Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

06 Feb 2021, 12:33 am

I was going to post this in another thread but figured the cliffs notes would still be too big to fit and it would seem like too much of a departure from the main topic.

Pretty much this is him having a second podcast with Jim Rutt unpacking a metaphysics that I believe he fit together in the late 90's or early 2000's. The overall idea is that, particularly with practice of axiom 2, you can grock an intuitive understanding of the relationships between subject and object in a substantial manner.

The video:


My notes:


Review of Part 1 (first half hour):

Metaphysics - study of relationship between self and reality.

Relationship between subject and object is ontologically real and worthy of study. Relationship between measurer and measured (scientific method - testing of hypotheses). Notion of measure itself is treated as a fundamental concept. Impute thing measured and what is doing the measuring. Actual objectivity is through the measurement itself - the ontological process of making a measurement or observation is grounding basis by which we can identify that there is 'something' - notion that there is a measurement, measured, and someone measuring.

In all cases of the above - notion of interaction is taken as a prior concept in order to establish that something exists, is real, or is objective.

Observer - perceiver
Perception - process
Perceived - content of the perception


Choice: in subjective realm is comparable to causation in the objective realm.

"If we want to understand the nature of the subjective we need to think about choice, the notion of self is characterized in terms of choice."

Add: determinism and indeterminism:

Mathematics has absolute character, down to infinitely small, fully specified to infinite decimals. Scientific knowledge is of a causal nature - does not need infinite specification. Difference between determinism and causality as a way of thinking - difference between perfect randomness / indeterminism and choice. If universe is perfectly predictable no room for free will. Distinction between determinism and causation is also a distinction between hard randomness and choice. Hard randomness is meaningless but choice is meaningful to the person making the choice. Computer science - compression removes predictable elements, neurology can predict past and future states but complexity of system makes this very brief (tremendous amplification of initial conditions). Irreducible randomness from vantage point of perceiver. Prediction is a kind of information compression.

Choices we make have a subjective context. Significant difference between the degree to which choice is meaningful from an internal point of view rather than an external point of view.

Not a compatibilistic frame, rather the notion of choice and the notion of causation are effect duals of one another - have a reciprocity (things we can't predict like three body problems, Heisenberg uncertainty, etc.). Thus symmetry between determinism and indeterminism. Causation - mesoscopic or macroscopic perspective of regular patterns, choice - meso or macroscopic absence of patterns (choice and causation, determinism and indeterminism codefining).

Universe has content in three forms - creation, existence, and interaction. Interaction more fundamental than creation and existence. Relationship between realism and idealism is considerably more primal than both the notions of either realism or idealism.

Creation, existence, and interaction by themselves make no sense and make no sense with only one other and not the third (any notion of creation implies interaction and existence, any notion of interaction implies creation and existence, any notion of existence implies creation and interaction, etc.). Distinct, inseparable, non-interchangeable.

There is one that has a reciprocal relationship with the other two that the other two have as a back and forth relationship with each other. Notion of interaction, back and forth relationship is an interaction concept.

Creation - most common form would be emergence, such as magnetic from electric or electric from magnetic (coemergence phenomena) - emergence is proxy for process is proxy for interaction. Both creation and existence depend on interaction in a way that is not a mirror image (interaction is more fundamental than creation and existence).

More on realism and idealism - really deemphasized as a both/and (what gets confusing for me - immanent is 'more primary' but it's transcendent which is declared 2nd person later).

Notion of process - in this case neither deterministic nor indeterministic (agnostic) - including probabilities and possibilities as well as deterministic patterns.



Statement of the Axioms:


Axiom 1:

Foundational triplication and type isomorphism.

Idea of foundational triplication is model to all that is real, including the foundation of each and every domain. In terms of at least three inseparable concepts which are mutually extinct.

Type isomorphism - consider essential concepts of each domain have similar patterns of correspondence.

Domain - any topic, first example - any field of academic study.

The three isomorphisms:
Immanent
Omniscient
Transcendent

Examples of domains and their triplicate isomorphisms:

Universe: the three primal concepts are - creation, existence, interaction.
Language: the three primal concepts are - statement, semantic, syntax

Each domain is comprised of the three primal concepts.

Pattern of the axioms can be used to identify the types of each of the primal concepts in each of the domains. If the types are identified for one domain, eg. Language, and another eg. Universe, you can hold the axiomatic reflections (my words not his) or pieces holding the same 'place' in the axioms.

Difference between saying something is valid vs that an argument is sound. Validity vs. soundness would be as follows, validity: did I use the tools right? Soundness: did I use the right tools?

Another parallel between transcendent, omniscient, immanent:
1st person: immanent
3rd person: omniscient
2nd person: transcendent

For the axioms - the immanent is more fundamental than the omniscient or transcendent. The omniscient and transcendent are conjugate. Conjugation in this sense means that two things have a 'hyperbolic' relationship in that changing one changes the other. Time and frequency (Fourier transforms), electric and magnetic fields, etc.. Often these are complementary relationships. Syntax vs semantics - creating a language thinking about semantics first too much you might have less space for syntax and vice a verse.


Axiom 2:

A class of the transcendent precedes an instance of the immanent.
A class of the immanent precedes an instance of the omniscient.
A class of the omniscient precedes an instance of the transcendent (they said immanent in the interview but it's transcendent on the site).

Looking at process as a dynamic in first person sense - transition from axiom 1 to axiom 2 goes from domain of theory to domain of practice.

Notion of choice - to have a choices you need 1) range to choose from, 2) selection event, 3) consequence. All three are needed to have a choice (that which is indistinguishable is the same).

'Classes' deal with choice, class of potentials. A chosen is an 'instance'.

Example: Choosing to go to the movies (above other options) is class of transcendent going to instance of immanent.

(in this the instance is like a property of a class, if keeping to programming analogies).

Consequence is contingent on a whole series of choices.

Okay, this is where it gets weird. Series of contingencies leading to consequence is the 'class of the immanent' leading to an 'instance of the omniscient'. Plurality of antecedents to plurality of consequences…. Okay so one to many but just not exclusively one antecedent to one consequence.

Class of omniscient precedes an instance of the immanent - evidenced by the 'things' you need to make a choice. Not just physical objects at hand but skillsets, tools, etc. These are also 'outcomes' in the last sense or consequences (ie. bought a book, bought a chair, learned English, etc.).

Axiom 2 is the most embodied thing. Insight into process itself. You end up feeling directly - relationship between personal subjective and actual objective of the world, becomes first-hand ontological experience.


Axiom 3:

Classes and instances of immanent, omniscient, and transcendent are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable.

Mapping between modalities and axioms themselves - metaphysics can be self-describing through the connection of the axioms and modalities.

System of metaphysics should describe itself. Through axiom 2 it can describe the process of describing itself. Description is a process, choice is a process, change is process, causation is a process. Not only can describe itself in theory or the theory can be self-referential, but that the closure of the theory closes over itself at a process an ontological level rather than just epistemic. Meaning - like realism and idealism defined in terms of axioms, modalities, and dynamics between those things - the axioms and modalities are closing over the subjective and objective inclusively. Process of the description of the metaphysics includes both the describer and the thing described and the process of that description.



Association of a modality to each axiom:

Axiom 1 has nature of the omniscient modality.
Axiom 2 has nature of the immanent modality.
Axiom 3 has nature of the transcendent modality.

Theory as a process - narrative exists in domain, separate from perceiver. Can be treated as object of perception. One term defined in terms of other terms - we are neither the term defining or the term being defined. The statement on the page is one frame removed. Therefore axiom 1 has character of omniscience in that it's things being compared (structure of concepts).

Axiom 2 - first person processes, personal subjective in terms of choosing.

'In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are different'.

Axiom 3 - second person - basis of mediation between Axiom 1 and Axiom 2. Soundness relationship. Foundation of one domain and another domain have a 'peerage' relationship. Thus 2nd person relationship between immanent and omniscient.


Last detail - to the extent that the axioms are now in one to one correspondence with the modalities the idea - correspondence between axioms and modalities insofar as the axioms are describing a relationship between the three modalities then the axioms can describe their own relationships, the axioms can describe the pattern - using the pattern, in this sense the axioms can describe themselves.


As I mentioned in the body one of the things I want to sort out is what 'could' be a tangle or paradox between immanent and transcendent, in the sense that one of the two has to sit in as the 'more primary' relationship.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

06 Feb 2021, 1:01 am

The statement of axioms from Forrest's website:

https://www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/axiom_1.htm

Further unpacking / definition of the three types:

https://www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1 ... hors_1.htm

Something helpful in the later document in dealing with the three modalities and clearing up some of the confusion mentioned earlier:

Quote:
If the omniscient was totally fixed structure (as pure stasis), and the transcendent is total absence of structure (or pure dynamism), and these were considered as extreme end points of a single continuum with the immanent in the middle (as the origin), then the origin would define the end points, and not the other way around (as one would ordinarily assume).


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,741

06 Feb 2021, 3:14 am

First thing come to mind, as in the critic of Lacan:
"Other critics have dismissed Lacan's work wholesale. François Roustang [fr] called it an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish", and quoted linguist Noam Chomsky's opinion that Lacan was an "amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan". The former Lacanian analyst Dylan Evans (who published a dictionary of Lacanian terms in 1996) eventually dismissed Lacanianism as lacking a sound scientific basis and as harming rather than helping patients, and has criticized Lacan's followers for treating his writings as "holy writ". Richard Webster has decried what he sees as Lacan's obscurity, arrogance, and the resultant "Cult of Lacan". Others have been more forceful still, describing him as "The Shrink from Hell" and listing the many associates—from lovers and family to colleagues, patients, and editors—left damaged in his wake. Roger Scruton included Lacan in his book Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left, and named him as the only 'fool' included in the book—his other targets merely being misguided or frauds."

and then there's the mystification attraction figuring as main factor
:?:
which couldn't be a goal, but merely for allegory
imho, eventually the workplace is real life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBaKWLoFYmQ

the omniscient - there's many ways to go / one pick:
JL Borges; 'the book of sand' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Sand, or 'the librairy of babel' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel ~~perfect analogies for www
quote- "Despite—indeed, because of—this glut of information, all books are totally useless to the reader, leaving the librarians in a state of suicidal despair. This leads some librarians to superstitious and cult-like behaviors, such as the "Purifiers", who arbitrarily destroy books they deem nonsense as they scour through the library seeking the "Crimson Hexagon" and its illustrated, magical books.



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,741

06 Feb 2021, 3:34 am

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Primo_Lev ... able_(1975)
"For me chemistry represented an indefinite cloud of future potentialities which enveloped my life to come in black volutes torn by fiery flashes, like those which had hidden Mount Sinai. Like Moses, from that cloud I expected my law, the principle of order in me, around me, and in the world."
"Matter is matter, neither noble nor vile, infinitely transformable, and its proximate origin is of no importance whatsoever."
"In order for the wheel to turn, for life to be lived, impurities are needed, and the impurities of impurities in the soil, too, as is known, if it is to be fertile. Dissension, diversity, the grain of salt and mustard are needed: Fascism does not want them, forbids them, and that’s why you’re not a Fascist; it wants everybody to be the same, and you are not. But immaculate virtue does not exist either, or if it exists it is detestable."



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

06 Feb 2021, 7:17 am

What you shared, by itself, didn't explain anything so I had to go to https://plato.stanford.edu/ to go look at Lacan's claims:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/#FunCon

Quote:
2.1 Register Theory
The theory of the three registers of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real forms the skeletal framework for the various concepts and phases of most of Lacan’s intellectual itinerary. His characterizations of each of the three registers, as well as of their relations with each other, undergo multiple revisions and shifts over the many years of his labors. As will become increasingly evident in what follows, the majority of Lacanian concepts are defined in connection with all three registers. By the 1970s, with his meditations on the topological figure of the Borromean knot—this knotting of three rings, pictured on the coat of arms of the Borromeo family, is arranged such that if one ring is broken, all three are set free in disconnection—Lacan emphasizes the mutual dependence of the registers on one another. Hence, loosely speaking, the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real can be thought of as the three fundamental dimensions of psychical subjectivity à la Lacan. Furthermore, scholars sometimes segment Lacan’s evolution into three main periods, with each period being distinguished by the priority of one of the registers: the early Lacan of the Imaginary (1930s and 1940s), the middle Lacan of the Symbolic (1950s), and the late Lacan of the Real (1960s and 1970s). However, such a neat and clean periodization should be taken with several grains of salt, since intricate continuities and discontinuities not conforming to this early-middle-late schema are to be found across the entire lengthy span of Lacan’s teachings.

So ok, now I understand why you'd bring him up in that he had what appears to be a similar set of three-part sets of primitives.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

06 Feb 2021, 9:03 am

Reading more right now from the site but I'd say this:

If I were to project a criticism forward of this philosophy it wouldn't be that it's an immense pile if incoherent babel (that's the way most systems of anything look like on first glance), I'd say it's the opposite - it's almost too simple to be true. If that wasn't the case there's no way he would have been able to give an overview of that sort in an hour.

Diving deeper into it, if it's a cul de sac, should bring up instances where the analogies break down. Being too simple can make something, perhaps, a lens to define a search space in which case you can ask about it's validity as a frame or heuristic.


My sense, at least at this point, of how to analyze philosophies I'm coming in contact with is something like this. Someone creates a tool - could think of it, in analogy, like an application. The trouble with this kind of application is that it's not superficially obvious what it does and so its contents and program features have to be analyzed and the working parts understood before you know what it's good for or where to use it or, in some cases, whether it's a processing tool which has data leaks and self-destructs on use in which case you have to make the decision whether what's wrong with it can be viably patched or whether it's making too few points of contact.

The way people have to then have to limit their search of philosophies, or philosophies they'd engage with, is largely word of mouth. If you have friends who are sharp enough to be good critics who can throw you good counter-examples and challenge you with useful criticisms you can get smarter. If you go to school for it there are a few problems - first being tens of thousands of dollars in many cases, the second that the bulk of what you learn is at best a table of contents rather than being able to really drill into what you find interesting unless you're working on a doctoral thesis. I'd think in the day and age of the internet we're going to get to where there is so much access to information that we'd need a way to formally handle amateurs and hobbyists or people who are at least interested enough to take these things seriously - no clue whether I'd be fit for that description (IMHO I'd have years of reading to go before I felt comfortable that my table of contents was close enough to being exhaustive), I say that because even more than it being any sort of on-ramp to institutions (debatable whether it should be) there at least has to be a place where people know that they can find high-quality disagreement and challenge to their ideas if they're not pursuing their knowledge within an institutional context.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,394

06 Feb 2021, 11:54 am

SMiLeS HEaVeN And Hell Are Loneliest
Places aS ONly 'You' Get to go as that applies

to Everyone's

'Hallucinations'

of Existence as

Neuroscience Now

Basically Agrees... i like Threes too...

i See it more as Move, Connect, And Co-Create...

Problem With Most 'Western Philosophies' is they

Forget 'the Dance'...

All Moves or

Does

Not Exist...

Truly Aldous
Huxley's Description
Of Nataraja Dancer Shiva
Symbol EVeRYWHeRE UNiVeRSE Dances

Makes More Sense Than A Cross
With Just One Man Hanging on it

Rather Limited indeed...

Thing is as far AS Humans

Go Some

Dance Some

Just Don't Get 'It'...

Until they Become

'Move and Repose'

(How God Is Described in the
Gospel of Thomas as Metaphor)

'Torsion and Spin' aS Well too How

Some Quantum Mechanics Theories Describe

How New UNiVeRSES Are Birthed Out of Black Holes

Dark and

Light Mixes

Dualities Are Born New as one...

And The Dance And Song Continues now...

Yet It's

True Not

A Word Required...

Books Are 'Dead' too Without Dance...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


A Gardener
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2021
Age: 1969
Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Location: Heerlen Zuid Limburg Nederland

06 Feb 2021, 2:37 pm

[quote="aghogday"]

(How God Is Described in the
Gospel of Thomas as Metaphor)

I can't comment on the original topic.. in spite of it sounding interesting.. I tried the vid.. but it is toooooo complicated from my brain to process at the age of 70.. BUT.. for the sake of conversation.. Yes.. I agree.. metaphor is an accurate description of what the word GOD is.. both in the Bible.. and the Gospel of Thomas.. God is a word that belongs more in the realms of poetry.. than science.. In science I would refer to GOD as a PRIMARY FIELD.. IN WHICH AN INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES CONTINUALLY COME AND GO.. and waves and particles.. even consciousness.. are simply..... FIELD ACTIVITY..

Last year I was banned and my 4 posts quickly deleted from 2 separate atheist forums.. for daring to say this.. They just wanted me gone.. and started to attack my grammar.. my use of caps to emphasize.. and my frequent use of quotes.. that I use to support my argument.. They did not even want to discuss what I was saying... they only wanted to discredit me.. that is playing dirty.. They made it clear.. that because I was different.. they didn't want me around..

Probably because if - GOD - is to be understood metaphorically.... then.. there is nothing left to dis-believe in.. NO SUPERNATURAL BEINGS TO MAKE FUN OFF.. and if there is nothing supernatural about the Bible.. all those well worn arguments the atheists make.. Have gone down the drain.. All their efforts have been for nothing.. Maybe it was because they fell asleep.. during their poetry class.. so they confused symbolic language with the supernatural.. and metaphors with miracles..

I also showed them convincing proof that the miracles stories were intended to be understood as allegory and poetic metaphor.. etc... by taking verses from all over the Bible.. as proof.. But when I made it clear that the New Testament of Jesus made the Old Testament obsolete.. along with the OT God concept.. (something that is easy to prove).. they couldn't take any more of me.. and threw me out into the street.. (metaphorically speaking.. or course.)

"Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the proceeding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness.” - ”For if the first covenant had been faultless. No place would have been sought for a second." - "But their mental powers were dulled. For to this present day the same veil remains uplifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it is DONE AWAY WITH by means of Christ. In fact, down till today whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts."

And.. if you are an atheist.. you don't want to hear anything that shatters your belief..

I was thrown out.. probably.. because - IF - all the things I was saying were true.. (which they were) ...then.. the last 2 or 3 thousand years of organized religion.. along with the atheist movement.. (who all got in bed with the literal Christians.. by sharing their literal SUPERNATURAL understanding.. with out questioning it.. and without doubt...) was nothing but a huge mistake.... that arose from poor reading comprehension..

Of course... When a poet says.. "God speaks to me"... He doesn't intend for it to be taken literally.. He's a POET.. AND POETS CAN SAY THINGS LIKE THAT.

Reading thinkers like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.. cured my own atheist delusions.. that I went through during my youth.. since the age of 7....... They really talked a lot of sense.. and their logic won me over..

“Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all.

As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” - Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor


_________________
“I have no responsibility to live up to what others expect of me. That's their mistake, not my failing.” - “There is no authority who decides what is a good idea.”― Richard Feynman

"And it came to be pretty in its greatness, in the length of its foliage, for its root system proved to be over many waters." - Ezekiel 31.7


Last edited by A Gardener on 06 Feb 2021, 3:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,731
Location: Stendec

06 Feb 2021, 2:55 pm

Has anything both practical and useful come out of Forest Landry's "research"?

Or is it just more metaphysical extemporany?


_________________
*TRE45ON!!*
Lock Him Up!


NaturalEntity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2021
Age: 16
Gender: Female
Posts: 866
Location: UK

06 Feb 2021, 2:58 pm

Looks like my kind of thing. Will reread when I'm more awake.


_________________
Hans Asperger himself called autism a natural entity
Opinion polls coming to WP in 2022!


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,394

06 Feb 2021, 5:23 pm

A Gardener wrote:

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” - Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor




"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all
levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.”

- Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That:
Transforming Religious Metaphor

SMiLes, i've noticed as Pattern,
at least, some Similarities between Militant
Atheists and Militant Christian Fundamentalists,

Per, They Seem to be More

Naturally Closed Minded

Than Open Minded to New
Ideas And New Experiences

Of Life, Where Ironically, Both Remain Generally
Speaking At Evolution of Faith in One Lifetime
In a Rather 'Adolescent Stage' of Spiritual Growth
As A Methodist Minister/Doctor of Theology From Emory University,
Fowler's Research on Faith Seems to Agree, at a Level of "Synthetic-
Conventional" Faith; Whether That Be Restricted to the Facts of Science Alone,
or the 'Facts of Religious Text' taken Literal As Interpreted By Whatever Pastor/Priest/Pope/Politician is

Actually Restricting Metaphor to, From the Pulpit or Politics as Such, Same to Keep Folks Coming Back...

Yes, It's Rather Hard to Leave, if one Literally Believes, if one Doesn't Come to Catholic Church on Sunday
They Will Burn in Hell Forever; or for Any Mortal Sin, not Forgiven By a Priest Before Death; Truly Felt Pity/
Disgust For A Deacon Who Suggested, if He didn't get to the Hospital in Time, Before Our Infant Died, Born
With Congenital Anomalies, Our Child Ryan, Would Not Get to Go to 'Heaven', Without the Deacon Baptizing
The Child

Doomed

to Purgatory

For Children As Strictly

Sadly Interpreted By the

Catholic Church Then;

Never the less, after

Visiting Folks, Intimately

Around the Globe, What Bonds

Us Is Love And Really The Rest of

It Becomes a Moot Point as Long as the

Law of the Land Protects my Freedoms Here

And i Don't Get in Trouble by Not going ALL by 'the Book' Where They Live...

Separation of Church and State, A Real Live Saver, for Those Who Want to Express Themselves Freely Indeed...

Smiles, i've been Kicked Off Here Several Times for Expressing my Philosophies Deep in Metaphor, Yet the Ocean

Online is Huge, and if all i have is to Dance and Sing to myself, i have the Choir of Nature to Accompany

me Freely

Still;

Yes,

God For

Real Beyond

What i will Measure

And Part of Who i am Truly

My Faith is 100 Percent; Truly i am
at Level 6 Below, At this Level Above There is Give And

Share, No Matter What Anyone Tries to Force me To Receive,

HeHE AT least online, Where 'At This Level 6', only Sticks and Stones, Break Ya Bones...

True, What is there at most; Delete, Ban, and An Entire Rest of 'the Ocean' to Explore...

Things Change;

People Tolerate

Me Now And they

Will also tolerate You;

Indeed, i stayed in Hopes

That other People Will get

to stay and Express themselves freely too;

For to Be Comfortable in Existential Intelligences,

No Matter Age, is to Truly Come to BREaTHE Free Now...

It's Not Hard to Scroll by me, as i surely will do it in a

Matter of Seconds With one of my actual Blog Posts that are up to 338,630 Words Long...

Apparently, it seems that some of the folks who said they were ignoring me weren't, otherwise

It Would
Have Not
Been A problem
at all Hehe; Now

The 'Wrong Planet'
Has Finally Evolved

To Truly Accept Neuro-Diverse

People/Ideas; that's a Hard-thing to do

Now In any Group as Usually Some kind

of Group Think Will Come to Rule if allowed....

Smiles, there is Variety Enough Now online, to get aligned
With like Souls; At Least Somewhere on this Big Brown, Green, And Blue Orb (EyE) of God....

And Nah, i don't exaggerate my Claims, As I've Been Accused of that here too...

Here is a Link to "GodsUniverseNovel3", i was Just getting Warmed Up in

Poetry of Free Verse Philosophy In Long Form EPiC Way Back in 2016 As

i went From a 41K Word Effort in One Blog Post, In January 2016; to a 51K Word Effort

In February 2016, to Yes, The Linked One Below, of 338,630 Words in April of 2016;

Hehe, i was Just Getting Warmed Up, My Long Form EPiC Poem Now Entirely is Reaching

9 MiLLioN Words, "SonG oF mY SoUL" By January 18th, 90th Month of Doing It, Along

With 14,404 Miles of Public Dance; Opening up the Blog Post Below, Modern Technology

Allows Me to Scroll From Top to Bottom in Less than 2 Seconds; It's True, i'm Still Easy to Ignore

Hehe; No Matter How Long i go; Unless of Course Anyone Wants to Read; as i surely ain't doing this

For Any External Reward, Yet Giving and Sharing Free, What i've Personally Learned to make this life of mine truly

Heaven and yes

There is tons

of Evidence

Verily Now, hehe,

Overall, on my Blog...

True, This Forum Has taught

me the Importance of Providing evidence;

Not Unlike Forrest Gump at a Bus Stop; all

i Need is a 6-inch Screen in Case Anyone Doesn't

Believe i'm for

Real; HeHe...

i Love Life

i Give It

And Share

It; It's what We

Do When We understand

We are Part and Parcel of

The All In All Eternally Forever Now...

Not Just to Understand; to FeeL iT Through Every

Particle, Wave, Field We Are now For Real Balancing Center

Point Existence, Beyond All Space, Time, Distance, And Even Matter...

HAha, even if i must

Prove 'Literally'

That i am not

'Literally' Housed in These Words and Other Images, hehe...

When Fantasy Becomes Reality, There is a 'Certain Singularity

About Existence for Real'

(ALLFaithLOVE)

Just

(Loving
IT ALL DarK Thru LiGHT Now)

And Yes, i've Seen The Bottom Beyond What
'Demons' Will Fear in Hell on Earth for 66 Months
too; Something About that Experience Leads one to Help

Others for

Free

too...

Hell
Makes
Heaven

Real Both Places

Are Real As Experience Now...

Not the Kind of Thing one will
Express in Any Less than Art and Poetry
For Real; 'Dante' Catches the Hell Yet It's

Strange There

Aren't Many

Poets 'From

Heaven'

Now

(i'll make

An Exclusion

For the

Members

of

'EWF')

Hehe,
Per 'Fantasy'

The Song,

The Dance,

And Reality;

Perhaps Now

Most Don't make

It out of Hell and Purgatory Now...

Perhaps they haven't gone Deep Enough in Hell Yet; i sure hope not...:)

https://katiemiafrederick.com/2016/04/28/godsuniversenovel3/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler

Stage 0 – "Primal or Undifferentiated" faith (birth to 2 years), is characterized by an early learning of the safety of their environment (i.e. warm, safe and secure vs. hurt, neglect and abuse). If consistent nurture is experienced, one will develop a sense of trust and safety about the universe and the divine. Conversely, negative experiences will cause one to develop distrust about the universe and the divine. Transition to the next stage begins with integration of thought and language which facilitates the use of symbols in speech and play.

Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious, and marked by a relative fluidity of thought patterns.[8] Religion is learned mainly through experiences, stories, images, and the people that one comes in contact with.

Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), is characterized by persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic. During this time metaphors and symbolic language are often misunderstood and are taken literally.

Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood), is characterized by conformity to authority and the religious development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies.

Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties), is a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis), acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.

Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment". The individual would treat any person with compassion as he or she views people as from a universal community, and should be treated with universal principles of love and justice.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,741

07 Feb 2021, 2:45 am

i circle back with a passion to hate new-age everything, the hq of snakeoilsales and guru-narcissism (we're all healers), surprisingly filled with psycho-medical staffers
the void for your wallets,
with pastel kitch workshopping, acting actors selling pre-thought creativity plans
surprisingly no one has its life together, but they know what you ought to do
be follower by group pressure, where be in the group is more important than anything

back - "Forrest Landry focused on metaphysics, the manner in which software applications, tools, and techniques influence the design and management of very large scale complex systems, and the thriving of all forms of life on this planet" that's a bigbig picture painting and "neurohacker(R) collective"
take things extra-litterally to see what they're up too: the founder and CEO of Magic Flight, a company among the first to introduce the portable vaporizer to the world// aaaaargh, always the big ego's telling you to slay your ego
& the typical useage of pychiatric abuse to keep servile clients to never get better
:roll: 8) worked with gov, fbi and darpa, what's there not to trust :mrgreen: oh not to mention the expertise on moral sides

more pbl, Forrest Landry. My research interests and activities generally center on questions and concerns in three main related areas: 1, the manner and degree to/by which product and systems design influences culture and ecology, 2, an exploration of the nature of the interface between the organic and the inorganic, particularly as realized in the relationship between concept and computation, and 3 the manner and models by which effective personal and social governance could potentially be achieved.http ://ronininstitute.org/research-scholars/forrest-landry/
probably a close to klaus swab?? megalo maniac of the "great reset"?

"Of course, the kind of esoteric language required by philosophy"
full distorsion, 'of course' leads the thought (spiritual) that is an untruth
(that's what i meant, "lacanian" the use of words in a certain fuzzy way as if it makes sense, but it doesn't)

i read all (till a point) Castaneda, yet another fraud, spirit(ghost)uality the cloak of guiltytippers for your mind and resources, remember the bagwani peeps, scientology is a big one out there too, and good old pope of all causes

from plotinus to big sur
put them good old ghosts and dead people in charge; purity and fair(y)ness at the helm; the next great work



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,741

07 Feb 2021, 2:57 am

sorry, little box and small time frame
adding this



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

07 Feb 2021, 9:00 am

Cool! Good luck with the private holy war.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

07 Feb 2021, 11:02 am

Axiom II reminds me a great deal of Sir Roger Penrose's 'three worlds' model that he presented in chapter 1 of The Road to Reality:

Image


Technically each of these could perhaps be considered it's own class:

Physical - Omniscient
Mental - Transcendent
Platonic - Immanent

Again using these words in very narrow context where omniscient means third person 'facts' or what we'd think of as the external objective world, transcendent meaning something that seems unlike it but has a tightly coupled relationship to it, and the immanent is trickier to explain but it's seen in it's activity with the omniscient through emergence. It's propagation from the transcendent it trickier because it's a piece of the loop that we don't often see unless maybe on an extremely personal level in talking about dreams. Dreams seem to organize our brain's firmwear and we might be able to look at deeply subconscious or even 'unconscious' (dark to us at least) operations that only the consequences of rise to cognition rather than their assembly and perhaps if we consider even firmwear updates through dreams coding to epigenetic holding we at least have 'one' narrow loop where you can see a completed circuit.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 07 Feb 2021, 11:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,665
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

07 Feb 2021, 11:05 am

The temptation is to exclaim that this whole things sounds very much like neutral monism but I'm at pains to distinguish what actually separates neutral monism from idealism. If it's just hard-coded interdependence that makes neutral monism then sure, I'd call this neutral monism, but I'm still not 100% clear on what prevents idealism from following similar tracks or where one would clearly cross the line into another.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling