In many ways this is the nadir of IB's Real Magic, contradicting much
of the introduction. Fortunately, the book does improve again.

However, on we go. IB continues his narrative that science had mined
deeper into occultism over time. Starting with stuff like maths and
chemistry science established newer disciplines such as psychology and
parapsychology. IB sees parapsychology as an opportunity to recast the
vocabulary of occultism, continuing his efforts to simplify magic.

This leads us to something akin to the 'scrapbook of superstition'
derided in the introduction. IB starts with clairvoyance, going on to
speculate about the other clair-senses, both human and animal.

Now in contrast to the tone on most of the chapter IB does suggest
that sometimes the source of clair-sense may be the crytalisation of a
'hunch', in the nature of hunches sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Now moving onto mind over matter we take a surreal turn into pseudo-
science. Secret experiments where animals are teleported by mediums
only for the animals to arrive dead.....

IB claims there is a philosophical basis for this in Buddhism.
"The Buddhist term for "instant" is the ksana, which also means "the
favorable moment". Any instant may become the ksana; illumination is
instantaneous (eka-ksana) and usually symbolised as a lighting flash.
Thus the difference between "moment" and ksana is qualitative. The
ksana is coexistant with every instant of time past-present-future. By
jumping into ksana from the present, you should be able to jump off
again into any point of past or future."

Uh-huh.

IB then groups a range of alleged phenomena as Atomic psychokinesis
(APK). *If* one can perform psychokinesis on such a small scale then
magic fire starting, water into wine, magic lights, healing and so on
may in fact all have the same basic cause.

Now concentrate, here comes the pseudoscience bit: In the form of
scientific looking figures to 'Prove'

a)poltergeists are APK from pissed off people.

b)we're all transceivers of mysterious powers.

c)People tend to piss each other off, and so should be generally be
avoided.

As I've said already, this chapter contradicts the introduction in the
worst ways. Not only it's credulous nature and superstition scrap
booking but it's sometimes fearful rather than hopeful tone 'Those
Ruskies are way ahead of us' (at a time when the cold war was in full
swing). Are appeals to secret 'results' from secrete scientists really
that different to secret chiefs?

(I note that as an 'update' in the later edition IB backtracks on some
of this stuff, but also retreats to that catch-all quantum mechanics).

So is there anything we can salvage?

Well, IB does play around with the idea that magic can be bound up
with the information or ques we have unconsciously manifesting in
various ways. Most commonly as feelings. Although IB uses the term
empathy extensively.

Rick has been doing some thinking along these lines, especially that
we can prime ourselves to be more response to certain types of que.

http://neuromagick.com/

I'm disappointed not to be able to include an excellent link from the
alt.magick archive to one of Tom's posts on TAT cards and the light
they cast on Tarot. I'll continue looking for it, but if anyone has a
link I'd urge them to post it.

People;

To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
be interchangeable when talking about magick?

What other pieces of magical jargon do you believe there are synonyms
for that would be clearer for beginners?

On 4 Jun, 12:49, Chade  wrote:


>
> Now moving onto mind over matter we take a surreal turn into pseudo-
> science. Secret experiments where animals are teleported by mediums
> only for the animals to arrive dead.....
>
> IB claims there is a philosophical basis for this in Buddhism.
> "The Buddhist term for "instant" is the ksana, which also means "the
> favorable moment". Any instant may become the ksana; illumination is
> instantaneous (eka-ksana) and usually symbolised as a lighting flash.
> Thus the difference between "moment" and ksana is qualitative. The
> ksana is coexistant with every instant of time past-present-future. By
> jumping into ksana from the present, you should be able to jump off
> again into any point of past or future."
>
> Uh-huh.
>

To clarify IB sees a link between teleportation in space and
teleportation in time.

>
> So is there anything we can salvage?
>
> Well, IB does play around with the idea that magic can be bound up
> with the information or ques we have unconsciously manifesting in
> various ways. Most commonly as feelings. Although IB uses the term
> empathy extensively.
>
> Rick has been doing some thinking along these lines, especially that
> we can prime ourselves to be more response to certain types of que.
>
> http://neuromagick.com/
>

http://neuromagick.com/discuss/viewforum.php?f=1

"Chade"  wrote in message 
news:6f58dd2d-0e3f-4f05-812a-6e1a2a7e0f47@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> IB claims there is a philosophical basis for this in Buddhism.
> "The Buddhist term for "instant" is the ksana, which also means "the
> favorable moment". Any instant may become the ksana; illumination is
> instantaneous (eka-ksana) and usually symbolised as a lighting flash.
> Thus the difference between "moment" and ksana is qualitative. The
> ksana is coexistant with every instant of time past-present-future. By
> jumping into ksana from the present, you should be able to jump off
> again into any point of past or future."
>
> Uh-huh.

Would this be "mystercism"?  It sure isn't Buddhism.

What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" into. 
Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present moment.

> As I've said already, this chapter contradicts the introduction in the
> worst ways. Not only it's credulous nature and superstition scrap
> booking but it's sometimes fearful rather than hopeful tone 'Those
> Ruskies are way ahead of us' (at a time when the cold war was in full
> swing). Are appeals to secret 'results' from secrete scientists really
> that different to secret chiefs?
>
> (I note that as an 'update' in the later edition IB backtracks on some
> of this stuff, but also retreats to that catch-all quantum mechanics).

The lure of pseudoscience is strong.  It tells you what you want to hear.

> I'm disappointed not to be able to include an excellent link from the
> alt.magick archive to one of Tom's posts on TAT cards and the light
> they cast on Tarot. I'll continue looking for it, but if anyone has a
> link I'd urge them to post it.

That was some time ago.  I'll reflect on it again briefly.

The TAT is one of a category of psychological tests called "projective 
tests".   The idea is to present to the subject an ambiguous image and ask 
for an interpretation of it.  Some of these images are abstract, such as the 
Rorschach Inkblot Test, and some are images of  people engaged in vague 
activities, such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).

Our interpretations of ambiguous stimuli depends largely on how we have 
experienced similar stimuli in the past.  People who have expereinced a lot 
of violence in their lives will tend to interpret the images as having 
violent content, for example.  Their current attitudes will be "projected" 
onto the cards.

The usual method of reading the Tarot is very similar to the way a TAT is 
administered.  Cards will be laid out and the subject will be asked to tell 
a story about them.  The results are similar.  What one gets from the 
reading is a sample of how one is currently feeling.  This can be quite 
insightful, but not precognitive.

> To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
> be interchangeable when talking about magick?

In my view of magick, they are all feelings.

> What other pieces of magical jargon do you believe there are synonyms
> for that would be clearer for beginners?

Feelings.

Tom wrote:
<snip>
> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present moment.
<snip>

The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.

Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Tom wrote:
> 
> "Chade"  wrote in message 
> news:6f58dd2d-0e3f-4f05-812a-6e1a2a7e0f47@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> IB claims there is a philosophical basis for this in Buddhism.
>> "The Buddhist term for "instant" is the ksana, which also means "the
>> favorable moment". Any instant may become the ksana; illumination is
>> instantaneous (eka-ksana) and usually symbolised as a lighting flash.
>> Thus the difference between "moment" and ksana is qualitative. The
>> ksana is coexistant with every instant of time past-present-future. By
>> jumping into ksana from the present, you should be able to jump off
>> again into any point of past or future."
>>
>> Uh-huh.
> 
> Would this be "mystercism"?  It sure isn't Buddhism.
> 
> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present moment.
> 
>> As I've said already, this chapter contradicts the introduction in the
>> worst ways. Not only it's credulous nature and superstition scrap
>> booking but it's sometimes fearful rather than hopeful tone 'Those
>> Ruskies are way ahead of us' (at a time when the cold war was in full
>> swing). Are appeals to secret 'results' from secrete scientists really
>> that different to secret chiefs?
>>
>> (I note that as an 'update' in the later edition IB backtracks on some
>> of this stuff, but also retreats to that catch-all quantum mechanics).
> 
> The lure of pseudoscience is strong.  It tells you what you want to hear.
> 
>> I'm disappointed not to be able to include an excellent link from the
>> alt.magick archive to one of Tom's posts on TAT cards and the light
>> they cast on Tarot. I'll continue looking for it, but if anyone has a
>> link I'd urge them to post it.
> 
> That was some time ago.  I'll reflect on it again briefly.
> 
> The TAT is one of a category of psychological tests called "projective 
> tests".   The idea is to present to the subject an ambiguous image and 
> ask for an interpretation of it.  Some of these images are abstract, 
> such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test, and some are images of  people 
> engaged in vague activities, such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).
> 
> Our interpretations of ambiguous stimuli depends largely on how we have 
> experienced similar stimuli in the past.  People who have expereinced a 
> lot of violence in their lives will tend to interpret the images as 
> having violent content, for example.  Their current attitudes will be 
> "projected" onto the cards.
> 
> The usual method of reading the Tarot is very similar to the way a TAT 
> is administered.  Cards will be laid out and the subject will be asked 
> to tell a story about them.  The results are similar.  What one gets 
> from the reading is a sample of how one is currently feeling.  This can 
> be quite insightful, but not precognitive.

Can it not be so?  Can newly exposed insight not bring into awareness 
new paths to possible future outcomes?  Perhaps not strictly 
precognitive, but possibly useful.


> 
>> To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
>> be interchangeable when talking about magick?
> 
> In my view of magick, they are all feelings.
> 
>> What other pieces of magical jargon do you believe there are synonyms
>> for that would be clearer for beginners?
> 
> Feelings.

Nothing more than Feeeeeelings.
Sorry, had to.

Gale wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present moment.
> <snip>
> 
> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
> 
> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
> 


It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from the 
past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's material 
physics, not meta.

David Cantu wrote:
> Gale wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>> moment.
>> <snip>
>>
>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
>>
>> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
>> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
>>
> 
> 
> It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from the 
> past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's material 
> physics, not meta.


That's an interesting thought.

David Cantu wrote:
> Gale wrote:
> 
>> Tom wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>> moment.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
>>
>> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
>> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
>>
> 
> 
> It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from the 
> past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's material 
> physics, not meta.

Right answer, wrong question. Can you demonstrate 'now' exists at all? 
Or only provide claims that the past must have been 'now' at some 
ephemeral point between being the future and being history? All you know 
is knowledge of the past. As for the present, has it more reality than 
it has duration?

(My words do not reflect my opinions of reality, only my opinion of 
those who presume certainty where it is unattainable.)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Gale wrote:
> David Cantu wrote:
>> Gale wrote:
>>
>>> Tom wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
>>>
>>> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
>>> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from 
>> the past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's 
>> material physics, not meta.
> 
> Right answer, wrong question. Can you demonstrate 'now' exists at all? 
> Or only provide claims that the past must have been 'now' at some 
> ephemeral point between being the future and being history? All you know 
> is knowledge of the past. As for the present, has it more reality than 
> it has duration?
> 
> (My words do not reflect my opinions of reality, only my opinion of 
> those who presume certainty where it is unattainable.)
> 


Well, I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but launching instead into 
a  set of rationalizations of the proposed concept.
What we perceive is a collection of various aspects of the past arriving 
into consciousness through an array of processes outside (i.e. the time 
it takes for information to arrive at the organs from various sources at 
various distances) and inside (the processes necessary to translate that 
information into perception)the self.
On the other side consciousness itself is the result of processes that 
occur over time so that consciousness falls behind actual doing.  You 
might imagine a "you" a split second ahead of the conscious "you" and in 
a sense this future you is the real objective you and the conscious you 
is literally an afterthought.
So I can't really demonstrate that now exists outside of conception but 
can at least demonstrate that experiential now is an illusion of 
convenience and that we are unlikely to be who we believe ourselves to be.
Perhaps still not metaphysical enough, but why dwell deeper than the 
answer lies?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:09:23 -0500, David Cantu 
blethered:

>Gale wrote:
>> David Cantu wrote:
>>> Gale wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>>>> moment.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
>>>>
>>>> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
>>>> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from 
>>> the past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's 
>>> material physics, not meta.
>> 
>> Right answer, wrong question. Can you demonstrate 'now' exists at all? 
>> Or only provide claims that the past must have been 'now' at some 
>> ephemeral point between being the future and being history? All you know 
>> is knowledge of the past. As for the present, has it more reality than 
>> it has duration?
>> 
>> (My words do not reflect my opinions of reality, only my opinion of 
>> those who presume certainty where it is unattainable.)
>> 
>
>
>Well, I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but launching instead into 
>a  set of rationalizations of the proposed concept.
>What we perceive is a collection of various aspects of the past arriving 
>into consciousness through an array of processes outside (i.e. the time 
>it takes for information to arrive at the organs from various sources at 
>various distances) and inside (the processes necessary to translate that 
>information into perception)the self.
>On the other side consciousness itself is the result of processes that 
>occur over time so that consciousness falls behind actual doing.  You 
>might imagine a "you" a split second ahead of the conscious "you" and in 
>a sense this future you is the real objective you and the conscious you 
>is literally an afterthought.
>So I can't really demonstrate that now exists outside of conception but 
>can at least demonstrate that experiential now is an illusion of 
>convenience and that we are unlikely to be who we believe ourselves to be.
>Perhaps still not metaphysical enough, but why dwell deeper than the 
>answer lies?

*blinks* 

Anyone else getting a sore head and a slight feeling of dizziness? I'm
feeling slightly temporally displaced now. ;-/


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

Gale wrote, On 6/4/2008 10:00 PM:
> David Cantu wrote:
>> Gale wrote:
>>
>>> Tom wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
>>>
>>> Think about that possibility -- then maybe you'll hesitate before you 
>>> advance metaphysical assertions with so much certainty.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is demonstrably true that all you perceive as "now" arrives from 
>> the past, the speed of light being finite and all.  But that's 
>> material physics, not meta.
> 
> Right answer, wrong question. Can you demonstrate 'now' exists at all? 

Yes. With our good ole imagination we can take a three dimensional 
coordinate system and then extend it far beyond the boundaries of
our finite universe. As we expand our reach to make what now seems so
vast, to a comparatively small, sub-sub-sub quark size; all time is now.

> Or only provide claims that the past must have been 'now' at some 
> ephemeral point between being the future and being history? All you know 
> is knowledge of the past. As for the present, has it more reality than 
> it has duration?
> 

We don't have to think Cosmo-centric any more.

> (My words do not reflect my opinions of reality, only my opinion of 
> those who presume certainty where it is unattainable.)
> 


-- 
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7

Halla wrote:
<snip>
> 
> *blinks* 
> 
> Anyone else getting a sore head and a slight feeling of dizziness? I'm
> feeling slightly temporally displaced now. ;-/
> 

Which is why one should touch such questions only flippantly -- they 
reveal the limits of human perception and human logic, but don't lead to 
anything more productive than a bit of intellectual tolerance and a 
headache.  ;-)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Meltdarok wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Yes. With our good ole imagination we can take a three dimensional 
> coordinate system and then extend it far beyond the boundaries of
> our finite universe. As we expand our reach to make what now seems so
> vast, to a comparatively small, sub-sub-sub quark size; all time is now.
<snip>

Very nice, very reasonable, but not a proof with demonstrated 
superiority to all alternatives.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Gale wrote, On 6/5/2008 6:54 AM:
> Meltdarok wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Yes. With our good ole imagination we can take a three dimensional 
>> coordinate system and then extend it far beyond the boundaries of
>> our finite universe. As we expand our reach to make what now seems so
>> vast, to a comparatively small, sub-sub-sub quark size; all time is now.
> <snip>
> 
> Very nice, very reasonable, but not a proof with demonstrated 
> superiority to all alternatives.
> 

"proof with demonstrated superiority to all alternatives"?
That makes me laugh.

-- 
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:hpB1k.167$pc.115@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" into. 
>> Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present moment.
> <snip>
>
> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.

Oh, stop working so hard to be contrary.  You're making an ass of yourself. 
Again.

"David Cantu"  wrote in message 
news:V7KdnSniLq302drVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>> The usual method of reading the Tarot is very similar to the way a TAT is 
>> administered.  Cards will be laid out and the subject will be asked to 
>> tell a story about them.  The results are similar.  What one gets from 
>> the reading is a sample of how one is currently feeling.  This can be 
>> quite insightful, but not precognitive.
>
> Can it not be so?  Can newly exposed insight not bring into awareness new 
> paths to possible future outcomes?  Perhaps not strictly precognitive, but 
> possibly useful.

People can anticipate the future and be right about it often enough to make 
guessing worthwhile.  There's nothing paranormal about it.  If we want to be 
truly awake, we must always be aware that our anticipation of the future is 
guesswork.  The pretense that it's not guesswork is folly.

Everything that has been percieved by any consciousness anywhere is
still being perceived by that consciousness, but in different
manifestations across the spectrum/continuum, ergo everything thing
that ever happened, will happen or happened in a different dimension
entirely is happening simultaneously right now. The Pleroma basically,
is always completely filled, but due to the highly restricted
veiwpoints we usually operate with time has a tendency to appear
linear, space apparently makes sense, and we never interact with the
negatively charged opposite aspects of our space-time-matter-energy
universe.

Expand your viewpoint and make new territories your own and you too
can build a designer universe, one that may be appreciated and enjoyed
by many, inside and out, of your personal infinity span (i'll admit
that logically, in human logic, that makes no obvious senes; suffice
it to say any term infinity isnot really infinity, but it's so damned
big it might as well be).

Too much or too crazy to accept. Fine, it's just the end game answer
that opens up infinitely more questions and puts a serious
monkeywrench in the works of the the disgusting unifiers.

Rebel Gods Rock!

Meltdarok wrote:
> Gale wrote, On 6/5/2008 6:54 AM:
> 
>> Meltdarok wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes. With our good ole imagination we can take a three dimensional 
>>> coordinate system and then extend it far beyond the boundaries of
>>> our finite universe. As we expand our reach to make what now seems so
>>> vast, to a comparatively small, sub-sub-sub quark size; all time is now.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Very nice, very reasonable, but not a proof with demonstrated 
>> superiority to all alternatives.
>>
> 
> "proof with demonstrated superiority to all alternatives"?
> That makes me laugh.
> 
Good, that's the point. :-)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Tom wrote:
> 
> "Gale"  wrote in message 
> news:hpB1k.167$pc.115@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> 
>> Tom wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What Isaac failed to realize is that "past" and "future" are merely 
>>> recollection and anticipation, not other worlds that one can "jump" 
>>> into. Everything, even the past and the future, is in the present 
>>> moment.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The present moment doesn't exist. Only the past and the future are real.
> 
> 
> Oh, stop working so hard to be contrary.  You're making an ass of 
> yourself. Again.

First an unsubstanciable declaration stated in the form of a fact, then 
an ad hominem. Two posts, your credibility decreasing with each.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:49:38 -0500, Gale 
blethered:

>Halla wrote:
><snip>
>> 
>> *blinks* 
>> 
>> Anyone else getting a sore head and a slight feeling of dizziness? I'm
>> feeling slightly temporally displaced now. ;-/
>> 
>
>Which is why one should touch such questions only flippantly -- they 
>reveal the limits of human perception and human logic, but don't lead to 
>anything more productive than a bit of intellectual tolerance and a 
>headache.  ;-)

Now that's some sensible advice. <g> 


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:LxV1k.971$BW4.621@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> First an unsubstanciable declaration stated in the form of a fact,

A fact is a self-evident phenomenon.  The present moment is a self-evident 
phenomenon.  Therefore, a statement that a self-evident phenomenon exists is 
a factual statement.  A denial of a self-evident phenomenon is simply 
foolish.

Tom wrote:
> 
> "Gale"  wrote in message 
> news:LxV1k.971$BW4.621@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> 
>>
>> First an unsubstanciable declaration stated in the form of a fact,
> 
> 
> A fact is a self-evident phenomenon.  The present moment is a 
> self-evident phenomenon.  Therefore, a statement that a self-evident 
> phenomenon exists is a factual statement.  A denial of a self-evident 
> phenomenon is simply foolish.

I don't know where to begin regarding that definition, except to note 
that it appears to reflect the philosophical viewpoint called 'naive 
realism.' As one might guess from the name, it has not been held in much 
esteem by philosophers from Thales of Miletus to the present -- largely 
because anything anyone declares 'self-evident' is (and I'm not sure if 
this definition is from Mark Twain or from Ambrose Bierce's _Devil's 
Dictionary_) "evident to one's self, and to nobody else."

Or, if that's beyond your understanding, calling something 
'self-evident' is simply spouting one's impressions without recourse to 
either logic or evidence.

Questions about the reality of the present or of time recurr in 
Classical Greek philosophy, and not just the sophistry of Zeno and his 
paradoxes. IIRC, part of the reasoning behind Parmenides of Elea's 
claims that reality is the unchanging One, not the fire-flicker of 
action we see, is involved in the connundrum found in examining the 
concept of time. Reflections of that can be found in Plato's notion of 
the realm of forms.

Responses to the duration question can be found in more modern 
philosophy notably Whitehead's "windowed monads" which he claimed as the 
elements of reality and which is derived from Liebnetz's windowless ones.

I'm pleased to be placed in company with such 'foolish' people, but I 
really don't deserve it. All were much smarter than me.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:2j12k.3442$BW4.977@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
>>
>> "Gale"  wrote in message 
>> news:LxV1k.971$BW4.621@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>>
>>> First an unsubstanciable declaration stated in the form of a fact,
>>
>>
>> A fact is a self-evident phenomenon.  The present moment is a 
>> self-evident phenomenon.  Therefore, a statement that a self-evident 
>> phenomenon exists is a factual statement.  A denial of a self-evident 
>> phenomenon is simply foolish.
>
> I don't know where to begin regarding that definition,

Of course you don't.  You don't want that to be the definition of fact, but 
it is.  Check a few dictionaries for yourself.

> except to note that it appears to reflect the philosophical viewpoint 
> called 'naive realism.'

"Naive realism" says it is what it appears to be.  That's not the experience 
of the present.  That's an explanation of what some experience must have 
meant.  Actual realism, not the naive kind or any of the other modifiers, 
does not require any explanations.  Realism does not say "it is what it 
appears to be".  Realism says "it is".

What we experience is real.  That is because it is self-evident.  It's our 
experience.  If it were not our experience, we wouldn't be experiencing it 
and then what the hell would we be talking about?  When we remember the 
past, we experience remembering *right now*.  We can pretend we're not in 
the present by mistakingly speculating that the present is a finite space 
that can be escaped, but pretending doesn't make it so.  It only makes you 
believe so.

Beliefs come and go.  Realists don't cling to them.

> As one might guess from the name, it has not been held in much esteem by 
> philosophers from Thales of Miletus to the present -- largely because 
> anything anyone declares 'self-evident' is (and I'm not sure if this 
> definition is from Mark Twain or from Ambrose Bierce's _Devil's 
> Dictionary_) "evident to one's self, and to nobody else."

The use of the term "self-evident" in the Devil's Dictionary was to describe 
some metaphysical belief that was not to be questioned or examined.  "It's 
self-evident" meant "It is not to be questioned".

I am using the term in a very different sense.  I am saying that it is 
evidence of itself.  Whether you question it or not is up to you, but no 
matter what you believe, the present is always where you are, although it 
may not be where you'd like to be.  Hence all the energetic fantasizing 
about living in some other time or place, when all you're doing is making up 
stories to tell yourself.  The present is self-evident.  Wherever you think 
you are, it's always now.  It's always here.  If it were not, there would be 
no we to know it.

Tom wrote:
<snip>
> 
> The use of the term "self-evident" in the Devil's Dictionary was to 
> describe some metaphysical belief that was not to be questioned or 
> examined.  "It's self-evident" meant "It is not to be questioned".
> 
> I am using the term in a very different sense.  I am saying that it is 
> evidence of itself.  <snip>

<shakes head> And you imagine there is a difference? Especially when you 
have claimed that all those very impressive people who did not agree 
with your notions regarding the present are "foolish"?

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Tom wrote:
<snip> Actual realism, not the naive kind or any
> of the other modifiers, does not require any explanations.  Realism does 
> not say "it is what it appears to be".  Realism says "it is".
<snip>
'Realism' is a 19th. century school of fiction writing. It is not a 
school of philosophy, not unless the 'naive' is placed in front of the 
term -- because philosophers are very careful about claiming 'it is' (or 
at least about each other's claims as to what 'is.' Every school I can 
think of rejects something of 'what is' ranging from the Classical 
skepticism about empirical claims ('the senses lie') to those school of 
moderns who dismiss perceived but non-empirical concepts  such as 'the 
soul.'

And, by the way, your definition, "it is" appears a perfect description 
of naive realism. Even that best known "it is," Descartes's "I think, 
therefore I am" is less than a complete logical phrase and subject to 
scrutiny.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:WF82k.6425$h05.2879@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> The use of the term "self-evident" in the Devil's Dictionary was to 
>> describe some metaphysical belief that was not to be questioned or 
>> examined.  "It's self-evident" meant "It is not to be questioned".
>>
>> I am using the term in a very different sense.  I am saying that it is 
>> evidence of itself.  <snip>
>
> <shakes head> And you imagine there is a difference?

Of course there's a difference.

> Especially when you have claimed that all those very impressive people who 
> did not agree with your notions regarding the present are "foolish"?

An argument from authority.  All those "impressive people" are not right 
simply because they're "impressive".  Not one of them can dispute that what 
we experience is what's real, not what we think that experience means, but 
the experience in itself.  It is self-evident.  It is not extrapolated from 
something else.  Our private experience is the ground upon which all our 
philosophies, no matter how "impressive" or "foolish" they may appear, 
ultimately depend.

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:KX82k.6433$h05.1974@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip> Actual realism, not the naive kind or any
>> of the other modifiers, does not require any explanations.  Realism does 
>> not say "it is what it appears to be".  Realism says "it is".
> <snip>
> 'Realism' is a 19th. century school of fiction writing.

That's literary realism.  That's not realism without a modifier.

The realism I'm talking about (as opposed to the ones you would like to 
pretend I'm talking about) is not about how one interprets experience, but 
about experience itself, devoid of its interpretation.  Perception itself 
often involves hard-wired, and sometimes incorrect, interpretations.  We may 
perceive what isn't there or fail to perceive what is there or we may 
perceive what is there in a distorted and inaccurate way, so I'm clearly not 
saying that what we perceive is what is.  I'm saying that experience itself 
is what is, not the conclusions we derive from it.

> And, by the way, your definition, "it is" appears a perfect description of 
> naive realism.

That's completely false.  Naive realism is a statement that reality is what 
it appears to be, as I explained to you before.  If that were true, then 
there would be no such thing as an optical illusion, because everything 
really would be as it appears to be.  Yet there are illusions, optical and 
otherwise.  Illusions exist, but they are not what they appear to be.  So 
the statement "it is" is quite a bit different than the statement "it is as 
it appears to be".

> Even that best known "it is," Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" is 
> less than a complete logical phrase and subject to scrutiny.

"I am" is not "reality is".  Thought is an interpretation and representation 
of experience. The "I" is a representation of the thinker of thoughts, an 
abstraction of an abstraction.  The basic ground is experience, not our 
narration of it.

Tom wrote:
<snip>
> 
> That's completely false.  Naive realism is a statement that reality is 
> what it appears to be, as I explained to you before.  If that were true, 
> then there would be no such thing as an optical illusion, because 
> everything really would be as it appears to be.  Yet there are 
> illusions, optical and otherwise.  Illusions exist, but they are not 
> what they appear to be.  So the statement "it is" is quite a bit 
> different than the statement "it is as it appears to be".
<snip>

The naive realist need not disbelieve in the concept of the optical 
illusion. He need only believe in the certainty of his own experience -- 
which you are certainly and manifestly exhibiting.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Tom wrote:
<snip>
> An argument from authority.  All those "impressive people" are not right 
> simply because they're "impressive". 

Quite true -- but I'm not inclined to call all those variously 
considered the 'great minds' of Western civilization "fools," as you did.

  Not one of them can dispute that
> what we experience is what's real, not what we think that experience 
> means, but the experience in itself. 

On the contrary, they and many others have examined the question, 
finding it far from cut and dried. The history of philosophy is filled 
with accounts of thinkers trying, and sometimes failing, to justify the 
notions you declare 'self-evident.'

  It is self-evident.  It is not
> extrapolated from something else. 

Leaving the possibility that it is merely your illusion.

  Our private experience is the ground
> upon which all our philosophies, no matter how "impressive" or "foolish" 
> they may appear, ultimately depend.

And that is a point of tremendous contention. Multitudes have disagreed 
-- and, by the way, said point fully contradicts your initial point. You 
called Bonewitts's claims regarding the past and future erroneous -- 
your above statement, however, fully justifies his picture of reality or 
any subjective picture of reality. One whose personal experience 
includes visiting the past is, by your statement, fully entitled to 
claim the real existence of the past, a claim you adamantly objected to 
in your initial post.

I'm not so much of a relativist as all that, myself. Regarding the 
initial question, I would stand more in the range of William James who 
noted, regarding various parapsychological phenomena, that we have 
evidence of 'something,' but evidence which always stands just a bit shy 
of our standards of verification. And as for 'personal experience,' I 
would no more study the concept of time in that light than I would study 
high energy physics under those assumptions (ever hear of Heisenberg?).

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:POg2k.128$PZ6.78@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> That's completely false.  Naive realism is a statement that reality is 
>> what it appears to be, as I explained to you before.  If that were true, 
>> then there would be no such thing as an optical illusion, because 
>> everything really would be as it appears to be.  Yet there are illusions, 
>> optical and otherwise.  Illusions exist, but they are not what they 
>> appear to be.  So the statement "it is" is quite a bit different than the 
>> statement "it is as it appears to be".
> <snip>
>
> The naive realist need not disbelieve in the concept of the optical 
> illusion.

If he is a naive realist, he will not believe that he can be fooled by an 
illusion.  If he could, then he could not honestly assert that reality is as 
it appears to be.

> He need only believe in the certainty of his own experience -- 
> which you are certainly and manifestly exhibiting.

"Certainly"?  Are you certain of that?   After all your protest against 
certainty in anything, you seem to be announcing your certainty about the 
invisible things you think I'm "exhibiting".  It looks like your actions 
don't match your words.  Ah, but things aren't always as they appear, eh?  I 
could be wrong.  Or maybe you could.  Any possibility of that?

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:k7h2k.139$PZ6.97@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>> An argument from authority.  All those "impressive people" are not right 
>> simply because they're "impressive".
>
> Quite true -- 

I'm glad to see that you admit when you're wrong.

> but  I'm not inclined to call all those variously considered the 'great 
> minds' of Western civilization "fools," as you did.

I know. That's because you're still laboring under the fallacy of appealing 
to authority.

>>  Not one of them can dispute that
>> what we experience is what's real, not what we think that experience 
>> means, but the experience in itself.
>
> On the contrary, they and many others have examined the question, finding 
> it far from cut and dried. The history of philosophy is filled with 
> accounts of thinkers trying, and sometimes failing, to justify the notions 
> you declare 'self-evident.'

Be specific.  Quote me any of these "great minds" denying that he 
experiences anything.

>>  It is self-evident.  It is not
>> extrapolated from something else.
>
> Leaving the possibility that it is merely your illusion.

Then I experience an illusion.  I'm still experiencing something.


>
>> Our private experience is the ground
>> upon which all our philosophies, no matter how "impressive" or "foolish" 
>> they may appear, ultimately depend.
>
> And that is a point of tremendous contention.

By you.  I await your next appeal to authority.

> One whose personal experience includes visiting the past is, by your 
> statement, fully entitled to claim the real existence of the past, a claim 
> you adamantly objected to in your initial post.

You're still failing to grasp the fundamental idea of what I'm saying. 
Interpretations are not experience.  We can have all sorts of explanations, 
but what do you think we're trying to explain?  It's our *experience*. 
You're not in the "past" just because you remember things as being different 
from they are right now.  You're not in the "future" because you anticipate 
what might happen later than right now.  It's all happening right now.  It's 
our *experience*.

> I'm not so much of a relativist as all that, myself. Regarding the initial 
> question, I would stand more in the range of William James who noted, 
> regarding various parapsychological phenomena, that we have evidence of 
> 'something,' but evidence which always stands just a bit shy of our 
> standards of verification.

All your rationalizations and appeals to authority come down to this:  You 
want to believe that paranormal powers exist, but since they don't have 
anything but the flimsiest evidence supporting them, you'd rather try to 
argue that evidence isn't worth anything anyway.

> And as for 'personal experience,' I would no more study the concept of 
> time in that light than I would study high energy physics under those 
> assumptions (ever hear of Heisenberg?).

Yah.  Smart guy.  He studied physics, one of the things you won't study.

Tom wrote:
<snip>

You're losing it. <thunk>

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Tom wrote:
<snip>
I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the 
first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:rnj2k.175$Nr.103@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the 
> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.

Obligatory brave exit speech # 56:  "You snipped something."

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:Wjj2k.172$Nr.117@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>
> You're losing it. <thunk>

Obligatory brave exit speech # 41:  "This person has gone crazy."

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:2I2dndDr6ZYaj9fVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gale"  wrote in message 
> news:rnj2k.175$Nr.103@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Tom wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the 
>> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>
> Obligatory brave exit speech # 56:  "You snipped something."
>

Most people get rather disgusted with posters who regularly make 
unacknowledged edits of key features of a previous post and then reply to 
the altered text as if that were what the other poster actually said.

wrote in message 
news:w7w2k.771$bh5.697@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:2I2dndDr6ZYaj9fVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Gale"  wrote in message 
>> news:rnj2k.175$Nr.103@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> Tom wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the 
>>> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>>
>> Obligatory brave exit speech # 56:  "You snipped something."
>
> Most people get rather disgusted with posters who regularly make 
> unacknowledged edits of key features of a previous post and then reply to 
> the altered text as if that were what the other poster actually said.

No, most people who want to make excuses for the fact that they have lost an 
argument need to find something to get "rather disgusted" about in order to 
salve their wounded ego.  This particular person chose not only to make one 
brave exit speech, but two.

Snippage happens in almost every post and by almost every poster.  It cuts 
down on the repetition.  Using it as an excuse to cut and run is 
disingenuous.  But you already know that.

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:T86dnRFJyuZwDtfVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:w7w2k.771$bh5.697@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Tom"  wrote in message 
>> news:2I2dndDr6ZYaj9fVnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Gale"  wrote in message 
>>> news:rnj2k.175$Nr.103@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Tom wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't 
>>>> the first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>>>
>>> Obligatory brave exit speech # 56:  "You snipped something."
>>
>> Most people get rather disgusted with posters who regularly make 
>> unacknowledged edits of key features of a previous post and then reply to 
>> the altered text as if that were what the other poster actually said.
>
> No, most people who want to make excuses for the fact that they have lost 
> an argument need to find something to get "rather disgusted" about in 
> order to salve their wounded ego.  This particular person chose not only 
> to make one brave exit speech, but two.
>
> Snippage happens in almost every post and by almost every poster.  It cuts 
> down on the repetition.  Using it as an excuse to cut and run is 
> disingenuous.  But you already know that.

Posters with integrety indicate where they havwe made snips.
But you already know that.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:34 -0500, Gale wrote:

> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the
> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.

All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What 
are you really upset about?

Nathan.

wrote in message 
news:ZFw2k.786$bh5.636@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message 
> news:T86dnRFJyuZwDtfVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> Snippage happens in almost every post and by almost every poster.  It 
>> cuts down on the repetition.  Using it as an excuse to cut and run is 
>> disingenuous.  But you already know that.
>
> Posters with integrety indicate where they havwe made snips.
> But you already know that.

Posters with integrity have a lot of different styles.  Your descent into 
hyperbole is noted.

"Nathan Hood"  wrote in message 
news:sOidnav8sMnlZNfVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:34 -0500, Gale wrote:
>
>> Tom wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the
>> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>
> All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What
> are you really upset about?

That she got caught preaching one philosophy while practicing another.

On 7 Jun, 23:50, "Tom"  wrote:
> "Nathan Hood"  wrote in message
>
> news:sOidnav8sMnlZNfVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:34 -0500, Gale wrote:
>
> >> Tom wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the
> >> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>
> > All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What
> > are you really upset about?
>
> That she got caught preaching one philosophy while practicing another.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.

Nathan Hood wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:34 -0500, Gale wrote:
> 
> 
>>Tom wrote:
>><snip>
>>I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't the
>>first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
> 
> 
> All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What 
> are you really upset about?

It was? <pause while I look at the original>

It was. Apologies. It was <thunk> time anyway, as I was quite tired of 
him repeated the same "it's self-evident" instead of offering a damn bit 
of evidence for anything and imagining he was thus making an argument. 
But I did not mean to accuse him of something he did not do in that post 
(I noticed such a cut in any earlier post, then evidently mistook my 
last post for a different post.)

My apologies to everyone.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Chade"  wrote in message 
news:e82fef2f-4fac-4f9b-9105-aa530596f361@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Jun, 23:50, "Tom"  wrote:
>> "Nathan Hood"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:sOidnav8sMnlZNfVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> > On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:34 -0500, Gale wrote:
>>
>> >> Tom wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> I see you cut from my post without indicating snippage -- this isn't 
>> >> the
>> >> first time, but this was a most blatent example. Therefore <thunk>.
>>
>> > All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What
>> > are you really upset about?
>>
>> That she got caught preaching one philosophy while practicing another.
>
> I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.

Gender-ambiguous name.

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:UsF2k.1409$LL4.1363@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Nathan Hood wrote:
>>
>> All he cut from your previous post in this line was your sig file. What 
>> are you really upset about?
>
> It was? <pause while I look at the original>
>
> It was. Apologies. It was <thunk> time anyway, as I was quite tired of him 
> repeated the same "it's self-evident" instead of offering a damn bit of 
> evidence for anything and imagining he was thus making an argument.

Then it was just as I said.  An OBES.  And it still is.

Tom wrote:
<snip>
> 
> 
> Then it was just as I said.  An OBES.  And it still is.

No, it wasn't. It was a "go crawl under a rock, you damn troll" speech.

If you want an exit speech, here is one:

1) Tom's lone contention was that the present is "self-evident." He 
provided no further evidence.

2) I chose to argue this point because I do not accept the notion that 
anything is 'self-evident.' An item deemed 'self-evident' is simply an 
assumption (whether a good one, a bad one, or a necessary one) that we 
choose not to rigorously investigate -- too often because investigation 
causes some logical connundrum, as is the case with a concept like 'the 
present,' whose existence *appears* both logical and necessary but which 
becomes painfully difficult to rigorously define.

3) I provided a number of 'selves,' prominent figures from the history 
of philosophy, who did not find Tom's proposition 'self-evident.'

4) Such evidence clearly makes Tom's claim extremely questionable -- 
just who, besides Tom, finds the proposition 'self-evident'? Certainly 
not the esteemed figures who have examined the issue.

5) Tom then ventured through an endless series of machinations, 
including the invention of a non-existent philosophical school he termed 
'realism,' in a vain attempt to cling to his claim.

6) It became apparent that Tom was going to continue his chatter 
endlessly, doing his best to confound the issue or to demand proofs 
irrelevant to the issue at hand ("is anything 'self-evident'?" was the 
real issue).

7) I became disgusted, particularly after Tom claimed that I 'conceded 
an error' when I stated that my argument was indeed based on an appeal 
to authority. If that man is so dumb that he believes reference to a 
wide variety of recognized and accepted authorities is a logical error, 
or is no more valid than a repeated shriek of "it's self-evident," he 
has no business inflicting his words on the internet community.

8) At this point, after a quick glance at the longer post, I made up my 
mind to <thunk> Tom. I then glanced at the second post, errantly 
believed he had again cut material and, quite inaccurately, noted that.

9) The purpose of this post is to clarify my <thunk>. I have no more 
time to waste with the blithering idiocy of the so-called 'philosophy of 
realism.'


-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:NfQ2k.1232$Xe.1134@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Tom wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Then it was just as I said.  An OBES.  And it still is.
>
> No, it wasn't. It was a "go crawl under a rock, you damn troll" speech.

The name-calling bit was your second OBES.  I see you're repeating that one 
too.  That ego of yours must be pretty sore.

> 1) Tom's lone contention was that the present is "self-evident." He 
> provided no further evidence.

Welcome back to the discussion.

Since it's self-evident, it provides its own evidence.  Here we are.  If we 
were not here, we wouldn't be arguing.  On the other hand, you are trying to 
argue that we do not experience anything, that there is no moment in which 
experience occurs.  I see no evidence at all, self-produced or not, to 
support that claim.  It's asinine.

> 2) I chose to argue this point because I do not accept the notion that 
> anything is 'self-evident.'

You choose not to admit it, possibly because, if you did, you might start 
down that slippery slope to doubting that paranormal powers exist.  Oh, my. 
Can't have that.

Reality is what happens.  If it doesn't happen, there's nothing to talk 
about.  Now we may argue forever about what the happening means, but that 
*something* happens is self-evident and indisputably obvious.  You yourself 
admitted that you hold a personal position which admits that something 
happens.

"I would stand more in the range of William James who
noted, regarding various parapsychological phenomena, that we have
evidence of 'something,' but evidence which always stands just a bit shy
of our standards of verification."

We have evidence of something but we don't know for sure what it is.  That's 
exactly what I'm saying.

> An item deemed 'self-evident' is simply an assumption (whether a good one, 
> a bad one, or a necessary one) that we choose not to rigorously 
> investigate -- 

We have no choice but to experience reality.  No matter how rigorously or 
slackly we investigate it, it's happening and we're experiencing it.  We can 
try to make all sorts of claims about its nature, origin, features, and 
meaning, but that doesn't make any difference to the fact that it's 
happening.  The very concepts of "past" and "future" are predicated on the 
implicit and explicit existence of the present.

> too often because investigation causes some logical connundrum, as is the 
> case with a concept like 'the present,' whose existence *appears* both 
> logical and necessary but which becomes painfully difficult to rigorously 
> define.

The present doesn't need a definition.  It needs no justification.  It needs 
no logic.  It is not extrapolated.  It simply is.  All your logic and 
definitions are simply attempts to describe it and figure out what it means. 
And all those attempts occur right now.  Then they are gone.  Only their 
memories remain.  And we experience those memories of past events right now 
too.  The present is inescapable for any conscious being.

> 3) I provided a number of 'selves,' prominent figures from the history of 
> philosophy, who did not find Tom's proposition 'self-evident.'

You provided not a single citation from any of those revered philosophers 
who said we don't experience anything.  You erected any number of straw men 
for your philosopher puppets to knock down, but not a single argment from 
anyone that actually addresses my position.

> 4) Such evidence clearly makes Tom's claim extremely questionable -- 
> just who, besides Tom, finds the proposition 'self-evident'? Certainly not 
> the esteemed figures who have examined the issue.

You haven't provided any.

> 5) Tom then ventured through an endless series of machinations, including 
> the invention of a non-existent philosophical school he termed 'realism,' 
> in a vain attempt to cling to his claim.

I called it "realism" because you wanted to refer to "naive realism", which 
claims things are what they appear to be.  So, I stripped away the naive 
part, the faith in "what appears to be".  What's left is what's real.  The 
reason you can't find this among your philosophical bickerers is that it's 
so bloody obvious that they don't even bother to dispute it.

> 6) It became apparent that Tom was going to continue his chatter 
> endlessly, doing his best to confound the issue or to demand proofs 
> irrelevant to the issue at hand ("is anything 'self-evident'?" was the 
> real issue).

Better watch that naive realism.  It keeps creeping into your thinking.  "It 
is apparent"?  So things are what they appear to be, Gale?  Is that what 
you're saying?

> 7) I became disgusted, particularly after Tom claimed that I 'conceded an 
> error' when I stated that my argument was indeed based on an appeal to 
> authority. If that man is so dumb that he believes reference to a wide 
> variety of recognized and accepted authorities is a logical error, or is 
> no more valid than a repeated shriek of "it's self-evident," he has no 
> business inflicting his words on the internet community.

An appeal to authority is irrational when the authority cited is not 
sufficiently expert.  Now, how do we decide who is more expert any 
experiencing reality than somebody else?  Because we believe them?  Because 
they have followers?  Just what is the substance of an expertise in 
philosophy?

Philosophers are experts at arguing about what reality means. They have 
heard lots of arguments about it and have thought up some on their own. 
That's it.  That's the totality of their expertise.  They are not experts at 
reality itself.  At that, we are all equally expert.

> 8) At this point, after a quick glance at the longer post, I made up my 
> mind to <thunk> Tom. I then glanced at the second post, errantly believed 
> he had again cut material and, quite inaccurately, noted that.

Will you get mad again when I note that you just conceded an error?

> 9) The purpose of this post is to clarify my <thunk>. I have no more time 
> to waste with the blithering idiocy of the so-called 'philosophy of 
> realism.'

What you can't refute, you deny.  Dickhead.

Tom wrote:

> We have evidence of something but we don't know for sure what it is.  
> That's exactly what I'm saying.

You're saying that we know for sure it happens in the present. Not just 
evidence of something that "we don't know what it is", but that, 
whatever it is, it happens in the present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_(time)

"104"  wrote in message 
news:ZuT2k.21407$RE7.247@newsfe08.ams2...
> Tom wrote:
>
>> We have evidence of something but we don't know for sure what it is. 
>> That's exactly what I'm saying.
>
> You're saying that we know for sure it happens in the present.

It's always the present.  It's never anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_(time)

"The present is the time that is perceived directly, not as a recollection 
or a speculation."

"Perceived directly" is different from "extrapolated from evidence".  It's 
not a conclusion derived from premises.  It is a self-evident phenomenon.

104 wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> 
>> We have evidence of something but we don't know for sure what it is.  
>> That's exactly what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> You're saying that we know for sure it happens in the present. Not just 
> evidence of something that "we don't know what it is", but that, 
> whatever it is, it happens in the present.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_(time)

As expected from a wikipedia article, some very interesting points but 
randomly out-of-balance, reflecting the interests of the contributors. 
The general definition, read in entirety, is properly ambiguous (good 
reference to the specious present, interesting summation at the end that 
more fully evidences the point I offered than anything I offered). Very 
high quality.

I'll quote the end of the general defintion, noting you've already 
referenced it: "Modern physics has not yet been able to explain what we 
normally understand by 'now'. Furthermore, there is no demonstrable 
reason why time should move in any one particular direction. This has 
led to the conclusion that the idea of a present is illusory and does 
not reflect the true nature of reality. The notion of "now" may be 
better understood as an unrealistic concept that has evolved in humans 
and animals to give us an understanding of reality useful only to the 
extent necessary for survival."

Curious third section, reflecting one of the problems defining the present.

The Buddhism paragraph left me scratching my head - I've no doubt it 
stands as suggestion from Buddhist practice, but am surprised that it 
leaves out the elephant in the Buddhist room (anyone remember the name 
of the elephant ridden about India by the two kids in that TV series 
from 40 or so years ago?).  ;-)

The quotes following the article were a kick; I'm chuckling vigorously 
at the intersection of Alfred North Whitehead and George Carlin on the 
quote list.

(I'm referring to the wikipedia article as found at 3:26pm CDT, June 8, 
2008.)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Gale"  wrote in message 
news:kmX2k.1414$rW2.483@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> I'll quote the end of the general defintion, noting you've already 
> referenced it: "Modern physics has not yet been able to explain what we 
> normally understand by 'now'.

Over and over I told this nitwit that explanations were not what I was 
talking about but direct experience.  Funny how he completely missed that 
both in what I said and in what the Wikipedia article said.  I'd say he has 
his blinders on good and tight.

> The Buddhism paragraph left me scratching my head -

No surprise there.

On 8 Jun, 04:22, "Tom"  wrote:
> "Chade"  wrote in message
>
>
> > I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.
>
> Gender-ambiguous name.

What a curious phrase.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that this Gale is a he.

On 8 Jun, 21:35, Gale  wrote:
>
>
> The Buddhism paragraph left me scratching my head - I've no doubt it
> stands as suggestion from Buddhist practice, but am surprised that it
> leaves out the elephant in the Buddhist room (anyone remember the name
> of the elephant ridden about India by the two kids in that TV series
> from 40 or so years ago?).  ;-)
>

Unfortunately, I wasn't watching TV 40 years ago so I can't help with
the TV elephant. Can you tell me what you think the missing elephant
from the Buddhist room is though?

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:21:09 -0700, Chade wrote:

> On 8 Jun, 04:22, "Tom"  wrote:
>> "Chade"  wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.
>>
>> Gender-ambiguous name.
> 
> What a curious phrase.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that this Gale is a he.

I would guess you to be right in this case. Although Gale has been much 
more often used as a female name since the late sixties, I think this 
Gale is older.

Only 'it' can tell us. Only we can decide what to believe.

Nathan.

On Jun 4, 4:49 am, Chade wrote:
>
> As I've said already, this chapter contradicts the introduction in the
> worst ways. Not only it's credulous nature and superstition scrap
> booking but it's sometimes fearful rather than hopeful tone 'Those
> Ruskies are way ahead of us' (at a time when the cold war was in full
> swing). Are appeals to secret 'results' from secrete scientists really
> that different to secret chiefs?
>
> (I note that as an 'update' in the later edition IB backtracks on some
> of this stuff, but also retreats to that catch-all quantum mechanics).

How come when I made these kinds of statements I was slammed for being
'unnecessarily hostile' and it was assumed I didn't actually have a
copy of the book and such, yet when you make them they are received as
meaningful critique?

Ridiculous.

> So is there anything we can salvage?

No.

> People;
>
> To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
> be interchangeable when talking about magick?

Usually they are totally interchangeable even though the people using
those terms may believe they are talking about different things.

> What other pieces of magical jargon do you believe there are synonyms
> for that would be clearer for beginners?

I don't think these 'synonyms' make things clearer, they do the
opposite.   I wouldn't even call these words synonyms, it's
misleading.  If people said "feelings" instead of "energy" or "power",
it would be a more accurate description of reality thus would decrease
the tendency for delusion.  Labeling feelings as energy or power tends
to detach people from what's really going on.

Chade wrote:
> On 8 Jun, 21:35, Gale  wrote:
> 
>>
>>The Buddhism paragraph left me scratching my head - I've no doubt it
>>stands as suggestion from Buddhist practice, but am surprised that it
>>leaves out the elephant in the Buddhist room (anyone remember the name
>>of the elephant ridden about India by the two kids in that TV series
>>from 40 or so years ago?).  ;-)
>>
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I wasn't watching TV 40 years ago so I can't help with
> the TV elephant. Can you tell me what you think the missing elephant
> from the Buddhist room is though?

Maya is the answer to both - the Buddhist question involving the 
illusion which is this world. I must qualify my objection, however, by 
noting that 'illusion' is a rather Western translation of 'Maya,' and 
I'm not versed in the subtleties of the Buddhist belief that this world 
is Maya. I'd enjoy a response from someone fully familiar with the concept.

As for the elephant reference - that involves my inclination to pun and 
the memory of that TV show. (I had a friend who named her kid Maya; why 
would someone name their daughter "Illusion"?)


-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

Nathan Hood wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Only 'it' can tell us. Only we can decide what to believe.

Gale
male

:-)

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

"Chade"  wrote in message 
news:9bb227bb-0d73-4ec8-9791-5b420fc2c42e@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Jun, 04:22, "Tom"  wrote:
>> "Chade"  wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.
>>
>> Gender-ambiguous name.
>
> What a curious phrase.
>
> I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that this Gale is a he.


 Does it really matter?

 Jackdaw

mika wrote:
> On Jun 4, 4:49 am, Chade wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
>>be interchangeable when talking about magick?
> 
> 
> Usually they are totally interchangeable even though the people using
> those terms may believe they are talking about different things.
<snip>

You can't bend a spoon with 'feeling,' though you theoretically can with 
'power' or 'energy.' [Note I've deliberately chosen a known 
low-credibility example so as to keep the point on word use, *not* on 
real-world efficacy. I don't bend spoons.]

'Energy' tends (general use in the context, not reference to Bonewitts, 
here) to refer to the transmitting or receiving of some undetermined 
force, sometimes, but certainly not always, akin to the subjective 
'energy' we believe we possess when we 'feel good.'

'Power' suggests the ability to force action, a suggestion beyond the 
neutral notion of sending or using energy.

At least that's the way I read the terms -- not different things but 
different connotations.

-- 
Blessed Be,
Gale

original fiction, poetry, reviews http://www.capjewels.com

"Progress which pursues only the next invention, progress which pulls 
thought out of the mind and replaces it with idle slogans, is not 
progress at all. It is a beckoning mirage in a desert over which stagger 
the generations of men." -- Loren Eisley, _The Firmament of Time_

On 9 Jun, 19:14, "Dicon"  wrote:
> "Chade"  wrote in message
>
> news:9bb227bb-0d73-4ec8-9791-5b420fc2c42e@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 8 Jun, 04:22, "Tom"  wrote:
> >> "Chade"  wrote in message
>
> >> > I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Gale is a he.
>
> >> Gender-ambiguous name.
>
> > What a curious phrase.
>
> > I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that this Gale is a he.
>
>  Does it really matter?
>
>  Jackdaw

Not yet, but you know how Usenet debates are.

On 9 Jun, 20:22, Gale  wrote:
> mika wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 4:49 am, Chade wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >>To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
> >>be interchangeable when talking about magick?
>
> > Usually they are totally interchangeable even though the people using
> > those terms may believe they are talking about different things.
>
> <snip>
>
> You can't bend a spoon with 'feeling,' though you theoretically can with
> 'power' or 'energy.' [Note I've deliberately chosen a known
> low-credibility example so as to keep the point on word use, *not* on
> real-world efficacy. I don't bend spoons.]
>
> 'Energy' tends (general use in the context, not reference to Bonewitts,
> here) to refer to the transmitting or receiving of some undetermined
> force, sometimes, but certainly not always, akin to the subjective
> 'energy' we believe we possess when we 'feel good.'
>
> 'Power' suggests the ability to force action, a suggestion beyond the
> neutral notion of sending or using energy.
>
> At least that's the way I read the terms -- not different things but
> different connotations.

Okay. The terms 'energy' and 'power' have specific definitions related
to 'work' when talking about physics. Sometimes the term 'energy' or
'power' when used to talk about occultism can be a specific reference
to a paranormal force. However these paranormal forces and/or powers
are "low-credibility" (unless someone would like to give a 'high-
credibiltiy' one?). When talking about magick they can be replaced
with the word feeling as a description of reality. Even though not
everyone realizes it.
The mix up between the different senses of these words can cause
confusion.

BTW you may be interested in this thread.

http://tinyurl.com/4mfzh8

On 9 Jun, 18:31, mika  wrote:
> On Jun 4, 4:49 am, Chade wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I've said already, this chapter contradicts the introduction in the
> > worst ways. Not only it's credulous nature and superstition scrap
> > booking but it's sometimes fearful rather than hopeful tone 'Those
> > Ruskies are way ahead of us' (at a time when the cold war was in full
> > swing). Are appeals to secret 'results' from secrete scientists really
> > that different to secret chiefs?
>
> > (I note that as an 'update' in the later edition IB backtracks on some
> > of this stuff, but also retreats to that catch-all quantum mechanics).
>
> How come when I made these kinds of statements I was slammed for being
> 'unnecessarily hostile' and it was assumed I didn't actually have a
> copy of the book and such, yet when you make them they are received as
> meaningful critique?
>

Tricky question. You seem to be addressing me with the use of the word
'you', yet your asking why other people received it in a certain way.
If I take a moment to speculate I'd say that I've been saying good and
bad things about Real Magic, but you've just been saying bad things.

> Ridiculous.
>
> > So is there anything we can salvage?
>
> No.
>

See?

> > People;
>
> > To what extent do you consider the terms feeling, power and energy to
> > be interchangeable when talking about magick?
>
> Usually they are totally interchangeable even though the people using
> those terms may believe they are talking about different things.
>
> > What other pieces of magical jargon do you believe there are synonyms
> > for that would be clearer for beginners?
>
> I don't think these 'synonyms' make things clearer, they do the
> opposite.   I wouldn't even