Dr Jack Sarfatti on Coast2Coast

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:21 am

Anymore of your crap Toon and you will be banned - permanently.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm


Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:10 pm

Access Denied wrote:She doesn't know what you're talking about either.

Again, what pray tell have I misunderstood about her posts and perspective?


I think Ry issued a proper diagnosis of the Toon viral meme in the latrine. Toon needs to tangle with someone. He can't seem to subsist without conflict, and insults are his form of excrement. I give him morsels of what he needs every now and then, just to exhibit what his MO is. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby wetsystems » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:14 pm

cartoonsyndicate
Suspended


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 859
Location: The Borg

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

ryguy wrote:

MikeJamieson wrote:


Pretty soon we will be able to clearly junk a lot of the rigidly adhered to "myths"
floating out there. Like MJ-12 maybe? Certainly alien/covert govt. treaties, no?



Hopefully yes...even better - once this crack opens up, we might get a glimpse of where all of those myths came from and why. We can certainly hope?

-Ry


Myths. Who can say for sure? It's important not to cross the line into debunkery. These 'myths' are just another facet of the UFO dialectic- part of the entirety. The field must be studied in terms of the entire gestalt.

The truth may very well be that the universe, in itself, is a conscious entity. 'Ether' being the equivalent of 'blood.' If that is the case, then the particular consciousnesses (ie. 'us') are (Whiteheadian) abstractions. Perhaps it is the case that such abstractions stand between God and Entropy. It's a sobering thought. But it elevates Eisenhower's dentist to beyond high strangeness. God is subject to mood. In fact all of creation is nothing more than the mood of God. We are pearls, but ultimately a necklace. The basic substance of the universe- the ether- is Ethics. We tune into that reality at our peril. The enjoyment of the totality will switch us off in less than a heart-beat. Perpetuation of duality is our only hope for continued existence. Thus the dentist serves us- if that is our choice.

God created this shared paradigm out of loneliness. Dialectic requires a trinity- and that is the mood of God. Let's carry on- approaching but never achieving.

Never cast the pearls before the swine.

cs

_________________
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

caryn
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 242


PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

That’s a profound statement Toon! Must be to get me writing in the public forum.

This sentence: "God created this shared paradigm out of loneliness"

This sentence mirrors what was imparted to me during my ‘one on one’ with ‘G-d’ in 1978.....when it said ‘what is the point of existence if you have nothing to measure your existence by? – I was lonely!”

I don’t want to get into a heavy religious debate..just thought I’d share this snippet with you.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:11 pm

cartoonsyndicate

The truth may very well be that the universe, in itself, is a conscious entity. 'Ether' being the equivalent of 'blood.' If that is the case, then the particular consciousnesses (ie. 'us') are (Whiteheadian) abstractions. Perhaps it is the case that such abstractions stand between God and Entropy.


A New Religion

The only faith required of the Infinitist is faith in fate. The single
principle upon which this faith is based is that the Universe itself is
a conscious entity. This can be deduced through logical reasoning; if
the physical form of all living things is based upon their atomic
structure, and all inanimate objects are built of the same stuff, then
they too must be alive. It is our very essence that gives us life,
energy, physical form; and we share our essence with every other
physical object, animate or not. Therefore, for the Infinitist, all
things live. In the words of Rene Descartes:

‘I think, therefore I am.’


And so the Universe lives. But the Universe is a very complicated place
in which to live. Existing as part of an Infinite entity means
essentially that we must contemplate the nature of Infinity, something
that the human mind is not conditioned to do. But it is certainly built
for this task. Because we ourselves are a part of the Universe, the
Universe is also a part of us. Literally, each one of us is a part of
God, and God resides within each of us. Our task is to hear God.



American Heritage Definition #4 of Religion:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."


caryn
That’s a profound statement Toon! Must be to get me writing in the public forum.

This sentence: "God created this shared paradigm out of loneliness"

This sentence mirrors what was imparted to me during my ‘one on one’ with ‘G-d’ in 1978.....when it said ‘what is the point of existence if you have nothing to measure your existence by? – I was lonely!”

I don’t want to get into a heavy religious debate..just thought I’d share this snippet with you.


For some people, the definition of "religion" isn't so much a set of beliefs one adhere's to concerning the Creator or Creation - but their definition of "religion" is only those that involve an institutionalized or organized structure and a defined set of people who hold membership in that institution.

My definition of "religion" is the dictionary definition above - where a belief system simply needs to be pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion to constitute religion. Therefore your quote above, which you've repeated in one form or another many times, represents a belief system. The blogger quoted above defines this as being an "Infinitist". I tend to agree - because a great many people (Dan Smith is a good example) can be found out there who adhere to this same set of beliefs.

A difficult thing to deal with, personally, is when a person has an aversion to discuss one set of beliefs while at the same time exhibiting a preference to discuss another. I see this, in my life and online interactions, all the time. You say "all religion" is b.s. - yet you really mean "organized religion" and you really mean one or two of the major ones which you dislike - and while you yourself persist in holding your own religious (as defined above) set of beliefs.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby wetsystems » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:47 pm

My main point in the above blurb was this:

Perhaps it is the case that such abstractions stand between God and Entropy. It's a sobering thought.


i.e.:
That the inviolable boundary that delimits reason and absurdity is necessary for consciousness per se. I propose that the theoretical penetration beyond that limit is the proposed 'Pandora's Box' alluded to by Dan Smith. Does it fulfill or extinguish consciousness? Etre ou Neant (in Sartre's words)? That is the question- 'To be or not to be.' And on this point he and I are in agreement. The bound itself is the 'still that lies between the bow and string,' pure Potential, nothing more.

Descarte's 'cogito ergo sum' is tautological, reducible to simply 'sum,' as I've explained elsewhere. It explains nothing at all.

And no- this isn't some incipient new religion- just a flight of whimsy at which one arrives when Jesus and his ilk are removed from all but historical consideration. As I've said before: consider everything, believe nothing.
Last edited by wetsystems on Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby wetsystems » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:52 pm

Some the allusions in the above post are owing to the last poem by Arthur Afterburn before his untimely death in 1978 which I'll post here for reference:

let us sit by tepid waters
that lap the slimy leg of dock
embalmed in the autumn of an evening,
amid the growing ripples
and wiry bamboos
(broken in youth
like the teeth of a mutant).
why there is an argument
about the nature of the God
among the gluons of my hemispheres
and of the matter of
the moist heat upon
the knuckles
of the hand
that rolled
your
stocking
down...
Let us sit
and let us listen to
the clickings of the pool,
and in the still that lies
between the bow and string,
sleep.


Copyright 1978, Afterburn Estate
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:40 pm

One major similarity between the writings of both you and Dan is a great amount of content but very little specificity. That's also the problem with philosophy overall. If you can weld together a sentence with plenty of flowerly adjectives but very little specific nouns (substance) - you can be a philosopher (not a scientist though!)

Let's analyze:

wetsystems wrote:i.e.:
That the inviolable boundary that delimits reason and absurdity is necessary for consciousness per se.


All this sentence says is that a line must be drawn between what is considered reasonable and what's considered absurd in order for there to be consciousness. Which is, of course, absurd in itself because plenty of living things (including many humans I might add) are quite conscious, but have little to no delimitation between reality and absurdity. Yes - most conscious folk without such delimitation are in the mental hospitals, or should be, but they still have consciousness. So your sentence above is superfluous nonsense.

I propose that the theoretical penetration beyond that limit is the proposed 'Pandora's Box' alluded to by Dan Smith.


A limit is very distinct from a boundary between two things. While in your first sentence you refer to a boundary between reason and absurdity - now you refer to a "limit" that theoretically can be penetrated. There is no Pandora's Box opened when one penetrates the boundary between Reason and Absurdity - there is only a personal failure to recognize when an abstract concept is so abstract and rediculous that it defies any ability to logically or realistically confirm it. This, by the way, is what Dan Smith is all about - statements without any possible confirmation....conclusions drawn on assumptions and unreasonably loose connections. You follow down the same road at your own peril.

Does it fulfill or extinguish consciousness? Etre ou Neant (in Sartre's words)? That is the question- 'To be or not to be.'


There are only a few things that extinguish consciousness. One example is a bullet. Another is a noose, or a gas chamber, or the electric chair.

"To be or not to be" is a reference to purpose. If you actually read Hamlet in its entirety and use the quote within the context in which Shakespeare meant it to be read, you'd see what he was referring to:

To be or not to be, --that is the question:--
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"


He is asking himself whether it is better to continue living his life, and suffer the pain and adversity life has dealt him (as he contemplates suicide) - or not to live (in cowardly avoidance of trouble and strife)...Carpe Diem, or from a more contemporary source - Shawshank Redemption:

"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living or get busy dying," says Andy (Tim Robbins)...

You can be by connecting with the natural energy that was created around us long before we were ever more than a single-cell organism...we can soak in this world, every part of it - every scent, sight, or experience on this earth......or we can chose not to be...living a one-track experience, limiting ourselves in our lives, not believing in our abilities, and ignoring our personal potentials (while recognizing our very real phenemological limitations)...in other words, it's okay be believe in the very real magic of creation...but it's a slippery slope when we start to believe in unreal magic that exists only in our minds, developed from coincidence and chance. Again....humans see beasts in the shadows, and animals in the clouds. But there is still only darkness in the shadows, and only water vapor in the clouds.

And on this point he and I are in agreement. The bound itself is the 'still that lies between the bow and string,' pure Potential, nothing more.


In dismissing "Potential" as only stillness, that argument overlooks the energy necessary to create Potential. You can't have both Potential, and "nothingness". Kinetic or Potential...energy is energy, and it is Real.

Descarte's 'cogito ergo sum' is tautological, reducible to simply 'sum,' as I've explained elsewhere. It explains nothing at all.


And that above sentence is a typical method of philosophers to create intrigue by contradiction. It's rediculous because the opposites cancel themselves out - you load the gun, point it at your foot, and pull the trigger all in the same sentence. And when you do it, or Dan does it, it's transparent.

And no- this isn't some incipient new religion- just a flight of whimsy at which one arrives when Jesus and his ilk are removed from all but historical consideration. As I've said before: consider everything, believe nothing.


I would like to thank you for this last paragraph, because with that one statement you confirmed my post above. Proving that the beliefs you adhere to so fervently represent a religion in and of itself. Yes, it's one that doesn't like the idea of Jesus (or the possible reality of his "messiah" title)....which is fine. But really - we should accept that these ideals you (and Dan) present are very much, in fact, just another religion...as defined above.

I know, in your distaste for organized religion, you hate having that label applied to the beliefs that you (and Dan) lay out...but hey, a spade is a spade.

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:44 pm

If you can weld together a sentence with plenty of flowerly adjectives


Do I really use that many adjectives? Jesus! My baddd! I'll try my best to be less flowery.


:


Descarte's 'cogito ergo sum' is tautological, reducible to simply 'sum,' as I've explained elsewhere. It explains nothing at all.



And that above sentence is a typical method of philosophers to create intrigue by contradiction.


I was simply pointing out that Descartes has confused Logic with Algebra in this 'proposition'. It's in actuality an equation rather than a proposition and therefore logically tautological. That's all.

In dismissing "Potential" as only stillness, that argument overlooks the energy necessary to create Potential. You can't have both Potential, and "nothingness".


Singularity is not energetic, only potentially so.

Also- I was quoting Sartre not Shakespeare. (Although Sartre was obviously alluding to Shakespeare in choosing the title for Being and Nothingness.) Etre ou neant is French for 'being or nothingness.' But I feel that Shakespeare had more on his mind than suicide in any case. He was dealing, as was Sartre, with the existential nature of being (Ontology) as opposed to non-being in a universal way. Hamlet was simply Shakespeare's instrument in introducing this conundrum. And yes- I have studied both philosopher/ play-writes in great depth.

And what evidence do we have that a bullet will put an end to consciousness? Would that it were so, perhaps.

And bye the bye- 'bound' and 'limit' are synonymous. To understand my concept of 'limit' we must not confine ourselves to a two dimensioned analogy. I prefer 4 myself.

you can be a philosopher (not a scientist though

It is the case that philosophy subsumes sciences. For a wonderful explanation of this statement you might refer to "Science in the Modern World," by Alfred North Whitehead a tome that's devoted to this very point.

Have I covered everything posed in your little plaint in the void? Or shall we continue?
Last edited by wetsystems on Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:50 pm

Wet,
….when Jesus and his ilk are removed from all but historical consideration.

That is just my point.

If there is an interactive God, then could you name a more likely place where she might have intervened in history besides in the X-event??

Furthermore, if either you or I were God, we would not use Jesus as our Marionette, would we? We would man-up and do it ourselves.

Or are you chicken? I may be Chicken Little, but that is not quite the same.

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:12 pm

If there is an interactive God


But I reject that presupposition. There is no philosophical basis for presupposing an interactive God. It is only a religious concept- one that must be taken on faith.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:01 pm

wetsystems wrote:
In dismissing "Potential" as only stillness, that argument overlooks the energy necessary to create Potential. You can't have both Potential, and "nothingness".


Singularity is not energetic, only potentially so.



Take a Physics course beyond Physics 101 and then we'll talk. And if you already have - then the little philosopher in your head has decided to throw the important Physics lessons out of your head in preference for the Philosophical junk-food that fits your preferred world-view.

But I feel that Shakespeare had more on his mind than suicide in any case.


Typical. Once, during a senior level creative-writing course, the professor read to us, her students, a letter she had received from a famous author....one who'd taken her class many years earlier.

The Author told how months earlier she had received a series of letters from a college class that had used one of her books in order to do a thorough analysis of the story she wrote, and determine the metaphorical "meanings" behind the various sub-plots within her novel.

She explained how, in one letter, a young analyst had gone so far as to define one of the love stories within the novel as representative of the patriarchial structure within her family (the author's)...obviously her father must have been a very angry and probably a violent man. The student went on to write a three page letter outlining the symbolism obvious within the novel.

After reading through 10 or so such "anlysis" done by "very prolific writers" from the class, the author concluded her letter to our professor with the simple statement that none of the students had gotten it right. Her story was simply nothing more than a tale about the normal tribulations that are part of every human life - and while she thought the students had been quite creative in defining the symbolism they felt were obviously intended by the author, she made it quite clear that none of the symbolism proposed was at all accurate with anything she had intended.

The readers let their minds get carried away - and instead of understanding what the author meant, they projected their own personal "meaning" to the text...a meaning that fit their preconceived notions of their own world as they perceive it.

And what evidence do we have that a bullet will put an end to consciousness?


Well...since consciousness is the state of being conscious - and being conscious is, on one sense, to be alert or awake - I can certainly prove to you that a bullet puts an end to alertness or wakefulness.

Although, I sense that in using the preferred new-age term "consciousness", you're implying spirit - or energy....in which case I couldn't agree more. A bullet does not put an end to spirit. Ahh....but there's your dilemma. But it is your dilemma.


you can be a philosopher (not a scientist though

It is the case the philosophy subsumes sciences. For a wonderful explanation of this statement you might refer to "Science in the Modern World," by Alfred North Whitehead a tome that's devoted to this very point.



You mean philosophy "ignores" science. No answers can be found in Philosophy - only discussion, and more questions.

"Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves."
- Bertrand Russell

The method of befuddling readers through the use of contradictory logic represents the fallacies of ambiguity that are inherent in the kind of writing found in most modern-day self-professed "philosophers".

While I've said often I hate philosophy...I should be more specific and explain that I dislike amateur philosophers who take that additional step and claim to have found an "answer". Plato, Edmund Burke, John Dewey, or Rene Descartes can pull it off with style and grace. Very few others can....and far too many try.

Have I covered everything posed in your little plaint in the void? Or shall we continue?


Hardly. However it appears Dan has accepted your challenge to hold a discussion here....so I'll leave you two men to have at it.

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:11 pm

Wet,

But I reject that presupposition. There is no philosophical basis for presupposing an interactive God. It is only a religious concept- one that must be taken on faith.


That is a remarkably silly and untutored remark.

In the incipient collapse of Scientific Materialism, how can you logically legislate against the re-cognition that there is no longer a barrier to Cosmic Cognition

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:24 pm

dan wrote:Wet,

But I reject that presupposition. There is no philosophical basis for presupposing an interactive God. It is only a religious concept- one that must be taken on faith.


That is a remarkably silly and untutored remark.

In the incipient collapse of Scientific Materialism, how can you logically legislate against the re-cognition that there is no longer a barrier to Cosmic Cognition



Are you about to offer a proof of god?? Or simply going the way of Spinoza? Assumptions are not proof. Is this Phil 101 redux?
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:14 pm

Wet,

I have offered many plausibility arguments relative to the God question.

If you are sincere in your desire to dialog, you might take a few moments of your valuable time to review and list some of those arguments previously given in such profusion.

You could then choose a few for further discussion.

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Ladies & Germs, I give you...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:24 pm

... the Toon & Dan Show.

No hitting below the phenomological belt, OK boys? Enjoy yourselves, and let's hope the audience remains entertained.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron