Richard, maybe the eye can't see itself but only consciousness can know
consciousness (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:06 AM, "pundits...@gmail.com"
wrote:
In "Eye to Eye," Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the science of what ca
On 4/16/2014 9:56 AM, Share Long wrote:
> Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think
> neuroscience has added greatly to our understanding of consciousness
> since then.
>
Maybe so, Share I mentioned Wilber because in his books there is an
affinity with the POV of some TMers, w
On 4/17/2014 9:49 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
*Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but "real" was Salyavin's term, not
mine, so obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition
will just be a restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only
what's measurable is "real" (the fundamental
Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but "real" was Salyavin's term, not mine, so
obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition will just be a
restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only what's measurable is "real"
(the fundamental premise of scientism). IOW, he can't object if my d
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote (to salyavin808):
1. Remember Gould's phrase, "nonoverlapping magisteria"?
2. What do you mean by "real"? Define it, please.
Perhaps you should also define 'real' and see if the definitions match up
first. In science, real is defined primarily
Nice post, tax
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please note. We all have honesty glitches, part of the human
condition.
On 4/16/2014 11:05 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
>
Thank you.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
Which question? You asked a bunch of them. All of them were irrelevant, though.
You seem to believe that classical theism and science are in competition--but
they aren't, couldn't be. Classical theism doesn't pretend to "improve on
science." That would be silly. Remember Gould's phrase, "nonover
On 4/16/2014 1:24 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has
really discombobulated you, has it not?
>
It won't be the first time somebody on this list used metaphysics when
they were trying to talk about science. Barry writes science a
On 4/16/2014 1:37 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
But boy, you freak out when you're challenged.
>
He was speechless when I reminded him that TM was based on thinking, and
he couldn't provide an example of a thought causing a physical change.
Maybe he believes Barry saw Rama levitate hundreds
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
I was impressed, it was a damn good way of getting out of answering the
question. Again. And laden with your usual insults to
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention
to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as
though he's ready to qu
Oh, stop saying that. Of course I have an argument, and you know it. You just
don't want to even try to take it in. Heaven forfend you allow yourself to be
challenged. Scary! Maybe "one god less" isn't quite the knockdown blow that you
imagined it was.
You know, you're such a smart guy; you k
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has really
discombobulated you, has it not? You haven't the foggiest idea how to wiggle
out of that one, have you?
I see now that you've been deliberately misspelling "Feser" all along. Don't
you think that's a little immature?
On 4/16/2014 12:37 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
But I'd leave the junkyard dog act here, they seem like a civilised
bunch and I didn't notice any sneering, badmouthing or withering insults.
>
It looks like this is about the time for this thread to turn to crap. It
looks like somebody is having troub
salyavin, you read my mind! That's exactly what I was thinking of! Go figure (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:26 PM, salyavin808
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't
Hey Judy, I've been getting kinda worried that your mighty brain isn't get
used enough amongst us incurious dullards. So I found a new place for you to
hang out and discuss theoretic improbabilities:
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44061/29917623/Theistic_Personalism__Classic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for which we
don't yet
irfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated with an empty
aseptic packag
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
On Wed, 4/16/14, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 201
But, can she levitate like Rama?
I won't comment on the deeper aspects of your post, just pass along a wonderful
moment having to do with children.
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests the
In "Eye to Eye," Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the science of what can be known - knowledge, and
how we get it. Attempting to investigate the realm of spirit, for example, with
the "eye of flesh," that is, the eye that perceives only se
Knowledge is power, Share. It's like the analogy of the snake in the garden. At
night we see what appears to be a snake in the garden; in the daylight we see
that it was only a coiled up rope. The "snake" was real because it was
presented to our consciousness, but in reality it wasn't a real sna
Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think neuroscience has
added greatly to our understanding of consciousness since then.
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:50 AM, "pundits...@gmail.com"
wrote:
Ajax:
> To find out if this is real or not, there is no evidence except the
> ex
I was just about positive you wouldn't admit your assertion was metaphysical,
because if it is, according to the statement itself, it's "not real." You can't
measure it, you can't use it to make predictions, you can't prove it, and
there's no evidence for it. It's fine to believe it if it please
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated with an empty
aseptic package (Rice milk or something like that). Its whole
Ajax:
> To find out if this is real or not, there is no evidence except the
> experience.
>
One of the most thorough account of the spiritual approach may be Ken Wilber's
book The Spectrum of Consciousness, a comparison of western and eastern ways of
thinking about the mind, Ken Wilber describe
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for which we
don't yet have the instruments for measuring?
On Wednesday,
Actually Richard, I think you are speaking about 2 kinds of mistakes. The
phrase "son of a barren woman" represents a logical impossibility, a self
contradiction.
But mistaking the fence post for a thief is a mistake of perception. About this
you are correct in that the person truly perceived
Try to imagine someone so desperate for attention that they settle for made-up
claims about witnessing their guru levitate hundreds of times. And, instead of
conversation, making even bolder claims about their guru being able to generate
"golden light" to fill a lecture hall filled with thousand
> "...if it isn't measurable it isn't real." How about atoms? >
There are to my knowledge no scientists on this discussion group, so what you
are reading Share is about metaphysics, not about science. In Indian
metaphysics, if some proposition or statement is found to be
self-contradictory, it
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Flattery will get you everywhere. Tea and cakes on me!
It's a deal.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say "...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real." How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable?
No, they were always measurable, we just didn't have the technology
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say "...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real." How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable? Did they only become real when we became able to measure
them? Of course these are rhetorical questions meant to make the p
en ARGUE worth a damn any more. :-)
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you
have no ar
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Who is this Bawwy?
Good question. I can't figure it out, can you?
Yeah, straight away actually.
And why would you care?
On some level I don't and on another level I "care" in the same way I care
that some idiot is intent on w
I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you
have no argument.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not
really such a difficult name to spell.
And I notice from the Ed Fess blog
Is that it? No argument whatsoever? But then you didn't have one going in to
the discussion so why would you have one at the end. Business as usual.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
(snip all kinds of nonsense)
You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statemen
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequa
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is
the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell
I do believe you've quoted this from the FFL home page approvingly a number of
times here. Doesn't really seem to describe your attitude toward theism, I'm
afraid.
I w
BTW, it's Feser, not Fess. I corrected you once on this already. It's not
really such a difficult name to spell.
And I notice from the Ed Fess blog
(snip all kinds of nonsense)
You do realize this is a metaphysical, not a scientific, statement, do you not?
So the only way it isn't in conflict with science is because it isn't
measurable. And if it isn't measurable it isn't real.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt
to make me look stupid,
Yup, malicious that's me. You made yourself look stupid - not to mention
exceptionally irritating - with your refusal to explain what you
Xeno's fine in this post. I'll just respond to Barry, because what he says
requires correction. (What else is new?)
This reply is also specifically for Anartaxius, and is *not* to be used as a
springboard for Judy Stein to use it as an opportunity to reply to him while
still pretending to ke
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. T
P.S.: Either you just made up what you attributed to me in a malicious attempt
to make me look stupid, or your thinking has been going off in the wrong
direction, at least where classical theism is concerned. There is no conflict
whatsoever between classical theism and science, including the law
Just keep it up, whatever you say is true. The world waits with baited breath.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Just a reminder; here's what he said:
"Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or
shut the fuck up."
Jeez, talk about a point
beautiful, deep clarity, thank you, Xeno
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:33 PM, "anartax...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please note. We all have
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please note. We all have honesty glitches, part of the human
condition.
Generally I am not interested in Theism. I'm a post-Theist, the
Just a reminder; here's what he said:
"Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or
shut the fuck up."
Jeez, talk about a pointless exercise!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
What "tricks"?? That was your trick, buster, not mine. Came stra
What "tricks"?? That was your trick, buster, not mine. Came straight out of
left field. You have a deeply dishonest habit of putting words in my mouth and
then berating me for things I never said.
What you attributed to me makes no sense. It would be like saying meteorology
is inadequate com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could
On 4/15/2014 7:31 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
But thanks for admitting that you can't even make an argument for
"Being Itself," much less any other form of the dumbfuck God idea. :-)
>
Just speaking for myself, I'd be more inclined to believe a dumbfuck God
idea than to believe Fredy Lenz could
On 4/15/2014 10:38 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is
replying to Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing
me. It seems that *someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
>
Drunk, or just nerdy, to try
t;awoelflebater@..."
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
c
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is replying to
Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing me. It seems that
*someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
It all changes nothing, you're
Yup and pitiable they don't have the experiential reference neither that they
have to ask for some mental argument that 'absolutely shows' the divinity. With
no spiritual chops in this mentation round and round of these guys is like they
can't see the forest for the trees or the forest for the t
On 4/15/2014 8:42 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is happening? Is Bawwy catching? Sal, you need to take your
temperature and get into bed. I think you've caught something vicious
- you sound just like Bawwy.
>
You are not the first person on this discussion group to point out that
mos
@yahoo.com"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
Sober up and stop talking gibberish.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
Sober up and stop talking gibberish.
Bawwy brings out the big and devastating club w
___
From: "authfri...@yahoo.com"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Yo, Oopsie Boy, starting out on the blooper trail pretty early this
morning, ai
Tell you what, I'll take a stab at it after you've made a post here giving a
complete explanation of quantum mechanics.
As I pointed out to Barry just now, I've already given you the core principle
of the argument--many times, in fact: Classical theists hold that what they
call God is not a b
that she actually
*believes* in the dumbfuck idea, and thus she'd lose her "Get Out Of Jail Free"
card, the one that allows her to pretend she's only arguing on principle, not
because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism
or shut the fuck up.
We're waiting.
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
compared to theism? I don't know what that could even mean.
Sober up and stop talking gibberish.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Either tell us where the laws of physics ar
'd have to reveal that she actually
*believes* in the dumbfuck idea, and thus she'd lose her "Get Out Of Jail Free"
card, the one that allows her to pretend she's only arguing on principle, not
because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: saly
k idea, and thus she'd lose her "Get Out Of Jail Free"
card, the one that allows her to pretend she's only arguing on principle, not
because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
____
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoo
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism or
shut the fuck up.
We're waiting.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Yet another atheist wannabe who simply cannot lower himself to reading enough
philosophy to realize the incoherence of one of h
Yet another atheist wannabe who simply cannot lower himself to reading enough
philosophy to realize the incoherence of one of his fundamental premises, or
that the purported evidentiary problems of theism as confronted by science that
he blabs on about so pompously are in fact nonexistent.
---
Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous'
from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the
nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply
an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about
Hell if I know what a divinity is. I just copied the definition of 'numinous'
from the Google search results for 'define:numinous'. I was discussing the
nature of informed belief, that is belief based on evidence rather than simply
an idea one has in the mind. I was not discussing anything about
Exactly what is "a divinity"?
This is where atheists, especially those with pretensions to scientific
understanding but who are deficient in philosophy, tend to get all tangled up
and become incoherent, saying things like "I just believe in one less divinity
than you do."
---In FairfieldLi
nu·mi·nous = having a strong religious or spiritual quality; indicating or
suggesting the presence of a divinity.
Exactly what is a strong religious quality? Exactly what is a spiritual
quality? How do these two qualities indicate or suggest the presence of a
divinity? If something is indic
On 4/14/2014 1:46 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
You don't get it, Salyavin. The whole POINT is that people like Fess
and Judy can complain that other people don't know as much about
_LEVITATION_ as they do. :-)
>
"god gave this job to the birds, let them fly around while you use your
legs! work on
BTW, I didn't start this discussion with Salyavin; he did. (There you go,
Barry, I just saved you an Oopsie.)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Like Curtis, Salyavin tends to become intellectually dishonest when he
encounters any kind of conflict.
If anyone wants to see why
Like Curtis, Salyavin tends to become intellectually dishonest when he
encounters any kind of conflict.
If anyone wants to see why this post of Salyavin's is intellectually
dishonest, here's the post of mine he was responding to:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversat
Uh, what?? You're waiting on a treatise from me on why scientific methods are
inadequate compared to classical theism?
That's sort of like waiting for a treatise on why a pregnancy test is
inadequate compared to the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm going to stay optimistic and wait for a trea
salyavin, ok, here's a comment and question for you: you mention that there's
all these addictive chemicals in our brain. Fascinating! Do they have survival
value? And if they increase with certain experiences, why? More survival
value?
Previously you mentioned something about several brain a
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have an argument against every
ancient Gre
I can't be bothered to get dragged into another yet another tedious groundhog
day with you.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Er, no. Look, I know it's difficult for you to have your ignorance exposed
like this
Yawn.
Third Opsie! for Barry today. He seems to have missed the fact that I've
referred Salyavin to sources that do explain what I mean, but that Salyavin has
refused to read. Which one of us is feeble-minded, again?
Pretty funny charge coming from a person who lacks the intellect to understand
(Feser, not Fess.) Yes, if you want a really comprehensive understanding of
classical theism, you have to do a whole lot of reading (and pondering). But
you could have gotten a general idea of why the "one god less" gambit is
incoherent with regard to the God of classical theism by reading the f
Er, no. Look, I know it's difficult for you to have your ignorance exposed like
this (and obviously even more difficult for Barry to watch), but lame smart
cracks really don't help you out, they just make you look more desperate. (Is
Susan Blackmore an ancient Greek philosopher?)
Clearly I ca
On 4/14/2014 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
Wouldn't it be funny if TM researchers undermined the whole
philosophical fabric of their own beliefs. That's be true science!
>
That's sort of what has become of the internet. The goal was to have
everything connected, networked, so we could all shar
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have an argument against every
ancient Greek or philosopher you can think of or you'll
From: salyavin808
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:06 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his
blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about physics and S
LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have an argument against every
ancient Greek or philosopher you can think of or you'll claim I've "wimped
out".
But you aren't ever going to explain what you mean! That's funny!
Sounds like you've got a perfect "I win every argument" clause,
I explained that as well. Pay attention at the back!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
I
Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his
blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about physics and Steven Hawking but
most of it seems based on other things you have to read, like there's some vast
esoteric store of knowledge that you have to adopt. Why bothe
On 4/14/2014 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads
but our senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the
electromagnetic spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
>
Translation: Everyone thinks, therefore sinc
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses are only capable of revea
On 4/14/2014 10:58 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
How can one "inform oneself" about that which does not exist? :-)
>
There are several ways a person can "inform oneself" about that which
does not exist. First, you need to understand the basic laws of gravity.
Then, you need to understand the effect
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic
spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our
he
P.S.: Here's a good place to start:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=%22one+god+less%22
Note: Feser does not use the male pronoun to refer to God because he believes
God has a gender; he does not. IMHO, his arguments would
I believe I've already explained why "one god less" is incoherent, in the
process exposing all kinds of ideas you had about what God is said to be that
are refuted by classical theism (the strongest argument for theism). As I
recall, you wimped out of that discussion when it got tough, as you of
Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it?
Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense
of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see
one...?
Yawn. Wake me up when you've actually posted a strong argument for "that" idea.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument again
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
salyavin, yes, I like your last paragraph about depth recognition getting
crossed with reward center for pleasure. Now here's the next important step I
think: does that have lasting value for life? Because if it does, then for me
it doesn't mat
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo