On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Elizabeth Marckley <marckley.elizab...@gmail.com> wrote: > You sadden me and wound me deeply, I am feeling very misunderstood right now > and in a severe need of a chocolate ice cream.
> The video was not at all saying for you to "be quiet". I was expressing > through music that which was what was felt as a pain manifested in your > words: I identified intimately with the honesty, vulnerability, sexuality and exuberance in the love song you sent me but though I was not supposed to talk about it :-p > "If you are silent" (the you being us). > > So it was that moved by a deep empathy, I felt that this could be echoed > with a song where the singer speaks of everything being "so quiet and > silent". I did feel warm and fuzzy in your loving care. It suggested to me the taboo of being too personal, too free, publicly, while not compromising privately our gusto in feeling and loving and being. I usually miss the common sense interpretation of things. Pure objectivism lacks enough substance to do any interpretation and there are just too many social contexts to choose from. My track record in selecting what I think might be the common perspective really sucks. Indeed, your interpretation of my feeling as pain, suggests the danger of of miscommunication by bearing our humanity. The last thing I want is to make myself seem as a victim. Just because I am pathetic does not mean I have to be crying in my beer about it or want any ones sympathy. Sympathy may be sweet, but it does not improve anything. I am too full of myself already and really do not need any help. > Now I need something to cheer me up: Awe, now I do feel bad, this might help, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWtwKHeDzC Yep, it helped, I feel better now :-p > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4R462Ro5fqU Indeed, the magnificence of the living hills dwarfs our worries, such that we can only be happy. It is just incredible how much amazing stuff there is for us to appreciate. Thanks, Jim > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Carl Gustav <crl.gus...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I erronoisly attributed the word retrogenetic to Maria, but her words >> >> were >> >> classier, paleanthropidic and paleonthological in her insightful and >> >> witty >> >> criticism. If I read it enough times I might get how I might be >> >> different >> >> but not dysfunctional :) >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> > jim wrote: >> >> >>I would need to do some homework before I could comment on Maria's >> >> >>message. Unless I read all the references it just seems like >> >> >>philosophical mumbo jumbo. I think she is saying some similar >> >> >>things. >> >> >> >> You are an excellent example of a typology of the paleanthropidic >> >> specimen, with an irresistible tendency to refuse the motion of a >> >> normal dispositional evolution, but that nonetheless develops with >> >> some ease in pithecanthropic scenarios. >> >> >> >> Really, the type of reflexibility, that you evidentiate, reveals a >> >> real paleonthological vocation characterized by the slow emergence >> >> of reflexive thinking. Indeed, after reading some of your posts, I >> >> concluded that you provide for an interesting case of a casuistic of >> >> unstable spatial equilibrium, determined by an organic cognitive >> >> infrastructure, with grave disturbances of internal and external >> >> neuropsychological rhythmicity of operative enchaining, with >> >> periodic dissimulative oscillations, between a strange and complex >> >> lucidity intermixed with some stumbliness without referent or >> >> reference. >> >> >> >> A semiotic analysis, made to your written discourse, reveals a clear >> >> dematerializing value of neural alienation. >> > >> > >> > You insist in taking the quote above out of context. As you well know, >> > it >> > took place in a debate on another group, in which we were all involved, >> > and >> > where a very dishonest manipulation of the thinking of Husserl, for >> > ideological purposes regarding a support to the intelligent design, was >> > being made, a manipulation to which you adhered and defended. >> >> Either Husserl was a Platonist or he recognized the tension of the >> middle term as Steven suggested and is consistent with my limited >> understanding of Husserl. My nature is to defend the underdog, >> certainly the deconstruction of Husserl's text, independent of the >> thinking of Husserl, is not a crime. Perhaps it is inappropriate to >> reconstruct it in your own belief system. I tried to make it clear I >> found Husserl difficult and was clueless about what his message was >> exactly. There seems to be as many interpretations as there are >> people. >> >> It is no secrete I find the notion of random selection in clear >> contradiction to the facts already known which are most likely only >> the tip of the iceberg. Intelligence is clearly a property of >> evolutionary systems. What is not so clear it whether it is a >> property of human thought. >> >> > Nonetheless, the quoted reply is a very well built bit of prose, very >> > effective for people who like to avoid their responsibilities for their >> > claims and positions. Besides, you were obnoxiously rude and distasteful >> > towards the several intervening people, before that and after that reply >> > by >> > Maria Odete. >> >> Her reply is amazing, a masterpiece in my judgment. Each time I read >> it I get more out of it and I am reminded how stupid I am. The same >> is true for her original item, as I wade though the philosophical >> mumbo jumbo, the depth of its meaning is revealed, and when it gets >> over my head I lose my hat :-) >> >> I certainly did not intend to be obnoxiously rude and distasteful. I >> apologize for my error. >> >> > This distastefulness included even, at a certain point, an inopportune >> > and >> > rather infantile reenactment, on your part, of an orgasm associated with >> > philosophical concepts. It didn't really possess shock value, that one, >> > made >> > you just look ridiculous. >> >> Damn, I thought that was a great article, having humor, passion and >> deep meaning. I guess the exuberance of my love made a fool of me. >> Somehow the notion that I did not love philosophy was erroneously >> communicated and I wanted to set the record straight. I guess I was >> too honest for respectable company. Sorry folks. >> >> > Who again and again looks for the philosophical discourse is you. If >> > you >> > don't have any sense of respect for the issues themselves, turning it >> > always >> > into a self-centred exercise, why should people even consider debating >> > philosophy with you? >> >> I am clueless as to what philosophical issues I have disrespected. On >> second though, yes, I see that the breadth of what I consider a >> philosophical issue could be seen as rather myopic. the issue becomes >> what is an issue. It may be interesting to make a logical distinction >> in a fantasy world, but to me, it only is relevant, to the extent it >> has some actual significance. I cannot pretend to believe what I do >> not believe, I disagree with everyone, but hope I am learning to do so >> more respectfully. >> >> The point of my self centeredness is well taken. In my defense, it >> has largely been in reaction to apparent ad hominem, and not >> unrelated, in my view, to the exposition of the philosophical issues. >> Either, I will learn to apply my philosophical revelation in some >> social context or I will remain isolated in my own world. I made the >> choice long ago to join humanity but am just learning the skills. >> Hopefully I have gotten much better at not always crying O sola mio. >> I do realize self pity is unattractive and pathetic. I have at >> different times erred on both sides, not revealing my feelings at all, >> and wearing them on my sleeve. >> >> > Playing the role of the victim is a bit passé and transparent. Victim is >> > something that, for sure, you are not. >> >> Sure, I feel misunderstood, as I am misunderstood. But I do know it >> is my problem, not your problem. >> >> For example, Maria's reply above was prompted by what, to me, was a >> humble and conciliatory statement suggesting probable agreement with >> Maria, which I was attempting to put in simple terms, for a person who >> was clearly without Maria's philosophical background. The fact that I >> was clueless about how it would be read is rather pathetic, but not >> something in my power to change directly. As transparent as my >> devious motivations may be to you, they are not transparent to me. >> >> Thanks, for your reply Carl, I am not trying to play the victim here, >> I get by just fine with a little help from my friends. I'll take the >> cue from Liz and be quiet for a while. I do think I am learning, >> thanks. >> >> Jim >> > 2009/1/22 Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> I decided this was a silly message to send, but my curiosity about how >> >> you react, got the better of me, so I am sending it anyhow, scrapping >> >> it at this point seems wasteful. I guess the lesson is that to many >> >> far out half baked ideas are spam, and bearing your humanity ought be >> >> done with digression. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> I must thank Maria, Carl, Elizabeth, etc. for helping me grow. I love >> >> you guys no matter what you think of me. I might be learning, at >> >> least I have not been admonished for spam again lately. If I have >> >> spammed philosophers here, please continue to be forthright. I cannot >> >> grow without honest feedback. The last thing I want to do is spam >> >> anyone, it hurts good when I get the proper animal response, a slap in >> >> my face. >> >> >> >> WE become greater, and perpetuate a memeon of existence that might die >> >> if we did not promote it. All that exists in time is that which is >> >> thus perpetuated exhibiting memory. What is not repeated does not >> >> exist objectively yet. >> >> >> >> Sometimes I am slow and it may take many slaps before I learn. But >> >> like a chicken, it is most certain that I will learn, even drain >> >> bamage can be overcome. >> >> >> >> "dematerializing value of neural alienation" seemed at first to be a >> >> compliment, in the context of combating one sided truth, but this is >> >> considered spam. It is my natural tendency to affirmatively accept a >> >> stroke memeon to perpetuate, preferring la la land to reality of the >> >> slap memeon. She might have just said antisocial but what fun would >> >> that be. I might have missed the point that my communication failed >> >> totally. It seems clear now I missed that I simply shared a >> >> disruptive meme, which can be good or bad depending on its final >> >> outcome. >> >> >> >> What Carl calls overly dramatic, I just don't get it. So I can expect >> >> my key blunder lies here. In order to play act one first needs to >> >> learn how to act in a social community. I have been made aware I have >> >> this disability but have not yet learned how to fix that in the realm >> >> of philosophy. In my animal life, I have more than overcome the >> >> disability in most ways, with just an occasional major faux-pas. >> >> >> >> Do not humor me, I am a real masochist, and will laugh privately at >> >> many of your responses, but someday the desired behavior will be >> >> favored in my habits such that I synergize in my ecology. I could not >> >> be any happier, what I hope for is growth, and only pain in equal >> >> measure balance to my happiness instantiates maximal growth in a >> >> controlled ecology. I can laugh at myself because I do not feel >> >> threatened, I feel blessed by providence in more ways than I can dream >> >> of. For animals, what does not kill us, reinforces us and makes us >> >> stronger, and so it is for philosophers as well. >> >> >> >> Tell me how I have spammed you. (duck:) >> >> >> >> What do you think my problem is? Why don't I get it. If you are >> >> silent and allow me to bask in the illusion I have overcome my >> >> difficulty, you may thus be encouraging more spam. >> >> >> >> I feel something. that this is spam because it is unsolicited because >> >> no spam warning has been given since, and ther has been zero >> >> encouragement to pursue it further. It is again about me, I am being >> >> selfish. Why should I involve the whole universe in dealing with my >> >> problems. I must say there are a lot of habits of thought I have yet >> >> to master. I play the fool. I find comfort in eccentricity, taking >> >> heart that someone needs to say these things even if they are not >> >> ready for prime time they deserve to be repeated, if for nothing else, >> >> a learning exercise, that may benefit others, but may be considered >> >> spam. I am premature, as I have not yet fully applied what might be >> >> learned from the thoughtful feedback I already received, >> >> >> >> I am excited by the perception of my recent clarity about how the >> >> nature of information is the information of nature, as usual, now as >> >> the direct link between epistemology and phenomenology, where the >> >> memeion is the anyon, pattern or quantum arrangement is clocking by >> >> alternating inverse logic propagating the memeion logically until it >> >> meets equal and opposite logic, actualizing both participating >> >> memeions and thus perpetuating them in time as a actual event in the >> >> information ecology. A memeion may exhibit any algorithum at any >> >> relative clocking frequency but only repeats where there is a perfect >> >> analog propagating oppositely. As you can see it is still half baked. >> >> I want to do my best to make it not spam, and present it in a form >> >> worthy of an audience of philosophers. >> >> >> >> While I am still perusing other roads with other than philosophers, I >> >> tend to favor an engineering approach, in the forum of philosophy I >> >> have found much knowledge and valuable feedback I am exuberantly >> >> thankful for. >> >> >> >> Anyone have thought on what I should call the particle on universal >> >> logic of information physics, memeion, memeyon, memeon, I think my >> >> mind is made up, memeon works. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> http://InformationPhysics.com >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Jim Whitescarver >> >> <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I erronoisly attributed the word retrogenetic to Maria, but her words >> >> > were classier, paleanthropidic and paleonthological in her insightful >> >> > and >> >> > witty criticism. If I read it enough times I might get how I might >> >> > be >> >> > different but not dysfunctional :) >> >> > >> >> > Jim >> >> > > jim wrote: >> >> > >>I would need to do some homework before I could comment on Maria's >> >> > >>message. Unless I read all the references it just seems like >> >> > >>philosophical mumbo jumbo. I think she is saying some similar >> >> > >>things. >> >> > >> >> > You are an excellent example of a typology of the paleanthropidic >> >> > specimen, with an irresistible tendency to refuse the motion of a >> >> > normal dispositional evolution, but that nonetheless develops with >> >> > some ease in pithecanthropic scenarios. >> >> > >> >> > Really, the type of reflexibility, that you evidentiate, reveals a >> >> > real paleonthological vocation characterized by the slow emergence >> >> > of reflexive thinking. Indeed, after reading some of your posts, I >> >> > concluded that you provide for an interesting case of a casuistic of >> >> > unstable spatial equilibrium, determined by an organic cognitive >> >> > infrastructure, with grave disturbances of internal and external >> >> > neuropsychological rhythmicity of operative enchaining, with >> >> > periodic dissimulative oscillations, between a strange and complex >> >> > lucidity intermixed with some stumbliness without referent or >> >> > reference. >> >> > >> >> > A semiotic analysis, made to your written discourse, reveals a clear >> >> > dematerializing value of neural alienation. >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Jim Whitescarver >> >> > <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Carl Gustav <c_gus...@yahoo.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Jim, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It's great that you feel good and happy, have a good family life, >> >> >> > etc…, >> >> >> > however, concerning the issue, these postings of yours come out as >> >> >> > somewhat >> >> >> > excessive. I think that Elizabeth tried to alleviate a little, >> >> >> > what >> >> >> > is a >> >> >> > certain dramatising that you usually like to make when you involve >> >> >> > yourself >> >> >> > in debates around philosophy. As we (include here most of the >> >> >> > group), >> >> >> > know >> >> >> > very well from other discussions within other groups. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you Carl. My retrogenetic (Maria's term for my thinking) >> >> >> sociality necessitates external revaluation of my writing. I >> >> >> suppose >> >> >> medication might curb my excessive compulsive nature at the risk of >> >> >> becoming very dull as I have seen with many creative people I know. >> >> >> Redundancy and personalization are flaws I can comprehend may be >> >> >> excessive, but how this is over dramatatisation may exceed my >> >> >> comprehension in my subhuman mammalian social realm. I don't know >> >> >> if >> >> >> I can get it. This may be a negative viewpoint where the positive >> >> >> might be more constructive but has not been productive either thus >> >> >> far. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can understand the taboo of my vision that this will be considered >> >> >> a >> >> >> dark age of philosophy in the wake of Godel when philosophy failed >> >> >> to >> >> >> provide an objective means of distinguishing fact from fantasy in an >> >> >> era of relative and incomplete truth. I am not making an >> >> >> exaggeration >> >> >> or dramatization about it, I am simply stating my view. Simply >> >> >> stating the positive alone appearently simply fails to motivate >> >> >> change >> >> >> or any comment at all, and stating the negative only brings >> >> >> nonsubstansive criticism. I do not know how to express the >> >> >> importance >> >> >> I see in the mission of philisophy in this time. >> >> >> >> >> >> For me, UFO's, creationism, scientism, rampant sophism etc., are >> >> >> merely the tip of the iceberg of nonsensical scientific theory and >> >> >> truth in every area of human endeavorer that has become subjective >> >> >> and >> >> >> a popularity contest in reaction to philosophy that is in denial of >> >> >> the need to accept that the law of the excluded middle stands >> >> >> contradicted and the need to redefine objectivity with respect to >> >> >> relative truth where there is no preferred cognitive context. >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess if I am wrong then I can be said to have been over dramatic. >> >> >> But if this is true than I do not think I can make it more >> >> >> palitable. >> >> >> Perhaps you can enlighten my how I am wrong. >> >> >> >> >> >> I wish only to participate in the eminent renaissance in philosophy, >> >> >> and am perhaps a bit too impatient. It seems to me to be too soon >> >> >> for >> >> >> philosophy to admit that it is always both right and wrong. It is >> >> >> not >> >> >> an indictment against philosophy or just a withness crying "stop the >> >> >> madness", I want to work on the problem, I think we have the answers >> >> >> already, but there can be no exposition of quantum truth without >> >> >> discovering how we are wrong where each thesis gives light to the >> >> >> antithesis in an independent context and there is no preferred >> >> >> context.. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks again, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> > --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > From: Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam >> >> >> > To: cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy@googlegroups.com >> >> >> > Cc: cosmology-mathematics-and-philoso...@yahoogroups.com >> >> >> > Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 9:27 PM >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Elizabeth Marckley >> >> >> > <darkmo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh Jim! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You cannot go on writing such things, you are making me very sad, >> >> >> >> your >> >> >> > sadness is felt in your writing, you are in need of some kind of >> >> >> > therapy. >> >> >> > Philosophy is disturbing you to a such an extent, that your >> >> >> > suffering >> >> >> > makes >> >> >> > me >> >> >> > sad. Your pain is felt in your writing (sniff, sniff, buhaaa, >> >> >> > buhaaa…) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Dearest Elizabeth, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Never fret over my happiness. My life may be pathetic but I am >> >> >> > too >> >> >> > stupid to know it. For me, its a wonderful life. I live >> >> >> > passionately >> >> >> > and reasonably, with gusto. Here is the slide show, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://www.whitescarver.com/gallery/slideshow.php?mode=applet&set_albumName=JimsArchive >> >> >> > And the musical score to go along with it, >> >> >> > http://www.geocities.com/eugenef_86303/MIDI/bizcarto.mid >> >> >> > It is such a great life its disgusting. I'm happier than a pig in >> >> >> > shit. I am well loved, just not liked. I even created a website >> >> >> > one >> >> >> > day not long ago, http://WeAreGreat.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks for the song. Don't worry, be happy for me. >> >> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Love, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Jim >> >> >> > http://InformationPhysics.com >> >> >> >> Take joy in this song: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jim Whitescarver <jimscar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> Subject: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam >> >> >> >> To: cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy@googlegroups.com, >> >> >> > infophys...@yahoogroups..com >> >> >> >> Cc: cosmology-mathematics-and-philoso...@yahoogroups.com >> >> >> >> Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 8:39 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Maria Odete Madeira >> >> >> >> <maria_odete_ m...@yahoo.com >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > This is the referent: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > "It seems most philosophers fantasize about notions of truth >> >> >> > that are >> >> >> >> > not actual and consider that the only real truth is according >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > legacy of human discourse and what has become common sense. >> >> >> >> > They >> >> >> >> > choose to consider only incomplete truth isolated in some >> >> >> >> > particular >> >> >> >> > logical context employing the false notion of the excluded >> >> >> >> > middle. >> >> >> >> > They consider the quantum illogical when is is clearly perfect >> >> >> >> > logic >> >> >> >> > which contradicts our classical incomplete notion of truth." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My apologies to the group for posting what is deemed >> >> >> >> inappropriate >> >> >> >> material. I have struggled to understand how it could be >> >> >> >> categorized >> >> >> >> as spam, I am not too bright sometimes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is not worth losing time over this, when there is so much >> >> >> >> > being >> >> >> > put in the group that could be commented and discussed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Again my apologies for venting my frustration in this group. My >> >> >> >> dad >> >> >> >> told me a long time ago I won't get anywhere telling people they >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> stupid. Who do I think I am, Socrates? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > This is spam. It is nothing about nothing. It has nothing to do >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > philosophy, science, or whatever. It is just a Freudian release of >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > personal >> >> >> > problem against a word "philosophy" , it is not a criticism >> >> >> > against a >> >> >> > discipline, not an argument, it is simply nothing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is it wrong to be honest and say what we truly believe? I guess >> >> >> >> so. >> >> >> >> Part of my social handicap that has hurt people I love is that I >> >> >> >> blurt >> >> >> >> out the truth, because it is what it is, in the hopes of helping >> >> >> >> rather than hurting, truth is not always in my best interest, or >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> of my loved ones and society. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I first learned that Socrates was right about me. That my >> >> >> >> categorical >> >> >> >> imperatives were delusional and the there is always tension >> >> >> >> between >> >> >> >> the thesis and antithesis and there is no categorical imperative >> >> >> >> until >> >> >> >> the end of time, which never comes. Nobody can predict future >> >> >> >> effects, and all knowledge is generalization that tells of the >> >> >> >> ordinary rather than the extraordinary and the black swan will >> >> >> >> always >> >> >> >> emerge. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What I learned about myself I found applied to other people, we >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> all stupid in our absolute beliefs. I stupidly allowed my remarks >> >> >> >> here to be interpreted as an attack specifically against >> >> >> >> philosophers, >> >> >> >> of which I am one. I suppose I do hold philosophers to a higher >> >> >> >> standard of truth than other people and have a frustration with >> >> >> >> philosophers I do not have with people in general. My view is >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> the philosophers must lead Science 2.0 so that we have Medicine >> >> >> >> 2.0 >> >> >> >> and Ethics 2.0. It is simply the pendulum swinging from >> >> >> >> uniformity >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> diversity as quantum, optical, neural network, and evolutionary >> >> >> >> models >> >> >> >> replace the straw frame legacy notions of truth. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems this is only acutely important to me. And inflicting on >> >> >> >> others is indeed spam. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I do wish someone could tell me, for example, why proof by >> >> >> >> contradiction does not require proof of decidability, in the >> >> >> >> light >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> undecidable questions. If I could overcome my ignorance of this >> >> >> >> perhaps I would feel less need to lash out at philosophy. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Such is the nature of truth that there is another side to >> >> >> >> everything. >> >> >> >> Though we are stupid, for believing one sided truth, my >> >> >> >> experience >> >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> that we never believe anything for silly reasons and there is a >> >> >> >> great >> >> >> >> truth lurking in every belief. We are stupid for intelligent >> >> >> >> reasons >> >> >> >> that are generally not conscious. And while we do not know what >> >> >> >> we >> >> >> >> think we know, it turns out that we know a lot of what we think >> >> >> >> we >> >> >> >> don't know. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for being tolerant. I will try to work more positively >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> > future. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mailto:cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> <*> Your email settings: >> Individual Email | Traditional >> >> <*> To change settings online go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy/join >> (Yahoo! ID required) >> >> <*> To change settings via email: >> mailto:cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy-dig...@yahoogroups.com >> >> mailto:cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com >> >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com >> >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cosmology, Mathematics and Philosophy" group. To post to this group, send email to cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
