    perfectly subjective.  I would not use my (inner) personal
    experiences as proof of anything, except that I'm rather
    slow at picking up on Shakespeare...
    
    I suspect we all have our own view of art (I understand your
    use of Macbeth as an example) and achieving agreement on these
    subjective experiences is tough.  And, IMO, not even a desired
    end - for would we then be able to have such fun discussions?
    
    Joel
    

Re .40 (Joel):

    >We know that God requires certain prayers at certain times.

I don't know that; particularly the "certain times."  Many believe [note the 
verb] that God gave people Free Will; this allows us a certain amount of
judgement as to when and where to pray.
    
    >But, having transcended these levels, and being in all ways
    >above and beyond mortal experience and understanding, we are
    >perfectly comfortable going into great detail as to God's
    >nature.
 
... if we're sufficiently foolish.  The most we can "know" is what [we believe]
has been revealed to us, showing certain aspects/characteristics that we can
identify with God.  To extrapolate that into understanding the true nature of
God is to make an assumption both mega-audacious and unqualifiedly naive.
Not to say that some people don't say they do.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

        Well, PJ, maybe we can have an "I'm more naive than you are"
    party...;-)
        Because, maybe I'm the one who is naive.  IT would seem to me
    that if one defines "God" (and I like God/Goddess/All-That-Is, not
    for its length, ;-) but rather for its inclusionary qualities)
    as being All-That-Is (leaving out the masculine/feminine attributes)
    then one only needs to look around to see what "All-That-Is" *is*.
    How can one argue the existence of something that obviously exists?
    The sum total of what is observed may be limited and may be
    unsophisticated, but *something* exists.  So using the above
    definition, isn't one therefore virtually obligated to believe
    in "God?"
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .39, 
    
    	Beth,
    
>    I wonder if Russians would have an easier time with the language
>    mentioned in .36 (no verb "to be") - the russian language has no form
>    of the verb "to be".  Instead of saying "I am <something>", you say "I
>    "I do as <something>".  This may not be totally accurate as I have not
    
    That's an interesting thought.
    Personally, I'm not sure about the importance of the 'is' in and of itself.
    only that in English it seems to very frequently point to either 
    [a definition or a description], potentially if not neccessarily causing 
    a confusion between the two semantically.   I don't know anything at all 
    about Russian.  I'd assume that if the notions of 'General Semantics'
    and other studies where this idea appears have a "non-zero truth
    content" as S.I. Hayakawa says, that there would very likely be some other 
    structures in Russian that provide similar traps to the English 'is'.
    
    As Steve remarked a while back, it makes a nice sanity check, anyway.
    	:-)
    							todd
    
    								todd

    
    Re.35
    
    Jamie,
    
    I think you are REALLY UNDERESTIMATING and MAKING BROADSWEEPING
    GENERALIZATIONS about the readers of this file.  
    
    But take your own survey and find out how many of the members here read
    the publications you cite, or believe the things that you mentioned.
    
    It seems that you are assuming that since nobody challenges things in 
    the (to be kind) *confrontive* way, that you take it that the other 
    readers automatically buy into it.  WRONG!   
    
    Cindy

    Re .40
    
    There's a big different between saying you know *something* about a
    subject and saying you know *everything* about a subject.  Believers
    claim to know something about God, but few claim to know everything
    about Him.  That's not an unusual situation; botanists, stamp
    collectors, detectives, historians, and butterfly collectors all claim
    to know something, but not everything, about their subjects.  In the
    case of God, the proportion of unknown material happens to be
    remarkably large...
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    RE.44 - prior reply may come off as being less than patient.  I don't
            mean it that way.  But of course, these things are
            subjective...(;^)
    
    Joel,
    
    Objective Truth really does exist.  (;^)  But you have to transcend
    time and space in order to tap into it.  I don't believe that total
    objectivity can be found within this creation of time and space which
    Hawking and Penrose estimated began about 15 billion years ago.  We all
    came from the same point (unless of course you don't believe their
    'proof').  Everything, therefore, in our current reality is connected
    to each other.
    
    In my own personal experiences, it has been the practice that I
    *experience* them, and then I read about them.  It's kind of like
    travelling to Mars, thinking you're the first human ever to do so, then
    coming back to Earth and reading a book by someone else who'd already
    been there.  Funny thing - even though the experiences were subjective
    in that the participants were participating in the event, still the
    observations of Mars were the same.
    
    That's why I thought for the longest time that some of the experiences
    I'd had in meditation, etc....well, I thought I was going crazy.  Until
    I came across books on yogis (for the VERY first time in my life) who
    write about exactly the same states that I'd been experiencing.  In the
    book on "Kundalini", by Gopi Krishna, even *he* expressed the same
    problem - that he thought he was going crazy until he found some
    obscure writings that described the things he was experiencing.
    
    But take something simple.  I can hear sonic alarm systems in banks,
    while most cannot.  In fact, it is so painful to my ears that I had to
    cancel my account because I couldn't wait in line.  You, on the other
    hand, could come along and say, "What???  Are you crazy?  *I* don't
    hear anything...therefore it's not true, and it's not objective - it's
    your experience only."  In fact, this is exactly what my ex-husband
    believed...until he read a research paper that confirmed my experience. 
    He never apologized, of course...
    
    So, I can't really debate you on whether God exists or not.  I know
    that all I write is true for my own experience, and that it is
    identical to the experiences of the yogis that I've read about.  It
    wasn't that I read their stuff first and then manifested it into my own
    reality by the power of suggestion.
    
    I am, however, quite happy to share my own experiences, if it will
    benefit anyone in this conference.  In fact, over the 4 years that I've
    been participating here and doing just this - I have received
    *countless* offline mail messages of people thanking me for putting in
    my experiences (and enduring the 'skeptics' rhetoric...and believe me
    it takes a lot of courage to share personal experiences of this nature
    in a public forum) because it was comforting to know that they weren't 
    going crazy, and that someone other than they were having the same 
    experiences.  Except that they JUST DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE entering
    their own story because of the confrontive approach they might have to
    endure.
    
    Cindy

    Frederick, you seem to see my point, I think. :-)  If one already
    believes, one needs no proof. I one chooses not to believe, no amount
    of proof of any kind will suffice. They will always have a "rational
    scientific explanation" or fall back on coincidence. Some might even
    take the stance that creation is all chaos, and our current situation
    is just the form that chaos is currently taking. We just assume order,
    because our perspective is limited. (Note: My P_N does not imply a
    belief in this theory. It's from a movie. :-)  ) One can come up with a
    gazillion different theories or variations on the theme. It all comes
    down to, What do you believe? the evidence of your eyes, your heart,
    your mind, What? The obligation part is a bit much to me. Using the
    "Something exists" reasoning, creation exists to me and pretty much to
    all my aquaintances. Does this mean "God" exists. Not to all of us. Do
    we feel in any way obligated to believe in "God" because creation
    exists? Not at all. Those of us who do believe in some form of "God" 
    (God, I hate that word :-)  )also don't feel obligated or required to
    believe.(Grateful, maybe) We just do, because it is so. At least to us.
    As you say, how can one argue the existence of something that obviously
    exists? But obligated to, I don't think so.
    
    Rambling PJ

    Re. 40 (Joel)
    
    If anything, this is fun! Where to start? Well, Steve is always so
    exactly right I almost hate to piggy-back on his resposne to you but...
    
    Regarding your comments on the right prayers and the right time to
    pray?? (Sorry I don't know how to extract)
    
    In the first place, this notesfile is precisely filled with hose who
    have *dared* to declare they don't believe that God/Goddess/ATI
    requires a certain kind of prayer, at a certain time, or even that
    G/Gs/ATI requires any kind of prayer at all!
    
    A lot of us *do* claim, though, that knowing God is a personal thing,
    and it is true only to that person; this is directly attributable to
    our recognition of the unknowability (is that a word?) of God.
    The best we can do is guess what works for us, and, using something I
    stated yesterday, doing what is consistent with our belief system. IT
    is very subjective, but God, as are *most* subjects dealt with in this
    conference under the titles PARAnormal, METAphysical, SUPERnatural are
    by definition undefined by the laws you hold so dear. 
    
    Marilyn
    

    RE .46  Well put Cindy.
    
    Karin

    re: (Steve)
    
    The key here is in your last line: "Not to say that some people
    don't say they do." [i.e., do know quite a bit about God]  In
    fact, this is a common claim, as witness the theology and
    liturgical practices of most any organized religion.  The
    exquisite detail! Entire moral codes!
    
    Oh, yes, many, many people, now and historically are convinced
    they know what God wants.  And when and how. Certain times?
    Sunday.  Holy Days.  When you sin or even when you confess to
    your sins.
    
    Now please note that I am not trying to ridicule these practices.
    My wife and children, who are Roman Catholic, would not take
    kindly to that sort of thing.  I am trying to point out the
    disconnect I feel between the standard talk about how we cannot
    Know God and the amazing volume of detail we humans have collectively
    come up with.  
    
    To me, it doesn't jib.
    
    re: (Earl)
    
    Quite right.  How full are our glasses?  There is also a difference
    between knowing *something* and knowing *nothing*, if you
    see what I mean.  What is Unknowable is just that.
    
    re: (Cindy, Marilyn, et. al.)
    
    No question about it, belief in God in this notesfile is
    eclectic and questioning, and I very much notice and
    appreciate that.  Be certain I would not even think of 
    asking these kinds of questions in the Bible-believing
    Christian conference.
    
    My comments are general, referring to a "we" inclusive of
    humanity and its/our historical relationship to what can
    and cannot be known about God.
    
    And yes, one's feelings about and relationship with God are
    strictly personal.  And subjective.  Thus, a non-believer like
    myself [i.e., one who simply does not have faith] is going to
    treat the theory of God no differently than any other theory.
    Like: where's the beef?
    
    Alternative, non-metaphysical explanations have been offered
    for various mystical experiences.  Are the alternatives explanations
    "true"?  I don't know for sure.  But the entirely subjective
    nature of subjectivity [;^)] leads me to believe that if proof
    of the God assertion is to be found, it will be found outside
    of myself. 
    
    Certain it is, it hasn't happened "inside" yet - and I'm
    pushing 40!
    
    Joel
    
    
    

    
    Hi Karin!  (;^)
    
    RE: Direct Experience
    
    Michael Crichton writes in his autobiography "Travels" about his
    interesting travels of his inner and outer life - experiences with
    spoon-bending, auras, travels on the globe, etc.  For those of you who
    may recognize his name but are not familiar with his works or
    background - he also wrote "Andromeda Strain" and was educated as a
    doctor at Harvard Medical School.
    
    In the next to the last chapter he writes:
    
    "I went to Africa.  You can go to Africa.  You may have trouble
    arranging the time or the money, but everybody has trouble arranging
    something.  I believe you can travel anywhere if you want to badly
    enough.  
    
    And I believe exactly the same thing is true of inner travel.  You
    don't have to take my word about chakras or healing energy or auras. 
    You can find out about them yourself if you want to.  Don't take my
    word for it.  Be as skeptical as you like.
    
    Find out for yourself.
    
    I have many friends from scientific backgrounds who accept me with
    amused toleration.  They like me despite my views.  But I have learned
    not to debate them anymore.  Unless you are willing to experience these
    things yourself, even so mundane a phenomenon as meditation sounds
    fanciful and absurd.  From my point of view, these scientists are
    exactly like the New Guinea tribesmen who refuse to believe the metal
    birds in the sky contain people.  How can you argue with them?  Unless
    they're willing to go to the airport and see for themselves, no
    discussion is really possible.
    
    And, of course, if they do go to the airport, no discussion is
    necessary.
    
    So, in the end, find out for yourself."
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I particularly like the sentence that follows the ones above:
    
    "There are a lot of trips out there.  It's even possible to become a
    conference groupie, going from one seminar to another and being a
    Beautiful Evolved Human Being until you start making the people around
    you throw up."  (;^)
    
    The last chapter of his book is entitled "Skeptics At Cal. Tech". 
    Brilliant chapter.
    
    Cindy

Well to just ramble on a bit more about levels...

Lets just agree to call the (crude) levels physical, mental, transpersonal.
(See I'm trying to avoid lots of overloaded words ;-)).

For a long time the thinkers of this world didn't bother much
with the physical level. They would say things like 'an apple
falls to the ground because the ground loves it'. Or, 'a heavy
weight falls faster than a lighter one'. It wasn't until Galileo
said "Hang on just let me check that", that we had a tool, a method
for finding things out on the physical level. The method is:
GO AND LOOK. Measure things. If you try, like Descartes, to use
(mental level) reasoning for what's proper to the physical realm
than you get (usually) nonsense. You commit a category error.

In just the same way, if you try to understand Macbeth from
the point of view of the physical realm (chemicals, brain currents
etc), you commit a category and come up with nonsense. The Behaviourists
tried to do the reductionist thing and collapse all levels to
the physical and look what happened - it didn't work as soon
as mental processes become involved.

And it's for this reason that you can't make sense of God
from a physical-science point of view (God's up there 
on the transpersonal level). And if you try to understand God
at the mental level you arrive (like Kant did) at either God exists
or God doesn't with no way of choosing between the two.

And all the sages who experience God on the transpersonal level
can say when they try to explain on the mental level is
that God is both One and Many at the same time. It creates...
mental level paradoxes.

So, an important question becomes: do we believe there is 
a level above the mental (like all the worlds sages have said).

And if we do then what's a good way of transcending the mental
level and opening 'the eye of contemplation'? So that you can
'know' God and avoid making category errors.

Well, by contemplation! Involve yourself in a 'good'
school of meditation. (Zen, Christian, Buddhist...).
With a real expert for a guide. Easy, heh?!

John D.

    re: .52  (Paul)
    
    Question: what authority do the biology researchers at Oxford
    appeal to?  (interesting choice - coincidentally I just 
    finished a fascinating little book by a biology researcher
    at Oxford!  His name is A.G. Cairns-Smith and the book is
    _Seven Clues to the Origin of Life_.)
    
    re: .53  (John D.)
    
    Very well said!
    
    IMO, where Descartes "went wrong" is in postulating a mind/body
    dualism.  If the tool for dealing with physical things is
    GO AND LOOK, why not use that tool for "mental" things as well?
    Go and look!  As researchers have been doing for lo, these many
    years, with interesting, challenging, and hardly conclusive
    results.
    
    You see, if one's interpretation of available data is that 
    the mind is as bound by physical law as is the leg (though
    operating, at the macro level, far more complexly) such
    issues as you raise take on a very different tint.
    
    I would suggest that the behaviorists took a wrong turn when
    they embraced only one side of the nature/nuture debate.  It
    wasn't that they tried to reduce things to the physical.
    It was that they had a drastically truncated physical pallette
    from which to draw.  They discounted innate characteristics in
    favor of environmental stimulus.  And, like someone trying to
    cross a river on a half-built bridge, wound up all wet.
    
    What we are left with, in re: God, is an entity that creates
    physical things, and mental things, but cannot be understood
    through physical and/or mental processes.  God can only be
    understood through - well, how?  What I have seen proposed
    here and throughout the ages involves various combination of
    physical and "mental" processes.  (How, by the way, does the
    non-physical mind happen to be able to interact with the
    physical body?)
    
    Thus, whether or not a particular construct is a category
    error depends upon what category you put things in.  If
    you start with the premise that there are categories like
    physical, mental, transpersonal, yes, you get category
    errors.  If you start with the premise that human beings
    are somehow a product of our physical constituents, the
    categories disappear, along with the errors.
    
    Joel
    
    
    

Re: .54, Joel.

Just a quicky to keep things rolling along. I haven't
really got time but...

>    dualism.  If the tool for dealing with physical things is
>    GO AND LOOK, why not use that tool for "mental" things as well?
>    Go and look!  As researchers have been doing for lo, these many

That's exactly right. On all levels in fact. It's just that
you can only *measure* on the physical level. What you have
instead of quantity (physical level) is quality on the mental
level. Certainly, it's 'subjective'. But perhaps one can use
consensual validation here. Philosophers have always done this - they
dream up a theory and then expose it to invalidation - and it 
works. The same for art critics, etc. 

What this seems to mean is that you have to be trained to do
the validation. You have to be trained to use dialectics (mental
level) - you have to be trained to use a microscope (physical
level).

You have to be trained before you're capable of 'sensibly
experiencing' the transpersonal.
    
>    I would suggest that the behaviorists took a wrong turn when
>...
>    cross a river on a half-built bridge, wound up all wet.

The behaviourists basically said you can interpret all behaviour
in terms of stimulus and response. All out there in the physical
world to be measured. This works with things like slugs without
much conciousness (!). But even with rats it starts to look a bit
ragged. With chimpanzees, there is clearly some 'mental life'
variable intervening. And with humans...

So, if you try to collapse the mental realm onto the physical
you get a nonsense. (Why did this person sacrifice themself for
others etc...).
    
>    physical and "mental" processes.  (How, by the way, does the
>    non-physical mind happen to be able to interact with the
>    physical body?)

Well, all levels perfectly interpenetrate each other.
They're all God if experienced appropriately.
    
>    errors.  If you start with the premise that human beings
>    are somehow a product of our physical constituents, the
>    categories disappear, along with the errors.
    
Well, that I think is the whole point. The problems which 
start to arise when you impose a reductionist 'all is physical'
argument, are important. What is love? What is God? 

You also have to throw away the reported inner experience of
'the sages' that the physical is only level 1. And all your own
experiences of the mental level. You take all 'meaning' out
of the universe and end up with, well just rocks rubbing
together.

By the way, don't think I don't like physics for example.
I really like physics andthe elegance of the scientific 
technique. And it's obvious power in the physical level.
But it just as clearly doesn't work when you try to 
create lets say a theory of economics out of the interactions
of electrons.

John D.

    
    Re.55
    
    >theory of economics out of interaction of electrons.
    
    Oh, I don't know about that John.
    
    When one can look at a grain of sand and understand Creation, then at
    some level, even this statement is possible.  It's just that it is hard
    to see from our vantage point.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    re: .55 (John D.)
    
    Ah, but as we no doubt already know, the faith and non-faith
    perspectives are simply irreconcilable.  Answers that seem
    satisfactory to those with faith seem non-responsive to
    those without faith, and vice-versa.
    
    "Everything is interconnected."  How?  Field theories?  
    Plausible.  But you can find physicists who argue in favor
    of discrete particle interaction, nothing more.  Now I, a
    non-scientist, can hardly pick between the competing theories.
    But it is in this direction that my thoughts turn when I
    hear about how everything is interconnected.  How?
    
    How, exactly, did God create something out of nothing?  By
    what mechanism?  Well, that is one of the Unknowables, isn't
    it.  But we agnostics/atheists believe this question relevant.
    People with faith just chuckle at such naivete.
    
    Back to the behaviorists - yes, they believed in stimulus and
    response, and stimulus and response are in the physical level.
    But so are innate characteristics (genetics, intra-uterine
    influences, etc.)  The behaviorists ignored this aspect of
    the physical and thus missed the boat.  I believe the tide
    is once again turning in favor of nature and nuture having
    roughly equal values in human development.
    
    Throw away the reported inner experiences of sages?  I wouldn't
    do that, as sages have much wisdom and value and beauty to add.
    But I wouldn't personally give them much literal, physical
    credence, as mystical experiences *can* have rather prosaic
    explanations.  Sages are as vulnerable as any of us to what
    psychologists call the fallacy of personal validation.  Something
    happens to us, and we interpret it a certain way, so it becomes
    truth for us.  Valuable and all that, but of course not the
    sort of thing that persuades others.
    
    Finally, yep, no doubt about it - pretty tough to predict
    economics from electrons.  Come to think of it, economics
    is pretty tough to predict from people, even, given the
    virutal impossibility of predicting human behavior.  ;^)
    
    Joel
      

    
    Joel:
    
    "How, exactly, did God create something out of nothing?  
     By what mechanism?"
      
    Would it help you to stop thinking of 'God' in anthropomorphic terms?
    When you speak of 'creating' you then say 'By what mechanism?' and,
    forgive me, but I immediately see Someone with beakers and test tubes,
    calipers and calculators, computers and cogs and...
    
    "Well, that is one of the Unknowables, isn't it." 
    Not really - it's more that the 'knowing' is not in terms that one
    would define as objectively verifiable. Your 'knowing' will differ
    from mine in a number of ways, perhaps, although we will both 'know'
    the same thing. 
      
    "But we agnostics/atheists believe this question relevant."
    But of course - this is pivotal to your existence as an agnostic or
    atheist. To let go of the question is to accept without question.
    
    "People with faith just chuckle at such naivete."
    Hmmm, a generalisation into which I, for one, don't fit. But I can 
    speak only for myself.
    
    "Throw away the reported inner experiences of sages?  I wouldn't
    do that, as sages have much wisdom and value and beauty to add.
    But I wouldn't personally give them much literal, physical
    credence, as mystical experiences *can* have rather prosaic
    explanations."
    I am again uncomfortable with the idea of lumping together sages as a
    class. I'm not even quite sure whom you include in the ranks of sages,
    particularly sages who have reported mystical experiences which you
    might consider capable of reduction to 'prosaic explanations.'
    
    "Sages are as vulnerable as any of us to what psychologists call the
     fallacy of personal validation.  Something happens to us, and we 
    interpret it a certain way, so it becomes truth for us."
    I'm not so sure what's wrong with interpretation of one's own
    observations as a personal truth, at the same time as one recognises
    that others may have a different interpretation of similar
    observations. Since each of us colours our observation of phenomena, it
    is only by consensus (in which we choose on some level to 'adjust' our 
    observation to coincide with that of others) that we coexist with
    others. The 'truth' about anything is a common denominator of sorts, 
    perhaps.
    
    "Valuable and all that, but of course not the sort of thing that persuades 
    others."
    It is quite possible that 'sages' aren't all that interested in
    persuading others. That great philosophers and spiritual leaders
    acquire disciples or students is not their primary motivation for
    seeking understanding and transcendence. 
    
    As I wrote this, I kept thinking of the parable of the Zen master
    who was surrounded by acolytes, all seeking to learn from him the
    nature of the Divine, of that-without-name. The master sat before them,
    reached down, picked up a simple flower - a weed, really - and held it
    aloft. One student looked up, saw the flower, looked to his teacher,
    and, smiling, nodded. The lesson was complete.
    
    It is virtually impossible to describe and define in words (and since I
    know several languages, I can say that none of them are adequate to the
    task) the experience of looking at a flower and seeing within it the
    essential 'meaning' of existence. If you have a sense of aesthetics,
    you have part of it - but only part of it. If I say to you that, as 
    the poet (Dylan Thomas) wrote, the force that infuses that flower is
    the same force and energy within me, somewhere there is an implicit
    presumption on that you understand, relate to, and are willing to agree 
    with that very personal observation. But I have to tell you in all 
    kindness that with or without that validation, the essence of that 
    personal observation and knowledge is enough for me.
    
    Yet, how quixotic... I've just spent a lot of time explaining this to
    you...so I guess I'm still human enough and sufficiently connected to 
    the 'consensus reality' to feel that it's worthwhile to present this
    very personal viewpoint...
    
    gloria       
      
    

re: .58  (Gloria)

      
>    Would it help you to stop thinking of 'God' in anthropomorphic terms?
>    When you speak of 'creating' you then say 'By what mechanism?' and,
>    forgive me, but I immediately see Someone with beakers and test tubes,
>    calipers and calculators, computers and cogs and...
 
	Mechanisms need not be intelligently directly nor
	anthropomorphic in any way.  Example: at a rocky
	beach you will find that the closer you get to
	the water, the smaller are the rocks.  A natural
	sorting process takes place.  The mechanism is the
	way different size rocks interact with the flowing
	water.
   
>>   "Well, that is one of the Unknowables, isn't it." 
>    Not really - it's more that the 'knowing' is not in terms that one
>    would define as objectively verifiable. Your 'knowing' will differ
>    from mine in a number of ways, perhaps, although we will both 'know'
>    the same thing. 
 
	I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on mechanisms,
	quite truly, as I have yet to hear anyone actually
	speculate on how it was done.  
	     
>>   "But we agnostics/atheists believe this question relevant."
>    But of course - this is pivotal to your existence as an agnostic or
>    atheist. To let go of the question is to accept without question.
 
	Interestingly, my existence as an agnostic/atheist (hereafter
	a/a) is not actually pivotal to my life, one way or another.
	The question is relevant to me because, not granting 
	distinctions between the way we investigate the natural
	and the supernatural, I would apply similar methods.
	   
>>   "People with faith just chuckle at such naivete."
>    Hmmm, a generalisation into which I, for one, don't fit. But I can 
>    speak only for myself.
    
	Yup, should have said *some* people... etc.

>    I am again uncomfortable with the idea of lumping together sages as a
>    class. I'm not even quite sure whom you include in the ranks of sages,
>    particularly sages who have reported mystical experiences which you
>    might consider capable of reduction to 'prosaic explanations.'
 
	I think it was John D. who started mentioning the wisdom of
	the sages, so you might ask him just who he had in mind.

>    I'm not so sure what's wrong with interpretation of one's own
>    observations as a personal truth, at the same time as one recognises
>    that others may have a different interpretation of similar
>    observations. Since each of us colours our observation of phenomena, it
>    is only by consensus (in which we choose on some level to 'adjust' our 
>    observation to coincide with that of others) that we coexist with
>    others. The 'truth' about anything is a common denominator of sorts, 
>    perhaps.
 
	What you say can be true, but not consistently enough to use
	as "proof."  If we can demonstrate that some states of mind,
	commonly regarded as being mystical in nature, are in fact
	due to explainable non-mystical natural events, the 
	subjective interpretation should become moot.  Simplest
	example: what happens when you isolate yourself and fast
	for 40 days or so.

	This doesn't mean that the *importance* of the event, or
	what it means to those who have such experiences, must
	or even should, be somehow objective.  But let us be
	very careful about granting equal *objective* status
	to the *cause* of the experience.

>    It is quite possible that 'sages' aren't all that interested in
>    persuading others. That great philosophers and spiritual leaders
>    acquire disciples or students is not their primary motivation for
>    seeking understanding and transcendence. 
 
	Agreed.  I am referring here, not to sages, but to noters.
	I use "persuade" for lack of a better term.  We are discussing,
	of course, but it's nice to think you have given someone
	a new perspective is it not?  I am assuming that folks like
	yourself and John D. would like me to agree, at least in
	part, with what you are saying?  ;^)

>    you have part of it - but only part of it. If I say to you that, as 
>    the poet (Dylan Thomas) wrote, the force that infuses that flower is
>    the same force and energy within me, somewhere there is an implicit
>    presumption on that you understand, relate to, and are willing to agree 
 
	Funny you should mention "The Force That Through the Green
	Fuse Drives The Flower."  I entered that very poem into
	this conference a couple of months ago or so.  It's a
	wonderful piece of work, isn't it?
   
>    Yet, how quixotic... I've just spent a lot of time explaining this to
>    you...so I guess I'm still human enough and sufficiently connected to 
>    the 'consensus reality' to feel that it's worthwhile to present this
>    very personal viewpoint...
 
	I like your viewpoint and you present it very well!

	
     Joel
   
    

    Yeah Joel, what we need is a new "kick-it's-tyres" religion/philosophy.
    If it's not verifiable in a physical sense ("kick it's tyres") then
    don't accept it as real :-) :-)
    
    Seriously though, I think a major key to understanding concepts such as
    an "infinite being" is to accept the possibilty that current logical
    systems and mind-sets may be incapable of coping with such enourmous
    entities. I think this is what many "believers" do when they accept in
    faith, the existence of a higher power. Accepting one's limitations.
    
    
    Can we honestly say that we can fully comprehend the concept of
    Space...that black nothingness/vacuum or whatever, in which the planets
    exist? O.K, then how about a black hole? The mathematicians say; "from
    zero to infinty". "Infinity" is just another word for "we don't really
    know what happens past a certain point" imho.
    
    I once watched my pet dog actively track an entity which she felt was
    invading our passageway. I could not see anything and could only watch
    her eyes as she focused and tracked it, and displayed all the sypmtoms
    of fear and distress, growling, hackles raised etc. This display was
    again repeated one night in front of my whole family. The "believer"
    explanation of the event, as there were a few more independent events
    that occured, was that it was the earth-bound soul of our next door
    neighbour who had passed away tragically and was very concerned about
    his family he had left behind. 
    
    O.K, so I could not see anything (and I am generally a "kick-it's tyres
    person),but my dog was convinced it was sensing or seeing something
    real. What if animals have senses we know nothing about, how would we
    go about determining if they do? We would never know, unless we
    developed equipment which could detect the paranormal. 
    
    Mankind, having learned to walk upright, looked to the heavens and saw
    birds flying and thought how nice it would be to fly. The day came
    when he needed to let go of the earth to experience flight. 
    
    So if the "gurus" are correct, you would need to apply their
    reccomendations and let go of "earth-bound" systems, meditate and see
    if it changes your mind-set allowing you to experience another way of
    looking at things?
    
    In a limited fashion,
    
    -Brian ;-)

    re: .60  (Brian)
    
    Yeah, but you kick the tires only if you don't have faith to
    begin with.  As I have said ad nauseum (so I won't say it
    again) you either have faith or you don't.  
    
    But one can always look at things, even ordinary things,
    from a different perspective, and see new things.
    
    In fact, let me suggest the existence of a force we shall
    tentatively call TUF.  (The Universal Force)  The exact
    nature of this force is not completely understood.  Some
    think of it as a force, some as a field, some as something
    entirely different.
    
    It is a truly universal force.  It is universal, not only in
    the breadth of its penetration, but in its depth.  It goes deep
    into the heart of all matter in the universe.
    
    But there are areas where this force's power is very, very weak,
    compared to other, competing forces.  A few, a very people have
    quite literally experienced this force on a higher level.  These
    people report experiences very much different than our ordinary,
    earth-bound experiences.  Some people have even had the illusion
    that they were free from this force.  But they were wrong; TUF's
    influence on them was still a defining factor in their lives.
    
    TUF lays down very strict laws.  Those who seek to disobey these
    laws suffer punishment, including serious injury and even death.
    
    TUF is both a creator and a destroyer, in the "normal" sense 
    of the word.  Though TUF does not create, literally, ex nihilo,
    and it does not completely obliterate, its transformative power
    is, ultimately, perhaps the shaping influence in the universe.
    
    With one word, Brian, I can prove to you TUF exists, very much
    as I describe...
    
    Joel
    

Note 1016.57     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    "Everything is interconnected."  How?  
>     How, exactly, did God create something out of nothing?  By
>     what mechanism?  
    
    These questions are interconnected. :-)
    
    How is every different part and cell of your body interconnected, Joel?
    It's complex and yet it's very simple, isn't it?
    
    There is only God so God creates everything out of It's own self...
    It's own imagination... It's own will... just like we do with our own
    selves... as above, so below...  and it all happens Now because Now is
    really all there is..
    
>	Mechanisms need not be intelligently directly nor
>	anthropomorphic in any way.  Example: at a rocky
>	beach you will find that the closer you get to
>	the water, the smaller are the rocks.  A natural
>	sorting process takes place.  The mechanism is the
>	way different size rocks interact with the flowing
>	water.
    
    
    A "natural sorting process takes place".  
    
    What exactly does that mean, Joel?  
    
    What is a "natural sorting process"?  Is it the same kind of
    Strange Attractor that comes into play in the way your physical body
    recreates itself?  Or the way the societies of mankind cycle through
    distinct stages at particular times?  It is a pattern... It can be
    read and extrapolated upon..
    
       
>	I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on mechanisms,
>	quite truly, as I have yet to hear anyone actually
>	speculate on how it was done.  
    
    God dreamed it.. God imagined it... God wants it this way and life
    wants to be this way.  We know that because this is the way it's always
    been and always will be... the more things change, the more they stay
    the same.. ever notice that?
    	     
>    In fact, let me suggest the existence of a force we shall
>    tentatively call TUF.  (The Universal Force)  The exact
>    nature of this force is not completely understood.  Some
>    think of it as a force, some as a field, some as something
>    entirely different.
    
    The words "force and field" imply something unconscious and
    unintelligent and unsentient.  The TUF is all of those things
    and more.
    
>    But there are areas where this force's power is very, very weak,
>    compared to other, competing forces.  
    
    Just as the force of your own intelligence is weaker than the one
    that keeps your heart beating and your lungs breathing... but focused
    correctly, it can and does influence that stronger force... it just
    doesn't bother too as a rule... too inefficient to try to control 
    everything all the time.
    
>    TUF lays down very strict laws.  Those who seek to disobey these
>    laws suffer punishment, including serious injury and even death.
    
    You speak of the Strange Attractors, I think..  Thats just the way
    it is.
    
>    TUF is both a creator and a destroyer, in the "normal" sense 
>    of the word.  Though TUF does not create, literally, ex nihilo,
>    and it does not completely obliterate, its transformative power
>    is, ultimately, perhaps the shaping influence in the universe.
    
    Yes... thats the way it is... thats where dualism becomes One and
    all that exists interconnects...  Good and bad, hot and cold, the
    Creator and the Destroyer are ultimately one... all part of the
    same process, the same Being...
    
    
    Mary

    re: .62  (Mary)
    
    Actually, I had something very specific in mind with TUF.
    
    Substitute `gravity' for TUF...
    
    Joel
    

    What is 'gravity' anyway?  I've never been able to figure that out. :-)
    
    Now substitute 'circulatory system' or 'respiratory system' or 'nervous 
    system' for gravity. :-)  
    

    I don't know... am I missing something?  It just seems to me as if it
    all works the same way.

    Re:.65 - what you may be missing is that Joel DOESN'T include any
    directed intelligence to TUF (which, intelligence aside, sounds like a
    description of God/Goddess/ATI).  What you "describe", and most call
    God, includes this intelligence.
    
    
    Beth

    
    I don't understand that though.  I mean it all reflects a distinct 
    intelligence at work in one sense or another.  Everything does...
    gravity included.  I mean what the hell is gravity and how does it work
    and why does it appear to be so selective?
    
    Oh well,... just the wanderings of a deranged mind...

    re: .66 (Beth)
    
    Quite right.
    
    re: (Mary)
    
    You could certainly postulate that gravity, or anything else
    for that matter, was originally created through a directed
    intelligence.  Sort of like your typical machine - we build 'em,
    but don't have to turn the crank all the time.
    
    As for what gravity "is", I'm not sure the final answer on that
    is in.  I can give you a Gravity 101 overview, but perhaps
    Topher or Earl or someone might want to jump in to correct
    my errors and extend the analysis.  
    
    The initial caveat: I have a sort of vague understanding that
    per Einstein, gravity is understood to be an actual warping of
    space.  This is why objects without (rest) mass can be
    affected by gravity.  Like starlight being bent by the sun.
    But I can really only give you a sort of "these are the effects"
    kind of view.
    
    Think of gravity as one of a number of possible interactions.
    It is an interaction that causes masses to accelerate toward
    each other, and unsupported objects to fall towards the earth.
    What we actually observe is the acceleration of the affected
    mass.
    
    It is convenient, for purposes of calculation, to consider this
    interaction to be a force.  Newton's second law of motion
    provides the way to calculate this "force": F = ma.  (mass times
    acceleration = the amount of the force)
    
    It is further convenient, for calculational purposes, to consider
    that the universe is permeated with a gravitational "field"
    that interacts with masses.  Thus, the sun interacts with the
    planets (and vice versa), and with the Milky Way, which in turn
    interacts with other nearby galaxies, etc. etc. out to the edge
    of the universe - if indeed their is an "edge."
    
    Again, the caveats.  Speaking relativistically, the concept of
    "force" is irrelevant.  As I understand it, the quantum view
    the acceleration is caused by interchange of particles.  This
    may require "gravitrons" which I don't believe have actually
    been identified.
    
    Now you can go on and on.  The motion of objects does not necessarily
    have to do with gravity, nor with force.  There are something like
    9 or 10 other ways to use Newton's second law of motion to get
    similar results.  E.g., the Lagrangian and Hamiltionian methods
    focus on energy, rather then force, as the Prime Mover.  ;^)
    
    Sorry, this got too long, I'll stop right here.
    
    Glad you asked?  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

re: gravity

Or maybe gravity is just static electricity.  Who'd know?

		Dave

    
    
    
>    Think of gravity as one of a number of possible interactions.
>    It is an interaction that causes masses to accelerate toward
>    each other, and unsupported objects to fall towards the earth.
>    What we actually observe is the acceleration of the affected
>    mass.
    
    Oh.. like allurement... but WHY do masses accelerate towards 
    each other?  I mean ... in a vacuum (like space) nothing pulls or
    pushes them towards each other because they are weightless, right?  
    So it must be allurement, ...they must WANT to be together, I guess.
    
>    Again, the caveats.  Speaking relativistically, the concept of
>    "force" is irrelevant.  As I understand it, the quantum view
>    the acceleration is caused by interchange of particles.  This
>    may require "gravitrons" which I don't believe have actually
>    been identified.
    
     I always thought that particles were intelligent too.  I wonder why
    they want to interchange like that?  It must be a kind of system...
    ... a sort of Strange Attractor of space... like a respiratory system
    is here...  You see how it's all so connected?  It all seems to work
    in the same way.
        
>    focus on energy, rather then force, as the Prime Mover.  ;^)
    
    Yea but whats energy really, you know?  I mean what the heck *is*
    energy?  Energy *itself* appears to be intelligent to me.
    
>    Sorry, this got too long, I'll stop right here.
    
It was interesting actually.
    
    Mary    

RE: .31 (Joel)

>    I happen to believe, though, that God either exists or does not
>    exist irrespective of anyone's belief one way or the other. 
>    
>    Now if this is true, God's existence should be verifiable
>    in some objective manner.

    Why?  It rather looks like you are committing what is called the
    "epistemic fallacy" -- attempting to deal inappropriately with
    ontological questions (questions about "being") as epistimological
    questions (questions about "knowledge").  I see nothing about the
    general hypothesis about the godhood which demands that its existence
    be verifiable in some objective manner.

    The "effects" of a consistent god would be indistinguishable from the
    "effects" of natural law.  That does mean that we cannot have objective
    knowledge of god ("knowledge" in philosophical jargon is "justified
    belief" so "objective knowledge" is belief which is objectively
    justified.  Empiracists/positivists would argue that the only kind of
    knowledge is objective knowledge but I do not hold that (non-
    objectively justified) belief); but if a god exists or does not exist
    irrespective of anyone's belief (justified or not) then it follows
    that a god may exist in the absence of even the possibility of objective
    evidence of its existence.

>    Well, I'm not sure.  I tend to believe, like Occam, that 
>    entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.  God seems
>    to me to be an unnecessary entity.  Belief in God, in my view,
>    violates, at the very least, my sense of aesthetics.

    If that is a defence of agnosticism, well and good.  If it is a defence
    of any form of atheism, then it is a misuse of Occam's razor. From the
    viewpoint of that principle, the "absence of God" is every bit as much
    an "unnecessary entity" as the "presence of God" (sort of like holes in
    a semiconductor :-).  Or another way of looking at it is to say that
    the principle that "absence of evidence may not be equated to evidence
    of absence" takes precedence over Occam's principle.

    If this were not the case than I would be justified in concluding
    (until such time as contrary evidence became available) that no resident
    of the town of Hudson Mass. is named Joe, because I have no direct
    or even circumstantial evidence that there is someone by that name
    here.  Clearly, however, not only is this belief unjustified, but on
    the basis of statistical evidence, it is probably wrong.

    In the absence of evidence for or against the existence of any gods, the
    only basis for a belief in the non-existence of any gods, is an a priori
    belief in the non-existence of any gods.  Whatever you choose to call
    this a priori belief (e.g., "my sense of aesthetics") it is a belief
    about a spiritual question unsupported by objective evidence -- i.e.,
    religious faith.

    Few question that theism (belief in a god) is a matter of religious
    faith (and I doubt if anyone questions that it is usually a matter of
    religiouis faith).  Atheism is also a matter of religious faith --
    i.e., it is a religion.  It is a religion even if it is contingent on
    the continued lack of evidence of the existence of any gods (especially
    when one considers that there is lots of evidence of the existence of
    gods -- there are, after all, lots of claimed miracle which have never
    been adequately explained, and others where the explanations which have
    been provided are rather ad hoc, to say the least  -- but we feel that
    that evidence is insuffient).

    For many agnosticism is also a religion -- they have an unfounded
    belief that there *cannot* be objective evidence for or against the
    existence of god.  But unlike either theism or atheism, agnosticism
    has the potential of not being a religion.

					Topher

    re: .71 (Topherisms)
    
          I can't say that I care for your definition of the word
    religion...how would you define spirituality?
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .72 (Fredericisms)

    Sorry you don't like it.  Let me make clear that I distinguish the
    concept of "religion" from the concept of "formal" or "organized"
    religion and destinguish both from the concept of a "religious
    organization" (e.g., a church).  Atheists frequently improperly argue
    "against religion" by criticising the tenants of one or more formal
    religions or the practices of one or more religious organizations.

    As for a definition of spirituality -- since I don't know where to draw
    the line between "mind" and "spirit" (if such a line exists) I don't
    have a firm definition of spirituality.  Some concepts, such as god or
    God or Goddess or The Godhead or Trimurti or Theos or All-That-Is (but
    not necessarily all-that-is) seem to be clearly in the category of
    spiritual concepts. Others (such as short-term memory) seem pretty
    clearly non-spiritual. Mostly, I call them, when I need to, on a case
    by case basis. Generally if someone considers that a belief, concept or
    experience of theirs is spiritual in nature then I'll accept that (even
    if the same belief or experience would not seem spiritual to me if it
    were mine). Sometimes, when someone considers a belief, concept or
    experience of theirs non-spiritual, I'll nevertheless take it as
    spiritual because of their attitude to it, even if (in my best
    judgement) they shy away from the word for one reason or another.

				    Topher

re: (Mary)

Unless someone wants to jump in and help out, let me defer answers
for awhile as it plain takes time for me to get into any sort
of reasonable detail.  My knowledge is too amateurish for me
to be succint!

re: .71  (Topher)

I notice the planted axiom, Topher: 

	The "effects" of a CONSISTENT [my emphasis] god would be
	indistinguishable from the "effects" of natural law.

Consistentency is one of the major problems.  As judged by the
differing views of what God is and does, consistency in this
area does not exist.

But even if the effects of God cannot be distinguished from the
effects of natural law, well, why then should be use faith to
make determinations about God, and the scientific method to make
determinations about natural law?

Again, I am speaking specifically of God, and entity reputed to
be able to actively interact with material objects.  If there
are other such entities whose existence and/or methods cannot
be *reliably* verified, I would suggest their effects are of
a much lower magnitude than ex nihilo creation.

That is, while *some* things may exist without our being able
to objectively so demonstrate, it is my thesis that, specifically,
God could not.

I like you analysis about Occam.  Please note my use of Occam's
pure stuff.  This is one of his direct formulations - unnecessary
entities.

Now - why would I consider God to be an unnecessary entity?

Let's go back to why we "need" a God to begin with - as a creator.
Then let's ask: whence came God? If the answer is that God
always was, you can as well say that the universe always was.
In which case God is an unnecessary entity.  This works with
an oscillating universe model, where big bangs cause 
universal expansion and there is enough mass to cause contraction
and another big bang, ad infinitum.

Further, most every argument you can use to justify the existence
of God begs the question of whence came God.  In which case
we push the argument back, and God becomes an "unnecessary
entity" at each turn.

In either case, by the definitions I see around here, I
must be an agnostic.  I am not prepared to say: there is
no God.  What I do say is that, not having faith, I apply
the same evidential standards to this question as to any
other.

Joel

re:    <<< Note 1016.75 by LABRYS::CONNELLY "Television must be destroyed!" >>>

>(This may sound stupid to you, but i bet that the first people to come
>up with an idea of God did it in such a fashion, but pretty much on an
>unconscious level, i.e., without any knowledge of abstract algebra, etc.)

I remember hearing George Carlin say in his stand up routine, "Man created God
in his own image".  Sounds very similar to what you are saying.

		Dave

    Wheel keeps turning... :-)

    
    Hi everybody,
    I've been following these replies and have the following observation
    to make... there seem to be 3 classes of people here -
           the sceptics, the believers, and the "direct-experiencers"..
    I can understand the sceptics and the believers participating in these
    notes, but not the so-called "direct-experiencers".
    
    If it is true that all the sceptics' thrusts are avoided by going into
    the "shell" of "my direct-experience", how is the often stated mission
    of this conference - "sharing my experience" - fulfilled by the torch-
    bearers who are blessed with "direct-experience" ? The sceptics are
    always left out of "direct-experience", so how does the conference help
    in sharing experiences ?
    
    Another unfortunate fact seems to be that many people have many
    "direct-experiences", which I presume are non-sensory (although they
    are always expressed as "meditational sounds" and "lights".) How should
    the "sceptics" discriminate between these experiences and that of 
    somebody else's "real" dreams of last night ?
    
    I can anticipate a ready answer here that "meditation" is key, but then
    again, there are so many things that different people call
    "meditation", and everybody advertises his/her pet 'guru', 'master',
    etc,.
    
    It is no wonder that people try to debunk whatever they suspect is
    spurious, it saves others who have to try all kinds of things, and
    run from 'guru' to 'technique', from lots of anguish.
    
    I'm of the opinion that the only people in this conference who can
    possibly "assist" others are those who claim "direct-experience".
    Now, if such people claim that their experience is not guaranteed to
    be repeatable for others, then their experience must be simply rubbish,
    and at best some kind of 'relative' experience, like anybody's dreams.
    This conference fails in its stated objective of "sharing experiences"
    if that is the case.
    People are merely communicating each others' dreams and then claiming
    their "direct-experience" as proof of its validity...
    
    The sceptics and the believers are clearly out of this charge, because
    they claim no experiences, 
    
    Anybody care to clarify my point ? It is not intended to slight anyone,
    but just to help clear the confusion here.
    
    For example, there has been a lot written about 'god' in the previous
    replies, without anyone clearly mentioning what his/her conception of
    'god' is... makes all that is said completely unintelligible... for
    instance, "god is love" does it imply "god is emotion", and what is the
    authority for such a statement ? The Buddhists say that the Buddha 
    maintained silence to such questions... are some of us here equally, or
    perhaps better qualified to make a statement where the Buddha chooses
    silence ?
    
    BT_a_confused_reader_compelled_to_write.
    
    

Note 1016.78     
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
>    If it is true that all the sceptics' thrusts are avoided by going into
>    the "shell" of "my direct-experience", how is the often stated mission
>    of this conference - "sharing my experience" - fulfilled by the torch-
>    bearers who are blessed with "direct-experience" ? The sceptics are
>    always left out of "direct-experience", so how does the conference help
>    in sharing experiences ?
    
    We choose that which we wish to experience.  We are also free to choose
    that which we do not wish to experience.  The skeptics are free to
    choose too... 
    
>    Another unfortunate fact seems to be that many people have many
>    "direct-experiences", which I presume are non-sensory (although they
>    are always expressed as "meditational sounds" and "lights".) How should
>    the "sceptics" discriminate between these experiences and that of 
>    somebody else's "real" dreams of last night ?
    
    Direct experience *isn't* "always expressed" as sounds and lights.
    The skeptics must be responsible for their own methods of
    discrimination, for their own thought, for their own growth.
    
>    Now, if such people claim that their experience is not guaranteed to
>    be repeatable for others, then their experience must be simply rubbish,
>    and at best some kind of 'relative' experience, like anybody's dreams.
>    This conference fails in its stated objective of "sharing experiences"
>    if that is the case.
    
    Can "everyone" play basketball like Magic Johnson?  Does that mean that
    his "experience" is simply rubbish?  Can everyone paint like Picasso?
    Does that mean his experience is simply rubbish?  Can everyone sing
    like the Grateful Dead?  Does that mean the music is simply rubbish?
    There are many talents in the human family that are not shared but
    can be observed.
    
    I don't assume any responsibility for the stated objectives of this
    conference, but I can see that your logic is seriously flawed... (no
    offense intended).
    
    Oh... and God is everything.. :-)
    
    Mary    

    Hi Mary,
    
>   We choose that which we wish to experience.  We are also free to choose
>   that which we do not wish to experience.  The skeptics are free to
>   choose too... 
    
    Can we choose not to experience 'humanness' ? In other words, born
    a human being, is it possible to experience the life of a fish ?
    
    Your choice is quite sharply limited...sometimes one wonders if theres
    a choice at al...??
    
>   The skeptics must be responsible for their own methods of
>   discrimination, for their own thought, for their own growth.
    
    Then, many of the notes posted are not for 'sceptics' ?? It would be
    useful if the posters indicated so.. besides, how does one measure
    the direction of 'growth'? Isn't growth an automatic process,
    independent of the growers' wishes ? I cannot direct my growth
    to develop horns, you know :^)..
    
>   There are many talents in the human family that are not shared but
>   can be observed.
    
    Ah, thats my problem... is this conference meant as a forum for
    displaying one's talents for others' observation?? In other words,
    is the conference akin to what a basketball court is to the game,
    or a concert hall is to music ?
    
>   Oh... and God is everything.. :-)
    
    Is this your opinion, or has someone told you so ? Of course, anyone
    can say such a thing, but ..
    
    I hope this clears up my logic... it may still be flawed, but where ?
    And of course, even though God *is* everything, he cannot be proved
    by logic...
    
    BT

    Re .79: "Can "everyone" play basketball like Magic Johnson?" etc.
    
    No, but most people can watch Johnson play it.  The only one who can
    watch a mystical meditation is the meditator (except in the trivial
    sense that other people can watch the meditator sit there and chant,
    or do a Sufi dance, or whatever).  Everyone else has to rely on the
    meditator's later reports of what happened.  They can, of course, try
    to do meditation themselves, but that may not work.  Not everyone can
    play basketball like Magic Johnson, after all.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Here are some thoughts of mine, from the Philosophy conference, concerning the 
origin of the idea of divinity:

                                -< Philosophy >-
================================================================================
Note 93.0                     The Idea of the Holy                    16 replies
PROSE::WAJENBERG "Tis the voice of the lobster."     66 lines   5-NOV-1987 16:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some time back, noters in this conference asked why people did or did not 
believe in God.  I said that I thought it a poor choice of topic, since the 
tone of the questions seemed to invite ad hominem attacks.  However, I think 
there is an approach to this question that does not invite such attacks and 
has philosophical interest.

This approach was taken by Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in "The Idea of the Holy" 
(`Das Heilige'), first published in 1923.  Otto says that the conception of 
holiness is compounded of two others -- the moral good and the "numinous."

"Numinous" is a word coined by Otto, from the Latin `numen,' a word meaning, 
among other things, divine power.  Religion springs from the perception of the 
numinous, just as science springs from curiosity, art from our perceptions of 
beauty, and social institutions from our gregarious instincts.

The feeling of the numinous is hard to capture in a verbal definition, like
the feeling of the humorous, but, like the humorous, most people have felt the
numinous.  The way to describe the numinous, then, is to describe situations
in which the feeling commonly arises.

A common, if lowly, form of numinous feeling is the shuddering thrill ghost 
stories try to evoke.  Here, the numinous feeling is mixed with fear or 
disgust or oppression to produce the particular flavor a fear called "horror." 
Related, less negative, qualities are the eerie and the weird.  Awe is a purer
example of the numinous feeling.  The numinous feeling comes in as many shades 
as any other important passion:

  "The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading
   the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship.  It may pass over into
   a more set and lasting attitude of soul, continuing, as it were, 
   thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul
   resumes its `profane,' non-religious mood of everyday experience.  It may
   burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and
   convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy,
   to transport, and to ecstasy.  It has its wild and demonic forms and can
   sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering.  It has its crude,
   barbaric antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be
   developed into something beautiful and pure and glorious.  It may become
   the hushed, trembling, and speechless humility of the creature in the
   presence of -- whom or what?  In the presence of that which is a >mystery<
   inexpressible and above all creatures."

					-- Otto, "Idea of the Holy," ch 4

It is this emotion or perception of the numinous that led humanity to imagine 
or acknowledge (depending on your metaphysical opinions) the divine.

People have said that the gods were invented to explain natural phenomena.  I 
doubt that anything so cold-blooded happened.  I think the vault of heaven, 
the cycle of the seasons, birth, and death were simply perceived as awesome, 
numinous, so that it was obvious that they or whatever lay behind them was 
worshipful.  Using the gods to explain things came later.

Nor, of course, were the gods first arrived at as conclusion in metaphysical 
arguments.  They were in place long before the metaphysics started and, 
however good or bad the reasoning done about them, they were there in human
minds.

Others have said that the gods were invented to comfort people for their 
miseries.  But there are plenty of religions with little comfort in them -- 
they are full of the dark, grisly kind of numen, mostly concerned with 
appeasing the gods.

The numen comes first; the mythology and liturgy and theology all comes later.

Earl Wajenberg

Note 1016.80     
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
>    Can we choose not to experience 'humanness' ? In other words, born
>    a human being, is it possible to experience the life of a fish ?
    
     I don't know ... maybe.  I'm not really sure what "human" is actually
    or what it means and yet I am aware of the links between human and
    fish... of the common bonds human and fish share in this experience we
    call life..  So perhaps one could empathize with the fish and share
    his experience.
    
>    Your choice is quite sharply limited...sometimes one wonders if theres
>    a choice at al...??
    
    I'm sorry, I don't understand.  
    
    ....My choices are infinite.
    
>    Then, many of the notes posted are not for 'sceptics' ?? It would be
>    useful if the posters indicated so.. besides, how does one measure
>    the direction of 'growth'? Isn't growth an automatic process,
>    independent of the growers' wishes ? I cannot direct my growth
>    to develop horns, you know :^)..
    
     Notes are for whomever chooses to read them ... whomever chooses to
    respond.  No one is excluded.  One measures, each in his or her own
    way.  Nothing is independent of the growers' wishes as far as i can
    tell..  all is connected.  And if you REALLY put your mind to it, you
    could find a way to develop horns if you REALLY want to. :-)  Some
    plastic surgeons will do anything for money. ;-)
    
>    Ah, thats my problem... is this conference meant as a forum for
>    displaying one's talents for others' observation?? In other words,
>    is the conference akin to what a basketball court is to the game,
>    or a concert hall is to music ?
    
     Well, when my husband first created this conference, lo these many
    long years ago, it was just intended to be a place where we outcasts
    could find each other, come together, and talk about our experiences
    without getting burned at the stake... but that was then and this is now.
    
    Now, I don't know what this conference is ment for actually.  Bill and
    Steve, as moderators, could make that determination... but the
    participants have probably already made it.  Perhaps they can come in
    and tell you what they feel the conference is ment for.
    
>    Is this your opinion, or has someone told you so ? Of course, anyone
>    can say such a thing, but ..
    
    This is my opinion.
        
>    And of course, even though God *is* everything, he cannot be proved
>    by logic...
    
     Good thing God's existence doesn't depend upon the logical proof of
    itself in order to be, then. :-)
    
    

    
>    I don't know ... maybe.  I'm not really sure what "human" is actually
>   or what it means and yet I am aware of the links between human and
>   fish... of the common bonds human and fish share in this experience we
>   call life..
    
    This is the kind of statement that I call most unintelligible..I'm
    not sure of what exactly a 'human' is (but I can talk about being
    humanitarian??), I'm not sure of what exactly a fish is (although I
    can eat it for dinner)... but I'm aware of the 'common bonds human
    and fish share in this experience we call life'...
    Pardon my saying so, but I can't make anything at all out of such
    statements... theres a gramatically composed sequence of words, 
    ( composed from what ? ) apparently to communicate something, but
    fails miserably to do so.. is this because of my 'choice', or 'yours' ?
    
>   ....My choices are infinite.
    How is one to accept such a statement ?
    there is nothing that is outside of your choices ?? Can you bring
    to an end the created universe instantly, or some such thing ?
    can I substitute  'a large number' for 'infinite'?
    
>    And if you REALLY put your mind to it, you
>    could find a way to develop horns if you REALLY want to. :-)  Some
>    plastic surgeons will do anything for money. ;-)
     Possibly, but I think there's a difference between the automatic
     growth of horns on deer and feeble attempts of a plastic surgeon
     to paste a horn on a human being who 'choses' to 'develop horns'.
     :^)
    
>    Good thing God's existence doesn't depend upon the logical proof of
>    itself in order to be, then. :-)
                             
     Yes, and on the flip side, it is unfortunate that the 'infinite god'
     couldn't also help these poor sceptics out by showing a logical proof
     of his existence... he needn't be limited to logic of course, but
     why should he remain outside the purview of logic, especially when
     people glibly assert that "GOD IS EVERYTHING"... :^)
    
     BT

Note 1016.84     
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
    
    I guess I'm just a stranger in a strange land. :-)
    
                             
>     Yes, and on the flip side, it is unfortunate that the 'infinite god'
>     couldn't also help these poor sceptics out by showing a logical proof
>     of his existence... he needn't be limited to logic of course, but
>     why should he remain outside the purview of logic, especially when
>     people glibly assert that "GOD IS EVERYTHING"... :^)
    
     Perhaps God is a skeptic.. :-)  unable to convince Himself of His
     own existence.. 

    
    
    	Tennant,
    
    	If there is a purpose in mentioning "experience" as a way of
    knowing, it is to point out that such is possible.  
    
    	Once a person becomes aware of the possibility, it is up to them
    whether or not they choose to make the attempt.
    
    	
    
    	Craig
    
    
    
    
    

    re: (Mary - quite a few back)
    
    I'm getting way behind, much too busy... but it's after five
    and I'll try a quickie.
    
    You were asking about energy.  I noticed none of the scientists
    in here care to HELP ME OUT! so I'll try a few concepts and
    then buzz off to the freeway.
    
    To say the word `energy' is to use a sort of high-level abstraction.
    What we see is not energy per se, but rather the results of energetic
    interactions.  These interactions, though, tend on the whole to
    be quite predictable.  This is so because the laws of nature
    defined by energetic interactions were derived *from* observations
    of the behavior of massive objects.
    
    Now what is interesting (to me) about the history of our progressive
    attempts to define and understand the concept of energy, is the
    continued search, not for what changes, but for what does not 
    change.  If there are an infinite number of things that can happen
    in the universe, yet those things must happen within the constraints
    of certain laws.  The discovery of those laws and their progressively
    more precise testing, is an intellectual achievment of the first
    order.  And I am thinking specifically of the laws of conservation
    of energy and of momentum.  
    
    In any close system, the total amount of momentum and of energy
    must remain constant.  This is quite invariant.  Transformations
    may take place, but changes in total quantity cannot.  True as
    the natural laws are, they are meaningless without some very
    precise definitions of what energy is and is not under particular
    circumstances.
    
    You've no doubt heard of BTU's, I am sure - British Thermal
    Units.  A BTU is the amount of heat needed to raise the
    temperature of [I forget the amount] water by one degree.
    J. P. Joule demonstrated that it always takes roughly 770 or
    so foot-pounds of energy to change the temperature of [a pound?]
    of water by one degree.  And so on.
    
    Nature is what it is, whether we like it or not and whether we
    know it or not.  "Natural law" or a natural sorting process (e.g.)
    refer to conditions found which will obtain whether or not we
    humans care.  Further, these are limits we cannot change.  Try
    as we might, we cannot violate conservation of energy.  Try as
    we might, we cannot invent an anti-gravity machine.  And so on.
    These are things that cannot be done.
    
    The modern trend is to try to find a way or ways in which all 
    "forms" of energy we measure can at some level be reduced to
    one form of energy.  I believe it is correct to state that at
    this point theoretical physicists look at only three principle
    types of energy, to wit: rest-mass energy (what I weigh at
    the dinner table), kinetic energy (what I weigh when walking
    away from too many calories) and potential energy.  Potential
    energy is energy associated with the four fundamental interactions,
    which are gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force,
    and the weak nuclear force.  (I also understand that the weak
    nuclear force and the electromagnetic force may now be considered
    in terms of an `electroweak' force)
    
    The really important point here is that this tendency to be able
    to find common denominators between "disparate" types of
    energy (mechanical energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, etc.)
    means that an infinite number of experiments do not need to be
    performed to decisively prove that some things simply cannot
    physically happen.  (!)
    
    In the context of God and/or paranormal phenomena (and particularly
    with the latter) the question is: whence the energy?  If you say
    that so and so can float around the room, that is that so and
    so can levitate, well, where does the energy come from?  If God
    is immaterial, through what mechanism does such a non-material
    entity cause energetic particle interactions to happen?
    
    Enough of this rambling.  I am confident that gas I put in the
    car yesterday will provide the basis for energy conversion
    sufficiently macro-scale to get me home!
    
    Joel
    

Re: .78, BT_a_confused_reader_compelled_to_write...

>    to make... there seem to be 3 classes of people here -
>           the sceptics, the believers, and the "direct-experiencers"..
>    I can understand the sceptics and the believers participating in these
>    notes, but not the so-called "direct-experiencers".
    
I don't think you're going to clarify things in this
way. I'm sure that there are other classes of people outside
your tri-partite scheme. And I'm also sure that I don't fit
comfortably into any of them. Sometimes, I'm a believer (the sun
*will* come up tomorrow; the universe is not a trick by an
evil spirit). Sometimes, I'm a sceptic (physical science can
explain everything; scepticism is always a good thing ;-)).
Sometimes, I'm a direct-experiencer (the sun *did* come up
this morning; yeehah! the universe is beautiful and mysterious
beyond all my knowing.

So, sometimes I'm here for amusement, sometimes for education
and sometimes to educate.

John D.

  Re .71 (Topher)

> The "effects" of a consistent god would be indistinguishable from the
> "effects" of natural law.

    This depends on the complexity of the "effects" and the "observers".
  Alternatively, the effects of an inconsistent god would be indistinguishable
  from the effects of chaotic operations ...

    As Joel (I think) said earlier, Science relies a great deal on faith in
  as much that the theory which fits the majority of the facts is seen to
  be "good" until a better one arrives to explain some of the anomalies in
  the first.  This continues until it, in turn, is replaced as the examination
  of the available facts gets deeper, the underlying order becomes clearer
  and the degree of faith in the preceding theory is undermined sufficiently
  to cause a "break in faith" when the believers become converts to the new
  interpretation.  Most people [here] are reasonable enough to accept that
  their own belief system differs in various degrees from that of others but
  that there is no _absolute_ "right" or "wrong" interpretation.  When this
  attitude becomes more widespread, we will gradually get over the current
  hamstrung approach to learning.  Yes, it is important to look closely at
  phenomena, to test hypotheses and to identify areas of uncertainty but
  it is also important to accept that the current tidy model may be wrong,
  that the unexplainable=incorrect datum may simply be a pointer to a more
  complete model.  The more that the details are understood to be *details*,
  the more that we will appreciate the patterns that they form.

    The skeptic who says "That doesn't fit the latest plan so it's wrong"
  should just be asking "That doesn't fit the latest plan - is it wrong ?".
  The effect of checking *why* it doesn't fit the plan is achieved but doubt
  is allowed to exist and be investigated as a possible new lead. Similarly,
  the believer who says "God doesn't operate to the same laws as you & I"
  should simply say "God doesn't operate to the same interpretation of the
  laws that you & I understand". Again, the effect of a "stop-think-reconsider"
  interrupt is achieved but without the closed door of faith XOR reason.

  Frank

>    I can understand the sceptics and the believers participating in these
>    notes, but not the so-called "direct-experiencers".
    
    Hmm...I don't follow. People often become believers due to them having
    some direct experience, which convinces them to believe.
    
    A feeble attempt: If I say; "God is infinite, God is everything", then
    by my definition, god/God is you, me and everything you are aware of
    and everything you are not aware of, god is all your physical laws and
    every other law you may ever discover. 
    
    So, to prove God by the very laws which describe the physical realms,
    you might, at best, only describe the physical aspects of God. Also
    then, when you apply your physical laws,  are you not proving some
    aspects of the existence of God?
    
    - Brian
    
    who hopes that one day mankind can become but a mere one tenth as smart
    as he thinks he is.. ;-)
    
    
    	

    re: .75 (B*B paul)
    
    If I extract everything here we'll be getting into snooze-land
    length so I'll try to keep it down.
    
    On faith/science/God - rather a large topic here, eh?
    
    We may be using faith in different ways.  Certainly, I have "faith"
    that the office building in which I now sit isn't going to 
    suddenly collapse.  And yet there are any number of natural and/or
    man-made disasters that could bring that unhappy condition about.
    But, barring such a disaster, the Koll building in Bellevue, WA.,
    isn't likely at all to suddenly collapse.  Reams of evidence support
    that view.
    
    People who believe in God may also feel that their belief is based
    upon very solid ground.  But I think most feel it is a matter of
    faith.  Faith in the sense that it is a belief held without,
    or in spite of, the evidence.  Since science does not know either
    creation or destruction, only transformation, an entity capable
    of creating `out of nothing' is an entity outside the bounds
    of current evidential standards.  And entirely a matter of faith.
    
    >Maybe you should try to purge your mind of other people's concepts
    >of God and see if there is any concept of Her that comes into
    >your mind that, after some trial, seems to fit or be of use.
    
    Since I do not "believe in God" I can rely only on other's 
    views of God.  To a non-believer (this one, at any rate) the
    very fact that so many completely different pictures of God
    exists militates against there being truth to the hypothesis.
    
    Occam - I agree Occam's Razor is not a law.  It is a very useful
    guideline, but I doubt we'll ever see it's status elevated.
    
    As for God as an existence operator, I'm not sure I caught
    the entire thrust of your argument?
    
    I enjoy your thoughtful comments!
    
    Joel
    

Note 1016.88     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    What we see is not energy per se, but rather the results of energetic
>    interactions.  These interactions, though, tend on the whole to
>    be quite predictable.  This is so because the laws of nature
>    defined by energetic interactions were derived *from* observations
>    of the behavior of massive objects.
    
     Joel, you could say the same thing about your own body.. your pulse is
    quite predictable, does that indicate that you are NOT alive?  Does
    that mean that your pulse is eternal and separate and not a part of a 
    larger system?
    
>    Now what is interesting (to me) about the history of our progressive
>    attempts to define and understand the concept of energy, is the
>    continued search, not for what changes, but for what does not 
>    change.  
    
    Everything changes... everything transforms.. we merely catch the
    heartbeat during the lifetime and it's steady, dependable beat doesn't
    mean that it isn't a sign of life.
    
    >If there are an infinite number of things that can happen
    >in the universe, yet those things must happen within the constraints
    >of certain laws.  The discovery of those laws and their progressively
    >more precise testing, is an intellectual achievment of the first
    >order.  And I am thinking specifically of the laws of conservation
    >of energy and of momentum.  
    
    I was thinking of the Strange Attractors..    
    
    >In any close system, the total amount of momentum and of energy
    >must remain constant.  This is quite invariant.  Transformations
    >may take place, but changes in total quantity cannot.  True as
    >the natural laws are, they are meaningless without some very
    >precise definitions of what energy is and is not under particular
    >circumstances.
    
    I find the concept of a closed system to be very interesting but I
    doubt that one actually exists per se.  I mean... no system is entirely
    closed, you know?  Every system I've ever seen has had links and
    dependencies upon other systems outside of itself.  Perhaps all of 
    the realities in all of the time streams together are a closed system
    but somehow.... I don't think so.
    
>    Nature is what it is, whether we like it or not and whether we
>    know it or not.  
    
    :-)  thats true... please remind yourself of these words in the times
    to come.
    
    >"Natural law" or a natural sorting process (e.g.)
    >refer to conditions found which will obtain whether or not we
    >humans care.  
    
    I don't understand.  What do conditions have to do with caring?
    
    >Further, these are limits we cannot change.  Try
    >as we might, we cannot violate conservation of energy.  Try as
    >we might, we cannot invent an anti-gravity machine.  And so on.
    >These are things that cannot be done.
    
    You must mean the Strange Attractors then... the Ultimate Truth.
    
>    The really important point here is that this tendency to be able
>    to find common denominators between "disparate" types of
>    energy (mechanical energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, etc.)
>    means that an infinite number of experiments do not need to be
>    performed to decisively prove that some things simply cannot
>    physically happen.  (!)
    
    Things change... what cannot physically happen one day could
    conceivably physically happen tomorrow..
    Do you understand?  Athletes are always breaking their own records...
    mutations occur that spark off new forms of life... things change..
    all the time..  You said it yourself, "transformation"...
    transformations happen.
    
>    In the context of God and/or paranormal phenomena (and particularly
>    with the latter) the question is: whence the energy?  If you say
>    that so and so can float around the room, that is that so and
>    so can levitate, well, where does the energy come from?  If God
>    is immaterial, through what mechanism does such a non-material
>    entity cause energetic particle interactions to happen?
    
     The energy is everywhere, Joel... it's all around us and within us.
     It's all that keeps the body from decay.. it's life.. can't you see
     that?  
     If everything is alive then the particles are alive too and can choose 
     how to interact or be directed just like a muscle or a limb.... reach 
     out to them and you'll see.... if they like you that is. :-)
        
        
Note 1016.92     
UTRTSC::MACKRILL                                     
    
>    So, to prove God by the very laws which describe the physical realms,
>    you might, at best, only describe the physical aspects of God. Also
>    then, when you apply your physical laws,  are you not proving some
>    aspects of the existence of God?
    
     Exactly, Brian.
    
    
Note 1016.93     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    But I think most feel it is a matter of
>    faith.  Faith in the sense that it is a belief held without,
>    or in spite of, the evidence.  Since science does not know either
>    creation or destruction, only transformation, an entity capable
>    of creating `out of nothing' is an entity outside the bounds
>    of current evidential standards.  And entirely a matter of faith.
    
    Creation and destruction and transformation are all the same... all
    part of the same process.
    
>    Occam - I agree Occam's Razor is not a law.  It is a very useful
>    guideline, *BUT I DOUBT WE'LL EVER SEE IT'S STATUS ELEVATED.*
    
     Then you have faith in Occam's razor.... that is your God.  "Faith in 
    the sense that it is a belief held without, *or in spite of,* the evidence."
    
    And you know what evidence I am refering to.
    
Mary    

Re .93
    
    	"Since science does not know either creation or destruction, only 
    	 transformation, an entity capable of creating `out of nothing' is 
    	 an entity outside the bounds of current evidential standards.  
    
    Actually, only a very few things are never destroyed or created in
    modern physics -- mass/energy, momentum, angular momentum, and electric
    charge are about it.  Force, arguably even more fundamental than
    energy, is created and destroyed all the time.  And the conservation
    laws of energy and momentum both have loopholes.  The uncertainty
    principle of quantum mechanics allows for (and seems to result in) the
    creation and destruction of "virtual particles" in defiance of
    conservation.  In general relativity, it is not always possible to
    *define* the total energy or momentum of a system.
    
	"To a non-believer (this one, at any rate) the very fact that so many 
    	 completely different pictures of God exists militates against there 
    	 being truth to the hypothesis."
    
    Actually, I don't think there *are* a lot of different pictures of God.
    The two leading models are the pantheist one (often known in this file
    as "All-That-Is") and the monotheist one.  I am no expert on the
    variations of the pantheist model, but the monotheist model has only a
    few significant variations.  I can think of four at the moment, and
    only two wide-spread ones -- the Christian Trinitarian model and the
    Jewish/Islamic non-Trinitarian model.  And there is still a hugh
    overlap between those two; both conceive of God as omnipotent,
    omniscient, omnipresent, and perfect in holiness.
    
    The variation comes from deciding what writings to take as
    authoritative (and I can think of only six different canons at the
    moment), and how to interpret those writings.  Interpretation DOES give
    you thousands of contending schools, but few of the issues concern the
    metaphysical nature of God.  They concern ethics, church
    administration, theory of sacraments, eschatology, and on and on, but
    these are not issues about the nature of God.
    
    Similarly, you can find hundreds of theories among astronomers
    explaining the various features and histories of some or all of the 
    bodies of the Solar System, but they all agree (now) on putting the Sun
    in the center.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
    

    Exactly, Earl.. 

    Re .88 (Joel):
    
    >............................................................   Try
    >as we might, we cannot violate conservation of energy.  Try as
    >we might, we cannot invent an anti-gravity machine.  And so on.
    
    Small, nitty point: 
    
    We could indeed build an "antigravity machine" as long as conservation
    were not violated.  The usual concept of an antigravity machine is a
    device that acts as an "antigravity shield," much like a parasol shades
    one from the Sun's rays.  The science-fictional example of that is the
    mythical substance, Cavorite," used in the H. G. Wells story, _First
    Men in the Moon_.  In point of fact, such a device would violate
    conservation, since one could, say, place a wheel so that half was
    shielded from gravity and the other half was not: the unshielded half
    would be "attracted down," causing rotatioon; thus, one would get
    energy out of nowhere.  However, there's another option: _powered_
    antigravity.  If one had a device that it was possible to feed
    sufficient energy into to counteract the gravity-well potential, then
    there's nothing against its existence, in theory.  [Don't ask: if I
    knew how to construct such a gadget, I'd have a Nobel in physics at the
    very least.]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

     RE:.92
>    Hmm...I don't follow. People often become believers due to them having
>    some direct experience, which convinces them to believe.
     Not necessarily..how many people who believe "Jesus Saves" have had
     a 'direct-experience' of Jesus saving ?
    
>    A feeble attempt: If I say; "God is infinite, God is everything", then
    
     'god is everything' is a tautology. There is no question of proving
     it. In such a case, 'god' is what Joel referred to as a unnecessary
     entity. One of the 2 words can be deleted from the dictionary.
    
     Now, the evidence/proof is sought for a god that stands apart from
     the rest as it were. If 'god is everything', then whats special about
     paranormal experiences??
     And what need for transformation,meditation,and other such things,
     which are stated to enable experiencing god ?? What are these
    'masters'/'gurus' advocating??
    
     This brings up the old question...what exactly are the people with
     'direct-experience' trying to point out?? Everybody must already
     be experiencing god, because god is everything, good/evil included.
     
     BT

Note 1016.98     
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
     >If 'god is everything', then whats special about paranormal 
     >experiences??
     
      Nothing... thats the point.
    
     >This brings up the old question...what exactly are the people with
     >'direct-experience' trying to point out?? 
    
      The obvious, I guess.....
    
     >Everybody must already be experiencing god, because god is everything, 
    >good/evil included.
     
    Exactly
    
    Mary

    
    re:.98
    
>>  This brings up the old question...what exactly are the people with
>>  'direct-experience' trying to point out?? Everybody must already be
>>  experiencing god, because god is everything, good/evil included.
    
    Many people get in a car and drive to work everyday.  Very few people
    pay conscious attention to the events that are going on around them as
    they do.  (What kind of cars pass them... the trees on the side of the
    road... how it feels to drive...) Very few people are actually living
    and fully experienceing the moment as they drive.  
    
    As a "direct experience advocate" (and reformed "intellectual"), I have
    lived a more full life now that I "do it" instead of sitting around
    "discussing it". I now have a vibrant, strong connection to God.
    
    Most people experience God/life/making love/work/etc. like they drive
    to work... only half awake.
    
    Peace,
    Kevin

    
    Hmm.. this is leading somewhere! but we aren't finished :^)
    How do we reconcile some things in this conference?? Maybe
    there are some topics here that don't fall into this scheme
    of things :^)
    
    RE:.99
    If it is only the obvious that is being pointed to all the time,
    what are these 'spiritual paths' that have so many votaries?
    What is the difference that makes one a 'master' in,say, ZEN,
    while others in the same place are 'pupils'??
    
    RE:.100
>    Very few people are actually living
>    and fully experienceing the moment as they drive.  
    If they aren't 'fully experiencing the moment' as they drive, then
    what are they experiencing ? After all, 'fully experiencing' need
    not mean 'fully observing', as you imply in the case of 'trees,
    cars,etc,.' does it?? 
               
>    I now have a vibrant, strong connection to God.
    ...which you didn't have before??
                     
>    Most people experience God/life/making love/work/etc. like they drive
>    to work... only half awake.
    If we are to accept 'god is everything', then
    being 'half-awake' is experiencing god too?? by extending the logic,
    being asleep must experiencing god too..
                          
    Thanks for all the replies, its quite enlightening to see so many
    view points converging.
    
    BT

Re .98

Here is another excerpt from the Philosophy conference that might help a 
little with the question, "What exactly are the people with "direct- 
experience" trying to point out??"  Although the material comes from Aldous 
Huxley (1894-1963), it originates with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716).

================================================================================
Note 203.0                  The Perennial Philosophy                  13 replies
ATSE::WAJENBERG "You can't teach an old gnu tricks." 70 lines  14-MAR-1989 09:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a popular saying now that all the great religions "really teach the same
thing."  What, then, is this same thing they are all teaching?  Aldous Huxley
called this common factor the "Perennial Philosophy."  He wrote an entire book
on the subject, but also gave a capsule summary of it in his introduction to
the Isherwood translation of the Bhagavad-Gita: 

  First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness -- 
  the world of things and animals and men and even gods -- is the manifestation 
  of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and 
  apart from which they would be nonexistent.

  Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing ABOUT the Divine 
  Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct 
  intuition, superior to discursive reasoning.  This immediate knowledge 
  unites the knower with that which is known.

  Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, 
  which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. 
  It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the 
  spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like 
  nature with the spirit.

  Fourth: man's life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself 
  with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine 
  Ground.

I have four things to say about the Perennial Philosophy:

  1:	Note that it is very general.  For instance, the Judeo-Christian God,
the Buddha-nature, Brahm, and the Tao are all equally good pictures of the
Divine Ground.  The Perennial Philosophy does not favor one over the others. 

Nor does the Perennial Philosophy have anything to say about an afterlife --
whether it is eternal, returns to this life by reincarnation, or whether there
is an afterlife at all.  Still less does it say whether or not the "unitive
knowledge of the Divine Ground" can be attained only in this life, only in the
next, or in either. 

  2:	It is mystical.  Huxley makes it clear that the "unitive knowledge" he 
speaks of is the kind of experience variously known as mystical experience, 
satori, enlightenment, union with Brahm, the beatific vision, and so on.  See 
topic 137 [of ATSE::Philosophy] for discussions of mystical experience.

  3:	Huxley claims that it is empirical, at least to a degree.  It is what
holy folk of all cultures come up with as they explore what holiness is and 
entails and requires.

  4:	Sanctity and enormous self-discipline are prerequisites, according to
Huxley, for making any very deep explorations of the "unitive knowledge" of 
the Perennial Philosophy.  This calls to my mind the remarks made by Mike 
Glantz in 91.10.  He mentioned "theistic velocities" necessary to make 
"theistic effects" noticable, just as relativistic velocities are necessary to 
make relativitistic effects noticable.  According to Huxley, great holiness is 
the necessary prerequisite for the "theistic effects" of mystical experience 
as well as more public things such as miracles.

Some questions for discussion about the Perennial Philosophy:

   Does it describe ALL religion, or just some of the latest models?  Do
   the polytheisms of modern Japan or ancient Rome fit under the umbrella
   of the Perennial Philosophy, for instance?

   Does the fact that it is the common denominator of many major religions
   mean that it is the most important part of them?  Are their differences
   unimportant?

   Does the claimed empirical aspect of the Perennial Philosophy give any
   support for its belief in a "Divine Ground"?

Earl Wajenberg

    
    re:.102
    
>>> If they aren't 'fully experiencing the moment' as they drive, then what
>>> are they experiencing?
    
    Being only half awake.
    
    
>>> >    I now have a vibrant, strong connection to God.
>>>     ...which you didn't have before??
    
    Exactly correct. And the connection is observable.  (Analogy,  I am a
    member of my family, but that doesn't imply that I am strongly tied to
    it.)
    
>>> If we are to accept 'god is everything', then being 'half-awake' is
>>> experiencing god too?? by extending the logic, being asleep must
>>> experiencing god too..
    
    True.  But it is a less than complete experience of god.
    
    

Note 1016.102    
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
>    If it is only the obvious that is being pointed to all the time,
>    what are these 'spiritual paths' that have so many votaries?
    
    They are the means to an end.  They are all of the many roads that
    cross the Earth.. all leading home.. for someone.. for everyone.
    
>    What is the difference that makes one a 'master' in,say, ZEN,
>    while others in the same place are 'pupils'??
    
    The master is learning ... the pupils know everything already.
    
>    If they aren't 'fully experiencing the moment' as they drive, then
>    what are they experiencing? 
    
     What they choose to focus upon.
                   
    
    Mary

    Could "experiencing" have as one of its definitions "being aware of 
    the experience"?
    
    You could say that everyone has the experience of God (assuming he
    exists), but not everyone is experiencing God - they are less aware of
    the experience.  The half-awake driver still had the experience of
    driving to work, but he is not aware of all of the details of the
    experience because he chose to ignore them for some reason.  He may 
    be missing the beauty or horror of the drive deliberately.
    
    Beth

    
    Hi Earl,
    
>  First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness -- 
>  the world of things and animals and men and even gods -- is the manifestation 
>  of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and 
>  apart from which they would be nonexistent.
    
    This seems to coincide with "God is Everything"..nothing separate to
    be looked for as 'the god/goddess/ati"..
    It looks like 'mystical experience' can only help in developing faith
    in such a 'divine ground'.. if I'm unable to accept my own logical
    conclusions of a 'divine ground', then maybe I would need a 'mystical
    experience'.. :^)
    In the light of this 'perennial philosophy' canons, 
    .105's "roads LEADING home.." can only be as true as "roads LEAVING
    home..".. none of these 'partial realities' are apart from the divine
    ground ?? ..possibly explains why every god/goddess/
    religion/cult/technique/teaching has not survived time...all of them
    might be ridiculous in eternity, although at some point to some people
    they might mean 'everything' :^)
    
    RE:.104, Schneider,
    I have trouble with your 'fractional-experiences' of god :^),
    maybe asleep/half-awake/dreaming/day-dreaming..but always fully,
    and if god really is everything, how could I have a lesser experience
    of god ?? admittedly, your family ties may not be strong, but you
    cannot compare your 'family' with 'everything' ?? :^)
    
    
>   Does it describe ALL religion, or just some of the latest models?  Do
>   the polytheisms of modern Japan or ancient Rome fit under the umbrella
>   of the Perennial Philosophy, for instance?
>   Does the fact that it is the common denominator of many major religions
>   mean that it is the most important part of them?  Are their differences
>   unimportant?
    I think you miss the point here, because it seems to me that 'organized
    religions' cater to a wide range of people, and many of its tenets are
    norms for the preservation of society.. but it looks like the aim of
    'perennial philosophy' is more than an orderly society.. it also seems
    to address men as individuals, trying to lend meaning to their 
    interactions in society, through a message of a 'divine ground'.. just
    mho..
    
    Time to quit this topic for me, and thanks everybody,...
    
    BT

Note 1016.107    
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
>    In the light of this 'perennial philosophy' canons, 
>    .105's "roads LEADING home.." can only be as true as "roads LEAVING
>    home..".. none of these 'partial realities' are apart from the divine
>    ground ?? ..possibly explains why every god/goddess/
>    religion/cult/technique/teaching has not survived time...all of them
>    might be ridiculous in eternity, although at some point to some people
>    they might mean 'everything' :^)
    
     Once you know who and what you really are, and your true place in 
     existence...  everywhere is home.    
    

    re .106 (Beth)
    
    We all choose.  We choose the depth and level of that which we wish to
    experience.  It's all a matter of choice.

    re: (Topher, Steve, Earl)
    
    Thanks for the excellent clarifications.  
    
    On transformation/destruction, I was quoting Werner von Braun,
    who was perhaps speaking metaphorically?
    
    On anti-gravity, Topher's explanation sounds convincing to me.
    As an amateur (to put it mildly) I took a pretty 101-type
    view, which is that anti-gravity is impossible.  Because, unlike
    electrical charges, only one sort of gravitational "charge".  That
    "charge" is always attraction.  Thus, between any two massive
    objects gravity shielding cannot happen.
    
    I must yield, though, to superior knowledge.  But, as Steve
    suggests, we won't actually try to build one, will we?  ;^)
    
    re: .94 (Mary)
    
    BTW - what's this stuff about showing the 'boxers whatever???
    
    Anyway, I'm not sure where we got off the track, but the track
    is not under us at this point.
    
    I say: we don't see energy, we see effects of energy, etc., and
    your response addresses what is and what is not alive.  Not sure
    I see the connection here, perhaps you could expand?  And I
    also don't see what strange attractors have to do with this, either.
    
    >>"Naturual law" or a natural sorting process (e.g.)
    >>refer to conditions found which will obtain whether or not we
    >>humans care.
    
    >I don't understand.  What do conditions have to do with caring?
    
    My point is: they don't.  The moon is there even when we aren't
    looking.
    
    >Things change... what cannot physically happen one day could
    >conceivably physically happen tomorrow...
    
    Some things cannot happen, today or tomorrow.  We have no reason
    to believe that what is physically impossible, by natural law,
    will ever be physically possible.  We have good reason to believe
    that some knowledge is known quite certainly.  
    
    Athletes may break records, but they do not violate physical laws.
    
    >The energy is everywhere, Joel... it's all around us and within us.
    >It's all that keeps the body from decay... it's life.. can't
    >you see that?
    
    No, I don't see that and, if I may say, you aren't presenting
    any reasons why I should.  What you tend to do is make assertions
    and expect them to be convincing.  I did my best to talk about energy
    as defined, measurable quantities.  I think you are talking 
    about something else.
    
    >If everything is alive then the particles are alive too... [etc.]
    
    I do not believe that everything is alive.  I do not believe that the
    sort of physical structures needed to allow for *conscious* choice
    exist in all matter.  If, for instance, a magnet exhibits intelligent
    behavior, it is a form of intelligence that not only does not allow
    choice, but in fact demands very strictly determined actions.
    
    >Then you have faith in Occam's razor.... that is your God. "Faith in
    >the sense that it is a belief held without, *or in spite of,* the
    >evidence."
    
    Actually, er, no, Occam's razor is not my God, indeed I do not have
    one.  Occam's razor is a convenient guidepost in evaluating evidence,
    nothing more.
    
    >And you know which evidence I am refering to.
    
    Nope, sorry.  Which evidence is that?
    
    Joel
    
    

Re: 1016.98, BT

>     Now, the evidence/proof is sought for a god that stands apart from
>     the rest as it were. ...

No. At least not for a pantheistic god. Such a god interpenetrates, *is*
everything. No question of 'prooving' it. Because as you imply, to proove
something needs you to apart from it. And that means god is less than all.

>     And what need for transformation,meditation,and other such things,
>     which are stated to enable experiencing god ?? What are these
>    'masters'/'gurus' advocating??

For me this is and has been a troubling question. I first got
this problem with Krishnamurti, who just keeps on saying: "Where
are you trying to go? You're it already." Seems obvious but is
very frustrating. It seems clear to me that there is a way of
'seeing' the truth of that apart from the intellectual 'seeing'
we're involved with in this file.
    
>     This brings up the old question...what exactly are the people with
>     'direct-experience' trying to point out?? Everybody must already
>     be experiencing god, because god is everything, good/evil included.

I think this is literally true. See for example, Nagarjuna. Or
Lao Tsu in 'Tao Te Ching' - "What is the Tao? If you know it then
you don't know it, if you don't know it then you already know it."

It all looks like a category error. Something which can be known but
not with 'the eye of reason'. We can discuss it (mental level) forever
and we'll never get it. And yet, if you haven't got it - 
you've got it already.

John D.

Note 1016.110    
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
    Well Joel, as Buckaroo Bonzai says... "no matter where you go, there
    you are".  
    
    We're talking to ourselves now... no point in that.
    
    See ya,
    
    Mary

    Haven't finished reading everything, but I had to get this in:
    
    Re:.110
    
    >Some things cannot happen, today or tomorrow.  We have no reason
    >to believe that what is physically impossible, by natural law,
    >will ever be physically possible.
    
    My husband had a Physics instructor in college who would periodically
    do "gravity checks" (tossed and eraser out the window) because of a
    scientific theory that proposed that there was a propability that
    gravity may fail.  Note that this was a technical school (Georgia Tech,
    the MIT of the south).
    
    Beth

    re: (Mary)
    
    Who is Buckeroo Banzai????
    
    re: (Beth)
    
    Eraser ever float?  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

     An old friend of mine... :-)

    Well, make sure you get his zip code correct, eh?
    
    Joel
    

    Are you working for the post office these days? :-)  I hear those
    government jobs are cushy.

    I'm not very good at math... fifth / eighth.. it's all the same to me.
    :-)
    
    But I recognize a John Smallberries when I see one at the Post Office. ;-)
    

    
Note 1016.111 by NSDC::DONALDSON
    
>It all looks like a category error. Something which can be known but
>not with 'the eye of reason'. We can discuss it (mental level) forever
>and we'll never get it. And yet, if you haven't got it - 
>you've got it already.
    
    Isn't there a contradiction when it is said 'something which can be
    known, but not by the ''eye of reason''(whatever that means)'? Even
    those who claim to have an "eye of foobar", cannot have a separate
    experience of Tao, from other experiences, because that would be
    agaist the premise of a 'everything-god'.. even if you use the word
    "interpenetrative", it implies a separation between what is "inter
    penetrated" and what "interpenetrates".. the god gets separated
    from "everything", and now we are entitled to ask for an evidence.
    
    If there is something that cannot be known at the 'mental level',
    but can be known at a 'foobar level', that would be only a limited
    knowing, constrained by pre-requirements like having/developing
    a 'foobar'. Actually, I like to hold the opinion that all these
    'foobar' or 'meditational' experiences are as much mental as the
    dreams of everybody.. they may not be pointing to anything more
    than what everybody always is.. call it 'divine ground' or whatever.
    
    This business of 'category errors' is itself an implicit conditioning
    of experience, a creation of imaginary boundaries.. in mho, and 
    maybe krishnamurti has a point when he asks "Where are you trying to go? 
    You're it already."
    
    I find it kind of snobbish on the part of some people to classify some
    as "less enlightened" and others as "more enlightened", and if I am
    to accept myself as only a 'partial reality', that has arisen from, is
    existing in, and will vanish into the same 'divine ground' as
    everything else, I need not be afraid of death or extinction...because
    whats permanent always remains so, and whats 'partially real' is bound
    to be extinct...there doesn't seem to be any choice over there ??(maybe
    Mary has such a choice in her 'infinite' list? :^) )
    
    Another reflection on Krishnamurti's statement above is that he seems
    to be advocating a kind of dis-identification..because all these
    'spiritual paths' must start on the premise that the current state of
    affairs is not sufficient, and that a process of change will bring
    about a different state of affairs which might (will??) be more
    sufficient..
    Such a premise can be true for all 'partially real' entities, which
    might be subject to transformation .. but if the 'divine ground'
    statement is true, then these transformations are of no significance
    in the end... the transformed entity is still on the same 'divine
    ground' as it was before the transformation..and more, the transformed
    entity is doomed to perish in its separate existence..??
    So, the dis-identification would be with any 'partial entity' that
    seeks perpetuation, call it immortality if you will..
    
>   And yet, if you haven't got it - you've got it already.  
    I'd like to rephrase it as "whatever your imagination, you cannot
    have not got it" :^) .. you are free to imagine a topsy-turvy
    school with ignorant masters and all-knowing pupils... :^)
    
    BT

    I understand, from an off-line correspondent, that "Buckeroo
    Banzai" is a fictional (movie) character.
    
    And he's your friend, Mary?  Gee, that might explain
    a few things...   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

re:       <<< Note 1016.121 by RIPPLE::GRANT_JO "dragonflies draw flame" >>>

>    And he's your friend, Mary?  Gee, that might explain
>    a few things...   ;^)

This ought to be good.  Explain away...:-)

		Dave

    My last word on this subject: Woody Allen's advice is never
    to cash a personal check for a fictional character.
    
    Joel
    

Hahahahahahahahaha...I get it!..."personal check"....Hahahahahahahahaha...

    Ok, the very last word: Woody "reports" on the psychic twins,
    separated by thousands of miles.  When one of them takes
    a bath, the other one gets clean...  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    Are those the same twins that when one takes a fast trip, the other
    one gets older ?   
    								todd

    Idries Shah, the Sufi, loves to refer to a study done in England that
    finds people believe most strongly things that are most difficult to
    prove, such as the afterlife, heaven, hell etc.
    	To me, faith is the attitude that allows us to believe that its
    possible to learn something useful or that actions will have positive
    consequences.
    	Modern science is built on the belief that the universe behaves
    according to certain laws that can be investigated. Not all people
    believe this!
    
 john

Re .127

	"...the whole omni****ent and perfect * scam is a conceit that
	 probably introduced into the JCI tradition from Greek logicians
	 by way of later Medieval scholars..."

Have I said rude things about the pantheistic positions or called them 
"conceits" and "scams"?  Is it an obvious and universal truth that the Greek
logicians and Medieval scholars were spiritual dunces?  

Earl Wajenberg

    
    
1016.127 by LABRYS::CONNELLY :
    
> Faith
>in God may require a "bigger" leap initially, but it's no different from
>faith in any other concept.  How much baggage you attach to the God concept
    
    I think this is a perfect example of people arguing over a single word
    without agreement as to its meaning. In the above, God is assumed to be
    a concept, ie., a mental construct. Now, most mental constructs are
    communicable, even if not perfectly. Even dreams are describable in
    terms of waking experiences.
    I've seen at least 5 different connotations of god here, in terms of
    energy, love, infinity, everything,and "finite but very large"( lets
    leave god's gender aside for now..:^))
    The problem with equating god to a mental concept is that the mental
    concept is an entity separate from other entities, and must have a
    set of distinguishing properties... and these properties ought to be
    verifiable by anybody that chooses to do so...
    When the person that asserts the existence of a mental construct is
    asked for it's distingushing properties, it is unfair to reply that
    that mental construct is 'beyond all experience'... it is like saying
    "I have seen god" and following it up quickly with "No man can see
    god"... ...it denies the very ground on which one is standing.
    
>  My point is that God and Law
>  are separate, but the world we experience is a combination of the two.
>  if you think of God as
>  Finite But Very Large (at least in terms of how She impinges upon this world)
    
    When each one brings out a separate point, then each one should be 
    using a separate word.. otherwise communication becomes meaningless.
    
    Now it is possible to have competitive "Finite but very large" gods
    in Connelly's scheme. The singular god of Mary's "God is Everything"
    now admits of plurals, and possibly arbitrariness.
    
>you can probably get a better start on conceiving of Her than by tying
>yourself into logico-philosophical knots on the various superlative paradoxes.
    
    what does this piece of advice imply ? that very large female gods are 
    preferable to "logico-philosophical knots" ?? and for whom ??
    
>Purposes are to be found in the minds of their creators. 
>God has Her purposes and
    has the noter seen god's mind, and further, purposes in that mind ??
    
    I'm sorry to be hitting out, but this is only with the intent of
    distinguishing the static from the message, if any exists..in short,
    if there is only one god, wherefrom does the wrangling that goes on
    here arise??
    

                                                                         
    Ditto - mega ditto even - to what Mary wrote in .99.  (;^)
    
    My own view of life, the universe and everything, is that God created
    it, and Science attempts to explain it.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Oh, what the heck, I'll throw in a direct experience.  Joel - a
        few weeks ago, about 10 of us here got together for an informal
        lunch.  Someone brought along a piece of moldavite.  I held it up
        to my heart chakra, and my hands began radiating heat.  Several
        people verified this, and one person who was sitting across from
        me actually saw the heat waves raising up.  Yet my physical hands
        were cool to the touch.  Take the stone away, and the heat stopped.
        I'm not unique to this experience - there were other people there
        who had something similar happen to them...it's just that I'm
        probably the only one who would admit something this strange in a 
        conference.  (;^)    
    
        My question to you - do you consider this to be a paranormal 
        experience?  I don't, nor do other people who have the same thing
        happen to them.  How would you explain the heat?  Is it energy?  

    re: .131 (Cindy)
    
    Sounds like an interesting experience and I am glad you shared
    it with us.
    
    Now as someone with a - shall we say - skeptical turn of mind,
    I am sometimes presented with a scenario which is, in the
    very broadest aspects, similar to yours and asked "well
    how do you explain THAT!"
    
    The broad aspects:
    
    Something happened, either to myself [i.e., the person relating
    the incident] or to someone and I was a witness.  What do you
    think happened?
    
    I can only reply to them, as to you, that I really cannot have much
    of an opinion on an incident I did not witness.  More, even if
    I were a witness, not being a trained physiologist or geologist
    (sounds like both disciplines might be involved) it isn't clear
    that my insight or understanding would be any better than anyone
    else's.
    
    Sorry if this is boring but I can only be honest.  I do not have
    enough information, either about the incident itself, or 
    theoretically, to be able to add any value here...
    
    Joel
    

    
    Re.132
    
    Joel,
    
    My point really was that, if you had been present at the lunch, you
    would have been able to detect the heat as well.  There's no question
    about that.
    
    If you were there (part of the direct experience), and experienced the
    heat firsthand, how would you classify it?  Personally I cannot think
    of a 'traditional' scientific explanation for why it happened, yet it 
    happened anyway.
    
    Given this set of circumstances, what would be your next step?  Would
    you believe your experience, or not believe it until it is 'proven'?
    
    No trick questions - I'm trying to understand your perspective.
    
    Cindy

    re: .133 (Cindy)
    
    Yes, I realize you're not trying "trick" questions.  My honest
    perspective is that I am completely unable, at this distance,
    to make any speculations whatsoever as to what sort of experience
    was happening.  And that, even were I there, I am not trained
    to be able to conduct an investigation that would determine
    just what was causing the experience.
    
    Now if I had an experience in which someone held a rock in
    their hands and heat began to emanate from the rock (if
    I understand the experience as you describe it) I guess my
    reaction would be to hold the rock myself and see how it
    felt.  And if I felt heat and wanted to understand better
    why this was happening, I guess I would talk with a geologist
    to see if she/he had any insight. 
    
    And so on.  My inability to provide a "conventional" explanation
    does not mean there is not a conventional explanation.  Nor does
    is mean that a paranormal or anamolous explanation is impossible.
    
    But, really, I don't know.  If it is my perspecitve you want, I
    guess that's it.  If I don't know, I'm not comfortable forming
    an opinion...
    
    Joel
    

    I will verify Cindy's story. I was at there. I saw and felt the heat.
    Make of it what you will. It happened. It was not frightening. It was
    only what I can described as a "mystical" experience. The heat came off
    of anyone who put the moldivite on or even held it. I also felt nothing
    but peace and tranquility from these people. I can truly say that, for
    me, it was experiencing the Power of God made manifest in these people
    for a little while. The stone was a catalyst, if you will. As I have
    said way back in this string. If one believes, they do not need proof
    and if one is sceptical, no amount of proof will suffice. Also, if one
    believes, then the proof is all around that person and all they have to
    do is be aware of it. It is simplistic, but that is all you need. No
    great "revealation", no face in the clouds. These things are, if you
    will, the "perks" of belief.
    
    PJ(who believes, but is not quite sure of what form that belief takes.)

    
    RE: .131 Cindy
    
    I was there also and it was *my* piece of moldavite! :^)  I don't think
    I'll get into what it does to *my* body though ;^).
    
    I often experience this same type of heat coming out of my hands, as
    well as a strong tingling sensation from them.  Other people can feel
    the heat and sometimes the tingling energy.  It doesn't take much
    concentration to get this process going either.
    
    >..............................................it's just that I'm
    >probably the only one who would admit something this strange in a 
    >conference.  (;^)    
    
    Gee, this is *tame* compared to some of the things I and others have
    shared in here Cindy! ;^)
    
    
    Carole

	Cindy,
	
	That could  be  real  handy  in the winter.  Think about it!  Icy
	windshield ... no problem.
	
	Or maybe camping  out.    The tent's a little chilly.  Hey, let's
	fire up Cindy!!  
	
	;')   :-)
	
	Jay

    
        ;^)  :^)
    
        Good one Mal!
    
        Carole

    Ok, I confess, I was there too!!  It was as Cindy described.  However,
    since I have a cut moldavite gem on a pendant I own, I had felt similar 
    tingling before and wasn't 'surprised' by the 'power' of Carole's
    necklace (which is a good size raw chunk).  I felt the energy most when
    I placed it on my forehead (which I'm sure looked 'strange' to the
    other patrons in the restuarant.  8^)
    
    Ro
    
    P.S.  The pizza was 'hot' too!  ;')

    I cannot explain the events either, but I rather doubt if there is
    enough information available to base an explanation on.  Furthermore,
    I rather suspect that even if I were there, I would not have enough
    information.

    Do I think that something paranormal occured?  I would have to say that
    I don't know.  I think that there is ample evidence of the paranormal
    (i.e., for the existence of phenomena which will require some
    fundamentally new science to explain), but I also know from experience
    that most phenomena which appear to be paranormal under "uncontrolled"
    conditions are not, but are more or less subtle manifestations of
    conventionally understood mechanisms.  Furthermore there are a lot
    of such manifestations of the conventionally understood mechanisms
    which are not well understood at all (conventional psychology, for
    example; though even simple mechanics has some mysteries associated
    with it).

    We do not "experience" the outside world.  What we experience is a
    model of the outside world that we build inside our heads on the basis
    of amazingly incomplete and ambiguous clues about what is going on
    "out there".

    Did the participants experience "heat".  No, they perceived something
    (perhaps heat, but perhaps not) which they *interpretted* as heat.
    That heat is a manifestation of energy does not mean that this other
    thing, whatever it is, is a manifestation of energy.

    If I, as a "skeptic", were there would I have "denied" the experience.
    Absolutely not.  I would not have denied my experience any more than
    I now deny the experience of those who *were* there.  I don't think
    it is likely that our friends here are lying about what they saw/felt,
    and so I accept that they had the experiences that they say they had.
    But if I had been there, I would have almost certainly questioned (not
    denied) my mind's *interpretation* of what was going on, as I question
    (not deny) the interpretation of those who were, in fact, there.

				    Topher

    
    .135
    
    I agree with everything you've said, Paul.
    
>    The singular god of Mary's "God is Everything"
>    now admits of plurals, and possibly arbitrariness.

    
    Nature is plural and arbitrary... humanity is plural and arbitrary...
    The act of creation itself is plural and arbitrary.
    
    If the creation reflects the Creator... than why shouldn't God be
    plural and arbitrary?
    
    Mary

    re .141
    
    You're not a skeptic, Topher... you're too open minded to be a skeptic.
    I guess we'll have to call you a "true scientist". :-)
    
    Mary

    
    RE: .142
    
>>    Nature is plural and arbitrary... humanity is plural and arbitrary...
>>    The act of creation itself is plural and arbitrary.
    
>>    If the creation reflects the Creator... than why shouldn't God be
>>    plural and arbitrary?
    
    
    RE:Note 1016.127    
    
>>  My point is that God and Law
>>  are separate, but the world we experience is a combination of the two.
>>  God provides the "substance" (if you want to call it that) while Law
>>  provides the "structure".

    Hi Paul, since Mary agrees completely with you, can we answer her
    question of "why not an arbitrary world with a zillion gods ??"
    
    In other words, what is the Law that provides a 'structure' to the
    'substance' that is 'zillion arbitrary gods' ?
    (I'm not too good at maths either, so please don't ask me how
     much is a 'zillion'...:^))                    

    
    
    Hi Mary, 
    
    Pardon me if I appear 'confrontive', but I quite fail to get
    what you're trying to say... (is there anybody else that has
    this problem ?... apparently there are many that agree in toto
    with Mary...)
    
    For instance, since I started writing in here, these are some
    of the messages I've got reading through your entries...
    
        - everybody has 'infinite' choices 
        - 'sanity' is an undefined word
        - 'god' is everything
        - there are plural and arbitrary 'gods'
        - 'reality' is another undefined word
        - there are 'levels' and 'depths' of 'experience'
        - people are 'rationalizing away' the 'truth'
        - everybody on this planet is afraid to trust everybody else
        - it isn't clear what the heck being human means
        - that this conference has a bunch of people who carry with
          them a residual fear of being 'burnt on the stake'
        - you are going away somewhere from the rest of 'humanity',
          although you would have liked to take the rest of humanity
          with you
    
    Once again, please don't misconstrue this as sarcastic, I would
    very much like to tie up these pieces together, to understand 
    your contribution in this conference more comprehensively.
    
    BT

Note 1016.145    
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
    
    "as above, so below" ...what does that mean to you?  To me, it means
    that everything works in the same basic way..  so on to God.
    
    Everything is linked up like computers on a network... the individual
    machines are individual consciousness's, ... linked together they
    form nodes that represent the myriad differend forms of life that
    exists... all together they are God.
    
    The nervous system of your body connects different cells and organs and
    limbs... all together they are you.  They don't always work together
    properly but that is the nature of life... of reality. 
    
    
        - everybody has 'infinite' choices 
    
         true
    
        - 'sanity' is an undefined word
    
         yep... doesn't mean much to me really... seems to have a functional
         connotation
    
        - 'god' is everything
    
        yea
    
        - there are plural and arbitrary 'gods'
    
        Your brain has many cells that contain many different experiences
    and urges and instincts... My father's house has many mansions.. There
    are degrees of everything...  Are the parts of the flower the flower?
    Do some parts of the flower more represent flowerness than others?
    
        - 'reality' is another undefined word
    
        Reality is what we make it.
    
        - there are 'levels' and 'depths' of 'experience'
    
        Obvious, don't you think?
    
        - people are 'rationalizing away' the 'truth'
    
       Denial is a way of life in this country.
    
        - everybody on this planet is afraid to trust everybody else
    
      Why do you think the banking systems are collapsing?
    
        - it isn't clear what the heck being human means
    
     Not to me anyway.  
    
        - that this conference has a bunch of people who carry with
          them a residual fear of being 'burnt on the stake'
    
     Psi's are not exactly welcomed members of the community.  Our 
    very existence is usually denied and thats probably just as well
    since there appears to be so much animosity towards us.
    Today in the paper, a woman bank teller said she was "forced to rob
    the bank by psi's and she gave them the money".  Some minorities are
    more endangered than others.
    
        - you are going away somewhere from the rest of 'humanity',
          although you would have liked to take the rest of humanity
          with you
    
    Interesting statement... where did you get it?  I remember saying
    something similar and I remember who I said it to and under what
    circumstances... so I guess I know where you heard it and something
    about where you're coming from now.... about your 'intent'.  
    
>    Once again, please don't misconstrue this as sarcastic, I would
>    very much like to tie up these pieces together, to understand 
>    your contribution in this conference more comprehensively.
    
     Why, BT?  I'd really like to know why?  Will you tell me?
    
    Mary

    
     Thanks for replying !
    
>    "as above, so below" ...what does that mean to you?  To me, it means
>    that everything works in the same basic way..  so on to God.
     I'm unable to reconcile the contradiction... if everything works in
     the same basic way, whence the arbitrariness ?
    
>     Why do you think the banking systems are collapsing?
     I guess you wouldn't be interested in a dissertation in Economics,
     so, in the more abstract level that you seem to speak, I would
     simply see a natural process of change.. I cannot quite reply "why
     do people grow old and die?" as an example of "lack of trust" among
     all people, if you get what I mean...
    
>>        - people are 'rationalizing away' the 'truth'
>>    
>       Denial is a way of life in this country.
     Why do you equate reasoned thinking to denial ?
    
>     Physics are not exactly welcomed members of the community.  Our 
>    very existence is usually denied and thats probably just as well
>    since there appears to be so much animosity towards us.
     I presume you mean 'psychics'.., anyway, why don't you just accept
     it as your 'reality', one that you have created and chosen to
     experience ?? What acceptance do you seek when you already know
     that you are part of a vast network (like the computers analogy) ??
    
     As for "animosity to us", you don't seem to be alone... I just read
     an interesting exchange between Baker & Jamie on this subject...
    
>         Interesting statement... where did you get it?  I remember saying
>    something similar and I remember who I said it to and under what
>    circumstances... so I guess I know where you heard it and where 
>    you're coming from now.
     Oh, theres no mysterious source there... look up your own note
     of 1515.26.. I guess yesterday's..
    
>     Why, BT?  I'd really like to know why?
    
     Because your statements didn't seem consistent..
     (I find TEAM10::SCHNEIDER very consistent, for example, even if
      I don't follow all that he says 100% and so does RIPPLE::GRANT_JO
      seem very consistent)
     In a general forum like this, I take consistency, clarity, and
     common terminology as useful for everybody...
    
     Anyway, no point arguing on that, since you would promptly reply
     you don't know what 'consistency' means, I guess :^)
    
     All the same, Thanks !

Note 1016.147    
AKOV06::TENNANT                                      
    
>     I'm unable to reconcile the contradiction... if everything works in
>     the same basic way, whence the arbitrariness ?
    
    There is no contradiction at all.  Everything contains elements of
    the predictable and also elements of the arbitrary.  You are not a
    totally consistent being and yet you have a predictable heartbeat.
    
    
>     I guess you wouldn't be interested in a dissertation in Economics,
>     so, in the more abstract level that you seem to speak, I would
>     simply see a natural process of change.. I cannot quite reply "why
>     do people grow old and die?" as an example of "lack of trust" among
>     all people, if you get what I mean...
    
    No, I wouldn't be interested in a dissertation in economics.  What
    drives the natural process of change?  What arbitrary factors
    contribute to change and can you identify them and therefore predict
    the coming change?  And I don't get what you mean at all... 
    
    
>>        - people are 'rationalizing away' the 'truth'
>>    
>       Denial is a way of life in this country.
>     Why do you equate reasoned thinking to denial ?
    
         Why do you equate rationalizing away truth to reasoned thinking?   
    
    
>     I presume you mean 'psychics'.., anyway, why don't you just accept
>     it as your 'reality', one that you have created and chosen to
>     experience ?? What acceptance do you seek when you already know
>     that you are part of a vast network (like the computers analogy) ??
    
     You presume correctly.  Why should I?  I seek no acceptance, if I did
    I would seek publicity as a means to the end.
    
>     As for "animosity to us", you don't seem to be alone... I just read
>     an interesting exchange between Baker & Jamie on this subject...
    
    
   I identify with Jamie.
        
>     Oh, theres no mysterious source there... look up your own note
>     of 1515.26.. I guess yesterday's..
    
    I will. 
    
>     Because your statements didn't seem consistent..
>     (I find TEAM10::SCHNEIDER very consistent, for example, even if
>      I don't follow all that he says 100% and so does RIPPLE::GRANT_JO
>      seem very consistent)
>     In a general forum like this, I take consistency, clarity, and
>     common terminology as useful for everybody...
    
    So what?  What do you care if my statements are consistent or not?
    Whats it to you?  What purpose do you have in seeking common
    terminology in this forum?
    
>     Anyway, no point arguing on that, since you would promptly reply
>     you don't know what 'consistency' means, I guess :^)
    
     I see no point in arguing on anything.  What value is there in being
    consistent all the time?
    
    
    Mary

    1016.147 (Tennant)
    
    I went back and read that note and I didn't find those words or that
    thought.  
    
    But I know where you heard them.
    
    I guess I don't trust you now... not that it matters.
    
    Goodbye,
    
    Mary

    Re: A few back                                                      
    
    That's fair, Joel.
    
    Ro, Carole and PJ...thanks!  (;^)
    
    Magnificant piece of moldavite that is too.
    
    As for strange things in DEJAVU - you do have a point, Carole.  (;^)
    
    I'm at home now, munching on a Ciro's 4-way.  Love the artichokes.
    
    Cindy

    I understand you perfectly, Paul.

re:                    <<< Note 1016.147 by AKOV06::TENNANT >>>
    
>     Because your statements didn't seem consistent..

I've found Mary's inconsistent statements to quite a good lubricant for right
brain "thinking".

		Dave

    Quoting from vague memory , Omar Kayam...
    
    	Myself when young did oft frequent
    	both sinner and with saint
    	However more, by the same door
    	out I came, as in I went...
    
    :^) :^)
    
    And what has this got to do with the base note ? Gee shucks guys, I
    dunno, but then again...
    
    Dejavu$confused
    
    -Brian :-)

re:                    <<< Note 1016.155 by UTRTSC::MACKRILL >>>
                  -< Oh so that's what the right brain's for >-

Oh well, while we're quoting:

       "Some folks trust in reason
	Others trust in might
	I don't trust in nothin'
	But I know it come out right

	Some folks look for answers
	Others look for fights
	Some folks up in treetops
	Just looking for their kites"	     	

					John Barlow from "Playing in the Band"

    
    RE: Mary, 
    On 'trust'... I trust my doctor, dentist, car mechanic, mailman,
    fellow drivers on the highway, traffic signal system, the CNN
    news reporters,my pet dog,the meat producers... a long list... 
    
    There's no indication of anything 'chipping away' at my trust in
    any of the above... I see around me a large number of people displaying
    the same kind of trust as I do...no large scale dissolution visible, at
    least not immediately...
    
    And, trust me, it isn't a frightening experience to me, or the ones
    that I know... I'm very much part of the ordinary society, and have no
    'psi' abilities... just an ordinary mortal, if you will...
    
    I don't know how you say that you know my 'intent'...other than from
    what I've said..I for one know of no other intents...but as I said, I
    don't claim any 'psi'..
    your 1515.26 "seemed to me" to express what you
    claimed to have said to someone..specifically the phrases
    "..for me the journey is beginning..", and "..I never wanted to do it
    alone.."
    
    RE:1016.152 by LABRYS::CONNELLY
    >I would have a hard time restating the above any more clearly than it is,
    >so i hope that conveys something.:-)
    Paul, I think what you've done is paint a picture, one that I vaguely
    remember having seen in Doug Hofstadter's "Godel,Escher, Bach"...
    something about anthills if I'm not mistaken...where I think you've
    deviated from him is in postulating a 'ghost' independent of the
    machine, as you put it...as in:-
    >That Machine would be pretty dull without the
    >Ghost!;-)
                        
    RE:.154
    Dave, but lubricants have a property known as viscosity?? and this
    viscosity varies with temperature too..so whats lubricating for one
    machine might just be for that machine, you know..:^)
    
    And hey, cool it folks, this notesfile ought not to make or mar one's
    day.. I merely dabble in this during lunch time, seeking a diversion
    from more routine chores..:^) I have no 'animosity' to 'psi's' or any
    others.. just like a little arguing, you see... :^)... it never altered
    any believers' beliefs nor any sceptics reasoning?? :^)
    
    

    
    Re.175 - oh psi-chaw...
    
    Didn't Walt Whitman say something like, "Very well then, I contradict
    myself!"
    
    And if the quote's not right, then Steve K., please correct me.  (;^)
    You'd think after 4 years of quoting this, I'd get it right...well, at
    least the author is right this time.  Hopefully!
    
    Cindy

  
  >  -< Note 1016.158 by CGVAX2::PAINTER "moon, wind, waves, sand" >-
                  ^^^
  >  Re.175 - oh psi-chaw...
        ^^^
  A clear case of precognition ?? Yea, verily have we proved it !  :-)
  

Re: .120, BT

>    known, but not by the ''eye of reason''(whatever that means)'? Even

'the eye of reason'. This is a reference to a scheme of
classification devised by St Bonaventure and used by
Ken Wilbur. In this scheme there are three 'eyes'. The
'eye of flesh', 'the eye of reason' and 'the eye of contemplation'
Wilbur claims that trying to 'see' things with the 
'wrong' eye leads to absurdities.
(He has convincing arguments and examples - go read him - 
don't believe me ;-)). 

So, bearing with me...

>    known, but not by the ''eye of reason''(whatever that means)'? Even
>    those who claim to have an "eye of foobar", cannot have a separate
>    experience of Tao, from other experiences, because that would be
>    agaist the premise of a 'everything-god'.. even if you use the word
>    "interpenetrative", it implies a separation between what is "inter
>    penetrated" and what "interpenetrates".. the god gets separated
>    from "everything", and now we are entitled to ask for an evidence.
    
...you're absolutely right. The problem is that we are
discussing this on the mental level. We 'see' all these ideas
with our eye of reason. To someone with their 'eye of contemplation'
open then the problem goes away. It is evident to someone in 
that state that: I am God, God is All, Everything is One, God is
a multiplicity and a unity at once, etc, etc. But, try to
import that back to the mental level and you create at best
paradoxes and at worst nonsense.

>    If there is something that cannot be known at the 'mental level',
>    but can be known at a 'foobar level', that would be only a limited
>    knowing, constrained by pre-requirements like having/developing
>    a 'foobar'. Actually, I like to hold the opinion that all these
>    'foobar' or 'meditational' experiences are as much mental as the
>    dreams of everybody.. they may not be pointing to anything more
>    than what everybody always is.. call it 'divine ground' or whatever.

I think you're right again. In this way: it's clear that all
mental experience is built on physical things and events. Muscle,
molecules, etc. But it is not at all clear that the other
way round works. Dump a pile of bones and connective tissue and
brains together just doesn't get you behaviour.

It's in just this way that contemplative experiences are built
on mental ones. But that mental ones don't produce contemplative ones.

You have to do a couple of things to swallow all this.
You have to allow at least the possibility that all this
'Perennial Philosophy' stuff has *something* behind it. 
And that there is a hierarchy with physical level at the
bottom. Mental next. Spiritual next. (Remember this is
just a crude division - most systems propose much more
complex sets of levels - but they are all *ordered* in this
way).

>    This business of 'category errors' is itself an implicit conditioning
>    of experience, a creation of imaginary boundaries.. in mho, and 

Yes. Like all mental life. It's a scheme to understand things.
And it has to be transcended to get to the next level.

>    maybe krishnamurti has a point when he asks "Where are you trying to go? 
>    You're it already."

Of course. I believe he's exactly right. We *are* there, we *are* it.
However, knowing this on a mental level is...not satisfying. Is it.
All the spiritual exercises and mental cleanliness and all that stuff
the sages (I'll come back to them sometime) have been saying are
just a way of opening your 'eye of contemplation' and to 
paraphrase T.S. Elliot, "arrive back from where we started and
*know the place for the first time*".
    
>    existing in, and will vanish into the same 'divine ground' as
>    everything else, I need not be afraid of death or extinction...because

Well, that's true too. But understanding that on the
mental level doesn't really satisfy somehow. It's necessary
to really 'know' this truth - to experience it.
    
>>   And yet, if you haven't got it - you've got it already.  
>    I'd like to rephrase it as "whatever your imagination, you cannot
>    have not got it" :^) .. you are free to imagine a topsy-turvy
>    school with ignorant masters and all-knowing pupils... :^)
    
In fact I don't think this will work. Someone who has
done all the hard work of transcending the mental. And
opening the eye of contemplation. And who then returns to
talk to you *on the mental level* will know that 'you
are already there'. And can say that to you. But to say
that to you the sage is having to move transpersonal knowledge
to the mental level and this leads, in my opinion, to
the usual confusion. 

And certainly not to enlightenment for you.

John D.

By the way, my life is 99% mental level (encompassing
the physical). And the other 1% is...mysterious.

Re: .-1, myself

> By the way, my life is 99% mental level (encompassing
> the physical). And the other 1% is...mysterious.

Which is another way of saying that this is all
a discussion and is therefore all mental. It's just
theory.

John D.

  RE:Note 1016.160 by NSDC::DONALDSON "Frog
    
>don't believe me ;-)). 
    why not, John, I might as well believe you instead of Ken Wilbur :^)
    
>It is evident to someone in 
>that state that: I am God, God is All, Everything is One, God is
>a multiplicity and a unity at once, etc, etc. But, try to
    Now, let me be a little presumptuous in assuming that you aren't
    'someone in that state'... otherwise you could point out my error??
    
    I have no problem with anybody stating his favorite assumptions about
    his favorite god, but when he goes on further to say that he is god,
    then I fear he has become the victim of his fears.. he is not willing
    to accept himself as a temporary phenomenon, (at least thats what his
    body and thoughts and possessions are, I think) and claims for himself
    a property that he dearly wishes viz., immortality... its so easy for
    people to believe they are anything their mind fancies, but so
    difficult to accept the fact that a piece of ground already exists into
    which their dear bodies will be entered, and that a tree is flourishing,
    whose wood will enclose their bodies, and a carpenter has been born who
    will make their..... just _my_HO_.. but I have plenty of evidence for
    this kind of opinion - all men before me, beggars and
    philosophers...:^)
    
>import that back to the mental level and you create at best
>paradoxes and at worst nonsense. 
    it looks like Ken Wilbur has created 'experience-tight' compartments,
    if the term could be used..
    
>Dump a pile of bones and connective tissue and
>brains together just doesn't get you behaviour.
    I must take this statement of yours with some salt :^)..I don't think
    anybody has attempted such a feat yet, some years back, you might have
    argued "connecting another liver to a diseased body 'just doesn't work'"?? 
    
>You have to do a couple of things to swallow all this.
    I don't think so.. I can investigate 'PP' without 'swallowing' anything
    about it to start..
    
>And that there is a hierarchy with physical level at the
>bottom. Mental next. Spiritual next.
     why should there be a 'hierarchy' ?? In fact, I don't see any
    separation between the 'physical' level and the 'mental' level even
    now,.. isn't everyone's 'physical' universe what he perceives in his
    mind?? If anybody proclaims that a 'physical' universe exists even when
    he is devoid of all instruments for perceiving it, it would be like a
    blind man insisting that there are 2 suns in our solar system...:^)...
    
    I'm not sure what exactly is meant by the 'spiritual level', but I must
    hypothesize that it might be a mental perception, like the 'physical
    level'...
    
    Before someone thinks this is 'rationalizing away' or 'denying', let me
    hasten to add that the existence of these levels is not being
    'denied'... in fact, I don't even deny the 'monster' that a person in a
    psychologically altered state might be visualizing... it is just that
    this kind of perception is no more 'the TRUTH' than what everybody else
    experiences in his usual life... all tied to the mind of the
    experiencer..
    
>However, knowing this on a mental level is...not satisfying. Is it.
   and
>But understanding that on the
>mental level doesn't really satisfy somehow. It's necessary
>to really 'know' this truth - to experience it.    :^),
    
     why isn't it satisfying ?? I think this kind of a problem arises
    for the so called 'finger philosophers'... if its true, then I should
    be able to touch it..:^) this is quite like learning in physics that a
    missile fired from a launcher follows a parabolic path to its
    target.., purely from mathematical equations..
    it ought to be enough.. but then someone needs to go out and see that
    thats exactly how it happens.. and then he feels satisfied.. thats
    because his 'reality' has been always associated with what appears
    'physical' to him, and when he learns some thing in school in his
    'mental' mode, he needs to verify it with his old 'reality'.. nothing
    has changed in the process.. only that the person who earlier thought
    he 'didn't know' now thinks he 'knows'...
    
>All the spiritual exercises and mental cleanliness and all that stuff
    ..attempt to remove the salt from the ocean ?? :^)
    
>paraphrase T.S. Elliot, "arrive back from where we started and
>*know the place for the first time*".
    I think I understand Elliott :^).. 
    
>And certainly not to enlightenment for you.
    ..let me know, John, when I get 'enlightened'.. :^), when you tell me,
    then I can be sure, of course, until then, my 'mental' knowing must be
    'sheer nonsense at worst, or paradox at best'.... :^)
    
    .. just kidding, John, but I appreciate your inputs.. thanks.
             

    
    Re.the .178 thing - hey, it was a late night...(;^)
    
    One interesting note on Krishnamurti(y?) - I was reading my latest book
    acquisition entitled "The Body Of Light", which talks about the direct
    experience of the etheric body, and it mentions that Krishnamurti
    actually experienced kundalini awakenings but never mentioned it in any
    of his published works.  (Apparently it was in his diaries.)
    
    This is the distinction between the direct experience and merely a
    mental experience, mo.
    
    Cindy

     RE:Note 1016.163                         
    
>    experience of the etheric body, and it mentions that Krishnamurti
>    actually experienced kundalini awakenings but never mentioned it in any
>    of his published works.  (Apparently it was in his diaries.)
    
     interesting.. I thought those terms were specific to some eastern
    schools of yoga(?).. never heard of it in Zen literature, though.. I
    guess he didn't think it was important enough to include in his
    published works and lectures, conversations etc...
    
     I got to talk to somebody who has attended a few Krishnamurti
    lectures ( first hand ), he claims Krishnamurti was highly
    unconventional, and never recommended any specific disciplines..yoga or
    others.. neither did he practise any of those during any stage of his
    life (was connected to Theosophy movement, but left it)..
    
    hope to catch up on some reading of his books soon..(this one is about
    J-Krishnamurti.. apparently there's another called
    U-G-Krishnamurti..not much known about him)

    .165 (Paul)
    
    Yes... thats it exactly.
    
    Mary

             
    Re.166
    
    I'll find the passage in "The Body Of Light" book and enter it in here
    as time allows - the one mentioning Krishnamurti.  I've read a few of
    his works - fairly sure we are talking about the same person.
    
    Yes, the terms are specific to yogic schools, however as the book on
    Light mentions, they are but words for similar events/experiences that
    take place within all people of various religions, cultures and the
    like.  It's like saying "Hello", only in a different language.  The
    greeting intent is the same, however the words to convey it are
    different, depending upon the language.
    
    Krishnamurti didn't need to follow or join anything to have the
    experiences he had, so it would make sense for him not to pass anything 
    along like that to others.  Once you get past the dogma of the various
    religions, schools, etc., the message is ultimately the same.  
    
                 "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."
    
    However, as I have found, taking advantage of the wisdom in the various
    disciplines - in my case yogic breathing to balance the flow of
    energy/prana within my body - helps a great deal.  So while it's not
    necessary to actually follow anything, still the information is quite
    useful when trying to cope with the changes going on inside your body
    when the kundalini energy (or whatever you wish to call it) becomes
    active.    
    
    Cindy

Re: .166, BT

>>    experience of the etheric body, and it mentions that Krishnamurti
>>    actually experienced kundalini awakenings but never mentioned it in any
>>    of his published works.  (Apparently it was in his diaries.)
>    
>     interesting.. I thought those terms were specific to some eastern
>    schools of yoga(?).. never heard of it in Zen literature, though.. I
>    guess he didn't think it was important enough to include in his
>    published works and lectures, conversations etc...

I've entered a reference to probably the best biography of
Krishnamurti in 412.57. It's quite clear that he was subject
to the Kundalini phenomenon (regardless of what you think
the Kundalini experience about). Not quite sure how Zen 
crept in here - K wasn't attached to any school. Although he
was chosen by the Theosophical Society to be the 'World
Leader' - he left that organization.
    
>     I got to talk to somebody who has attended a few Krishnamurti
>    lectures ( first hand ), he claims Krishnamurti was highly
>    unconventional, and never recommended any specific disciplines..yoga or
>    others.. neither did he practise any of those during any stage of his
>    life (was connected to Theosophy movement, but left it)..
    
There is a problem with K, which you will discover if
you read any of his books. There's obviously a state -
'knowing what K knows' - but he doesn't offer much help 
on how to attain it. Just says: "*Why* do want to change?
Look closely. And in looking there is freedom. In perfect
looking without desire to change to move- there is the
peace.

I always feel he's saying something very important (and
true! :-)), but...

John D.

Re: .-1, me

> I've entered a reference to probably the best biography of
> Krishnamurti in 412.57. It's quite clear that he was subject

That's 412.58.

    
    RE: .168, thanks, but don't bother typing in stuff, I'll read up some
    original works..
    
    Note 1016.169 by NSDC::DONALDSON
      thanks for the pointers.
    
>>    It's quite clear that he was subject to the Kundalini 
>>    phenomenon (regardless of what you think the Kundalini experience about).
          Ok, but I don't think anything about the 'Kundalini experience',
    because I don't know much about it.. what strikes me as odd is that if
    Krishnamurti never thought that experience deserved mention, why does his
    biographer pay attention to it?? Was the biographer trying to
    'retrofit' Krishnamurti into existing doctrines?
    I suspect those experiences might not be the cornerstone of his
    message, otherwise he would surely have mentioned them at least once in
    his public lectures.
            
>>Just says: "*Why* do want to change?
>>Look closely. And in looking there is freedom. In perfect
>>looking without desire to change to move- there is the
>>peace.
    I heard some mention of that too from somebody.. he called it
    'choiceless awareness' (K*'s term apparently).. I think
    'looking without desire to change to move- there is the peace' is quite
    a profound statement.. but this is mere speculation, assuming those
    were the very words used by K*..
    

Re: .171, BT
    
>          Ok, but I don't think anything about the 'Kundalini experience',
>    because I don't know much about it.. what strikes me as odd is that if

For writings about Kundalini try Gopi Krishna and Lee Sanella (sp? Senella?).
These are of course mental realm productions. ;-)
And I haven't had the experience myself.

>    Krishnamurti never thought that experience deserved mention, why does his
>    biographer pay attention to it?? Was the biographer trying to
>    'retrofit' Krishnamurti into existing doctrines?
>    I suspect those experiences might not be the cornerstone of his
>    message, otherwise he would surely have mentioned them at least once in
>    his public lectures.
            
The Lutyens biography was 'approved' by K. He also said,
when questioned about this, "Columbus went to America by boat,
but you can take a jet!". Meaning, I take it, that he'd 
had to 'get there' the hard way but could now see that 
everybody was 'there' or at least could get 'there' simply.

In this I think K was mistaken. You can explain until you're
blue in the face to a small child that a taller glass doesn't
necessarily have more in it - but the child *cannot* understand
until a certain integration of experiences happens at a 
certain developmental stage. I rahter think most of us
'grown-ups' are like that with regard to K's message.

And I think somehow the experience of 'Kundalini' is
somehow instrumental to, or at least synchronized with,
the integration necessary to understand K's message.

Also, to be boring, I think that he was giving a transpersonal
message on a mental level. And hence the experience of
mental wheel-spinning when reading some of K's stuff.

John D.

    
    RE: -1,
    
> He also said,
>when questioned about this, "Columbus went to America by boat,
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>but you can take a jet!". Meaning, I take it,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    couldn't resist this one, but I think K* has been overtaken by
    technology :^),.. now you can take an Intergalactic Stealth Tractor,
    shuttle services being offered at nominal rates between selected
    realities..
    :^) :^) 

Re: .166 (Tennant)

>     interesting.. I thought those terms were specific to some eastern
>    schools of yoga(?).. never heard of it in Zen literature, though.. I
>    guess he didn't think it was important enough to include in his
>    published works and lectures, conversations etc...
    
Then again, perhaps he thought it was too important to include in 
published works and lectures, conversations, etc...

Jeff

    
    Rats, I forgot to bring in the book again.
    
    Perhaps Krishnamurti did not realize that his experiences on the inside
    - the obvious signs of a kundalini awakening - were related to his
    spiritual insights in his books.  John, does the autobiography mention
    this?
    
    It may be the difference between reading a physics text book, and
    reading about Uncle Al's personal life, especially around the times he
    formulated some of his more significant scientific contributions to 
    understanding the world around us.  Are they separate?  Yes.  But
    are they *really* separate?  I don't think so.  It would be rather odd
    to find a description of Einstein's kundalini experiences in a physics
    textbook (if he experienced them).  The same would no doubt be true for
    Krishnamurti as well.  Some things are better left to biographies and
    autobiographies.
    
    That's why you can look at a painting objectively and declare it 
    beautiful or awful within your own context, but read about the state 
    of the painter's life at that time, and it will make a lot more sense.
    Same with music.  Same with writings.
    
    Cindy

    
    RE: .174, .175,    I give up ! Strong stuff, this kundalini..:^)
    
>   It would be rather odd
>    to find a description of Einstein's kundalini experiences in a physics
>    textbook (if he experienced them).  
    Good one! I can imagine Saddam Hussein having kundalini experience
    before raiding Kuwait :^) ...difficult to correlate the two, and would
    not make better sense in a history book on the middle-east.
    
>    The same would no doubt be true for
>    Krishnamurti as well.
    Yep, I give up again. I know neither K, nor kundalini, so I have no
    doubt that whatever was true cannot have been not true. Lets rest this
    kundalini-thing session, folks.
     

    
    Re.176
    
    If you can imagine Saddam Hussein having a kundalini experience before
    raiding Kuwait, then it's probably a good idea to give the discussion
    up.  
    
    Cindy

    :-)

    
    
>    If you can imagine Saddam Hussein having a kundalini experience before
>    raiding Kuwait, then it's probably a good idea to give the discussion
>    up.  
    
     I wouldn't have known better if somebody had told me it was the name
    of Mussolini's third cousin :^)
     This conference is really superb.. if
    any of the intelligence agencies are closely monitoring it, it must be
    for recreation I guess :^) Its quite an interesting experience to go
    into a completely unknown conference, like going to some exotic land on
    vacation, you know, entirely different set of people with all kinds of
    beliefs and knowledge, with strong affiliations and tendencies to fight
    for their pet beliefs against their fellow noters :^) Next week I board
    my spaceship for the reality of some other entirely unrelated 
    conference :^) this one was fun! :^) :^)

    
    Oh no, don't go away without at least taking the Enlightenment Quiz 
    in note 500.  Kundalini is on the list.
    
    Guaranteed to improve your knowledge and insight into such things...
             
    Cindy