> On Aug 17, 7:27 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
>
> My experience was different. I always need to test my knowledge
> against others. Of course, my interests, if not my education, doesn't
> span psychology as neatly as yours does, so I am usually dealing in
> matters of philosophy or politics.
>I seldom find out I was completely
> wrong, but the effort is always fruitful, because I end up with
> literally a myriad of insights that I couldn't have had if I had not
> done the research. I may not learn a lot in terms of facts, but I
> learn what are the facts that cause others to reason differently from
> the way in which I reason - this in turn confirms one of my
> foundational beliefs, that the human brain is a mighty slippery organ.

>

>>> Psychology, the
>>> broad umbrella for all studies related to mental processes and
>>> behavior. The areas we have been discussing seem to fall under
>>> Perception, Cognition, individual and collective unconcious,
>>> psychiatry, etc. "Incorporating the underlying physiological and
>>> neurological processes into ... conceptions of mental functioning"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologyisonlyone part of
>>> Psychology, but it is well covered in modern literature going back to
>>> the 19th century. Perhaps you feel that William James was a fool, and
>>> because you understood Socrates so well, you may have worked out
>>> something a lot better? Surely your intuitions have benefitted from
>>> living in the 21st century, but so do many other individuals working
>>> on these same problems. That you somehow have trumped all of them,
>>> somehow, I find extremely doubtful.

>

>> And so you should.The first step to overcoming doubt, is to identify
>> what it is.We all have this capacity.The 21 st century 'group
>> consciousness' fascilitates greater links to 'timeless wisdom'.When I
>> first read of quantum mechanics (as a layman), I simply saw more
>> confirmation.

>
> Doubt is the summoner of reason. Pardon my subtle rhetoric, try
> substituting ridiculous for doubtful. I like your phrase, "21st
> century group consciousness facilitates greater links to timeless
> wisdom"
>

>> It was also exciting to recognise what was required to solve Fermat's
>> Last Theorem, even though high school math was as much as I was
>> interested in (since confirmed why), and to wonder if Hawking would be
>> able to communicate from "within the blackhole". He then started
>> refering to imaginary time. It was predictable how his peers would
>> react. The group consciousness, like a 'bunch of atoms' is always
>> predictable.

>

>>>>>We are in a philosophy forum, and my basis
>>>>> for stating my ideas or beliefs here is that my system works
>>>>> consistently, is rigorous, logical, and yields results that may be
>>>>> helpful to other readers (the "we" you are so afraid of).

>

>>>> We both agree, , but for some reason you see fear.

>

>>> Well, you seem to have been concerned about "we", when you wrote,
>>> "Beliefs can only exist in the 'we' mentality."

>

>> You must have missed the part that said I dont believe anything. When
>> Im ready to know, I will know.

>
> But that is only what you assert; to the rest of us you either sound
> like a sage with his bag of insights, or a jumbler of beliefs, just
> like any common religionist.

>
> However, from the standpoint of attitude, we should take you at your
> word, and investigate what you say according to how it reflects what
> you have stated here.

>You seem to have arrived at a condition where
> you would will doubt never to exist and always summon reason on queue.
> I imagine that you are more like the rest of us than you wish to let
> on, and the beliefs to not disappear ephemerally when and as your
> lordship utters, "Begone!", but do stay around, rent an apartment for
> a few weeks or months, till one day, you say, "Aha!", and they are
> dismissed (emotions up to and including, disillusionment) or else
> given the keys to their new house (knowledge).

>

>>>> One of the greatest
>>>> discoveries is that of 'self'. One cannot help others to discover
>>>> 'self'. However one can point out common 'blocking' factors used in
>>>> arenas such as the semantics of self dialouge, such as 'we will never
>>>> know'. That is akin to hitting the accellerator and the brake
>>>> simultaniously. I remember hearing that many years ago, and it
>>>> explained the smell of 'burning' that I was already experiencing.

>

>>> You mean not being responsibile for your own feelings and statements,
>>> and not being able to feel the impact of your self-realizations,
>>> because they were blocked by the impulse to share guilt.

>

>> Almost. More a case of knowing I was responsible, but had yet to learn
>> the dynamics between self and group. Always saw guilt as a
>> 'gravitational pull' to the group consciousness. Started at an early
>> age as one of many since recongnised paradoxes. Feeling guilty about
>> not feeling guilty.

>
> This is one of the greatest contributions of Social Psychology:

>ense
> of self varies from the completely individualist to the completely
> social - members of certain societies uniformly answer questions only
> in terms of their social group. Call this "original sin", if you want;
> we cant get off the hook for what our group needs and wants.
>

>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>> would be better is that we acknowledge the tremendous complexity that
>>>>>>> is involved in thinking, or reason, as some prefer to call it.

>

>>>>>> The mechanism is complex, band can only be observed. The mind cannot
>>>>>> work out the mind.
>>>>>> The way to opening such understanding, is to start to 'look for
>>>>>> yourself'.

>

>>>>> You seem to be a recalcitrant individualist. You are obsessed with
>>>>> psychology, yet know nothing of it. Instead you dwell on your own ego.

>

>>>> No more than I am with physical fitness.Just another area to establish
>>>> and then maintain balance.

>

>>>> An indication of internal inbalance is to suggest you know what
>>>> another person knows or doesnt know.I just point ot my discoveries,
>>>> what I have discovered is knowable.

>

>>> Admirable put sentiments, I wonder if you aware of how much of what
>>> you know is recycled from Freud, that you learned from the newspapers
>>> or secondhand.

>

>> I knew this befor I had heard of Freud. I always had an instinctive
>> 'wall' around intellectual pursuit back then. I needed to find out
>> formyself. Then I could recognise the difference between information
>> and confirmation. It is great confirmation when some of my friends who
>> have studied philosophy, suggest "I learned that from Marcus Arelias,
>> Epictetus,and even dear old Bertram Russel.

>

>> Ill take their word for it, because I havnt read any of them.

>

>> Masters have always pointed to the source, never appearing to be the
>> source.

>
> That's true, but being erudite doesn't hurt; and conversely not being
> erudite can interfere with your credibility.

>

>>>> Ill leave scientific discovery for
>>>> the sceintists or scientologists for that mattter.

>

>>> When you say you point out your discoveries and what you have
>>> discovered is knowable, you are acting as a scientist.

>

>> With a slight difference. Scientists point out what is observable,
>> speculate and theorse about the rest.They follow the laws of
>> epistemology, and some I know, actualy deny their intuition, because
>> it doesnt comply with such laws. Another difference between self and
>> group awareness.

>
> I don't think most scientists see what they do the way you do. If a
> scientist speculates, it would be to point out some ideas that are not
> their beliefs and not provable to other scientists, to stimulate
> further discovery. It is merely published communication. When a
> scientist puts forward a theory, it is usually a theory which is
> supported on facts, and which can be supported by independent data by
> independent scientists. How do any of these three activities deny a
> scientist's human intuition?

>

>>>> I no longer look
>>>> for the support of epistemology, or ontology.

>

>>> What happened to the open mind?

>

>> I see the mind as the inside of a baloon. Ever expanding, but always
>> closed. Which doesnt stop me getting excited about the next level of
>> expansion. Cant wait for the holographic entertainment system.

>
> What if I told you that the only problem with your mind being inside
> that balloon is your epistemology and your ontology? After this I feel
> like I could write a Science Fiction story about your balloon.
>

>>>>>> Just your last sentence takes on a whole new meaning if you say "What
>>>>>> would be better if 'I' acknowledge.

>

>>>>> No, because I wrote "we", you abandoned your call to eliminate
>>>>> cognition entirely, and acknowledged it. If you had had it your way,
>>>>> you wouldn't have had to modify your opinion at all.

>

>>>> Opinions are needed only to establish group discussion. I have very
>>>> few, if any, opinions. Of course, you may have an opinion of that
>>>> statement.

>

>>> Good statement. I know that, by the way.

>

>> I know that you know I know you know.

>

>> Know wha I mean.. (UK)  or know what Im sayin (US)..:-)

>

>>>> I have spent some time in the court system and have discovered that
>>>> opinion, no mater how well educated, is still opinion. A good
>>>> practical arena to establish where "one" fits into the 'group
>>>> consciousness'.

>

>>>> Reminiscient of Socrates. Just realized that !!!

>

>>>>>>> Becoming disillusioned just comes with the territory.

>

>>>>>> Correct. Theres a lot of illusions to see through.It is worth every
>>>>>> ounce of effort and discomfort, because I am talking here about
>>>>>> indiviualisation,knowing thyself, where, like a black hole "beliefs"
>>>>>> cannot escape. :-)

>

>>>>>> BOfL

>

>>>>> It seems some of them haven't, yet. (I said the physiological model,
>>>>> had some merit - your cosmological metaphor - sucks.)

>

>>>> It that analogous of "I dont see it the way you do"

>

>>> Yeah, OK. I just meant that making it final is making it scary - and
>>> making it wrong; I'm not sure that there aren't reasons why beliefs
>>> should not be prohibited from escape sometimes.

>

>> They are needed to form the holograph.

>

>> Did you ever watch Skywalkers confrontation with Vadar under Yodas
>> tutalige.

>

>> Classic. Skywalker "Im not scared"...Yoda "You will be".

>

>> Of course its scary, that why one has to be brave and adventursome to
>> discover. There is a 'hell' of a lot to let go of. A huge amount of
>> deprograming to go through. In case you see that as reminicent of LRH
>> again, Im talking about a subjective experience, without the
>> inteference of another.

>
> I think deprogramming is almost a completely useless and baseless
> analogy to the process of growth. I think you're just going off the
> deep end again here with the scary stuff, "A huge amount of
> deprogramming to go through." - Yes, that is a direct quote from
> Hubbard; self-help doesn't excuse one from plagiarizing.
>

>

>> This phenomena has recently been discovered with brain studies at
>> Harvard.

>
> You mean that Harvard has agreed to study your brain?

>>> what we think about what we remember, it's still doing.

>

>> When you see the difference between "I think therefor I am" and "I am
>> therefor I think", you wil see beyond ontological as well as
>> epistemological laws.

>
> Well, your paradox is based on your epistemology. Thinking creates
> being, vs. Being creates Thinking. Anyone can see the difference.

>In
> my opinion, the difference is will. If being were to ever create
> thinking there would have to be a will to do it. Probably Thinking
> creating Being is even more difficult, because it's hard to imagine a
> brain that powerful - which is why I never liked Descartes, and why
> you are an even bigger fraud, because you said you never read a
> philosophy book except for the excerpt from Plato's Apology, but here
> you are quoting Meditations. I know the answer - you read it on a
> cereal box, right?

> Now please educate us on what lies beyond the epistemological and
> ontological laws, which you, Decartes, and your holographic monkey
> have drummed up for us.> You mentoned earlier that what I was describing was science, so in

>> that sense we are all 'doing science' but only as one small pat of our
>> existance.
>> BOfL