Page 3 of 15
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:02 am
by The Laughing Man
Avatar wrote:
(And it's been a very long time since I read Don Juan.)
--A
Well, since this is all an "irreducible residue" of what his words (the collective writings, books and newsletters of all his associates, and
Tensegrity) have described the process and provided a purpose of life to be, why can you not easily and effortlessly disprove a theory that is wrong, based on his "descriptions"? I am truly curious as to how anyone cannot see the simple truth, and see the proper way, to achieve all that is possible for human awareness contained in the secrets of 10,000 years ago. And to not include it as a viable component of "all that he sees around him", and find no evidence of God.
The Don Juan wrote:
"...freedom cannot be an investment. Freedom is an adventure with no end, in which we risk our lives and much more for a few moments of something beyond words, beyond thoughts or feelings".
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:13 am
by Avatar
What is the "simple" truth? (Simply.)
--A
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:22 am
by The Laughing Man
I AM. I CAN.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:29 am
by ur-bane
So now we have reduced your definition of reality even further?
The Esmer's
reality (regardless of description of interpretation--which is subjective)= I AM. I CAN.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:49 am
by Avatar
And I'll agree with that. Both statements are absolutely true. And they're true for the majority (maybe even all) of sentience.
I am also. And I can too.
That is not a truth that I would even try to refute, because clearly we all are.
But that will be true whether or not there is an external "Will" or not. (Or at least, so I see it.)
--Avatar
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:52 am
by Nathan
but equally, YOU ARE NOT and YOU CANNOT.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:59 am
by [Syl]
you might be you may?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:01 pm
by ur-bane
Syl wrote:you might be you may?
LMAO! My thoughts exactly, Syl! You beat me to it.
I MIGHT BE, SO MAYBE.
Avatar--I completely agree with you that "being" does
not imply any type of external "Will." (Maybe a Tom or a Bob, but definitely not a Will.

)
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:11 pm
by Avatar
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum?
--A
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:23 pm
by ur-bane
Nice! Descartes would be proud!
But you think too much, I think.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:03 pm
by Avatar
That is a certainty.
--A
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:11 pm
by The Laughing Man
ur-bane wrote:So now we have reduced your definition of reality even further?
The Esmer's
reality (regardless of description of interpretation--which is subjective)= I AM. I CAN.

NO! that has nothing to do with the "hypothetical", and everything to do with
me quickly retorting on my way out the door to work after another night of no sleep. The answer has NOT been given, nice try.

The game hasn't been won, but it does indeed appear over...sigh.... "hypothetical" means to "pretend", btw......
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:27 pm
by ur-bane
Understood.
So I will pretend that your rules are fact, and start the game anew.
Therefore, I will re-read your initial hypothesis and re-think my position.
But, you must also understand that while I will try to play by your rules, it may actually turn out that your rules invalidate the game.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:39 pm
by The Laughing Man
This game was made up as it went along, but it always stuck to the basic rules of Logic, and validity, that each step
must be verified and agreed upon before proceeding to the next. Looking back, I do not blame anyone for getting confused,
especially me, but I would venture that my "made up" game was consistently derailed by insertions of personal, real world views into a game that was supposed to be "pretend", or hypothetical. Plus I just ran out of steam. But it really is more like work than fun, and as bewildered as I am that such an obsession came over me, and that such things poured out of me, I wouldn't blame anyone for dropping this whole deal. Perhaps "Something" was trying to say "something" to "someone", and that indeed may have been all just for me. The Esmer does not speak to know these things..... But proving EVERYTHING wrong is indeed the challenge. Has anybody noticed it all kinda looks like a math equation?
A "subjective reality" that, at the least, I would like to "share the value" with you all, regardless.....
The Carlos wrote:
""Times prior to the Spanish Conquest" is a term used by don Juan Matus, a Mexican Indian shaman who introduced Carlos Castaneda, Carol Tiggs, Florinda Donner-Grau and Taisha Abelar, (and many, many others), to the cognitive world of shamans who lived in Mexico in ancient times -- which, according to don Juan, was between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago.
Don Juan explained to his students that those shamans discovered through practices that he could not fathom, that it is possible for human beings to perceive energy directly as it flows in the universe. In other words, those shamans maintained, according to don Juan, that any one of us can do away, for a moment, with our system of turning energy inflow into sensory data pertinent to the kind of organism that we are. Turning the inflow of energy into sensory data creates, shamans affirm, a system of interpretation that turns the flowing energy of the universe into the world of everyday life that we know.
Don Juan further explained that once those shamans of ancient times had established the validity of perceiving energy directly, which they called seeing, they proceeded to refine it by applying it to themselves, meaning that they perceived one another, whenever they wanted it, as a conglomerate of energy fields. Human beings perceived in such a fashion appear to the seer as gigantic luminous spheres. The size of these luminous spheres is the breadth of the extended arms.
When human beings are perceived as conglomerates of energy fields, a point of intense luminosity can be perceived at the height of the shoulder blades an arm's length away from them, on the back. The seers of ancient times who discovered this point of luminosity called it the assemblage point, because they concluded that it is there that perception is assembled. They noticed, aided by their seeing, that on that spot of luminosity, the location of which is homogeneous for mankind, converge zillions of energy fields in the form of luminous filaments which constitute the universe at large. Upon converging there, they become sensory data, which is utilizable by human beings as organisms. This utilization of energy turned into sensory data was regarded by those shamans as an act of pure magic: energy at large transformed by the assemblage point into a veritable, all-inclusive world in which human beings as organisms can live and die. The act of transforming the inflow of pure energy into the perceivable world was attributed by those shamans to a system of interpretation. Their shattering conclusion, shattering to them, of course, and perhaps to some of us who have the energy to be attentive, was that the assemblage point was not only the spot where perception was assembled by turning the inflow of pure energy into sensory data, but the spot where the interpretation of sensory data took place...
...They realized that at its habitual position, the assemblage point is the spot where converges a given, minuscule portion of the energy filaments that make up the universe, but if the assemblage point changes location, within the luminous egg, a different minuscule portion of energy fields converges on it, giving as a result a new inflow of sensory data: energy fields different from the habitual ones are turned into sensory data, and those different energy fields are interpreted as a different world."
God grants an appointment....(Avatar "represents" us all.

)
Avatar -"What ARE you"? (Creator) "I AM Creator."
Avatar - "What DO you DO"? "I Create."
Avatar -"WHAT DO you Create"? "Creation."
Avatar - "Why"?
Creator (chuckling to Itself) "You wouldn't understand, my son...".

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:42 pm
by ur-bane
Well, in that case, we need Syl to choose a new philosophical subject of the moment, as he promised in his initial thread.

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:14 am
by [Syl]
Heh. Ok, I'll get on it. Of course, if anyone else has one...
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:09 am
by Kinslaughterer
How about the Enlightenment vs. Romanticism?
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:21 am
by The Laughing Man
The Daily Ceasure wrote:Missing Link Exclusive Interview!!! (audio)
"Oog: Hello.. Me Oog..Right here, 300 million years ago. This way back before Oog spine straightened, front lobes developed, comprehend rational thought, master english language!........Oog: So there me was beating boulder into powder because me couldn't eat it and magic ball land in lap. Naturally, me think, "All right! Free Egg!" because me stupid and me cave man. So me spent about 3 days humping and bust open with thigh bone so me could eat it good, then magic ball shoot Oog with beam, and next thing me know me go out and invent wheel out of dinosaur brain! Magic dino-wheel rolled for 3 short distance before me eat it, the point is me get smarter. Soon, me walk upright. Me feather back dirty, matted hair into wings for style and me stop to use bathroom as opposed to me just doing it as me walk...Me think it (magic ball) miss something; kick ass fighting games with action missles."

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:44 pm
by ur-bane
Kinslaughterer wrote:How about the Enlightenment vs. Romanticism?
Hmm. That's interesting Kins. I'd have to do
hefty research, but it could be fun.
Although, why "vs."?
Wasn't "Enlightenment" more of an intellectual era(IIRC more individualistic thinking), where "Romanticism" was more advancement of the arts (gaining almost global popularity in a short time)?
Would your "vs" be referring to which had era had a more lasting impression/influence on today's society?
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:50 pm
by Kinslaughterer
yes
Romanticism was more of a reaction to the Enlightenment but the all thoughts are open.