The Rest of Reality

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

quizzical wrote:
blank slate human nature  on your premises means to me ya get to either ignore women in the equation or see them as the only ones with negative human nature traits!!!!!

That's right, males who abuse women are doing what comes natural while women are to blame for accepting their behaviour. WTH?Wait a minute, waaait a minute! Males who abuse women are creeps and assholes, and the general theory goes that it's often times eleutherophobic women gravitating to abusive males who are the ones thinking that the abusive males might be rehabilitated. It's their own warped perspective telling them that  all these fucked-up males require is a little TLC, and which ends up being a marathon of abuse for her and the kids learning that abuse is natural,  by doting wives and door mat girlfriends even after years worth of that theory blowing back in their faces as proof positive that they need help.  I'm sorry but abusive males are directly to blame for their mental and verbal abuse and physical violence perp'd against women and are typically the principal abusers in domestic assaults, rapes of children etc ad nauseum.

And so what I really think is that abused women ,and esp. those with children in tow, are obligated to seek help in escaping those situations. The UN says that women's and children's rights are violated by governments and often male-dominated governments across Canada contributing to the general overall situation of social decay. Don't blame me I never voted for these idiots.

 

And speaking of the thread topic and central focus of discussion, has anyone seen it lately?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks for the mansplaining Fidel.

Tongue out

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

 

Spectrum wrote:
 See....even a layman can have a somewhat intelligent perspective.....must of been all the years particpating with the Babble forum.

Slumberjack wrote:
They can, but get it entirely wrong just as well.  In the case of the layperson, it seems to be relative to what an individual is willing to process in their own right, but concurrent with open ears and eyes.  Proposing something and having it shot down by contradictory evidence, and subsequently accepting the revisions while moving on all the better for it is fundamental, no matter how difficult it sometimes is, because even recognizing the origins of a difficulty to accept contradictory arguments can be instructive. 

Being a military man you no doubt understand the need for repetitveness as to ensure one gets its it. But I am talking not only about your perspective locked into a loop, but a few others as well. Your other points are understood in that paragraph.

Slumberjack wrote:
As for Rabble, people have often stated how much they've acquired from the perspectives introduced on the board over the years, but not nearly as often as it goes without being said.  Sometimes there's a sense that people arrive to the board or to a discussion believing they know all thats required.  But its also a place that occasionally reveals its own internal contradictions, teachable moments of another sort as it were.

Wouldn't be here if I didn't understand these points, or that I can learn something. Not just to think I am just data mining, but perspectives as well. I have no time for the quibbles or pixie dust comments even though they are funny sometimes, it often reveals more about the person then it does by showing what they know:)

Slumberjack wrote:
Where it concerns laypersons, I found certain accounts of Joseph Jacotot's method to be interesting and somewhat inspirational, taking into consideration the language of that era, which inspired Jacques Ranciere's 'Ignorant Schoolmaster' ... the contentions of which Fidel continues to put to the test for several years running now. Wink

I think that was more for Fidel, but the literary reference might be worth looking at,  and of course the inspiration for it.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Here is the jest then. We all demonstrate consciousness as to imply that we use this board to write our explanations and we can read each thoughts. The way in which you did this was a line of thinking that lead from the finger tips establish from some where in your brain? So you use the matter of things in order for us to establish your thoughts.

What I am saying is that regardless of the Near Death experience I am saying that under normal consideration of everyday consciousness we can experience aspects of that consciousness. I called that gradation of consciousness for a reason,  while trying to show this correlation in thinking with regard to the focus points in the Rest of reality link. 

This is what I tried to make clear is that the aspects of consciousness that we use everyday has certain features of the "focus levels" that were shown in the Rest of Reality link showing a journalist using the Monroe technique. The journalist,  who used the system and found that as a tool,  he was able to recount that focus in a field at a later time without the equipment... to say that these focus levels are implored in all of our everyday happenings.

You have to understand we use matter defined things in order to measure how the brain can manifest certain rythmns to establish correlated focus.  Focus levels not just found in sleep time,  which can be experince in the day time as well?

Richness is not measured by what you can count as money but more what can be counted as of value to moving and extending the parameter of our belief systems and extending our foundation thinking. How we can feed and nourish the soul?

Whether you agree with me or not, we have been boxed in our thinking from the day we were born:)

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

quizzical wrote:

reading peeps don't know the whys of what seems like casual sexism. your explanation smacks of "boys will be boys" thinking!!!!!  they both stand as they're written and i still don't like it.

I had to let Fidel explain it it since he brought the correlation and analogy up.....while I was referring how we can parameter our thinking. Blank slate means many things from the point of there is no beginning and no end....its about the in-between and the now. How we can box our thinking.

I have also referred to the blank slate as a blackboard or whiteboard to demonstrate a foundation thinking or a qualitative explanation for the way such concepts are explained. This allows others to either build onto the equation or find holes in the argument of perspective.

I see Fidel's answer not as sexiest either. See here and think of our own lives as a measure of how we experience and hold in memory.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"Whether you agree with me or not, we have been boxed in our thinking from the day we were born:)"

Do you believe then that birth is the starting point of consciousness or is it at conception or sometime in between.   What created the box at birth?

Slumberjack

Spectrum wrote:
 But I am talking not only about your perspective locked into a loop, but a few others as well.

If you're referring to our participation in this thread, for my part it's voluntary.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Definite setup for the kill eh?:)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I asked for your answer not a restatement of the question.  Your flippant response about being boxed in at birth implies an answer but I thought I would ask instead.

ETA This post makes little sense since the post directly above that I was responding to has been changed and no longer is close to its original in content or meaning.

Hard to debate a moving target.

jas

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"Whether you agree with me or not, we have been boxed in our thinking from the day we were born:)"

Do you believe then that birth is the starting point of consciousness or is it at conception or sometime in between.   What created the box at birth?

If I understand the discussion so far, or even if I don't, my answer to this would be, first of all, the cognitive limitations of the human organism. Biologically we are designed only to navigate our own world. Our sensory capacity is limited by our physiology. Although we seem to have capabilities well beyond other species, that doesn't mean we have access to perception of all phenomena. We can say the fruit fly lives in our universe, but really the fly lives in its own universe, privy to different forms of sensory data than we are.  

Secondly, the cultural and social boxes we are born into; the assumptions pre-built into our expectation of reality, as products of a tribe, a nation or of an era.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I found this article quite interesting. It's about the Heisenberg uncertainty not being as uncertaon as we thought.

BBC wrote:

Pioneering experiments have cast doubt on a founding idea of the branch of physics called quantum mechanics.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is in part an embodiment of the idea that in the quantum world, the mere act of measuring can affect the result.

But the idea had never been put to the test, and a team writing in Physical Review Letters says "weak measurements" prove the rule was never quite right.

That could play havoc with "uncrackable codes" of quantum cryptography.

Quantum mechanics has since its very inception raised a great many philosophical and metaphysical debates about the nature of nature itself.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as it came to be known later, started as an assertion that when trying to measure one aspect of a particle precisely, say its position, experimenters would necessarily "blur out" the precision in its speed.

"Uncertainty" itself is somewhat ill-defined in this sense; Heisenberg's original word for it translates better as "indeterminacy"; the idea raised the spectre of a physical world whose nature was, beyond some fundamental level, unknowable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

Slumberjack

BBC wrote:
"Uncertainty" itself is somewhat ill-defined in this sense; Heisenberg's original word for it translates better as "indeterminacy"; the idea raised the spectre of a physical world whose nature was, beyond some fundamental level, unknowable.

Which is fine by me because they'd only find a way to destroy that as well.  Maybe the pixie dust argument has merit after all.  It's a simple explanation that people can go away and play with.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

jas wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"Whether you agree with me or not, we have been boxed in our thinking from the day we were born:)"

Do you believe then that birth is the starting point of consciousness or is it at conception or sometime in between.   What created the box at birth?

If I understand the discussion so far, or even if I don't, my answer to this would be, first of all, the cognitive limitations of the human organism. Biologically we are designed only to navigate our own world. Our sensory capacity is limited by our physiology. Although we seem to have capabilities well beyond other species, that doesn't mean we have access to perception of all phenomena. We can say the fruit fly lives in our universe, but really the fly lives in its own universe, privy to different forms of sensory data than we are.  

Secondly, the cultural and social boxes we are born into; the assumptions pre-built into our expectation of reality, as products of a tribe, a nation or of an era.

 

 

Jas,

It is of consequence that if one held a mirror to reflect back on who we are the belief system would show that limitation of our belief structure. What would see at death?:) This answers what is specific to each and every one of us. It is also to ask how our belief structure shapes our experience.

This is the difficulty in what is proposed. Logical deduction dictates in bold.

 

There are a lot of things discussed that are included in the overall discussions I have had with others about how we perceive consciousness and perspectives shared by others that questions how it is that consciousness can be perceived apart from the body. How difficult it would be to make this measure if possible at all? See here.


The quest for me understanding the method by which discussion evolved with Seth was of interest in regard to EU(emotional units) and UC(units of consciousness). This detailed to me the need for a foundation understanding of how consciousness worked. It's emergent functionality with expression and remembrance. This is also where Karim Nader comes into the picture.

How would one measure focus levels and share some understanding toward that foundation approach? Gravity? How would one picture a cloud around biological demonstration of consciousness and one could have venture off into the occult. So focus levels become a correspondence to brain wave considerations?

Also the problem with identifying innateness as a parameter given to this life only and the evolutionary course of the souls expression.

Also for consideration:The Synapse of the Wondering Mind and Mirror Neurons

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Michelle Borkin of Harvard University combines astronomy and medical imaging to advance both fields and proves that interdisciplinary collaboration helps people develop great ideas otherwise undiscovered  . . . and save lives along the way. TEDxBoston - Michelle Borkin - Astronomical Medicine

Pages