On Aug 31, 1:06Â am, zinnic
gate.net> wrote:> On Aug 30, 2:49Â am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Aug 30, 3:45Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Aug 29, 6:26 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>
>
>>>> Thomas Smid seems to be one of those rare academics that have a much
>>>> deeper uderstanding of life, the universe and everything.
>
>>>> Quite 'mystical' from where Im standing.
>
>>>> BOfL
>
>>> The example below makes this guy seem like he is just pointing out
>>> some competing theories which don't have as much evidence in their
>>> support; "due to a hitherto unknown radiative enhancement effect
>>> occurring in plasmas" in physics thats like kook man.
>
>>> Nuclear Fusion: The fusion of hydrogen to helium is claimed to be the
>>> energy source of the sun (and other stars). Whether or not nuclear
>>> fusion as a physical mechanism actually exists, there is theoretical
>>> and observational evidence that the energy output of the sun can be
>>> fully accounted for by electronic atomic processes due to a hitherto
>>> unknown radiative enhancement effect occurring in plasmas
>
>
>> Which is why I saw him "more" of a mystic. I traced him through a link
>> refering to Quantum Pythagoreans, where he was being questioned by one
>> of their members, Michael Ivsin.
>
>> I didnt know of these guys until yesterday. Like meeting a long lost
>> family..;-), not that I have read much. Just a 'feeling' so far
>> .
>> Â I got the impression that Ivsin was asessing what Smid actually knew
>> as opposed to what was speculation.Smid will likely be geting hit from
>> both sides, which makes sense.He is starting to see the mystical side
>> of Py (I suspect) and is trying to open up new levels of understanding
>> to his fraternity. Usually the road of a martyre
>
>> Scientific theory is obselescent by its own nature. Fully accounted
>> for? Thats an interesting use of cross professional speak.An
>> instnctive attempt to rationalise by association perhaps?, accounting
>> being a very precise process.
>
>> BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why do you take every opportunity to diss science? Are you mad with
> science because it opens up new  questions rather than the certainty
> you crave? The certainty you lost in rejection of Catholicism and now
> frantically seek in Pythagorean  and  Numerology mysticism?
>
> Are you "aware" that it is easy to take the boy out of Catholicism
> (certainty?) but extremely difficult to take Catholicism (certainty)
> out of the boy.
> Hope this helps your discontent!
> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Few interesting points you bring up, non of which have anything to do
with me. Never been a catholic. "Mad" with science ? Dont have a clue
what you are going on about there. The questions it opens up have been
answered historically, but because of the reference way back and the
power of the rulers, such answers were always steeped in mystery. You
bring up the word mad..perhaps I would be if I had followed a
scientific career. I certainly wouldnt want to acknowledge even the
possibility of accesability of deeper knowledge by any other
method.You demonstrate classical 'religiosity' symptoms."If you are
not for us you are against us. Difficult to maintain in the
information age. Mad at science? Are you pissed at geography?
Frantically seek?
I read a couple of paragraphs recently (for the first time) from
'official' Pythagoreans. One of the first comments was along the lines
of "if you havnt already figured this out for yourself, you wont get
much from here".Sure I read a couple of authers of numerology, even
though there are many interpretations. I disagreed with many
interpretations. As I have said many times, numbers are symbols in the
same way as written music is.
I already knew this, in fact when I have been pressed in the past
regarding my 'group' I used to refer to Pythagorean.That usually
blocked any desire to defend their religious position.
As an example of early wisdom, Pythagoras spoke of the music of the
spheres long befor classical scientists discovered sound waves. He
related music to mathematics, long befor mathematicians recognised
such rythm in the likes of Bach.
The difference between 'genuine mysticism' and classic and quantum
science, is simply this.
The 'mystic master' knows by first hand experience, that all reality
lies within the individual. He knows this cannot be taught, but
recognises people who are well on the way to figuring this out for
them selves.The scientific method relies on the laws of epistemology
for validation of discection, and as you say, asks new
questions.Observation is the key for them, the observer for the mystic
I still dont see anything to get mad at.
Why no response to the 'blind painter' post? Watched the link? What do
you think of the Harvard guys response?
BOfL
