> On Aug 18, 5:57 pm, Cormagh yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> 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.

>
> Meat of that nature tends to be.
>
> I am not talking of engineering here.
>
>
>

>>>> 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/Psychologyisonlyonepart 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.

>
> Correct. Ive made many references to 'confirmation'. Thought Id just
> confirm that.
>
>
>

>> 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.

>
> Investigate what I say according to what Ive said?From the standpoint
> of attitude?
> I guess you are having a bad day
>

>>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).

>
> You are having a bad day!
>
>
>

>>>>> 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:

>
> Well I guess im just a natural plagioaser.
>

>>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.

>
> Credibility is for the needy.Something I dont offer or look for .
>
>
>

>>>>> 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?

>
> If you are interested, re read what I have already written.
>
>
>

>>>>> 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.

>
> Thanks for telling me what you think, but it it you that likes to
> compare knowledge.
>
> I knew of that befor I ever heard of LRH, but there's little point in
> pursuing this, given that you think the way you do. Im sure you wont
> run out of people who need to compare.

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

>

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

>
> No, but I was invited to join their business summer schoolback in
> 2000.
> Does that suffice?
>

>>>> 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.

>
> Except for the fact I didnt say one creates the other.Parallel
> realities are a better description.
>

>>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?

>
> So hurling insults is a way you choose to communicate.My interest is
> relating my experiences to to others who have had similar insights. A
> level of communicating that include such mentality
> as yours become pointless.> 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